[0:02] Um,

[0:05] I can't even remember who I write that check to. It's fine. Thank you. But it's

[0:10] it's the I presume most everybody in Gley has the same electrical provider,

[0:14] but I don't know who it is. I can't tell you right at all.

[0:17] » Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay.

[0:19] » Speaker 19, please.

[0:25] » Good afternoon. Thank you for your time and effort on

[0:29] all of this. I am not coming in any special interest other than my own.

[0:33] » Can they get your name in address? >> It's coming my own and that of my

[0:38] community. I reside at 16884 Kettleman's Way and I am here again for not because

[0:44] I'm in proximity because I am here because this is a precedent setting for

[0:49] our county and also because I see a a sea of litigation uh potentially here

[0:54] because of some of the gaps um between what global AI has presented today and

[1:02] what that is required from our codes and um so I started researching this 48

[1:07] hours ago. So, here we go. Um, I have to say that from what I can research, it

[1:13] looks like Global AI has not fully acted in good faith. Um, they purchased the

[1:19] property in 2025 and began working on it doing demolition without required

[1:24] permits as you know. Um, they were then issued stop work orders. They did not uh

[1:31] they declined to uh comply with those. then they had to uh they did not cure

[1:38] the violations. That's seems to be not a good faith effort on their part.

[1:44] um the special use by special review vote today, while appealing for that

[1:51] when the application is not complete and not showing good faith in their efforts,

[1:57] seems to be premature and I would like the council to consider denying it or at

[2:03] least putting very strict conditions on that would protect the interests of our

[2:07] people. Um, as I'm looking at the considerations and

[2:13] listening today, I think the the water issue probably is

[2:18] not our biggest consideration other than the annexation issue which hasn't been

[2:22] taken care of. Therefore, it seems like the application isn't complete. Power is

[2:28] a big issue and I do ask that you all consider that because if

[2:34] I found it curious that their council could not answer what the specific usage

[2:39] would be in the next few years when they're proposing a a project this

[2:45] big. While I understand that it begins with 35 mills and that's what we're

[2:50] addressing today, it is projected to grow to 1 gigawatt and we cannot not

[2:55] look at that as well and what that might grow to and what is expected even in the

[3:01] project today or in the next few years under the parameters that have been set

[3:06] without there being a good explanation of where that power is coming from. So

[3:12] if denial is not a possibility for legal reasons today, I would ask that the

[3:18] council would consider extremely stringent

[3:22] um conditions on it with regard to power

[3:28] the noise consideration. After listening to the comments today, it seems there's

[3:34] a lot of ambiguity both in the code and also in the way that the scientific

[3:41] measurements were done by global AI. It seems to me that a third party is

[3:46] necessary to represent >> Thank you. Your time's up. Commissioner

[3:50] Maxi does have a follow-up question. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I very well

[3:54] could have missed it, but I don't believe you gave us your name.

[3:56] » It's Amy Lynn. >> Amy Lynn.

[3:58] » Yeah. >> And how far away do you live? Uh I'm

[4:00] over five miles. >> Okay. Thank you. And who's your water

[4:03] provider and electric provider? >> Uh Gree Lee with and it's I believe it's

[4:07] XL. >> Thank you.

[4:10] » Speaker 20 please.

[4:21] Good afternoon commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My

[4:25] name is Dorothy Esamia and I live at 1310 West Burke Street in Windsor,

[4:30] Colorado. I'm here today to voice my strong opposition again to the use of

[4:36] the special review permit for the global A1 data project. While I support

[4:40] economic development in Well County, a project of this massive scale poses

[4:45] immediate threats to our community's quiet enjoyment, local utility grid, and

[4:50] vital water supplies. First, let's address the noise pollution concerns.

[4:55] First, let's address the elephant in the room. Noise pollution. The sheer volume

[4:59] of industrial cooling fans required to keep the data center of this size

[5:03] functioning is immense. Well, County CO strictly mandates a maximum nose limit

[5:09] of 65 dB at the property line. However, we know that these facilities operate at

[5:14] a maximum capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The low frequency hum

[5:21] generated by these massive chillers at 2 am will devastate the quality of life

[5:26] for nearby residents. If the board moves forward, I urge her to mandate

[5:31] continuous independent third-party noise monitoring and legally require global

[5:36] aid to implement advanced noiseancelling mitigation barriers before operation are

[5:42] ever allowed to begin. Water and grid infrastructure strain. Second, our

[5:47] infrastructure could not absorb this drain. Data centers consume millions of

[5:52] gallons of water daily. In a region where water is our most precious and

[5:56] fought over commodity, especially for our local agriculture community, we

[6:01] cannot afford to gamble our supply away. Furthermore, our electricity grid is

[6:05] already under intense strain during peak summer months. We have yet to def see a

[6:10] definite binding will serve letter that proves our local utilities can power

[6:16] this facility without driving up energy costs or causing bl brownouts for

[6:21] working families and local farms. We must protect our resources. If global

[6:25] aid cannot guaranteed 100% closed loop water recycling system, this permit

[6:31] should be flatly denied. Commissioners, your first duty is to protect the health

[6:35] and safety and well-being of residents who live, work, and raise families here.

[6:40] Do not rush his approval for short-term giant at the expense of our long-term

[6:44] stability. Please deny the permit until every single environmental and unfair

[6:49] structure safeguard is in stone. My husband is currently finding cancer

[6:54] because he worked for CA Kodak for 20 years. Windsor community and well county

[7:00] commissioner stand rush too fast. Thank you.

[7:03] » Thank you, Commissioner Maxi. >> Thank you, ma'am. How far away do you

[7:07] live? >> I live about a mile.

[7:08] » One mile. So, you're immediately to us. >> Yes. Over by King Supers.

[7:12] » Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.

[7:14] » Uh ma'am, who's your water provider and electric provider?

[7:18] » I'm sorry. >> No, that's okay. I was a little slow.

[7:21] » Okay. Repeat again. >> Who is your water provider and electric

[7:24] provider? >> Excel. And the town of Windsor is our

[7:27] water. >> Okay. Thank you.

[7:29] » All right. >> Speaker 21, please.

[7:37] » 21. Speaker 22, please.

[7:47] » Hello, commissioners. I'm not very good at talking, but I'm going to try because

[7:51] I'm an introvert. But I want to express your name and address for the record,

[7:55] please. >> I'm sorry. Uh I live in Windsor,

[7:58] Colorado. Uh it's 116 Oak Street. Lived there all my life. Six generations of

[8:04] us. And uh I grew up when the community was over a thousand back then. And so

[8:09] » and your name? >> My name is Mary, last name Diaz.

[8:12] » Thank you, Mary. >> And my main concern is, you know, about

[8:16] the water shortage. You know, I've heard people talk about that right now. you

[8:20] know, we're having a lot of drought and stuff and it just makes common sense not

[8:25] to have a an AI here. You know, we we have

[8:29] other areas of, how would I say it? Excuse me. Give me

[8:37] time. >> Um,

[8:40] access to computers and other stuff. It doesn't have to be here in Windsor.

[8:44] And if I get emotional, I'm sorry, but I worry being a senior because I grew up

[8:50] poor. I pay my bills on time and all that, but

[8:55] if the water depletes or electricity goes up or the power or the noise, I

[9:03] like to sleep with my windows open. I grew up that way just to get some fresh

[9:08] air. And this is not right. I'm just being honest with you guys.

[9:14] So, please deny them. Deny this until last. Thank you.

[9:21] » Thank you for your comments. >> I'm going to go ahead and ask Miss Who's

[9:25] your water provider and electric provider? That's okay.

[9:30] » Excel and uh the Windsor water like my sister that just talked.

[9:35] » Yep. >> And you said 116 Oak about how far away

[9:37] is that? Actually, >> it's not too far from Kodak because I

[9:40] live in the old section of town. >> Yep.

[9:42] » Um So, mile and a half.

[9:46] » I'm guessing maybe a couple of miles. I'm not too sure. I'm just It's the

[9:49] round park. I'm, you know, >> thank you.

[9:51] » But it's not too far. >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[9:55] » Speaker 23, please.

[10:05] » Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Shepard. Um, I live at 1713 Fairacre

[10:11] Road, Gley, Colorado. Um, some of you may know I'm an attorney. I'm not

[10:15] representing anybody. In fact, it's not even close to the area of law where I

[10:19] practice. Um, when I was in undergrad, I took a lot of economics classes. There

[10:23] was a concept called externalities. That means that because of this way the

[10:27] system is set up, a lot of businesses ended up because of bad policies

[10:32] externalizing their cost of doing business. What we would call pollution,

[10:36] what we would call uh the loss of resources, noise. And we need to see

[10:41] that you have the political will to minimize the externalized costs to the

[10:45] communities, to the neighbors, to the land, the air, the water. We have the

[10:49] old saying, whisy's for drinking, water's for fighting. We're in a drought

[10:55] and do we going to feed this endless project

[11:01] with no disclosure of what's going to be in the water? And even though it's

[11:05] claimed to be closed loop, you still have this thing called evaporation. If I

[11:08] leave a glass of water out, guess what it's going to do? It's going to

[11:11] evaporate unless my cat drinks it first. But the important thing is, do we have

[11:16] the political will to keep them accountable? Do we have the political

[11:19] will to genuinely question the role of AI in our society? Do we have to put up

[11:24] with any sort of nonsense because I have a smartphone in my pocket that we got to

[11:28] let them do whatever the heck they want? You have a sacred duty to keep them

[11:34] honest and to protect the community. By saying no or at least deferring until we

[11:39] have all of our questions answered, you are protecting the community from these

[11:43] people. Okay, sure. They give to the food bank. That's great. That's nice.

[11:47] But are they really part of our community or we just one more resource

[11:51] to be exploited to line their pockets? I urge a no vote. I thank you.

[11:59] I will not tolerate this is not a soccer match this public hearing.

[12:04] » No outbursts, please. Or I will clear the room.

[12:07] » Mr. Chair, please. >> I have uh questions for the last speaker

[12:11] if she doesn't mind coming back up. >> You're pretty fast. I apologize.

[12:16] » While you're coming up, I will agree with your statement. I enjoy whiskey. It

[12:19] is for drinking. Um, but with that being said, uh, who's your water provider?

[12:24] » Uh, City of Gley and my, uh, power company is Excel. And of course, as a

[12:29] taxpayer and citizen, I worry about my rates going up.

[12:31] » Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.

[12:33] » And how many miles away? >> I'm guessing I live kind of the older

[12:37] part of Gilly near Central High School. So five or 10 miles, give or take. I

[12:40] don't live right next to it, but of course I'm worried for the people that

[12:43] live right next to it. >> Okay. Thank you.

[12:46] » Speaker 24, please. People are getting a little heated.

[12:54] » Good afternoon, chair, commissioners. My name is Ryan McBrreen, 244 North College

[12:58] Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Uh I am in Lur County, several miles away. I

[13:03] know that word is sometimes a porative in some circles around here, but um um

[13:06] anyway, I'm here to express my support in this application today. um as a land

[13:11] use professional and a fan of smart land use um growth and use um I've sat in the

[13:17] hot seat before explaining applications in front of people and I know a lot of

[13:21] times at these events um the naysayers come out more than the people in support

[13:25] of projects. So when I see a project that meets the standards and and

[13:28] requirements that um a county has set forth um something you have trusted your

[13:33] staff to review, that's their job, their roles. You guys have trusted them a very

[13:36] hard job. Um when I see that those boxes are checked, I feel important to come

[13:40] out and and establish and support those types of projects. Um I believe this

[13:44] project meets all the applicable review criteria that you all have set forth on

[13:48] this project and I encourage you and ask you to recommend approval of this

[13:52] application. I appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you,

[13:55] » Commissioner Maxi. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. How far away do

[13:58] you live? >> South Fort Collins. So, I don't know.

[14:01] Five on the other west side of I25. So, I assume it's seven, eight miles away.

[14:05] » That's a long ways away. >> Spent a lot of time over here.

[14:08] » But seriously, seriously though, about about how far?

[14:11] » Um, I would say 8 to 10 miles. Okay. Thank you.

[14:13] » Yeah. As the growth flies there, >> you know, my question, who's your water

[14:16] provider? Who's your >> um water is uh Loveland Fort Collins

[14:19] Water District and ours through the city of Fort.

[14:21] » Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 25, please.

[14:44] » I know my time doesn't start until I say my name. So,

[14:48] » start when you start talking. My name is Moren Dower, also known as Mo Daer, and

[14:54] I will state upfront that I don't have any business.

[14:59] » Can I get your address, please? >> Oh, sorry. Uh, my address is Berthood,

[15:03] Colorado, 1608 Holly Berry Street. Um, I will state that I do not have any

[15:08] financial ties to this discussion. However, I do have uh ties as a

[15:15] candidate running for this district where this project might be annexed

[15:20] into. So, I'm just trying to understand and be informed about the project and I

[15:26] appreciate the work that you have put in and I appreciate staff's work um and

[15:32] those the information that we gathered from the applicant. It was pretty

[15:37] thorough. There were however a few um missing pieces that I think you should

[15:43] truly consider and with that I would suggest a pause on approval, a pause for

[15:51] additional information and community input. Um I just also want to thank you

[15:56] for your service. I was on the birth at town board so I understand kind of the

[16:01] heat that you can be under. Uh basically, um there was a story that I

[16:07] heard camping one time. It was from a gentleman who uh had a huge fancy

[16:13] $200,000 bus type RV and he was joking around the

[16:20] campfire and he said, "Yeah, I worked for oil and gas. That's how I can afford

[16:24] this nice second home that I can drive down the street." And he said it was so

[16:29] easy. We'd go to these towns and we just put in a park or donate to some charity

[16:35] and then we'd just rape and pillage. Rape and pillage. That's all we did. And

[16:40] he was so nonchalant about it. I have never forgotten it. So, this is why I

[16:46] mentioned that you need to put in the guard rails before you approve it. A

[16:51] pause for some evaluation would be helpful. additional public engagement

[16:55] sessions, written public responses to submitted questions and make uh public.

[17:01] Then uh three documented work orders have been issued to the applicant and

[17:06] request that the applicant halt construction during the pending review

[17:10] period very verified by county staff. Current water arrangement is

[17:14] approximately 2 years of leased water followed by municipal water from Gley.

[17:20] uh documented proof of secured permanent water supply for the facility's full

[17:25] operational life. Think about that. Request public reporting of actual water

[17:31] use and actual energy use at startup and on an ongoing basis.

[17:37] Request documented plan for alignment with Colorado statewide carbon emissions

[17:42] reduction goals, including their generators. And speaking of generators,

[17:47] how much time are they going to be spending testing uh doing emergency

[17:52] runtime with public disc when disclosure when in use documentation of why battery

[17:58] energy storage cannot serve as primary backup with diesel is secondary only. Um

[18:03] and then this is the biggest one. Curtain ordinance uh decibel.

[18:08] » Miss Dowy, your time is up. Commissioner Maxi had a question.

[18:11] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um you said birth, ma'am. Thank you for saying that. How

[18:14] far away do you live? >> I think it is 18 miles. And uh as for

[18:22] water supplier, it's the Rocky Mountains, but it is then processed

[18:28] through uh my local town of Berth. And my electric supplier, which is part of

[18:33] the larger grid that will all be affected, is Pter Valley Rea, which is

[18:39] the supplier for this. And uh just underground decibel C at 500,000 and

[18:46] 4,000 ft. >> You're out of order.

[18:50] » All right. Speaker 26, please.

[18:58] Speaker 27, please.

[19:13] » Hello, my name is Diana Mikey. Um, I live at 111273rd Avenue in Gley. Um, I

[19:19] was here a couple months ago. I've been traveling and trying to catch up on

[19:23] things. So, um, I'll just preface this that I'm an occupational aiologist. I

[19:29] worked for noise control engineers for seven years. I, um, also worked at Kodak

[19:35] back in the day when there were community noise issues that were

[19:38] successfully resolved. So, I'm pretty familiar with this territory. Um, I

[19:43] guess related to the commissioner's earlier question about can you tell

[19:46] whether sound comes from one industry versus another, you can. It makes a

[19:52] fingerprint. You can trace it. you can travel it. So a noise control engineer

[19:56] can do that. So this um idea that we don't know where the noise comes from

[20:00] isn't really true. Um I do concur with the previous

[20:05] industrial hygienist from Kodakis that the noise control reports the noise

[20:11] impact report is really hard to tra track track. It's been things were put

[20:16] up as late as yesterday. There's inconsistencies. There's a lack of

[20:20] fundamental basics that go into a report like how was it measured with what, how

[20:25] is it averaged, all the basics are missing from these

[20:30] reports. Um, the noise fluctuates. So, if you're

[20:34] talking about that border ambient noise levels, especially from transportation,

[20:38] as you all know, it's noisier at 8:00 in the morning when people are going to

[20:41] school and work than at night. So, the reports don't say anything about

[20:45] averaging day and night, whether they took worst case scenarios at one point

[20:50] by the railroad tracks or did they sample all around the perimeter. Um,

[20:56] it was, um, you know, there's reports that talk about a chiller and then

[21:02] emergency diesel engines, but there's no discussion of pumps or fans, other

[21:07] things that you would expect to be there, and there's no mention to how

[21:10] those noise controls would be applied to those um, noise sources.

