2026-10-22 - Advance Plans Committee

00:33Good morning, everyone.

00:35Just a quick note that we've asked

00:38planning staff to go ahead and make some

00:39more copies of the handouts. So, folks

00:41didn't get copies of the handouts, we'll

00:43have those shortly. We're going to place

00:45them on the table up front by the

00:46podium. So, feel free to go on up and

00:49grab one when they get here.

01:32>> Everybody ready to go?

01:34>> Yes. [clears throat]

01:38>> Morning, everyone. Uh

01:40Welcome to the Thursday, October 22nd,

01:422026 Advanced Plans Committee meeting.

01:46Um we'll start off by having a roll

01:48call.

01:48>> Commissioner Aldrich.

01:50>> Here.

01:51>> Commissioner McKay.

01:52>> Here.

01:52>> Commissioner Warren.

01:53>> Here.

01:53>> Commissioner High.

01:54>> Here.

01:55>> Commissioner Fry.

01:55>> Present.

01:56>> Commissioner Thiesen. And Commissioner

01:58Johnson.

01:58>> Here.

01:59>> And Mr.

02:00>> Here.

02:01>> Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum.

02:02>> Thank you.

02:03Um today we're going to mainly be

02:06talking about data centers, which is

02:09uh pretty much the entire agenda. Um

02:12Justin is going to present um

02:15agenda item number two first.

02:18Um we suspect that this is going to take

02:21a while and we

02:23recognize the fact there's people in the

02:24audience who probably want to speak

02:26today uh public speaking. So, depending

02:29on time constraints, if

02:31if we think we're going to run out of

02:32time after

02:34um we present item two, then we will

02:37open it up for public speaking at that

02:39point. And then

02:42we will go on from there and

02:44use up the time we have. Uh

02:46as I I think everyone knows, there's

02:48uh the full planning commission meets in

02:51here at 1:30 today. So,

02:53if we get going too long, we're going to

02:55have to make some uh changes. So, bear

02:57with us and uh Justin, you're on.

03:00>> Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Advanced

03:02Plans Committee members. Justin

03:04Constantino with the Planning

03:05Department, here to discuss uh data

03:07center regulations. Next slide, please.

03:11>> Justin, can we

03:12stop for a second and show that

03:14Commissioner Thiessen has showed up and

03:16is here?

03:16>> Certainly. Noted. Yes, sir.

03:19Let's go to the next slide, please, and

03:21then the one right after this.

03:23Thanks, Muhammad.

03:26Thanks.

03:27Um the recommended action this morning

03:29is that the full MAPC adopt the proposed

03:31amendments to the Unified Zoning Code

03:33regarding data centers and recommend

03:34adoption of the proposed amendments to

03:36the Unified Zoning Code by the City

03:37Council and County Commission. Next

03:39slide, please.

03:43Just a few disclaimers. Uh note that

03:44Wichita Sedgwick County is not currently

03:46uh considering any specific data center

03:48applications. Um data centers are

03:50currently permitted under the current

03:52Unified Zoning Code regulations. Uh the

03:55intent of this process is to define data

03:57centers and to clarify these

03:58regulations. Um Um,

04:00uh as I mentioned, uh they're not

04:02currently defined in the current

04:03regulations, but they are currently

04:05permitted. That's where the interim

04:07control period comes into play, and that

04:10is set to expire in December. And then

04:12the regulations and guidance that we're

04:13discussing today on both these agenda

04:15items affect both the city of Wichita

04:18and Sedgwick County. Next slide, please.

04:22Overview of my presentation. I'll go

04:24quickly through the project timeline.

04:25I'll discuss the schedule. I'll go into

04:28the public input that we've received

04:30thus far. I will discuss the draft

04:32regulations. We've gone through this

04:34before page by page, so I will be as

04:36brief and thorough as possible as I can

04:38on the draft regulations. The Advanced

04:40Plans Committee feedback that we've

04:42received from our last two meetings,

04:43that's probably where we will spend the

04:45bulk of our time.

04:46And then again on any unresolved

04:48questions that that we have

04:51going back to those two meetings. And

04:53then we will discuss briefly staff

04:55recommended updates, and then have any

04:57time for question or further discussion

04:59at the tail end of the presentation.

05:00Next slide, please.

05:04So, the project timeline. Next slide,

05:05please.

05:08This process began back in January on

05:10January 14th when the interim control

05:12was initiated by the Board of County

05:13Commissioners. There have since been

05:14three extensions since then, with the

05:17current interim control period set to

05:18expire on December 24th. Next slide,

05:20please.

05:23Currently, we're at the Advanced Plans

05:25Committee meeting where we are looking

05:26at a recommendation to the full MAPC.

05:28So, that is the recommend- our

05:30recommendation for this morning. Next

05:32slide, please.

05:34A little bit more on the schedule. Next

05:36slide, please.

05:38So, we had those two meetings that I

05:40mentioned before on September 24th and

05:43October 8th. Those were the two meetings

05:44that we reviewed draft regulations.

05:46Public notice was sent to the newspapers

05:48on October 19th with our meeting today

05:50as a special meeting where we will be

05:52making potentially a formal

05:53recommendation. Next slide, please.

05:57The MAPC public hearing is set to occur

05:59on November 12th. We have the

06:01Thanksgiving holiday on the 26th. The

06:03Board of County Commissioners would be

06:04looking at this agenda item on December

06:0616th if we were to make a full

06:08recommendation on November 12th. And as

06:10I mentioned before, the interim control

06:12period is set to expire on December

06:1324th. Next slide, please.

06:17Public input. Next slide, please.

06:20There's been various opportunities for

06:21public input throughout the process.

06:23Back in March, we had a listening town

06:24hall that was

06:26um held over um at the Ruffin Building.

06:29We had a commission round table event

06:31that was also held in March. Towards the

06:32tail end of March, we had a public open

06:34house that was at the Sedgwick County

06:36Extension Center. That was on March 31st

06:38and with a corresponding public online

06:40survey that was available for 2 weeks

06:42following that public open house date.

06:44That closed on April 14th. Um all of

06:46those, the public open house and the

06:48public online survey report at least,

06:50there's been um reports on those. Those

06:51are in your packet. Those are available

06:53online at wichita.gov/datacenter.

06:55So, if you want to see uh further

06:56feedback, read every comment and and uh

06:58that we received from those meetings,

07:00you can do that in those two reports.

07:02Next slide, please.

07:04From those public input meetings, we

07:06there were several themes that emerged.

07:08One was land use compatib- uh excuse me,

07:10compatibility and community identity,

07:12water use and water supply, energy

07:14demand, and environmental and health

07:16concerns. So, um as we started drafting

07:19these regulations, that was the focal

07:20point of of a lot of these discussions.

07:22Next slide, please.

07:27Um highlighted here again, energy,

07:29water, environment, and health, land use

07:30compatibility, and community identity.

07:32Next slide, please.

07:36And now into the draft Unified Zoning

07:37Code updates. There's two copies in

07:39here. We have a a clean version um which

07:41we had gone over before, and then we

07:43also have a

07:44um a marked version, and I'll go through

07:46those marked comments shortly. Uh this

07:48slide, what's showing is the Unified

07:49Zoning Code regulations. As I mentioned

07:51before, this is a two-step process.

07:53We're both going through the UZC and the

07:55comprehensive plan. This first agenda

07:57item specifically deals with the Zoning

07:58Code, which is more regulatory in

08:00nature. Next slide, please.

08:04Uh regulatory authorities, we've shown

08:06this slide before. Um a lot of things to

08:08consider as we're going through these

08:09individual topics is that, um, lots of

08:12different entities oversee these topics

08:14from the state level to the federal

08:16level to the local level, um, depending

08:18on the category um, and the topic,

08:21different authorities overview

08:23different, uh, aspects of these topics.

08:26Next slide, please.

08:30So, the components of the draft UZC

08:33language that we'll go through, it's

08:34kind of bit, uh, separated into two

08:35separate sections. The first one is

08:37definitions, the second one is a

08:38supplementary use regulations, and under

08:40the supplementary use regulations

08:42include the application requirements for

08:44any potential applicant for a data

08:45center site, and then the development

08:47standards. Next slide, please.

08:49>> [clears throat]

08:51>> Uh, this is the document that we'll be

08:52looking at and going through today, so

08:54you should have that in your packet. As

08:55I mentioned before, there's a clean

08:56version and a marked version. Um, both

08:58are suitable. Um, I'll go I'll be going

09:00through the marked document, uh,

09:02specifically, and I'll take any redline

09:04items item by item, but I won't be going

09:06through this page by page. We've done

09:08that prior. So, I'll like I said, I'll

09:10try and be thorough on this, but uh,

09:12quick also in the interest of time. Next

09:14slide, please.

09:17So, definitions, we have four categories

09:19of data centers, micro, standard, large,

09:21and hyperscale. Um, each of those

09:23definitions are identified through

09:26square footage, um, megawatt, and uh,

09:29acreage, maximum acreage, and then, um,

09:33uh, that's shown on the first page

09:34there. So, um, as we discussed before,

09:37you'll see the one change on here, and

09:39I'll go into this in a little bit

09:40greater detail. The acreage on

09:41hyperscale, the maximum, uh, uh,

09:45acreage is currently at none, which was,

09:47uh, something that this group discussed

09:48last go-around. I'll go into that in

09:50greater detail on later slides, but

09:52these are the four standard definitions

09:54that we've been working with. Next

09:55slide, please.

09:58General requirements, so this is on page

10:00four of the document, and this is where,

10:02uh, all these these requirements uh,

10:04apply to all data centers. So, when

10:06someone, uh, so basically, uh, long

10:08story short, uh, floodplain exclusion,

10:10underground lines, outdoor storage,

10:11signs, and inspections are all included

10:14as part of the general requirements for

10:16all four definitions, micro, standard,

10:18large, and hyperscale. Um, we have

10:20floodplain exclusion there. They, uh,

10:21shall be located within any 100, uh,

10:24shall not be located within any 100-year

10:26or 500-year floodplain. Um, let's go to

10:28the next slide, please.

10:31Uh, inspections, insurance, and

10:33construction, um, all data centers

10:35subject to reasonable access and

10:37inspection, insurance is required, and

10:39then, uh, this is a new one as well,

10:41which we will highlight again later on,

10:43that construction times for data

10:44centers, except for micro data centers,

10:46shall be limited to the hours of 7:00

10:48a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and, uh, uh, that

10:51mirrors the current municipal

10:53regulations for the city of Wichita.

10:55Next slide, please.

10:58Application requirements, this applies

11:00to all data centers requiring a

11:02conditional use. Um, the applicant is

11:04required to submit a project narrative,

11:06a concept plan, draft grading and

11:08landscape plans, a visual impact

11:09analysis, and noise mitigation plan.

11:12Again, we'll be going into some of these

11:13topics in greater detail on the upcoming

11:15slides. Next slide, please.

11:19Um, again, this are, uh, continued

11:21application requirements that apply for

11:23all data centers requiring a conditional

11:24use. Also requires an air quality impact

11:26assessment, power supply and grid impact

11:29assessment, and water utilization

11:30report. Next slide, please.

11:34Um, let's see, uh, continuing

11:37application requirements, thermal, uh,

11:39impact mitigation plan, electronic waste

11:41plan, emergency response plan, plan, and

11:43traffic transportation assessment. Next

11:45slide, please.

11:48And, uh, construction management and

11:50mitigation plan, soil and groundwater

11:51assessment, emergency response plan, and

11:54ecological, natural, historic, and

11:55cultural resources assessment are all

11:58required. Next slide, please.

12:02Um, decommissioning plan, wanted to get

12:04more specific on this one. This is

12:05required as part of the application

12:07requirements uh, for all data centers

12:09requiring a conditional use. The, uh,

12:11decommissioning plan shall address

12:12facility and equipment inventory,

12:14removal and disposal procedures,

12:16lifestyle management timelines, site

12:18restoration, and notification to the

12:19governing body. We'll go into this one a

12:21little bit more in greater detail on the

12:22later slides as well. Next slide,

12:24please.

12:26Uh development standards. So, we're off

12:28of the application requirements onto the

12:29development standards. So, all of these

12:32items apply to standard, large, and

12:34hyperscale data centers. That's on page

12:3614 of the document. It requires uh

12:39location uh This This is where we get

12:40into specifics of location requirements,

12:43the maximum building size and height,

12:45setbacks, screening, cool roof, and

12:47solar ready design, fencing, lighting,

12:49and ongoing water monitoring and

12:51reporting. So, all of these are are

12:53included in the development standards.

12:55Next slide, please.

12:58Um this also uh includes water

13:00conservation cooling systems, an annual

13:03compliance report that's supposed to be

13:04submitted to uh the planning department,

13:06backup generators and air quality signs,

13:09decommissioning, which we went through

13:10before, but I'll go into it again later,

13:12uh construction timeline, noise

13:13performance standards, and battery

13:15energy storage systems. Next slide,

13:17please.

13:19This is the uh land use table that we

13:22had shown previously. This is a draft.

13:24Um so, we're working through this. Um

13:26the zoning districts are shown from left

13:29to right. On the far left is RR, rural

13:31residential, which is the primary zoning

13:33district for a lot of these potential

13:35locations that we've been looking at.

13:36The P stands for permitted. The C stands

13:39for conditional use. Um and then all of

13:42uh these land uses, whether or not

13:44they're permitted or require conditional

13:46use, are subject to the conditions

13:49listed uh on D6TT.

13:52That's what this document is. That's

13:53what we've been discussing. So, again,

13:55I'll go through that in greater detail,

13:56but um all of these uh land use uh

14:00permissions are subject to the these

14:02conditions. Next slide, please.

14:06So, now I want to get specifically into

14:07the feedback that we received and

14:09discussed on September 24th and October

14:128th. So, next slide, please.

14:15So, uh if you're willing to walk through

14:17this document with me that would be

14:18fantastic. This is addressing

14:20specifically the comments made by this

14:22committee. So based on the feedback that

14:25we had on page one there was discussed

14:28discussion regarding removing the 1000

14:30acre project area limit for hyperscale

14:33data centers that has been

14:35stricken. So you can see that on

14:38approximately line 30 on page 22

14:42or the first page of that.

14:44We did add changes to remove remove

14:47excuse me move the utility major and

14:50utility minor definitions to the second

14:51page that's been done.

14:53Add construction times and hours

14:55limitations for data centers that can be

14:57found on page five.

15:00As I mentioned before we have those

15:02hours listed as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

15:06and staff mirrored those hours based on

15:10the

15:11city Wichita. So

15:14I wanted to go ahead and highlight that.

15:16Adding text to clarify where the

15:18application will be submitted. There is

15:20some discussion about who the applicant

15:22will be submitting this to. So we wanted

15:24to clear that up and note that it would

15:26be going to the planning department

15:29specifically. So we have that listed on

15:32page six in the top paragraph there.

15:35Adding language that the electronic

15:37waste plan shall be reviewed by the

15:38director of the Sedgwick County

15:40Department of Environmental Resources.

15:41That's on page 10 of the document.

15:44So you can see that on

15:48item L. We added a paragraph there

15:50noting that that would be reviewed.

15:52Adding language to add state historic

15:55preservation office compliance to the

15:58ecological natural historic and cultural

16:00resources assessment application

16:01requirement. That is on page 11. So you

16:04can see in the packet it says page 11 of

16:0619

16:07on there. We added that under section Q.

16:11If we could go back to that slide for me

16:14please Muhammad.

16:17Perfect. Thank you.

16:19And then we have it says add language

16:20requiring the applicant to restore the

16:22site to the pre-existing environmental

16:24condition of the land following

16:26decommissioning. That's on page 12 of 19

16:29under um item R 5. So, we added that

16:33line specifically that pre- pre-existing

16:35environmental conditions of the land as

16:37where it should be restored. I want to

16:39stop on this one cuz I know that we've

16:41had this as part of some discussion um

16:44as part of the site restoration, um

16:47should buildings or no buildings be

16:50included in that? Should we um add

16:52language or remove language uh as to

16:55whether or not the building should be

16:57taken down? Cuz we had the discussion of

16:59pre-existing environmental condition

17:01would technically mean no building. Um

17:03but we just wanted clarification on

17:04that. I believe the way that the code is

17:06written now is the internal guts of the

17:09building would be removed, but the

17:10building would remain. But just for

17:12clarity's sake, we wanted to go ahead

17:14and stop and ask that question again

17:16about the buildings or no buildings.

17:29>> Justin, if I could, I'll go ahead and

17:31add just some things that we've heard

17:32throughout the process about the

17:34buildings. Um we have heard that from

17:37some members of the public on on both

17:39sides of this. Um some have indicated

17:42that the preference their preference

17:43individual preference was to have them

17:45removed and that that was their

17:47expectation because

17:49these

17:51because of the expectation these would

17:52generally be located in agricultural

17:54areas. And so, this would be returning

17:57it to something that's more similar to

17:58what's nearby.

18:00On the flip side, we've heard comments

18:02from individuals about that it doesn't

18:04make sense to remove the buildings

18:06because he's a very large there's very

18:08large investment involved in that. And

18:11the possibility of potentially even

18:12reusing the buildings for something

18:14other than that.

18:16So, I just I want to share those in case

18:18it helps you as you discuss and

18:20deliberate and think about it.

18:24>> Okay. Thank you. Is there any other

18:26commission members have a comment about

18:28buildings or no buildings?

18:31Yes, Commissioner High.

18:33>> Are there any other businesses

18:37in which

18:39uh if they left, and let's say Spirit or

18:43Boeing,

18:45uh that we won't will require them to

18:49take down the building?

18:53>> Not that I'm aware of. Um the most

18:55similar thing that we've got is with the

18:57solar panels, but again, that's panels

18:59and that's not structures.

19:02To say that's not buildings.

19:05>> So, we have Boeing were to leave

19:07Wichita,

19:09heaven forbid,

19:10um

19:12and let leave the buildings there,

19:15most likely they're going to take away

19:16the robotics, and they're going to do,

19:18you know, the guts and all that other

19:19stuff, but they're not going to take

19:20down the buildings.

19:21So, we would probably leave the

19:23buildings.

19:30>> Yes, Commissioner Thiessen.

19:32>> Is there precedent for how other

19:34communities and states have handled

19:36this? Not that we need to follow that,

19:38but wondering what other places are

19:40doing.

19:41>> I don't think we've seen that being uh

19:43very prevalent is having the the full

19:45building come down um based on our

19:47research. I'm not sure some communities

19:49do do it, but but based on our research,

19:50we haven't uh found anything definitive

19:52on that.

19:54>> Yes.

19:55>> Is there anything about the nature of

19:57these buildings that is like

19:59fundamentally different than like other

20:02big warehouse-style buildings that would

20:04make it incompatible for future use?

20:07>> I think just primarily the size. Um but

20:10Scott, did you want to have a comment on

20:12that?

20:14>> Given that it's

20:16involving a lot of computers and

20:18processing, and these are these are not

20:20really designed for humans to be

20:22operating in them as much as they're an

20:24emphasis on the computers and and

20:26mechanics that are taking place inside.

20:28Um

20:30Yeah, I don't It's It's not like taking

20:32office building and then, you know,

20:34taking out all the computers and you're

20:36left with an office building. This is a

20:37a structure that is specifically built

20:40just for computer processing and they've

20:42got all this infrastructure with pipes

20:44and electricity and all of that, but but

20:47it's not like they have windows or it's

20:49really designed with humans in mind.

20:54>> How's the comments?

20:56But certainly could be used in a

20:58warehouse.

20:58>> Yes.

20:59>> I there would be some adaptation, I'm

21:01sure, that would would be necessary.

21:02Now, the question would be, I think, the

21:04degree and I just don't I don't have

21:06have that knowledge. I think it it could

21:08depend on each specific building, but

21:10overall, I would I would just say that

21:14th- these are designed for data

21:15processing and not really for humans to

21:19with the thought that humans would

21:20occupy them.

21:27>> Okay, carry on, Justin.

21:29>> Okay.

21:29>> Yeah, so

21:30>> I guess you got I don't know if you got

21:32it Did you get an idea or not, Scott?

21:33>> N- Not yet. Um I guess I don't want to

21:36let you off the hook that easy, so uh

21:38thanks for asking the question.

21:41>> Well, I think

21:42I don't see how it's any different if if

21:45uh

21:45a business shuts it down and they have a

21:47building and they own the building and

21:49they own the land under it, they're

21:51going to sell that whole thing to

21:52someone

21:54and that someone is going to have to

21:56tear the building down. That's just kind

21:57of the natural process of things. So,

22:01my vote would be leave the buildings.

22:05>> Yes, Commissioner Fry.

22:06>> Thank you. I tend to agree with

22:07Commissioner High in that

22:10>> [clears throat]

22:10>> the building itself could be adaptively

22:12reused, whether it be for

22:15uh manufacturing, warehouse, call

22:18centers. I mean, uh to have a structure

22:21like that, there's an investment made

22:23that could be repurposed. I think that

22:25would something you'd want to explore

22:27rather than just take it out.

