City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey, Malia and Kevin, counselor Christians okay. Thank you.

Yes. I'm on.

We're just making sure you have audio. Can you hear now, Craig?

Yes. Now I've got audio. Thank you.

K. Awesome. Thank you. Alright. Next, we have a ceremony recognizing the Provo City employee of the month for February 2026.

Thank you, counsel. I'd like to invite Pearl Spencer up here with me. Pearl is one of our senior customer service representatives. In fact, she's the only one that we have, and that just means she's a more advanced level of customer service. So I just have a few things that her manager wrote about Pearl. Pearl has been with us for three years and recently stepped into that role of senior customer service representative, a well earned promotion that reflects her dedication, professionalism, and growth. This past year, she's really excelled. She became a certified notary, mastered the RPS system, which is our mail processing system, and she did it for six months

I think so.

Without a single mistake, which is unheard of. So she's incredible, incredible attention to detail. She took on additional responsibility supporting our parking collections process to the point where even our collections agency reached out and said, wow. What are you doing?

She did such a good job.

All while maintaining excite sorry. Maintaining excellent customer service. Pearl is someone who we can always count on whether she's resolving complex residents issues, supporting her coworkers, or helping with special projects. She communicates clearly even in high pressure situations and brings a calm, confident presence to the team. She also contributes to our workplace culture by practicing in team activities and city events and by creating a positive environment for those around her. Way to go, Pearl. Thanks for all you do.

All right. Next, we have a ceremony recognizing the new Sewer Treatment Plant project for receiving the APWA Utah Wastewater Project of the Year Award. This will be presented by Brian Romswell, the president of the Utah chapter of the American Public Works Association. I don't think we've met him before. Come on up.

Thank you. It's good to be with you today. It's an honor to be here and present an award. I'd like to invite others from the city to come up and and join me here to to receive this award in just a second. But I wanted to just preface this. I do have some connections to the city. One, I do like wastewater. That's why that's what I studied in my master's degree, a lot of wastewater treatment processes, and I do a little bit of that for my work now too. But two, my I found out my my mom's uncle was mayor of the city for a little while, so that's kinda cool. Viral Dixon.

Yeah. Yeah. So the outstanding wastewater project of the year, we want to jump back just a little bit. The American Public Works Association represents thousands of public works professionals across North America and actually across different countries as well throughout the world. And what do public works professionals do? Well, what when a lot of what we do is goes unnoticed. It's quiet. There's not a lot that that we we see because a lot of it's below the ground or it's off in the corner of your city. Right? The water reclamation reclamation facility is one of those examples.

But when things are functioning, life goes great. Our first responders get where they need to go. We have clean water. Our Utah Lakes remains clean, and and our environment stays clean. So, that's what public works do.

That's what all these professionals do. And so, the American Public Works Association here in Utah, our chapter, we we do, recognize a number of awards or projects throughout the year that have done an outstanding job, and we this is a really deserving project. The Provo water reclamation facility was started in 2020, completed in 2025. I believe that the new plant upgraded plant is about 16,000,000 gallons per day capacity and meets all the new, regulations for phosphorus removal and nitrogen removal, which is really awesome. That's what we get excited about as engineers, but, it's a it's an expensive endeavor to keep our environment clean too.

I other other notable things about the project, completed on time and a really great collaboration between the engineer, Waterworks Engineering, and the contractor was Alder, I believe. I just wanted to go ahead and recognize on behalf of the American Public Works Association, Utah Chapter, the project wastewater project of the year.

Jane, do you want to snap a quick picture so we can recognize we'll put this up on our web page.

Hey, Jim. Can you read a picture of them too? We'll just stand up real That

that works great.

Alright. Yeah. It's a

APWA Utah waste. Okay. No.

That that was a huge and expensive project and took years of their lives, and I'm it's it's a huge win for Provo in the sense of how we were dumping our wastewater before then. So we're grateful that people have the foresight to do that treatment plan. Alright. Next is ceremony recognizing Provo as a gold level bicycle friendly community. This will be presented by Vern Kessler, our traffic manager.

Vern didn't tell me he was on the agenda. He asked me to assist in this. Scott Henderson, chief administrative officer for Provo City. And I have the honor to announce that Provo, Utah has been elevated to gold status as a bicycle friendly community by the League of American Bicyclists. Provo is one of only two cities in Utah to carry this designation.

Provo's decades long escalation from bronze to silver and now to gold shows our city's commitment to continued progress in a balanced transportation philosophy. Speaking of commitment, a team including Bernd Kessler, Hannah Sozil, Linden Abernathy, and myself met monthly at 7AM to orchestrate a citywide effort for this extensive application process. This application stretched across all departments, and the team assembled formed a compelling and unique story of transportation diversification. The proof is in the golden result. Whether you ride a bike or not, knowing that our city is designate is designed in a thoughtful and balanced way and independently recognized for it should bring us all joy.

I'd asked Vern Kessler, transportation manager, to join me for the presentation of awards to the mayor and council. One thing we need to remember is this is Vern's Super Bowl. His passion for Provo's transportation system is undeniable, and we see that every single day. So, Vern, would you mind explaining the awards and the signs, and then we could ask you to all come down to be able to present this. Thank you.

Thank you, Scott. Really appreciate working with Scott. He really said, hey. Let's let's do this. Let's let's make this reality. And the process, we started in October 2024. The application is 92 pages long. It took us about six months. I had plenty of time reserved in there built in there, but every department had to participate in development the application. The deadline for that application was June 2025.

So we had to wait until January 2026 to hear the results. It's quite a lengthy process. To tell you about our surrounding states and where they stand in comparison, Arizona has two gold award recognitions just like Utah. Colorado has three. Idaho has two. New Mexico has zero. Nevada has zero. Wyoming, zero. And so when you start to take a look at this investment in infrastructure I love planning. Don't get me wrong.

I love building the infrastructure more, and Provo City has done that. Mayor's office, the council, all departments. This is a citywide award. And not only that, we have developed a signature that says Provo Bicycle Friendly Community Gold Award that anybody in the city can use as their tagline for their signature. So with that, we'd love to present this award both to the city council and the mayor for the League of the American Bicyclists, Bicycle Friendly Community Gold Award.

Yeah. Park City is the other city in Utah.

Alright. One

two three. Let me actually try real quick.

Alright. Now we're going to get to our regular meeting. As indicated on the screen, a required public hearing will be held for certain agenda items prior to council action. After each such item has been presented, time to comment will be provided for all those who wish to speak. For items that do not require a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item that will be limited to ten minutes.

At this time, up to fifteen minutes have been set aside for an open public comment period, which is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda, but are limited to topics regarding municipal business or with a municipal council purview. Persons who speak during this time to an item that is on the agenda will not normally be afforded a second opportunity to speak during the comment period specific to that item. During any public comment period, each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Due to noticing requirements, no formal action will be taken in this meeting on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Those with comments are invited to approach the podium.

Those participating on Zoom will need to use the raise hand feature to indicate they wish to comment. The chair may choose to alternate alternate between in person and online commenters. Please begin your comments by stating your name and the city of residence. You'll have two minutes to speak. I'd also like to acknowledge that, councilor Travis Hoban has joined us. But now is open public comment for anyone who'd like to come speak. Just need your name and your city of residence.

Good evening. My name is Dalen Flake. I'm a resident of Provo. I feel like a broken track record at this point getting up here. This is my fourth time here. I of course, you know exactly what I'm I wanna speak about already. I I wanna talk about flock safety cameras. I know there was a work meeting held earlier today about it. I've not had an opportunity to review that since it was held during the work day. Just came here straight from work.

So I just wanted to come up and, you know, express my concerns about it, of course, generally. I also wanted to make sure that I am understood that the the framing that Flock Safety and its advocates will attempt to to paint the picture in is that of a of a binary between public safety and privacy. Both can coexist at the same time. And and furthermore, I think that they there there will be an attempt to to frame this as, you know, a breakdown of discourse where people perhaps who are confused, a public citizen who doesn't understand the issue, is concerned unnecessarily about these, concerns that I've raised with, flock safety cameras. And I want to perhaps put my own framing on this issue, which is that Flock is not necessarily you know, they have their own interest in mind.