[21:16] um related to maybe pursuing oil and gas uh rules a little more fully. I agree

[21:24] with with the earlier speaker that oil and gas the high levels are not 247.

[21:29] They also have a different spectrum. They travel a different distance. So we

[21:34] have to be careful about just applying another industry to this industry. And

[21:38] there's expertise that can guide you with how to do that. Um, and I encourage

[21:43] you that we need to learn a little more about about the noise impact study. I

[21:47] encourage staff to utilize industrial hygienist aiologists that live in the

[21:52] communities. We'll help you understand the reports um to make sure it does

[21:56] comply because right now I think that's a big question. Um, so I'm here to help

[22:02] if I can if there's time to do so. So appreciate your time.

[22:06] » Thank you. Commissioner Maxi, same question. How far away do you live? I

[22:10] live eight miles by car and five miles as noise flies.

[22:14] » Okay, thank you. Thanks. >> You can guess my question. Who's your

[22:16] water provider and who's your electric provider?

[22:18] » Uh Gley is my home water supplier, Excel Energy, but I do uh have a mountain

[22:23] property that's served by Pter Rea. Speaker 28, please.

[22:41] » Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is James Sylvestro. My address is 1660

[22:45] Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado. I'm a land use attorney and I appear before

[22:49] you today on behalf of my client, Kodakis, to urge you to vote no on this

[22:53] application. Kodak is a neighboring land user and operates the adjoining building

[22:58] just to the south of the proposed development. There's been a lot of

[23:01] testimony about noise and water and all the other externalities that are coming

[23:05] out of this proposal, but I want to focus on one single issue that no one

[23:09] else has addressed. Global AI does not have any infrastructure in place to

[23:14] deliver service water or fire water fire protection water to its buildings.

[23:20] There's no competent evidence in the record to satisfy design standard number

[23:23] one or standard number four. So, a bit of history. All of the existing private

[23:30] infrastructure for this site was constructed by Kodak when it developed

[23:33] the larger industrial campus. When the global AI property was split off and

[23:37] sold to another company in 2007, Kodak entered into a services agreement with

[23:42] that company for Kodak to continue to provide water infrastructure. When

[23:46] Global AI purchased this property, Global AI asked Kodak for consent to an

[23:50] assignment of the right to receive service through that infrastructure.

[23:54] Kodak's consent was required under the most recent version of the services

[23:58] agreement which I will submit for the record.

[24:02] Kodak has never consented to this assignment and Global AI has never

[24:06] followed up. the right to use this private infrastructure never conveyed to

[24:11] global AI and global AI has no legal right to receive any of these services

[24:16] at the site. Kodak is now preparing to completely separate its water

[24:20] infrastructure from the global AI buildings which will result in a

[24:23] complete shutdown of service water and fire protection water to global AI.

[24:28] Global AI has repeatedly ignored this critical reality. Even if global AI

[24:34] obtains a binding commitment for water from Gley or Windsor, which no one knows

[24:38] if they can even do that, Global AI will still lack the infrastructure needed to

[24:42] deliver that water to its building. As it stands, the record is incomplete.

[24:48] Alternatively, even if Global AI claims that it has a right to receive service

[24:52] water from Kodak under this agreement, which we dispute, Kodak can still

[24:57] terminate this agreement pursuant to section 7.1 because of another letter

[25:01] that we recently received from the city of Gley saying that Gley intends to

[25:05] regulate this private system as a privatelyowned interconnected water

[25:09] system. Section 7.1 of the agreement, if it applies, which we don't think it

[25:13] does, would allow us to terminate in that scenario anyway. So, I'm also going

[25:17] to submit a copy of that letter to the record. Commissioner James, you said you

[25:21] weren't worried about the volume of water that the site will use. But if

[25:25] they don't have any way to actually convey water to the site, then they do

[25:28] not have an adequate water supply. That's an issue that no one has

[25:31] addressed and that they do not have an answer for. This is a rushed and

[25:35] incomplete proposal with far more questions than answers, and I would urge

[25:39] you to vote no. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Questions?

[25:45] Thank you, Mr.

[25:49] Speaker 29, please.

[25:55] Speaker 29. Speaker 30, please.

[26:11] » Hi, I'm Christina Kaufman. I live at 60854th Avenue in Gley and I was this

[26:17] morning when I was watching the entire presentation I was kept asking where are

[26:20] all the experts? I mean I we hear from global AI and the staff did a great job

[26:25] but where are the experts on the other side of the issue? And I haven't seen

[26:28] that until just now. I thank all the people that have come forward because I

[26:32] think they have substantial evidence that this thing isn't a good idea. And

[26:36] there are just two words I I leave you with is sustainability and livability.

[26:40] And I don't see that happening with this um enterprise. Sustainability,

[26:46] livability, just make it easy. If that's not going to happen for the community,

[26:51] it's not good. I'm about uh six miles away, but I understand. Oh, I have gley

[26:56] water and that's really irritating me that they're giving all this water away

[27:00] and Excel Energy, but sound and water cross paths all across our county. So if

[27:08] the water's impacted and sound is there and I know it can travel farther than my

[27:13] home, we need to find out from people who live near AI data data centers and

[27:18] find out the data that they have about how sound travels through air. So thank

[27:23] you. >> Thank you.

[27:26] » Speaker 31, please.

[27:31] 31, here you are. Okay.

[27:40] Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Patricia Garcia Nelson. I live at

[27:44] 1260 28th A, apartment 2C, Gley, Colorado to 631. I live approximately

[27:50] 12.8 miles from the Kodak site. I am the Colorado Fossil Fields just transition

[27:54] advocate for Green Latinos and my service providers are the city of Gley

[27:59] for water and Excel for energy. Um, I'm here today to ask you to reject

[28:04] this permit or at least delay. First, the planning commission has already

[28:08] acknowledged the lack of concrete water. Um, that's been discussed several times.

[28:13] There's been several things that have been brought up around the noise. Um,

[28:16] like one of the previous speakers said, I was actually having issues um,

[28:21] downloading the most recent noise study. The file was corrupt. So, please, I'd

[28:24] love to take a look at that and get that latest noise study that was submitted

[28:28] yesterday. Um and so their own studies are showing

[28:32] that their facility could reach decibb of up to 75 at night when their systems

[28:37] are rolling at are running at full capacity. Um this is a violation of the

[28:41] standard that they're supposed to meet. Um additionally, I sent each of you a

[28:46] press release um uh from Global AI's website showing that they just acquired

[28:51] a $400 million loan from Chase Bank. Additionally, you are also receiving the

[28:56] Secretary of State filing showing that they are a registered foreign entity.

[29:00] This is the only information that they're required to disclose, but it

[29:04] raises fundamental questions. A foreign back company should not be building

[29:08] sensitive infrastructure in our community without transparency and

[29:11] accountability. Additionally, I want to trans address other transparency issues.

[29:15] At the planning commission hearing, I witnessed Commissioner Ross speaking

[29:19] outside to some people and I would love to know what the conversation was about

[29:23] and um if there was anything that was agreed upon outside of the public

[29:27] record. I feel that when a um decision maker has conversations about an item on

[29:33] the agenda, it raises serious questions about the process. Additionally, a

[29:37] commissioner has repeatedly asked members of the public where they live. I

[29:41] find this to be an intimidation tactic. It is worth noting that according to his

[29:45] website, this individual lives south of Gil, which is approximately 30 miles

[29:49] from the site. We are talking about a facility that is going to sit in

[29:52] Windsor, right next to my in-laws homes, my child's school, and another charter

[29:57] school in the area. Additionally, bringing the workers um to show uh

[30:03] support is really just an act. Um, and it is also a violation of Colorado's

[30:09] Environmental Justice Act. Um, 211244 recognized that Coloradoatans have the

[30:15] right to participate freely in decisions that affect their environment. The

[30:19] company did not do public engagement or community outreach and they admitted

[30:23] that this morning. Instead, they brought all the workers to put on a little show

[30:27] for y'all. Additionally, this permit is for only phase one. The company plans to

[30:31] expand. And uh I know you asked me to only address things in this um

[30:36] permitting, but again I want to bring back that this is a company that was um

[30:42] founded two years ago. They have no we have no um idea of what their cumulative

[30:48] record looks like. Um and I like I said I'm really concerned that there

[30:54] » Thank you, Miss Garcian. Thank you. Times up.

[30:58] Um, speaker 32, please. Speaker 32.

[31:09] » Afternoon. Uh, Troy Baldwin, 523rd Street in Windsor, 2 miles away, XL and

[31:14] City of Windsor. >> Thank you.

[31:16] » Uh, I'm a lifelong neighbor to this property. My family um is called Windsor

[31:20] Home since the early 1900s. My dad, my mom worked at the Kodak facility and I

[31:23] worked for Kodak Care stream for 33 years. I met I raised my family near

[31:27] this facility and I still live in Oldtown Windsor. I know this site's

[31:31] industrial history well. If Carstream was still operational today, none of us

[31:34] would be here. I'm guessing most of the people in this room that object to the

[31:38] data center don't know about or understand what went on inside and out

[31:41] of the facility when it was Kodak Care. Would anyone know that Kodak and Care

[31:45] operations were so water intensive the company built its own 3 million gallon

[31:49] per day on-site wastewater treatment plant? and the foliage along the pter

[31:53] where the effluent entered the pter was green year round. The water consumption

[31:57] was probably close to 1,000 times what a modern efficient data center would use.

[32:01] Would anyone know that Carstream Kodak was one of the heaviest industrial

[32:04] electrical users in the entire region running heavy industrial equipment

[32:07] around the clock 24/7 365? Would anyone know that the noise inside and out most

[32:13] likely exceeded what the new zoning requirements demand? There were massive

[32:17] electric motors and gear boxes that were used 24/7 365. Yet we still had amazing

[32:21] wildlife like deer, turkeys, foxes, etc. running around the facility. Would

[32:26] anyone know that Carcream's uh chemical and polymer silver uh

[32:30] processing volumes were so large that the site required its own rail spur to

[32:34] import the heavy chemicals and film and paper, acids, costic, surfactants,

[32:38] nitrates, and formaldahhide even among me uh among many others. For people that

[32:44] did know this information, why weren't you standing outside Carream protesting

[32:47] the water usage? Electrical usage and noise pollution while they were

[32:51] operational. This is a brownfield site that carried 50 years of heavy

[32:55] industrial chemical use. Global AI's proposed use is a dramatic reduction in

[33:00] environmental and community risk compared to what the site already

[33:02] handled for decades. As someone who has worked at and lives near the site my

[33:07] whole life, I urge you to support this conversion. It's a better, safer use of

[33:11] a site that's already proven it can handle industrial scale infrastructure.

[33:14] And to see a facility I worked in for 33 years brought back to life responsibly

[33:19] and better than it was will be something great to see and tour someday. Thank

[33:24] you. >> Thank you. Speaker 33, please.

[33:31] Speaker 33. >> She's coming.

[33:33] » Oh, there you are. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair.

[33:36] » No, that's okay.

[33:48] Hello, commissioners. My name is Stacy Rodriguez. I live here

[33:52] in Gley, 3363 35th Street. Um, and we have Excel

[34:00] Energy and we have Central Gley Water. Um,

[34:06] this just came to my attention. It just blipped on my phone about a week ago

[34:10] that this was happening. And so I just kind of rolled with it and I'm like,

[34:17] okay, there's a lot of things here that that actually have my attention because

[34:21] of the water primarily. My husband has worked for the water system for 23 years

[34:25] and uh was just let go. So I know a fair amount about the water system. um

[34:35] a lot of the questions that or a lot of the statements that I have uh people

[34:40] have already covered here just recently. So, but the not knowing the person that

[34:46] is representing the Phoenix Construction um pretty slick. Okay. Represented quite

[34:52] well. Uh but uh some more background and some more definite community outreach

[34:59] which my husband actually got accommodations for for that because he

[35:02] was great at doing that and being able to educate people and to know what

[35:07] that's going to do for our community. Um,

[35:12] yeah, ch children shouldn't be exposed to the it. My my granddaughter, my

[35:17] grandson, and even my 35-year-old daughter does not like they they don't

[35:21] like the AI. It's just a natural energy thing that they pick up on.

[35:28] Um there

[35:32] there's a lot of different things whereas um yes, we're in a doubt. We're

[35:37] we're in a we're in a drought and Colorado Springs triples their rates

[35:41] between five and nine. Okay. Their their company, their electric company. I don't

[35:46] want to see that see that happen here. But the Weld County um yeah we WD far my

[35:53] husband has two of those awards and was awarded was was nominated two more

[35:58] times. Okay. He knows this system

[36:03] to have the people where they can have ways to detox because I was reading up

[36:07] on a lot of the um things that are put into the water into

[36:13] the water and it's some really it's like the forever chemicals. Um, and that that

[36:21] bothered me because when it dumps, what I had read was that it dumps into the

[36:26] Puda Valley system and and my husband has put in those big 60inch lines. Does

[36:33] it is it going to do anything? This gentleman that was just the attorney

[36:36] sitting right here uh was saying that it's an in

[36:41] in company system that that uh Kodak had uh already formulated. But the the

[36:49] forever chemicals, the specialized florinated dialectric

[36:54] coolant sealants or manufacturing coatings. What's that going to do to our

[36:58] pipes? We've already let go 80 people. All right. From our city workers,

[37:07] 80. >> They needed.

[37:09] » Thank you, ma'am. Your time is up. Thank you, Commissioner Max.

[37:13] » Thank you, ma'am. Uh, how far away is do you live?

[37:16] » Pardon me. How far away? >> Uh oh. Uh

[37:21] wrote it down. >> No, it's okay.

[37:23] » 12 to 18. 12 miles. 12 to 15 miles. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

[37:30] » She answered mine. >> Okay.

[37:32] » Speaker 34, please.

[37:41] » Hi. Good afternoon, uh, commissioners. I'm Theres Gilbert, 1715 14th Avenue,

[37:47] greedy, Colorado. Um I can't speak to I don't need to reiterate what already has

[37:52] been said but I have the same concern that I had back in March is about the

[37:57] affluent and I've learned that you know they will have uh Windsor will handle

[38:02] their toilets and the workers the 20 two dozen workers but that they will have

[38:08] their own industrial treatment plant just like JBS has like Lepro has and

[38:13] that EPA I understand has purview over that. It still concerns me. The man said

[38:19] there's no planned discharge. Well, usually discharges, you know, it's the

[38:23] unplanned ones you got to worry about. And that even at best only 6,500 gallons

[38:29] a year would be discharged. But I guess as if that effluent, he said the drains

[38:36] lead to the pter river. The drains are inside the facility. How do we know any

[38:41] of that will be treated? Now I know in a closed loop system they use a lot of

[38:45] teflon on the equipment and that will you know uh slough off uh p uh uh poly

[38:52] fluorocarbons PFC's right and you can't take those out of the water. So, while I

[38:59] live in Gley, I may be 10 miles by the crow flies from the plant and um my

[39:05] provider is Excel, I feel like as a fourth generation in Colorado that that

[39:10] Pa River is is we have standing on that. If a cup of toxins goes in there, I'm

[39:16] going to be upset. I just am. It's the Pter River. So, it's going to be a black

[39:21] box what they're doing with that effluent. And I am concerned about that.

[39:25] And I don't know how we, you know, again, I don't know how you check on it.

[39:29] So that's my main concern. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[39:34] » Real quick, Mr. Ross, I I didn't catch who did you say your power and water

[39:38] providers were >> It's Excel and Gley.

[39:40] » Thank you. I apologize. I may miss that. Speaker 35, please.

[40:01] My name is Karen German. My address is 2149th

[40:05] Avenue in Gley. I live a little under 10 miles from the

[40:11] site. But as we all know, drought, climate change,

[40:18] aqua fires, various things, regulations with um with

[40:25] electrical companies don't have hard and fast boundaries.

[40:32] Um I am a citizen and a voter in Weld County

[40:37] and I came today uh just to listen, but I was

[40:43] I basically had to speak because I heard a lot of what well county commissioners

[40:51] can do but not as much about what well county commissioners should do. And

[40:57] there is a difference between could and should. And if we look at the various

[41:04] things that I've been looking at, whether it is speakers or polls or

[41:10] emails, various things, it is very clear that the residents of Weld County do not

[41:18] support the data center and this is your responsibility

[41:25] to the residents and the voters of Well County. So I uh

[41:32] one thing I just wanted to say I keep hearing comments about Windsor and

[41:37] Kodak. Kodak was in its heyday in the 80s. It

[41:43] started declining by the 2000s and about 15 years ago it formally ex uh exited.

[41:53] Things with water have changed a lot during that time. things with

[41:59] electricity have changed a lot. The amount of people that Kodak employed is

[42:07] very different what than what the data center is talking about employed and I I

[42:13] am urging you all to vote no. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[42:19] Speaker 36, please.

