Data center

Praised the draft overlay as a strong foundation but urged stronger protections: require air-cooled or closed-loop cooling with water caps and reporting, make the data center pay grid-upgrade costs with exit fees, and add annual C-weighted noise testing with real penalties.

Spoke for the LeChee Chapter community in opposition, citing chronic water scarcity between Page and LeChee, sacred views of water, and concerns that data centers don't create lasting local jobs.

Urged that any surcharges or costs from a data center fall on the operator, not residents; sound limits shouldn't stack on top of the area's 40–60 dB baseline; tightened outdoor lighting rules to close a loophole; and detailed an enforcement scheme with monthly city tours, public posting of violations, and fines up to $25,000 a day.

A 26-year Page resident warned about the dangers of AI, arguing the encryption-breaking power of data centers could destabilize banking, government, and privacy — comparing the risk to a nuclear bomb.

A 44-year resident of 270 Morgan said the town's quality of life is why people stay and questioned whether a data center would improve it; she raised concern for a pair of owls nesting in the canyons within the proposed overlay area.

A 50-year resident proposed a governing principle: no resident at any property line should be able to perceive a data center by sound, light, odor, vibration, or degraded utilities, and all costs and risks should fall on the owner-operator. She asked for a one-mile minimum distance from residential zones, smaller megawatt limits, and a slower process.

A resident since 1968 with detailed written suggestions said a relative who builds data centers nationwide told him operators build to the minimum required — so Page's rules must be strict. He supported the overlay but said the process is moving too fast and the document isn't ready to hand to council.

Speaking for a community group with detailed written recommendations, she asked that the overlay require data centers to secure power from outside providers so local rates and reliability aren't affected, mandate a water feasibility study, prefer non-potable or recycled water, and slow the process down before council votes at the end of the month.

A 28-year Cedar Street resident pleaded with the commission to slow down and not vote yet, delivering detailed sound-mitigation recommendations: G-weighted and third-octave-band measurements, noise no more than 5 dB above baseline (3 dB at night), and quarterly third-party acoustic monitoring with public results within 30 days.

Asked about regulation and oversight of construction truck traffic and industrial transportation routes, noting massive truck deliveries could strain Highway 89 and local streets. Staff agreed a traffic impact analysis could be added to the requirements.

Supported the overlay as a lawsuit-safe approach, but questioned giving the Huntley Group a third chance on 500 prime acres when Page has no spare electricity or water.

Wanted the notification radius expanded beyond the half-mile standard — suggesting three to five miles — and challenged the lawnmower noise comparison, saying 55 dB for eight hours a day isn't comparable to a 30-minute lawn mowing.

Asked whether data center developers have had input into the overlay rules, saying he suspects they don't care because they may just want the 500 acres of land, not a data center. Staff confirmed the city is the applicant and the Huntley Group had no input.

A 20-year P&Z veteran raised noise from cooling-system motors, and pressed hard on enforcement — citing three unenforced outdoor lighting complaints against Mastercraft over four years — asking who would hold a data center accountable. Also later suggested routine city inspections instead of complaint-driven enforcement.

Asked who 'the director' is in the text, then asked that the water discharge standard be strengthened beyond 'in the vicinity of' and require disclosure of water withdrawal, recycling, and discharge details. Also asked whether the overlay could cap project size in acres and gigawatts.

Returned with questions on 24/7 operations, low-frequency noise (infrasound), closed-loop cooling chemicals, and whether the city could actually hold a multi-billion-dollar corporation accountable for violations.

Lives near the proposed 500-acre site. Asked whether that project would be subject to the overlay (yes, but a rezone comes first), whether the developer could sue, requested a wildlife impact study (noting bats' frequency sensitivity), and asked about the timeline for public input.

A 28-year resident who noted for the record that several cities elsewhere have permanently banned data centers, contradicting staff's claim that bans aren't feasible. Asked who performs the water feasibility studies, whether findings become public, and who reviews them.

Asked whether the city could inspect data centers regularly for compliance rather than relying on citizen complaints.

Questioned the city's past use of an NDA with the developer, saying communities elsewhere have refused to sign NDAs because they conflict with open meeting laws. City Manager Marbury confirmed the NDA was terminated and council now must approve any such agreements.

Asked whether there's a deadline for a developer to actually build after buying city land, citing Huntley's failure to build as promised. Staff explained construction timelines apply only after building permits, not land purchases.

Lives near the airport. Urged the city to 'be brave enough' to ban data centers and fight any lawsuit upfront rather than regulate after the fact, and asked how citizens could force the question onto a public vote. Staff referred her to the city clerk for referendum procedures.

Suggested the city explore siting a data center at the former NGS site with the Huntley Group and Navajo Nation — calling it the perfect location with existing infrastructure.

Sharply criticized council members for dismissing opponents of the data center and failing to engage residents, invoking the mayor's campaign promises about public information.

Delivered sharp criticism of the mayor and council over the data center push and NDAs, accusing leadership of following a national opposition 'playbook' and telling one official to step down.

Delivered a pointed criticism of the council over the hyperscale AI data center deal, accusing them of hiding information, insulting protesters, and answering to Huntley instead of voters.

Criticized the council for what she called a secretive, rushed data center process, said her questions about water and electricity went unanswered, and pressed Councilor Roundtree on why she voted yes while expressing her own doubts.

Opposed the data center over 24-hour noise near the ranchettes, rising electric bills for everyone, a $7 million land sale he called undersold, and jobs that drop off after construction.

Urged the council to slow down, saying Page's tourism economy is a renewable gold mine, and called for open dialogue about data center information residents feel has been kept from them.

Warned about five to ten years of loaded dump trucks on highways 89 and 98, which already have bad accident records, and said residents don't want a data center in the area's scenic landscape near the Navajo Nation and public lands.

A Ranchettes resident with a direct view of the site urged the council to slow down, follow the 2022 general plan, and consider putting the data center question on the ballot, citing light, noise, water, and property-value impacts.

Asked the council to hold a town hall on the data center's benefits, and raised questions about tourism, air tours, housing values, business sales, low-water issues, and why the land was offered at the price it was.

Delivered an apparently sarcastic endorsement of the data center, mockingly embracing pollution, construction noise, and 'visual majesty' across from Horseshoe Bend.

Cited a Bernie Sanders-led call for a nationwide data center moratorium and unregulated AI harms — price gouging, harmful chatbots, and child safety lawsuits — urging the council to reverse course.

Called herself one of the 'unreasonable citizens,' accused the council of hypocrisy over NDAs and secrecy, and demanded answers on who will operate the data center — saying residents won't wait 18 to 24 months.

Warned that 'unreasonable citizens' will scrutinize every corner of the project, pursue legal action over improper procedures, and protect Navajo Nation sacred lands and the Colorado River — telling Huntley to withdraw.

Challenged the council's own strategic plan values of accountability and transparency against its NDAs, noted the water net-zero claim isn't in writing, and called out the mayor's 'unreasonable citizens' label as a Code of Ethics violation.

Offered a softer plea, inviting council to look at what actually happened in other communities that hosted data centers — and to consider undoing the mistake before it's too late.