They have a financial interest. I have no financial interest in standing here. In fact, I'm losing money by not being at work. And, ultimately, this is about the fact that flock safety cameras in now well over 50 cities across the country have lost the democratic mandate and indeed never even had it in the first place as in most of these cases, they were never discussed publicly. And then the first time that they were, they came to light.

It was discovered that, in fact, the people did not want this technology in their communities. So I just wanted to frame it in that sense. Every conversation that I've had with people publicly online, just going about my daily life, everyone I've talked to has been concerned about this issue. And so I urge you to remember that you represent the people of this community and not a multibillion dollar corporation. Thank

That was really good timing.

Remind the audience that the rules of decorum do not allow a

lot There's of no things laughing or cheering or commenting.

Hi. Hey. Good to see you.

Good to see you too. My name is Bonnie Schiffler Olsen. I'm a resident of Provo. I'm here to say thank you so much for the help that you gave us to be able to pull off a really beautiful vigil for my sweet little street daughter, Kate Hoag. Just thank you. K. Thanks for letting people matter. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Rachel, for being super patient with me. You too.

So here's some jelly that I made with Kate back in October before she passed. So this is for you.

Hello. My name is Amanda Nelson. I am a resident of Provo, and I am just here representing Utah Valley refugees where I work. It's a nonprofit, and we serve refugees and immigrants in Utah County, where our mission is to help them become self reliant. And we just wanted to introduce ourselves to the council, let you know that we're here and that we're providing key services to some of your constituents who live in the city. And most of our clients live here in Provo. And we are happy and and would love to work with you and partner with you on any initiatives to help this population. Thank you. And thank you for all you do for the city. Thank you.

Any other public comment? Oh, we have one online come up, sir, and then we'll do online next.

Well, I just wanted to reiterate what

Just need just your name and where you live, please.

I'm Seth. I live in Provo.

Seth, we need your last name too.

Draper. Seth Draper. I just want

to reiterate what I didn't catch your name.

But, yeah, flock cameras, massive concern, for all of us. There's been numerous cases of, like, misidentification, and, like, wrongful arrests, and I just wanna make sure that we continue to live in such a safe and and secure city. So just wanna make sure more people are talking about it. Thank you all.

Thank you. Right. Online. You can speak. We need your name and where you live.

Yeah. My name is Vivian Flake, and I'm a resident Provo. And I would also like to talk about flock safety. I'm really concerned about the privacy aspect of flock cameras because they record information that I haven't agreed to specifically because it's accessible to law enforcement without a warrant. So that just makes me what makes me even more concerned is that federal law enforcement can give this information as well.

So I just wanna I know that you guys discussed this today, and I just wanna make sure you understand, like, there are significant security flaws with hot cameras, and they they're not always, reliable. So as a pro resident resident, I urge the city council to keep the rights and privacy of its citizens a high priority. And, and I know you guys value our rights and our and our safe and our privacy, and I just urge you to keep that in mind going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Any more public comment? Alright. We'll

sure.

Okay. We're gonna hear from captain Patrick. Now, captain, is this in response to the flock camera? Okay. Alright. So public comment is over, and we will captain Patrick will address some of the concerns that have been brought up concerning flock cameras. And this was also discussed in our in our meetings work meetings today. Go ahead, captain.

Thank you. So I'm Robert Patrick. I'm a captain with the Provo Police Department. I'm also over the flock program for the city of Provo. I also live in Provo, as does my family.

I appreciate the the mister Flake, Vivian. I'm not sure if that's a relative of yours or related to you and the other gentleman that came up and have concerns about plot flock. I I also have concerns about public safety, about private, information. For those that are listening, there's no personal identifiable information that is captured by FLAC, not anybody's name, not anybody's, telephone number, age, date of birth, biographical information. FLAC captures a picture of a of a a vehicle with a license plate, sometimes a vehicle without a license plate, which, can be very useful for law enforcement to investigate crimes that have been committed.

When our law enforcement access that program, that FLOC program, it's because a crime has been committed, and there is some type of information regarding a vehicle that has been associated with that crime. I can tell you from investigating these, these incidents that that this program has been vital in bringing serious criminal offenders to justice. Without this program, I can tell you that some of those criminal offenders would not have brought to justice. I I would invite anyone who has questions about FLAC to please contact me at the police department. I'd be more than happy to sit down with anyone and discuss those issues in person, to help educate the entirety of the community about what this program actually does and what it does not do.

And, captain, someone mentioned that the federal government can access our data. Can you please address that?

Sure. So FLAC is not accessible by any federal agencies with the exception of two or three. It was, the parks department, and, I I believe FLAC, informed what was that? Postal service. Yeah.

I think

that was one of those.

VA. Yeah.

Thank you. And the VA. Homeland Security, the FBI, the ATF, the the other three letter acronym agencies do not have access to FLAC. I can tell you that we have officers that work with agencies and that if those agencies request access to FLAC, the only reason that they would be given access to any information out of that is if our agency was investigating a criminal act that that involved our some type our jurisdiction. Having been on the major crimes task force for a number of years, we often, dealt with individuals that would be would deal with criminal acts inside of Utah as well as outside of Utah.

And in those types of cases, potentially, information could be shared. That's only because it's a pro investigation, with some type of a federal attach agent attached to it or assigned with it.

Thanks, captain. If you just wanna wait outside where people could come hit you up for an email or talk to you, that'd be great. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Alright. We're going to start our business. First, we have an implied motion on an ordinance amending Provo code regarding development standards for the year 2026. This is something we do every year. Presented by Gordon Hait.

Right. So this is an ordinance that just updates our city code that brings in a compliant with all the changes that have been made on federal documents, state documents that we have to comply to. So this this code is fairly generic, but it gets updated by all these agencies periodically. And so we're just updating our code to make that happen. So that's and the biggest change is also we now have a detail for our own water sampling station.

So if anybody has any questions on any of those items anyway, that's that whole portion of the code, if there's any question about that. And that's just an independent if you just I think we put in a spec on that or a ordinance on that just that item. K. Any questions?

Any questions for Gordon? No?

Okay. Do do you wanna vote on that now, or do we okay.

K. Alright. We're gonna open this item up for public comment first.

Yeah. I forgot.

Yeah. Any public comment on the 2026 development standards? Alright. Seeing no comment. Council discussion. Any discussion? Alright. We will have a vote. Councilor Garrett?

Yes.

Councilor McKay? Yes. Councilor Christensen, are you still with us? K. He's excused. Councilor Whitlock?

Yes.

Councilor Bogdan? Yes. Councilor Holben?

Yes.

Councilor Whipple? Yes. So that passes unanimously six o. Alright. Gordon's going to do the next item too. A resolution that made the 2026 Provo standard drawing details and 2026 Provo City Public Works department development design standards due to changes in the minimum street width requirements. Go ahead, Gordon.

Alright. So there was a lot of discussion about this in previous work meetings and in the city council last month and also again today. So I wanna just go through it fairly briefly, but bring up some points that we've talked about. So in 2018, the standard of a 25 foot pavement minimum cross section was adopted by the city, and what it required is no parking on one side of the street. One of the things that had happened through that process is this been built since 2018. About eight or nine streets have been constructed this way. And the city public works, it's kinda my responsibility, did not get the stop signs in before the homes were built. So that's something we're working

Stop signs, not stop sign.

Not stop signs. No parking signs. All the stop signs were put in each of those subdivisions. I wanna make that very clear. We're working to correct that.

And and current ones that are on the board now, we're having that done. So before anybody moves in, they know that's happening. This was a resolution or not a resolution, but a proposal that was voted on by the city council last week work meeting that we brought in that limited this 20 excuse me, 24 foot section for infill projects and hillside projects still less than the 400 ADT and approved by the fire marshal. So this was the one that was talked about, and this third one is the current one, but with the addition of the fire marshal approval and design. And this is the one staff recommends maintaining it for reasons we talked about, including just some ideas on what a 40 400 trips per day during a peak hour, that's about 40 trips in that hour.