[42:27] Dear commissioners, my name is Ben Plants and I live at 2214 Dominant Court

[42:31] in Severance. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make our voices heard

[42:35] on this important issue and thank you to my fellow Weld County residents for

[42:38] taking time out of your day to be here. Let me start by saying I'm not against

[42:42] data centers in general. I am a chemical engineer educated to safely design and

[42:47] operate large-scale chemical plants by meticulously evaluating risks before

[42:51] making critical decisions. Fact-based decision-making and legally binding

[42:56] commitments remain core to how I approach critical decisions. So I ask

[42:59] you commissioners, do you honestly believe all the long-term risks of this

[43:03] data center have been adequately mitigated? In my research since last

[43:07] week's planning meeting, I acquired a 633 page technical manual for the

[43:12] responsible governance, water protection, and long-term planning of

[43:15] data centers. It contains hundreds of questions developers should answer

[43:19] before approval. Here are just a few. First, has Global AI agreed to an

[43:24] irrevocable decommissioning bond so taxpayers aren't left holding the bag if

[43:28] they abandon the project? Second, what independent monitoring will ensure

[43:33] Global AI's backup diesel generators aren't operated outside of emergencies?

[43:38] And third, given conflicting reports about water consumption in closed loop

[43:41] systems, has a Global AI agreed to legally binding water use limits,

[43:46] monitoring requirements, and penalties for exceeding them. These are just three

[43:50] questions of hundreds in this manual that I emailed to each of you yesterday

[43:54] evening. I ask that you ensure these questions are satisfactorily answered

[43:59] and more importantly committed to an enforcable legal agreements before this

[44:03] project is approved. History has taught us that corporations will ask for

[44:07] forgiveness, not permission, and global AI has already demonstrated this by

[44:12] ignoring three separate stop work citations. What makes them believe they

[44:16] are above our laws? What will stop them from doing it again? And why was their

[44:20] corporate timeline important enough to break the law in the first place? Do not

[44:25] let global AI rush this process at the expense of our community. This is our

[44:30] home, not theirs, and we should dictate the timeline.

[44:34] Again, I'm not opposed to data centers simply because they are data centers.

[44:38] But until these risks are fully addressed and mitigated through binding,

[44:41] enforcable legal language, a yes vote is premature and irresponsible.

[44:46] I am asking for a no today, not necessarily to kill the project, but to

[44:50] give the board of commissioners the time necessary to adequately investigate the

[44:54] unressed concerns and protect our community.

[44:58] And to my fellow residents, I'll be outside after today's meeting. Please

[45:01] come talk to me about your concerns so we make sure the commissioners hear and

[45:04] address every one of them. Thank you. Mission back.

[45:09] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, sir, just same same similar question. Thank you.

[45:13] » Town of Pter Valley Rea 4.2 to my house. >> Thank you.

[45:16] » Thank you. >> Speaker 37, please.

[45:31] Good afternoon, county commissioners. Uh, I live at 5775

[45:37] West 29th Street, Unit 1102, Gley, Colorado. Um, I am here speaking and

[45:44] representing myself, my adult children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren

[45:49] one as young as four months, as well as many other Latino families that I've

[45:54] spoken, visited with this concern, and a concern it is. Um, and that I want them

[46:02] to have a good, healthy life and a future just like you and I have. And I

[46:09] do not see that because we've already had uh in Gley I've had uh where the

[46:14] electricity goes off and then comes back on. And now water, as you well know, we

[46:20] haven't had much snow or have very have had very little. And I'm not um excited

[46:27] about this a global AI building for those reasons because we are an

[46:33] agriculture community. And that to me, I grew up in the farm

[46:40] back in eastern Colorado. So I know what uh it takes to grow uh crops and what it

[46:47] grow what it takes to just provide for a family where I I also lived in Denver 30

[46:53] years. So I also know city life and that's why I moved here because I wanted

[46:58] to leave there after 30 years. My son lives a little over a mile from this

[47:04] future global AI center. My granddaughters also live in these

[47:08] surrounding communities and they work in these communities. I am also um I'm

[47:14] using the word concerned but that is I'm very concerned about who is global AI

[47:21] centers water provider and also the contamination of uh that could happen

[47:28] and also the plus the noise issues and pri increases in price with the water

[47:35] electricity. We've already uh been hit with tax increases which has nothing to

[47:40] do with the the electricity and the water but it does in a way I'm like

[47:45] saying why is taxes going up when the property value has not been there here

[47:50] in these last recent months. So as you well know with everything else going up

[47:56] in the community and across our nation in prices that is a concern and we have

[48:02] a right to be concerned. So I appeal to you as our well county commissioners to

[48:08] really take in consideration not only what your decisions are but about the

[48:13] future generations and with Kodak I also agree when Kodak was up and running the

[48:20] explosion of growth and construction was not going like it is today and uh global

[48:28] uh AI center does really not have our agriculture and our community at heart.

[48:35] How can they? They're not from here. They're from a big huge city which I

[48:39] have also had the opportunity to visit in New York and other uh

[48:45] » Thank you, ma'am. Your time is up. Ma'am, your time is up. Your time is up.

[48:50] Ma'am, your your time is up. Commissioner Maxi, please.

[48:54] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um ma'am, I probably missed it, but I didn't catch

[48:57] your name. >> Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Amalia

[49:00] Johnson. And and about how far away do you live?

[49:03] » I'm sorry. >> About how far away do you live?

[49:05] » I live on the southwest side of Gley by the new hospital. Oh,

[49:11] » okay. Thank you. UC Health Hospital. >> The UC Health Hospital. That new one.

[49:15] Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you,

[49:17] » Miss Ma'am. Ma'am, >> Commissioner Ross. Ma'am,

[49:23] » thank you. Sorry for making you come back. Who's your water provider and

[49:27] electric provider there? >> Uh, Gley, Colorado. uh for the water and

[49:31] electricity XL. >> Thank you.

[49:34] » Okay. >> Speaker 38, please.

[49:41] » Hi. Hi. I'm Marissa Baninga. I live at 416 Walnut Street in Windsor. I'm

[49:47] against the application. I believe the global AI application does not meet the

[49:52] will serve requirements. I was born and raised in Windsor and I'm a current

[49:55] resident of Windsor. I live within three miles of the data center. Many of my

[49:59] neighbors are opposed to this application and weren't able to make it

[50:02] today due to their work schedules and commitments to their children. On August

[50:06] 18th, Gley annexed the Great Western Industrial Park, the property

[50:09] surrounding the Global AI property. Windsor has challenged that annexation

[50:13] since the Weld County planning meeting last week. If two Colorado cities are

[50:18] both trying to annex the same piece of land, Colorado,

[50:22] it's not simply whichever city gets there first wins. Under Colorado Statute

[50:28] 3112114, when two municipalities make conflicting

[50:31] annexation claims, the competing annexation proceedings are generally put

[50:35] on hold and the dispute goes to an election supervised by the district

[50:38] court. If the GWIP properties don't get annexed into Gley and they get annexed

[50:43] into Windsor, then that renders the Global AI pre-annexation agreement with

[50:46] Gley in jeopardy because the property would then be almost impossible to annex

[50:51] into Gley if they don't have enough land touching the global AI property. If they

[50:55] can't annex into Gley, then global AA AI doesn't have access to water. We need to

[51:00] have the annexation fight between the towns play out before the county makes

[51:03] any decisions. You should not approve this based on hypotheticals. Think about

[51:07] this as a complicated math equation. You always need to perform the math inside

[51:11] the parenthesis before you do the math outside the parenthesis. If you don't do

[51:15] it in the correct order, you get a wrong answer. You end up with a mess. Without

[51:19] annexation in gley, global AI doesn't meet the water will serve requirement.

[51:24] Would you give permission to a homeowner to build a house if they did not have

[51:28] adequate water guaranteed for their home for more than 2 years? I think you would

[51:32] tell me to go jump in a lake. I also think global AI should have to provide

[51:36] more information in their phase 1 application on how they will supplement

[51:40] their power on site as Pter Valley Rea's power to the site decreases year after

[51:44] year. This decision is premature. We need to see how the annexation plays

[51:48] out. Please do not approve the application.

[51:51] » Thank you for reminding me of why I always get those Facebook math memes

[51:54] wrong. Order of operations. >> I apologize. Who Who's your water

[52:00] provider? Who's your uh electric >> water is Windsor and Excel is

[52:04] » Yeah. >> Thank you. Speaker 39, please.

[52:20] Hi, I'm Ununice Bear. I live at 14915 Weld County Road 72, Gley, Colorado.

[52:28] Um while listening this morning, I was surprised to hear all the praise heaped

[52:34] on you guys for not doing a m a moratorum

[52:39] or waiting and that's really troublesome for me. What's the rush? What is the

[52:45] rush? There's a lot of questions here that need to be answered. I mean, I've

[52:51] heard more than I could even think of. I just don't get the rush. And

[52:58] I only live five miles as crowies from where the Kodak place is, but I just

[53:06] don't see the point of this water waste.

[53:11] I can serve water beyond what any of you would believe, but after last week, I

[53:16] went home and I watered my heart out because I just didn't see the point

[53:21] anymore. and you're just wasting. You know, I

[53:25] watered, but I do not waste water. And I feel you are in just a big rush.

[53:32] You need to consult other counties, decide why are they

[53:37] holding back and I'm heading forward. You need to think hard because guess

[53:44] what? It's on you. It's on you. This is your yes vote may

[53:51] turn out to be your worst decision. So consider it hard. Really hard.

[53:59] And I'm going to go home and water. Just

[54:04] going to use the water for myself, not save it for other people. What's the

[54:08] point? And

[54:13] my water is Northwell County and my electricity is a excel which is crap.

[54:23] I mean when the wind blows I'm out for 16 hours because I live in an area

[54:29] that's not concentrated with houses. I've had to buy my own batteries to

[54:33] supply my I've got a wood stove to heat because I lose everything. We don't have

[54:40] what you need for this AI catastrophe.

[54:46] Think about what you're doing. Thank you.

[54:50] » Speaker 40, please.

[55:06] Good morning. Good afternoon, I should say. Commissioners, my name is KJ

[55:10] Burola. My address is 2304 9th Avenue, uh 15 miles away from this site. I'm

[55:16] served by Excel, uh and city of Gley for water. I am the executive director of

[55:23] Voices of the Land, which is a Gley based nonprofit focused on outdoor

[55:26] equity and cultural reconnection. Uh but before that I'm also the great great

[55:31] granddaughter of Cla and Tomasa, the great granddaughter of Maria and Rufina,

[55:36] the granddaughter of Aurora and Avelino. And those um ancestors that I mentioned

[55:41] taught me that the land is the strongest rule and law that we have in the entire

[55:47] universe because the the land indeed defi what you do with the land indeed

[55:51] defines what you do with the planet. And so I mentioned during the initial

[55:56] hearing last week that we shouldn't be allowing someone who doesn't actually

[56:00] truly do community outreach here in our town decide what to do with the land

[56:06] here and instead should slow down and vote no on this on this application. As

[56:12] many many folks mentioned before me, there are uh so many technical issues

[56:18] with the application in of itself. But I'll also mention I made sure to address

[56:23] a little bit less professionally today than I did for the initial hearing

[56:27] because aside from showing up in the capacities that

[56:31] uh that I mentioned earlier, I wanted to also show up as just a community member.

[56:37] And I'll urge you to remember that during that initial hearing and I

[56:41] presume also, you know, through many online uh public comments, many other

[56:46] community member members also urged you to vote no. And many of them

[56:50] simultaneously are losing a lot of trust in the city because they feel like they

[56:54] are not being listened to. And so I'm truly just here today to say I hope you

[56:59] will listen to them. I hope you'll make better decisions for the land. Of

[57:03] course, as many others mentioned, for the water as well. and also not listen

[57:08] to someone that calls the community college AIM that didn't actually speak

[57:14] to these colleges or much less any of us as residential, you know, residents.

[57:21] We uh we deserve better than that. We deserve an industry that we can trust

[57:26] rather than, you know, our our city essentially selling out to them. It

[57:30] reminds me truly of the administration currently selling out to, for example,

[57:36] logging and other um major industries for our public lands. Um, I'd like to

[57:41] have our areas protected here in Gley as well. And our residents protected from

[57:46] the pollution both via noise, water, air, and whatever else this may bring,

[57:52] including the cultural shift that is coming on our children due to the

[57:56] addiction to technology and the scary things that AI does. So again, I urge

[58:02] you to vote no and thank you so much for your time today.

[58:07] » Speaker 41, please.

[58:20] Hi, my name is Stephanie Willlet and I would

[58:24] prefer not to state my address out loud as the last AI meeting I attended at

[58:30] this place, I was run off the road, not even a block away after the stoplight.

[58:36] If anyone wants to see the pictures, I have them. This is absolutely an

[58:40] intimidation tactic, making everyone come up here and state their address.

[58:45] The way you police the people speaking is so classes. Who do you represent?

[58:51] This is ridiculous. I'm I wish I would have had more time to prepare. I did not

[58:55] plan on speaking today. I am not a public speaker. I do not want this.

[59:01] It's embarrassing. This is embarrassing that we have to do

[59:06] this. The community support today 10 out of 10. This worst dog and pony show I

[59:11] have ever attended. Far none. I get my energy from Excel and my water

[59:19] from the city of Gley. >> Thank you.

[59:21] » Thank you. >> Speaker 42, please.

[59:39] Um, thank you for letting me speak. I was not intending to. I've been through

[59:44] one of these processes before and it does seem like that every time it just

[59:50] is kind of like what she said. We state our our objections and yet it never gets

[59:57] heard. My approach is going to be a little different. My name is Karen Lman

[1:00:01] and I don't really want to give my address either.

[1:00:05] Health, safety, welfare, amazing, amazing community outreach

[1:00:11] community. This community that with growth, benefits of schools, wealth,

[1:00:17] opportunity, etc., etc., etc. are all comfy, cozy, fluffy, feel-good words,

[1:00:24] promises, promises, all stemming from one huge lie. A lie that evil is well

[1:00:30] aware of. A wolf in sheep's clothing, part of the continuence of the great

[1:00:36] deception. AI, look at it. The meaning in itself, artificial intelligence, a

[1:00:44] conformity in the way of thinking, or rather a control of the way of thinking.

[1:00:50] Let us expose the wolf in sheep's clothing in true in its true intent of

[1:00:56] this wolf. Evil knows its time is short and evil's desire to deceive and to take

[1:01:02] many with them to their final destination. What really are these

[1:01:07] facilities but concentration camps? So for the love of many, even the love of

[1:01:12] my enemies, I pray you seek the wisdom in truth in your decision making truth

[1:01:20] that is written. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, but

[1:01:25] fools despise wisdom and instruction. For his Jesus's return is very soon.

[1:01:33] Thank you. Um the clerk informs me that speaker

[1:01:39] number 42 is the last number that she gave out. Um I certainly though am open

[1:01:44] to uh any other public comment. Anyone who has yet to speak uh did not receive

[1:01:49] a number uh floor is still open. Is there any additional public comment

[1:01:53] today? One more time. Any additional public

[1:01:57] comments sir?

[1:02:03] » Hello commissioners. My name is Greg Flebe. I live at 426 Crystal Beach Drive

[1:02:08] in Windsor, Colorado. I'm about a mile and a half, two miles as the crow flies.

[1:02:14] Um, my water is supplied by Windsor Water

[1:02:18] and uh, Hooter Techch Metro District for the non-pottable water and my electrical

[1:02:26] provider is Excel and um,

[1:02:33] I never thought I would be speaker number 40 something um, but uh, here I

[1:02:41] am basically I think that this is a good idea for the

[1:02:47] site that it's located at. I mean the Kodak um I worked uh for the city of

[1:02:54] Gley along uh for the development of the Kodak site uh in some of its phases as

[1:03:03] well as as HP. And one of the things that always impressed me about them was

[1:03:09] that they did a lot of community outreach ahead of time. There weren't

[1:03:14] surprises like there are now. I think what you're hearing is a lot of

[1:03:21] um worrying about unresolved issues. Uh

[1:03:29] and all of that could have been resolved with prior neighborhood meetings and

[1:03:33] outreach which the city of Gley and Windsor standard uh requires

[1:03:40] and then we don't have this back and forth. So certainly recommend that as a

[1:03:46] as a process, but um secondly,

[1:03:53] because of all of the unresolved issues and and certainly with good cause that

[1:04:00] people have seen on the uh daily in the newspapers,

[1:04:05] on the TV, on the internet of projects gone bad, and they don't know for sure

[1:04:12] that that won't happen again they would like to get it resolved. So why not

[1:04:18] pause and help answer some of the questions uh for the residents for the

[1:04:24] neighbors and also give the opportunity for global AI to

[1:04:29] come up with it. During their testimony they said they didn't have all of the

[1:04:34] answers to completely check that box. Uh and certainly there's a lot of uh

[1:04:42] legal unresolved issues that otherwise there wouldn't be everybody lawyering up

[1:04:48] here. Um not looking for a prohibition but a

[1:04:53] pause uh since we didn't get that ahead of time.

[1:04:58] » Thank you. Thank you, sir. Additional public comment from those who have not

[1:05:02] spoken. From those who have not spoken. We only do one time, one bite at the

[1:05:06] apple, so to speak. Additional P public comment, please.

[1:05:11] Going once. Public comment will stand closed. This

[1:05:16] time, I'd like to take a recess until 3:15 if we could. Until 3:15. Uh, Mr.

[1:05:23] Foster, Mr. Cardigan, and certainly you have the opportunity to rebut any public

[1:05:26] comment that you heard, and we'll do that when you come back. So, we'll stand

[1:05:29] in recess until 3:15.

[1:27:21] Okay, let's uh come back to order if we could please. If we can kindly come back

[1:27:24] to order.