22:34>> Commissioner

22:38McKay

22:40Is there any criteria for using existing

22:42buildings?

22:47>> How so? Can you expand a little bit more

22:48on that?

22:50>> Well, I have a building out here and

22:51it's

22:53There's a building on Harry Street just

22:55before you go past the turnpike, under

22:56the turnpike.

22:58And it was a call center one time. And

23:00it's basically an empty building and it

23:02didn't have a lot of anything else.

23:05Is there a

23:06If you're going to have a criteria for

23:09getting rid of them, how you going to

23:10have a criteria if you can reuse them?

23:12>> Okay.

23:13Um so far in the regulations, there's no

23:15criteria that they have to reuse an

23:18existing building. Um

23:20and and

23:21likewise, there's

23:22no criteria about putting a data center

23:25building

23:26uh making modifications to it to make it

23:29usable for another use.

23:31So, hopefully that and there's no

23:33requirement that they use an existing

23:35building in the regulations, either.

23:41>> What I'm saying is is the fact that

23:44if there's an existing good existing

23:46building

23:48and you're saying, well, if we're

23:50talking about tearing down along with

23:53And so, that becomes a single-purpose

23:56building

23:58with the data centers.

24:01If we want to if if data center people

24:03come in and find a building is there a

24:05criteria

24:06is it the same as a new building

24:10or is it different?

24:12Or how do you go about getting from A to

24:14Z?

24:16>> I I we can ask that question. I don't

24:18have that that knowledge right now in

24:21terms of what their specifications are.

24:23The other thing that I would um

24:26The other thing I would share is that

24:28because there's these are evolving very

24:30quickly, I don't know how quickly those

24:33building standards would also change.

24:35So, that's something we can inquire with

24:37Berkeley, but it right now we don't have

24:39a an answer for what their standards

24:41are.

24:44>> Commissioner Matheson.

24:46>> Would keeping the building at all

24:49interfere with what we define as site

24:52restoration including required soil or

24:55groundwater remediation or removal of

24:57hazardous materials?

25:03>> Uh let's see. So,

25:06>> I think in answer to that one, I think

25:09what we would do is we would

25:11clarify that if the building is allowed

25:13to remain, we would state that in there

25:15and then that would of course it would

25:18be the testing and other things to

25:19ensure that they're

25:21not leaving anything toxic and that

25:23they're returning the site overall

25:25excluding the building itself. I mean,

25:27we still want it to be We don't want to

25:29leave any kind of toxic legacy even

25:31though the building is still remaining.

25:33And I'm not saying that the building

25:35would be toxic by any means, but we're

25:38going to we're going to make sure

25:40the intent is to make sure that the site

25:42is not going to be an issue for people.

25:44It's just that whether or not it's got

25:46the structure on it. So, would leaving

25:48the structure inhibit

25:50the ability to make sure that the site

25:52is not going to have an a hazard not

25:54pose a toxic hazard to anyone?

25:57In my opinion, no, it would not.

26:00>> Mr. Hart.

26:02>> Uh

26:03I'm going to

26:05repeat something here. Uh are there

26:07other regulatory agencies that

26:10control that?

26:12>> Yes. I mean, you're going to run into if

26:15there is any toxic issue, you're going

26:16to run into KDHE. You're going to be

26:18working with the EPA according to the

26:20existing regulations.

26:21>> Yeah.

26:22>> Okay. So, I asked that and you can kind

26:24of tell

26:25a little bit from the line of my

26:26questions is is that [snorts]

26:29um

26:30I have an adverse

26:33a feeling that I don't want to duplicate

26:36regulations and I don't want to

26:38overburden some.

26:39I want to right-size the regulations,

26:41but I don't also want to

26:44uh have uh burdensome regulations or

26:47duplicative regulations. And so

26:49uh to the extent that we already have

26:52regulations in place

26:54um

26:56then I'm not going to be in favor

26:59of adding any additional regulations.

27:06>> Anyone else?

27:09Commissioner Theisen.

27:10>> I would also be in favor of

27:12keeping the building on site.

27:17>> So if I could, what I what I understand,

27:20it sounds like there's a general

27:21consensus about

27:23allowing the building to remain. So they

27:25would always have the option to remove

27:27it if they wanted to, but they're not

27:28required to remove it. So we will update

27:32the text to include that. Um please

27:34anyone speak up if there's any other

27:36thoughts on that, but that's how we'll

27:37move forward.

27:38Okay. Thank you.

27:41Thank you very much.

27:42>> Yep.

27:42>> Uh I'll draw your attention to the last

27:44bullet point on this slide, add language

27:46or more requirements to all applicants

27:49on their in their roles. Uh that was

27:51part of the application requirements,

27:53that's paid found on page uh

27:5613 of 19 at the bottom on the paragraph.

27:59We staff added language noting that any

28:01change of ownership or operator shall

28:03necessitate new documentation being

28:05provided to the planning department

28:06establishing or verifying financial

28:08assurance as required by this section.

28:11So we did add language uh based on the

28:13recommendation from this committee.

28:15Next slide, please.

28:20Uh add language or more requirements to

28:22all applicants on their roles. That was

28:23the one I just addressed. Uh so we're

28:25covered there. And then also on I

28:28believe page 13 uh

28:30uh language requirement uh

28:33uh regarding the application um on the

28:36decommissioning plan. Initially, that

28:37language said that we required an

28:39updated decommissioning plan every 5

28:41years. Per this group's discussion, we

28:43wanted every 3 years. So, that change

28:44has been made um right around line 450

28:48there.

28:49Um more discussion. So, uh there was a

28:52discussion regarding the a request to

28:54invite regional energy providers. This

28:56came from our meeting on uh

28:58uh 10/8. As it relates to potentially

29:00requiring data centers to supply their

29:02own power generation,

29:04uh back of meter power generation, and

29:07uh there was a request to invite folks

29:09from Evergy, the Sedgwick County Co-op,

29:11Kansas Gas, and Black Hills. Those

29:13invitations were sent by staff. I do

29:15know that we have a representative from

29:17Evergy in attendance. Um I do know that

29:19Sedgwick County Co-op uh unfortunately

29:21was not able to attend. Um Kansas Gas um

29:24did reach out via phone, provided some

29:26general information, but they were not

29:27able to attend. As far as Black Hills

29:29Energy, I don't believe there is a

29:31representative here from Black Hills.

29:33However, there is a representative from

29:34Evergy. Um

29:36I think we may have an opportunity to

29:38discuss this item a little bit more in

29:40detail later, but

29:43um

29:43I'll go ahead and stop there for a

29:45second. Um again, the the the discussion

29:48regarding requiring data centers to

29:51provide their own energy, the context of

29:54of that discussion was um

29:57whether or not if they do supply their

29:59own energy, what type of energy source

30:02would they be using? Would they be using

30:04uh backup power generators or or or

30:07generators as a primary energy source?

30:09Could gas potentially be used as a

30:11primary energy source? Uh from staff's

30:13conversation with uh Kansas Gas, uh they

30:17did note instances, not necessarily in

30:20in Kansas, but there have been instances

30:22where um because the queue to get access

30:25to the energy grid uh did take a long

30:28time, um that certain data centers did

30:31use gas uh as a primary

30:34uh energy source until they were up and

30:37running with the electrical grid. So,

30:38that was the information that that staff

30:40received from Kansas Gas.

30:42Um, that said, I'll go ahead and stop

30:44there. I wanted to provide a little bit

30:45more context. Scott, do you have

30:47something to add?

30:48>> Go ahead, Scott.

30:48>> If I could, sir. Um, the other thing

30:51with this question

30:52with this conversation, I think it's two

30:53part. Number one, about what should be

30:55in the regs in terms of energy types.

30:58Um, and also, I think the second part is

31:01about the geography question and it's

31:04one that I think is still under

31:05discussion, but the there's a going to

31:08be a relationship to

31:10in terms of what energy source are they

31:12using and also geographically where are

31:14these things going to be located or

31:15where should they be allowed to be

31:17located? So, I just wanted to highlight

31:19that part.

31:20>> [clears throat]

31:20>> And we do get specifically into

31:22geography a little bit later on in the

31:23presentation, so I wanted to go ahead

31:25and note that, but we could also have

31:27further discussion right here. So.

31:29>> I think Commissioner Fry has a question.

31:31>> Yeah, thank you and I have

31:33slept since we had these last meetings,

31:35so I may be

31:37misremembering the conversation, the

31:38discussion,

31:40but I thought it was about the backup

31:42power generation was the question and

31:45not the main power supply because the

31:47whole attraction of

31:49where we're talking about the giant

31:51transmission lines

31:53is why these data centers are talking

31:55about being in this area cuz that's the

31:56main power supply.

31:58I thought the discussion was more about

32:00the backup power generation.

32:02Am I incorrect?

32:03>> You you are correct. We actually covered

32:06both of those topics. So, so the first

32:08one was the the larger geographical

32:10component of showing those maps, showing

32:12the high voltage lines and and proximity

32:14to those lines, but then we also had

32:17another discussion topic regarding

32:19backup generators specifically and how

32:21to regulate those. And the backup

32:23generators discussion was specifically

32:24regarding backup generators as a

32:27supplemental power and whether or not

32:30we've seen in any instances where those

32:32generators have been used as a as a

32:33primary power source. So, your your

32:36recollection is on point. We discussed

32:38both of those.

32:39>> But is there

32:40is there [clears throat] language in

32:41here that's requiring them to supply

32:43their own power generation for primary?

32:46>> Currently no.

32:47>> Thank you.

32:49>> Commissioner Aldrich has a question.

32:51>> Yeah, what I

32:53follow up on that a little bit, you

32:55know,

32:56I'm the one that

32:57made the comments uh relating uh

33:02you know, to the being self-sustainable.

33:05Um

33:06relationship into the rate payers

33:08protection plan uh on that. So,

33:12you know, I keep

33:14hearing on national news, for example,

33:17that

33:18you know, that is going to be a

33:20requirement uh what it sounds like out

33:22of Washington on that. So, that's why I

33:26wanted to have those discussions, you

33:29know, how does that pertain to

33:32not only Sedgwick County, but

33:35you know, elsewhere uh on that. Or is

33:38that just something we don't even talk

33:39about? Uh

33:41you know, so that's

33:43you know, I don't want to be uh

33:47have be limited to just one energy

33:49source uh

33:51whether it's electricity or whatever. I

33:53think they ought to be able to have

33:56uh

33:57all sources available to help reduce

34:00uh

34:01wear and tear on the grid uh and main

34:04thing is is to protect you know, the

34:07citizens out there where they're not

34:08going to be responsible for extra

34:11utility cost for something they have no

34:12control over.

34:18>> Other comments about this section?

34:22See none. Gary Allen.

34:24>> As as I mentioned before, we we do have

34:26a a guest from Evergy in attendance. I'm

34:29just noting that that they are here to

34:30potentially answer any questions that

34:32you might have regarding that. Um so, um

34:35I'll go ahead and just throw that out

34:36there. Um but any other uh thoughts at

34:39all on that one before I move on. Then

34:42let's go.

34:43>> Well, if I could. Um so, currently the

34:46the document is not written with any any

34:49restriction on that they have to provide

34:51their own power. I know that's been a

34:53conversation piece that's come up.

34:56It's come up today, came up previously.

34:58So, I just want to

35:00I guess I just want to

35:02point out that currently the document

35:04does not have that requirement and it

35:05sounds like so far I've not heard a

35:07consensus so far that it should. So, we

35:10will proceed with it the way that it is,

35:12but if there's other thoughts or other

35:14ideas, certainly now would be a good

35:16time.

35:17>> Scott, my whole comments were just

35:20exactly that. Should we require that

35:22they be self-sustainable?

35:25You know, if it's not the consensus uh

35:28you know, of this body, then it's not.

35:32But, I still think that we should ask

35:34that question and we should get a

35:36definitive answer

35:38on that. So, should we require that

35:41you know, they they are

35:43self-sustainable?

35:44If that answer is no, then hey, guess

35:46what? We move on.

35:49>> I think Commissioner Theisen.

35:51Time for that conversation.

35:53>> Um given that we have Evergy here, I

35:56would love to hear from them assuming

35:57they've prepared some remarks and if

35:59not, I I don't have any specific

36:01questions cuz it feels kind of like a

36:03you don't know what you don't know

36:04thing. Um but, if they had any thoughts

36:07um or context to weigh into this, I I

36:09would welcome them if they had any.

36:13>> I I agree. I was wanting to

36:15um hear more from Evergy and and other

36:17folks before That's a great question

36:19that Bob has, but I I need more

36:21information before I can

36:24>> Hi, good morning. I'm Zach Gladhill. I

36:26represent Evergy. My team leads

36:28strategy, long-term planning, which

36:30includes generation, distribution,

36:32transmission planning, as well as all

36:34all of our large customer work. So, very

36:36familiar conversations that uh we're

36:38hearing across the country and across

36:39our service territory. Um

36:41a couple of points I want to bring up.

36:43Uh maybe just the first two and I think

36:45it'll ultimately get to the

36:47self uh self-reliant generation

36:49component. So, the first piece of it is

36:52Evergy has a large load power service

36:54tariff that we've put in place.

36:56What that tariff does is actually

36:58charges data centers a premium when they

37:00connect to our system that goes back to

37:03help put downward pressure on rates for

37:04all of our other customers. So, we think

37:06we were very early in the kind of the

37:08national view of uh

37:11putting rates and tariffs in place.

37:12We've seen a number of folks follow us

37:14and follow our lead uh across the

37:16country. Um the second piece I'll just

37:18touch on really quickly is just

37:20reliability. So, you know, our job is to

37:23manage the grid and operate the grid.

37:25The last thing we we we would ever want

37:26to do was to

37:28serve a customer that would jeopardize

37:30our reliability. You know, reliability

37:32is one of the reasons why customers are

37:33attracted to our service territory. If

37:35we jeopardize that, we essentially, you

37:37know, forfeit any growth opportunities

37:39in the future. Um so, when it gets to

37:41the, you know, the behind the meter

37:42generation, there's there's a lot to

37:44that. Uh we do see data centers that we

37:47have active in our service territories

37:48that have backup power. We've yet to see

37:50anybody have their own generation or

37:52self-supply for the purposes of, you

37:55know, isolating themselves from the

37:56grid.

37:57Um

38:00there's a lot of thoughts on different

38:01ways to do this. If a data center's

38:04going to operate, you know,

38:06365 days a year using its own

38:08self-supply, it has to be gas. It likely

38:11can't be solar and battery storage isn't

38:14a generator. It's just a kind of a

38:15time-shifting mechanism.

38:17Uh so, it has to be gas. So, that's kind

38:18of the the first piece of it. The second

38:20piece of it is kind of going back to the

38:22large load power service tariff.

38:24We charge those customers a premium that

38:26are connected to our system. If they're

38:27not connected to our system, meaning

38:29they have their own self-generation,

38:31then those benefits don't trickle down

38:33back to our other customers. So, happy

38:35to answer any answer answer any other

38:37questions you might have, but just

38:38high-level, that's um

38:40that's kind of how we view it.

38:41I I'll I'll say really quickly, we do

38:43have in our large load power service

38:45tariffs, we we do have an opportunity

38:47for customers provide their own

38:48generation, so that that tariff

38:49structure exists, but we've yet to see

38:51anybody use it.

38:53>> I have a question from Commissioner

38:54Elder, chair.

38:55You know, in short, can you guarantee

38:59that Evergy will pass

39:02savings along

39:05back to the consumer and not be

39:08responsible

39:09for additional uh maintenance and upkeep

39:12to the to the system because of data

39:14centers?

39:15>> The the way that that our

39:18you know, the the the economics work for

39:21regulated utilities is the utility

39:23submits all their costs. Those costs are

39:25divided by the number of kilowatt hours

39:26used. So, when you have a large user

39:29like a data center customer,

39:30those costs are divided by a much larger

39:32number. Meaning that the cost would be

39:35less for each individual uh customer

39:38group. There's different allocations and

39:40it's fairly complex there, but that's

39:42the intent of it is to charge a premium.

39:44You might think about things in the past

39:46where utilities across the country have,

39:49you know, had incentives or other things

39:51to bring large customers into their

39:53service territory. This is the exact

39:54opposite. So, this is charging

39:56essentially a 20% premium to data

39:59centers and data spin centers

40:00specifically, not industrial, not

40:02manufacturing. It helps put downward

40:04pressure on rates.

40:06>> You know, any other concerns that I have

40:09is there's um Texas, for example, the

40:13governor down there has requested an

40:16audit of the of the grid system to make

40:19sure everything can connect could be

40:21handled and everything else. We're we're

40:23not in the dead of winter or the heat of

40:25the summer and all of a sudden

40:27everything crashes. Uh

40:29so, where is Evergy in Kansas uh in your

40:35opinion, are

40:36uh

40:37add on that, you know, is there do you

40:40see any issues, any problems whatsoever

40:43with our current grid system

40:45uh that would anyway, shape or form, be

40:49uh in in danger at all with unlimited

40:52amount of data centers uh possibility uh

40:56area.

40:57>> So, So, Texas has kind of been its own

40:58interesting little piece of the world

41:00from a grid reliability standpoint even

41:02kind of before the data center

41:04uh the boom started. What I'll tell you

41:06is like my group is responsible for

41:08transmission distribution planning from

41:10a long-term standpoint. We won't connect

41:12a data center that's going to jeopardize

41:14that. Like we will do, you know,

41:16sufficient studies. We'll study it

41:17internally with our system as well as

41:19with the Southwest Power Pool, which is

41:20kind of our regional transmission

41:22provider, to make sure that all the

41:24boxes are checked from a reliability

41:26standpoint. Any upgrades that are

41:27required, we would ask the data center

41:29customer to pay for that directly. So,

41:31uh but you know, there's aging

41:34infrastructure across the country. We're

41:35doing our best to address that

41:36proactively, but specific to data center

41:39interconnection, those, you know, those

41:41are

41:41evaluations that we're doing on a

41:43real-time basis with all the customers

41:45that want to locate.

41:46And I Listen, I would say it's not our

41:48job to tell you whether or not you

41:49should have a data center in your

41:50community or not. Our job is to evaluate

41:53customers that come in and serve them

41:54and

41:55uh provide the the reliable service to

41:57all our system.

42:01>> But also, Evergy's is in a position to

42:04uh

42:06have a considerable economic impact uh

42:10on data centers, correct?

42:12>> Well, yeah. I mean, growth, I think

42:14growth is good for for all. So, I think

42:16the the communities, the the tax base,

42:18the the job creation,

42:20uh certainly the the electric sales,

42:23um

42:23it is helpful for for all industries

42:25across our service territory. So, yeah.

42:27We would certainly benefit some degree

42:29to that.

42:30>> I'd sure like to see our utility rates

42:32drop. And I hope that's something that

42:35uh

42:36Evergy would consider even though it

42:38doesn't sound like that they're have any

42:40obligation to do so.

42:41>> Yeah. I mean, you you know, the the

42:43costs for, you know, our industry, so

42:45ignoring data centers, costs for

42:47industries like everything else in our

42:48lives, it's becoming more and more

42:50expensive every year.

42:51The good news is back to the LLPS tariff

42:54rate,

42:55this this premium then goes back to help

42:57reduce customer rate. So, it it it

43:00likely isn't a reduction just given the

43:02the inflation that we're seeing across

43:03the country in all aspects, but

43:06but not for the the data center, it

43:08would be higher. Um so, it's I think

43:10it's a win overall.

43:12>> Commissioner Theesen.

43:14Do you have any concerns with the

43:15regulations as written or what we're

43:18discussing here today?

43:20>> Um

43:21specific to this this

43:23this document.

43:25>> Since we have you here, um yeah,

43:26specific to anything that's in this

43:28document, not just behind the

43:31uh meter power generation.

43:33>> Um I yeah, just got the document this

43:35morning, so I don't know that I've had a

43:37great opportunity for a deep dive in it.

43:39And and I'm not incredibly familiar with

43:41different um city planning regulations.

43:44So, I I read through it briefly, didn't

43:46see anything that that stood out as

43:47problematic.

43:49>> That's fair. Thank you for answering

43:50that, and uh

43:52I invite you that if there's stuff along

43:53the line that you're like, oh, on a

43:55second glance, maybe not what I thought,

43:57I get that.

44:00>> Commissioner Hi.

44:01>> Um

44:02what are the different sources of

44:05energy, uh like wind, solar, what else?

44:08And and

44:09you got it off the top of your heads, uh

44:11percent uh of that input.

44:14>> I don't have it off the top of my head.

44:16So, uh Evergy owns and operates wind,

44:19solar, gas, nuclear, and coal.