So if you can visualize that, that's sixty minutes an hour, and you have 40 cars pass. Just kind of a a rough I can visualize it in my mind, so I'm seeing that. But, also, this allows for some flexibility when we're doing subdivisions that allow for different types of uses, people that would prefer a smaller cross section versus a larger cross section. It's not used extensively by developers, but it has come into play. I know there was some concern about parking enforcement.

I talked to to Bill just to verify this doesn't seem like it would it doesn't feel like it put an undue burden. These six extra streets are we see about every seven or eight years. And So, anyway, we vet these all with the fire department to make sure that we're meeting the right criteria when we do these things. So if there's any questions, let me know, and I'll certainly answer them. So those are the two cross sections that we have there.

Thanks, Gordon.

Okay.

Any questions for Gordon? Alright. We are gonna open this item up for public comment.

Sorry. Catherine Hall, Provo, East District. I just have a question. Are the no parking signs gonna be installed before? When will those be installed? Before the homes are sold? Or

Before the homes are installed. That's how it should be.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Seeing no public comment, we will close public comment, and we'll go to council discussion. Any discussion on this item? Councilor Hopin.

Yeah. I mentioned in the work meeting, for me, this all hinges on enforcement. So if we're gonna decrease the width of the road and have parking only on one side in order to ensure that emergency vehicles can proceed, it all hinges in my mind on whether or not we will enforce that. I've seen other cities where they just kinda give up on that. We're seeing some friction that is causing and trying to enforce that in areas where we have to go back and add these signs.

Now I know that's a little bit different because it's they're used to having that parking, but I think you'll find very quickly how easy it will be for residents to get used to having parking in a in a street that is is tight with parking. So my preference would be I don't wanna expand where we can offer 24 foot roads. I actually would like to, ideally, not offer it and see how this goes with these areas where we're going to be enforcing the parking, see what that's like, see how the enforcement goes. And if the enforcement's there, then we can look to to bring this back. But for now, I'm not comfortable.

Any more discussion? Councilor Whipple?

Yeah. I'm I'm slightly confused by your comments, councilor Hubbard, because right now, we do have the 24 foot thing allowed. And so the question is whether or not we want to allow to continue that. It almost sounded like you were presenting as we're considering a new option, and I I think I may have just misunderstood you. I I do like, this option three that addresses the safety concerns, which are the biggest issues for me, right, being able to have that fire access.

And I also like that this keeps that use for these very limited circumstances, that very low flow of traffic. So I think this is appropriate. And, generally, I think it's best if we have fewer laws and fewer restrictions. I I just worry that we're cluttering up too much of the code, and this seems less cluttery to me.

Any other comments, discussion? Councilor Whitlock.

Yeah. So I think all the cases we're looking at here are more restrictive than what currently exists today. That's correct. Yeah. So I think I think that's just a point of clarification is each of these narrow the options.

In in our last discussion, we discussed the cases in which we feel like it is appropriate. One is inside of, when you're developing on Hillside because wide cuts are less stable for hillsides. And then when we are doing kind of smaller infill type residential developments, and I think, we talked about the traffic per day at 400 trips or less is usually these very small residential developments. On top of that, we're clarifying that parking is restricted, and then the fire marshal law has to feel comfortable comfortable with the public safety, which I think is the trigger of this entire conversation.

Councilor Hopin.

So I'll clarify. I don't want more of the 24 foot roads in the city. So I would prefer that we take away the option.

I think that option three is exact is pretty much what we do now. It's not different status quo. As far as more words, I think getting rid of those less words. Right? If we get rid of the 24.

Parking's a huge issue in the city, all over the place. And I think not acknowledging that's a huge issue. And I think that people just want more and more density. It's a constant, constant fight for more and more and more density. So you're already gonna start with roads that only have parking on one side of the road when in the future we know we're gonna have higher density and need more parking? And I talk to students. I talk to families. I everyone is irritated about the parking. It is an issue. And people want to be social.

They wanna have events. They wanna have weddings. They wanna have parties. They wanna have, you know, mission farewells, and they need to park, and they wanna have people be able to come visit them. I lived in an area of Provo where there was no parking lot on the street, and I knew that before I bought the home.

But it really made entertaining really, really hard, And you had to organize with all your neighbors to have them park at their house, and, I mean, it was a thing. I'd have to organize with a church, blocks away to have them park there. It was hard, and it made entertaining really difficult, and my my friends hated it. But the I think Travis's idea is a good one, and I think seeing if it's successful and if it's working well and it's being enforced I mostly worry about the safety issue, and I'm worried about it not being enforced. And I live by a few of these streets where, you know, there's not the signs yet and people park on both sides, and you couldn't get an emergency vehicle down that road with the people parked on both sides as it has been multiple times, especially with mission farewells and homecoming.

And so I think I I I I am concerned that people just don't think it matters, and they park on both sides. And in the one case of an emergency, it would be too much for me. I mean, like, a heart attack, a fire, it's just not worth it. But, so that's my thoughts on it. Any other comments? Councilor Hopin.

I'll just make a motion that we remove the 24 foot option. I don't know if I need to make that in a specific way, but that's my intent.

Call a substitute motion, Travis.

Oh, substitute motion that we remove the 24 foot option. Thanks. I'm taking that.

The thing I'm a bit confused about is the last time we had the discussion, the express direction of the council at the time was to allow for infill development, and this is completely a one eighty turn from that direction. So I think, you know, while I understand a lot of points that we've made, we do have a city where there's less and less land to build. There's a lot of old legacy lots. There's infill is something we need to do to be able to provide affordable houses that younger people can buy and own and build equity in our community. So I'm not very comfortable with that. And I will say we just got a parking report that says the city is quite good at parking enforcement. I think, we added no parking on Slate Canyon Drive, and the adherence there has been incredible, much to the frustration of the residents there.

I would second Chavez's motion.

I think that's part of the question too, though, Jeff. Like, we do need infill, and we're doing smaller square footages to make homes for people that they can afford. Right? There are smaller square feet, smaller land, smaller yard. And the higher higher density already is creating parking issues. It's creating parking issues on the West Side and some of those developments that are so tight. And they're frustrated by the lack of parking because there's old driveways, you know, and there's not so I think it inhibits our building somewhat. Councilor Hoban?

Yeah. So just my just to clarify my intent. My my concern is around we have these streets that we're gonna start to enforce, and they're kind of the first ones that we're starting to enforce. I'd like to see how that goes. I'd like to see resident response. I'd like to give it some time and make sure that it's working. It's working for emergency services, and then we could revisit it. We could bring this back. If it's just going great, but if it's not, then we know, okay. We're glad we didn't do that. Right? We didn't open that up. So I'm not saying we could never revisit this. I just wanna make sure that if we're gonna do this, we're gonna do it right because there's kind of no going back if we don't. So that's my intent.

Councilor Whipple.

We've already had these streets at this size, and we've had so much public comment and so many emails coming to us as a council saying that we need to preserve these narrower streets, that they are good for this human scale everyday life, for living on the street, for driving on the street, for walking across it, and for riding their bikes. It's safer for families. It's safer for children to have narrower streets. And frankly, we don't have very many 24 foot streets in in Provo. This is not a big problem.

And the ones the people who live on them, with the exception potentially of your neighbors who do lots of entertaining, really like the narrower streets and the traffic calming, the neighborhood character and feel that they get from this. This is not just about being able to park. It's about all these other aspects for quality of life for the people who are in our city right now. I I think we need to keep this as an option, which, again, is not being deployed in all new developments and everywhere in the city, but we need to keep it as an option. We need that flexibility for our development planning services as they're looking at doing the infill, as they're looking at building on the edges of our city where we may have slopes, I don't see a good reason to remove this option.