[1:27:31] Got notes everywhere.

[1:27:35] » Okay. Uh let's continue. This is continuation of our hearing

[1:27:42] on pardon me and I'll get the exact number USR26-000019.

[1:27:48] All five county commissioners are present. Uh returning now with

[1:27:52] opportunity for uh uh the applicant to rebut comments. Applicant floor is

[1:27:56] yours.

[1:28:00] » Uh thank you uh Mr. Chair and members of the uh board of county commissioners.

[1:28:04] Thank you to our community as well. uh those supporting and those not

[1:28:08] supporting. Uh it's a it's an important conversation to have. Um I want to

[1:28:13] wanted to start actually uh addressing some unresolved issues that maybe you

[1:28:18] and I had uh in some of our uh Q&A before lunch.

[1:28:24] » Okay. >> Uh and so I wanted to go back to the I1

[1:28:27] » Yes. >> zone district that you raised. Um

[1:28:30] » a couple of thoughts. Um one is kind of a snippy lawyer response. Um, so allow

[1:28:37] » I might give you a snippy commissioner response, Mr. Foster.

[1:28:40] » Uh, my snippy lawyer response is that you as a board have determined that

[1:28:47] within the I1 zone district, uh, a data center is a use by right. That was the

[1:28:52] decision you made. And uh, based on that decision and knowing what the intent of

[1:28:58] the I1 was, that was how you manifested that determination.

[1:29:04] If you're going to resolve uh only to strictly construe the

[1:29:12] electrical power as the one resource that you're going to review and analyze.

[1:29:20] Um you Mr. chair will likely never approve a USR in the light industrial

[1:29:26] zone district, which means strictly construed, you've made you've approved a

[1:29:32] USR in a light industrial zone district that is not achievable, at least in the

[1:29:38] way in which you were interpreting it. And so I wanted to then take a a further

[1:29:43] step along the path and then less snippy uh and that is to uh look at two

[1:29:50] different uses in the uh light industrial zone district that I think

[1:29:56] probably are relevant for today's conversation.

[1:29:58] One would be uh EV charging stations uh used by right in the light industrial

[1:30:05] zone district. 30 um uh 30 truck chargers generate a need for 35

[1:30:14] megawatts of power in the uh uh light industrial zone district used by right.

[1:30:20] Another use is the utility service facilities.

[1:30:25] another use that I I couldn't do the AI um uh research quickly enough on all of

[1:30:32] the different types of uh facilities within that industrial service facility

[1:30:38] that would require power. But my suspicion is is that's a high power user

[1:30:43] as well. And so I come back to the resource question and I think resources

[1:30:49] are more than just water and energy or power. I think uh you could look at

[1:30:56] resources as materials. Uh you could look at resources as labor and uh in

[1:31:02] this particular instance, we're not creating a manufacturing operation that

[1:31:07] is constantly churning uh a bunch of material. Um but we're actually in an

[1:31:13] existing facility. So, I just I wanted to leave that uh kind of I we're

[1:31:18] probably not resolving it between you and I uh today, but I do want to at

[1:31:22] least address the questions that you raised in terms of power as a resource

[1:31:28] and looking at at least one or two other uses within the light industrial that do

[1:31:34] occupy or consume significant power. >> Council, I appreciate that. Um, the onus

[1:31:39] is on you on the applicant under 232230B2

[1:31:43] to provide specific evidence that helps me understand how this fits the intent

[1:31:48] of the Iowa district. And I appreciate you submitting that evidence for my

[1:31:52] consideration. Thank you. >> Uh, you're welcome. Um, I want to then

[1:31:57] kind of turn to public comment and I wanted to start by saying this. Um, and

[1:32:02] frankly Amy Lynn um said it best uh in her public comment. there seems to be a

[1:32:08] sea of litigation and uh that may be true. Uh and we had a

[1:32:15] number of lawyers uh come up here and other uh experts come up here and

[1:32:21] testify as to a bunch of documents frankly that aren't no offense, they're

[1:32:27] not your business. uh they're private agreements and what we shouldn't be

[1:32:32] doing is turning this public hearing on a use by special review into a Supreme

[1:32:39] Court uh reviewing and analyzing private agreements between private parties. Is

[1:32:45] there a dispute? You bet. Are we surprised that uh they showed up today

[1:32:51] to talk about publicly our dispute? Not at all. But that's not for you to

[1:32:58] resolve. And the fact that one of the lawyers actually submitted a document

[1:33:03] that is a private agreement between parties is proof of the fact that that's

[1:33:07] not your realm to review. It's not within your purview under the USR. So

[1:33:14] I'm going to leave those comments um to to the side as a separate issue to be

[1:33:21] resolved, but not here. and uh uh and so that becomes a developer obligation well

[1:33:29] beyond uh today's public hearing. Um the will serve letter by PBREA uh has

[1:33:38] been raised uh by a number of members of your community.

[1:33:44] This has been historically how the county has accepted will serve letters

[1:33:48] from utility providers. We have done nothing different or out of the ordinary

[1:33:54] as to what every applicant has done uh in Well County seeking a will serve

[1:33:59] letter. And we don't just have PVREA saying it once, they've said it now

[1:34:03] three times. And they've said it after receiving some of this uh correspondence

[1:34:09] from some of the lawyers in the room. And so PVR PVREA has doubled and tripled

[1:34:15] down on their will serve letter. And that check must be made next to the

[1:34:21] criteria. The Gley Water Service. Again, we're I'm

[1:34:27] trying not to reinvent the wheel through this USR. This has been a historic way

[1:34:32] in which the county has accepted a will serve by showing uh in this particular

[1:34:37] instance a pre-annexation agreement. now has been not only uh negotiated and

[1:34:43] signed uh by the lawyers and by the city manager but has been approved by the

[1:34:48] city itself and has been reviewed by the water board. Um but there's also a

[1:34:53] specific provision within uh that uh re-anexation agreement that uh mandates

[1:35:00] specific performance. So this isn't a wish and a hope. uh Gley fully expects

[1:35:07] to be annexing at some point this property and guess what we need them to

[1:35:12] uh for the water that we are seeking to use uh at this site. So again, those are

[1:35:20] important things for you to consider in your review and analysis today. I

[1:35:25] believe that we have undoubtedly proven that the will serve letters are in the

[1:35:31] shape and form that this county has long required. uh that your staff has

[1:35:36] accepted and that we have relied on. Um

[1:35:43] want to answer a couple of questions that were kind of addressed or or

[1:35:47] questioned or out there uh from from uh others in the community. The uh

[1:35:54] emergency generators are tested for five minutes per month. That is the

[1:36:00] requirement that we have in order to prove up the uh the uh efficacy of those

[1:36:06] emergency generators. So that's 5 minutes per month.

[1:36:10] Um there was a concern or some interest in

[1:36:15] having ongoing noise monitoring. We're in agreement. We're happy to uh

[1:36:21] continue to monitor our noise. We have those uh in place right now. um we don't

[1:36:27] want somebody actually suggesting that we're making more noise. So, we'd like

[1:36:31] uh to have uh ongoing noise monitoring uh of our facility.

[1:36:36] Um and uh another mention of competing annexations which we don't have because

[1:36:43] we are not uh uh we are not contemporaneously seeking annexation to

[1:36:49] Windsor. We are, as I mentioned earlier, we are exclusively negotiating uh with

[1:36:55] the city of Gley uh on annexation. Um

[1:37:02] for your consideration uh as you have thought of some

[1:37:06] conditions and this gets back to Commissioner Max's comment from before

[1:37:11] lunch as well. Um, we would be willing to accept the

[1:37:16] cumulative noise standard under 215416 C. That's uh under the oil and gas uh

[1:37:24] provisions. And thank you for um uh directing our attention to that. We'd

[1:37:29] also be willing to accept a condition that we can only build with a closed

[1:37:35] water loop system. Um, I I wish I, you know, every time

[1:37:40] somebody gets up to talk about the water use, I wish I could just come up and

[1:37:43] say, "That's not what we're doing. That's not what we're doing." And and

[1:37:47] the concerns about other uh older facilities on site that could

[1:37:53] potentially cool and chill and we're not using those. Um, and the the way and of

[1:37:59] course the five of you were not sitting in the planning commission for when Mike

[1:38:03] answered that question, but he said if we wanted to use the existing

[1:38:08] facilities, we could we would do that, but it would be a tremendous waste of

[1:38:13] water because those were the chillers uh and coolers that were in existence for a

[1:38:20] previous uh iteration of this uh data center.

[1:38:24] Um, last thing I'll, um, address and then of

[1:38:30] course any questions that still linger. Um, uh, Commissioner Peeper, you having

[1:38:37] watched the hearing in April, I know that you in in particular talked about

[1:38:42] this decommissioning, uh, issue. um we're not adverse to um proving up that

[1:38:51] when we leave the site we're going to leave it clean. That that's not

[1:38:55] something we're adverse to. Frankly, there is equipment within that facility

[1:39:00] that we're going to be very guarded over and we're going to want to make sure

[1:39:04] that things are managed appropriately. The county just hasn't really navigated

[1:39:10] that issue yet. uh and it may be an issue and it might not be for today, but

[1:39:16] I'm kind of mentioning it because it was raised in uh public comment and I know

[1:39:20] that you've raised it before. We're not adverse to thinking through with your

[1:39:24] staff and with your lawyers about what that could look like. And if that is

[1:39:29] something that is navigated sometime after this USR, we'd be um still glad to

[1:39:35] um uh you know, upon review and approval of of that language include it um

[1:39:42] subsequently if that is of interest to this board of county commissioners.

[1:39:46] Again, I don't think it's a review criteria. uh I think were a little bit

[1:39:50] outside the bounds but I wanted to be respectful of issues that had been

[1:39:54] raised. So with that uh Mr. Chair I I I think I have answered the questions that

[1:40:00] we were we were seeking to resolve >> questions for the Mr. Ross.

[1:40:06] » No I'm sorry I'm thinking apologize Mr. Chair

[1:40:08] » Commissioner Maxi. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um thank you Mr.

[1:40:11] Foster for some of that. I I'm going to just go through this the way I mean

[1:40:15] you're going to get a glimpse into how my mind works here and because I wrote

[1:40:17] down a lot of public comment. I underlined certain things. Um and I just

[1:40:22] want to make sure that we address them. So I you addressed a few things right

[1:40:25] now and I think that you addressed a few of the ones that I underlined but I if I

[1:40:28] reask something or ask you to confirm it's simply because I want to make sure

[1:40:32] that uh we address the things that I uh thought were important.

[1:40:37] Um, so going back to the very beginning,

[1:40:45] um, there were a couple comments that we heard about proof of legal route for

[1:40:51] utilities. Is that what you're saying is private agreements?

[1:40:56] » It is. >> Okay. So um your

[1:41:00] regardless of the will serve status from the utilities of water and power

[1:41:06] internal to this location there are private agreements and those are private

[1:41:10] things that you need to deal with and I quite frankly I agree with you. I don't

[1:41:13] think that that is our job to uphold private agreements. That's between the

[1:41:16] parties who enter into those private agreements. We didn't make you sign a

[1:41:19] private agreement so therefore it's not part of our process. So, um, I just

[1:41:23] wanted to make sure that when I heard those comments, that was what you were

[1:41:26] talking about. >> Commissioner, if I could spitball with

[1:41:28] you there a little bit, uh, and because it might save us some time later.

[1:41:31] » Sure. >> I would agree with the private nature of

[1:41:33] those agreements sustained by by Commissioner Maxi and and you, Mr.

[1:41:37] Foster. But I add some more clarity to the C33 easement agreement. That is the

[1:41:44] private agreement that we're talking about. At the same time, I would argue

[1:41:47] that it goes to completeness of this application because without power, how

[1:41:51] is the application complete? So, if it doesn't go your way, how how

[1:41:58] are you going to provide power for this this particular property

[1:42:00] » if it if it goes our way? >> If it does not

[1:42:04] » if Oh, if the uh dispute on the easements,

[1:42:09] » I'm assuming that's over this this building C3 agree. Commissioner, that's

[1:42:12] exactly the right question to ask because if we can't resolve the private

[1:42:16] dispute, we don't have the ability to serve with the power.

[1:42:21] » Yeah, >> that is exactly right.

[1:42:24] » Will serve or not. >> Will serve or not.

[1:42:26] » Exactly. You you still have to work out the private agreement.

[1:42:28] » Absolutely. >> Um there was a comment regarding noise

[1:42:33] or excuse me, not noise but the sound walls that are being proposed that I

[1:42:37] thought was interesting. Um, and I didn't see any issue from what was

[1:42:42] submitted in the application regarding drainage or or drainage flows, but an

[1:42:46] issue a potential issue with the sound walls blocking drainage flows came up.

[1:42:51] Do you have any comment on that? >> Well, the I I I have one comment, but I

[1:42:55] probably am going to turn it over to your professional staff. Um, we don't

[1:42:58] believe we're in that uh drainage way. We may abut it. I think even the

[1:43:04] testimony uh was clear that there's some uncertainty. Um I don't think that we

[1:43:10] would be able to achieve a building permit uh without going through the

[1:43:14] necessary um county uh review of of exactly how that wall may impact flow.

[1:43:22] » Can I ask a question to follow up on that, Mr. Maxi?

[1:43:26] » We look at historic floodings. That's what I tend to look at.

[1:43:29] » Historic, you said? >> Yeah. 2013 was probably the biggest

[1:43:32] flood this area has experienced in recent recollection. Was that site?

[1:43:36] Maybe staff can answer, you can answer. Did that site receive substantial

[1:43:39] flooding from from that flood? Do we know

[1:43:44] » from the one person who I know was for sure there? He said no.

[1:43:48] » Are you making that comment because he's gray beard that you know that he might

[1:43:51] be there >> in part?

[1:43:56] Thank you. Please continue. Okay,

[1:44:00] » thank you. >> Um, good question. Thank you. Um, you

[1:44:04] addressed noise from the chillers because I I had written that down. Um, I

[1:44:08] believe you addressed that and um, about the generators being operated five

[1:44:12] minutes a month to exercise them. That's common practice for anybody that has a

[1:44:16] generator. They need to be exercised or else you're not sure if they're going to

[1:44:18] be operational when you need them. So, five minutes a month is what I wrote

[1:44:21] down. You saying >> correct? Um,

[1:44:25] you know, I I I heard what was mentioned a few minutes ago. Uh, not a few minutes

[1:44:31] ago, shoot, maybe a couple hours ago now. Um, and I heard a comment and I I

[1:44:36] do agree that when there's something not necessarily in the application, uh, it's

[1:44:40] not necessarily part of our purview here, but it was in the notes from the

[1:44:44] planning commission meeting. And so, kind of by default, I look at that as

[1:44:47] evidence that's now in the in the record that we can talk about. And so, I do

[1:44:50] want to ask about Bloom Energy. Um, and I do want to say there might not be

[1:44:54] plans about it right now, but that was stated as a potential

[1:44:58] secondary generation source that you all are looking at. Um, and I guess I don't

[1:45:02] know if I really have any any true questions about that, but I I can't pass

[1:45:07] that up either. So, do you have any anything you want to say about that uh

[1:45:11] information that was included in the notes from the planning commission

[1:45:14] meeting that uh that we have? The only notes that I can imagine were in the

[1:45:19] planning commission minutes would have been that to the extent that Bloom

[1:45:23] Energy would be used on the site, they're not being used for this

[1:45:26] application that is in front of you. >> Okay. So, a potential future phase which

[1:45:30] we would see in full transparency. All right. Perfect.

[1:45:33] » Not for this phase. >> Correct.

[1:45:35] » Thank you. Okay. Wanted to hear that. Um I'm going to skip a question and go to

[1:45:39] the next page here real quick. uh the the noise uh study that was done and the

[1:45:46] especially the excuse me the low frequency um I'm assuming that the noise

[1:45:51] study was performed for a period of not less than 72 hours and uh 24 hours a day

[1:45:57] for 72 hours. Is that how you got the the noise study data?

[1:46:05] » Yes, the ambient study

[1:46:11] I'll repeat this in one sec. Thank you. >> No, go ahead.

[1:46:23] » Oh, okay. >> So,

[1:46:26] so I let me just repeat so that it's clear that that ambient noise has been

[1:46:30] recorded uh for 24/7 for a month to a month and a half.

[1:46:35] » Okay. Thank you for that. So that addresses uh the question that got

[1:46:39] brought up that maybe the worst case scenario had not been modeled or not

[1:46:44] been recorded. But a month is well beyond what normal ambient noise surveys

[1:46:49] go for. I I mentioned 72 hours because that's usually standard in the industry,

[1:46:53] at least from my experience. Um

[1:46:57] I I did underline decommissioning bond, so I'm glad that you brought that up and

[1:47:01] that was a something that Commissioner Peeper had brought up uh to your point,

[1:47:05] Mr. foster back during the code discussion. And so I think that that

[1:47:07] might be part of our discussion today. So I appreciate you mentioning that.

[1:47:13] Um

[1:47:16] let me ask a big one here. >> Just going to ask this one. Let's call

[1:47:20] out the elephant in the room. Stop work orders

[1:47:24] and abiding by code. Um the applicant, your your client, uh was to be in front

[1:47:31] of us a few weeks back regarding stop work orders and an appeal uh to that

[1:47:36] decision by county staff. Uh you decided to not appeal that. Um and and at that

[1:47:43] point did effectively stop work until now we're here today.

