The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20260140 Exhibit Inventory Control Sheet Ordinance #2026-01 Exhibit Submitted By Description Planning Services Staff • 1st Reading Memo of changes, dated 1/26/26 • Memo dated 2/3/26 • 2nd Reading Memo, dated 2/9/26 • Planning Commission Recommendation • 3rd Reading Memo, dated 4/6/26, and PowerPoint A 1. Dr. Michael and Susan Carey 81 Emails of Concern re: "Protect 2. Eric Hamrick Weld County Residents and Hold 3. Sondra Hardgrave Data Centers Accountable" dated 4. John Olberle 2/23/26, 2/24/26, 2/25/26, 5. Barbara Krupnik-Goldman 2/26/26, 2/27/26, 3/2/26, 3/3/26, 6. Samhuinn Jung 3/6/26, 3/7/26, 3/31/26, 4/3/26 7. Thalia DeVries 8. James Koehler 9. Tiffany Simmons 10.Stephanie Kerns 11.Neil Allen 12.Genieva Croley 13.Mimi Dong 14. Evan Weger (See also G-W) 15.Todd Olk 16.Vanessa Aroshegui 17.Briana Ellis 18.Amberleigh Gregor (See E-B) 19.Christiaan van Woudenberg 20.Therese Gilbert 21.Denise Ochoa 22.Crystal Padron 23.Valerie Whitney 24.Terri Pappas 25.Cathie Leslie 26.Shaina Oliver 27.Carol Barbeito 28.Melissa Kitchen 29.Karen Johnson 2026-0140 30.Marlene Monson 31.Mayra Gonzalez 32. Isabel Van Dyke-Johnson 33.Anita Helin 34. Holly Hoag 35. Katie Lambrecht (x2 comments) 36. Karen Jarman 37.Joe Joyner (x2 Comments - See also G-K) 38. Debra Miller (See also F) 39. Helen Frost 40. Kyle Marshall 41.Jackson Mergler 42. Rose Schramm 43. Philip Nordeck 44. Katherine Morrison (x2 comments) 45.Amanda Ferguson (x2 Comments) 46.Connie Garcia 47. Priscilla Sawicki 48.Shanna Toews 49.Ginny Lightsey-Ceehorne 50.Molly Noland 51. Dakota Solas 52. Derek Clark 53. Nicki Myers 54. Rebecca Moore 55. Robyn Fall 56.Evelynn Ochoa 57.Tim Feuerstein 58.Julia Gillett 59. Dorothy Hornby 60. Lendsay Cape 61. Patricia Maloney 62. Elaine Luethold 63. Ericka Abrams 64.Connie Ning 65. Ross Kelman 66.Suzanne Challinor 67.Adam Love 68.Theresa Haley 69. Diane Shepard 70. Lynette Rynders 71.Kristen Gardner 72.Annie Dwiggins 2026-0140 73.Julia Bototm 74. Kaylea Sharp 75.Jaiden Krause 76.Sage Foechterle 77.MaKenna Reed 78.Tara Lafferty 79. Laura Guy (See also E-Q) 80.Cydney Siri 81.Vanessa Arostegui B BROE Real Estate Group, Mark Savela Letter of Support, dated 2/25/26 re: Data Centers as Use by Right (See also Exhibit A-R, A-R.1, A-R.2, C-Y) in Industrial and Agricultural Zones C Greg and Kim Bowdish Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 D Missy Long Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 E Sandra Banbury Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 F Debra Miller (See also A.38) Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 G Phylicia Delamater Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 H Kyle Marshall Email of Inquiry to David Eisenbraun, dated 2/27/26 Stephanie Boulton Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 J Colton Lefor Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 K Lisa Collins Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 2/27/26 L Christy Rood Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 2/27/26 M Tara Murlowski Email of Concern, dated 2/27/26 N Tami Kramer Email of Concern, dated 2/28/26 0 Sally Killough Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/1/26 P Kenneth Riley Email of Concern, dated 3/2/26 2026-0140 Q Abigail Riley Four (4) Emails of Concern, dated 3/2/26, 3/24/26 (x2), 4/2/26 R Heidi Weed Email of Concern, dated 3/2/26 S Stephanie Joes Email of Concern, dated 3/2/26 T Lainie Peltz Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/2/26 U Gabrielle Green, PsyD Email of Concern, dated 3/2/26 ✓ Kyle Brady Email of Concern, dated 3/2/26 W Caitlyn McCrory Evans Email of Concern, dated 3/3/26 X Deven Warren Email of Concern, dated 3/3/26 Y Jill Parker Email of Concern, dated 3/3/26 Z Cole Evans Email of Concern, dated 3/3/26 A-A Dan and Lynn Myers Email of Concern, dated 3/3/26 A-B Katherine Cook Email of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-C Dayla Cook Email of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-D Lori-Ann Gonzales Email of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-E Liz Gullette Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26, and Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 A-F Elizabeth Kueny Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-G Jeremy White Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-H David (*Anonymous) Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-I Kirsten Richard Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 2026-0140 A-J Dana Regalado Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-K Karen Johnson Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-L Julia Michels Planning Open Forms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-M Julie Lezama Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/4/26 A-N Cathy Pitz Email of Concern, dated 3/5/26 A-O Sally Brunk Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/5/26 A-P Darcy Whitlock Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/6/26; and Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 A-Q Victoria Walker Two Emails of Concern, dated 1/14/26 and 3/7/26 A-R BROE Real Estate Group, Mark Savela Letter of Support, dated 3/9/26 re: Stakeholder process and *(See also Exhibit B, A-R.1, A-R.2, C-Y) Comments for Data Centers as USR with specific Zoning A-R.1 BROE Real Estate Group, Dean Brown Email and Photos, dated 4/1/26 *(See also Exhibit B, A-R, A-R.2, C-Y) A-R.2 BROE Real Estate Group, Marc Savela Email and Letter, dated 4/3/26 *(See also Exhibit B, A-R, A-R.1, C-Y) A-S Dayna Prach Email of Support, dated 3/12/26 A-T Jerry Helgeson Email of Support, dated 3/13/26 A-U Wendy Nettleton Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/13/26 A-V Lindsey Freeman Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 3/13/26 2026-0140 A-W Kenneth Riley Email of Concern, dated 3/15/26 A-X Kyle Evans Email of Concern, dated 3/19/26 A-Y Stephen Agenbroad Email of Concern, dated 3/19/26 A-Z Daniela Ray Email of Concern, dated 3/20/26 B-A Jeremy White Email of Concern, dated 3/20/26 B-B Loree Devine Email of Concern, dated 3/21/26 B-C Mary Hanna Email of Concern, dated 3/21/26 B-D Jennifer Cheney Email of Concern, dated 3/21/26 B-E Lisa Dobel (See also G-O) Email of Concern, dated 3/21/26, and Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-F Vanessa Arostegui Email of Concern, dated 3/21/26 B-G Tiana Blackmon Email of Concern, dated 3/22/26, and Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-H Jennifer Walker Email of Concern, dated 3/22/26 B-I Chad Christensen Email of Concern, dated 3/23/26 B-J Marisha Pelnar Email of Concern, dated 3/23/26 B-K County Planning Staff Website advertisement of Informational Sessions on 3/23/26 and 3/24/26, and PowerPoint Presentation slides B-L Glen Brozovich Email of Concern, dated 03/24/26 B-M Ed J. Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-N Travis and Marie Torgerson Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-O Melissa Bressler Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-P Sherri Stinnett Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 2026-0140 B-Q Roxanne Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-R Greg and Kim Bowdish Two Emails of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-S Caitlin Kingsbury Dunlap Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-T Hardy Massoudi Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-U Tim Hermanson Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-V Jackson Burke Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-W Ruth Brunner Two Emails of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-X Jeremy Oleson Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-Y Deanne Helmboldt Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 B-Z Shawn Raffelson Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-A Nikola Reinfelds Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-B Sheila Webber Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-C Ryan Clement Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-D Emilee Akey Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-E Revecca Holder-Otte Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-F Chloe Helm Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-G Jacquelyn Rendall Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-H John Presutto Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-I Yvette Ruebel Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-J Kate Robbins Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 C-K Brianna Osusky Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-L Nina Flohr Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-M Jeannie Stroup Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 2026-0140 C-N Glenn Harm Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-O Tom San Filippo Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-P Margaret Sandstrum Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-Q Bruce Serby Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-R Kendra Palmer Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-S Joshua Stoneburner Voicemail transcript of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-T Ashlee McPherson Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-U Debora Bartkowki Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-V Rachel Snow Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-W Karen Cox Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 C-X Christine McDaniel Email of Concern, dated3/25/26 C-Y BROE Real Estate Group, Dean Brown Email and Data Center Presentation and U.S. Data (See also B, A-R, A-R.1, A-R.2) Center Opposition Matrix Overview, dated 3/25/26 C-Z Maggie Shawcross Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-A Kaitlyn Christensen Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-B Paola Rivera Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-C Steven and Bonnie Polliard Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-D Susan Bogenschild Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-E Suzanne Jorissen Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-F Zachary McDaniel Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-G Lori Poe Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 D-H Stu Greene Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 D-I Maggie Shawcross Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 2026-0140 D-J Kendra Blanco Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 D-K Prudence Carter Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 and Article: "Will data centers start investing in your home?" D-L Angela Antonacci-Sarnecki Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 D-M Ronna Johnston Three (3) Emails of Concern, dated 1/15/26, 3/26/26, and 3/27/26 D-N Emily Pearson Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 D-0 Tara Johnson Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 D-P Sydney Martin Email of Concern, dated 2/4/26 D-Q Jasmine Burkes Email of Concern, dated 3/27/26 D-R Jackie Wright Email of Concern, dated 3/28/26 D-S Anita Solomon Email of Concern, dated 3/28/26 D-T Stephanie Webb Email of Concern, dated 3/28/26 D-U Julie Oldright Two (2) Emails of Concern, dated 2/27/26, and 3/2/26 D-V Ken Brown, Jennifer Hansen, Autumn Email of Concern, dated 3/10/26 Leopold for Concerns Residents of Windsor, Water Valley and Raindance D-V.1 Ken Brown, Jennifer Hansen, Autumn Email and Letter of Support, Leopold for Concerns Residents of dated 4/3/26 Windsor, Water Valley and Raindance D-V.2 Ken Brown Email of Concern, dated 2/18/26, and three (3) articles D-W Mark Hernandez Email of Support, dated 3/12/26 D-X Valerie Hernandez Email of Support, dated 3/13/26 D-Y Colton Lind Email of Support, dated 3/13/26 2026-0140 D-Z Keaton Schumacher and Aggie Email and Letter of Support, Environmental Services, LLC dated 3/13/26 E-A Colleen W. Email of Concern, dated 3/23/26 E-B Amberleigh Gregor (See also Ex. A.18) Email of Concern, dated 3/23/26 E-C Cole Kingsbury Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 E-D Jen Petrik Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 E-E Heather Duhon Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 E-F Michael Hardendorf Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 E-G Madison Armijo Email of Concern, dated 3/13/26 E-H Christy Kane Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 E-I Rebekah Jimenez Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 E-J Cierra Howard Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 E-K Kristie Hazelton Two Emails of Concern, dated 3/25/26 E-L Dara Weyna Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 E-M Amanda Tarpening Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 E-N Lucy Canestorp Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 E-O Kelly Gazdik Email of Concern, dated 3/26/26 E-P Tim Ossman Email of Concern, dated 3/28/26 E-Q Laura Kay Guy (See A.79) Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 E-R Dyann Smart Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 E-S Andrea Turbak Email of Concern, dated 3/30/26 E-T Dave Turbak Email of Concern, dated 3/31/26 E-U David Wagner Email of Concern, dated 3/31/26 E-V Christine Randle Email of Concern, dated 3/31/26 2026-0140 E-W Sarah Peacock Email of Concern, dated 4/1/26 E-X Kent Stein haus Email of Concern, dated 4/1/26 E-Y Matt Hengel Email of Concern, dated 4/1/26 E-Z Raymond Mannello Email of Concern, dated 4/2/26 F-A Path Tupper Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 F-B Grant Tupper Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 F-C Allison Dunning Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 F-D Dr. Shirley Smithson Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 F-E CB Bowman-Ottomanelli Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 F-F Anthony Ottomanelli Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 F-G Mallory Seargeant Email of Concern, dated 3/29/26 F-H Stacey Swanson Email of Concern, dated 3/31/26 F-I Alyssa Brown Email of Concern, dated 3/31/26 F-J Jennifer Vinella Email of Concern, dated 4/1/26 F-K Sheila Ostrom Email of Concern, dated 4/1/26 F-L Christina Grooms Email of Concern, dated 4/1/26 F-M C S (millerschmuhl) Email of Concern, dated 4/1/26 F-N Dale (Lynn) Bindel Email of Concern, dated 4/2/26 F-0 Dr. Hannah Galloway Clark Email of Concern, dated 4/2/26 F-P Lizzy Hinshaw Email of Concern, dated 4/2/26 F-Q Joanne Hawley Email of Concern, dated 4/2/26 F-R Meghan Ward Email of Concern, dated 4/2/26 F-S Jennifer Roe Email of Concern, dated 4/2/26 F-T Philip Nordeck Email of Concern, dated 4/3/26 2026-0140 F-U Mary Ricker Email of Concern, dated 4/3/26 F-V Barbara Eudy Email of Concern, dated 4/3/26 F-W Gail Craig Email of Concern, dated 4/3/26 F-X Jutta