And if really safety concerns are the top one, then adding the fire marshal approval addresses those safety concerns. So I I cannot support the idea that we would be taking away an option for something that makes our city better.

One thing to note, a lot of the people that emailed us talked about the Shakespeare neighborhood. And the Shakespeare neighborhood has alleys. That was never brought up. Like, it is different. They don't have to park on their street. So it is a different dynamic where in the end, they have a double the wide street because they have the alley in the back and parking in the back, and visitors can go in the back, garbage in the back. And so their narrow road is not for the garbage cans. It's not for their cars. So there that is a that does make a difference, and it's a significant difference.

Right. But if we get rid of the 24 foot option, you wouldn't be able to do that even if you had an alley access. Right? Like, it it just we're not saying you can only do 24 foot if you also have back alley access. We're saying you couldn't do it at all. I think that's wrong. Councilor Garrett.

I'm wondering, councilor Hoban, if there could be room in your motion, even though it's not in the ordinance for an appeal, if a developer could bring a plan to the city and request an exception to the ordinance that would allow under certain circumstances to for the 24 foot street to be even though it's not in the Ordian in the ordinance, a developer could appeal for an exception.

Brian, couldn't that be part of a development agreement? We could grant that under specific criteria on a one off basis or

Well, there's two or three different questions there to unpack. So first of all, with regard to councilor Garrett's question, it's generally not permitted to give discretion without criteria. It leads to complaints that the discretion is applied any unequally. And so, I mean, both option two and option three, you know, option two as it was present as it was designed to try to follow what the council voted on last time and option three as the administration's recommended variation, both of those are intended to do exactly that. Meaning that those are intended to lay out what the criteria are so that when so that if you meet those criteria, you you get it.

Where we it it becomes problematic if we have no criteria, and it's just up to somebody to make kind of wave a magic wand and say, you get it because I like this project. With regard to your question about the development agreement, it's generally disfavored, at least by me, to do development agreements that allow violations of the law. It is technically permissible under state law if the entire development agreement goes through the entire land use regulation process, meaning that it goes to the planning commission, and then to the council, and there's actually a recommendation on from the planning commission on a development agreement that allows deviation from the statute. So it's technically permissible. I can only think of one time that we've ever done it, and it had to do with that property out on the Orem border that had already been zoned by Orem and then and and was coming into the city.

So that's the only time I can think of that we've actually done it.

So to answer your question, I don't think so. I think it would be preferable to me to let's let's just put a pause on this, see how it goes with enforcement in these no new streets that we're gonna be enforcing on, see what the resident response is. I think we'll get a really good pulse if, you know, one side of the street is not enough parking for a typical neighborhood. Right? Then we can always bring it back and say, okay. This has been going great, or we can just reaffirm that, alright. Yeah. This this didn't go well, so this is probably not a great idea. And so it's know, world's not gonna end either way. It's not gonna end if we take this away.

And I but I think it's probably, from my perspective, better to be cautious because once you make that 24 foot road, you're not gonna be expanding it. Right? And so I would prefer we on the side of caution as opposed to permissive, you know, being permissive with it and then maybe regretting it down the road.

Councilor McKay, I have a I have a question. What happens if we if we make this change, to current developments that have not been completed? Like, Buckley Drive, I believe, has the 24 foot roads. I think that's the question I'd have for

And they have no parking allowed on the road? Correct.

I think that's how we you So

that's fine. That's not gonna be an issue there.

But I

think it's can if things are re that's already in their development agreement stuff, it will be able to go through.

But as I'm understanding, councilor Hopin's motion, we're saying we're removing the 24 foot blacktop option from the options at all regardless

of a development agreement with them, so it's already done.

So as long as the development agreement is done.

Yeah. And, really, even if there isn't a development agreement, any application that was submitted before the law changed is vested to use the law at the time they submitted their application.

Counselor Hogan, would you be open to continuing the item and then seeing? Because I I feel like, you know, we had this packet. We've done our research on the proposal before us, and now this is a pretty new direction. So I I I think, like, there's a lot of questions, and I I personally think it's better process to consider the new direction and do our research and come informed than kind of on the spot that maybe people feel otherwise.

Well, it's if there's four of us that have to vote one way or another, so you're asking me. But, I prefer just to vote. I think we'll get an answer one way or another tonight. I think that counselor Christensen is on. If not, then maybe we

will Yeah. Counselor Christensen is online.

I mean, my intent was to say pause this, so I guess not. I I don't wanna continue it because continuing the status quo means that other applications could come in for the 24 foot. So I'd say no. Thanks for

asking. Patrice?

Yes. Councilor Christensen.

Yeah. I would I would share Travis's concern. I would rather go slow on this and be very careful. This is something we can't undo. And after reflection on the last meeting and talking to different constituents, my preference would be to remove the 24 foot road for the time being, and this could be addressed at some point in the future if we find that there's a different reality.

All right. We will take a vote on the substitute motion. Councilor Whitlock? No. Councilor Bogdan? Yes. Councilor Hopin?

Yes.

Councilor Whipple? No. Councilor Garrett? No. Councilor McKay? Yes. Councilor Christensen?

Yes.

So that passes four three.

Chair McKay, just to clarify where we're at in the process, can you put up the new draft that you sent? So, again, because we don't vote on items that haven't been written yet, so the the substitute motion was to substitute a different version of the ordinance that removes it entirely. You now still so that so now you still need to vote on the implied motion as it has been amended by the substitute motion, which is this version which takes out the

We will now vote on the implied motion that reflects the substitute motion. Councilor Bogdan? Yes. Councilor Hoban?

Yes.

Councilor Whipple? No. Councilor Garrett?

Yes.

Councilor McKay? Yes. Councilor Christensen?

Yes.

Councilor Whitlock? No. So that passes five two. Is that it, Brian? K. Alright. I think this is the one most of you were here for. Next, an implied motion on ordinance submitting the Zomap classification of real property generally located at fifteen o seven South one eighty East from the planned Industrial Commercial Zone to the planned Industrial Commercial Data Center Overlay Zone. This will presented by Dustin Wright. Are they not on? They don't sound like they're on other buttons to push. It says it's on.

It's green. There we go.

There you are.

K. So here's the property that we're looking at on this item. It's in the East Bay neighborhood, and here's a close-up showing the zoning on the property. So the property is currently in our planned industrial commercial zone, and they're applying for the zone map amendment to apply an overlay zone, which is that newly created data center overlay zone. So this would be the first project that's come in to to request this overlay zone.

Our general plan in this area is is commercial, which this would align with. And the property has an existing structure on there that would be demolished for the new, data center to be built there on this site. Here's a look at, what that data center would look like rendering here and some elevations as well showing the proposed structure. What the applicants are looking to do with this data center is to have it be one where they're they're acquiring their power needed to run it from our grid as that power becomes available. So they would have to go and acquire or or work with Provo City Power to be able to get the power needs that they are looking for for this project as opposed to developing the the energy from the site specifically.

So that helps eliminate a lot of that environmental issues that would come with generating the power on-site. The other thing that they're proposing to do to help conserve with, water that's typically used in, cooling these data centers is to use a closed loop system. And that way, they're recirculating that water instead of using, water over and over. So both of those things are things that they've proffered to put into a development agreement as they're, different than what our code requires. The other thing that came up in when it went to planning commission is that when that water's changed out, that they would have a third party do that, that it wouldn't be discharged into our, sewer system, which, Public Works would be grateful to to not have that happen.

So to have that in the development agreement is another good thing there. So that is an overview of this project. We have a representative from Provo Power here if you have specific questions related to to any of that. And the applicant is here as well. So if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer those.

Thanks, Dustin. Any questions from the council for Dustin? Alright. Thank you. We will now take public comment on this item. And remember to say your name and where you live.

Hi. My name is Angie Carter. I'm the East Neighborhood District Chair. I've emailed my comments about the data center too already, and I speak today to ask you to postpone the decision on rezoning the East Bay Area for the data center. My reasons are as follows.