[1:47:49] um when we are specifically talking about um a use that is that is allowed

[1:47:54] in code to your point um under a USR process which I believe this is in the

[1:47:59] I1 zone and when this board looks at conditional

[1:48:03] standards to try to address the health safety and welfare of any applicant for

[1:48:07] any industry that goes into any zone that is going through the USR process.

[1:48:12] Um, talk to me about the confidence uh in this board of approving a permit um

[1:48:20] when we had some apparent issues a few weeks back with non-compliance. I'm just

[1:48:25] curious on on a response to that. >> Yeah, it's a fair question. Uh and of

[1:48:30] course we we did resolve um the issue of the appeal um with the county. Um so uh

[1:48:38] that that did get formally resolved. But to your bigger question, I think it's

[1:48:43] important, Commissioner um to not just think about um this USR. I think it's

[1:48:50] important to actually go back a little bit further um when this was a use by

[1:48:55] right and my clients submitted um their site plan under your code that allowed

[1:49:02] for it as a use by right and they didn't change those rules. You did. and you

[1:49:08] change those rules in the middle of a process and you change the rules uh

[1:49:13] after uh building permits had not only been submitted but many of them had

[1:49:19] already been issued and so again you're asking about confidence in in my

[1:49:26] clients and so the way in which I would resolve it is to say what my clients

[1:49:31] didn't do and by the way I wasn't representing them at the time and I may

[1:49:34] have given them different direction as your county attorney might tell you. Uh

[1:49:39] what they didn't do is they didn't challenge to stay under the site plan uh

[1:49:45] as they had initially submitted and said, "Hey, that those were the rules of

[1:49:50] engagement when we started." Uh but what they did do is they amended an

[1:49:56] application and they put themselves front and center right here, right now

[1:50:02] for you to review their application. And I think that's a sign of good faith and

[1:50:08] the trust that you should have in my clients to do what's right by this

[1:50:11] county. >> Appreciate the answer very much. Um and

[1:50:15] and I I hear what you say. Um if if it would be allowed, I would actually like

[1:50:21] Mr. Katigan to get up and also answer the question. Um Mr. Katigan is the COO

[1:50:26] of the company. um when when uh we get phone calls because the county

[1:50:33] commissioners get phone calls on a variety of reasons as I'm sure you can

[1:50:35] imagine sir uh for a variety of land use questions or policy questions. Um when

[1:50:41] we get a phone call we will be turning around and working with our staff and

[1:50:45] and looking to contact Global AI as the applicant as the owner of this facility.

[1:50:52] So acknowledging what your attorney Mr. Foster said uh I won't be calling Mr.

[1:50:56] Foster, if I get a phone call about this, I'll be wanting to call you or

[1:51:00] somebody else. So, I would just like your response, surf, if you would, about

[1:51:04] the confidence that this board uh should have in global AI to follow any

[1:51:09] stipulations we put on on this application today, of which we have

[1:51:13] talked about a few additional ones that were not a part of the original uh uh

[1:51:17] you know, referral from planning. >> So, Commissioner Maxi, I appreciate the

[1:51:21] opportunity to address it, right? And the way David answered it

[1:51:28] and we we started our program very aggressively, right? We saw a tremendous

[1:51:35] opportunity to bring a site back to life that people were driving by for a long

[1:51:40] time wondering, right? And we were moving quickly.

[1:51:46] We had permit approval during the entire process.

[1:51:52] Um the building permit teams were visiting

[1:51:57] us frequently, right? They never really they didn't cite any violation of code.

[1:52:03] We continue to operate within code, but to the point of your confidence, I

[1:52:09] don't want you to call Mr. Foster. I want you to call me. I've been anxious

[1:52:14] to have a conversation with all of you. I know given we had an application in

[1:52:20] I'm not permitted to do that and you know I tried

[1:52:25] but now I am and you know what we're trying to do and

[1:52:31] you know what we can do with that site and we can do with the community but if

[1:52:35] you see that we're not living by the code if you see we're not in compliance

[1:52:40] I welcome the call because I do want to have the opportunity to have the

[1:52:44] conversation which I have not been able to

[1:52:48] Fair enough. >> Appreciate you transfer. Thank you,

[1:52:50] Commissioner. Maxi, if I could piggy back and I appreciate that, Mr.

[1:52:54] Cardigan. Thank you. >> Um, Commissioner James.

[1:52:56] » Yes. >> I'm not a sweater. Four people have

[1:52:59] called me a sweater. It's Catigan. Catigan. So, when you have to call me,

[1:53:03] if you look up cardigan, you won't find Nobody.

[1:53:07] » I'm just trying to avoid aggravation trying to get a hold of me.

[1:53:11] » My apologies for addressing you as a men's wear. I do not wear you just fat.

[1:53:15] Believe me, I've been called that all my life.

[1:53:17] » Mr. Cartigan, I can only blame my parents. Cat D A

[1:53:25] » Mr. Katigan and and and Commissioner James, you know, we tried to talk,

[1:53:28] right? I just >> I abide by the rules. I can't talk to

[1:53:32] you folks, but now I have the opportunity. Go ahead. This is at the

[1:53:35] crux of my position for not only this application, but for for many others. As

[1:53:40] well county grows, as well county increases in size, as we diversify in

[1:53:44] our economic base, a concern that I hear from a citizenry a lot is about the use

[1:53:49] by special reviews that we have out there. The it's it's a conditional use

[1:53:54] permit that we issue. And there was a time in Weld County, maybe when I was a

[1:54:00] kid back in the 70s and 80s, that we could handshake and you're going to do

[1:54:04] this and go forward with your land and that person would do what's right cuz

[1:54:07] it's the right thing to do. I'm not insinuating that your company won't, but

[1:54:12] it's as we continue to issue these conditional use permits, this use by

[1:54:16] special review process. It is totally reliant the the functioning of this

[1:54:21] government, the coexistence that we have with each other is totally reliant on us

[1:54:26] believing the applicant that they will abide by the conditions of the permit

[1:54:30] that we grant. And so you can understand our trepidation

[1:54:36] under three unobyed stop work orders. Why this

[1:54:42] brings up the the the entire certainty of our special use process of

[1:54:48] our of our conditional use process. And so I appreciate you be being willing to

[1:54:54] to state today that we can call you and that you will abide by any sort of of of

[1:55:01] condition that we put into this particular permits cuz that's that's the

[1:55:08] this is a house of this a house that we're building here. If we pull out the

[1:55:12] foundation, which is this special use process, this this this conditional use

[1:55:17] permit that he grants, we are going to have to completely rework the way that

[1:55:21] we do land use in in in Weld County. And so, it's it's predicated on us being

[1:55:26] able to trust one another and be confident that our applicants will do

[1:55:30] the right thing. >> I completely respect that and I do not

[1:55:33] want to have you redo the foundation. I would say the following. I would also

[1:55:40] appreciate if there's a need for me to call you that we can pick up the phone

[1:55:44] and have a conversation. >> Is that fair?

[1:55:46] » We'll exchange cards. >> That way you can say his name correctly.

[1:55:54] » You can call me Scott. You My middle name's Kent, last name's James. Arrange

[1:55:58] him how you want. >> I I respect all that, but don't mean for

[1:56:03] you folks to have to do anything different than what you're doing.

[1:56:07] uh you went out and put criteria in place. We respect the criteria. We

[1:56:12] didn't come forth and say we started, we're not going to abide. We took all

[1:56:16] the criteria and we respected it and we built that way and designed that way. So

[1:56:20] you will not find, as you heard from the um commission, you will not find any

[1:56:25] violation in how we built this thing. >> Thank you. Thank you,

[1:56:29] » Mr. Please. Commissioner Ross, >> just a few questions is for my own. I'm

[1:56:35] a curious guy. Talk to me about the racks themselves. Are they like on sound

[1:56:40] dampening systems? I mean, sound seems to be this big thing here. And you

[1:56:45] showed a great picture of existing racks at your New York facility, but you

[1:56:49] really didn't elaborate on them. And I know there's probably some secret info

[1:56:53] or sauce out there you can't share, but kind of walk me through general so that

[1:56:57] I understand the facility you're being built in or going to build in uh should

[1:57:02] we approve this, how that looks, right? and what mitigating stuff you're taking

[1:57:06] inside the building to to dampen those types of sounds.

[1:57:10] » So, this whole sound work is not only on the

[1:57:14] outside, but it's on the inside. >> Can I do a you know, uh do you mind if

[1:57:18] we just put the picture? >> No, that'd be helpful. Thank you.

[1:57:21] » Appreciate that. >> I think it's helpful because this it is

[1:57:23] new innovation. >> Yeah.

[1:57:25] » I probably can't bring that up, but somebody will help me.

[1:57:28] » I think I'll help you out.

[1:57:41] Thank you. >> So

[1:57:45] assuming this could I do that? >> No, you're good. There we go.

[1:57:51] » So the rack structure is each one of those vertical boxes that you see. If

[1:57:57] » I could get you a little bit more on mic. Thank you.

[1:57:59] » Okay. So the rack structure, each one of those vertical boxes that you see there,

[1:58:04] some of those racks hold storage equipment,

[1:58:09] data storage. Most of the racks hold the actual compute equipment, which is a

[1:58:15] combination of GPUs and CPUs. The racks on average today weigh over

[1:58:21] 4,000 lbs. Remember my comment about the structural

[1:58:25] integrity of the building? Perfect. we don't have to worry about

[1:58:30] falling through the floor. The way they're built and you see all

[1:58:35] that yellow, that's all the fiber cable connecting those racks. If you were to

[1:58:40] come to that site, which will be different at this site underneath those

[1:58:45] racks, all the electric and all the chilled water plumbing are underneath

[1:58:50] those racks. They connect down from the top down into the floor. In this case,

[1:58:57] in this facility, all of that is coming overhead and drops

[1:59:02] down cuz we're not on raised floor. So, each one of those units, think about

[1:59:08] 4,000 lbs. Each one of those units, as you build

[1:59:12] them out, have all their own dedicated chilled water connecting, all their own

[1:59:16] dedicated electrical connecting, and all of that is part of the closed loop

[1:59:22] system. So that water is running in that compute back out to those chillers and

[1:59:27] back home 24/7. The reason you need the cooling is the

[1:59:34] systems run hot for performance reasons. So the manufacturer and they've done a

[1:59:40] fantastic job of design. This is a massive heat exchanger in each one of

[1:59:45] those racks. They run cooling in those racks. our

[1:59:51] water comes up next to it like a heat exchange and make sure the water inside

[1:59:55] the rack stays at a constant temperature. So a single rack is one

[2:00:00] point. You put many racks together in order to provide the compute power you

[2:00:05] need. Another point I'll make and Commissioner Max may have confused you

[2:00:10] when I use the word tenant. In that case, I describe a tenant as a

[2:00:15] customer of that hardware. Don't assume we're going to have three tenants in

[2:00:19] that building. We are the landlord. We're the operator, designer, operator,

[2:00:24] landlord. There's no tenant in the house. They happen to use equipment,

[2:00:29] hardware, and it happens to be as part of our customer relationship. They've

[2:00:34] reserved four racks, five racks, 20 racks, and run their applications on our

[2:00:39] hardware. We provide all of the hardware, all the power, all the cooling

[2:00:44] for those racks to operate the way they are designed.

[2:00:47] We have to have enormous amounts of data transfer. As you can imagine, all of

[2:00:51] that's well in place given the facility had that capability and we're bringing

[2:00:56] higher amounts of data transmission onto the campus right now.

[2:01:03] » Additional question, you've mentioned it and you just mentioned it again. This

[2:01:06] facility is optimal for that. This existing facility that's been sitting

[2:01:12] dormant for some time. What makes it optimal? what what about this existing

[2:01:16] facility makes it optimal for this? >> So, there's a couple of points. Number

[2:01:20] one, the structural integrity of the building given the weights I just

[2:01:25] described, it's fantastic. The location of the building, someone

[2:01:30] asked me in the last meeting about what's attractive about being in Weld

[2:01:33] County and our line of work, data speed is enormous.

[2:01:38] Having a facility in the middle of the country, just like those who figured it

[2:01:41] out 40, 50 years ago, that's a great place to have all of the logistics

[2:01:45] locations. Latency is big in our business. So, when

[2:01:49] we can transmit data from here, north, south, east, and west in a very great

[2:01:55] coverage model of this part of the country, that's another reason that this

[2:01:59] location is extremely important to us. We've got the East Coast covered with

[2:02:03] the New York facility. I mentioned about a couple of other locations. I won't

[2:02:08] tell you where they are, but you can imagine we're geographically moving

[2:02:10] around the country. This is a perfect location for us from a data latency

[2:02:15] standpoint. Extremely important. Another point, third point is the way the

[2:02:20] building's laid out. Commissioner Ross, we have this first phase and the

[2:02:26] building layout does allow us to think about future phases without having to go

[2:02:30] to another building. The other key thing that I continue to

[2:02:34] feel st so strong about, we're not taking away any of the land. We still

[2:02:39] lease the land on our south campus to the local farmer for 10 bucks a year.

[2:02:45] We're not touching that. So as we build out the center and what we're doing in

[2:02:51] that building that's talked about in the map, it's ideal for those structural

[2:02:58] layout data latency location wise perfect for us.

[2:03:06] » Additional questions for uh the applicant.

[2:03:12] » Thank you. Thank you. Additional questions for staff.

[2:03:19] I I I got one, please. Since the uh applicant uh withdrew their appeal uh a

[2:03:26] few weeks ago, has there been any construction activities that our team

[2:03:30] has monitored since that time since it got brought up uh uh earlier?

[2:03:36] » Thank you, Commissioner, for your question. Uh we have sent out our chief

[2:03:40] building official on routine inspections over these last handful of weeks. uh and

[2:03:44] we have not witnessed any other uh new or additional construction activity.

[2:03:50] » Thank you.

[2:03:56] » Chair, >> please.

[2:03:58] » Um to staff and I'm not sure who all needs to be included on this discussion

[2:04:03] back about the decommissioning again. Uh the applicant brought up that ID brought

[2:04:07] it up before. There wasn't an appetite for it then. I wonder if the board is

[2:04:11] interested in having uh that as some sort of condition today or um

[2:04:17] discussion at all with this particular applicant.

[2:04:21] » Um I am interested in that, Commissioner Pepler. I I appreciate uh the

[2:04:25] applicant's willingness to to offer uh a decommissioning bond and and and plan

[2:04:30] and that is something that I would like to pursue as a uh conditional uh as a

[2:04:35] condition that we would add to this particular permit. That's two. Yes. C

[2:04:40] » can I ask a question? What are we asking them to to guarantee? We already have a

[2:04:45] vacant building. >> Are you suggesting the building itself

[2:04:50] or the materials that they're putting inside? What What are you looking at so

[2:04:56] I get a I guess fuller understanding before I can provide any type of answer

[2:05:00] there? >> My comment or Lynette, go ahead. I just

[2:05:04] my concern for one is anything that would be hazardous. Um any electronics

[2:05:09] that may have outlived their usefulness, anything that would be detrimental to a

[2:05:15] future user of the building, not the building itself, not upgrade to electric

[2:05:20] infrastructure, those type of things that could be benefit to a future user.

[2:05:26] » And that would be mine as well. Contents. I I the building is as the

[2:05:30] building was when you found it. Uh what we would what we ask with oil and gas

[2:05:33] when we ask for decommissioning is that they return the land to the way that

[2:05:36] they found it. We would ask that you return the property to the way that you

[2:05:39] found it is is would be my my thought. >> Yeah. And I just to tag on to it, I say

[2:05:43] yes as well for that. Uh not just the interior things, but we are having the

[2:05:48] applicant propose a few exterior items as well. So there is that to consider

[2:05:52] along with just the amount of fuel that's going to be on site. And so I

[2:05:56] would want any of those type of things to be taken care of in any sort of

[2:05:59] decommissioning plan. Um, I thought I saw 22,000 gallons of fuel stored on

[2:06:03] site if I'm correct in that number is. So, uh, those are things that I would

[2:06:08] look to be included. >> If Can I ask a question to that though

[2:06:12] because >> some of those comments are very broad.

[2:06:15] If they're doing upgrades to the electrical service coming in, are you

[2:06:18] asking them to deescalate those upgrades because

[2:06:22] » that would be uh that would be that would be destructive.

[2:06:25] » Yeah. Yeah. No.

[2:06:29] um just return the building to uh uh the state that a a the next tenant could use

[2:06:36] it, I guess, would be would be my thought.

[2:06:40] » How do you how do you uh >> I'm just spitballing here. I'm not

[2:06:46] against what you guys are saying. It feels a little more complicated than a

[2:06:52] » It's more complicated than the green. It's more complicated the green field,

[2:06:55] which is the element of >> comp. And I'm not trying to say no to

[2:06:58] it. I'm trying to get to a yes to what you guys are saying. Um

[2:07:04] I I agree on the fuel, right? I agree on hazardous metals or or heavy metals that

[2:07:10] may be on site um upgrades. I'm just this is a different this is a different

[2:07:17] path than this board has gone down before because it's not Greenfield as

[2:07:21] you're saying, Mr. Chair.

