[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.