In a letter read to the planning commission, mayor Judkins asked that the decision be postponed until after the Provo economic plan is complete. This is a smart move that would allow Provo to put a data center where it most benefits the city and existing businesses. Two, although I'm not opposed to a data center in the city, I don't believe that the current location is ideal. It would sit next to two hotels and a school. While 60 decibels is normal talking level, people do not want that level of noise when they're sleeping or attending class or studying.

In fact, that level of noise is disruptive. Third, the Planning Commission argued that Provo does not need more business space, yet they overlooked that Rocky Mountain University moved some other campus to Springville because they could not get off a space, whether that's because the current owners were not willing to let them use additional space Provo lacks the type of space that they need. It's possible that they and other current businesses may be leaving Provo because they can't get the space they need here. An economic plan would show whether Rocky Mountain situation is an outlier or a sign of an unmet need in the city. Fourth, in the remarks recommending the zoning change, several members of the Planning Commission inferred that those speaking against the data center are anti technology.

I take offense to those remarks. I am not anti technology. In fact, I use a wide variety of large language models, cloud computing, and so forth in my work, and I teach my students to use those systems. But using a technology also means preparing for the long term ramifications of its use. I believe decisions about energy use, land use, city priorities require more time and analysis so we can move forward proactively. I urge the city council to postpone the decision to rezone

Alec Bracken. I live in Provo, Utah. And, I am, in general, opposed to any data center within the city. And I do believe that they don't serve a purpose for our city and instead serve corporate interests that do not benefit our city in any way. If you look at studies regarding data centers, they don't add nearly any economic benefit or impact to the city after it has been built. And instead, they serve a purpose for a corporation that is not contributing anything to the city as a whole. I know that the proposal states that it's a closed loop water system, but it's still water. It's still water being used. There's already been a con they've stated they're gonna have to change out that water. How often are they gonna have to change out that water?

How much water they'd be using on a daily basis? We are currently in record low snowpack in the state of Utah, and we are dealing with a drought. The Great Salt Lake is shrinking. Other lakes are shrinking. I, for one, enjoy hiking, enjoy going to the mountains, and last summer, the lakes were nearly dry.

Deer Deer, Creek Reservoir is half of what it used to be. We are running out of water in our state, and to build a data center that uses water to cool it is reckless and irresponsible. Further, taking energy from the grid of the city is only going to result in higher energy prices for the rest of the city. This is also proven in studies that show that using these data centers have increased the residents' cost of utilities. And them not generating their own power may result in better environmental results, but it will result in residents like me and other residents paying more for their energy, which will then make it harder to live in Provo, a place where it is already pretty expensive to live.

And so I would encourage the council to look at the impacts of the residents, look at how a resident like myself is going to benefit from this, and I don't see any benefits. It just benefits the corporation that wishes to build this data center, that wishes to use the data center, but does not benefit the city in any way. So I believe it would be absurd to build something that does not benefit the city in any way. Thank you.

Somebody say your name and your city.

Hi. I'm Jocelyn Bracken, and I live in the North Park neighborhood in Provo. I emailed a couple weeks ago, and I'm really grateful to the council members who responded, with very thoughtful responses and showed me kind of more data and things that the state legislature is looking out data centers. I'm opposed to a data center. I we just got this award. We just got gold for being a bicycle friendly community, and it feels like five steps backwards to introduce a data center into our community. I'm concerned about the environmental impact. I'm concerned about the water usage. I'm concerned about the the influx of power. I think the noise is a concern.

I don't see a data center aligning with the goals of Provo and being beneficial to our community, and I would much rather use that for use that space for something that would bring back things into our community and be beneficial to us. I think too, AI is something that's a hot topic right now, and it's a big deal right now. And it is something that is gonna level out, and I don't wanna be a city that jumps in on it really quickly. And then we find that we don't actually need it as much as we thought we did. And so I implore the the city to not allow this

to continue. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Dalen Whitmer, and I'm from I'm living currently in Provo. And I think an introduce sorry. An introduction of a new data center here in Provo is directly selling out our energy, to technology, corporations and are giving out our resources to multibillion dollar corporations. I do not see how the 20 to 30 proposed new jobs created by this new data center or any vague promises of future productivity would offset the increase of electricity to our grid, which I believe is currently our usage is at 175 megawatts, and we'd be adding 30 to 50 megawatts.

And this cost would have to fall, I assume, on the electric bills of the citizens here in Provo if that cost isn't gonna be paid by the data center. In addition, water usage is a concern. I know people are worried about the water direct water usage to cooling the center, but it goes a lot farther than that. Because I think it's about what I heard before was about the use of a car wash is what this new data center will be using. And that is true for direct usage, but there's also indirect usage that are harder to calculate, like the electricity generation for semiconductor manufacturing needed to create, the GPUs.

And I want to emphasize that I believe in the importance of investing in new technologies, but this increase of data centers to support LLMs is a technology cul de sac. Instead of giving Provo more ability to expand and adapt to its challenges, this data center reduces the the charge for billion dollar corporations at the expense of Provo residents. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

What up, council? My name is Brendan Larson, and I've been a Utah resident my entire life and a Provo resident for the last four years, and I am not a Luddite. I'm here to address the data center. I find it preposterous that there is time and energy to even address a data center being built when the entire neighborhood has been asking for a grocery store for literal decades. I fully understand and emphasize for whatever financial incentive this may offer the city and especially given the financial quagmires and trespasses from the previous mayor.

However, having recently spoken with a civil engineer, David Chappell, he estimates that the Provo power grid consumes around a 175 megawatts. This data center would require around 50 megawatts to be purchased from the UMPA. Despite whatever rhetoric the AI company says to the contrary, this will undoubtedly raise power bill prices. It is an completely unfair ask to force provost citizens to foot the bill for a data center power and energy needs. I would alternatively propose that the council require the data center to invest in the city's power grid to actually decrease citizen energy bills through renewable energy and to use the profits from the data center to assist the individuals that are at risk of housing displacement for the proposed Provo mall development.

Housing is already increasingly unaffordable for students and renters in Provo. This data center without oversight and requirements of the AI company to invest back into the community does not benefit Provo's future in the long term whatsoever. I firmly believe that it is the role of the city government to provide common sense compromises that benefit the community as a whole. Provo has a world class university within city boundaries that is full of talented and intelligent individuals and professors that are fully qualified and equipped with resources to create real solutions to address a data center's energy requirements in a way that benefits everyone and into aid in ensuring housing for provost citizen at any risk of displacement. As a taxpaying citizen, I demand excellence from my local government whose wages I help pay for. Figure it out. Don't let my energy bill go up, and do your job.

Thank you.

Did I push a button there?

I don't see.

No. You just can speak. You just need your name and where you live.

My name is Alex Strasberg. I'm in the Dixon Provo neighborhood. I just wanted to ask you guys not to do the data center because it just seems like it's such an environmental risk, especially with us being in a drought. That's all I

have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Austin Simcox. I live in Provo in the Mazor neighborhood. I am opposed to an AI data center in Provo. The economic impact might, will be minimal, but the potential harms could be severe.

I understand the line is that it's going to use the same amount of water as a car wash, in which case the better investment seems to be the car wash, because it will provide about the same amount of jobs, and won't ask to create its own power plant in a few years. All the economic issues aside, there's still the moral issue. It's understood that generative AI can only function using the work of creative humans, work that is often stolen from them. And finally, even with that issue aside, I don't want my city to be involved in the development of a technology that is currently being used to wage war around the world, surveil Americans here at home, and deport our friends and neighbors. A data center would be a moral stain on Provo, and I do not want it in my community.

Thank you.

Thank you. She's already spoken. You might as well come. Oh, not for this item, though.

So I'm Seth Draper. I'm in Northside Provo, but I actually grew up in Virginia. And as a former resident of the state with 50% of the data centers in The US, I just wanna really implore y'all not to do it. The quality of life has been noticeably lowered, within cities that I used to know, with high levels of, with the energy bills being raised, with incredible noise pollution. I love this city. I think it's beautiful, and I would like to keep it that way. So thank y'all.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Dallin Flake. I'm a resident of Provo. Something this is an angle that has not been brought up yet, and I don't know how much this will factor into the decision. But this is sort of a more macroeconomic sort of, perspective on neural networks and artificial intelligence broadly.