[2:07:27] Uh thank you commissioner for your uh question or comment. Probably my only

[2:07:32] suggestion would be to not kind of navigate a decommissioning bond and

[2:07:36] language on the fly. Give us some time to work on that with the applicant and

[2:07:40] propose some language back to you all as part of the process.

[2:07:48] » Please commission. Um, I'm going to ask the applicant, um, since you brought it

[2:07:52] up today, did you have anything in mind already? Have you had one at your other

[2:07:57] facility in New York, is there some sort of example that you would recommend?

[2:08:01] » Thank you for the question. We don't have an example. I was merely putting it

[2:08:04] out there as an acknowledgement that it was raised. I know it had been a

[2:08:09] concern. Um, it's new territory. uh you know uh and you know again reinforcing

[2:08:16] the point it's expensive equipment in the building um we're going to be you

[2:08:22] know disposing of it properly at the at the appropriate time which we hope is

[2:08:28] years and years from now but um and that's my assumption certainly I I I

[2:08:33] mean there is value in the equipment that's put in there of course you're as

[2:08:36] a business process you would do that but uh uh we have seen things people just

[2:08:41] walk way and I guess that is the concern.

[2:08:44] » Yeah. >> Been happy to work with your staff with

[2:08:47] your county attorney on some language. >> Please, Commissioner Maxi.

[2:08:54] » Thank you. Uh Mr. Foster, while you're while you're up, um I go back to just a

[2:08:58] prior discussion about, you know, the where we're at today and the confidence.

[2:09:04] Um, and so I think uh, one of the things that we we need to ask and we need to

[2:09:08] make sure we have on record is the awareness from the applicants side that

[2:09:14] not knowing how this will shake out today, but if it does move forward and

[2:09:19] if this board grants approval that that does not constitute a go forth and

[2:09:25] prosper um, tomorrow. There's there's certain conditions there are other

[2:09:30] things that that might be attached to this that need to be performed first

[2:09:33] before work should begin again. Uh is that acknowledged by the applicant as

[2:09:39] far as that this stop work is going to not proceed any further until we get

[2:09:44] this thing permitted and finalized if the vote today is in that direction.

[2:09:49] » Um so I'm I'm curious if if there's something um in particular you're you're

[2:09:55] referencing. Again, happy to work in good faith

[2:09:58] » with your staff if there is language around kind of a decommissioning

[2:10:03] um bond, but if you were to approve the USR today um giving us an entitlement

[2:10:11] for that use um what what I and not to be um uh difficult but no I

[2:10:22] have answer why would we not uh resume uh construction um once we've received

[2:10:29] building permits. >> Sure. So my my answer if I can

[2:10:32] » please >> since I was the one who asked the

[2:10:34] question uh and then I'll >> So it was rhetorical.

[2:10:36] » Huh. >> Um my answer Mr. Foster would be along

[2:10:42] the lines of I understand your your prior points about certain things were

[2:10:48] potentially allowed through the planning and zoning and building department. uh

[2:10:52] full-blown building permits were not one of those things. My understanding is

[2:10:57] that some of those permits that were allowed at that time were simply just to

[2:11:00] perform some some upkeep and maintenance type of things. Those are not full-blown

[2:11:05] building permits to go out and let's say construct a generator pad with chillers

[2:11:08] out there. That is not a part of what has been approved right now. So those

[2:11:12] permits would have to get evaluated and approved. Your your company would or

[2:11:16] your your um client's company would have to submit plans for that. uh if we put

[2:11:20] in um stipulations uh based on uh a decommissioning plan um that would have

[2:11:26] to be submitted and approved as part of this permit prior to being able to move

[2:11:30] forward. So when I say conditions of approval, there could be a few things

[2:11:33] like that that might need to get rectified first or evaluated first and

[2:11:37] given a thumbs up before you can just go back out there and start construction

[2:11:40] again. And I just want to be sure we're on the same page that if this is

[2:11:44] approved today, hypothetically, that tomorrow we wouldn't start seeing or or

[2:11:48] Monday that those things will get taken care of. That's that's my point.

[2:11:51] » Commissioner, um I didn't fully understand your question, so let me

[2:11:54] answer um more clearly. Okay. >> Uh there will be no construction on our

[2:11:59] site without approved building permits. It's my understanding that we have

[2:12:05] submitted all building permits to the county that are uh under review. Some of

[2:12:12] them have frankly just been waiting for a check the box of a zoning approval, a

[2:12:19] USR approval. Uh and so those could be issued relatively quickly. And so um you

[2:12:26] know getting out onto the site soon is again if full disclosure is a goal,

[2:12:31] right? um but not without permits. >> Um so I I will um endeavor to and and if

[2:12:39] there is a condition around a decommissioning, can we acknowledge that

[2:12:43] a decommissioning is maybe a little bit further off than the issuance of

[2:12:48] building permits. Um and we would again in good faith work with your staff in

[2:12:54] putting together that language. Um that works. Um and and you have my uh

[2:13:00] assurance, you have my client's assurance that we will do that um post

[2:13:04] haste. >> To that end, um and let me ask staff, we

[2:13:09] uh condition uh simpler approvals all the time on things like this on a road

[2:13:13] maintenance agreement or or something like that. Tell me how that I I mean,

[2:13:18] bear in contrast for me uh David and Angela. How would we move forward with

[2:13:23] this type of condition? The USR must be perfected. And I'm assuming we would not

[2:13:27] perfect the USR until the condition of approval is met.

[2:13:30] » Yeah, we would we would add this in as a 1C. That would be prior to recording the

[2:13:36] map. We would want a decommissioning plan and the letter of credit or bond or

[2:13:42] whatever it might be to be approved by the board before we record the final

[2:13:47] map, which would then be trigger the approve release of the building permits,

[2:13:51] that kind of thing. It would go in that order.

[2:13:54] the decommissioning uh bonds do come before you. The

[2:14:00] decommissioning plans come before you and so you would have a chance to review

[2:14:03] it >> um you know at that normal

[2:14:06] » and we vote on that to public meeting >> and again going back to my point I mean

[2:14:10] that takes time. >> Yes. And so just to drive that home,

[2:14:14] that's why I asked that question as far as the conditions would need to be

[2:14:17] satisfied prior to being able to actually go out there and move forward

[2:14:20] that I mean from the insurance world,

[2:14:26] we're creating something here now. You got to find a bond market to handle

[2:14:30] that. >> I I'm just saying there's challenges

[2:14:35] here. It's not as simple as we're making it sound right here. And that's what I

[2:14:40] was trying to communicate earlier. I'm I'm not opposed to this. We have to

[2:14:46] figure out if this is the route we're going, which you guys are indicating

[2:14:49] that's what you want to do. And I'm not advocating against it, but I'm also

[2:14:53] saying how, right? I This isn't

[2:15:00] I appreciate what we're saying. >> It's complicated.

[2:15:04] » It's complicated. Please u let me offer up a suggestion.

[2:15:10] uh bird in my ear. Um two things, one would be putting a date upon which an

[2:15:17] agreement is reached in terms of that security um or we will be in violation

[2:15:22] of the USR. So, it gives us the opportunity to continue to move forward

[2:15:27] building permits, construction, um, while we're negotiating with your, uh,

[2:15:33] staff on what that language for an appropriate bond or decommissioning

[2:15:40] would look like. >> Well, and it dons on me that not only is

[2:15:43] the bond an availability, it's an irrevocable irrevocable letter of credit

[2:15:49] as well, is it not? is is something that we take in security for decommissioning

[2:15:54] plants all the time. >> Yes.

[2:15:56] » Yes. Okay. So, there's more than one option from a

[2:16:00] standpoint. >> There is and that's actually a good

[2:16:01] point to bring in. >> Financial security.

[2:16:06] » Um this brings us to the one remaining

[2:16:09] stickler for me uh applicants and and staff as well. Angela, I'm not going to

[2:16:14] ask the pointed question again. If Mr. Foster and the applicant have offered

[2:16:19] that they're willing to abide by uh 215416C.

[2:16:23] Uh I think that is a a sound route. I'm assuming that that

[2:16:29] becomes a development standard. >> Yes, the development standard right now

[2:16:35] that addresses the noise >> is four. I believe

[2:16:39] » four. >> It's number four. And so we would just

[2:16:42] need to modify that.

[2:16:46] So instead of stating that that it couldn't exceed the ambient level,

[2:16:50] we would just need to reference 21 >> 516C.

[2:16:57] That's the oil and gas one, right? >> Mhm.

[2:16:59] » Mhm. Oh,

[2:17:04] » or do we leave it as is because it mirrors the oil and gas?

[2:17:07] As I'm reading it, I mean, I circled this to have a a discussion on on the

[2:17:11] development standard number four, Angela, because as I'm reading it, um,

[2:17:15] even though maybe in the code it's a little ambiguous, you do say does not

[2:17:20] exceed the ambient noise level. So, it says it in the development standard. So,

[2:17:24] in in essence, it's incorporating it. >> So, the development standard reflects

[2:17:29] this particular code is what you're saying.

[2:17:31] » My my opinion, it does. However, I would I would uh not be one to necessarily um

[2:17:37] be in favor of the rest of that sentence which says shall implement additional

[2:17:43] mitigation if monitoring shows an exceedence attributable to the facility

[2:17:48] because the exceeding we're saying that they have they cannot exceed the ambient

[2:17:51] noise level and by saying the rest of that sentence you're saying they can

[2:17:54] exceed it but then they'd have to implement additional mitigation

[2:17:57] standards >> and I would not be in favor of that. I

[2:17:59] would say no just up to ambient is it >> find that's fine

[2:18:05] » the ambient that's been recorded. >> So in development standard 4 the last

[2:18:10] comma just strike everything after that comma is what you're saying

[2:18:13] » we're baseline ambient C weighted noise just strike the rest

[2:18:17] » and we might need to reference the noise plan in there because that is what shows

[2:18:20] the ambient noise levels but there it's the ambient noise level has been fully

[2:18:26] » I guess documented. Thank you for that. Um and so that exceedence should not be

[2:18:31] allowed my opinion

[2:18:34] » but okay I'm asking for clarification. >> Yeah

[2:18:38] » we saw variations in the ambient level. If you take that southeast corner like I

[2:18:42] brought up before it recorded between 80 to 100 dbc I believe right which one are

[2:18:49] we referring to? That's the reason I asked about

[2:18:53] » that's why your oil and gas one seems to apply more directly to it. And that's

[2:19:01] why I'm just I'm asking if it's not more appropriate.

[2:19:06] The the oil and gas one though uh 215416 C3 talks about no exceedence over the

[2:19:13] documented ambient. Yep. >> And in the case of the slide that was

[2:19:17] shown from staff where it's you have numbers in parentheses. I would ignore

[2:19:21] those. I would I would say the number that is that is that's why I asked um

[2:19:25] are you taking the more conservative number on this and you said yes. That

[2:19:29] more conservative number if it was 80 to 100 and you put 80 on there 80 is what

[2:19:34] would be the documented level that I'm referencing.

[2:19:38] Does that make sense? >> Yeah. And I guess they can prove

[2:19:42] throughout their sound stuff whether it's them attributing it or outside

[2:19:46] source attributing it. Correct. >> I Yes. I'm I'm saying yes for my

[2:19:52] » I can agree I can agree to this as you're saying I'm just making sure I

[2:19:55] understand and clear. >> And there's other points along that

[2:19:57] diagram that have different levels. One of them was like 73 or something like

[2:20:01] that. Well, that would be the level at that.

[2:20:03] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[2:20:05] » And I'm just spitballing here, but that's kind of my where my mind is

[2:20:07] going. So I wanted clarification. Stop at the comma or refer it to the oil and

[2:20:14] gas. >> No, stop at the comma is what?

[2:20:16] » Stop at the comma. Okay. >> Standards or standards. Noise standards.

[2:20:23] » Angela has something please. Angela, >> if I may, the the code has a definition

[2:20:30] of ambient noise level and that um says to use the conservative lower number.

[2:20:36] So >> we have we have backup in the code for

[2:20:39] that. >> Well, then that keeps us in precedent.

[2:20:41] » Yes. And and also further um supporting this move is that um there's a state

[2:20:46] statute that says that all sound level measurements need to take into account

[2:20:49] the ambient noise level. So anytime we're doing measurements that's probably

[2:20:54] I guess I should read it in what it really says. In all sound level

[2:20:57] measurements, consideration shall be given to the effect of the ambient noise

[2:21:00] level created by the encompassing noise of the environment from all sources at

[2:21:04] the time and place of such sound level measurement. So

[2:21:10] using an ambient noise level is is at least supported by

[2:21:15] state statute even if we don't have a specific measure in our own code.

[2:21:22] Do you believe that if we were to stop it at the comma and delete the rest of

[2:21:27] that that that would include what we are talking about here?

[2:21:31] » Yes. Because you know if if they are in violation of any of their development

[2:21:36] standards, they would have to come into compliance with the de development

[2:21:39] standard. >> Okay.

[2:21:42] » So the idea that they might have to add mitigation if something's wrong goes

[2:21:46] without saying. >> Okay.

[2:21:48] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:21:52] » Additional comments or questions for staff, please.

[2:21:59] » Go ahead, Commissioner Max. >> Well, I just there's a couple other that

[2:22:02] the applicants said that they would be okay with including and so Angela, I

[2:22:05] would think you and David probably wrote these down as well, but they committed

[2:22:08] to having ongoing noise monitoring. >> Um, I just for again sake of discussion,

[2:22:14] I'm don't know what that means. Is that 24/7 forever until they're not there

[2:22:20] anymore or is this going to be until they prove that this does not surpass

[2:22:26] any noise regulations? So, there's that question to consider. Um, and then they

[2:22:30] also talked about they'd be okay to a closed loop stipulation. So, I'm just

[2:22:33] bringing these up because these would if we agreed to them, they would be needing

[2:22:38] to be included into the development standards. Correct.

[2:22:40] » So, do you have language um that you're thinking about to propose for those?

[2:22:44] Yes, you could you could put a development standard that says that the

[2:22:48] noise will be monitored on site. We have had that on other sites, usually our

[2:22:52] mines or bash plants, something like that.

[2:22:55] » Uh and we don't review the records regularly, but if we get a complaint, we

[2:23:01] have been able to go to those operators and say, you know, show me your records.

[2:23:07] And so it does help us.

[2:23:12] » Mr. Katigan. >> Katigan.

[2:23:15] » Kat Katigan. >> Let's get closer.

[2:23:17] » Remember Paddington Bear struggling? >> Oh, now I won't forget.

[2:23:22] » That's me. >> Pattington.

[2:23:26] » You had made a a comment in your opening presentation that you have on your other

[2:23:30] location this type of noise monitoring and you have the ability to make that

[2:23:35] monitoring forward facing. I >> I want to be very clear, sir. Okay.

[2:23:39] » The monitoring we have is here at this facility.

[2:23:42] » Okay. We do not have it in the New York facility.

[2:23:44] » Okay. >> There's no stipulation that we would

[2:23:46] deed it. >> So, we do not have it. We bought this

[2:23:50] equipment specifically because of the noise

[2:23:54] standard and we were anticipating the ambient discussion. And when you all

[2:24:00] have a moment to come take a look at this equipment and what it can do, I

[2:24:04] welcome you to visit because in some of the noise discussions I'm sure you have

[2:24:08] in other applications, this equipment is extremely technically sound. The

[2:24:14] stipulation to monitor, we're going to monitor and set clip levels. So if we

[2:24:18] see a rise getting close to the limit point, we'll know immediately. It'll

[2:24:23] send an alarm to your phone. I don't want to send it to your phone, but it'll

[2:24:28] send an alarm to your phone and it will say station 4 above noise set point.

[2:24:33] That's how good this stuff is. Just in in full disclosure, here's where

[2:24:38] my head goes. The comments that I've heard largely from the public both today

[2:24:42] and in in written comment are concerns about uh uh power, water, and noise. My

[2:24:47] concern with waters is is addressed especially if we make a closed loop

[2:24:52] system which you said you're willing to do a development standard which I would

[2:24:55] be a proponent of. Um uh power is the other conversation I've heard. Uh the

[2:25:01] the Buddha Valley Rea will serve letter for all its u uh all its constrnation as

[2:25:07] your attorney pointed out is is a private matter and uh I am satisfied by

[2:25:12] that. So then my next biggest concern and the thing that I've heard the most

[2:25:15] about from public comment and and and email comments is is the noise standard.

[2:25:20] And so I am getting confident that the noise standard can be uh complied with.

[2:25:26] But I would like that a forward- facing application. Is there something that via

[2:25:32] the website, most likely processed by a data center, ironically,

[2:25:37] um that the public can look at the at the readings on this particular site?

[2:25:42] » Let me let me take that into consideration on the access points and

[2:25:47] certainly want to make sure you're comfortable with how we release that

[2:25:51] » before we do it. I don't initially know that we'd have an

[2:25:55] issue with it, but it will trip some of the noise that the neighbors are

[2:26:00] creating. So, it could be something that people come and say, "What's going on on

[2:26:05] the east side of the complex?" >> Sure.

[2:26:07] » Right. And it very well could be deemed out that it's something that tripped. It

[2:26:11] is off site. I I understand that. We see that all the time that it's it's that

[2:26:16] alarm went off but we can prove fairly easily that it was not necessarily the

[2:26:20] response of uh the responsibility rather of of the particular site that we're

[2:26:25] monitoring. So it could be the case here as well but uh looking for that public

[2:26:30] certainty I I guess that is is something that I would be curious about. Okay.