Seeger Email of Concern, dated 4/3/26 F-Y Virginia Canard Email of Concern, dated 4/3/26 F-Z Velda Mauro Email of Concern, dated 4/4/26 G-A Ashley Phillis Email of Concern, dated 4/4/26 G-B Sanda Duggan Email of Concern, dated 4/4/26 G-C Nancy Sullivan Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-D Michael Banowetz Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-E Barbara Whinery Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-F Caron Leach Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-G Natalie Vacha Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-H Christina Kauffman Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-I Pauline Migliore Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26, and Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-J Elizabeth Ronan Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-K Joe Joyner (See also A.37) Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26, and Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-L Kyle Marshall (See also A.40, H) Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26, and Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-M Amy Gooch Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 2026-0140 G-N Janet Tarantino Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-0 Lisa Dobel (See also B-E) Email of Concern, dated 4/5/26 G-P Jessica Moody Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-Q Christin Meredith Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-R Rod Frick Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-S Sheila Gaston Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, and Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-T Erin Hauser Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-U Amber Pleasant Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-V James Stewart Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-W Evan Weger(See also A.14) Planning OpenForms Comment of Concern, dated 4/6/26 G-X Malissa Suek Email of Concern, dated 1/15/26 G-Y Stacy Lambright Email of Concern, dated 2/23/26 G-Z John Oberle Email of Concern, dated 2/23/26 H-A Johann Lindig Email of Concern, dated 2/24/26 H-B Leah Bookman Email of Concern, dated 3/4/26 H-C Kim Frederick-Law Email of Concern, dated 3/11/26 H-D Jeff Darnell Email of Support, dated 3/12/26, and Fact/Fiction attachment, Email dated 3/25/26, and Three (3) Emails of Support, dated 4/5/26 H-E Deanna Meinke, Ph.D., and Joshua Email of Concern, dated 3/23/26, Leasure, P.E. Letter dated 3/19/26, and Email to Planning, dated 3/25/26 H-F Kimberly Beacham Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 2026-0140 H-G Terry Fox Email of Concern, dated 3/24/26 H-H Ligita Cunningham Email of Concern, dated 3/25/26 WI- Anne Keefe E-maif of Concern, dated 4/3726 H-J Carole Ingalls Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 H-K Emily Beckwith Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 H-L Kayla Amato Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 H-M Dani Pritchard Email of Concern, dated 4/6/26 2026-0140 MEMORANDUM AO' To: Board of County Commissioners From: David Eisenbraun, Director of Planning WE Maxwell Nader, Deputy Planning Director COUNTY, CO Date: April 6, 2026 Re: Ordinance 2026-01, Chapter 23, Zoning, Third Reading (Data Centers) Background The Board of County Commissioners held a worksession with staff on this topic on January 7, 2026. Notice of First Reading and the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Greeley Tribune on January 14 as well as being posted online (https://www.weld.gov/Legal-and-Public- Notices/Planning-Notices). On January 21 staff notified planning staff at municipalities around the County about the ordinance through its listserv. The draft ordinance and information about it was posted on the Planning Department's Long-Range Planning webpage. Ordinance 2026-01 was introduced at the Board of County Commissioners' regular meeting on January 26. No one from the public spoke for or against the ordinance and the Board voted to approve First Reading of the ordinance. The Weld County Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance and voted to recommend approval at its regular public meeting on February 3. No one from the public spoke for or against the ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners voted to approve Second Reading of the ordinance with no changes at its regular meeting on February 9. Notice had been published in the Greeley Tribune and online on January 30. A Windsor resident expressed concerns with allowing data centers in the I-1 zone. Notice for Third Reading was published in the Greeley Tribune and online on February 13. Emails of concern and expressing opposition to data centers started coming in around February 23. On February 25, with three commissioners present, the Board postponed Third Reading to April 6. Members of the public expressed concerns about data centers mainly relating to potential nuisance noise that may extend to residential areas. On March 11, the Board of County Commissioners held a worksession and directed staff to arrange evening informational public meetings. A news release went out on March 12, 2026, and the Public Information Office also disseminated information about the meetings online. The first of these two meetings was held March 23 in the Events Room with approximately 66 people present. The second was held March 24 at the Southwest Service Center with approximately 25 people present. As of the afternoon of April 3, approximately 190 emails of concern or opposition had been received. Ninety-eight (51%) state they live in Weld County. Thirty-one (16%) were from people who don't live in Weld County, according to the address on the email. Sixty-two (32%) don't indicate whether they live in the county or not. Page 1 ob026-Olyrn Many of the emails all expressed the same message. They express concern about the amount of water and power that data centers are said to require, as well as noise, traffic, and pollution. Many of the emails stated they are concerned that residents will end up with higher water and electricity bills due to construction of data centers. These concerns, as well as a few others, were also expressed at the public informational meetings. Staff proposes the ordinance be amended in several areas. Industrial zoning Staff proposes making data centers a Use by Special Review in all Industrial zones rather than a Site Plan Review. The intent statement for Division 4, Uses by Special Review, in Article II, Chapter 23 states: Uses by Special Review are USES which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than the Uses Allowed by Right in a particular zone district. Therefore, Uses by Special Review require additional consideration to ensure that they are established and operated in a manner that is compatible with existing and planned land USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD. The additional consideration or regulation of Uses by Special Review, and the application to a Use by Special Review of Performance, Design and Operations Standards listed both herein, are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the present and future residents of the COUNTY. While data centers are conducted indoors,which is why the ordinance was drafted to make them a use by SPR in all Industrial zones, due to the number of concerns raised in the emails submitted, staff suggests the Board consider making them a USR in all Industrial zones, as well as in the Agricultural zone outside of subdivisions and historic townsites. Noise In Chapter 23, Zoning, the standards for USRs currently refer to the limitations in the state statutes. Staff proposes to amend Ordinance 2026-01 to make the USR provisions on noise refer to Chapter 14, Article IX, Noise,which is largely based on state statute, and specify that a noise mitigation plan may be required. For uses that do not produce much noise (cemeteries are a USR in some zone districts, for example), we would not require the applicant to provide a noise mitigation plan. We also suggest adding noise limits specific to data centers. If the data center is within one-quarter mile of residentially zoned property, the limit would be 55 decibels (either A-scale or C-scale). All other data centers would be limited to 65 decibels (A- or C-scale). A data center would not be allowed to exceed these limits when measured with either the A-scale (mid- to high-frequency "treble" sound) or the C-scale (low-frequency "bass" sound). We are proposing that noise be measured at the property line of the data center. Planning staff would rely on Health Department staff to assist with enforcement on noise complaints. Violations could be prosecuted under Chapter 14,Section 14-9-70, and/or Chapter 23, Article X, Enforcement. Lighting For USRs, Section 23-2-250.D says the use shall comply with the following lighting standards: 1. Sources of light, including light from high-temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties; and 2. Neither direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets/roads and no colored lights may be used which may be confused with or construed as traffic control devices. Page 2 No changes are proposed for this ordinance regarding lighting. Water supply As was discussed at the evening informational meetings, Weld County is not a water provider and cannot mandate that any particular development will not result in higher water bills for residents, whether it's residential, commercial, or industrial. Based on C.R.S. 29-20-301, et seq., and in consultation with the County Attorney, Planning staff suggests revising current application requirements regarding water supply to read: "Proof of water in compliance with the requirements of C.R.S. 29-20-301, et seq." Water quality and air quality USRs must comply with air quality standards established by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and water standards established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. Weld County does not regulate air emissions. Power Similar to the issue of water supply, the county does not provide power and cannot guarantee any particular development will not result in higher electricity bills. Every development that uses electricity increases demand on the grid, including residential developments. Data center applicants will need to consult with the relevant power companies to ensure there is adequate power. Staff suggests adding a requirement to read: "A "will serve" letter from the electricity provider serving the area where the property is located." Some data centers have backup generators on-site to protect against interruptions in power supply. The second sentence of the proposed definition of "data center" in Ordinance 2026-01 is: A DATA CENTER may include associated ancillary STRUCTURES, including, but not limited to, OFFICES, security BUILDINGS, cooling water tanks, and backup power systems with a total capacity of less than fifty (50) megawatts. This does not mean that a data center would be limited to using 50 megawatts. The county does not limit the amount of power any user can purchase from their power company. The limit above is on the amount of electricity that may be generated on-site.The reason for including this language , is that current code requires power plants of electrical utilities that produce more than 50 megawatts to apply for and obtain a 1041 approval from the county under Chapter 21, Article III, of the Weld County Code. While 1041 regulations are based on state law (House Bill 1974-1041), the 50-megawatt threshold was established by the county several decades ago and is not in state statute. Staff does not propose any changes to the definition. The information above is provided for clarification. Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 2026-01 with the changes mentioned above and shown on the revised draft in your agenda packet. Page 3 4/6/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services Ordinance 2026-01 , Chapter 23, Data Centers (Third Reading) Presented by Department of Planning & Development Services weld.gov 1 Weld County Government n Department of Planning&Development Services x,, Overview of ORD26-01 Timeline * 1. Readings Timeline • First reading on January 26th and second reading February 9th. • Third reading originally on February 25th, continued until April 6. * 2. Public Engagement • Two public informational sessions held week of March 23rd. • Additional conversations held with the public on the staff level. Ei 3. Code Updates • General direction and feedback from public engagement has created current proposal of ORD26-01. weld.gov �� 2 1 4/6/2026 Weld County Government W'a" Department of Planning&Development Services COUNTY. Community Feedback • Development Plans • Noise Mitigation • Ratepayer Protections • Environmental and Cumulative • Economic and Community Impacts Impacts • Job Creation and Workforce • Water and Power Usage • Traffic and Road Impacts weld.gov� 3 Weld County Government � j" Department of Planning&Development Services C07� ,T,co Aspects the County does not review • Air quality: Regulated by state and federal agencies. • Water quality: Regulated by state and federal agencies. • Water usage: Regulated by state and/or water providers. • Power usage: Regulated by state and/or power providers. • Ratepayer Protections: Regulated by state and/or utility providers. • Community, Economic and Development Plans: Agreement between property owner and jurisdiction. weld.gov \\ 4 2 4/6/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services Aspects the County regulates* • Zoning and land use. • Permitting process. • Traffic, road and drainage impacts • Lighting mitigation • Noise mitigation * Based on concerns from community feedback weld.gov� 5 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services COUN- I!L Define and Clarify Weld County Code currently does not mention data centers. The code change will: 1 . Define what is considered a data center. 2. Clarify where data centers are allowed within unincorporated Weld County. 