Three days ago, it was reported that an insider from Cursor, which is a they provide, like, coding by using artificial intelligence. And one of the competitors is ClaudeCode. They estimated that a $200 per month Cloud Code subscription could use up to $2,000 per month in compute, and that was a year ago. Today, that subsidization is even more aggressive. Its $200 plan consumes about $5,000 of compute.

So in other words, Anthropic, and this is just one example of one company, is heavily subsidizing the use of AI. What that suggests is that with time, the as the payment requirements for these AI companies as they come to bear, these companies are not going to be able to meet their financial their financial obligations. And it suggests a real risk that this data center that's built here will be heavily neglected or or, like and the company that builds it won't be able to actually use it and occupy it in a way that is perhaps maybe projected. And so that's where so much more sort of macroeconomic view of things. But I think that, ultimately, we want in Provo to have the things that are built, especially like buildings, if they are built to be reused by, you know, other entities if they, you know, go out of business, for example, or or if something else happens.

And in this instance, it seems like that is a higher likelihood than perhaps is otherwise normally suggested. So, you know, that's all I have

to say about that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Aaron Wheelie. I live in the Joaquin neighborhood. My like that gentleman who spoke just before or two before, my wife is from Loudoun County, Virginia. It's, like, where all data centers are. Every time I go out there, there's some more forest that's no longer there. There's a new road that must be there. There's what where the edge of civilization was, they had to clear some more and more and more. And I've talked to my in laws multiple times kinda talking about what is this like for you? And they they explained, well, you know, it's it's a place out here where we're fine because we have enough water with it.

They never work in Utah, and so I never thought we'd ever have to to talk about this. So surprised to see that happen. I do wanna commend the the developer, everyone in the project who's looking at different ways that they'll recycle the water, that they'll use the energy different ways. I wish I could believe that would happen. I I I would hope, but my experience with this is that's not what happens. Like I said, my mother-in-law, I asked her, is this nice? And she says that she appreciates the the tax income. But what I'm recognizing is the the reason they get tax income is because the next year, they're building a new one. And the next year, they're building a new one. And the next year, there's another one.

They don't get a lot of income from the ones that are already built. So my issue is we're gonna build one, then what? What happens here? Cool. We get some money. That's great. That's really important. But then what happens in the future? What's this gonna look like? We just I just heard you guys discuss about, hey. We don't wanna make a decision now that will affect things in the future. We wanna go slow on this. That's what you just said about the other thing. I would implore you to go slow on this. I've seen what happens, and I don't like what happens. Again, I do wanna say I'm glad that we're bringing up the water issue. There's so many other issues with this. This does not seem like the right way. This does not seem like the Utah way, the Provo way to get a quick buck and then have to pay for it in the future. So I would implore you to vote no on this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Brooklyn Brighton. I'm a Provo resident on 200 South. My husband is a PhD student at BYU studying AI, and I would like to echo the desire to move slowly on this, because having his perspective, I think, of the costs associated is valuable. But, I would like to offer some insight into what those conversations look like, at in his labs at BYU and also at home with him.

The amounts of investing that are going into AI right now, are significant. And the the way the place that AI is at right now was somewhere we weren't projected to achieve until many, many years in the future. And the speed at which AI is getting better and the technology is improving is faster than was ever anticipated. And I would like, as a young Provo resident who will be here many years into the future, to be able to experience that and continue to see Utah in the ways that it echoes the best parts of Silicon Valley without the worst parts of it. I would like that to continue, and I would like that value to be preserved, in our best interest.

And I think it would be good to go slow, but I I would like that still to be an option. Thank you.

Thank you. Hear much of what you said because that cute little kid that you brought up there with you. So are you for or against? I just wanted to see if I understand.

I'm for the data center slowly.

Got it. Thank you.

Potentially not in that location. Alright.

Any more public comment before we close?

John Sutherland. I live in Provo. I am a former retired technology executive, so I'm definitely not a Luddite. And I understand that two of the top three initiatives in the state are increasing energy capacity and also AI. And, you know, Talent Ready Utah and others are deep into that. However, I think that where you locate a data center, you gotta be careful about. I don't think Provo City, from my point of view, is the right place. Seventy years ago, when they built the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, they put it out in the middle of desert near Arco, Idaho. And, you know, there's no reason why a data center needs to be in city limits. It needs water.

It needs some energy, and and it needs connectivity to the Internet. We don't exactly have the greatest peering point in Provo for for data centers, for connectivity to the Internet. So I don't think Provo is the right place. I don't like the idea that it's gonna be using our water. I don't like the idea that's being on our power grid.

I think that there's a big push nationally to say that these companies like Meta and others ought to be, along with their data centers, providing their own power. I don't want that power generation here in Provo City. I think it ought to be located in a much more remote place, put its own power generation in some place where they can get the water and they connect to the easily to the Internet, the rest of the Internet. So I would prefer that we not go ahead with putting a data center in Provo. It's not a very big data center. Frankly, the country's gonna need a lot more, and I don't wanna see that expansion happen in Provo. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We're gonna close it. Anyone else? Oh, come on up here. Just had this wild idea. You have to do your name again.

Okay. My name is Bonnie Schifler Olsen. I love AI so much fun at all. Yeah. I do. I love having conversations because it has all of the information. It's yeah. Why don't we ask it? Why don't we ask it if it is feasible for our city in tandem with our goals? I love Good question, Bonnie. Love it. Yeah.

If you have Siri on your phone, ask her and then let us know. Just do it out there.

Alright. Come on up.

But I had to check if something was addressed. My name is Catherine Hall. Again, Provo City resident, East District. I know a closed loop system. I've I've researched a lot about that, but eventually they need to be flushed.

When they're flushed, there are a lot of contaminants that come out that our water treatment system that a new amazing facility that we just built cannot handle. And I think that has to be considered. The emissions that come out of data centers, if they're running generators, isn't all the time I understand, is really a health risk for a lot of people like myself and my son who have asthma. So I really think you need to consider what's being put out from the data center, you know, from the water, the what the contaminants are, and how that's gonna affect the quality of life for those of us that live in Southeast Provo. So thank you. Alright. Last call.

Oh, okay.

Sorry. Sorry. I know that you're trying to close this. My name is Holland King. I just moved

What city do you live in?

Well, I just moved from Provo to Orem. Nice meet living in Provo. I live I've lived here for the past, I don't know, since 2022. And I just wanted to say that my concern about the data center and with most AI data centers well, there's, I mean, the environmental factor, which everyone has addressed, like, beautifully. And then also, I wanted to address the issues that I am concerned about with, like, taking jobs.

My sister is a graphic designer, and she studied at BYU Idaho, and got her graphic design degree there. And she works in an office where Claude is projected to like, the Claude AI is projected to take her job. And she has her best friend who she works with who has also lost jobs because of AI. And I know that, like, we're not going to be able to completely get rid of AI, and I don't think we should. It's very helpful in a lot of ways.

But I just would urge you to be mindful of the way that it could influence the job market here, with Provo being full of so many young people with with BYU, with being close to UVU, and young people trying to go into the workforce and eliminating a lot of, like, entry level jobs because, like, it it can take over a lot of data entry jobs and things like that. So I just would urge you guys to be aware of that and vote against it. So thank you

so much for your time. Thank you. You better hurry, Adam.

I'm gonna run, but I'm I know we're we're gonna move on. My name is Adam Shin. I live here in Provo, Utah. And I I think it's it is it it's good that a lot of people are caring and and and very interested in the in the water conservation issue. We have a real, we live in a desert.