44:23Uh we are in the process, and we just

44:26recently published our integrated

44:27resource plan, which is kind of the

44:28forward-looking generation plan for the

44:30next uh

44:32decade. We we update this every year. Uh

44:34it has some battery storage in it. You

44:36know, we've taken kind of an all of the

44:37all of the above approach from a

44:39generation standpoint. So, what you'll

44:41see in that document is there's some

44:42gas, there's some solar, there's some

44:44battery storage uh that we're looking at

44:46here in the near term.

44:47>> And um I'm sure you do, but this I had

44:50to ask, so that if you have a shortage

44:52of one, you could easily fill that

44:55shortage with the other types.

44:57>> You mean like real-time energy, like

44:59electricity? Yeah, so we we we're

45:01connected to the Southwest Power Pool,

45:04you know, the this the system that

45:05basically runs from, you know, North

45:06Dakota to just the northern part of

45:08Texas, and then east to west Arkansas to

45:13kind of the eastern side of Colorado. Um

45:15that that system really helps provide

45:18reliability to all utilities across that

45:21footprint. And so it isn't really a if

45:24we had a problem with one on a day that

45:27we don't have a way to solve that. We

45:28could solve that with our internal

45:29resources or just being connected to the

45:31the broader system.

45:33>> Are you required to share if somebody

45:36outside your area needs more energy?

45:41>> Um

45:43Could you expand just a little bit more?

45:45I'm not sure if I'm following the

45:45question.

45:46>> of your Evergy's circle.

45:49Um do you share any of of electricity

45:54with somebody that may be short?

45:56>> Yes. Yeah, yeah. So So the the the the

45:59transmission system is interconnected

46:01across all those states I mentioned, and

46:04transmission flows back and forth based

46:06on needs and economic demand. So at

46:08times when we have really cheap the wind

46:11production or solar production, we may

46:12be providing that to the broader system

46:14because it's the lowest cost resource.

46:16At times that we don't have that, it may

46:18be coming back to us. So it's a you

46:20know, you just think of it as kind of

46:21just a broad network of of sharing

46:24across the across the country.

46:26>> Okay. So where I was heading is um

46:29I didn't want Kansas to pay for

46:32uh somebody else outside of our area

46:36uh needing energy.

46:39You provided it.

46:40Uh but that then shorts

46:43the uh

46:44energy that we need

46:46within the uh Kansas.

46:49>> Oh, no. No, no, the

46:51anytime that there's a transaction, you

46:53know, really anywhere across the system,

46:55there's an economic uh

46:57payback to the provider and that

46:58provider uh

47:00then transacts that back through fuel

47:01rates. So, that would help, you know,

47:03lower fuel rates.

47:04>> Thank you.

47:05>> Yep.

47:07>> Other questions?

47:10Seeing none, we appreciate you being

47:11here today. Thank you.

47:18>> Before Sorry, Justin, but before we move

47:20on, I Well, the question has been

47:22whether or not to require data centers

47:25to provide their own power.

47:27And I think So, that's the question that

47:29I'm I'm kind of dealing with and I just

47:30want to make sure I'm reading the room

47:32correctly. It

47:34I don't I believe that there's a

47:35consensus to not require that, but I

47:38I guess I'm going to look to you and

47:39just make sure that that's correct.

47:41>> Correct.

47:46>> Commissioner Theisen.

47:46>> I would say that given what we heard

47:48from Evergy and the large load power

47:51service tariff, um if we want that to be

47:54a downward pressure for other rates for

47:57other rate payers, then we wouldn't want

48:00them to

48:01something that I open up to the group

48:02here to make sure I'm saying it right,

48:04that we we wouldn't want them to

48:05generate their own power because then

48:07they wouldn't be able to exert any

48:09downward pressure on

48:10>> Okay.

48:11>> You're in favor, then.

48:13>> [clears throat]

48:16>> Okay. We're ready, Justin.

48:18>> Okay.

48:19>> [clears throat]

48:19>> So, the next line following that is the

48:21fourth bullet point down and this gets

48:22to Commissioner Fry's point early on

48:25regarding the request for Berkeley Group

48:26to do additional research on whether

48:28generators are used in conjunction with

48:29the primary power source

48:32or supplemental power.

48:34Berkeley Group did respond to us via

48:38email and and provided a statement

48:39there. That's this document that you

48:41could see here that's labeled backup

48:42generators for supplemental power.

48:44That's That's at your seat. It's also

48:45listed here.

48:47Um In short,

48:50Berkeley Group found that they should

48:51not be happening and can't really find

48:53any reporting that

48:56people are running backup generators for

48:58supplemental power in non-emergency

49:00times. They did note that what is

49:02happening more frequently is that

49:04emergency generators are are operating

49:07or being given permission or asked to

49:09operate to address grid reliability or

49:11demand response. So,

49:13um again, it's a it's a about a two-page

49:15response there um that has been provided

49:17here. I know that we did request that

49:19Berkeley Group attend this meeting via

49:21Zoom. I believe that they are online.

49:25Um

49:25but uh

49:27I'm not quite sure cuz I'm not seeing

49:28them up there, but um

49:31Scott, did you have anything to to add

49:33on that?

49:33>> Yeah, Momita is going to run back and

49:35check and see if Muhammad shows them and

49:37it's brought into the conversation. Um

49:39what I would add to is that again, we're

49:41working with Berkeley. The context that

49:43they're operating from is they they do

49:45have national experience, but they're

49:47based out of Virginia. So, they're very

49:49focused on the Virginia mar- market and

49:52they've got I would say some some

49:55pretty interesting uh and I guess almost

49:58extreme energy dynamics out there in

50:00terms of their grid.

50:02And so, the the point that they do make

50:04here is that um there is

50:07one data center that because they

50:09couldn't get hooked up was running on

50:11its own power, but as

50:12as we've heard from Evergy, that is not

50:15a scenario that's very common and it's

50:17pretty unique.

50:21>> Good afternoon, Scott. This is Michael

50:23Steiner with Berkeley Group. I am on if

50:25if there are any questions or anything.

50:27>> Thanks, Michael, for being here.

50:29Muhammad, is it at all possible for you

50:30to potentially turn up the volume just a

50:32little bit on Michael? Um if not, that's

50:34okay, but uh if it's at all all

50:35possible, that'd be great.

50:38And and um I'll go ahead and turn it

50:39over to to this group to see if there

50:42are any questions for Michael from

50:43Berkeley Group on this topic

50:44specifically.

50:49>> Commissioner Thorsen.

50:50>> I think a part of the discussion that we

50:52had last time was what the federal

50:54regulations are around um generators. Um

50:59can you address that?

51:01Michael, please and

51:03>> Yes, happy to. So, in looking at this

51:07what if we're talking about generators,

51:08the presumption is we're talking about

51:10emergency generators

51:12and there are specific uh federal EPA

51:15regulations on uh when they are allowed

51:18to operate

51:19um periods of testing and the like. And

51:22I expect and I don't know this

51:24explicitly, but I expect there's also

51:26Kansas state regulations around their

51:28use as well. So, yes, there are EPA

51:32regulations on emergency generators that

51:35control uh

51:38you know, how long they're allowed to

51:39operate, when they're allowed to test

51:41and that sort of thing and that they can

51:43only technically be used in

51:45non-emergency

51:46event or excuse me, emergency events and

51:49limited duration for non-emergency

51:51events such as testing.

51:53Um and what I said and I believe you'll

51:56have my email, but basically

51:58uh as Justin in indicated

52:01um

52:02there have been times in Virginia just

52:04because of the nature of

52:07uh

52:07the grid network there and in demand

52:10where they are potentially being asked

52:13to use emergency generators

52:16for qualifying emergency events uh when

52:19there's grid grid reliability issues,

52:22when there's you know, cold weather

52:24snaps, weather uh issues, grid demand

52:27issues and to ensure that essentially

52:30uh that there's less than potential for

52:33for blackouts associated with that. Um

52:37not sure if those concerns translate and

52:39doesn't sound like they translate to

52:41Kansas today, whether they would in the

52:44future that would remain to be seen. I

52:47think we have some unique conditions

52:48going on in Virginia.

52:50Um but that's um that's what we've

52:52learned.

52:56>> Thank you.

52:58>> Commissioner Altridge.

53:00>> Yeah, this for the Berkeley group. You

53:02mentioned in your

53:04your report, your two-page report, that

53:06Virginia is an importer

53:08uh

53:09of uh power.

53:12Uh so, I can see where

53:15they would have some issues.

53:18There were

53:20uh I don't believe

53:22Kansas is. I think we're

53:24making our own

53:26power here. Is that Is that correct?

53:30>> Yes, I think the

53:32So, the the state and governor recently

53:35released their uh Virginia energy plan,

53:38and there's a heavy discussion in there

53:40about the fact, and this has been going

53:42on for at least a decade plus, I

53:45imagine, but yes, Virginia is a heavy

53:47importer

53:49of electricity to meet the demand, and

53:52the growth in data center development um

53:55has only increased the need for that

53:58import of electricity, and the state of

54:01the transmission network and grid

54:04um have resulted in some challenges with

54:07meeting that demand in certain

54:09geographic areas, northern Virginia in

54:12particular,

54:13um we're seeing

54:15more uh projects for transmission line

54:18upgrades, new transmission lines to

54:21handle that grid reliability issue.

54:24Um and and so, that's certainly kind of

54:27the state of where we are right now.

54:29>> Okay, thank you for that, cuz it it uh

54:31explains a lot.

54:34You know, it sort of

54:35helps ease my concerns a little bit, but

54:38I still have concerns. Thank you.

54:41>> Yes, sir.

54:43>> Other questions for Mike.

54:47See none.

54:49Thank you, Michael, for

54:50being on the line there.

54:52Uh

54:53Commissioner Theisen.

54:54>> What I see in the report from the

54:56Berkeley Group, the third paragraph

54:58here, is that um

55:02emergency generators operating are being

55:04given permission or asked by the utility

55:07to generate power at at their request to

55:10reduce demand on the electrical grid.

55:13The way I read that, that feels like

55:15that's outside of what we can regulate

55:17or what we can put into our zoning

55:20regulations. Is that a fair statement?

55:23>> Scott.

55:24>> Thank you, sir. Um

55:27I think part of the part of the issue so

55:29much with emergency generators is the

55:31air quality impacts. And so, we actually

55:34have some updated text that we would

55:37like to run by you later on to talk

55:39about air quality. So, I I just would

55:43would say we've got some more info on

55:44that one.

55:49>> Who oversees air quality regulations?

55:55>> It's great question.

55:57>> not MABCD.

55:58>> Well,

56:02my understanding is that there we've got

56:05the states involved in that, the feds

56:06are involved in that, and there is the

56:08ability for local governments as well.

56:11Now, what you'll see when we talk about

56:14that is we've got some specific language

56:17in terms of an air quality plan that the

56:20data center would be expected to develop

56:22and then monitoring to report back

56:24whether or not they're following with

56:26that plan.

56:27Um the other thing to keep in mind is

56:29that we are seeing some we've

56:31we've seen some changes in terms of air

56:33quality at the federal level. Um and so,

56:36we're cognizant of that as well in the

56:38language that you see that's that's

56:41recommended at this point.

56:48>> Commissioner Aldridge. This might be a

56:49little premature, but a lot of this goes

56:53to the classification

56:55of what we're doing, whether or not this

56:57is a utility major or minor or

57:00industrial.

57:02And so far, everything that I'm seeing

57:04in here,

57:05uh

57:06staff is

57:08pushing for the utility major or

57:10minor, is that correct?

57:13>> Actually, um in this case

57:16great conversation, great question. So,

57:18the utility major and utility minor um

57:21that that's actually

57:23not not related. It's it's separate from

57:26the data centers. In this case, what

57:27we're recommending is that data centers

57:29have their own definition in the zoning

57:31code. Um and then that there be

57:33conditions attached with that. The

57:36utility major and utility minor, the

57:38reason The only reason why it's included

57:40in this documentation is that because

57:42we're talking about data centers and we

57:44because we know that there are instances

57:46when they do bring behind the meter

57:48power sources with them, we want to make

57:50very clear that those power sources,

57:53when they're behind the meter, require a

57:54conditional use. So, that's why we've

57:57included the language for utility major

57:59and utility minor in the write-up that

58:01you've seen is because we're hoping that

58:03we are recommending that you that those

58:07amendments would also be adopted to

58:08clarify that those absolutely require a

58:11conditional use.

58:12>> Cuz what my concerns are, again, is

58:14regulations and who's going to be the

58:17the

58:19that authority to do that. And if these

58:22are classified solely as utility major

58:25minor,

58:26then the Kansas Corporation Commission

58:29is the one that oversees that. We would

58:32not be having any input

58:35locally or with our local governments.

58:38And that's that's what my concerns are.

58:41>> Yeah, and if it if it helps, um do know

58:44that a data center is under its own

58:46definition. It's not under utility major

58:48utility minor. So, hopefully that that's

58:51helpful.

58:53Thank you.

58:54>> I So, I want a follow-up question on

58:56that if you could. Um

58:58So, repeat what you said about if they

59:01generate power behind the What did you

59:04>> Behind the meter is the

59:06>> Okay.

59:08Um so, now we have some businesses that

59:11do generate their electricity behind

59:13already.

59:15Um

59:16is that true?

59:18>> I'm not aware of one. I'm aware of

59:21There's certainly are a lot of emergency

59:23generators out there. Very familiar

59:25with, you know, seeing those around. Um

59:29but

59:29I'm not aware of one that has its own

59:31power plant besides say like a

59:33university or a larger campus like that.

59:36>> Okay.

59:37Thank you.

59:39>> Commissioner Theisen.

59:40>> Thank you. Is the question here whether

59:42or not we can regulate via the zoning

59:44code how they use backup power?

59:48>> I think that's I think that's part of

59:50it. Um

59:51and

59:52would would you all like to go to that

59:54part of the language? Would that be

59:56helpful now or do you want to wait until

59:57later?

1:00:00>> We're on that discussion.

1:00:02>> Okay. Okay. I well, I didn't want to

1:00:05jump around too much, but um okay, so

1:00:07there is a Sorry, Justin. We'll

1:00:10we're going to pivot just a little bit,

1:00:12but um there's a document that was

1:00:14handed out. Uh this is a brand new

1:00:16document. It's got draft stamped all

1:00:18over it so that it's very

1:00:19distinguishable from the rest of the

1:00:21document. Um what this contains is this

1:00:24contains some uh updated text and um our

1:00:29rec my recommendation our recommendation

1:00:31the staff recommendation is to include

1:00:33this in what if you make a

1:00:36recommendation today to include this in

1:00:38your recommendation.

1:00:39The reason why you're getting this so

1:00:41late is because we continue to

1:00:44look at the the draft regulations and we

1:00:46continue to try and put forward what we

1:00:49think

1:00:50is appropriate or should be recommended.

1:00:53We've had some conversations this week

1:00:55with community members. Uh we've had

1:00:57staff conversations with a staff meeting

1:00:59yesterday. Uh based on that, the

1:01:02Berkeley Group was very kind to work on

1:01:04some language for us.

1:01:06And there are four major points on this

1:01:09one. Um

1:01:10and they hope I think they dovetail with

1:01:13what the community has told us are

1:01:15important. So, there's changes regarding

1:01:18water, there's changes regarding

1:01:20electricity, there's changes regarding

1:01:22air quality, and then there's changes

1:01:24regarding noise.

1:01:26The majority of these are to strengthen

1:01:29what and clarify what the regulations

1:01:31would be concerning those.

1:01:33And then uh there is one where we're

1:01:35rolling back, and then there's one where

1:01:37there's nothing, no changes. And um we

1:01:41have a slide.

1:01:42I don't know, maybe Justin, if you want

1:01:44to step back and go talk with Muhammad

1:01:46and try and get that slide up, that

1:01:47might be helpful.

1:01:49If you remember in the code, there are

1:01:51two parts to the two major parts to the

1:01:53code, which are number one, what's

1:01:55required as part of the application, and

1:01:57number two, what's required as part of

1:01:59the requirements and how you're going to

1:02:01operate. So, for air quality, I just

1:02:03want to take you through that one real

1:02:05quick.

1:02:07So,

1:02:08on page It says page 11 because we did

1:02:11not print out we printed out where there

1:02:14were changes only because we didn't want

1:02:15to we wanted to try and reduce confusion

1:02:17between two different sets.

1:02:20On page 11,

1:02:25you'll see that they have to

1:02:30they're going to have to submit um

1:02:34Hang on just a second.

1:02:39Okay. So, as part of their application,

1:02:42they're going to have to tell us how

1:02:44they're going to monitor air quality.

1:02:47And so, that's what the top of page 11

1:02:50is providing. As well as as we carry on

1:02:54from page

1:02:55uh this got stapled kind of weird. Okay,

1:02:59I see what's happening. That's why I was

1:03:01a little bit thrown off. So, page 10 is

1:03:03actually the next I don't know why

1:03:05they're stapled a little wacky, but

1:03:07on page 10, you can see that they've got

1:03:09to do

1:03:10they've got to tell us about their air

1:03:12quality plan. They've got to include the

1:03:14emission sources,

1:03:16what their anticipated emissions are

1:03:17going to be.

1:03:18Then, number three in my mind is um

1:03:22well, they're all important, but it

1:03:23shows how they're going to monitor and

1:03:26report the air quality.

1:03:28What emission reduction measures they're

1:03:30going to put is number four.

1:03:33And then number five, if there's any

1:03:34changes.

1:03:36Okay, then that carries over to page 11,

1:03:38okay, which is stapled before it, but

1:03:40you'll you'll see that's the tail end of

1:03:42it.

1:03:46So, as part of the application, they're

1:03:47going to tell us what they're going to

1:03:49do in terms of air quality.

1:03:51>> [snorts]

1:03:51>> Then, if we flip to page 19 of this

1:03:55document,

1:03:56you're going to see

1:03:59that there's an annual reporting

1:04:00section.

1:04:01And we've that one has been edited to

1:04:03say there's air quality and emissions

1:04:06now.

1:04:07So, they're going to tell us they're

1:04:08going to be required to report this on

1:04:10an annual basis,

1:04:12how often they how many hours they're

1:04:13running the backup generators,

1:04:16what their fuel consumption is, item B,

1:04:21their estimated pollutants,

1:04:23item C,

1:04:25what they're doing for emissions

1:04:26control,

1:04:27and any identification of any um new

1:04:30standards that would apply.

1:04:34Now,

1:04:35also you can see they're going to have

1:04:37to number three, talk about compliance.

1:04:43And then the very last one at the bottom

1:04:45of this page on 741,

1:04:48you're going to see anything what

1:04:49happens if there's non-compliance.

1:04:53So,

1:04:55so in this way, you can see the

1:04:56strikeout text that's in there. And

1:04:58again, I'm sorry it's stapled kind of

1:05:00wacky, we'll work on that, but

1:05:03you can see in this way we're trying to

1:05:04clarify exactly what the expectations

1:05:06are. And you can see the struck out text

1:05:08because the struck out text led to

1:05:10questions in our in our own staff

1:05:12meeting about how would this be

1:05:13interpreted.

1:05:15We wanted to make sure that we provided

1:05:17you with

1:05:18the most clear um, text that's

1:05:20enforceable.

1:05:24So, hopefully that helps when it comes

1:05:26to the question of backup generators

1:05:28because a big issue that we've heard

1:05:30about from backup generators is what

1:05:32happens with noise and what happens with

1:05:33air quality. So, this is the way that we

1:05:36we're proposing to address the air

1:05:37quality.

1:05:45>> Questions or comments about where we are

1:05:47right now?

1:05:51Commissioner Aldridge.

1:05:52>> I guess we need to get back on

1:05:55track here. So, I won't

1:05:59talk too much about that, but at some

1:06:01point there's other

1:06:04issues, uh, concerns on the draft that

1:06:08you needed to discuss, too.

1:06:10>> Yes, sir. Yeah, we've got some more to

1:06:12go through with you, but that's just on

1:06:13air quality.

1:06:15>> Okay.

1:06:17>> Yeah, I think we can go back to the

1:06:19slide that we were on, Muhammad. So, so

1:06:21several slides back. Um, but hopefully

1:06:24that that rundown that Scott gave you on

1:06:26those draft regulations, uh, this is

1:06:28perfect, Muhammad. Thank you. Help um,

1:06:30potentially answer,

1:06:32uh, the the the the discussion on bullet

1:06:34point four, um, which is whether or not,

1:06:38uh,

1:06:39generators are used in conjunction with

1:06:41a primary power source.

1:06:43Um,

1:06:44should we move on from that particular

1:06:46topic? Is the information that Scott

1:06:48provided, uh, are you comfortable with

1:06:51that right now, um, or would we like to

1:06:53move on to the next item?

1:07:00>> We need a vote. I'll say yeah, I'll move

1:07:01on.

