Speaker 1 urged the Millard County Commission to rezone Phase 1 of a proposed multi‑phase solar development and to consider rezoning some of Phase 3, saying the company would withdraw applications for other phases if the board agreed.

"We would like Phase 1 to be rezoned, and we would like you to consider to also rezone all or at least a portion of Phase 3, and then we'll withdraw the balance," Speaker 1 said, describing the request as an attempt to balance economic gains with local concerns.

Why it matters: the developer described large economic stakes tied to the site. The presentation cited roughly $1,000,000 in additional annual property tax revenue for Millard County attributable to Phase 1 and characterized individual data‑center buildings as multibillion‑dollar investments. The company also said the servers and other taxable personal property inside each building could total between $3 billion and $4 billion.

Supporters and project representatives framed the infrastructure as powering on‑site data centers rather than exporting power out of the county. "All the power that we would produce on this property would go into this complex. We're not sending it to California," Speaker 1 said, adding the project is not intended to connect to the grid in a way that would change local utility rates.

Residents and presenters repeatedly raised view‑shed and site‑siting concerns. Speakers noted the site includes plateaus and steep rises that affect visibility; one presenter contrasted the project’s visibility to a prior case and said the plateau characteristics likely limit sightlines for many observers. Adjacent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) parcels and a nearby landfill were cited as local landmarks tied to visibility questions.

The developer offered to compensate affected grazers after saying grazing permits were being terminated for portions of the site. Options mentioned included paying for appraised market value, providing a multi‑year cash or feed payment (the transcript references a 10–15‑year equivalent), or prepaying compensation.

The presentation also included procedural and funding clarifications: a speaker said there had been "some confusion" about CITLA and said anticipated CITLA proceeds tied to the project were described as available for water infrastructure projects rather than schools. A company representative also said a proposal was recently submitted to the state to restart a program referred to in the transcript as "IPP," which the presenter tied to job retention locally.

What is next: during the recorded remarks the developer requested rezoning and offered mitigation and compensation options, but there was no formal motion or vote recorded in the transcript. The transcript records public presentations and requests to the commission; the document does not show a formal action, vote, or board decision on the rezoning during this session.