Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer asks Millard County to rezone Phase 1 of proposed data‑center project, offers grazing payments
Summary
A developer told the Millard County Commission it will seek rezoning for Phase 1 of a roughly 9,000‑acre project, offered to withdraw Phases 2 and 4, and proposed compensating grazers while stressing the project will primarily use natural gas with supplemental solar.
Unidentified Speaker 1 told the Millard County Commission the company seeks rezoning for Phase 1 of a multi‑phase development and will consider withdrawing Phase 2 and Phase 4 to reduce visual and grazing impacts.
"Our primary fuel source for our project is and will forever be natural gas fired generation," Unidentified Speaker 1 said, adding that "the solar provides a critical supplemental energy source for our project." The speaker said the power produced on the property would be used to run on‑site facilities rather than exported to distant markets: "We're not sending it to California," they said.
The developer described extensive outreach over the prior two weeks and said residents and the planning commission most frequently raised two concerns: potential loss of grazing land and the visual impact, or viewshed, from Oak City and nearby roads. To address grazing losses, the speaker offered to "compensate the grazers for what the market value for those grazing permits are" and said the company would pay for appraisals or provide cash or feed equivalent to "10 to 15 years" if grazers prefer prepaid support.
The speaker requested that the commission rezone Phase 1 and at least a portion of Phase 3 while withdrawing the county zoning application for Phases 2 and 4. On visibility, Unidentified Speaker 1 said topography — plateaus and rises — limits where panels would be visible and that some mitigation options (including revegetation or other treatments) could further reduce the viewshed impact.
On economic impacts, the developer cited projected revenue and investment figures. As stated in the meeting transcript, Phase 1 was described as generating roughly $1,000,000 in property tax revenue used for local water infrastructure and other projects. The speaker characterized overall construction and equipment values in very large terms, saying individual buildings would each cost about $1 billion to construct and contain several billion dollars in taxable personal property; the transcript also records a statement that the project could represent roughly $1 billion in investment and a cited yearly figure of about $45,000,000 "annually for building." These numerical figures are reported as stated by the speaker in the meeting and were not internally corroborated during the discussion.
Unidentified Speaker 2, who followed some of the remarks, reiterated the developer’s point about elevation changing visibility: "the plateau makes it where you can't see it," the second speaker said, arguing that in many places visibility would be minimal even without additional mitigation.
No formal motion or vote on rezoning or withdrawals was recorded in the provided transcript excerpt. The request was presented to the commission for consideration and the developer said it was willing to work with individual residents and the county on site‑specific mitigations.
Next steps disclosed in the discussion: the developer asked the commission to consider the rezoning request for Phase 1 (and part of Phase 3) and to accept withdrawal of Phases 2 and 4; the commission’s response or any scheduling for a formal hearing, staff report, or vote was not included in the transcript excerpt.