1:07:03Cuz we cuz we again, as Scott mentioned,

1:07:05we will go back through this draft

1:07:07language again later on. So, I'm

1:07:09comfortable with that as well. So, um,

1:07:11the bullet point on the bottom, bullet

1:07:13point five, uh, there was some

1:07:15discussion about more,

1:07:16uh, research on draft language involving

1:07:19beds. The context of that again was, uh,

1:07:21geography. Uh, we should have showed

1:07:23several maps throughout the course of

1:07:25this process.

1:07:27Those maps included prime agricultural

1:07:29farmland. They included the high voltage

1:07:32lines throughout Sedgwick County. And

1:07:35then

1:07:36we had released

1:07:37a map at our meeting. I believe it was

1:07:39on the the 22nd or October 8th showing

1:07:42the high voltage lines with the Equus

1:07:44beds

1:07:46laid out over that in Northwest Wichita.

1:07:48So there was a discussion Excuse me,

1:07:50Sedgwick County. So there was a

1:07:51discussion

1:07:52regarding whether or not

1:07:55geography standpoint and where potential

1:07:58data center projects can be located

1:08:00whether or not

1:08:02there should be a prohibition

1:08:04potentially on

1:08:06the location of data centers near the

1:08:08Equus beds or on the Equus beds.

1:08:10But I wanted to go ahead and and bring

1:08:11up this discussion again

1:08:14to to see if there is any discussion

1:08:16related to the Equus beds geographically

1:08:19speaking.

1:08:22I know that

1:08:24I know that I'll maybe look to Kirk a

1:08:25little bit on this one as I know that

1:08:27there was some discussion about that.

1:08:30Kirk, I don't know if you have anything.

1:08:31If not, that's fine, too.

1:08:35>> Kirk Sponsel, Sedgwick County counselor.

1:08:36I'll let the conversation kind of

1:08:38run run with this a little bit, but I

1:08:40will say

1:08:42generally speaking this is an issue that

1:08:44I've brought up generally in the past

1:08:47that um

1:08:49my legal opinion is that the state has

1:08:51occupied the field in terms of

1:08:52regulations concerning the transfer and

1:08:55usage of water in commercial settings,

1:08:57which is what we're dealing with here.

1:09:00Um and just to extrapolate a little bit

1:09:02just for the purpose of clarification

1:09:05basis, whatever it may be, is there is a

1:09:08specific statute where a lot of

1:09:09authority regarding

1:09:11water usage and regulation is covered by

1:09:13the state agency. And then further on

1:09:16this last year the state adopted a bill

1:09:20which added language into 19101A

1:09:24um which really specifically laid out

1:09:27that hey, um,

1:09:29pursuant to home rule authority,

1:09:31municipalities, specifically counties,

1:09:33do not have the authority to

1:09:35add extra regulations, conditions,

1:09:38duplication of what the state's doing in

1:09:40regard to this matter.

1:09:44>> Commissioner Eldridge.

1:09:46>> Councilor, thank you for that, but I

1:09:49guess what you're saying is that

1:09:53any discussion whatsoever or any

1:09:55requirements we have

1:09:58uh, pertaining to water, water usage,

1:10:00water water treatment, or anything is

1:10:04off the table. We cannot talk about

1:10:07that. We can't regulate that. So, it's

1:10:10they can do anything they want to do

1:10:13uh, on the water, basically, and that's

1:10:17that's where we're at.

1:10:18>> In terms of the water usage and

1:10:20transfer, yes. And I'll go a step

1:10:22further and I say I even looked at the

1:10:24legislative history

1:10:26and the legislative basis regarding the

1:10:28bill they passed this last year to kind

1:10:30of see what they were going towards and

1:10:33um, the person who presented that,

1:10:35Representative Wassinger

1:10:37Wassinger Wassinger,

1:10:39um, she she presented that and she is

1:10:42specifically alluded to

1:10:44zoning regulations that were being

1:10:46applied out in Edwards County in regards

1:10:49to water usage and transfer.

1:10:52So, we're dealing with zoning

1:10:53regulations here.

1:10:54Um, they made the language very broad. I

1:10:57don't necessarily

1:10:59claim that they were contemplating this

1:11:01type of situation,

1:11:03um, but I think the language is broad

1:11:05enough that it does encompass a lot of

1:11:06what we're dealing with here.

1:11:08>> I think he just hit the nail on the

1:11:10head. I don't think that they

1:11:11anticipated anything like this. So,

1:11:15we're a bit of a gray area right here.

1:11:17And if we don't speak up one way or the

1:11:21other on this,

1:11:22I'm

1:11:24I mean, what's going to happen? You

1:11:25think the state's going to? Sometimes

1:11:27the state can't get out of their own

1:11:28way.

1:11:29And you know,

1:11:32I think there's got to be watchdogs or

1:11:34caretakers somehow.

1:11:36Uh you know, and I'm not an

1:11:37environmentalist, but all of a sudden I

1:11:39think I I'm leaning that way for some

1:11:42reason. I just got to make sure our

1:11:44precious

1:11:45resource. You can't function, you can't

1:11:47do anything

1:11:49without water.

1:11:50And when there's lack of water or no

1:11:52water,

1:11:54you know, you can stand stand up and do

1:11:56a rain dance all day long. You know,

1:11:58it's not up to us

1:12:00uh on on that. So, and those are some

1:12:02major concerns

1:12:04that we can't even

1:12:06we can't go down that path. And I'm and

1:12:09that's that's got me it got me

1:12:11concerned, but

1:12:12>> And And I appreciate that. And I think

1:12:14for the record that from day one, the

1:12:16protection of certain natural resources

1:12:19such as water has been at the forefront

1:12:21of concern in this discussion. I I'm

1:12:23just relaying what the state's done and

1:12:25how they may have inadvertently impacted

1:12:28this discussion.

1:12:30>> Thank you, sir.

1:12:32>> Scott.

1:12:34>> So, I think there's a nuance that has

1:12:35come up in some of our discussions when

1:12:37it comes to the aqueous beds. And before

1:12:39we leave this topic, um

1:12:42so my understanding is that when it

1:12:45comes to you the state's occupied the

1:12:46field when it comes to water usage. Now,

1:12:49I think one of the avenues that we've

1:12:51talked about has been well, and actually

1:12:53not avenues, but concerns that we've

1:12:55talked about is contamination though of

1:12:57the aqueous beds. So, I guess I don't

1:13:00know Kirk if you want to speak a little

1:13:02bit about that or if you'd like me to or

1:13:05>> Um that

1:13:07that contamination component that is

1:13:09covered by different statutes. Um I will

1:13:11say under that different statute, there

1:13:14are some authorities that are given to

1:13:16uh

1:13:17I think it's secretaries of health and

1:13:19public safety regarding

1:13:21uh contamination,

1:13:23things defined as sewer, um impacting

1:13:26the water supplies, things of that

1:13:27nature. But that is a different

1:13:30uh, statute where

1:13:33some of their language is not quite as

1:13:35broad as, I think, water usage and

1:13:37transfer.

1:13:39With that said, the state still does

1:13:41have some impacts and regulations in

1:13:43that regard and some authority in that

1:13:44regard.

1:13:45>> Commissioner Hi.

1:13:47So,

1:13:48we need to figure out then risk,

1:13:51um, that there would be a problem. So,

1:13:54if the possibility of risk,

1:13:58uh, that there would be some pollution

1:14:00in the aquisbed, there's going to be

1:14:02some

1:14:02pollution on top of the ground.

1:14:05Um,

1:14:06is if is this a 5% possibility or 25%

1:14:12possibility and then the damage. What's

1:14:15What's the

1:14:16So,

1:14:17uh, what I don't want to do is over

1:14:19regulate something that is a 0.0001

1:14:24possibility.

1:14:31>> Any other comments?

1:14:35Mr. Scott.

1:14:36>> Sorry, not going to let you move on too

1:14:39too soon. So,

1:14:40So, it sounds like

1:14:42it's been indicated by Commissioner Hi,

1:14:45uh, that he'd like to know more about

1:14:47the risks.

1:14:48That is something we can do is we can

1:14:50ask we can do some research on that and

1:14:52ask Berkeley to do some research on what

1:14:53the risk would be. I assume the risk of

1:14:56contaminating of ground water.

1:14:58Is that

1:14:59>> Well, that's true, but also it's the

1:15:03that risk formula needs to,

1:15:05um, have as an input,

1:15:09um,

1:15:10what

1:15:12possible What is in the data set

1:15:15that would be risky to the

1:15:19pollution. So,

1:15:23>> And that, I believe, is covered because

1:15:25we do ask for data on the major

1:15:27components.

1:15:29Um, I'll It'll take some time for me

1:15:31need find that, but I'll look for that.

1:15:33But, I guess

1:15:35there's probably examples of other

1:15:37groundwater contamination that has

1:15:39happened,

1:15:40uh whether it be ag or fertilizer or

1:15:45uh etc.

1:15:46that I mean, this is new territory, so

1:15:48there's got to be protocols and

1:15:50procedures and regulations in place for

1:15:53groundwater contamination already that

1:15:55we don't need to reinvent the wheel

1:15:57here.

1:15:58That's my

1:16:03>> Uh I'll make this comment. From past

1:16:06experience, I

1:16:07I know there's people sitting in this

1:16:09room right now that know

1:16:11a heck of a lot more about the Equus

1:16:13beds than we could ever know.

1:16:15Uh I assume when it's time to speak,

1:16:18they'll come up.

1:16:20You can ask them any of the questions

1:16:22you want. They're mostly from the ag

1:16:23community.

1:16:25But, uh

1:16:27as far as gaining

1:16:29further knowledge about this, that's my

1:16:30only hope is what somebody else knows.

1:16:33So.

1:16:35>> And to Commissioner High's question,

1:16:36too, about um the

1:16:38the

1:16:39equipment being used in data centers and

1:16:41and where that's located, it's got

1:16:44mentioned that we do have language in

1:16:45here as part of the

1:16:47uh definitions we do and part of the

1:16:49application requirements, we do require

1:16:51that they submit uh

1:16:53impact generating equipment um

1:16:55information, I believe, regarding um

1:16:58indoor outdoor equipment. Um and whether

1:17:02that equipment will material materially

1:17:04affect noise, air or emissions, water

1:17:06use or discharge, heat, vibration, odor,

1:17:08etc. So, um we do have that information

1:17:11listed in

1:17:13code.

1:17:13>> In in your suggested regulation?

1:17:16>> Y- yes.

1:17:17>> So, Mike, then I'm asking the question,

1:17:19is is there already regulation

1:17:23that that information is provided by?

1:17:26And

1:17:30does the agricultural community have to

1:17:32provide information, also,

1:17:35um

1:17:37that they're

1:17:38using these chemicals

1:17:40overlook aqueous bed. In other words,

1:17:43again, I don't I want to duplicate

1:17:44regulations and

1:17:46and uh

1:17:48oversight function.

1:17:50>> Just couple quick points. Um so Justin,

1:17:53is that online 417?

1:17:57>> Uh that uh

1:17:59believe that was the one that I was

1:18:01addressing. Uh it's within the

1:18:03decommissioning plan and then it's also

1:18:04defined on the on the first page.

1:18:07>> And just for everyone's clarification,

1:18:08that's not going to show up it's not

1:18:10going to line up with the one that has

1:18:11draft stamped on it. It's the one that

1:18:13you got earlier that's the bigger one.

1:18:15I'm sorry, but that's a result of having

1:18:17two different documents.

1:18:21I'll give you some time to find that if

1:18:23that's helpful.

1:18:31Yeah, line

1:18:32417 it should start out with facility

1:18:34and equipment inventory.

1:19:01So what I've heard so far is that there

1:19:04was conversation about getting some more

1:19:06information about what the risk is of

1:19:08data centers and contamination of ground

1:19:10water.

1:19:11There's also been some conversation

1:19:13about learning what other experts um

1:19:15have to say about that that level of

1:19:17risk. I believe over the aqueous beds is

1:19:21where I think this is. And then there's

1:19:22been conversation also that

1:19:24there are already regulations in place

1:19:27and um

1:19:29unfortunately our ex well, our expert on

1:19:31that would be Susan Erlenwein and she's

1:19:33usually here, but she's not in

1:19:35attendance today, But

1:19:37um, I so I think that comment was

1:19:40understanding that there are regulations

1:19:42that are in place to already kind of

1:19:43address groundwater contamination

1:19:46issues.

1:19:47So, with that

1:19:49that's my recap of where the

1:19:50conversation's been so far. I don't know

1:19:52that we've got a clear directive to do

1:19:54any additional action on on your behalf,

1:19:56but if there's anything that you would

1:19:58like us to do, let us know.

1:20:01>> I would agree with that comment. I think

1:20:02we need to move on.

1:20:05Okay, I'll go over the next slide,

1:20:06please.

1:20:13So, more unresolved questions uh to go

1:20:15through.

1:20:16Um

1:20:17again, geography specifically, we

1:20:19discussed location requirements. And um

1:20:22as I mentioned before, we did show

1:20:24um maps previously regarding

1:20:26high-voltage utility lines, agricultural

1:20:28lands, and equus beds. So, this kind of

1:20:30dovetails a bit off the question that we

1:20:31just had regarding the equus beds. Um

1:20:34but um

1:20:36geographically, as I mentioned before,

1:20:37we showed the land use table. And I

1:20:39think uh that draft land use table, per

1:20:42our discussion, uh there the comfort

1:20:44level seemed to be uh there with this

1:20:46group with the the standard land uses

1:20:50and the zoning districts. But uh the the

1:20:53the second component to that is the

1:20:54location requirements and whether or not

1:20:58there should be any limitation regarding

1:21:00the equus beds, as we as we've just

1:21:01discussed. But then

1:21:03uh

1:21:04the the agricultural lands as well as

1:21:05the high-voltage utility lines. So, we

1:21:07had previously shown a 1-to-3-mi radius

1:21:10map there. Um but then I think the most

1:21:12recent map that we showed um that also

1:21:14contained the equus beds also contained

1:21:16a 4-and-5-mi

1:21:18radius of where potential data center

1:21:21project could be located. So, uh you may

1:21:23recall we had that brown uh line and it

1:21:26showed the rainbow essentially of that

1:21:284-and-5-mi distance. Those maps are

1:21:30included in your packet. Um but I wanted

1:21:32to go ahead and open that up again for

1:21:34discussion to see if there was any uh

1:21:36specific comments regarding location

1:21:38requirements outside of general zoning

1:21:41and land use.

1:21:43>> Was that a question on making a

1:21:45recommendation for one of the options?

1:21:47Wasn't there like an option A, B, and C?

1:21:49And are you wanting a recommendation for

1:21:51one of those options?

1:21:53>> So, let uh let's see. To your question,

1:21:56Commissioner Fry,

1:21:59on page 14 of 19, page 35 overall in the

1:22:04master packet, um we do have some

1:22:07options, yes. So, great memory. Um

1:22:11It talks about uh this is located within

1:22:12the development standards. This is the

1:22:14first item, and we do we have laid out a

1:22:17couple different options there.

1:22:19Um

1:22:20Uh

1:22:21the first one is what I was discussing

1:22:23about uh potential location from 345 kV

1:22:27lines uh within 5 mi, within 3 mi. Um

1:22:31option B um was a potential option to

1:22:35include language to have data center

1:22:36projects located outside of prime

1:22:38agricultural lands. And then option C

1:22:41was no restrictions. So, um we we we

1:22:45left this as an option to be discussed

1:22:48today.

1:22:49Uh so, if there's any uh further

1:22:51comments or questions on this, we're

1:22:53happy to go through those.

1:22:58>> It seems like option C gives us the most

1:23:00flexibility and provides the most

1:23:03viability

1:23:04for any potential projects.

1:23:09>> Agreed.

1:23:17>> Knowing that they still have to go

1:23:19through the permitting process and

1:23:20everything to still meet community

1:23:22acceptance.

1:23:22>> Sure.

1:23:27Any other comments? I know Commissioner

1:23:28Fry and Commissioner High noted uh

1:23:31agreement on that one. Any other

1:23:33comments regarding location

1:23:35requirements?

1:23:37Um regarding those various factors of

1:23:39utility lines, agricultural lands, or

1:23:41Equus beds.

1:23:44>> Option C feels like it might be the

1:23:46opportunity where the community has the

1:23:48greatest input. Um where they can come

1:23:51to the process and say

1:23:54um

1:23:55you know,

1:23:56option A and option B aside, this is

1:23:58what I feel is good or not good based on

1:24:01what any specific project is proposing.

1:24:13>> Yes, Commissioner Oldridge.

1:24:16>> Yeah, I

1:24:17>> [snorts]

1:24:18>> would totally be opposed to option C.

1:24:21Uh you can't just

1:24:24if we're not going to have those

1:24:27discussions as far as where the data

1:24:30centers can be

1:24:32uh

1:24:33put in and you're talking about option C

1:24:37where there's no restrictions, they can

1:24:39be put anywhere in the county, any

1:24:41location.

1:24:43Uh

1:24:44unless I'm totally misunderstanding

1:24:46that.

1:24:48Is that correct? Is that what you're

1:24:49saying?

1:24:50>> Yes, sir. So, option C, the option would

1:24:52place no restrictions on the location

1:24:54where applicants could apply for

1:24:55permission to use property for a data

1:24:57center.

1:25:00>> But there are existing restrictions that

1:25:02would prevent them from just being

1:25:03anywhere.

1:25:04>> When an application would come in as

1:25:06part of a conditional use, we would look

1:25:08at that and and those discussions could

1:25:09be had at that public hearing for that

1:25:12specific application, yes.

1:25:17>> Well, I'm totally misreading this cuz it

1:25:19says this option would place no

1:25:21restriction on locations where the

1:25:23applicant could apply for

1:25:25uh permission to use property for a data

1:25:28center.

1:25:29>> Right, we wouldn't put the

1:25:30>> reading that it can be anywhere in the

1:25:33county.

1:25:33>> Yeah, we wouldn't add language

1:25:35specifically to the code saying you

1:25:37cannot put it here or should be long

1:25:39here. Um specifically, there would be no

1:25:43language, we would rely on the zoning

1:25:45when an application came in and if it

1:25:47was permitted or or or was a conditional

1:25:49use, during that conditional use

1:25:51hearing, we would look at that

1:25:53specifically and then we could still

1:25:54bring up those particular topics and say

1:25:57this is not a good fit or it is a good

1:25:58fit based on the

1:26:01um

1:26:01information provided by the applicant.

1:26:07>> I think

1:26:09Um Commissioner Edwards raised kind of a

1:26:11good point, but the option probably

1:26:13could be worded a little bit clearer to

1:26:17describe that there are existing

1:26:20Certainly.

1:26:22And that you're not we're not requiring

1:26:24additional regulations.

1:26:26>> In short, make it Bob-proof.

1:26:30>> But I do want to make sure that

1:26:32everyone's on the same page in terms of

1:26:34what this would mean. So, we showed that

1:26:37zoning table.

1:26:39Um

1:26:39it would allow

1:26:41all the data centers by conditional use

1:26:44in rural residential. So, as we've

1:26:48talked a lot about

1:26:50the unincorporated county, I just want

1:26:52folks to understand that this option

1:26:54would allow a conditional use

1:26:55application for a data center anywhere

1:26:58that there's rural residential zone

1:27:00zoning.

1:27:07>> As somebody again who is still fairly

1:27:08new here, can you talk to me a little

1:27:10bit about what's allowed in rural rural

1:27:12residential right now?

1:27:13>> Sure. Rural residential is uh we do not

1:27:16have an agricultural district, but this

1:27:18is the closest that we have to it. So,

1:27:20it allows for um home sites uh minimum

1:27:24of 2 acres in size and agricultural

1:27:27uses. So, it's what the overwhelming

1:27:29majority of the unincorporated county is

1:27:31zoned.

1:27:45>> Are there any other thoughts or comments

1:27:46on Scott's clarification of whether or

1:27:48not we're comfortable with

1:27:51allowing these based on the essentially

1:27:53the the the land use and the and the

1:27:55zoning

1:27:56primarily

1:27:57and going with option C.

1:27:59>> Commissioner Warren.

1:28:00>> I'm looking for consensus. I I would be

1:28:03comfortable with option C.

1:28:14>> So, based on the conversation and just

1:28:16to

1:28:17kind of keep the conversation going, it

1:28:18appears that we have 1 2 3 4 members who

1:28:22have expressed support for option C. We

1:28:25have one member who's expressed that

1:28:27they're not supportive of option C.

1:28:29Are there any other conversations on

1:28:31that?

1:28:32>> Well, again, I just want

1:28:35I'm trying to wrap them around my mind

1:28:37on the wording here.

1:28:38Uh

1:28:40you know, again, option C

1:28:43does not replace any restrictions on

1:28:46where a data center could be located. It

1:28:48could be located anywhere in the county.