We do need to conserve water. It is a very strong, an important thing to consider out here, especially as we're looking ahead to the future of Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake and the future of of, you know, how, just the livability of this area really depends on how we, think about the environment. And for those who are here concerned about that water issue, I would I'd you know, this is kind of a side side point, but I do want to, just raise a thought that we have a lot of at the state level, we have programs that actually will help with, water conservation here at the neighborhood level. I think the, you know, the the numbers that have put out for just, you know, like, a a car wash as a point of comparison, I think the napkin math for that is, you know, you can compare that to about maybe a few dozen yards being watered in the in the summer for one data center of this of this size, you know, taking those numbers at face value, which just to put into into perspective, there's a lot of water that we use for a lot of other things, currently.

Right? The state currently has programs that will help with things like xeriscaping and reducing water usage in in residential, like your front lawn, you wanna replace that with something that's a lower water usage than just grass. And in the past, we Provo City actually has not adopted those those state programs under the the argument that we have enough water supply, and we don't feel the need to to conserve those those, that water for that kind of stuff. So if this is an issue that matters to you, I'd encourage you to, to look into that program and and and talk to your city council representatives about the potential of adopting a program like that. There are many, many, many blocks in Provo, that we could save a lot of water on by, taking advantage of a program that already exists and would help a lot of people to lower their water bills in addition to conserving overall. So thank you.

Alright. We're gonna close public comment. And on that note, Provo has its own water conservation program. And right now, we're doing the Xcede exchange so that you can put more water friendly grass in your yard. So know that we do have our own program. So feel free to reach out to Public Works for that. Alright. We'll have developer speak. So, I kinda help you out there so you can hear all the comments. Like, you could reply to them.

This one?

Yeah.

There we go. So my name is Steve Styler. I represent the applicant b plus f, Timpanogos Tech. Anecdotally, a really interesting question. I sat through a separate land use entitlement for a data center somewhere else. And someone asked the question, of AI, what does a data center look like? And I will warn you that's a dangerous question because it produced what looked like the Taj Mahal. And I felt like that was unfair to ask AI where it would like to live because it could design a palace for itself to live. So this has been a really interesting project to be working on. And I should introduce Rain Smith is with me.

He's principal with B plus TIMP in August Tech. Just a couple of things for perspective, and I appreciate the time working with Provo City. We've been at this now for about a year to to look through how do we do this and how might we build out this project. This property was acquired in 2017 as part of the entire Nobel Campus. This hasn't this wasn't recently bought to turn into a data center.

This was something that's been developed over a long time process. And and just to give a little bit of history, and and I would like to say kudos to those who have spoken here today. It take it takes guts to show up at a city council meeting, and speak, and we appreciate those comments. One of the things that we've really tried hard to do in working with the city and with the planning department and going through planning commission I I know many of you probably listened to the planning commission. It was long, and it was very well done. We talked about water. We talked about energy. We talked about overall impacts. We talked about parking. We talked we talked about everything, and I thought that it was a really meaningful conversation.

And from that, we've we've learned because at the end of the day, we're trying to do a really awesome development for Provo City. If we come in and we disrupt air quality, we disrupt water conservation efforts, we disrupt power, we haven't done our job because that's not what this is about. This project has been designed to do something that is part of a critical reengineering and a different thought process of how we might utilize this property in a better way. Many of you are familiar with this. Obviously, there is a hotel that's directly to the west.

We have a great relationship. A comment was made about Rocky Mountain University. We have a great relationship with them. They they did not, to our knowledge, have not approached us about utilizing any of the existing buildings on the property. If they did, we'd love to have that conversation with them. As far as water and if it's okay, council members, I'll I'll just address some of the concerns when we talk more about the project. First and foremost is water. It's the thing we've heard the very, very most about just ahead of energy. We kinda keep track of what we hear the most about. One of the neat things about this piece of of of ground, of this property, is its proximity to the water treatment facility.

When we started looking at this working with Provo Power and with Provo City, the water treatment facility reached out to us. There

is

a product, and and if you've listened to the city council, there's discussion about silver water. I literally had never heard about silver water, and I've done water most of my career. I didn't know that was a thing. But what it is is it's a treated water that cannot be released back into a water system because of the contaminants potential contaminants it has. One of the things that we've identified is that we actually think that water, and the early engineering shows that we could actually use that as part of our closed loop system.

Again, trying to help Provo City where we can if that that's a problem and the amount of silver water and we don't know where to put it. We would love to be a customer and pay for that water and be able to utilize it within the facility. Our intention is for this water and what we agreed in the planning commission and as part of the development agreement, we've worked closely with Brian to try to propose how we might bind ourselves if this project moves forward is that we would never discharge any of that water anywhere within the city system. It does contain glycol and other cooling agents. It's not suitable to put back into the system.

We won't go there. We maybe the analog to that would be what you would see at a restaurant. You also don't dump the grease. You have a third party vendor that comes and collects the grease from a fryer and that's the same, but it's the same type of process. We would never discharge that back into the city system.

As far as filling, that's a process, that we we work with our engineers. So as we design this on the frequency, it's something that would happen probably two to three years, again, depending on the engineering. But, again, we're trying to utilize that silver water so that we it's not such a draw upon the city system. Again, we're trying to make sure that we're doing it as responsibly as we can without placing a drain on existing resources. Second most popular topic is power.

What are we gonna do? Are we going to ruin Provo City's power system? Are we going to be this big draw on the system? The building that you see and the renderings that were there, those were produced about a year ago when we started to look and get a feel for what this would look like. And the reason that we we considered this for a small neo cloud type facility was because of the existing power in in the infrastructure that is already being delivered to this property and to this campus.

While working with Provo Power, we we asked the question, how much power is already there? There's already a building there. Right? There's multiple buildings and and a campus campus that sits there. And the number that we came back with was six to 10 megawatts of power that literally is there.

That's already allocated to this property. That conversation moved forward to what if you looked at doing generation on on property? Could you do something to generate natural gas fired power to build a bigger facility? And that's largely the product that you see on the screen today is that bigger facility. As we we walked with, Provo City, as we you all considered a new data center overlay ordinance, we tried to work with the city to to make sure that we knew what was happening and that we could participate and help.

And along the way, we realized, hey. This is a simpler process. We ought to just look at the power that's already there on that site. We can have other conversations other days about whether we want to grow with the city or whether we work with AMP or Provo City. And so the application you have in front of you is to create a data center overlay, but for us to look at only effectively the power that's already on this site.

We believe we'd be a great customer. Provo Power spoke in support of this at the planning commission, because the power is there and not being utilized, and we think that we could utilize it and create, you know, a good revenue stream for the city. One additional item we hear we heard a lot of the planning commission. People said, what's in this for Provo? Why does this matter to Provo?

It's not creating a $100,000,000 a year jobs and those types of things, and that's where I think a lot people wonder what this what what's in it for Provo? One of the things that is interesting about a data center like this one, the model that you've seen on the screen would be about a $300,000,000 building to build. So and we could get way into the weeds on the taxing authority and how much. So I could ask the city treasurer to come tell me what the numbers might be. But run through the scenario with me from a taxing authority standpoint, not getting into the weeds of how much goes to the county and the school district.

But this property at a $300,000,000 construction of this building, if we were to build the building that you've all considered, inside of it, we would put the rule of thumb is between three and four the value of the building would go inside as far as the the components, the GPUs, and other AI equipment. If we add those things together, which would all be taxable as either real property or taxable personal property, property, we're somewhere in the ballpark between 1,200,000,000.0 and $1,400,000,000 of new taxable value to the to the taxing authority. Obviously, Provo would get their share of that. The county would get their share. The school district would get their share.

From an investment standpoint, it's it's pretty significant on a pretty, all things considered, small piece of dirt because of the value of the the components that are there. One of the comments that was made was on the property tax base. They they only get new property tax when they build another one. The question gets asked, well, what about the GPUs? They're just computers.

They, you know, they depreciate quickly. They do, and they dip depreciate along with their their life cycle. And what would happen within this facility or any other hyperscaler is you are constantly rotating and bringing in new equipment. So you have instead of a a a a landslide downward progression of property tax, you actually do a little bounce because every three to five years, those compute those components are being replaced, and you start over from a tax standpoint. So it's a fairly reliable property tax to the taxing authority.

