Millard County discusses FiberNet Mercury data‑center project; commission to revisit west‑of‑highway impacts before further buildout

Representatives for FiberNet Mercury Delta LLC told the Millard County Commission they are ready to begin the first phase of a proposed data‑center and electrical‑generation campus near 4500 East and U.S. Highway 50, and planners recommended approval with conditions — but county leaders said they will revisit design and mitigation before the project moves west of the highway.

The project applicant, Jason May, an applicant representative for FiberNet Mercury Delta LLC, summarized the proposal and said the planning commission gave it a favorable recommendation. “We have reviewed and we agree with the conditions set forth in the conditional use permit,” May said during the public hearing. Ray Conley, who identified himself as a CEO for the applicant, told commissioners a prospective customer is ready to start “as soon as we have the permit for the first data center.”

Why it matters: the proposal covers roughly 1,200 acres and, at full build‑out as presented, would include multiple data centers powered by natural gas taken from the Kern River pipeline. Commissioners said they want the county and the public to see how initial buildings perform and to keep the door open for adjustments before approving expansion into areas closer to existing residences.

Most of the hearing focused on conditions that planning staff recommended and on neighborhood concerns about noise, light and visual screening. Neighbor Kyle Ashby (not present but represented in comments) requested a 15‑foot berm along 4500 South with desert landscaping and some trees; the applicant said berms might affect air‑quality permits and airflow for the generation equipment. “Our only hesitation is we’re bound by the Department of Air Quality,” a project representative said, noting that a rigid berm requirement could conflict with required airflow.

County planner Adam (planning staff) and the applicant discussed alternatives, including placing parking or other low‑profile features closer to 4500 South to preserve airflow while providing a visual buffer. Planning staff told the commission that the proposed conditional‑use conditions are intended to address health, safety and property impacts and that additional, more detailed permits — traffic impact studies, grading, landscaping and emergency‑response plans — will be required before building permits are issued.

Public‑safety coordination was included in the draft conditions. The permit language requires a traffic‑impact analysis prepared by a licensed professional engineer and review and approval by UDOT and the county prior to building permits; mitigation measures required by that study must be implemented. The conditions also require an emergency‑response plan, annual updates, and coordination meetings with the sheriff’s office and fire district. “Applicant shall prepare and thereafter update annually a comprehensive emergency response plan approved by the county planner in consultation with the sheriff’s office, fire district, and other responders,” the draft condition reads.

Sheriff’s office representatives said traffic and enforcement might be challenging during peak construction, given manpower constraints and the mix of construction and interstate traffic. The sheriff said he would ask Utah Highway Patrol command to consider additional trooper coverage in the area and would try to direct county patrol resources where possible.

Commissioners generally supported allowing development to proceed on the east side of Highway 50 under the proposed conditions while reserving the right to reopen and amend the permit for any west‑of‑highway expansion. “My recommendation is…let’s move forward with the understanding that sound may be an issue and that we can hold off on doing anything until you start moving on that side of the road,” one commissioner said during deliberations.

Discussion items that remain open include: whether a high berm with plantings is feasible without jeopardizing air‑quality permits; exact building setbacks when the applicant proposes parcels west of the highway; and traffic and workforce housing impacts during construction. Planning staff said the conditions allow the county to require changes later if new, demonstrable issues arise as the project is built.

No formal recorded vote on final approval of the conditional‑use amendment appears in the transcript excerpt provided; commissioners closed the public hearing and discussed a pathway to proceed with the east‑side work and to revisit conditions before any expansion west of Highway 50.