1:28:54>> So, what

1:28:55what this dovetails with is the table

1:28:58that we showed earlier. And I

1:29:01Amita, if you could step back and help

1:29:02Mohammed find that slide, that would be

1:29:04really helpful that shows from the

1:29:06zoning table and permitted and

1:29:08conditionally uses.

1:29:11So, um so, this would not place any

1:29:14additional restrictions on Ah, here we

1:29:16go. Where data centers can go above and

1:29:19beyond

1:29:21what this says.

1:29:22Yep. So, I just What we'll do is the

1:29:25zoning districts are across the top. The

1:29:28definitions of data centers goes from

1:29:30top to bottom. So, you'll see that in

1:29:33the rural residential zoning district,

1:29:35it's conditional use for all of them.

1:29:38If you look at the SF 20, you'll see

1:29:40that it's a conditional use also for all

1:29:42of them.

1:29:43But, when you get to SF 10, you'll

1:29:45notice that only data center standard

1:29:48size is allowed by conditional use in

1:29:52SF10.

1:29:53Data center large and hyperscales are

1:29:56not allowed. You cannot apply

1:29:58for zoning permission in those

1:30:00districts.

1:30:01>> So, I have a question for legal. Is this

1:30:03a case where

1:30:05the language could just be simply added

1:30:09no additional restrictions

1:30:12on the location where applicants could

1:30:14apply?

1:30:15Because right now, when I see could

1:30:17apply, that speaks to the restrictions

1:30:20that are already in place. Meaning, you

1:30:22can't apply for this because there's you

1:30:24don't meet the

1:30:27the application is going to meet the

1:30:28existing

1:30:30application criteria. Does that make

1:30:32sense?

1:30:32>> Right. And And I think ideally, if C

1:30:34were the option, I think that would

1:30:36basically mean that 3A is eliminated

1:30:40completely.

1:30:43>> We would just strike the text would be

1:30:45the easiest way.

1:30:46>> The text would just be silent on that.

1:30:48We're looking So, we would be adding

1:30:50language if you all said, "Look, we only

1:30:52want within 5 mi of a 345 kV

1:30:57line." Or, "We don't want it in such an

1:31:00area." But, if it's if we're not

1:31:02addressing those issues, then I think

1:31:03the language would just be silent and we

1:31:05wouldn't address it.

1:31:07>> Does that

1:31:08mitigate Mr. Aldridge's concern that

1:31:10we're just allowing him to go anywhere

1:31:12they want?

1:31:13Because there's existing application

1:31:16requirements that they can't.

1:31:21>> I mean I mean for best point of an

1:31:23example, I'm just going to hearken back

1:31:26to solar. So, solar does have something

1:31:28that contemplates a limit within a

1:31:30certain area. So, with large-scale

1:31:33solar, they had specific language that

1:31:35says,

1:31:36"Hey, you cannot have a large-scale

1:31:39solar application within the urban

1:31:42growth area of a city." So, that's the

1:31:44type of restriction I think is being

1:31:46contemplated here just in different

1:31:47forms. Now, if we wanted if we didn't

1:31:52want that, if we just want solar

1:31:53anywhere, then we would just stayed

1:31:55silent on that. Just being silent

1:31:57doesn't take away the fact that they

1:31:59still have to hit all the other

1:32:00restrictions and regulations that are

1:32:02being put in place elsewhere in the

1:32:03code.

1:32:05>> And Commissioner Fry, thank you for

1:32:07assisting in that clarification.

1:32:10Uh I just

1:32:11you know, I just want to make sure that

1:32:13I've got it wrapped around in my little

1:32:15head.

1:32:16Uh so, this would be the gatekeeper on

1:32:19that. So, I

1:32:20appreciate that. Excellent.

1:32:21>> I'm not the smartest person in the room.

1:32:23Otherwise, I'd be gone.

1:32:27>> Well, I do I do want to emphasize it and

1:32:29thank you again for volunteering in what

1:32:31you do as planning commissioners. This

1:32:32is complex information and you're

1:32:35getting this material um We're working

1:32:38on it as you can see up until the minute

1:32:40of the meeting essentially. And so,

1:32:43you're getting a lot of information

1:32:44thrown at you. You're getting a lot of

1:32:46big questions that are coming to you.

1:32:47Now, fortunately, you've you've you're

1:32:50you're able to wrestle with some of the

1:32:51questions from meeting to meeting, but I

1:32:53do want to say

1:32:55please please don't feel like you're

1:32:56you're not smart or you're not getting

1:32:58something. It's just this is complicated

1:33:00materials and I appreciate you all

1:33:02taking the time to go through it.

1:33:06>> Okay.

1:33:06>> Um yeah.

1:33:07>> Muhammad, if you can go back to that

1:33:08unresolved questions slide, uh we're

1:33:10currently working through that.

1:33:12Perfect. Thank you. So, that I think

1:33:14covers the location requirements. I

1:33:16think we received consensus on that. We

1:33:17did have that discussion earlier about

1:33:19requiring private power supply. I

1:33:21believe we received information on that.

1:33:23So, I think we're comfortable with that

1:33:24bullet point as well. Down to the noise

1:33:26performance standards and um that is on

1:33:31um

1:33:32page, I believe it was 17 of 19 on the

1:33:38um

1:33:41Excuse me. Uh page 19 of 19 18 18 and 19

1:33:44of the uh draft document, uh page 39 and

1:33:4840 on the overall master document, noise

1:33:50performance standards,

1:33:52um

1:33:53and whether or not option A, we should

1:33:55have

1:33:56set residential sensitive noise

1:33:59standards based on DBA and DBC. I

1:34:03believe DBC covers vibration.

1:34:05Or option B, which is an alignment with

1:34:08the existing municipal noise ordinance,

1:34:11which again, just to reiterate, Sutra

1:34:13County does not have a noise ordinance.

1:34:15So, it's got

1:34:16>> Sorry.

1:34:17This is one of the topics where we have

1:34:19some revised and updated recommended

1:34:21language for you. So, if we could, maybe

1:34:23we'll we'll wait until a little bit

1:34:25later to go more in-depth, but at least

1:34:28you This gives you a basis of where we

1:34:30were

1:34:31up until this meeting. And we I want to

1:34:33go through that with you in just a bit.

1:34:37>> Mr. Aldridge, I have a quick question.

1:34:39You know, again, since

1:34:41there is

1:34:43isn't a noise ordinance, if you will, in

1:34:45the county.

1:34:47So,

1:34:49basically, if we come up with one, if

1:34:51you will, for the data centers, how is

1:34:54that going to affect affect any other

1:34:56applications,

1:34:58vet centers, or anything else like that?

1:35:00What ramifications is that going to

1:35:02have?

1:35:02>> Sure. So,

1:35:04noise has been something that the county

1:35:06has wrestled with in terms of what

1:35:07should happen in the unincorporated

1:35:09county.

1:35:10At this point, there's no noise

1:35:12ordinance in the unincorporated county,

1:35:14and so this would be unique just to data

1:35:17centers. So, the ramifications that it

1:35:20would have for other uses, there there

1:35:21would be none

1:35:24at this time. But, if that leads to

1:35:26discussion about whether there should be

1:35:28that's that's always possibility, but at

1:35:30this point, it would only apply to data

1:35:32centers.

1:35:33>> Okay, thank you.

1:35:37>> So, for the next bullet point down, air

1:35:38quality impact assessment, again, we

1:35:40will go over that one with the new

1:35:41regulations, because that's addressed in

1:35:43the new regulations, too. So, I think we

1:35:44can probably tackle those as a group.

1:35:46Let's go to the next slide, please.

1:35:50Water monitoring and reporting, I know

1:35:52that we had a some good discussion on

1:35:54that. A generator use for supplemental

1:35:56power, I believe we we covered that and

1:35:58received consensus on that one, too. The

1:36:00last bullet point, bullet point three

1:36:01regarding clustering, um there's been

1:36:04some discussions about that, whether or

1:36:06not data centers should be generally

1:36:08located uh close in close range or close

1:36:11proximity with each other or if there

1:36:13should be some sort of separation

1:36:14distance between projects. So, uh one of

1:36:18the questions that we've discussed at

1:36:19prior meetings was

1:36:21uh and this again involves geography,

1:36:23where data centers can be located and

1:36:25and if we would like them uh grouped in

1:36:28one specific area or if there should be

1:36:30a separation distance from one project

1:36:33to another.

1:36:36>> Mr. Aldrich.

1:36:37>> Yeah, and just to on that,

1:36:41when you have like going back to the uh

1:36:44solar panels, and we had a a 200

1:36:47uh

1:36:49buffer right there.

1:36:52Uh what you're doing is just adding

1:36:55spreading it things out more. So,

1:36:58maybe that is not a good idea to have a

1:37:02a buffer. Uh you know, where it just it

1:37:05could be con-

1:37:07continuous if that's

1:37:09what winds up happening cuz it's

1:37:10otherwise you you want to I think you

1:37:13would want to sort of limit the spread

1:37:15of data centers in a way. Uh and I also

1:37:19noticed that on the data center and a

1:37:22hyperscale, where it was talking about

1:37:25not to exceed

1:37:27uh 1,000 acres, that's been removed. So,

1:37:31that tells me if it wants to be 2,000

1:37:34acres or or whatever, that would be

1:37:36acceptable, correct?

1:37:38>> Yes, sir. For hyperscales, yes.

1:37:45>> One thing that I wrote down from last

1:37:47time was that these projects are

1:37:49resource and utility intensive, so we

1:37:51could benefit from the concentration of

1:37:53them together. So, I've got some

1:37:54consensus with Commissioner Aldrich on

1:37:56this.

1:38:02>> Yeah, I don't think there should be a

1:38:03buffer.

1:38:08But I also have concerns about unlimited

1:38:12acreage.

1:38:17But we went from a large scale of

1:38:18maximum 25 acres

1:38:21and then all of a sudden

1:38:23you know, this is like going overboard,

1:38:25but if they want to take half the state

1:38:26up, they could knock themselves out. And

1:38:29have a good time with it. And I just

1:38:32I

1:38:32there's got to be some more

1:38:33restrictions. You can't just open that

1:38:36up and say that can just continue

1:38:37anywhere.

1:38:38You know, because then you're putting

1:38:40a lot of

1:38:42uh you're not putting any consideration

1:38:44into the grid system or

1:38:46other utilities.

1:38:49Uh you know, that might pose a problem

1:38:51there, too. So, I still think we need to

1:38:54limit the sales of

1:38:55the size of a

1:38:56hyper scale.

1:38:58>> Commissioner Warren.

1:39:00>> I think this is an area that's going to

1:39:01be self-regulating. Uh

1:39:04we're looking at limited resources.

1:39:07And so I don't think you're going to be

1:39:08able to put a lot of

1:39:10data centers together because you're

1:39:12going to you're going to run out of

1:39:13water too fast.

1:39:14I think you're going to regulation's

1:39:16going to come from from other factors.

1:39:18We don't need it don't need to do it by

1:39:20by

1:39:21uh dictate from us. The market's going

1:39:24to take take care of that because of the

1:39:25resources.

1:39:28>> Okay.

1:39:30>> Anyone else?

1:39:34>> So, before we move on,

1:39:37um

1:39:38it sounds like we've

1:39:40three members have indicated that

1:39:42they're

1:39:43um okay with no separation requirement.

1:39:46In fact, sorry, I think I've got four

1:39:48members so far.

1:39:50Okay. Sounds like we have consensus on

1:39:52that. Okay.

1:39:55>> Okay. Thank you. Let's go on to the next

1:39:56slide, please.

1:40:02>> Okay. So, this gets back into some of

1:40:03those topics that we were discussing

1:40:05earlier. As Scott mentioned, we do have

1:40:08that revised draft language that you can

1:40:11see here.

1:40:12Again, this slide

1:40:15splits up specifically those four

1:40:17topics: air quality, noise, water, and

1:40:18energy. And then

1:40:20application requirements and the

1:40:21development standards. What has been

1:40:23updated on each of these topics in each

1:40:25of those sections. So,

1:40:27air quality I guess would be a good

1:40:29place to start. You can see on

1:40:32line

1:40:334 314 on that document. That's on page

1:40:3610 of 20 Excuse me, nine page nine of

1:40:40of 24. We did make changes to that.

1:40:48Regarding whether or not they should

1:40:51the applicant shall submit

1:40:53an air quality impact assessment

1:40:54identifying anticipated air pollutant

1:40:56emissions associated with the proposed

1:40:58data center including backup power

1:41:00generation and other on-site combustion

1:41:03sources.

1:41:04The assessment shall identify applicable

1:41:07federal and state air quality

1:41:09requirements

1:41:11and approvals from KDHE. And then there

1:41:16is an identification of all combustion

1:41:18sources on the property including backup

1:41:21generators which goes back to our

1:41:22conversation earlier about backup

1:41:24generators. And there is a list of let's

1:41:28see, five

1:41:30bullet points there

1:41:32regarding what should be identified.

1:41:41So, that's the application requirements.

1:41:45And then

1:41:47under the development standards line 697

1:41:53we did have an update there

1:41:55um

1:41:57regarding air quality and emissions. A

1:41:59summary of air pollutant emissions

1:42:01associated with facility operations

1:42:02prepared in accordance accordance with

1:42:04the reporting methodology established in

1:42:06the approved air quality impact

1:42:09assessment.

1:42:10That includes total annual operating

1:42:11hours of backup generators, total annual

1:42:13fuel consumption for on-site combustion

1:42:16sources,

1:42:18estimated annual emissions by pollutant

1:42:20type, a summary of emission control

1:42:22technologies and other emission

1:42:24reduction measures installed,

1:42:26identification of any new, amended, or

1:42:27renewed state or federal air quality

1:42:29permits, and a summary of any air

1:42:31quality complaints received by the

1:42:33facility owner operator, and any

1:42:36responsive actions undertaken.

1:42:39And then there was no change in the in

1:42:41backup generator specifically on line

1:42:44757. That was the language that we had

1:42:46earlier identifying that backup

1:42:48generator shall utilize EPA Tier 4 uh

1:42:52and uh standards or uh EPA Tier 2

1:42:55generators with selective catalytic

1:42:56reduction.

1:43:01So, that covers air quality. Uh I'll go

1:43:03ahead and pause on that specific topic.

1:43:06Again, this is fresh information that

1:43:07you've received, so um we're open to any

1:43:09comment at all on on that updated

1:43:12language.

1:43:16>> It seems very comprehensive.

1:43:19>> Thanks.

1:43:27>> Commissioner Aldridge.

1:43:29We

1:43:29uh at the last meeting we talked about,

1:43:31you know,

1:43:32the requirements

1:43:34of uh um

1:43:36besides the decommissioning is that uh

1:43:39every I think it was the consensus was

1:43:42every 3 years on reporting.

1:43:44>> Yes, sir.

1:43:45>> Uh

1:43:46you know, initially I think the

1:43:48recommendation was 5 years and

1:43:50I suggested two and we compromised on

1:43:52three. Would that be the same

1:43:56here for the periodic monitoring?

1:43:59Uh would that

1:44:01This cuz here it shows 5 years.

1:44:03Shouldn't that be consistent

1:44:06uh throughout at 3 years?

1:44:12Uh

1:44:12>> I think we could certainly look at

1:44:14adding that if that's something that

1:44:16the committee is interested in in

1:44:18adding.

1:44:20>> Well, because we did on the

1:44:21decommissioning

1:44:23bill

1:44:24because we thought that 5 years was out

1:44:27of line.

1:44:28You know, I would think that

1:44:31we should be consistent throughout on

1:44:33any type of monitoring or requirements

1:44:35or studies that they have with what

1:44:37happens to cement instead of 5 years.

1:44:40You know, again

1:44:42I think that we should be consistent. Uh

1:44:46and showed it at 3 years. Would that

1:44:48make sense to do that?

1:44:50>> Good conversation. Um

1:44:52So, what this actually on page 19 line

1:44:56684, there's says an annual report that

1:44:59they're going to have to submit.

1:45:03And in that annual report, there's going

1:45:06to be air quality and emissions

1:45:07information. And it's you've got A, B,

1:45:11C, D, E, F, and G that will be

1:45:15included as part of that annual report.

1:45:18Where the 5 years comes up

1:45:21is on line 736

1:45:24and 735. Um and that's where it's

1:45:27talking about records retention

1:45:29that they're going to have to do. So, um

1:45:31if it's helpful, they they are required

1:45:34to submit an annual report, but then

1:45:36they'll have to retain this records for

1:45:38a period of time.

1:45:42>> I support it as written that well, that

1:45:45piece specifically that they have to

1:45:46report um annually on these pieces and

1:45:49then that they should have a minimum um

1:45:54retention of 5 years.

1:45:56>> Again, going back to my

1:45:58my question, shouldn't we be consistent

1:46:01with any requirements

1:46:04you know, cuz we thought 5 years was

1:46:07too long of a time because mainly cuz

1:46:08things change

1:46:10a lot rapid more rapid than that and I

1:46:13think the consensus that 2 years was not

1:46:15enough, and that's why we came up with

1:46:17the with the 3 years. So, what I'm

1:46:20saying, since we did that on the

1:46:21decommissioning

1:46:23part of it, shouldn't we be consistent

1:46:26throughout

1:46:27uh on this, but you're saying, "No, this

1:46:29is fine." Well, I don't think it is, you

1:46:31know, but again, that's just uh my

1:46:35opinion. I think 3 years would be

1:46:37consistent.

1:46:38>> I don't think you're comparing apples to

1:46:40apples here.

1:46:42I think

1:46:43the way it's written is fine.

1:46:47>> My assessment of this that we're looking

1:46:49at is the 3 years, we felt that 5 years

1:46:51was way too uh infrequent for

1:46:54decommissioning plan updates.

1:46:56And what we're looking at now is

1:46:59operation planning, so tell us every

1:47:01single year what your emissions are.

1:47:04Tell us um what your emission controls

1:47:06are, um air quality,

1:47:11tell us these things every single year.

1:47:12So, separate from the decommissioning

1:47:14every 3 years, which felt like a good

1:47:16compromise, but this, tell us every

1:47:19single year uh what your air quality and

1:47:22emissions are.

1:47:22>> Okay, and they would have to keep that

1:47:24on file for 5 years, is that okay? Okay,

1:47:26I got it. Thank you.

1:47:31>> Okay, so it seems like uh any other

1:47:33comments on air quality or or the the

1:47:35proposed draft language here?

1:47:41Okay.

1:47:41Uh in that case, let's go down to noise

1:47:43uh really quick. So, on noise, um again,

1:47:46there's been two updates both of the

1:47:47application requirements and the

1:47:48development standards. Um I'll uh go to

1:47:52page eight of uh 24, line 247,

1:47:57is where we discuss noise mitigation,

1:48:00um and then uh everything there in

1:48:02redline. Um we noticed that we noted

1:48:04that the application shall submit a

1:48:05noise mitigation plan prepared and

1:48:07certified by a qualified acoustical

1:48:09professional. Um that uh shall include

1:48:14um

1:48:15an acoustic study evaluating anticipated

1:48:17noise from normal and reasonably

1:48:19foreseeable operating conditions

1:48:21including cooling ventilation power

1:48:23supply and energy energy generation

1:48:25equipment.

1:48:26Um

1:48:28and that um the intent is to

1:48:31see the impacts on the surrounding

1:48:34um the the surrounding area.

1:48:36Uh zoning administrator may reasonably

1:48:37require supplemental or amended plans

1:48:40based upon professional staff review and

1:48:42then the noise mitigation plan uh

1:48:44information continues onto the next page

1:48:46page uh nine of 24

1:48:49uh where it gets into a little bit of

1:48:52greater detail uh regarding the

1:48:53vibration assessment uh noise

1:48:56attenuation measures and then uh the

1:48:59operational monitoring program and

1:49:00compliant investigation and corrective

1:49:02actions and procedures for receiving and

1:49:04documenting and investigating these

1:49:05noises.

1:49:07Um so again this noise section this new

1:49:10language um

1:49:12is on pages eight and nine.

1:49:14Um

1:49:16I'll go ahead and stop there to see if

1:49:18there's any uh additions.

1:49:20>> Yeah, I think I think also um

1:49:23we also want to cover

1:49:28the operations requirements.

1:49:30>> Which would be on page 796 or am I

1:49:33jumping ahead Scott?

1:49:34>> No, that's great. That's exactly where

1:49:36I'm trying to get to. Yep. 796 if you

1:49:39want to

1:49:40>> And on page and yep and on 796 that's

1:49:43page 22 of 24. This is where it starts

1:49:45to get more into specifics and the noise

1:49:46performance standards uh recommended uh

1:49:50that includes noise limits noise

1:49:51generated by data center operations

1:49:53including cooling ventilation power

1:49:55supply equipment and generator shall not

1:49:56exceed 50 dBA and 65 dBC

1:50:00um as measured at the property line

1:50:02between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

1:50:04Um and uh noise shall not exceed 45 dBA

1:50:08and 60 dBC at any property line

1:50:10adjoining a residential zoning district.