As part of the ownership of this entire kind of campus, the idea that we are proposing to the council to consider is that that we are allowed to develop this as kind of backbone infrastructure. Infrastructure. We too we understand the council is considering an economic study to see what are the best things and right things that are here. From our perspective, this is a fantastic anchor tenant or backbone infrastructure. We've heard people suggest this would be a great site for technology or biomed or other types of businesses.

We agree with that. And what we're finding and what we believe will happen is that those companies that come to this area will also become our customers. That is the way that this is being structured and we're developing this property, is putting in some of that critical infrastructure first so that we have the key needs for future development that comes to this to this area and this campus. We we love Provo. We've the the property owners have been, good stewards of this land and feel like this is a great opportunity to provide some value to Provo, provide a a gateway access into this new emerging technology as part of a of a great redevelopment of this of this area.

I'm happy to answer any questions. I know I've kind of rambled on, and I don't intend to, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

K. Thank you. Any questions for the developer? No? Okay. Thank you so much. Alright. Council discussion. Any council discussion on this item? Counselor Bogdan?

Okay. The one thing that we hear over and over and over again, and we've read a lot of emails, and we've studied this for a long time. Data centers is something that the council has been studying for a while, and we came up with a data center policy last fall. This is something that our energy department has been studying. This is something that, Utah municipal power has been studying for a long time that they came up with a policy.

Because those things that you're worried about, so are our people. And so they did dig in pretty hard to look at how to protect Provo residents and Provo citizens. There is a development agreement with this. So I won't be voting yes on this, but I do wanna send the message to Provo that Provo residents that these are things that we have been looking at for a really long time. And it's not like if a data center is passed in Provo that we're selling you all out because energy is something that we've looked at.

Water is something that we've looked at. There is a lot more that goes into a data center besides energy and water. But these are things that we have looked at and that we know about and that we have gotten on top of. Thanks.

Alright. Are we ready for a vote on the implied motion? I see no other comments.

I don't know if Craig

wants a talk. Councilor Hoban?

For me, so there's a lot of arguments out there for or against. I think probably the one that resonated the best with me came from some of my fellow council members, which was basically that we aren't exactly sure. This is this is a big decision in regards to land use. So that's what it comes down to for the most part for me is is that we this is a big area of redevelopment for us, and so it's a it's a long term decision, and we wanna make sure we make the right decision for this area. Now we understand nobody else is suiting this particular property right now.

So we kind of have what we have. But long term, is is this what we want in the area as opposed to retail or hospitality or something else? So I think that's the the the piece of the puzzle that kind of resonates the best with me is, like, we're gonna do this economic development study. We're gonna see what the city wants to be when it grows up, and then we'll be able to make a decision regarding this parcel. And it might be a a data center.

It might not depending on what we get back. Right? And so just having that information before we make the leap, I think, though, you know, of course, I always appreciate the bird the the bird in hand over the two, you know, two in the bush, but it's a big decision to make, so I can appreciate that.

Councilor Christensen.

Well, I think it is a a big decision. And I would just say to those citizens who have come and shared their perspective, we have heard from many, many and talked with many of you about this. Some people ask, you know, why is Provo considering this? It's because people have property rights, and they can petition for whatever within the code, or they can petition to change, you know, code. So taking a taking a look at a project like this isn't a moral stance.

It's actually part of property rights. And so the data center has every right to come into Provo and to make a case for any particular site that is allowed, you know, through the overlay, and this is certainly allowed in the overlay. So to me, it's much less of a moral stance. There are questions about water and electricity and power and all those kinds of things. But, again, I I would just emphasize that people have the right to apply for these things.

My concern about the data center is the same I had about the road with. I think we should move slow, and I think we should be very deliberate and very careful because both of these items, the previous item and this item, are not ones that you undo. And I think it does make sense to be careful.

Any more discussion? Councilor Whitlock?

Yeah. I I really appreciate everything that was shared here today. We also, I think, received more emails about this issue than almost any other issue than at least since I've been on the council. To the point that councilor Hoban made about we're in the middle of trying to create this economic development study and try to come up with a vision for the area, East Bay is one of the areas we're looking at in this study. So we're in kind of a transition point there.

Also, we're in transition with Provo power director, if I understand correctly, and the this person will be responsible who's yet to be chosen to be responsible for implementing this and making sure it's done correctly. So I think it's a I think it's a tough time for this. I also think that everything we do, or at least I should speak for myself, I do it. I want it to be better for the lives of the probable residents. And while the potential general fund impact from all the additional power is a good thing, I think, for a general fund.

I think that the risks outlined are are are quite high. Everything from the sound pollution to the hotels there to is this the highest and best use of land to my understanding is as much power as this could could consume, it could I have a hard time imagining it won't affect power rates. I mean, Provo peak demand is around 200 megawatts, and this is gonna be marginal 30 to 50. It's a lot of marginal power consumption, and that power has to be purchased from somewhere. So I think there's a risk there.

And then I think, lastly, this kind of closed loop water is a huge concern, and air quality is a huge concern. And this closed loop cooling system, it's hard to find precedence of one working for a data center this size based on my understanding. So there's just a lot of risks here, and so I agree with what counselor Craig Christensen just said about, you know, let's be cautious here and make sure we're not approving something that we regret.

So AI says Provo is an awesome place for a data center. And the reason the reason why it says it is because our energy is so cheap. We are so blessed to have Provo Power, and we're blessed to own our own power company. And we don't put any of that at risk. Right? Like, it's one of our greatest assets, and it's one of the reasons why we don't have to tax our citizens as much because we have provoke power. So I concur with what the other councilor said. We are waiting on an economic plan. The goal of the data center is to grow in the future. That is your goal.

And you have a lot of space there to do that. And the end goal is to make your own energy because you'd have to make your own energy as you grow, which would be emissions right in Provo. And I don't wanna do and emissions are a huge thing for me in our city. You know, we have the inversion, and it's just quality of life issues. And I wonder about the best use of the land, which we need to figure out with the economic plan. And I do think the water solution's brilliant with the silver water and stuff. I mean, I'm not as worried about that. But on the as things scale, you know, that's kind of an unknown. But, yeah, that's where I stand. Any more comments?

Councilor Garrett.

Having said all of that or heard all of that relative to priorities for Provo City's economic development, I I do feel encouraged by the progress that data centers are making relative to the environment. We talked about the closed loop water system, the use of silver water, and I I feel that there is is that they're moving in the right direction, that there's a future and and that we haven't heard the end of data centers. I

do

agree that we want to see what's best for Provo in this site, but I feel encouraged that the the data centers in general are making good progress with respect to the environment.

Councilor Whipple.

I had a lot of different questions, based on conversations that I have with constituents. But given the general vibe of the council, I don't know that it's necessary to to even go into those right now. I'm grateful to the the developers for coming and working with us and trying to propose this. There there are only a few places within the city where something like this could happen. This is one of them, maybe Down Ironton could be another.

This one, because we're already in proximity to hotels to an elementary school, things like that, makes some hesitation for me. But it's it's you're in the ballpark. Right? So that's good. And I've tried to be really careful to recognize my own biases that I have against data centers, AI generally.

I my information should not come solely from watching Silicon Valley. Right? That's not appropriate. But I I concerns would be, like, on the closed loop water system, where has this been deployed before? With what success? On what scale? Right? Because I know there are these technologies, but I don't know if they've been implemented on the same scale that you're looking at for this program. Things like that, which we'll probably have those more in-depth conversations again later, but I don't think it's necessary to do it tonight. Thank you very much.

Alright. We'll take a vote on the implied motion. Councilor Bobden. No. Councilor Hopin. No. Councilor Whipple? No. Councilor Garrett? No. Councilor McKay, no. Councilor Christensen? No. Councilor Whitlock? No. So that does not pass seven o. If there is no objection, we will now adjourn the Provincial Council by unanimous