3. Based on community input and discussions, changes to ORD26-01 are recommended. weld.gov \\ 6 3 4/6/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services -ws„Lar Define Data Centers DATA CENTER: A BUILDING or BUILDINGS used to house information technology or telecommunications equipment with which digital information is processed, transferred, and/or stored. A DATA CENTER may include associated ancillary STRUCTURES, including, but not limited to, OFFICES, security BUILDINGS, cooling water tanks, and backup power systems with a total capacity of less than fifty (50) megawatts. weld.go� 7 Weld County Government " ,„ . Department of Planning&Development Services Clarify where data centers are allowed • Agricultural zones outside of subdivisions and historic townsites (Ag zone): Use by Special Review (USR). • USRs include site-specific review, may include conditions or requirements based on the proposal's location and use. USRs must meet certain criteria to be approved by the Board at a public hearing following a hearing before the Planning Commission. weld.gov �\ 8 4 4/6/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services CoM!CO Clarify where data centers are allowed • All Industrial zones (I zones): Site Plan Review (SPR). • Uses by SPR are uses that have been deemed appropriate for the zone district in question but the development must meet certain standards. • SPRs include site specific review by staff and may include conditions or requirements based on the proposal's location and use but do not include a public hearing component. • All Industrial zones (I zones): Use by Special Review (USR). • USRs include site-specific review, may include conditions or requirements based on the proposal's location and use. USRs must meet certain criteria to be approved by the Board at a public hearing following a hearing before the Planning Commission. weld.gov \\ 9 Weld County Government �'jL Department of Planning&Development Services CO Requirements for USRs • Existing requirements include but are not limited to: • Traffic,road and drainage impacts • Lighting limits • Noise limits • Air and water quality requirements: Must comply with State regulations. • Proposed revision (Water): • Evidence that the USE in the zone district shall have an adequate source of potable water and meet requirements of the zone district. Proof of water in compliance with the requirements of C.R.S.29-20-301, et seq. • Proposed addition (Power): • A "will-serve"letter from the electricity provider serving the area where the property is located. weld.gov \\ 10 5 4/6/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services Co Requirements for USRs continued. . . Proposed revision (Noise): • Noise. USES shall be located, designed, and operated in accordance with the noise standards as established in Chapter 14, Article IX, of this code. A noise mitigation plan indicating anticipated noise levels and proposed mitigation may be required sufficient to demonstrate the proposed USE will comply with the applicable noise limits. Notwithstanding any provision in Chapter 14, Article IX, to the contrary, a USR application for a DATA CENTER shall comply with the following noise limitations: weld.gov �\ 11 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services W ?, Proposed data center noise limits • Either A-scale or C-scale. (Cannot exceed either measurement.) • If within '/4-mile (1,320 feet) of certain zoned property (Residential, Estate, Agricultural, PUD with residential uses, and property zoned for residential uses by any municipality): • 55 decibels any point within 25 feet of the subject property boundary • Other property (not within 1/4-mile of certain zoned land, described above): • 65 decibels any point within 25 feet of the subject property boundary weld.gov \` 12 6 4/6/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning&Development Services Recommendation Approval of third and final reading with incorporated changes based on public engagement and discussion. weld.gov� 13 7 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jim Flesher, Long-Range Planner WE- Date: February 9, 2026 COUNTY, CO Re: Ordinance 2026-01 , Chapter 23, Zoning, Second Reading (Data Centers) The Weld County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this ordinance at its regular meeting on February 3, 2026. No changes are proposed for second reading. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as presented. Final reading is scheduled for February 23, 2026. Page 1 Before the Weld County, Colorado, Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners Moved by Michael Palizzi, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be-it resolved by,the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for Case Number Ordinance 2026-01 Request In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting with Amendments,Chapter 23 Zoning, (Data Centers) Planner Jim Flesher be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons 1 Section 23-2-120 B 1 —That the existing text is in need of revision,as proposed. 2 Section 23-2-120 B 2—That the proposed amendment will be consistent with the future goals and needs of the County as set out in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provision or ordinance in effect. 3 Section 23-2-120 B 3—That the proposed amendment will be consistent with the overall intent of this Chapter Motion seconded by Cole Ritchey. VOTE For Passage Against Passage -- Absent Butch White , Michael Wailes Michael Palizzi _ Virginia Guderjahn Barney Hammond Michael Biwer Calven Goza Hunter Rivera Cole Ritchey The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings Certification of Copy I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on February 3, 2026. Dated the 3rd of February, 2026 Kristine Ranslem Secretary Chapter 23 Zoning ARTICLE I - General Provisions Amend Sec. 23-1-90. — Definitions, as follows: [Change all italicized terms throughout this section to non-italics.] The following specific words and phrases, when appearing in this Chapter in uppercase letters, shall have the meanings stated in this Section: DATA CENTER: A BUILDING or BUILDINGS used to house information technology or telecommunications equipment with which digital information is processed, transferred, and/or stored. A DATA CENTER may include associated ancillary STRUCTURES, including, but not limited to, OFFICES, security BUILDINGS, cooling water tanks, and backup power systems with a total capacity of less than fifty (50) megawatts. All other definitions remain unchanged. ARTICLE III -Zone Districts Amend Sec. 23-3-40. - Uses by special review outside of subdivisions and historic townsites. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied, operated and maintained on LOTS outside of SUBDIVISIONS and HISTORIC TOWNSITES in the A (Agricultural) Zone District upon approval of a Special Review Permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter, or Article II, Division 5, in the case of MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES. A. through J., no change. Insert new K. K. DATA CENTERS. Reletter as necessary. No other changes to this section. Division 4 - Industrial Zone Districts Amend Sec. 23-3-310. - I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone District. A. and B., no change. C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-1 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other than 1-3. 1. through 7., no change. Insert new 8. 8. DATA CENTERS. Renumber as necessary. No other changes to this section. Amend Sec. 23-3-320. - 1-2 (Medium Industrial) Zone District. A. and B., no change. C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the 1-2 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other than 1-3. 1. through 8., no change. Insert new 9. 9. DATA CENTERS. Renumber as necessary. No other changes to this section. Amend Sec. 23-3-330. - 1-3 (Heavy Industrial) Zone District. A. and B., no change. C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the 1-3 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. 1. through 11., no change. Insert new 12. 12. DATA CENTERS. Renumber as necessary. No other changes. Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, February 3, 2026 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration Building, Hearing Room, 1150 0 Street, Greeley, Colorado This meeting was called to order by Chair Butch White, at 1 30 p m Roll Call Present Barney Hammond, Butch White, Calven Goza, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes Absent Virginia Guderjahn Also Present Angela Snyder and Jim Flesher, Department of Planning Services, Mike McRoberts, Development Review, Kann McDougal, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary Case Number Ordinance 2026-01 Planner Jim Flesher Request In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting with Amendments, Chapter 23 Zoning of the Weld County Code(Data Centers) Jim Flesher, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2026-01, provided a brief presentation on the proposed changes to Chapter 23, specifically related to Data Centers He added that the first reading of this ordinance was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on January 26th The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this Ordinance The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application No one wished to speak Motion: Forward Ordinance 2026-01 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Michael Palizzi, Seconded by Cole Ritchey Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes= 8) Yes: Butch White, Barney Hammond, Calven Goza, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes Meeting adjourned at 1 59 p m Respectfully submitted, Kristine Ranslem Secretary 1 MEMORANDUM ..,._ 1861 -� To: Weld County Planning Commission W ...• ..,...,...._ From: Jim Flesher, Long-Range Planner ' Date: February 3, 2026 COUNTY,CO Re: Ordinance 2026-01, Data Centers The Board of County Commissioners held a worksession with staff on this topic on January 7, 2026. This ordinance will define "Data Centers" in Section 23-1-90 of the Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code and list them as a use by special review (USR) in Agricultural zones outside of subdivisions and townsites and as a site plan review (SPR) in all Industrial zone districts. In order to expedite this ordinance, first reading of this ordinance took place on January 26, 2026. Second reading will be February 9 and final reading is scheduled for February 23, 2026. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. Page 1 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners WFrom: Maxwell Nader, Planning Manager ' Jim Flesher, Long-Range Planner COUNTY, CO Date: January 26, 2026 Re: Ordinance 2026-01, Chapter 23, Zoning, First Reading (Data Centers) The Board of County Commissioners held a work session with staff on this topic on January 7, 2026. This ordinance would define "Data Centers" in Section 23-1-90 of the Chapter 23, Zoning, of the Weld County Code and list them as a use by special review (USR) in Agricultural zones outside of subdivisions and townsites, and as a site plan review (SPR) in all Industrial zone districts. In order to expedite this ordinance, staff will present this ordinance to the Weld County Planning Commission for its review and recommendation on February 3, 2026. Scheduling first reading of this ordinance prior to the Planning Commission hearing moves the effective date up by several weeks to March 4, 2026. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. 2026-0140 CHAPTER 23 -Zoning ARTICLE I - General Provisions Sec. 23-1-90. - Definitions. [CHANGE ALL ITALICIZED TERMS THROUGHOUT THIS SECTION TO NON-ITALICS.] DATA CENTER: A BUILDING or BUILDINGS used to house information technology or telecommunications equipment with which digital information is processed, transferred, and/or stored. A DATA CENTER may include associated ancillary STRUCTURES, including but not limited to, OFFICES, security BUILDINGS, cooling water tanks, and backup power systems with a total capacity of less than fifty (50) megawatts. All other definitions remain unchanged. ARTICLE III - Zone Districts Sec. 23-3-40. - Uses by special review outside of subdivisions and historic townsites. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied, operated and maintained on LOTS outside of SUBDIVISIONS and HISTORIC TOWNSITES in the A (Agricultural) Zone District upon approval of a Special Review Permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter, or Article II, Division 5, in the case of MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OR PUBLIC AGENCIES. A. through J., no change. Insert after "CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, subject to Article XV, Section 15-5, of the Weld County Charter.": K. DATA CENTERS. Reletter as necessary. No other changes to this section. Division 4 - Industrial Zone Districts Sec. 23-3-310. - 1-1 (Light Industrial) Zone District. A. and B., no change. C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the I-1 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other than 1-3. 1. through 7., no change. Insert new 8. 8. DATA CENTERS. Renumber as necessary. No other changes to this section. Sec. 23-3-320. - 1-2 (Medium Industrial) Zone District. A. and B., no change. C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the 1-2 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. Any USE conducted outside of an ENCLOSED BUILDING shall be SCREENED from adjacent PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY and ADJACENT LOTS in any Zone District other than 1-3. 1. through 8., no change. Insert new 9. 9. DATA CENTERS. Renumber as necessary. No other changes to this section. Sec. 23-3-330. - 1-3 (Heavy Industrial) Zone District. A. and B., no change. C. Uses allowed subject to Site Plan Review. The following USES shall be allowed in the 1-3 Zone District following approval and recording of a Site Plan in accordance with Article II, Division 3, of this Chapter. 1. through 11., no change. Insert new 12. 12. DATA CENTERS. Renumber as necessary. No other changes. Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! EXHIBIT From: Dr. Michael and Susan Carey<kwautomail@phone2action.com> O Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 3:36 PM B k To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> OtbZO24,-0► Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers— not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Dr. Michael and Susan Carey 551 Trailwood Circle Windsor, CO 80550 1cocanuck(@gmail.com (970) 397-8783 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierractub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Eric Hamrick<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 4:15 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 31Req.iirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Eric Hamrick 1637 Waterford Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 enchamr1@comcast.net (970) 218-0023 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther"Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Sondra Hardgrave<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 5:01 PM To: Karla Ford <kford(Wweld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the_large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, .Sondra Hardgrave 1543 Katie Dr Loveland, CO 80537 sshardgrave(agmail.com (970) 203-5133 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW. Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:John Oberle<kwautomaik phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 5:30 PM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Please insure that data center electric rates aren't subsidized by home owners. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, John Oberle 5914 Sapling St Fort Collins, CO 80528 jfoberle@hotmail.com (931) 682-6701 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Barbara Krupnik-Goldman <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 6:25 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Huge data centers use too much energy and too much water.They do not provide long term jobs or benefit to the community. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply • 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Barbara Krupnik-Goldman 415 S Howes St Apt 310-N Fort Collins, CO 80521 bkgold2C@gmail.com (419)902-0734 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 CD Esther Gesick Subject: FW Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Samhuinn Jung<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 7:26 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1)Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements'thatdata center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Samhuinn Jung 1001 43rd Ave Unit 53, 16498 Greeley, CO 80651 cavorite42Ctgmail.com (970) 978-0419 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: - FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Thalia DeVries<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 7:44 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>- Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, I'm not completely against ai data centers but considering the massive costs to our community as far as electrical resources and environmental damages, in such a critical time in our climate. I believe it is crucial to have transparency and accountability to stain responsible data centers.With such heavy investment by more privileged individuals who are not apart of this community, I fear will not feel a responsibility to ensure that this center does hot cause harm without policy interventional. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Thalia DeVries 2295 Dexter dr Longmont, CO 80501 thaliadevriesl Cagmail.com (720)453-6750 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.careC@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 (E) Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:James Koehler<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:07 PM To: Karla Ford <kfordPweld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Put a halt on Data centers in Weld County and for that matter anywhere until there is accurate provable data that the citizens will not be experiencing water shortage,water contamination, utilities increase, light pollution, sound pollution, loss of tax revenue,jobs loss etc.!These monstrosities need to be regulated by local governments,who are elected by the people. More is not better.What legacy will we leave our kids?We destroyed your world!As a resident of Weld County and Windsor, I expect responsible oversight and safeguards to be the priority. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, James Koehler 1004 Third St Windsor, CO 80550 rooandmo(c�msn.com (970) 833-8056 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.careC@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 CD Esther Gesick Subject: - FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Tiffany Simmons<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:21 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Please protect our community, our water, and our power.We deserve better than an Al Data Center that will do little for our economy while sucking up our resources. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2)'Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3)Requirements-that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Respons'ible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Tiffany Simmons 1626 27th Ave Ct Greeley, CO 80634 tm.simmonsl 1 @gmail.com (970) 978-8730 This message was sent by I<nowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick 0 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Stephanie Kerns<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:30 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, _This data center development is concerning to me after reading about the impact they have made in other states. These centers bring many concerns such as water usage. Our water rates have gone up recently. Our state is experiencing a drought and water is a resource that is depleting.These centers bring noise pollution and carbon pollution as well as e-waste. Our future depends on clean air and water and data centers don't contribute to this. I would like to continue to live and work in Weld County and have my family stay here but if we open up data centers that deplete our resource and cause health issues then my family as well as other families will look elsewhere to live. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full,public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Stephanie Kerns 2308 Mountair Lane, Greeley CO 80634, United States Greeley,CO 80634 stephanie.kerns7(5gmail.com (720)277-4324 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.carePsierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: _, FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:,Neil Allen<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:56 PM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Please have public hearings on this matter prior to any vote Dear Weld County Commissioners, - 1 am,concerned about thelarge-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility In unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,_they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I{urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent:review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public,engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Neil Allen 7217 W Melbourne St Greeley, CO 80634 allenneil7217@gmail.com (970) 324-3818 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Genieva Croley<kwautomailPphone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 7:58 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Please protect Colorado's air and water. I want to continue living here. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5)-Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Genieva Croley 2665 s moore dr apt 102 Lakewood, CO 80227 croleygenieva@gmail.com (720)429-9824 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. if you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Mimi Dong<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:43 PM To: Karla Ford <kford(a�weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and-shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3)-Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Mimi Dong 369 N Wyndham Ave Greeley, CO 80634 neonbutterfly99@gmail.com (970) 347-7776 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Evan Weger<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 3:43:11 PM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Ful(public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Evan Weger 1622 Cooper Ave Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 evan.weger@yahoo.com (970) 970-9709 Thissrnessage was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick C) Subject:' FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Todd Olk<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:-Wednesday, February 25, 2026 3:54:31 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Hold these companies accountable, now. Please put people, humans, families first.Always. Now please. Dear Weld CountyCommissioners, Lam concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any'code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 4"1 1),Full,public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2),Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3)-4equirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Todd Olk 6700 S Glencoe St Centennial, CO 80122 tolk@duck.com (303) 555-1234 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 • Esther Gesick Subject: FW. Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Vanessa Arostegui<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 5:37:15 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld-County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, • I am concerned about thelarge-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: • 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers _l 2),lridependent'review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 4,Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure'rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Vanessa Arostegui 602 lucca drive, 602, Evans CO 80620 Evans, CO 80620 arvanessagarciagmail.com (970) 371-8237 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Briana Ellis<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:20 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1.) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Briana Ellis 2214 12th Street Road Greeley, CO 80631 sbriana@hotmait.com (970) 576-8592 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Amberleigh Gregor<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:28 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Weld County water was established for agriculture.That's been there for 100 years.We do not consent to this! Hands off Weld County Water!!!! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1,) Full public transparency.regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Amberleigh Gregor 10226 19th Street rd Greeley, CO 80634 amberleighgregor@icloud.com (970) 804-0999 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(asierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable] From: Christiaan van Woudenberg<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:37 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Christiaan van Woudenberg 1821 Crestview Ln Erie, CO 80516 christiaan@xiaan.com (720) 317-7815 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Therese Gilbert<kwautomail c+ phone2action.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 7:20 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, I worry about rising energy costs that are often associated with the Al centers. Is it possible to use more wind power to generate the needed energy supply?Will water from Terry Ranch be used? I have lots of questions.Can the water needed to cool the facility be recycled? I don't know enough about the workings of these facilities, and will be interested to.find out more about the proposed site. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Therese Gilbert 1715 14th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 tg2btrue@hotmail.com (970)775-3725 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 0Esther Gesick 0 Subject: FW. Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Denise Ochoa<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:57 PM To: Karla Ford <kford(aiweld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, After day 0 operations are running how many actual job will remain in day 2 operations.Will the jobs created be outsourced labor contracted by world ai or actual world at employees. Most data center jobs like the technicians onsite are contracted out and not actual employees,Just contracted out by a sourcing agency. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Denise Ochoa 509 12th ave Greeley, CO 80631 deniseochoa5CThgmail.com (970)405-7482 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Crystal Padron<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:19 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency,regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Crystal Padron 4960, Nina Court, Colorado Springs CO Colorado Springs, CO 80908 crystalgarcia8aPgmail.com (719) 505-6601 This message was sent by KhowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(S sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick DI Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Valerie Whitney<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:20 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, We don't need Al,we need clean water and a future. Please don't support this center. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independeht review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Valerie Whitney 2525 13th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 valwhit00(@gmail.com (303) 349-8157 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(asierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. s 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Terri Pappas<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:26 AM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and_transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Terri Pappas 1925 15th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 terri.pappas7@gmail.com (970) 302-9539 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable' From: Cathie Leslie<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:30 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Cathie Leslie 614 Bristlecone Ct Berthoud, CO 80513 csleslie51@hotmail.com (575) 644-2512 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Shaina Oliver<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:05 AM To: Karla Ford <kfordPweld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Shaine Oliver, parent and family of six. Here in Denver-Greeley-Aurora ranks the sixth worst communities for ground-level ozone pollution detrimental to the developing bodies of babies and children's health.Weld County has seen an increase of emergency visits of over 900 by CDPHE's reports. Moms Clean Air Force Colorado parents know that AI data centers pose serious new threats to communities like ours.Two thirds of the additional power needed for AI data centers is expected to come from fossil fuels. Diesel powered generators emit known carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde,worsen ground-level ozone, and increases risks of heart attacks, respiratory infections, asthma attacks, and death.To protect the health of families, Moms is calling for a minimum of Tier 4 Final(or better) diesel engines with enforceable runtime caps,fenceline monitoring, and automatic penalties. Decision-makers must commit to full transparency and accountability to the community. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Shaina Oliver 2301 Kearney Street, Denver, CO 80207 Denver, CO 80207 sotiver@momscleanairforce.org (720)896-6264 This message was sent by KnowWho,as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 1)1 Esther Gesick _ . Subject: FW. Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Carol Barbeito<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:23 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Carol Barbeito 3703 Big Dipper Drive Ft Collins, CO 80528 cibarbeitoC@gmail.com (720) 883-5670 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Melissa Kitchen<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:08 AM To: Lynette Peppier<lpeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Lynette Peppier, We live less than a mile from the Kodak property and have big concerns with this project-noise and water pollution,water use, skyrocketing energy costs- I understand the need for such centers, however not in a place that is already deficient in water resources,where people are already being accosted by xcel on rates and where this would affect our homes and quality of life. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Melissa Kitchen 11240 Hillcrest Dr Greeley, CO 80631 maskitchen@yahoo.com (970)214-7095 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierractub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Karen Johnson<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:08 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Karen Johnson 24350 Compo Rd. Greeley, CO 80634 kaj5greensquaresPyahoo.com (970) 371-2502 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.carePsierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick ___20 Subject: FW. Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Marlene Monson<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:48 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Lynette Peppler, We do not need a data center in out county.We do not have water and we don't want to ruin our environment for billionaires making money.Al is not a cure all.We need worker benefite and protect our envitonment. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Marlene Monson 7147 West Canberra Street Greeley, CO 80634 qweenmarween@mac.com (970)353-9322 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 3� Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Mayra Gonzalez<kwautomailpphone2action.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:37 PM To: Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am.concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1.) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Mayra Gonzalez 522 N 28th avenue ct Greeley, CO 80631 maygonzalez94@gmail.com (970) 405-5984 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 49 Esther Gesick = Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Isabel Van Dyke-Johnson <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:06 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Isabel Van Dyke-Johnson 1002 Collamer Dr., Unit 6 Fort Collins, CO 80524 isabelkvandyke( gmail.com (331) 625-9287 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.caresierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 33 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Anita Helin<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 9:58 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Anita Helin 425 N Wyndham Ave Greeley, CO 80634 mrsp58@ icloud.com (970) 302-9071 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.carePsierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable' From: Holly Hoag<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:16 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water..Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Holly Hoag 329 Walnut Street,Windsor Windsor, CO 80550 hollyhoag@msn.com (970) 978-9054 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 35 `—A------4 --- 1 - - - - - - -- ----- - - - Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Katie Lambrecht<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:49 AM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, The only thing us Coloradoans want is for our natural landscape to be untouched.We want clean water, protected land, healthy farmland, affordable housing, socialized healthcare, and FREEDOM. Please do not listen to corporate interests. Martin Lind does not need any more wealth or power.THE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING.We will fight you hard on this. - Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Katie Lambrecht 7147 W Canberra Street Greeley,CO 80634 katie.lambrecht@gmail.com (970)397-4881 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 (1) Esther Gesick - Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Katie Lambrecht<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 10:40 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Lynette Peppier, Hello, I was born and raised in Greeley and have great respect for the natural environment around us. Please listen to your constituents when we say WE DO NOT WANT ANY DATA CENTERS in our community.We need to protect our wildlife, agriculture, and land.We do not have the resources to waste on these data centers.They will only cause more harm than good (noise pollution,water use, and dirty water runoff).There are too many risks associated with these centers and it's simply not worth our time, money, or resources.Only a select few people will profit and the rest of us will have to make sacrifices.We want MORE protections and investment into our community that do not harm our natural landscape or the people in our community.Thank you. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Katie Lambrecht 7147 W Canberra Street Greeley,CO 80634 katie.lambrecht@gmail.com (970) 397-4881 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 60) Est her her Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Karen Jarman <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 11:29 AM To:Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Citizens of Weld do not want a data center any more than the citizens of Greeley wanted Cascadia. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be'negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Karen Jarman 214 49th Ave Greeley, CO 80634 kajarman@proton.me (970) 371-0876 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable' From:Joe Joyner<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 12:10 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, It's time to stop these data centers that get tax breaks and don't pay their fair share.Also,they use too much energy and water. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and,traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Joe Joyner 2212 27th Avenue Ct Greeley, CO 80634 fishjoyner2@hotmail.com (970) 339-5548 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Joe Joyner<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:22 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject:Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Before this projectmoves forward,we need to insure that it will not use valuable water resources, and will not have negative environmental impact to our community. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, beforeany code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1),Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Joe Joyner 2212 27th Avenue Court Greeley, CO 80634 gregcalif@hotmail.com (970)339-5548 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(�sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther'Gesick 0 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Debra Miller<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 2:14 PM To: Karla Ford <kford(c weld gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, There are too many concerns associated with data centers, especially the use of resources like water and electricity and noice is also a concern for the community. Dear Weld County Commissioners, Lam concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I,urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 11-Ful(public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents - Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Debra Miller 2412 13th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 debra.miller@unco.edu (970)313-3815 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(asierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 39 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Helen Frost<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sept:Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:47:24 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear WeEd County Commissioners, r; I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2),Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Helen Frost 5130W11thSt Greeley, CO 80634 hafrost1@gmail.com (970) 301-5762 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 0 Subject: ` FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Kyle Marshall<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:58:50 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Say"No"to foreign owned data centers Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and-transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. Purge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1)_Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts • 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers-will not be.negatively impacted 4),Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Kyle Marshall 3908 Stampede Dr Evans,CO 80620 kylemarsh05(ayahoo.com (970) 380-7924 This message was-sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(c�sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. I. Esther Gesick a Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Jackson Mergler<kwautomailPphone2action.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:51:56 PM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, No data centers.We don't even have enough water as it is Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Jackson Mergler 5601 W 29th St Building 14 unit 1428 Greeley,CO 80634 tasakidog@gmail.com (970)556-2388 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick e_ Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Rose Schramm <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 2:36:59 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, NO MORE Al SLOP Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Rose Schramm 8641 Secretariat Ct Wellington, CO 80549 cynder960@hotmail.com (970) 556-5707 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Philip Nordeck<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27,2026 8:17:40 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, As a Colorado resident,with friends who live in Weld County, I demand that data centers pay their fare share of what they want to build. I don't ask you and your family to help build the home projects in my home,why should me or my friends have to pay for Global Als projects? Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Philip Nordeck 8875 S. Hoyt Court Littleton,CO 80128 161lip@gmail.com (720)933-9258 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(c sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick ®1 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Katherine Morrison<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27,2026 12:52:37 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, While Greeley has sufficient water now,there's no guarantee that will continue if we ceded much of it to data centers. Moreover,the pollution that has come from data centers and destroyed water resources elsewhere are frightening! - Dear Weld County Commissioners, Lam concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any-code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Katherine Morrison 1709 Glen Meadows Drive Greeley, CO 80631 kmorris2( gmail.com (301)332-0429 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Katie Morrison <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:58 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, I am very concerned about the potential damage to the environment with huge electricity demands and potential for serious water pollution. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Katie Morrison 1709 Glen Meadows Drive Greeley,CO 80631 kmorris2@gmail.com (301)332-0429 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 0.1 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Amanda Ferguson<kwautomailPphone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27,2026 1:48:25 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear.Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Amanda Ferguson 423 Elm St Windsor, CO 80550 alstewart50(agmail.com (303) 882-3597 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.carePsierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick _ _ Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Amanda Ferguson<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:14 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! bear 8OCC Office Manager, I am very concerned with the impact on air quality, noise,other pollution,and costs associated with a new Al data center.We must set strict rules that are stronger than national requirements in order to protect our environment and community.We must also be mindful that the associated costs,especially electricity costs,are not passed onto residents and small businesses.We are already seeing dramatic increases in utilities due to infrastructure upgrades. Please be open and honest about costs,environmental impacts,tax impacts,and safety for our community.This data center is proposed to be built down the street from me.If Al data centers are allowed to be built, it must be it must be done with the safety of the community in mind.Windsor is a great place to live, lets keep it that way.thank you. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup,generation,and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise,and traffic,worsen air quality,and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you,before any code changes,annexation, permitting,or deals are made,the following should be required: 1)Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2)Independent review of infrastructure,air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3)Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively'impacted 4)Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5)Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility,and protection of community health before industrial- scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Amanda Ferguson 423 Elm St Windsor,CO 80550 alstewart50Pgmail.com (303)882-3597 This message was sent by KnowWho,as a service provider,on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415)977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick �. Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Connie Garcia<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27,_2026 4:30:25 PM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County.Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards,they_can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full_public-transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review,of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5),Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Connie Garcia 2400 10th Avenue Court Greeley, CO 80631 orfan40@comcast.net (303) 808-6551 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick C4-i) Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Priscilla Sawicki<kwautomailt phone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 3:41:33 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, These centers bring resource droughts and strains on already overloaded systems.Allowing a data center in Weld County would drive up the cost of living for no benefit to the community. It would jeopardize our access to water, clean water, electricity, and clean resources all around. I have seen many accounts of people living close to these data centers, and it is straight out of a dystopian novel.The little water that they do use is contaminated,water pressure is a low trickle, it is scary, and very much could be our reality should we accept building the data center here. Please keep our water clean and our community safe. Do not let them build a data center here. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Priscilla Sawicki 5151 w 29th st Unit 1401 Greeley, CO 80634 p.sawicki818@gmail.com (720)475-0516 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 4g Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Shanna Toews<kwautomail@Dhone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 3:26:29 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water,planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Shanna Toews 104 N 52nd Ave Greeley, CO 80634 shannatoews@gmail.com (970) 590-4695 This message was sent by I<nowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 0 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Ginny Lightsey-Ceehorne<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Friday, February 27,2026 10:32:48 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3)-Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Ginny Lightsey-Ceehorne 3135 58th Ave Greeley, CO 80634 redgin22( yahoo.com (970) 301-1951 This message was sent by knowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick ep Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Molly Noland <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Saturday, February 28, 2026 12:45:48 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Al Data Center require huge amounts of water that will be taken from Weld Conty residents. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full publictransparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Molly Noland 460 K Street Penrose, CO 81240 manodalandgmail.com (719)330-7062 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 51 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Dakota Solas<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Saturday, February 28, 2026 7:24 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Please do not devastate our county's natural and financial resources in the name of corporate greed. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public-transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Dakota Solas 496 Heritage Lane Johnstown, CO 80534 dakotasolas( gmail.com (720)353-5351 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.careC@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Derek Clark<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:36:00 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsibleenergy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Derek Clark 1105 9th Street,Apt.#203 Greeley„CO 80631 drekclar37@yahoo.com (970) 576-5994 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Nicki Myers<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:01:08 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of,electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Nicki Myers 1499 Walnut St Windsor, CO 80550 nilymy@gmail.com (570) 573-1531 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick a Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Rebecca Moore<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Saturday, February 28, 2026 11:53:27 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, We need clean and accessible water, NOT AI! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Rebecca Moore 2800 Crescent Cove Drive,#207 Evans, CO 80620 1abeckz76@gmail.com (956) 562-2395 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Robyn Fall <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:36:46 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Robyn Fall 1720 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 robynfall@yahoo.com (970) 396-0693 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Evelynn Ochoa <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 2:40 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Evelynn Ochoa 2519 29th ave Greeley, CO 80634 eve8war@gmail.com (970) 584-9065 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierractub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Tim Feuerstein<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:40:40 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, The most dangerous thing in the world is ignorance and the love of money Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Tim Feuerstein 4778 S Owens Way Littleton, CO 80127 timfeuerstein67@gmail.com (303) 810-2478 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 4 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Julia Gillett<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:07:04 PM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Julia Gillett 950 E 32nd St Apt 210 Durango, CO 81301 equanimousl@yahoo.com (970) 318-0074 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Dorothy Hornby<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 10:59 PM To:,Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> ubject:.Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, Lam concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,'they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: . 1) Full_public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3)MReq lrements tliat'data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4),Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6),Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Dorothy Hornby 2528 Bennett Ave Colorado Springs, CO 80909 dorcarCacomcast.net (719) 471-0614 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 0 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Lendsay Cape<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 8:11 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,_they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Lendsay Cape 3500 Switchgrass St Dacono, CO 80514 lencapel 1 C�gmail.com (314) 657-8899 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care(asierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Patricia Maloney<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2,2026 7:54 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, You are running out of water. Make the data centers recycle their water and leave us something to drink. Dumb ass idiots. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Patricia Maloney 1191 S Beech Dr Apt 101 Lakewood,CO 80228 portolaechoblue@gmail.com (510)691-1459 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Elaine Luethold <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 6:17 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Elaine Luethold PO Box 7754 Loveland, CO 80537 ustnk345@gmail.com (970) 622-9484 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierractub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick !03 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Ericka Abrams<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:41 PM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Ericka Abrams 5250 S Rome St Aurora, CO 80015 erose0829@gmail.corn (303) 680-9888 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick CI) Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Connie Ning<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 7:49 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Connie Ning 33424 Deep Forest Rd Evergreen, CO 80439 conniening@msn.com (303) 670-7171 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Ross Kelman<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 7:54 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Ross Kelman 175 Pontiac St Denver, CO 80220 rosskelman@hotmail.com (267) 303-1607 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierractub.org or(415) 977-5673. Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Suzanne Challinor<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:22 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Suzanne Challinor 3152 Trenton St Denver, CO 80238 schallfa@hotmail.com (203) 434-8258 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick QOt Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Adam Love<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:57 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Adam Love 6192 S Pennsylvania St Centennial, CO 80121 adam.love.al@gmaiLcom (682) 272-2941 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. Esther Gesick , Subject: - - - FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Theresa Haley<kwautomailPphone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:37 PM To:,Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Water is invaluable resource, and to use huge amounts of it for data centers is irresponsible and foolish.The operators of_data centers should be required to find clean, renewable methods to run their facilities.To impact local communities and deplete finite resources is unacceptable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am.concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. Lurge you;before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 11)'I ulllpUblic;transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2),Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payerswill not be negatively impacted 4)'Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5)"Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Theresa Haley 236 S Madison Ave Louisville, CO 80027 bthaley@msn.com (303) 665-7339 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.careasierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Diane Shepard <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:45 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Colorado is in a drought. It is getting worse each year.There is not enough water here to run a water guzzling data center! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Diane Shepard 224 Vaquero Dr Boulder, CO 80303 diana.shepard@gmail.com (303)494-1410 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 leb Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Lynette Rynders<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:04 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Lynette Rynders 56095 E 56th Ave Strasburg, CO 80136 l_fting@hotmail.com (501) 249-0279 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 0 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Kristen Gardner<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:57 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers-not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Kristen Gardner 9134 E 37th Ave Denver, CO 80238 ohasinglilacs@gmaiI corn (571) 530-8825 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 0 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Annie Dwiggins<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:10 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Annie Dwiggins 5 Alpine St Carbondale, CO 81623 annie55033@gmail.com (970) 963-5943 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Julia Bototm <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Saturday, March 7,2026 8:49 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Julia Bototm 9240 Yellowstone Rd Longmont, CO 80503 j.bottom1@yahoo.com (303)651-1377 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider,on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Kaylea Sharp<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:33 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households-pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Kaylea Sharp 2729 Meadowbrook Ln Greeley, CO 80634 kayleanan@gmail.com (970) 301-5785 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@serraclub.org or (415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick a _ Subject: - FW. Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable] From:Jaiden Krause<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:12 AM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, Data centers have been proven to emit detrimental pollution through water,air, light,and noise.We do not need to encourage growth of data centers in our county, in fact,we need to discourage them.Weld County is home to hundreds, if not thousands,of acres of farmland for food,feed,and livestock.To put our air,water, and land quality at risk is to also risk the lives and profits of the robust farms and farmers that call Weld home. These past few years have been drought-ridden and dry.We need to think responsibly about our water usage, reserves,and conservation.We cannot rely on a magical flood to restore our water reserves,so we have to think critically and conservatively about how,when,and to whom we are giving our water--even if the receiver promises economic profits.We won't be able to water our crops with money,or data, and we certainly won't be able to drink it. Economists project the Al bubble will pop soon.Al services are not returning profit on investments. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation,and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality,and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes,annexation, permitting,or deals are made,the following should be required: 1)Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2)Independent review of infrastructure,air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3)Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4)Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5)Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility,and protection of community health before industrial- scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Jaiden Krause 70916th Street Greeley,CO 80631 aquakrause(E gmail.corn (303)898-5154 This message was sent by KnowWho,as a service provider,on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.carePsierraclub.org or(415)977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Sage Foechterle<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:53 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, This is an issue for all Coloradans. I've lived in this state for most of my entire life I don't want to leave. I can say with confidence it is the most beautiful place on the face of the earth and the fact that you're even thinking about allowing these people free rein in our state is appalling.A data center will not do the people of Colorado any good, it will destroy our already very dry state and hurt the local ecosystem in every way imaginable.Those of you who make these decisions need to realize who it is you serve and think about the people of Colorado.We love our state and are so proud of it because of the great outdoors our home has to offer.The rolling planes,the foothills,the front range,the east and west slopes.A data center will ruin all of that. if you start destroying the place we love then all your precious transplants will leave for the next Luscious place,and all that will be left is a land full of pissed off Colorado natives and you.Sincerely,A mad veteran. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation,and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes,annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1)Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2)Independent review of infrastructure,air quality, noise,and safety impacts 3)Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5)Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial- scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Sage Foechterle 3332 Keeneland Way Wellington,CO 80549 sagee320@yahoo.com (970)305-0667 This message was sent by KnowWho,as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@jsierraclub.org or(415)977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: MaKenna Reed <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 10:24 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, This is not only concerning it's absolutely outrageous. How do you not see what is happening in the world and what is happening to the earth because of AI.We are going to have no clean drinking water in less than 8 years and for Windsor we won't have any at all. I have lived here since I was 6, seeing it now is disappointing.We have no land, no trees, all fast food restaurants and barely anything to do.There is almost no land left because it being built on just for more houses, calling all the animals in its way. I can't believe anyone would even consider doing this, how do you sleep at night?With what this town has come too please don't make it 100%worse by putting this in,fight against it.THERE IS NO PLANET B Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility iri unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, MaKenna Reed 1048 Canal Drive Windsor, CO 80550 kenna'reed10(5gmail.com (970) 619-1294 This'message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick 6) Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Tara Lafferty<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 12:28 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, With concerns already mounting about water usage in Colorado,especially with the extremely dry winter, I do not know what would possess data center companies to keep trying to build thwir centers in what is truly a desert environment. I'm not against the centers necessarily, but ai do think they need to be placed with some intellectual thought about the respurces they tend to consume and how that impacts the communities own resources.This is a big no from me,to have the centers placed here. Colorado already has water we send off to other states,whoch will also be getting less this year because we will be in a drought from lack of snow. Do not do it is what I say and many in the community agree. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Tara Lafferty 950 52nd Avenue Ct Apt C4 Greeley, CO 80634 metadreamerdesign@gmail.com (970)301-3041 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick ?9 Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Laura Guy<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 10:36 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear BOCC Office Manager, We are in the middle of a drought. By no means should any new business be approved that requires limited -resources governed by water rights and laws that are not replenishable. I would rather see Al and processing end than experience any shortage that affects the livelihood of farms, ranches, and families in northern CO. I have not met a single person in my community that supports this data center. Do better and end this now. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1)Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Laura Guy 424 Locust St Windsor, CO 80550 katdevil6@yahoo.com (303)514-0713 This message was sent by KnowWho,as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care( sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick $� ' Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From: Cydney Siri <kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 7:31 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households- pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Cydney Siri 84100 E US Highway 50 Cimarron, CO 81220 twostep@earthlink.net (970) 209-6503 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at membr.care@ ierracf . or(415) 977-5673. Esther Gesick 81 ' Subject: FW Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! From:Vanessa Arostegui<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 5:37 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water.Without strong safeguards,they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic,worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made,the following should be required: 1) Full,public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independerit review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers—not households—pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers willnot be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6)Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency,fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Vanessa Arostegui 602 Lucca drive, 602, Evans CO 80620 Evans, CO 80620 arvanessagarcia@gmail.com (970)371-8237 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i B ro a 252 Clayton Street 4th Floor Denver, Colorado 80206 303.398.4575 Real Estate Group BroeRealEstate corn EXHIBIT February 25, 2026 D 3.71 ORut)z4,-01 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 0 Street Greeley,CO 80631 Re: Comments on Weld County's Proposal to Include Data Centers as a Use by Right in Industrial and Agricultural Zones Dear Members of the Board: We are writing on behalf of the Broe Real Estate Group, a Colorado-based real estate and investment company that has been doing business in the state for over 50 years (`Broe"). Our multibillion-dollar portfolio includes the Great Western Industrial Park ("GWIP"), and Access 25 Industrial Park ("Access 25"), both of which are in Weld County. GWIP spans 3,000 acres and includes residential, industrial and commercial development,while Access 25 spans 300 acres with a main focus on industrial projects.As a long time property owner and business that has invested considerably in the future of Weld, we respectfully request that you delay allowing data centers as a"use by right"in industrial and agricultural zones for the reasons set forth below. Data centers represent an exciting new development opportunity, and Broe recognizes the enormous economic benefit these projects represent for Weld.However,because these developments can,depending on technology employed, consume unprecedented amounts of water and energy, and reportedly generate constant noise that may negatively impact residents'health, we believe that each data center ought to be subject to a conditional review and carefully crafted regulations that are based on empirical research and lessons learned by other counties and cities.This measured approach will improve the chances of successful data center development and harmony with adjacent uses. Other jurisdictions rushed to be the first to appeal to data centers without considering the potential impacts on surrounding communities and the environment,and now we are seeing those jurisdictions start to suffer the consequences.For instance,Loudon County,Virginia originally allowed data centers as a use by right, but after fielding a large volume of complaints from taxpayers, the County was forced to reverse course, and now requires every proposed center to go through conditional review. Similarly,after initially allowing data centers to be developed as"warehouses"with no special regulations or considerations,the City of Aurora, Illinois was inundated by complaints from citizens who claimed the noise of the City's new 450,000 square foot "CyrusOne" center was "unliveable." In response, Aurora recently passed a temporary moratorium on approving data centers. In response to many cautionary tales like these, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston announced on Monday, February 23, 2026,that Denver would be filing a temporary moratorium on data center approvals while it considered new, more thoughtful regulations. In response to the announcement, Denver Councilman Paul Kashmann said that "data centers bring with them a unique series of environmental challenges and neighborhood impacts.I believe the complexity of the issues involved merits our city taking a pause to give them adequate consideration." Broe looks forward to continuing our development in Weld, whether it be industrial, residential or commercial,and to working closely with Weld leaders on thoughtful regulations that will allow data centers to find a successful future in our county. In the meantime, we ask that Weld take the time to investigate potential impacts and create well-informed parameters around data center uses before allowing them as a use by right.These centers are powering the future and technological innovation, and it is imperative that we find a way to fit them into our communities safely and sustainably. Sincerely, Dean Brown Senior Vice President—Industrial Broe Real Estate Group 1/41ge Marc Savela Senior Vice President—Development Broe Real Estate Group Esther Gesick From: Marc Savela <msavela@broerealestate.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 5:41 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Ordinance 2026-01 - Second Reading Request for Delay and Continuance Attachments: Ordinance 2026-01.pdf; Letter to Weld County re_ Data Center Zoning - 24FEB2026 EDITS.pdf This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Clerk Gesick— Please see below and attached. I left you off the original message. My apologies. Thanks! Marc Savela Senior Vice President— Development Broe Real Estate Group msavela(a�b roerea testate.com From: Marc Savela Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 4:57 PM To: 'kford@weld.gov' <kford@weld.gov>; 'jmaxey@weld.gov' <jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; 'Ipeppler@weld.gov' <Ipeppler@weld.gov>; 'Kevin Ross'<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Cc: Dean Brown<dbrown@broerealestate.com>; 'deisenbraun@weld.gov' <deisenbraun@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01-Second Reading Request for Delay and Continuance Dear Members of the Board— Please see the attached letter requesting a delay of the second reading of the pending Data Center ordinance before you to allow for additional stakeholder engagement. Thank you. Marc Savela Senior Vice President— Development Broe Real Estate Group Main 303.398.4575 I Direct 303.398.0418 I Mobile 303.587.0261 msavela(c broerealestate.com I www.BroeRealEstate.com 252 Clayton Street,Denver,Colorado 80206 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data centersCP OROf O ,00 From: kim b. <ak kimbv@vahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:28 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners(a@weld.gov> Subject: Data centers This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information. clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. JUST SAY NO to NOISY, Water& Electricity SUCKING Data Centers in Weld County!!! Greg& Kim Bowdish, Severance, CO Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize, Conquer • Esther Gesick EXHIBIT DISubject: FW: No data centers in Weld County 2 OI?DZDZb-O 1 ir From: Missy Long<missylong308@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 10:35 AM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissionersPweld.gov> Subject: No data centers in Weld County I'm a life long Weld County resident living in Fort Lupton. I want to express my strong protest to any data centers in Weld County. They are terrible for the environment with their use of water and electricity. They do not align with Weld County and our desire to keep land natural and usable for people and wild life. They are noisy and unsightly.What data centers take from the land, they do not return in any meaningful way. Unless you'd be willing to have a data center in your back yard, you shouldn't be willing to approve them for the land we all share. Thank you, Missy Long Fort Lupton, CO 1 i. Esther Gesick EXHIBIT 11 E. Subject: FW: Al in Weld County/Greeley v. 0/2bW2Io-41 or From: sandy banbury<nursiepoo 308@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 12:38:17 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject:Al in Weld County/Greeley To Whom it may concern, We do not want an Al in Weld County/Greeley. We know the health risks, along with the constant humming you can hear from miles away, and the increase in utilities, water and electric bills,we will be subject to.We kindly ask that you put the people of Greeley and their well being first. Please do not put an Al in Weld County/Greeley. Thank you. Sandra Banbury Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize. Conquer 