1:50:12Um there is uh further language down

1:50:14there regarding initial compliance

1:50:16verification within 6 months following

1:50:18the commencement of the operations that

1:50:21the owner-operator shall submit an

1:50:23as-built noise and vibration study

1:50:26prepared by a qualified acoustical

1:50:27professional. Periodic monitoring is

1:50:30required. That's on item C. Facility

1:50:32owner or operator shall conduct a noise

1:50:34compliance study 12 months following the

1:50:37commencement of operations and every 5

1:50:38years thereafter. And then item D,

1:50:40complaint complaint investigation and

1:50:43additional monitoring. The facility

1:50:45owner or operator shall maintain

1:50:46procedures for receiving, documenting,

1:50:48and responding to noise complaints in

1:50:50accordance with the approved noise

1:50:51mitigation plan. So, those are

1:50:54items listed under noise. There are

1:50:56additional

1:50:59items listed including changes of

1:51:01operation

1:51:03from the facility

1:51:06and enforcement failure mechanisms as

1:51:08well

1:51:09that if

1:51:10noise performance standards of the noise

1:51:12mitigation plan

1:51:15are not met are not

1:51:19are not followed then an approved

1:51:22corrective action shall constitute a

1:51:23zoning violation and shall be subject to

1:51:26applicable zoning enforcement procedures

1:51:28and remedies.

1:51:33So, this goes back to our previous

1:51:34conversation where we were discussing

1:51:35noise.

1:51:37This would be covered in these updated

1:51:40regulations here.

1:51:42>> I'd love a little bit of clarification

1:51:44on why the monitoring of the noise is

1:51:47different than the annual reporting for

1:51:49air quality and emissions.

1:51:52>> In that specific question, I might bring

1:51:56Michael in.

1:51:57Michael, if you're still available,

1:52:00there was a question regarding

1:52:02the noise monitoring

1:52:05language in the draft and then it was

1:52:07comparing it to the

1:52:09>> to the annual reporting for air quality

1:52:12and emissions. Why what's the what's the

1:52:14distinction there that one of them is

1:52:16reporting annually and And on the noise

1:52:19um, to do it once after you've completed

1:52:22uh or commenced operations and then

1:52:23every 5 years.

1:52:24>> Thanks for the clarification. Michael,

1:52:25did you get that?

1:52:27>> I did. Yes. Um,

1:52:29I I I think they're they're related, but

1:52:32they are different. I think

1:52:33with the air quality uh reporting

1:52:37um, I I think they're

1:52:39noise is more durational,

1:52:42uh I would say.

1:52:44And but

1:52:46I I don't know that we couldn't require

1:52:48if the if the ask is should we require

1:52:51annual noise reporting

1:52:54we we could. I don't know that you

1:52:56necessarily would need to.

1:52:58Um

1:53:01because hopefully the the

1:53:03the measurement of that issue

1:53:06is not a sustained

1:53:08ongoing event.

1:53:10Um, that they are commissioning the

1:53:12facility, that they comply with the

1:53:14noise limits.

1:53:16Uh, that everything is operating within

1:53:18parameters.

1:53:20And then potentially at any given time

1:53:22you could have a a noise issue, a

1:53:25violation, or something to investigate.

1:53:28But I don't know that that's going to be

1:53:30something that would necessitate an

1:53:32annual reporting on that.

1:53:34But in the annual report provisions,

1:53:37there is also

1:53:39a catch-all

1:53:41that talks about reporting on overall

1:53:44compliance with their issued permit.

1:53:48And and so that would capture to some

1:53:50degree

1:53:52you know, any other conditions or

1:53:54regulations that they're continuing to

1:53:56comply with those.

1:53:58But otherwise, you know, there's

1:53:59separate regulations for how noise

1:54:02what the noise standards are.

1:54:04Uh

1:54:05how they're measuring that

1:54:08during operations and then presumably as

1:54:11long as everything's continuing to

1:54:13operate within those parameters, there's

1:54:15no issues, but

1:54:16there's opportunities to ensure that if

1:54:18there are complaints or perceived

1:54:21violations, that those can be

1:54:23investigated.

1:54:27>> That makes sense. Thanks.

1:54:29>> Thank you, Michael.

1:54:32>> Any other questions or comments

1:54:33regarding noise or or or the language

1:54:35that's that's shown here?

1:54:41>> Okay.

1:54:41>> Nope.

1:54:41>> So so I'll go on to to water um and um

1:54:45we discussed this a little bit before um

1:54:48regarding the aquasbeds and then water

1:54:50and regulation and um there is no change

1:54:53to the water utilization report language

1:54:56on uh line 397, which is on page 11 of

1:55:00of 24. Um but then when you get to line

1:55:03670 and 721,

1:55:06which is on pages 19 and uh 20 of 24, um

1:55:13let's see.

1:55:16There is some discussion there. Uh we

1:55:18did have ongoing water monitoring and

1:55:21reporting um including tracking of

1:55:24monthly water usage and monthly water

1:55:26discharge volumes and quality. So that

1:55:29has been uh removed on line 670 and

1:55:33lines

1:55:34uh 721 on page 20, I believe. Uh

1:55:39we also struck water utilization, which

1:55:42was the summary of annual water water

1:55:45consumption and other water utilization

1:55:47data required by the ordinance. So um

1:55:50that was changed. Um but I wanted to go

1:55:53ahead and and stop there and see if you

1:55:55had any questions about the removal of

1:55:57that language from this updated draft.

1:56:00>> Mr. Aldridge.

1:56:02Yeah, my question's not

1:56:04does nothing to do with with usage.

1:56:08Uh

1:56:09so I just want to make that clear, but

1:56:11it's got to do with discharge. Why would

1:56:14we strike the discharge aspect of it?

1:56:18Cuz to me, don't we want to monitor

1:56:21what they're putting out after it's been

1:56:24through the system.

1:56:30>> Kirk, do you have any thoughts on that

1:56:32regarding water?

1:56:35>> Um

1:56:37I I I would say you probably have more

1:56:38flexibility in that regard than the

1:56:40monthly water usage. If you want to go

1:56:42that route, it would

1:56:44I view that more as dealing with the

1:56:47whole um

1:56:49water contamination, things of that

1:56:51nature, sewage discharge of industrial

1:56:53materials. So, that is covered by

1:56:55different

1:56:56statute. Um

1:57:01>> Yeah, cuz I I would think that would

1:57:03might be a little bit on the imperative

1:57:06uh

1:57:06to know what I especially if uh

1:57:10if we're going to

1:57:11if there's going to be any requirements

1:57:14that I want to make sure there's not

1:57:15going to be any metals and

1:57:18you know, any harmful stuff coming out

1:57:20of that. Uh cuz periodically, they're

1:57:22going to want to uh flushing their

1:57:24system uh you know, to keep the corro-

1:57:27corrosive stuff out of there. And if we

1:57:30take this out of there, guess what? We

1:57:31can't monitor that. They can do anything

1:57:33they want to do.

1:57:34So, I'm concerned

1:57:37on that and I think we we still need to

1:57:40have that required that uh in there in a

1:57:42little more detail. Uh

1:57:45that that report that's in there before

1:57:47they dump it in our

1:57:49our system uh that it's got to go

1:57:52through environmental have environmental

1:57:53sign-off on it.

1:57:55You know, I I I get the intake of the

1:57:57water,

1:57:58but

1:57:59we ought to be able to control or at

1:58:01least have requirements on the

1:58:04uh

1:58:04on the discharge.

1:58:10>> Any other commissioners have a comment

1:58:12on that?

1:58:14Yes or no?

1:58:16>> To clarify, we have removed the water

1:58:19utilization and reporting based on

1:58:21previous conversations

1:58:23regarding that

1:58:25water utilization isn't as big of an

1:58:28issue as it maybe once was in other

1:58:30states.

1:58:32>> I I I If I could add a little bit more

1:58:34to that, I think it's

1:58:35it more has to do with that the state

1:58:37has occupied the field

1:58:39when it comes to water usage. And I I

1:58:42want you to know we did have some pretty

1:58:44lively staff discussions about this

1:58:46topic and um

1:58:47we've gone back and forth on in terms of

1:58:50different perspectives on this one. So,

1:58:53um

1:58:54but yes, uh it's because the state has

1:58:56occupied the field when it comes to

1:58:57water utilization.

1:59:00>> So, is is the retention of line 397 in

1:59:04the application requirements

1:59:07that's okay. That's

1:59:09informative and beneficial to the state

1:59:11then since it's kind of within their

1:59:13purview. Um I just want to clarify this

1:59:15distinction between removed it from the

1:59:17development standards but kept it in um

1:59:20our application requirements.

1:59:22>> Yeah, and and I I would just add that

1:59:24the water utilization report um

1:59:27um

1:59:29at a minimum details the design maximum

1:59:31median total daily intake volume,

1:59:33discharge volumes, and

1:59:35destinations as well as the cooling

1:59:37system type and efficiency. It does make

1:59:39reference to um compliance with the

1:59:42Department of Water Resources permitting

1:59:43and regulations. Um and that they do

1:59:46need to provide documentation

1:59:48uh

1:59:49regarding the proposed water discharges

1:59:52that they need to be conducted safely

1:59:54and without adverse impacts. So, we did

1:59:56keep that in there. Um but the removal

1:59:59was specifically apply to um

2:00:02lines 670 and 721, which would remove

2:00:05the ongoing water monitoring and

2:00:07reporting.

2:00:12>> I I would just add this is Michael with

2:00:15Berkeley Group. So,

2:00:17what what we're seeing in terms of water

2:00:19needs and usage and it's going to vary

2:00:21based on

2:00:23you know, the the type of facility, the

2:00:25cooling demands.

2:00:26But it's also going to vary based on the

2:00:29source of the water.

2:00:31And if, you know,

2:00:33not necessarily

2:00:34and Kirk has already indicated, you

2:00:36know, there's maybe limited controls

2:00:38that the county has with respect to

2:00:41regulating

2:00:42water sources.

2:00:45Um if they're using

2:00:47um

2:00:49a municipal system and discharging to

2:00:52that municipal system from a sewer

2:00:54standpoint, then that municipal

2:00:56operator, that system operator is likely

2:00:59going to have

2:01:01protocols and procedures for treating

2:01:03that water before

2:01:05it is

2:01:06um

2:01:08sent to their system.

2:01:10Um similarly, if we're talking about

2:01:14discharge of utilized water

2:01:17on surface to surface waters, there's

2:01:20going to be EPA regulations

2:01:22that apply to treatment of that

2:01:24discharge as well.

2:01:26Um

2:01:28You know, I can appreciate wanting to

2:01:30know more so maybe about discharges to

2:01:33surface water versus discharges

2:01:35to municipal systems.

2:01:37We've also heard and and this is

2:01:40probably more likely with a closed loop

2:01:42system.

2:01:44I I have not seen this in in in process,

2:01:47but I've I've heard this from a locality

2:01:51operator in Georgia or a locality in

2:01:53Georgia where the operator was

2:01:54suggesting that the discharge from the

2:01:57system would be discharged into trucks

2:02:01that would then be taken elsewhere. And

2:02:03I, you know, I would want to know more

2:02:05about that if I were the locality, if

2:02:07that was being sent somewhere else, but

2:02:10there's a variety of different means

2:02:13from utilization, but also discharge of

2:02:16water. Um just to to lay that out.

2:02:21>> Now, what my concerns are if we strike

2:02:25the monthly water discharge volume and

2:02:27qual- quantity,

2:02:29then

2:02:31you're not monitoring it on there. And

2:02:33I'm not talking about the intake of

2:02:35water. I'm talking about the discharge

2:02:37of water.

2:02:39And I I just think that that's

2:02:42imperative that we do that. And I don't

2:02:46you know, want to rely strictly on the

2:02:48state.

2:02:49Well, that's state's requirements and

2:02:51this and the other.

2:02:52You know,

2:02:55I think that we've already shown

2:02:57precedent when we're looking at other

2:03:00industries.

2:03:02You know, that's you've got to

2:03:05they got to meet certain requirements

2:03:07and this and that and the other. You

2:03:08know, put to put it into our system or

2:03:11just you know, on

2:03:13just any type of discharge. So, my

2:03:16concern is if you strike that, then we

2:03:18we lose that that capability. I just

2:03:21want to make sure that we know what's

2:03:23coming out of there. I'd sure like to

2:03:24know the volume.

2:03:26Unless we're you know,

2:03:28I don't think we need to be

2:03:30I think we need to be transparent on all

2:03:32this stuff. That's what I'm what I'm

2:03:33saying.

2:03:34>> So, you would be in favor of keeping

2:03:37reporting on discharge.

2:03:39>> Yes.

2:03:42>> My question for legal then, is there

2:03:45anything that would prevent us from

2:03:47keeping some reporting on water

2:03:49discharge knowing though that it's not

2:03:51necessarily within our purview and it's

2:03:53within the state's?

2:03:54>> Yeah, I mean

2:03:56um

2:03:57Yeah, we you you mentioned it. I mean,

2:04:00the state has some oversight here, but

2:04:03certainly is distinguishable from the

2:04:04other language I was talking about with

2:04:06the actual

2:04:07usage and transfer. So, the language

2:04:09here precluding our involvement isn't

2:04:12quite as broad. So, if you want to add

2:04:14in that

2:04:15H2, I'd kind of refer to the board at

2:04:18this time.

2:04:25>> I see everybody shaking their head yes.

2:04:28>> So, yeah, that's to Commissioner

2:04:30Aldridge's point and and a note about

2:04:33keeping the monthly water discharge in

2:04:35there.

2:04:36Is there any further discussion on that

2:04:38or is there a consensus about keeping

2:04:40that language in

2:04:42regarding ongoing water monitoring and

2:04:44reporting?

2:04:46>> Does it need to be monthly?

2:04:49And that's not me endorsing not monthly,

2:04:52just wondering. Is this Could this be

2:04:54wrapped into annual reporting? And what

2:04:56What might be the consequences of that?

2:04:59>> So, as it was as it was written before

2:05:01it was struck out, it says that that

2:05:03would be There would be a report that

2:05:04would be submitted to the planning

2:05:06department on an annual basis

2:05:08um

2:05:09with the information and that but that

2:05:11it would track monthly the differences

2:05:13from month to month. So, um that's

2:05:17So, in in keeping that I would I would

2:05:20keep that text the same way unless there

2:05:22was

2:05:23comments to change it and modify it.

2:05:26>> Hey.

2:05:27>> Scott, just for clarification,

2:05:30I I think that part of what

2:05:32Commissioner Altridge was talking about

2:05:33was located under

2:05:35um H1 and 2 that was being completely

2:05:38stricken before that point in time.

2:05:40So, if uh

2:05:43I don't know to address that with also

2:05:47I'm losing track of all these numbers.

2:05:49What would we

2:05:50um this water utilization section that

2:05:53you're referring to?

2:05:55Um I I think it's different, but if you

2:05:57want to

2:05:59adjust Commissioner Altridge's concerns

2:06:02with Commissioner Theisen's as well,

2:06:04it could be an annual, but we just

2:06:06include the specific language about

2:06:08discharge volumes and quality within

2:06:10that annual section and I combine them.

2:06:13>> I I think what it would say is um

2:06:17We could reinstate ongoing and we could

2:06:20say water discharge reporting

2:06:23following commencement of operations,

2:06:24the data center operator shall establish

2:06:26and maintain a monitoring program to

2:06:28report monthly water discharge volumes

2:06:31in qua- quality and then the data center

2:06:34operator shall report the above to the

2:06:36planning department on an annual basis.

2:06:40>> Commissioner McKay.

2:06:41If we're going to require

2:06:46the data to be recorded, do we also

2:06:48within that document need to say where

2:06:51it's going to go and what's going to do?

2:06:52I know on the old Venice you can drill

2:06:54another well and put water

2:06:57back into

2:06:58water wells.

2:06:59>> [snorts]

2:07:00>> But you have to

2:07:01document everything.

2:07:03>> So and so not only just the volume and

2:07:06quality, but also the

2:07:09where the discharge is going.

2:07:12>> I think that could be of benefit, so we

2:07:14know then depending on where it's going,

2:07:17if it's surface water dealt with

2:07:19governed by the state, if it's into our

2:07:21municipal water system, then dealt with

2:07:24and governed by what our local

2:07:26regulations are, assuming that we have

2:07:28regulations.

2:07:32>> If you have that system, you know,

2:07:35if it's not the

2:07:37chemicals that are in it or whatever

2:07:39you're

2:07:40testing and checking

2:07:42should be recycled.

2:07:45So.

2:07:49>> I'm going to jump in here for a minute

2:07:51because we are getting in a time crunch,

2:07:53so I hate to have people drive all the

2:07:56way down here and not get to speak, so

2:07:58can I get a show of hands of who who

2:08:00wants to speak today?

2:08:04Six over here, seven, eight, nine, 10.

2:08:08So

2:08:09that's going to take us past 12:30

2:08:11easily.

2:08:12So uh

2:08:13I'm open to suggestions here, Scott.

2:08:16What do you

2:08:17>> Yes, sir. Um

2:08:18well, this gets into a little bit of a

2:08:20larger conversation too, which is about

2:08:21the timing and in terms of the meeting

2:08:24the December 24th uh interim control

2:08:27deadline that the county commission has

2:08:29established. Um if there's there's

2:08:33the schedule the way that it's set up is

2:08:35that today would be the vote because

2:08:38November 12th or 11th would be the full

2:08:41MABC meeting and in order to make that

2:08:44the recommendation would come today.

2:08:47If if a recommendation if you do not

2:08:49make a recommendation today,

2:08:52then what would happen is I would report

2:08:53that back to the county manager's office

2:08:56and then

2:08:57who it's up to the to the BOCC on what

2:09:00they want to do in terms of the the

2:09:02schedule, but I guess at the same time I

2:09:05just want to tell you that it's kind of

2:09:07what would happen if recommendation is

2:09:09not rendered. You're not required to

2:09:12provide a recommendation today. We have

2:09:14we've organized and set up the documents

2:09:16today so that you have that opportunity,

2:09:19but at the same time

2:09:20know that you've got the freedom to do

2:09:22what you think you need to.

2:09:24>> You all think it's good that we give

2:09:26them a heads up

2:09:27board of county commission that we

2:09:30probably aren't going to make a

2:09:32decision now.

2:09:35And yeah, and so give them a heads up

2:09:36they just extend

2:09:38uh their requirement out.

2:09:41>> I definitely concur with that.

2:09:44>> So Justin, were these last two items

2:09:46your the end of your report or

2:09:49>> Uh yeah, pretty close. Uh I think we

2:09:51covered um both air quality, noise, and

2:09:53water energy. There were no changes to

2:09:54the application requirements nor the

2:09:56development standards, so I think we can

2:09:58go to the next slide. I think we were

2:09:59approaching the recommended action

2:10:01again, which I covered at the beginning.

2:10:02As this group has just discussed, we're

2:10:04not fully comfortable with with making a

2:10:07a recommendation as of today.

2:10:09>> Okay.

2:10:10If it's all right with the commission,

2:10:11then we'll start

2:10:13public comment right now. Is that all

2:10:14right? Okay.

2:10:16Thank you, Justin.

2:10:17>> Thank you.

2:10:18>> All right, whoever wants to speak, who

2:10:20wants to go first?

2:10:25Okay, we're done.

2:10:27>> [laughter]

2:10:29>> Please uh

2:10:30state your name and address

2:10:32and you'll have 3 minutes.

2:10:34>> Thank you, commissioners. Yeah, I'll go

2:10:36first cuz I'm closest. Andrew Nave with

2:10:38the Greater Wichita Partnership.

2:10:40505 East Douglas Avenue.

2:10:42Uh thank you for the time and the

2:10:45uh deliberation you've made on this.

2:10:46I'll be brief um but

2:10:48um the partnership is I think we've

2:10:50shared with you all before we convened a

2:10:51task force of data center operators. Uh

2:10:54Dan Rice Security that spoke at your

2:10:56last meeting uh kind of chairs that

2:10:57effort for us.

2:10:59Uh

2:10:59development firms can firms that have

2:11:02built and constructed data centers all

2:11:03over the country, architects, engineers.