[2:26:35] » I owe you a followup. >> I I don't agree with that. Okay. I think

[2:26:39] uh the monitoring is their complaint gets arisen then it's their burden of

[2:26:46] proof to show it was theirs or not but to have a continual outward facing deal

[2:26:51] I I I I'm not in agreement with that Mr. J

[2:26:54] » I understand the trepidation >> I am looking for a certain amount of

[2:26:58] public certainty yes >> u Mr. Chair, I was just uh seeing that

[2:27:02] uh legal was um intending to um say something here it looked like to address

[2:27:09] that.

[2:27:12] » I I have um done a outward facing uh noise. Um it is uh you know I think that

[2:27:21] there are some parameters that you'd want to maybe ensure around it and maybe

[2:27:25] it's outward facing to the county um but not necessarily

[2:27:28] » I'd be agreeable to that. >> Yeah. So the county can see it but it it

[2:27:32] doesn't have to be for you know full public uh exposure.

[2:27:36] » I would be agreeable to that. >> I'd be grateful to that. Sounds like a

[2:27:40] good middle.

[2:27:44] » Hey board thoughts on uh how we move forward here? Mr. taxi.

[2:27:48] » Well, I'm just I'm I I hear what you said a second ago. Um I thought I heard

[2:27:54] at one point that PVRA was in the audience

[2:27:58] and if the board would entertain having somebody just come up and if the experts

[2:28:03] in the room and we just get it it on the record for what they submitted as part

[2:28:08] of their will serve, I don't think that'd be a bad idea.

[2:28:17] Hey, PTRE.

[2:28:22] What's that? >> Thank you, sir. Uh, your name and

[2:28:26] address for the record if you'd be so kind.

[2:28:27] » Yeah. Um, John Bowerfind and uh 7649 Rea Parkway when

[2:28:35] » by no means, sir, do I want to try to get you in any sort of legal issues. So,

[2:28:39] whatever you cannot say due to pending litigation, I understand. But if you're

[2:28:43] here, that's you've been one of the biggest points of conversation today. I

[2:28:46] didn't know if you had anything you wanted to add to the conversation as far

[2:28:49] as addressing any of the of the concern or addressing uh the fact that you

[2:28:53] operate within a designated service territory and and you know the the need

[2:28:57] to provide power as part of just baked into your company or anything like that.

[2:29:01] » Well, sure. There's um there's been a lot of armchair experts

[2:29:07] uh today with power grid and I'm probably the only one in the room that

[2:29:11] works for a utility. So there's probably some things that need to uh be cleared

[2:29:16] up. Um

[2:29:19] there was a willer letter provided. It was on February 27th.

[2:29:26] A different letter had been referenced several times today. That was not a

[2:29:30] Wilson letter. That was an availability of power letter

[2:29:35] which provided global AI the capacity that Pter Valley had available to serve

[2:29:44] them over the next several years. So um the will serve letter was a standard

[2:29:50] letter that's been utilized for years for projects never had a issue in the

[2:29:56] past for uh what was um submitted. Um there's certainly been some questions

[2:30:05] about reliability as well on the grid. I I heard many many

[2:30:09] here are served by Excel Energy not Pter Valley. Um, Puda Valley is not Excel

[2:30:16] Energy. We we we're we we have different standards that we operate by. We have

[2:30:21] the lowest rates in the state. We have some of the highest reliability as well.

[2:30:27] We have not experienced blackouts um and brown outs and uh um

[2:30:34] resiliency issues. Um

[2:30:41] we we we we we take that very important at Pter Valley when large loads want to

[2:30:47] come on the system to do the transmission studies to make sure that

[2:30:53] adequate power is available and at this site we have performed those studies and

[2:31:01] power will not be um for existing members of Pter

[2:31:08] operating their facilities at their levels. There's going to be no change in

[2:31:13] service for them by the addition of global AI. Um

[2:31:20] the there there there is limited capacity over the next few years which

[2:31:26] is why we see the availability dropping over the next few years until system

[2:31:32] upgrades can be built. Global AI has accepted those and they will work within

[2:31:38] those constraints. Um, one of the really founding

[2:31:44] philosophies for Pter Valley which helps us keep our rates the lowest in the

[2:31:50] state is new load pays its own way. Once they pay the way to get hooked up

[2:31:58] to the system, they can enjoy the same low rates that everybody else does, but

[2:32:04] to get hooked to the system, that's not going to be on the backs of all of our

[2:32:08] members. That that that's on them and they will need to incur any costs um

[2:32:14] that do incur in the future or hooking up any loads. I I can't address too much

[2:32:21] the area of the private agreements. Huda Valley will supply the power to their

[2:32:27] electrical meter which I heard reference is in their C33 building. We have

[2:32:32] existing meters. We'll be able to supply what was in the availability of power

[2:32:38] letter to them um uh o over the next few years. What they do with it that's

[2:32:44] that's between them and whatever other parties

[2:32:48] are involved with um getting it to their facility from C33.

[2:32:55] um be happy to take any specific questions

[2:32:59] that you have >> about the grid.

[2:33:01] » I just want to thank you for addressing it.

[2:33:04] » Good. >> Very complete for me.

[2:33:07] » Additional questions, Commissioner Max? >> No additional question. I appreciate you

[2:33:10] kind of giving just a a broad answer to that and and certainty and and um a

[2:33:14] little bit of clarity to the different letters that we received. But I do just

[2:33:17] want to key on key in on one point. Repeat what you said as far as um the

[2:33:22] any sort of new infrastructure or electrical upgrades that any any uh

[2:33:27] potential uh member wants to have or to hook into PVREA is not born on the backs

[2:33:33] of existing rateayers. That infrastructure upgrade or new

[2:33:38] installation is borne by the applicant and then they get into the general rate

[2:33:42] base. Correct. >> That is correct. All right. Thank you,

[2:33:44] sir.

[2:33:48] What is the direction of the board? Uh here's chair's intention that we discuss

[2:33:52] any desired uh uh conditions of approval or development standards that we would

[2:33:57] like our staff to add. We take a 15-minute recess to give them a moment

[2:34:01] or two to draft that language. We come back and consider that language. If we

[2:34:05] make any changes to the resolution, those changes and the changes only will

[2:34:09] be open to to public comment at that time. Uh what would the board like uh

[2:34:14] our staff to consider from a language standpoint?

[2:34:20] » Uh Mr. Chair, >> please.

[2:34:22] » So I think we already are we going into page 10. Is that can

[2:34:28] we talk? >> If you want to do as what we normally do

[2:34:31] and flip through the conditions of approval and development standards, that

[2:34:34] would be probably appropriate at this time. wondering if we go ahead and

[2:34:37] debate that right now as well and then look to any potential additions and

[2:34:42] discussion about that. >> Okay. Uh let's start then with

[2:34:45] conditions of approval on page 10 uh of the resolution.

[2:34:50] » So my first Mr. Chair, >> please.

[2:34:52] » My first question, Mr. Chair, would be to our staff. Um and that would be under

[2:34:57] conditions conditions of approval 1A due to you switched seats on me. I was

[2:35:03] looking over here Desert and Angela moved. Uh conditions of conditions of

[2:35:08] approval under 1A with the new information that you presented during

[2:35:12] your testimony at the very beginning, Angela, that date needs to potentially

[2:35:16] change. Is that right? >> Yes, but also we have the agreement.

[2:35:21] » We have the agreement. So that could almost be

[2:35:25] » We don't need it anymore. >> Okay. This could be removed potentially.

[2:35:29] » Correct. >> Okay.

[2:35:31] board agreement with having that >> if we already have the agreement

[2:35:36] » struck is what it is. >> I would agree with that.

[2:35:39] » Okay. So, the letter is in hand for the

[2:35:43] record. Letter is in hand. >> Yes.

[2:35:44] » No longer needed to be a condition of approval. Okay.

[2:35:49] » Mr. Maxi, you have move. >> I see B is already on here, which is one

[2:35:52] of the things we talked about,

[2:35:56] which that does address the multiple ways that that could be secured.

[2:36:00] I don't know if that addresses Commissioner Ross's

[2:36:07] question. >> Mr. Foster, if you could, as we just

[2:36:09] kind of do this, if you would kindly come forward and say, I'm I'm assuming

[2:36:12] that you're agreeable to to the first letter being struck from the condition

[2:36:16] of approval court.

[2:36:22] » I'm good with B's thoughts on condition of approval. Be

[2:36:26] there.

[2:36:31] They're they're submitting their USR map standard. Sorry.

[2:36:35] » Well, the new >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:36:43] » I'm fine with that language.

[2:36:47] » That's fine.

[2:36:54] Yes, Mr. Fer with this language.

[2:37:04] We're looking at B. >> Yes.

[2:37:11] I This is where I would just like to maybe add within six months. um have

[2:37:18] that so that we're not debating for months what that decommissioning plan

[2:37:23] that nobody on this dis and the staff have an idea as to what that's going to

[2:37:28] look like >> and I don't want to delay

[2:37:32] uh the construction um by talking about how we're going to

[2:37:37] decommission. Um, so >> I'm good with time bound and specific. I

[2:37:43] am okay with that. I would look to staff to see if

[2:37:46] » if that is a

[2:37:50] David Angela >> within six months.

[2:37:54] » Sure. It could be a two instead of a 1 C. Could be two prior or within six

[2:38:00] months. the applicant shell 6 months of today.

[2:38:08] » That's fine. >> Therefore, once number one, which only

[2:38:12] has now the uh recording of the map, once that is done, then certain permits

[2:38:17] could potentially be released and it's not dependent on two because two would

[2:38:21] have a six-month time period. >> Correct. Just making sure I understand.

[2:38:29] » Mr. from Maxi, would you like to clarify that uh what is 1A now is uh conditioned

[2:38:35] upon that needs to be done and recorded prior to release of building permits

[2:38:40] just so there's that clarity. >> Well, I think I think number one

[2:38:43] mentions that, right? >> Sure. Yeah.

[2:38:44] » Okay. Yes.

[2:38:49] So, I think the verbiage in number one actually mentions what uh letter A is

[2:38:55] intended to do. But I do think that the red lettering that is now being

[2:38:59] formatted should be its own number. Number number two.

[2:39:17] » Yeah, it should be separate. I >> agreed.

[2:39:22] We're good. Okay. Okay. >> Thank you. development

[2:39:27] standards. We have uh talked about number four. Angela, please

[2:39:34] turn your mic up. >> One of the things we weren't sure about

[2:39:37] was whether or not you wanted the continuous noise moni monitoring. We

[2:39:41] could add that to number four or we could leave it off.

[2:39:52] We're not saying we want them to submit anything to us. It's just they would

[2:39:57] monitor it and if there's a complaint or question at any time, we would ask them

[2:40:00] for it and they would need to provide it >> and we'll make said records available to

[2:40:04] the county uh at a reasonable request. >> That that would be our intent. Yes.

[2:40:09] » I see it's not >> perfect. I I will agree with that.

[2:40:13] » I'd agree with it. I I actually think that it needs to be its own number

[2:40:16] though, but that's just a personal opinion. Um, if it's not, it's not going

[2:40:20] to >> derails it.

[2:40:23] » Uh, it does not derail it at all. Um, I do question though, I know we were

[2:40:27] considering deleting the language in blue.

[2:40:31] I would feel more confident if we even though we're saying not to exceed the

[2:40:34] ambient noise level. I would feel more confident if it was a little bit more

[2:40:37] defined to say as shown in the attached noise study or Angela the map that you

[2:40:43] showed during your presentation. If we could define where we're pointing back

[2:40:47] to to show that ambient then I would feel more comfortable.

[2:40:51] » Sure. We could say as documented by the ambient noise analysis.

[2:40:55] » That would be fine. >> Submitted with the application.

[2:40:58] » That's good. >> I'm I'm okay with that. Okay.

[2:41:03] » Good. >> Good. Good. Yeah. Good. Good.

[2:41:09] Okay.

[2:41:16] » Commissioner James, are you going to advocate to install or put something in

[2:41:19] here about a closed loop installation? >> I I would ask that that be added. Um

[2:41:24] applicant has deemed willing and and I would appreciate that certainty.

[2:41:28] So, whoever uh planning staff deems that appropriate.

[2:41:32] » 12. Just dwell if that's fine or wherever it makes most sense.

[2:41:39] David thoughts or anything?

[2:41:47] » If no preference >> don't care. Neither do I. Just put it in

[2:41:51] there. So 12 is fine. Esther

[2:42:04] system. >> I'm sure there better words that

[2:42:10] » chairman, would you mind restating for Esther so she can type that accurately

[2:42:13] into the record? >> I'm looking for direction from

[2:42:16] professional staff. >> I I want a closed loop system. Let's

[2:42:20] somehow get that in there. >> Let's let's put it in between nine and

[2:42:22] 10 just to keep we usually keep that those last two at the bottom. Okay.

[2:42:26] Okay.

[2:42:33] We can just clarify that the applicant will only build in all of their phases

[2:42:40] a closed a closed loop non-eaporative data center chilling system.

[2:42:47] » A closed loop chilled water system. Okay.

[2:42:54] encapsulates

[2:43:02] all the >> discussion that it occurred prior. Am I

[2:43:06] incorrect? >> All I had

[2:43:09] » that's all I had noted. >> That's all I had.

[2:43:11] » Can we just remove the non-eaporative? Okay.

[2:43:14] » Yeah, I think that's >> just out of curiosity, is there such

[2:43:19] thing as a closed loop evaporative system?

[2:43:22] » You have some You vest you best an engineer. So

[2:43:28] » I'm just wondering >> typically you'd say no. Logic kind of

[2:43:33] voids, right? >> But there is some level of evaporation

[2:43:37] that just could occur in the system. So putting that in as a forced element is

[2:43:42] advisable. Not 100% closed loop 100% to that statement. 100% that's the way

[2:43:48] we're going to build. And I did mention it in my opening

[2:43:52] remarks, um, the construction company we're using, you know, they have full

[2:43:58] access to the latest equipment and from a design standpoint, most efficient,

[2:44:03] quietest, exactly what we do for muffling, mufflers and sound walls and

[2:44:07] everything. So, I don't think you're going to be disappointed in what we

[2:44:10] deliver.

[2:44:15] Anything

[2:44:21] else?

[2:44:27] » Um,

[2:44:31] Mr. Poster, the next thing that we need to do according to our process is to

[2:44:35] open it up to the uh uh public for comments on the changes only. Uh, which

[2:44:41] we will do after a 10-minute bio break if we could. Uh we will return at 4:42

[2:44:46] please. >> Thank you.

[2:54:45] Okay, let's come back to order, please.

[2:54:56] Okay, Esther, our clerk to the board, has placed on the screen the uh uh very

[2:55:02] limited changes we made to the conditions of approval and development

[2:55:05] standards. Esther, if you'd scroll up a little bit, there is one change to

[2:55:10] conditions of approval, I believe. Um, the two changes we struck the one

[2:55:16] condition and added the the number two there and, uh, on down under development

[2:55:22] standards. Uh, if you would kindly scroll down, uh, we made that one change

[2:55:27] to development standard 4. Uh, we will open for public comments. Your comments

[2:55:32] can be limited only to the changes that we made. We will offer three minutes.

[2:55:37] Again, uh I'm done using the gavl today. So, please kindly keep your uh uh

[2:55:43] comments to the only changes that are made and uh you will be given three

[2:55:48] minutes to express your comments on those changes. So, this is public

[2:55:52] hearing. Chair would open the um meeting to comments from the uh public regarding

[2:55:57] USR26-0019,

[2:56:00] the changes only to the conditions of approval and development standards. Any

[2:56:04] comments from the public, please? Please.

[2:56:06] » Yes, I have a comment. Anyone else, please line up behind me.

[2:56:09] » Uh, all right. My name is John D. Mateo.

[2:56:14] Live at 689 Harvard Street. Johnston, I think we're sort of neighbors. I see

[2:56:18] you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, can you scroll up to the, uh, section about the,

[2:56:24] uh, closed loop cooling, please?

[2:56:33] This is insanely underspecified. So the the concern of the board was

[2:56:38] what? That evaporative coin would use too much water, right?

[2:56:44] Was that the concern? Is that why this was added?

[2:56:46] » I asked for a closed looped system to be added. So that's that's what was added.

[2:56:51] Thank you. >> Okay. So

[2:56:55] the applicants will only build in all of their phases a closed loop chilled water

[2:57:00] system. uh as as I think uh sorry >> to address us to address the board

[2:57:06] » the COO I believe uh I think he said that there is some evapor evaporation in

[2:57:13] in a closed loop u chilled water system and also uh questions h how much water

[2:57:20] will be used and and specifically the water is contaminated it can't be reused

[2:57:24] indefinitely can we please have some conditions about exactly how much water

[2:57:29] will be used H how how long will the water be used until it's cycled out?

[2:57:33] Because it could effectively be the same as evaporative cooling. If it's closed

[2:57:37] loop for 10 seconds and then evaporates, that's probably technically closed loop.

[2:57:42] I I think this is uh gives uh global AI uh free reign to do whatever they want.

