Page council approves sale for proposed data center after hours of debate and heavy public opposition

The Page City Council voted Oct. 22 to adopt Ordinance 744‑25, a negotiated agreement to sell approximately 500 acres to a developer proposing a large data center, after more than two hours of public comment and council debate. The final vote was 5–2, and the council authorized the city attorney to make minor conforming corrections to the contract language.

The decision followed repeated warnings from residents that the project could strain water and electric supplies, harm tourism and mar the town’s scenic gateway. ‘‘This data center is not going to have a positive effect on this community,’’ said Tiana Vay, a lifelong Page resident during the public comment period.

Supporters on the council said the contract contains binding protections built to address those concerns. ‘‘The contract straight up says they will not get any water or electricity from Page,’’ said Councelor Hammond, describing closed‑loop cooling technologies and other contractual limits on municipal utility commitments. The agreement also includes anti‑land‑banking mechanisms, periodic development milestones and reporting requirements, proponents said.

City staff and the city attorney told the council the draft requires the buyer to invest significant sums within defined timelines or face repurchase rights. The council heard that the buyer must commit substantial extension payments and was required to spend at least $20 million on the project within two years of closing or risk losing the option. Councilors also said the buyer must provide six‑month updates during the site‑feasibility period and fund a housing‑needs assessment tied to the project’s workforce impacts.

Opponents said those safeguards were insufficient. ‘‘Can you contractually bind [the developer] to deliver on the promises of corporate contributions such as paying for the needed infrastructure, emergency services upgrades, and impact mitigations?’’ asked Brian Kerry during public comment. Residents described long‑term risks including potential increases in utility bills, lighting and noise pollution, and the loss of open space.

Council discussion touched repeatedly on drafting precision and enforceability: the city attorney read contract language intended to preserve municipal discretion on future zoning and permitting and acknowledged a drafting error where 'buyer' and 'seller' were reversed in a paragraph; council members directed staff to correct the language. Several council members urged that adoption would not itself build the facility immediately, but would begin an 18– to 24‑month process of planning, permitting and public reviews before any construction.

The council’s rationale focused on potential revenues and long‑term community benefits if the buyer meets contract milestones. ‘‘If this performs anywhere near those projections, we’re talking about funding the things that residents say they care about,’’ said Councelor Hedinger, citing an estimated annual city share that was described as a rough projection in staff remarks.

What happens next: adoption of the ordinance allows the city to continue negotiations and gives the buyer specified periods to conduct feasibility work and to file zoning and permit applications. The contract retains the city’s stated discretion over zoning and permits, and councilors said they expect regular updates from the buyer during the feasibility period.

The ordinance includes anti‑land‑banking provisions, milestones, extension payments, and an obligation the buyer fund a housing needs assessment; details of those provisions are in the contract documents available in the council packet. The matter could return to council for site‑specific zoning approvals or other permit decisions as the buyer advances its plans.