2:11:05So, have a pretty robust uh industry

2:11:08task force and we've been sharing the

2:11:10the various documents and drafts with

2:11:11them and I'm just going to highlight a

2:11:12few of the the top concerns. Happy to

2:11:14get into economic development aspects as

2:11:17well that would be appropriate for you

2:11:18or for the commission but in the

2:11:20interest of time we'll kind of hit just

2:11:21the the top concerns. You've touched on

2:11:23many of them today already in your

2:11:25deliberations but uh a big one would be

2:11:28uh the conveyance of the conditional use

2:11:30permits as as

2:11:33as they're currently structured or

2:11:34currently stated. Um obviously making uh

2:11:37land use approvals uh with so many

2:11:40contingencies and and subject to's um it

2:11:43can be very costly when it comes to the

2:11:44number of studies especially where we're

2:11:46requiring new studies that typically

2:11:48haven't been required. So, if the

2:11:50regulations could be refined to more

2:11:52clearly delineate and specify what would

2:11:55be affirmatively or or positively

2:11:57received uh in those conditional um

2:12:00conditional use evaluations would would

2:12:02be supremely helpful. Um wasn't touched

2:12:05on I think I didn't hear it talked on

2:12:06extensively today about the flood plain

2:12:08exclusions but requiring existing flood

2:12:10plain information be submitted with site

2:12:13and drainage plans rather than an

2:12:14outright uh restriction or preclusion

2:12:17for flood plains was was a big concern

2:12:19by the group uh that we convened. And

2:12:21also the construction timeline of 2

2:12:23years uh does not leave a lot of

2:12:25flexibility in this day and age for any

2:12:26construction project but especially one

2:12:28as complex as a as a very technical and

2:12:31very advanced um building that data

2:12:33centers typically are. We would propose

2:12:35something longer than 2 years or

2:12:36potentially milestone based timelines

2:12:39that that don't affect a project where

2:12:41the whether it's like the utility

2:12:42connection or the the transformers

2:12:45that are completely out of uh the the

2:12:46applicant or the data center's control

2:12:48could could affect that timeline. So,

2:12:50maybe a project-based timeline. Uh

2:12:52broader than that, just the the some of

2:12:54the discussion is made today about the

2:12:55kind of the just the Catch-22 nature of

2:12:58some of the requirements you're putting

2:12:59in place that you're requiring things

2:13:01that other levels of government are

2:13:02often required to to to to look at and

2:13:06to review and have the professional

2:13:07staff to review.

2:13:09You got to understand that not always

2:13:11and many times planning and zoning comes

2:13:13earlier a development project's process.

2:13:16And so,

2:13:17you're requiring things of them that

2:13:18they haven't got to yet or haven't fully

2:13:20addressed yet, but it's a Catch-22. If

2:13:22they don't do it, many of these other

2:13:24requirements like the state's

2:13:26requirement for Senate Bill 98, the

2:13:28utilities often require a site to be

2:13:30identified and planning some preliminary

2:13:32planning and zoning to be approved. So,

2:13:34there's a a real concern with Catch-22

2:13:36here that we would ask you to

2:13:38reconsider. So, thank you very much.

2:13:40>> Any questions for the speaker?

2:13:43Okay, thank you. Next.

2:13:45Hurry, hurry.

2:13:49Name and address, and you'll have 3

2:13:50minutes.

2:13:51>> Karen Burlette, 55th South and Seneca.

2:13:55Um

2:13:57boy, we covered a lot today. I'm glad

2:13:59you're really digging deep into this.

2:14:01It's becoming pretty apparent that only

2:14:02you and the commissioners are not going

2:14:04to be the only ones that are making

2:14:05decisions here.

2:14:07You got a lot of other

2:14:08legal issues going on, and I don't know

2:14:11how you're going to get it all sorted

2:14:13out, but I'll pray for you.

2:14:15Um

2:14:16as I one of the things with the

2:14:18decommissioning that I that I have

2:14:21is you've got the data center building.

2:14:23We talked about that, but we didn't talk

2:14:25about any of the pieces of equipment

2:14:26that are around the data center.

2:14:28Um

2:14:29you have them listed in here. You know

2:14:30what they are, the generators and such

2:14:32on the outside.

2:14:34And then you have um

2:14:35major utility.

2:14:38Okay, so you're only going to leave the

2:14:39building. You're going to get rid of

2:14:41everything else.

2:14:43But what about the major utility?

2:14:45How are you going to get rid of all all

2:14:46kind of stuff?

2:14:48Um you'll never be able to put that land

2:14:50back to the way it was. You've got all

2:14:52those utilities in there now. Water

2:14:55treatment plants, um,

2:14:57all kinds of stuff. I think that should

2:14:59be considered.

2:15:00And how far this is going to be from

2:15:02farmland? 1,000 ft is not enough. This

2:15:06is a whole metropolis.

2:15:08And it can never be removed.

2:15:11It'll never be the same.

2:15:13So, I'd like to see that enlarged.

2:15:16Um,

2:15:18speaking of the decommissioning plan, it

2:15:19says if it's granted,

2:15:22it will be recorded with the register of

2:15:24deeds. What if you don't get an

2:15:25agreement? What if they present

2:15:27something that you don't like?

2:15:29Is there a clause for that? Who wins if

2:15:31you disagree?

2:15:33If it goes over the 3 years and there's

2:15:35no an agreement agreed upon,

2:15:37does the old one keep going until the

2:15:39new one starts? How is that going to be

2:15:41handled?

2:15:43Um,

2:15:44concerning the project area and the

2:15:45prime agricultural lands, will that also

2:15:48include all the access roads

2:15:51getting into the property?

2:15:53There's a lot lot of construction goes

2:15:56on. We've seen all the messes that can

2:15:58be. Is any of that going to cross cross

2:16:01over into the prime agricultural land?

2:16:04And any test results

2:16:06that we get from water, air, anywhere,

2:16:09should be monitored. We should see them.

2:16:11You should see them. The county, the

2:16:13city should see them. They should be

2:16:15public

2:16:17all the time. This shouldn't be

2:16:20even though all the counties and

2:16:22state and everybody are involved, we

2:16:24shouldn't have to go look everywhere for

2:16:25all of these things. Or it should be

2:16:28made known where they're going to be.

2:16:30And then who will pay for all those

2:16:31monitoring and tests that need to be

2:16:33done?

2:16:34We need to see them. They need to be

2:16:35held accountable. Who's going to require

2:16:37them to be held accountable? Who's going

2:16:39to discipline them if they're not?

2:16:41And then, um,

2:16:42who's going to pay for all that?

2:16:44Testing costs a lot of money.

2:16:47It could be the county, could be the

2:16:49city. City needs to be involved in all

2:16:51this.

2:16:52Especially with the waste treatment

2:16:54stuff that's going on. They need to know

2:16:55what's coming up.

2:16:56>> Your time is up, ma'am.

2:16:57>> Thank you.

2:16:58>> Are there any questions for this

2:16:59speaker?

2:17:01Thank you for being here.

2:17:04Name and address and 3 minutes.

2:17:07>> My name is Mary Grogan. I live at 5627

2:17:11South Tyler Road, Clearwater.

2:17:13Evergy stated that the cost is divided

2:17:16by kilowatt hours, which means that the

2:17:18data centers pay more because they are

2:17:20bigger

2:17:22uh user.

2:17:23But we also carry a part of that cost.

2:17:26If we are bringing new generations

2:17:28online generation online, how is that

2:17:31cost distributed over 3 years? 5 years?

2:17:35If the data center isn't fully online

2:17:37for 5 to 10 years,

2:17:40how much of the infrastructure cost are

2:17:42we already going to be paying

2:17:44and carrying? It's our Is it going to be

2:17:46our responsibility for that full share?

2:17:49With the bulk of the new generation

2:17:52being already paid by the consumers by

2:17:54the data center online,

2:17:56what are they going to pay in the end?

2:17:58And on you said something about water

2:18:00monitoring. I think that input and

2:18:03output should always be monitored. Our

2:18:05water is precious. Our future

2:18:07generations

2:18:09are what we need to look forward to.

2:18:11Thank you.

2:18:12>> Any questions for this speaker?

2:18:15Okay, thank you, ma'am. Next.

2:18:22Name and address and 3 minutes.

2:18:26>> Good afternoon. I'm Holly Martin. Um

2:18:29live at 603 Crestview Court, Andover,

2:18:31Kansas.

2:18:32Thanks for allowing me to speak today.

2:18:34Um I have attended most of the sessions

2:18:37online and had not had a voice until

2:18:39now, but I feel strongly about uh the

2:18:41work that's going on and I um

2:18:44I recommend you for your efforts at this

2:18:46at this point.

2:18:48I have recently been um afforded a

2:18:50document that was provided to you the

2:18:52Board of Commissioners on the 22nd of

2:18:54September. I took the time to read it.

2:18:56Um, there's over 70 pages here. Um,

2:18:59but I think we need to take pause and I

2:19:01I'm very grateful that

2:19:04you have allowed a little bit of delay

2:19:07in in the

2:19:08decision today

2:19:10because after looking at the 630-some

2:19:12pages of things online this morning

2:19:15again, um, from the agenda,

2:19:17I still think we need to go back and

2:19:19take a harder look at size.

2:19:21Um,

2:19:22and and go back into the classification

2:19:24of some of these things because it's

2:19:26constantly changing and we know that,

2:19:28but hyperscale is important, the

2:19:30co-location, enterprise,

2:19:33um, couple other

2:19:34sizes and those are important to set the

2:19:37baseline for all these conversations

2:19:39about zoning.

2:19:40Um, and I think by adding detail to the

2:19:43definitions in the application process,

2:19:44we achieve greater transparency up front

2:19:47about a project and the scope.

2:19:49Also, we need to ensure compatibility

2:19:51with surrounding land use and the

2:19:52comprehensive plan. I've heard talk

2:19:54about it today, but I didn't get to see

2:19:55a map, um, that brought all this

2:19:57together. And I think those are

2:19:59important in terms of

2:20:00showing infrastructure infrastructure

2:20:02capacity. We talked about power lines

2:20:04and so forth, but also the utility

2:20:06services ability to meet all that.

2:20:08Right now, there are areas throughout

2:20:09the county where specific size of data

2:20:11centers would not be feasible,

2:20:12acceptable, or suitable regarding land

2:20:14use. That brings me to another point to

2:20:16add a more detailed map, um, into the

2:20:18regulations regarding our zoning.

2:20:20I don't think there's enough guidance

2:20:22regarding what is permissible and what

2:20:23is not regarding the placement near

2:20:25population areas. And I see this

2:20:27specifically talking about the data

2:20:29centers and things

2:20:32things that were brought forth in that

2:20:33document from, um,

2:20:35the

2:20:36area experts that submitted that

2:20:38original regulatory draft.

2:20:41And when I talk specifically to you like

2:20:43project boundaries, data center

2:20:45projects, development areas, all these

2:20:47things were put forth in that document

2:20:49to the Board of County Commissioners.

2:20:51Um,

2:20:52specifically to the Equus waterbeds,

2:20:55uh, aquifers, and the boundaries of

2:20:57which were set forth on in that map.

2:21:00Talking about the data centers

2:21:02prohibitions within 2 miles of sensitive

2:21:04receptors.

2:21:06Sensitive receptors being established

2:21:08schools, preschools, daycare centers,

2:21:10in-home daycares, health facilities, all

2:21:12those major population areas that we

2:21:15want to protect. Um, and I just I think

2:21:18we need we owe it to all the citizens in

2:21:20the county and our state to take a

2:21:23harder look at some of these things.

2:21:26Um

2:21:27>> Ma'am, um, your time is run out. Um

2:21:29>> Yes.

2:21:30So

2:21:30>> Can you wrap it up real quick, please?

2:21:32>> Yes, um, I just I really

2:21:35want to say like the recommendations

2:21:36that were put forth in that document

2:21:38from the area experts

2:21:41if you take a harder look at some of

2:21:42them. I know you spent a lot of time

2:21:44already, but I mean, I literally spent

2:21:45the last 2 days looking at a

2:21:47side-by-side comparison to see where we

2:21:50could

2:21:51not necessarily restrict ourselves, but

2:21:54protect

2:21:55the future for our county.

2:21:58Um, and that's that's really all I have

2:22:00to say about it.

2:22:02>> I'm going to have to cut you off there.

2:22:03>> Thank Thank you very much.

2:22:05>> for this speaker?

2:22:07Okay. Thank you.

2:22:09Next speaker.

2:22:13Name and address. You'll have 3 minutes.

2:22:17>> Thank you.

2:22:21My name is Cindy Herbst and I live at

2:22:245415 North 199th Street West.

2:22:28I am right smack in the middle of the

2:22:31Monarch Energy proposed data center

2:22:33proposal.

2:22:35Um, with

2:22:37a mile on each side. Um,

2:22:40my husband built our home 30 years ago.

2:22:43It's on 5 acres.

2:22:45Uh, we live out in the country. We enjoy

2:22:47it. We raise cattle.

2:22:50And I just would ask for you guys to

2:22:54take uh, little bit of consideration

2:22:57in knowing and understanding

2:23:01there's two signed landowners and

2:23:03there's three unsigned landowners. And I

2:23:06know looking at the whole Sedgwick

2:23:08County, it may not matter, it may not

2:23:10care, but I ask that you put yourself

2:23:14in a situation like this

2:23:16where you live right here and work 30

2:23:18years for your place

2:23:21and have been able to acquire a little

2:23:23bit of additional farmland and you want

2:23:25to preserve that for future generations

2:23:28and have a love of your neighbors and

2:23:31the community

2:23:33and look for that to be disrupted.

2:23:36I care.

2:23:40And we also um I want to mention have

2:23:44some acreage that we bought

2:23:46in between this project.

2:23:49We've been presented a contract with

2:23:51substantial money.

2:23:53Uh we've been asked for our

2:23:54life-changing number.

2:23:55Our life-changing number is not a

2:23:58number. We wish to be where we're at. We

2:24:00love our area. We want future

2:24:03generations. We want our children to be

2:24:05raised with good work ethic. Our

2:24:07grandkids are coming and our family's

2:24:09growing. And we have no other desire or

2:24:12place where we would love to live.

2:24:14Um one of the concerns Here's the

2:24:16picture of my cattle I was kind of

2:24:18flashing at a couple of you earlier, by

2:24:19the way.

2:24:20Um

2:24:21great butcher beef.

2:24:23Love barbecues and steaks with all that.

2:24:25One of the concerns I have to is the

2:24:27corrective action plans.

2:24:29There's been mentioned, okay, if they

2:24:30don't do the noise, they don't do the

2:24:32water, what's the corrective action

2:24:34plan?

2:24:35Having a background in being a quality

2:24:37engineer,

2:24:38usually there's a timeline and there's a

2:24:40robust

2:24:42corrective action to that. I don't What

2:24:44is there

2:24:46fines and fees or what would we do with

2:24:48that?

2:24:50So, I'll open that back up to you guys.

2:24:52Thank you.

2:24:53>> Thank you.

2:24:54>> a question.

2:24:54>> Question for this speaker. Commissioner

2:24:56Johnson.

2:24:57>> Are your cattle grass-fed?

2:25:00>> They're They are grass-fed and we also

2:25:02grain feed them.

2:25:04And we have a long wait list. We We're

2:25:05not big operators. My husband's actually

2:25:08a concrete construction worker.

2:25:11Um he's been in business for over 30

2:25:13years with two other business partners.

2:25:16They have built hundreds, thousands of

2:25:18homes, and done the concrete flat work

2:25:22um for many of people in our area,

2:25:25including some sitting here today.

2:25:29>> Okay.

2:25:30Other questions?

2:25:34Thank you, ma'am.

2:25:34>> Not for sale. Thank you.

2:25:37>> Next.

2:25:52>> John Hecht.

2:25:53Excuse me. 2942 North Cardington, here

2:25:56in Wichita.

2:25:57After looking at your proposed

2:25:59regulations for the construction of a

2:26:01data center, I would suggest that you

2:26:02re-evaluate the regulation that you

2:26:05have, and go back and better define and

2:26:07make stricter some that you already have

2:26:09in some areas. Concerning noise,

2:26:12your proposed regulations address

2:26:14monitoring, measuring max and average

2:26:16DBA and DBC.

2:26:18Does not address any penalties if levels

2:26:21are exceeded at any time.

2:26:23It also does a poor job addressing tonal

2:26:25noise, which has been shown to cause a

2:26:27lot of problems in humans and in

2:26:29livestock.

2:26:30This needs to be continuously monitored.

2:26:33Water has been a major concern in

2:26:35developing these data centers, also.

2:26:37While the regulations talk about water

2:26:39and safety, there needs to be language

2:26:41in there to have an environmental impact

2:26:43study done prior to any construction to

2:26:46identify potential hazards.

2:26:48There also should be language not

2:26:50allowing any data centers over the Equus

2:26:52Beds aquifer or upstream from municipal

2:26:54water sources.

2:26:56Your recommendations describe a water

2:26:58utilization report detailing daily and

2:27:01maximum water usages, but again, there

2:27:03are no penalties in place for any of the

2:27:05rules which may be broken.

2:27:08There's no mention of water amounts

2:27:09needed also for construction and

2:27:11development.

2:27:12And to a point that was made earlier, we

2:27:14talked about the percentage of risk that

2:27:16may be happen if something does get into

2:27:18the water,

2:27:20it only takes once.

2:27:22It only takes once.

2:27:23Soil is another concern. Even though

2:27:26your regulations call for studies and

2:27:27assessment prior to construction,

2:27:29there's no language in the regulations

2:27:31dealing with any offsite moving of soil

2:27:33or damage to the adjoining fields and or

2:27:36areas if something does occur.

2:27:38There's also no mention of any chemicals

2:27:40or contaminations that may be suspect.

2:27:43Penalties need to be put in place.

2:27:45I suggest you do more research on other

2:27:47data center regulations that are out

2:27:49there that have been put in place or

2:27:51look at the regulations that have been

2:27:53proposed to this group by other groups

2:27:55so that you have a better understanding

2:27:56of what is needed to protect the county

2:27:59and allow these businesses to begin.

2:28:01In summary, there needs to be specific

2:28:03laws and amounts and levels and

2:28:05penalties listed in the regulations that

2:28:07you draw up.

2:28:08KDHE and other regulatory groups have

2:28:11never dealt with anything of this scope

2:28:13or size when talking about data centers.

2:28:16Reading and researching data centers for

2:28:18the last six or eight months has shown a

2:28:20history of regulations being ignored or

2:28:23broken during operation and

2:28:25construction.

2:28:26These regulations need to favor the

2:28:28population surrounding the area where

2:28:29these data centers are located.

2:28:32These are the people you're responsible

2:28:33for.

2:28:36>> Any questions for this speaker?

2:28:38Yes, Weschler.

2:28:40>> Is this a good time to pose question to

2:28:42staff?

2:28:43>> Yeah.

2:28:44>> Another time. Okay.

2:28:46Do we have anything in here regarding

2:28:48penalties and is that within our legal

2:28:51jurisdiction?

2:28:52>> So, we don't in this specific document

2:28:54because it's contained in the larger

2:28:55unified zoning code and this is a

2:28:57portion that would go into it. Now, um I

2:29:01think we should probably base

2:29:03if there will be another meeting to

2:29:04discuss this and based on the

2:29:05conversation, maybe it would be helpful

2:29:07to in- some slides that would discuss

2:29:10enforcement in the next meeting. But for

2:29:13right now, what I would say is that in

2:29:15general, if there's a zoning code

2:29:16violation, it takes a bit for that

2:29:19usually to get worked out because what

2:29:21happens is is that first someone has to

2:29:23go and confirm that that violation is

2:29:25actually taking place.

2:29:27Then there's a letter that goes out with

2:29:30a notice of violation. Usually there's

2:29:32provided about 30 days or time period

2:29:35for corrective action for the property

2:29:37owner to get it into compliance.

2:29:39And then if that still is not achieved,

2:29:41then that's when it goes to court with

2:29:43an official notice of violation. They go

2:29:45to court and then the judge assigns

2:29:47what should happen. Um I'm going to look

2:29:50to the

2:29:50legal staff to correct me or jump in

2:29:53with anything if I got it wrong, but it

2:29:55there's a process that's involved.

2:29:57>> Correct. There's a process that

2:29:59after a few attempted contacts and a few

2:30:03weeks to fix the issue, um a violation

2:30:06is issued

2:30:08and then it ends up in environmental

2:30:10court in the if it's within the city, in

2:30:13the municipal court.

2:30:16>> Any other questions for this speaker?

2:30:18Thank you, sir.

2:30:20I assume you've given a copy of your

2:30:23script to the staff.

2:30:25Yeah.

2:30:27Next

2:30:28speaker.

2:30:34Name and address and you'll have 3

2:30:36minutes.

2:30:38>> Hi, I'm Phoebe Rail. Address 7103 East

2:30:42Chelsea Street in Wichita.

2:30:46Um I wanted to address the claim that

2:30:49the size of data centers will

2:30:51self-regulate based on the availability

2:30:54of resources.

2:30:56Um it has been proved right blatantly

2:30:59false. Um

2:31:01those resources

2:31:03wind up being extracted from the

2:31:05community to support the industry

2:31:07straining community resources to a

2:31:09breaking point.