[2:57:48] Uh because technically you you could just run it through the systems for like

[2:57:52] maybe 10 seconds and then it maybe it's cheaper for them to at that point

[2:57:56] evaporate it. uh because uh treating the water, I think they said they would

[2:58:00] privately treat the water. Uh that could be very expensive and it's a for-profit

[2:58:04] company. Maybe they'll be incentivized to uh use as much water as possible to

[2:58:10] prevent having to treat the water and there's probably legitimate concerns

[2:58:13] about running it too long in the closed loop system. The the water gets

[2:58:17] contaminated and can and they're planning on dumping it in the Puda

[2:58:20] River. That that's probably a potentially really dangerous uh uh uh

[2:58:26] option for them. May maybe they they are going to be incentivized to minimize how

[2:58:31] much it is going to uh loop before it's evaporated because if it's evaporated

[2:58:36] they don't have to treat it. So is it possible to amend this to

[2:58:40] specify exactly how much water is going to be used and how long it will be

[2:58:45] closed loop before it is allowed to evaporate.

[2:58:51] » Are those your comments sir? >> Uh I have additional question uh

[2:58:54] comments. Can you please scroll to the uh decommission section?

[2:59:05] So, it looks like I'm running out of time. If other people want to read this

[2:59:08] out and comment on it, you just have to line up behind me. This is our

[2:59:12] opportunity to get answers. >> Comments need to be addressed.

[2:59:15] » Okay, let me sorry. Let me read this. Within six months of approval, the

[2:59:18] applicant shall submit a decommissioning plan.

[2:59:21] » Your your time is up, Mr. De Mo. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:59:27] » Additional comments from the public, please.

[2:59:33] » Okay, commissioners. Um, my name is Ben Plants. I have comments on all three

[2:59:37] areas we just addressed. First off, noise. Um, what's the baseline we are

[2:59:42] using for the infrasound? Um, I don't I haven't had a chance to read through the

[2:59:48] whole packet you guys were provided, so apologies if that was already in there.

[2:59:51] But couple questions of that is first off, who paid for that study for the

[2:59:55] infrasound? Um, and are there any conflicts of interest with whoever paid

[2:59:59] for that study? Yes or no? I don't I don't need to answer right now, but

[3:00:02] think about it, right? Um, also for the monitoring thing. Um,

[3:00:08] when has it ever worked out well for the residents for big tech or big corp to

[3:00:13] self police? I don't think that is going to happen and I don't think you guys

[3:00:18] think it either. Um, I think we do need to actively monitor them. I understand

[3:00:23] your concerns with a publicly available thing that we can all log into and see

[3:00:28] all the time. That might be overkill. I'd agree with that, but I would not

[3:00:32] trust a single report coming out of them. We need to do that independently

[3:00:36] with people we trust that we pay. They represent us. Um, decommissioning. Um,

[3:00:41] the language you updated, I think first off, how will that initial value of what

[3:00:46] the bond is going to be be set? what math is going to go into that. It needs

[3:00:51] to increase over time with additional phases and that needs to be stipulated

[3:00:54] in there too. Um the bigger the environmental risk that they put on our

[3:00:59] community, the more money needs to go in that bank account in case something goes

[3:01:02] wrong. And then for water, same things John just said. They specifically took

[3:01:09] out evaporative um evaporative, right? And I'm thinking why? Couple things.

[3:01:14] Maybe they have cooling towers. Do they want to eventually be able to use them?

[3:01:18] Now, it's going to say closed loop 2, which means theoretically they can't use

[3:01:22] the cooling towers, but I don't know. I think non-eaporative should go back. Um,

[3:01:29] their CEO literally just said that there would be water losses like John pointed

[3:01:33] out. Where's that going to go? Where's that extra water going to come from? And

[3:01:37] before you sign anything, it needs to spec specifically written down, like I

[3:01:41] said in my speech earlier, exactly how much water they get, how often, and

[3:01:46] every other sort of, you know, anything else you need to um approve of that

[3:01:51] before. And then finally, the last one, the Puda River.

[3:01:56] Come on, guys. Like, are you I know in the the the planning commission, we

[3:02:00] talked about them doing water, you know, water treatment and all that.

[3:02:05] There's a lot of questions I have about us, who's watching them when it comes to

[3:02:08] their water treatment facility, where it's going, all those things. I'm not

[3:02:12] convinced that we should, any of us should feel good about the water going

[3:02:15] back in the puddter. And until we're all very clear on exactly who's going to be

[3:02:19] monitoring that water going back and that it's actually safe, how can we

[3:02:24] approve that? Thank you. >> Additional comments, please.

[3:02:33] Hi, Christina Kaufman. Greley, I've noticed I mean I taught school for 35

[3:02:38] years. I know when people aren't ready to make a decision that's a strong one.

[3:02:42] This is it. I've seen more back and forth and I know there's an urgency on

[3:02:47] the part of the AI global or global AI sorry to do this. That doesn't mean it's

[3:02:53] your emergency. >> I I hate to be heavy-handed, but I ask

[3:02:56] you keep your comments only to the changes made in the development.

[3:02:59] » Okay. Mom said decommissioning, for example, that should be in place before

[3:03:03] you sign anything. I think that should be in place. That's an important thing.

[3:03:07] The evaporative cooling is important. Uh this young lady over here brought that

[3:03:12] up and she was kind of shut down. She talked about the what's left over in the

[3:03:16] evaporation process and would go into the pter. So I think we're not ready

[3:03:21] because of the things that were just changed so quickly. We don't know what

[3:03:25] we don't know about this stuff. We're all new to it and they only have one

[3:03:29] company up, one data center up. So I think we need to slow down and I just

[3:03:35] think we need to decommission stuff that stuff the evaporative cooler. We need

[3:03:39] more information. >> Thank you. Initial comments from the

[3:03:43] public regarding the changes over please.

[3:03:52] » Hello Diana Mi again. thanks for um implementing some changes for number

[3:03:57] four that you did on there. I think you're headed in the right direction. I

[3:04:01] have a couple comments. Um I think as mentioned previously, reliance on

[3:04:06] incomplete, poorly documented data from the AI global noise impact report is a

[3:04:12] mistake to put that in as the requirement. You need an independent

[3:04:16] third-party, Weld County Health Department, somebody else doing those

[3:04:21] measurements to set the criteria for exceedence. Otherwise, you're letting

[3:04:25] them set their own bar and the bar isn't being measured properly. Um,

[3:04:32] and I do like the idea of continued monitoring. I think that's a really

[3:04:37] going to be a useful tool for complaints that will come forward. Um, and

[3:04:41] requiring them to share that with the county. I also um because I would be

[3:04:45] interested in knowing about the noise levels as a resident um I'd like to see

[3:04:50] some way that residents besides complaining would have access to that

[3:04:54] data to look at. >> I commission that's my comments on that.

[3:04:59] » Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just I want to clarify. I want to make sure I

[3:05:02] heard you correctly, ma'am. Um just so I'm following. Um, are you stating that

[3:05:09] did I hear you say that a a noise analysis by a third party?

[3:05:13] » Mhm. >> So, do you have experience with Salis

[3:05:16] O'Brien? Are they not a third party? >> I I know the company has done it. They

[3:05:20] are a third party, but they're being paid by that. And I have questions about

[3:05:24] the expertise of the consultant that did this and so did um the industrial

[3:05:29] hygienist. the the report is very confusing and it's not consistent with

[3:05:35] property lines, with levels, the ranges should be averaged. You shouldn't be

[3:05:40] getting these wild ranges of levels to have to pick one. Um, so I think there's

[3:05:46] a way to either get a tighter report, but even so, I think there's a way the

[3:05:52] county can get their own measurements for ambient noise now and use those to

[3:05:57] inform the levels that are going to be enforced.

[3:06:00] » Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Please,

[3:06:05] » Mary Lou. I just want to state that a closed loop system does evaporate. So, I

[3:06:11] feel like that that verbiage needs to be put back in there because it does

[3:06:15] evaporate. It is just like a radiator in a car. And so, same concept. Um, I also

[3:06:23] want to, if I can do this,

[3:06:28] the decisions that you guys make here today is going to set a preference for

[3:06:32] any other data center that's going to try to come to Well County,

[3:06:36] especially the one coming to Hudson, Colorado. that's also in your guys's

[3:06:41] wheelhouse. So, whatever stipulations you put here today is going to

[3:06:48] set the preference for any other data center coming to Well County. And I

[3:06:54] would just hope that you guys will not only just look at all the things that

[3:06:57] are out there, but what about the vibrations and the the constant humming?

[3:07:02] Like, have you guys visited a data center?

[3:07:04] » And I would ask that you keep your comments to the changes only, please.

[3:07:07] Um,

[3:07:10] I would just really encourage you to put strict guidelines in place regarding

[3:07:16] them, just like you have done the gas and oil industry. They have some of the

[3:07:21] strictest ones here in Well County. At least set some kind of preference that

[3:07:25] you do care about the residents and you do care about their health and their

[3:07:29] well-being and what they want. Don't just go what they're saying. have

[3:07:35] an independent company come in to test their facility to make sure they're

[3:07:39] doing what they're supposed to be doing with the water. Make sure they're

[3:07:42] disposing of it the proper way. Who is going to regulate that? Who's going to

[3:07:46] monitor it? Global AI. Like, we don't expect that out of the

[3:07:51] gas and oil industry. They have to have independent contractors come in and do

[3:07:57] all the work. And you guys put huge fines on them when they don't comply.

[3:08:02] Not hundreds of dollars a day, thousands of dollars a day when they when they're

[3:08:07] not in compliance. Hold them to the same standard. I know

[3:08:12] it's a different facility, but hold them to the same standard that you are going

[3:08:15] to hold the gas and oil companies to. Make them be responsible for what

[3:08:19] they're promising to do and and have them do what they need to do for the

[3:08:24] community. Buying a goat and a sheep that ain't helping the community.

[3:08:28] » Again, to the com to the Thank you. Additional comments from the public,

[3:08:33] please.

[3:08:41] » Just a little word smithing. Um, like right here,

[3:08:45] » if I can get your name and address for the record,

[3:08:47] » Mary Cisneros. So, if you um look at number five, it says the property owner

[3:08:51] or operator blah blah blah. >> That is not a change that's been made.

[3:08:54] Ma'am, that is not open for conversation.

[3:08:56] » No, I'm just on number five. It says

[3:09:00] » we are not debating number five. >> I Okay,

[3:09:02] » just trying to use it for reference. >> I'm giving you an example.

[3:09:06] » Okay. >> So, if you go back up there to where you

[3:09:08] have changed um

[3:09:12] Oh, something's um go back up. Let's see over here. Oh, the applicant number two

[3:09:19] item. Yeah, number two. Within six months of approval, the applicant shall

[3:09:24] sub the applicant. So to me that document should be con the

[3:09:30] uh it should be consistent throughout just

[3:09:34] like on number four where it said the property owner or

[3:09:38] uh operator because the applicant here today gone

[3:09:43] tomorrow you're holding somebody accountable that

[3:09:46] isn't that may or may not be here within that six months.

[3:09:49] » That's that's that's fair credit. Okay. >> So if you'll

[3:09:53] fix that >> understand. Thank you.

[3:10:02] » Hello, my name is Claire Goodwin. I'm at 9925 Eastman Park Drive, WSOR, Colorado.

[3:10:08] Going back to the ambient study that you referenced on August 7th. Um, I think

[3:10:13] there may have been some misinterpretation about the data.

[3:10:16] You had asked if there was a month's worth of data. They also said that they

[3:10:20] had just at this point had a month's worth of data. problem is the data that

[3:10:24] shows up in the seventh. The report from the seventh looks like it comes from

[3:10:28] work that was done on June 23rd. And in that and a June or July 2nd document, it

[3:10:34] talks about how this was a field study. And looking at the information in that

[3:10:38] looks like it's 30 to 40 minutes worth of sampling data. So it is not a 72-hour

[3:10:44] project. It looks like it was just sampling data that was taken throughout.

[3:10:47] And back to the aiologist reference, it's not um a professionally done study.

[3:10:53] It looks like somebody walked around with a noise meter and just took samples

[3:10:56] but didn't do any calibration, do didn't do any vetting. Um I agree with having a

[3:11:01] third party come in. The first solos brian report looked

[3:11:06] nice. Um I didn't really have too many comments about that, but there's

[3:11:09] subsequent uh materials have not been quality. Um going back to the fact that

[3:11:14] the documents that are available on your Asella project show them highlighting

[3:11:19] both all of global AI's property and Kodakaris's property and that's just a

[3:11:23] really big oversight to not be able to identify the property that you're

[3:11:27] creating some mitigation for. So third party complete third party maybe it's

[3:11:32] something that you know you all vet and pick that's a vendor that is um been

[3:11:36] used by the county of gley but having a third party vendor uh would be helpful

[3:11:41] and memory I'm pretty sure solace O'Brien is a contractor with Phoenix

[3:11:46] Construction because I've seen their name throughout documentation that isn't

[3:11:49] related to just noise sampling. Um going back to letting them set their own

[3:11:54] standards that feels kind of like asking my seven-year-old to tell me what her

[3:11:57] baseline cleanliness for her room is. it's going to differ from mine and what

[3:12:00] I know is achievable. So having that third party come in and give you an

[3:12:04] objective view that is not Kodak, that is not great western, that is not um

[3:12:08] global AI, I think would give you a better understanding of what is possible

[3:12:12] on that site and now would be the time to do it when they're not under

[3:12:15] construction because that really can impact um the ability to assess what's

[3:12:19] going on. So that would be my suggestion. Thank you for your time.

[3:12:23] » Thank you. >> Additional comments from the public on

[3:12:26] changes only, please, please.

[3:12:30] Amy Lynn, I just want to kind of piggyback on what has already been

[3:12:34] talked about with the um noise mitigation. And it sounds like you're up

[3:12:38] against a code that's specifying 65dB and you're looking at the public comment

[3:12:44] which is saying perhaps the studies are not as weren't as effective as they

[3:12:49] could have been and that the trust of the public is not

[3:12:54] you don't have the trust of the public with regard to the studies that have

[3:12:58] been done or how this sound issue is going to be monitored because global AI

[3:13:03] is going to be monitoring it. I would like to see more discussion if possible

[3:13:07] from the commission before the vote in order to clarify those two because they

[3:13:13] are two different issues. You have to have the trust of the public. We have to

[3:13:17] know that what they're saying is what's going to happen and we also have to know

[3:13:22] that it can be monitored by a third party. And I'm not seeing that happening

[3:13:27] here today. I'm seeing a discrepancy. I would like that to be addressed.

[3:13:34] Additional comments from the public, please.

[3:13:39] Last call. Comments from the public. Public comment is is closed. Applicant

[3:13:46] could please come forward, please.

[3:13:51] Any uh rebuttal to public comment, please.

[3:13:54] » No, we've just appreciated the fact that you've made some pretty um uh worthwhile

[3:13:59] changes to these conditions. We accept them all.

[3:14:02] uh and uh appreciate the time that uh you've taken today to hear from us and

[3:14:08] from your communities. >> I uh appreciate Mr. Foster the comments

[3:14:12] from the last commenter there about uh if we're setting an ambient noise level.

[3:14:18] Would uh uh you or your client be uh opposed to doing a baseline study uh

[3:14:26] with an independent contractor over a 72-hour period if that is what the

[3:14:29] scientific standard uh that would actually set the baseline prior to

[3:14:33] construction? I believe that's a reasonable suggestion. I I What are your

[3:14:37] thoughts about that? >> Um I I you know, if that is a condition

[3:14:40] that you're going to impose on us, we'll live by it. I mean, we've submitted now

[3:14:46] five or six different noise studies. Um, there's always going to be somebody

[3:14:51] who's going to show up and complain uh that this study wasn't done by the right

[3:14:56] um consultant doing doing it this way. I mean, the you know, folks put their

[3:15:00] signatures, professional signatures on these studies and um you know, I find

[3:15:04] that to be meaningful. Again, um if that's a good condition that you're

[3:15:08] going to impose on us, we'll live by it. >> I might be alone in my desire. Let me do

[3:15:12] a temperature check. >> I I think they've had a third party do

[3:15:15] this and the multiple studies that they've done are sufficient.

[3:15:20] » I feel they've done a sufficient job as well.

[3:15:25] » I'm good with what's been submitted. >> I'm alone in my thought. Thank you.

[3:15:30] Thank you. >> Alone in my thought.

[3:15:32] » Been alone there before. >> All right. Um seeing no more desired

[3:15:38] changes. Uh I'm sorry, Mr. Foster. I'd ask that you come forward just one more

[3:15:42] time. Uh you've had the opportunity to uh review the conditions of approval and

[3:15:46] development standards have been part of the process that's taken place today. Do

[3:15:49] you agree to uh abide by the conditions of do you and your client agree to abide

[3:15:55] by the conditions of approval and development standards set forth today?

[3:15:57] » We do. Thank you, sir. Uh that said, chair would bring it back

[3:16:01] to board for further discussion or a motion.

[3:16:07] » Okay. We haven't time to >> do we get a moment to group our

[3:16:12] » absolutely I think that is a fair request. Uh let's take 15 minute break

[3:16:17] uh so the board can gather their thoughts. Uh we will reconvene at 520

[3:16:21] please.

Sept. 9, 2026, Weld County Board of Commissioners Global AI hearing (video 2 of 3)

Transcript