2:31:10Determining appropriate regulations is

2:31:13your your duty to prevent that. Thank

2:31:17you. That's all I have right now.

2:31:19>> Are there any Hold on a second. Are

2:31:20there any questions for this speaker?

2:31:23Okay.

2:31:24Thank you for coming down being here.

2:31:25Next.

2:31:33Name and address, please. You have 3

2:31:35minutes.

2:31:37>> My name is Joan Omo and I live at 5537

2:31:41North 183rd Street West, Colwich.

2:31:45Um I wanted to speak a bit about the

2:31:47same project that Cindy Herbs mentioned,

2:31:52um the Monarch project.

2:31:54I had some concerns listening when we

2:31:57discussed the reporting monthly of the

2:32:01discharge water.

2:32:04Most of us out there, I think all of us,

2:32:07um drink our well water. We rely on our

2:32:11well water.

2:32:12Um

2:32:13have always loved our well water and was

2:32:15so proud to be over the Equus beds. I

2:32:18can remember my parents and my

2:32:20grandparents speaking about the Equus

2:32:23beds and and how blessed we were to have

2:32:26them and to be over them. And people

2:32:29say, "Oh, your water tastes so good."

2:32:31Um

2:32:33I think that if this project was next to

2:32:36your home,

2:32:38>> [clears throat]

2:32:38>> because it can be built anywhere,

2:32:40um

2:32:42that you would want that water tested

2:32:45monthly and you would want that to be

2:32:47very transparent. You would want to know

2:32:51within days,

2:32:53I mean, at the most, a month, that

2:32:56you've been exposed to something that

2:32:58could threaten your health.

2:33:00You know, our animals are also drinking

2:33:03water. Now, if that discharge water, you

2:33:05may say,

2:33:07"It'll be captured. Nothing could

2:33:08happen." Well, there are times when we

2:33:11have floods and the rain never stops.

2:33:14And I've seen Colwich, which is 1 mile

2:33:17from this

2:33:18proposed facility, I've seen it flooded

2:33:21clear up to the grade school.

2:33:23We have a grade school and a preschool

2:33:25there.

2:33:26If these flood waters should ever happen

2:33:28and get contaminated,

2:33:30it really puts the the health of many

2:33:33others, including children, at risk.

2:33:36I'm just asking that you guys put

2:33:39regulations in

2:33:41that make that very transparent so that

2:33:43we can protect ourselves.

2:33:46Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity

2:33:48to speak to you today.

2:33:51>> Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for this

2:33:52speaker?

2:33:54Okay, next.

2:34:05Yeah, she's already spoke.

2:34:07I'm sorry. You were limited to 3

2:34:08minutes. I'm sorry.

2:34:10Next.

2:34:17Going once.

2:34:18Here we go.

2:34:24Name and address and 3 minutes.

2:34:28>> Hi, I'm Chelsea Cox. I live at 4989

2:34:30North 295th Street, Mount Hope. Um Cindy

2:34:34just wanted to say that if anybody would

2:34:36like a crop tour, she'd be happy to give

2:34:37you one out in these proposed areas.

2:34:40Um I don't really have anything

2:34:41prepared, but I wrote down some notes um

2:34:43from the discussions today.

2:34:45Um I really have a problem with the no

2:34:47limit on the hyperscale facilities. Um

2:34:49you know, it was 1,000 acres. If you

2:34:51really think about how big 1,000 acres

2:34:53is, it's bigger than all the small towns

2:34:56out in that community. You know, how can

2:34:59you

2:35:00let that be available for someone to put

2:35:03such a large facility out in a community

2:35:05like that?

2:35:07Um and as someone else has mentioned

2:35:09about the limited resources, you know, I

2:35:11feel like some of these discussions are

2:35:12oh well, we'll we'll deal with that

2:35:13later. Well, that is the reason that

2:35:15we're talking about it now so that way

2:35:18we don't have to say oops, we should

2:35:20have maybe done this, you know, and I

2:35:22appreciate that you guys are willing to

2:35:24extend the time to take more time to go

2:35:27through these things because of

2:35:29I was a little worried in the beginning

2:35:30that we were going to try and rush and

2:35:32get these, you know, approved today, but

2:35:34it's very apparent that a lot more

2:35:37discussion needs to be done about a lot

2:35:38more topics.

2:35:40Um

2:35:41something little construction times

2:35:42being okay from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

2:35:45There are homes right next to some of

2:35:46these proposed sites. Can you imagine

2:35:48having that type of construction going

2:35:50on at 9:30 at night? I mean,

2:35:53that's just minor, but again, these

2:35:54minor details matter.

2:35:56Um the buildings, there was our

2:35:58discussion about there's going to be

2:36:00basically no other use for humans in

2:36:01these buildings. That's

2:36:03kind of alarming to me, which, you know,

2:36:05it is hard to say that you tear down

2:36:06this huge building, but also, you know,

2:36:08what are we talking about here? These

2:36:10buildings are only built for computers

2:36:11and there's no other usage.

2:36:13It's just mind-blowing to me.

2:36:16Um

2:36:18and Evergy and the large load tariffs, I

2:36:20know Sedgwick County cop wasn't here

2:36:22today, but again, they're they're I

2:36:24believe the servicer of of at least one

2:36:25of these sites. So, do they have the

2:36:27large load tariffs? I I don't know that

2:36:29quite answer that question.

2:36:31Um I think the reporting data in regards

2:36:33to water usage and discharge should be

2:36:35available to the public and that is very

2:36:37important

2:36:38um because water is our most precious

2:36:40resource. Um

2:36:42and in regards to that, this is the

2:36:45option C about the locations about no

2:36:47restrictions because you didn't want to

2:36:49you want more flexibility,

2:36:51but that that's not what we're looking

2:36:52for. We need the protection and that's

2:36:54what we're asking for. Um

2:36:58the having no regulations, yes, gives

2:37:00you flexibility, but then what what are

2:37:02we talking about all this for? We need

2:37:03the protections.

2:37:05Um

2:37:06in regards to water, you know,

2:37:08I I'm in real estate and there's been a

2:37:10lot of discussion in housing

2:37:11developments on the water. And this is

2:37:13in such a much larger scale that I'm

2:37:16baffled at why we are not being as

2:37:20critical of the water with these huge

2:37:23data centers, but we're worried about

2:37:25little two-acre lots.

2:37:26Um

2:37:28it's all important.

2:37:29>> Ma'am, your time is up.

2:37:31>> No.

2:37:33>> Any questions for this speaker?

2:37:36Okay, next.

2:37:41Oh, okay.

2:37:43Next.

2:37:46Name and address and 3 minutes.

2:37:48>> Yep, I'll help keep things moving along.

2:37:50So, Alan Clausen Anderson, I'm the chair

2:37:51of the uh from Lawrence, Kansas.

2:37:53Chair of the energy practice group at

2:37:55Polsinelli law firm as well as professor

2:37:57at the University of Kansas Law School.

2:37:59Uh just a couple themes and I'm happy to

2:38:01talk about the energy issues because

2:38:02what I think as you heard from Evergy

2:38:04today, that comports with what I said

2:38:06last time and may not quite uh some of

2:38:09the materials you received may be true

2:38:11of Virginia or in PJM, but in SPP,

2:38:14Kansas and and with uh

2:38:16the KCC, it comports with that. But, the

2:38:19two topics and I think these have been

2:38:20thematic here that I think are really

2:38:22important is one is there are a myriad

2:38:24of other agencies that regulate many of

2:38:27these issues. And that's a good thing.

2:38:29You know, when we think about uh air and

2:38:31water in particular, KDHE

2:38:35plus the EPA both regulate those. So,

2:38:37when we when we don't have something

2:38:39within these regulations, it's not that

2:38:40we can do whatever we want. We simply

2:38:42can't. It wouldn't be it's no different

2:38:44than other industry you have here in

2:38:45Sedgwick County. It's kind of been

2:38:46referenced, whether be Boeing, Spirit,

2:38:49Coke. You have a lot of industry here.

2:38:51They can't do whatever they want. They

2:38:53also are regulated. And that includes

2:38:56both discharge water. That has to go in

2:38:59to the approved locations for any kind

2:39:01of discharge. I will tell you

2:39:03closed-loop systems aren't discharged,

2:39:05but if there was a situation, which we

2:39:06will assume for the purposes, that's

2:39:08under the KDHE and EPA. Air is the same

2:39:11thing. Those generators have to be

2:39:13permitted. They have limitations on the

2:39:14amount that could be uh discharged and

2:39:17time and of use. So, those have a lot of

2:39:19regulation around them

2:39:21that's important. Storm water discharge,

2:39:23all those just different things. So,

2:39:24that's just one point. You've got a lot

2:39:26of other agencies that do the heavy

2:39:28lifting that make sure we can't just

2:39:29like other industry. The second thing is

2:39:32the flexibility for you to look at a

2:39:33project. Even if you say we're not going

2:39:35to just have limitations in geographic

2:39:37scope or size,

2:39:39enormous amount of review will be going

2:39:40to the project and to put limitations

2:39:42would take off maybe the greatest

2:39:44project that could be delivered and you

2:39:46didn't even know it because you created

2:39:47a limitation. So, those are the two

2:39:48things I want to cover and happy to talk

2:39:50about anything else.

2:39:52>> Questions? Yes,

2:39:54Mr. Thiessen.

2:39:55>> We have seen you at a lot of these

2:39:56meetings. I appreciate your consistency.

2:39:58Can you tell us what your interest is in

2:40:01Sedgwick County regulations given that

2:40:02you are um

2:40:04I've got you noted in here. Um I've not

2:40:06necessarily captured a name every time,

2:40:08but KU guy from Lawrence. Um what's your

2:40:11interest in these Sedgwick County

2:40:12regulations?

2:40:13>> Yes, I represent a lot of the data

2:40:14centers that would be interested in in

2:40:16Kansas and Sedgwick County

2:40:20Yeah.

2:40:21>> Other questions?

2:40:23Thank you.

2:40:24Appreciate it. Next.

2:40:30Name and address.

2:40:32Three minutes.

2:40:35>> Mary Beth Winter, 23700 West 53rd

2:40:38Street, Andale.

2:40:40Um I'm just going to kind of piggyback

2:40:41off of Cindy and Chelsea.

2:40:44Um we would invite any of you to come

2:40:46and

2:40:48take a crop tour of our area between

2:40:50Andale, Colwich, and Garden Plain to see

2:40:53where the two proposed sites are and how

2:40:57close they are to schools, churches,

2:40:59communities, things like that. Um I know

2:41:02you're going across all of Sedgwick

2:41:04County, but it it is affecting us and

2:41:08that's why you're seeing all of us here

2:41:11primarily. So, that's all I have.

2:41:14>> Okay, questions for this speaker?

2:41:16Thank you, ma'am.

2:41:19Next.

2:41:28>> Um, name and address.

2:41:32Three minutes, you know the drill.

2:41:33>> Yeah, good morning. Caitlin Grombach, I

2:41:35think we're familiar with each other by

2:41:36now. I uh my husband and I are property

2:41:38owners out in West Sedgwick County.

2:41:40Um, I appreciate all the time that this

2:41:42committee has taken to consider many of

2:41:45the topics listed in the data center

2:41:46regulations. However, I would urge the

2:41:48committee to take more time, which you

2:41:50are doing, and thank you for that. The

2:41:52current regulations, as they are being

2:41:54considered, are a great base, but they

2:41:55definitely leave ample room for

2:41:57improvement. For example, you currently

2:41:59have no restrictions on the location.

2:42:01That was discussed today. Sedgwick

2:42:03County has already decided to allow

2:42:05rural residential zoning, as Scott

2:42:07mentioned. We do not have an agriculture

2:42:09district zoning.

2:42:10Um, that means, because of this, that we

2:42:13have residential homes sprinkled far and

2:42:14wide. You really can't drive very far

2:42:17without coming to the next home. Yeah,

2:42:19they're not clustered, but they are all

2:42:21the way throughout pretty regularly.

2:42:24Um, we saw with the industrial solar

2:42:26applications that people have a deep

2:42:27concern about living next to these types

2:42:30of facilities. Hyperscale data centers

2:42:32are going to be solar facilities on

2:42:34steroids. Not only are they bringing

2:42:36some of the same issues, but they're

2:42:38also going to be bringing uh energy

2:42:40generation and all of the infrastructure

2:42:42that comes with that. I actually have

2:42:44watched several of your meetings where

2:42:46you discussed regulations for additional

2:42:48dwelling units, I believe ADUs.

2:42:50Um, you considered size. You considered

2:42:53location.

2:42:54Uh, you even looked at specifics such as

2:42:58roof lines and the direction that the

2:42:59siding would be allowed to go.

2:43:02When those regulations were presented to

2:43:04the Board of County Commissioners,

2:43:05Commissioner Howell actually asked why

2:43:07those regulations were structured so

2:43:09particularly.

2:43:11Scott responded, and Scott, I'm going to

2:43:13quote you today.

2:43:15In my mind, it comes down to

2:43:16expectations, and I generally think

2:43:19people are not expecting something very

2:43:20large to be built that dwarfs the

2:43:22principal structure in the rear of the

2:43:24lot. I can think of a couple instances

2:43:26in Wichita where that has occurred and

2:43:28it definitely stands out it's out of

2:43:30place. I think it's a matter of matching

2:43:32people's expectations." End quote.

2:43:35Is there a reason that people in city

2:43:36limits should get more consideration for

2:43:38their expectations than those of us who

2:43:40choose to live in the county? Do you not

2:43:42think a large industrial facility sticks

2:43:44out in a rural community more than a

2:43:45larger structure behind a smaller

2:43:47original structure just because it's

2:43:49placed on a city lot?

2:43:51To me, the expectation that an

2:43:53industrial facility not be placed in

2:43:55rural residential and agriculture areas

2:43:57seems much more reasonable than an

2:43:59expectation to not have a larger new

2:44:01structure behind a smaller original one.

2:44:04Data centers are not new, but the size

2:44:06and scale and multitude of them that is

2:44:09being proposed is.

2:44:11These facilities are not following the

2:44:13patterns that we've come to know and

2:44:14expect with other economic development.

2:44:16We know that five Boeings, five

2:44:18Walmarts, five Cessnas are not going to

2:44:21locate right next to each other. Okay?

2:44:23So, community might be able to say,

2:44:24"Yeah, we're going to accept a Walmart.

2:44:26We think this is okay." But, our

2:44:28communities are being inundated. Our

2:44:30school district has three potential

2:44:32sites already that we know of.

2:44:34There's rumors of a fourth.

2:44:36>> Okay. Uh

2:44:37>> Yeah, can I summarize? I'll get Yeah.

2:44:39>> please.

2:44:39>> Uh public zoning policy was created in

2:44:41response to the Industrial Revolution

2:44:43when people began to notice that public

2:44:45health was negatively affected by

2:44:47industrial sites placed next to

2:44:48residential areas.

2:44:50In 1926, the US Supreme Court compared

2:44:53placing industrial sites in residential

2:44:55to placing a pig in a parlor instead of

2:44:57a farmyard.

2:44:59Stating that separating industrial,

2:45:00commercial, and residential land use

2:45:02very bears a rational relation to public

2:45:05health, safety, and welfare. That's the

2:45:07task you accepted when you accept agree

2:45:09to sit on this committee.

2:45:11>> I'm going to have to cut you off there

2:45:12to be fair to everybody else.

2:45:13>> Yep, that's fine. Thank you.

2:45:14>> Yep.

2:45:15Any questions for this speaker?

2:45:18Next speaker.

2:45:26Name and address?

2:45:2930

2:45:303 minutes.

2:45:31>> Not 30 minutes.

2:45:32>> and uh 19223 West 29th Street, uh

2:45:36Colwich.

2:45:37Just hit a couple points. One,

2:45:39decommissioning plan.

2:45:41You cannot design the decommissioning

2:45:43plan for every scenario that you're

2:45:44going to have right now. What you're

2:45:45trying to do is protect yourself cuz you

2:45:48don't know who the data center developer

2:45:49is financial situation. You want to

2:45:51protect the county

2:45:53if things go bad.

2:45:55And if there's a use for the building,

2:45:57great. But you don't write it with that

2:45:59in mind up front. You write it in if

2:46:01it's not going to be used and you're

2:46:03going belly up, I need to have a

2:46:04financial instrument in front and that's

2:46:06why the 3 years. You won't You don't

2:46:08worry about the plan as much. Do you

2:46:09have the financial wherewithal if you

2:46:12have to take it out? So that's my point.

2:46:13You're trying to protect yourself.

2:46:16That's what you're doing. It's not

2:46:17trying to decide who can use it,

2:46:19whatever. If a plan comes up, great.

2:46:21Then you can give them their money back.

2:46:22Second thing is

2:46:24and we've had [clears throat] a couple

2:46:25discussions

2:46:26with my learned friend over here.

2:46:28Um when I first saw the KCC approved a

2:46:31large tariff back in February, I mean it

2:46:34was approved in November. When I saw it,

2:46:36I said, "Hey, somebody's on top of the

2:46:37ball."

2:46:38But being a business guy, an engineer,

2:46:40who's run operations, I said, "Let's run

2:46:42some cases."

2:46:43The cases don't necessarily support that

2:46:45they're going to cover all that cost.

2:46:47You and

2:46:48my energy folks got away from me before

2:46:50I could get them. But um one of our

2:46:52county commission been trying to set up

2:46:54a meeting for 7 weeks

2:46:56for me to sit down and go through this

2:46:57with them.

2:46:58Can't get any bites.

2:47:00But the thing is

2:47:02>> [clears throat]

2:47:02>> they have a large load tariff.

2:47:04I don't know what the assumptions are. I

2:47:06don't know what the payback period is. I

2:47:07don't know what the assumptions of what

2:47:08they're trying to cover.

2:47:10The new sites are 1.6 billion dollars

2:47:13for 700 megawatts. And it's roughly 200

2:47:16to 2200 dollars per kilowatt of power,

2:47:19okay?

2:47:20So when you go through the math, you go,

2:47:22But I've run a 1 gigawatt case. It

2:47:25doesn't work.

2:47:26And I've used the fixed cost, what goes

2:47:28in fixed cost and in variable. The local

2:47:30residents will get killed.

2:47:33Um that's a strong word, but

2:47:36the tariff is higher than the other

2:47:39industries. It doesn't address what is

2:47:41the locals pay. And Mr. Evergy guy here

2:47:44even said we base it cost across

2:47:46kilowatt hours used.

2:47:50That's a big point. It's not who caused

2:47:53the investment, but everybody's going to

2:47:55pay for it. In certain cases that makes

2:47:57sense.

2:47:58But you think our normal residential

2:48:00growth is going to require three 765 kV

2:48:04lines be built in Kansas?

2:48:07You can't even You could put two or

2:48:09three steel mills in for that. I know

2:48:11what's one going down in Mississippi.

2:48:12So, I'm just trying to say is you got to

2:48:14understand the details

2:48:16and you got to challenge the people to

2:48:18come in with real-life examples, not

2:48:20PowerPoint charts or talking points. I

2:48:22can make anything sound good. Give me

2:48:24specifics.

2:48:26Show me that it really works that way.

2:48:28And if I'm wrong, I'd love it.

2:48:31I don't think I am.

2:48:32>> You're out of time.

2:48:33>> Sorry.

2:48:34That's okay.

2:48:35>> Any questions for this speaker?

2:48:37Nope. Thanks again for being here.

2:48:41Is that it?

2:48:45Going once, twice, three times. All

2:48:46right. Thanks everybody for uh

2:48:49coming down and

2:48:51participating in the process. Um

2:48:53where are we at? Um

2:48:56>> Our next regularly scheduled meeting is

2:48:57November 12th.

2:48:59>> Okay.

2:48:59>> And uh staff will work to

2:49:01>> Do we need to make a motion of

2:49:03what we're doing here by delaying this

2:49:05or not?

2:49:06>> I don't believe so, sir. I because I

2:49:08think I I think it's set up for you to

2:49:11take action, but if you don't take

2:49:12action,

2:49:13I don't think you need a particular

2:49:15motion in that one.

2:49:16>> Okay.

2:49:16>> The other thing to note is that the

2:49:18comprehensive plan was on the agenda for

2:49:20today, so we will put that on the agenda

2:49:22as unfinished business. We'll put it on

2:49:24to the next agenda.

2:49:27>> Okay. I guess we're done.

2:49:28>> No, on that we're going to have to make

2:49:29a motion to defer, aren't we?

2:49:32>> I'll turn to legal. Looks like they

2:49:34advise that would be recommended.

2:49:35>> I would make that motion that we defer

2:49:38the balance of the agenda items

2:49:40uh

2:49:43to the next advanced plans meeting.

2:49:46>> Second.

2:49:47>> All in favor say I.

2:49:48>> I.

2:49:49>> Oppose?

2:49:51Motion carried.

2:49:52>> No opposition?

```*