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Centers in Weld County 0213Z424-0( From: Casey Kratzer<cipkratzerCa@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 2:03:46 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Data Centers in Weld County Good afternoon, I say NO to data center in Weld County. Our electric bills are already ski high, water conservation will continue to be important in the future and noise and air pollution is not acceptable. These are just a few of the cons of data centers. As a citizen with a vote, I vote no on any future consideration of these facilities. Debra Miller Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data centers in Weld County Oft J20-01 From: Phylicia Delamater<phyliciadelamater@vahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 2:19:55 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Data centers in Weld County To whom this may concern, I am a resident of Greeley. While I appreciate the desire to expand Greeley and open up new jobs, I disagree with any data centers being built in Weld County. This is a risk to people's health, safety, and lives. What are the plans for any current or future developments of data centers in this county? A prompt reply is requested. Thank you, Phylicia Delamater i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Inquiry from Public Webpage 1:8 2O24_fir From: Kyle Marshall<kylemarsh05@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 11:11:54 AM To: David Eisenbraun<deisenbraun@weld.gov> Cc: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Re: Inquiry from Public Webpage David, I think perhaps conducting a public sentiment survey would do Weld County a ton of good before you get to the stage of trying to justify another large-scale project to the public. Commissioners and local councils should have learned that lesson with Cascadia (which, I was in favor of). However, opponents of that project beat local planning at its own game by ASKING first. There is a growing anti-data center sentiment, because the impact to local community resources has enough data to prove it hurts residents. (For example, https://backend.production.deepblue- documents.lib.umich.edu/server/api/core/bitstream s/55f83dca-a62a-46f5-93f7- 3580401 dd5ca/content) I implore you to actually read it. It's not just zoning updates, it's that the companies behind data centers care about profits over people with minimal good return to the community. On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 8:28 AM David Eisenbraun <deisenbraunPweld.gov>wrote: Mr. Marshall, Thank you for reaching out and for sharing your interest in how potential data center projects may be considered in Weld County. At a high level, the County is actively evaluating updates to its land use code to ensure that emerging and evolving land uses—including data centers—are appropriately regulated.This work is intended to provide clear standards, transparency, and a framework for public input should applications be submitted in the future. At this time,while there is interest in data center development within Weld County and at least one prospective concept being discussed at a very early stage, no completed or formal land use applications for data center construction have been submitted to the County. We appreciate residents staying engaged on land use matters and encourage continued participation as these policy discussions move forward. i , ,_,2_ David Eisenbraun,AICP I ASLA WEL--ff Planning Director coUNTY,co Dept.of Planning Services 0 1402 N 17th Ave,Greeley,CO 80631 d 970-400-3572 II 701-388-2576 0 ® cp. E2 Deisenbraun@weld.gov IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Kyle Marshall <kylemarsh05@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:29:15 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Inquiry from Public Webpage Hello, I've read some articles about potential data centers being placed in Weld County, and Greeley potentially annexing land to make this happen. Citizens should have a say in this process. Considering how much data centers tax resources and impact the environment, I'm asking for community input if this issue is put before county committees. Are there currently any data center projects on deck for construction in Weld County, or plans for land annexation that would potentially be used for data centers being constructed? Kyle Marshall (970)380-7924 kylemarsh05@gmail.com 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners Subject: FW: How are you spending our money? C D 2021,—o( From:Stephanie Boulton <stephanie.boulton@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 2:19 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: How are you spending our money? Subject Community Concerns Regarding Proposed Data Center Development in Weld Co: Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to express serious concern regarding the discussion of the potential development of a large-scale data center in Weld County. Many residents in our community are deeply worried about the environmental and long-term impacts such a project would have on our county. While economic development is important, it must be balanced with responsible stewardship of our natural resources. Data centers are known to consume extremely large amounts of electricity, placing additional strain on the power grid and potentially increasing reliance on fossil fuels.This could lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions and undermine local and statewide climate goals. Water usage is another major concern. Many data centers require significant water resources for cooling systems. In a region where water is already a precious and limited resource—particularly for agriculture and residential use—allocating substantial quantities to a single industrial facility raises serious questions about sustainability and long-term availability. Additionally, data centers can create noise pollution from cooling equipment and backup generators, operate with limited permanent job creation relative to their footprint, and often require substantial land use changes.These impacts can alter rural character, reduce property values, and affect the quality of life for nearby residents. Weld County has long valued its agricultural heritage, open spaces, and responsible land management.Approving a development that could permanently affect these assets deserves careful public review,transparent environmental studies, and meaningful community input. I respectfully urge the Board to consider the cumulative environmental impacts,water demands, energy consumption, and long-term consequences before approving any data center proposal. Many residents would welcome the opportunity for public hearings and further discussion to ensure that all voices are heard. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Stephanie Boulton 1 4 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners a 01.1* Subject: FW: Data center OQbZ0Z6-0I From: Colton lefor<dennislefor@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 3:01 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data center The people of Weld County do not want this data center. We need to vote, not you politicians. The people of Weld County. This will destroy so much water access and ruin the value of homes around it. We all know Casscadia was just a way for that same developer to get access to millions of gallons of water for that data Center. The people of Greeley and Weld County do not want this! i Angela Snyder From: Diana Aungst EXHIBIT Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 6:18 AM To: Angela Snyder D Cc: Maxwell Nader; Brittany Thompson Subject: Fw: Contact Planning and Zoning Z0,34-OI Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks, COUNTY.CO Diana Aungst,AICP I CFM Principal Planner Department of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3524 P.O. Box 758, 1402 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley,CO 80632 013000 Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:42:46 PM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning II OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Lisa Last Name Collins Question/ Please do not allow data centers in our county.We barely have enough water Comment for the homes, people and farms that are already here. Email ruppelt.lisa@gmail.com Phone 6057596043 2 Angela Snyder From: Diana Aungst EXHIBIT Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 6:21 AM To: Angela Snyder Cc: Maxwell Nader; Brittany Thompson Subject: Fw:Contact Planning and Zoning I'``I1 Jo Jam* ` Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks, \VEER COUNTY.CO Diana Aungst,AICP I CFM Principal Planner Department of Planning Services Desk: 970-400-3524 P.O. Box 758, 1402 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley,CO 80632 O x 0 00 Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 6:09:58 AM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject:Contact Planning and Zoning I OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Christy Last Name Rood I am very concerned about the potential impact of building a data center in a Question/ drought prone area like Weld County.We already face water shortages and rising Comment water costs. This could exponentially increase the demand on already tapped water supplies, raising costs for Weld County residents. Email cjrood@gmail.com Phone 425-218-9240 2 Angela Snyder EXHIBIT >r From: Diana Aungst Sent: Friday, February 27,2026 8:52 AM 20240-0( To: Angela Snyder Cc: Brittany Thompson Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning Thanks, COUNTY,CO Diana Aungst,AICP I CFM Principal Planner Department of Planning Services Desk:970-400-3524 P.O. Box 758, 1402 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley,CO 80632 013000 Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:42 AM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject:Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Tara Last Name Murlowski Question/ Please do NOT allow an Al Data Center to be built! We do not Comment need the water waste or noise pollution in Weld County. Email tacook623(agmail.com Phone 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW:Windsor Al Data Center 2oZlo-0/ From:Tami Kramer<tskramerl@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 28, 2026 10:13 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Windsor Al Data Center Commissioners: Please rethink your position on allowing this entity in Windsor. The town will be impacted significantly and will change the very fiber of small town life. Al data centers in small towns,while offering potential tax revenue, are sparking significant local opposition due to intense strain on resources. Key problems include massive water consumption for cooling, soaring electricity demands that pressure local grids, and the conversion of agricultural land. Residents often face increased utility bills, noise pollution, and risks from backup diesel generators. The New York Times+6 Key Problems with Al Data Centers in Rural Areas: • Extreme Water Consumption: Data centers often use millions of gallons of water daily, straining local water supplies, especially in drought-prone areas. • Energy Grid Strain &Costs:The immense power demand for Al training can overload local, rural energy grids, leading to higher electricity costs for residents and potential blackouts. • Environmental and Noise Pollution: Large data centers often rely on,and sometimes require,fossil-fuel energy.They also produce significant noise, impacting the rural, quiet, or residential nature of communities. • Loss of Farmland and Community Character: Massive facilities, sometimes spanning hundreds of acres, can destroy,and take over valuable farmland and change the aesthetic of a small town. • Low Employment Impact: Contrary to some claims,Al data centers often produce very few permanent local jobs after the construction phase, limiting economic benefits. • Information Asymmetry: Developers often use non-disclosure agreements(NDAs)with local officials, which restricts public information and causes mistrust in the community. The people of Windsor deserve to maintain their way of life in a bucolic setting- it's why many of us make our homes here. We already have too many homes being built without the infrastructure to handle the influx of new residents. Thank you! T. S. Kramer i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning D Q 2 2o2h-ol From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 3:51:00 PM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Sally Last Name Killough Question/ I strongly believe that Weld county should not allow the development of data Comment centers. The impact on our county would be devastating.Thank you for taking time for serious study of the environmental impacts. Email Phone i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Center Impending Risks NOT Worth Economic Stimulation EXHIBIT From: Ken Riley<kennethmriley@gmail.com> >� Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 2:17 PM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> • Pb. • _. O Subject: Re: Data Center Impending Risks NOT Worth Economic Stimulation Subject: FORMAL NOTICE: Response to Permitting of Global Al Data Center/ Evidence of Health Risks Dear Chloe, Please ensure this communication is shared with the Board of Commissioners and entered into the permanent public record regarding the permitting of the Global Al Data Center. The Board's decision to move forward—despite being provided with documented, scientifically-backed evidence of adverse health effects—is deeply concerning. By permitting this facility with full knowledge of the potential for chronic acoustic stress and resource depletion, the County is establishing a clear record of its priorities. Please be advised of the following: Notice of Risk: The County is now formally on notice regarding the specific health and environmental risks presented by this project. Accountability: Should the adverse health impacts cited in my previous correspondence manifest in our community, the responsibility will lie solely with those who authorized this permit against expert recommendation. Future Recourse: We are committed to using every tool available—including advanced Al-driven legal analysis and community advocacy—to ensure the protection of Weld County residents. This decision has shifted the community's focus from cooperation to active oversight and legal scrutiny. We urge the Board to reconsider the long-term liability this project creates for Weld County before the physical and environmental impacts become irreversible. Sincerely on Behalf of, Many Concerned Citizens of Weld County On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 1:42 PM Ask The Commissioners <AskTheCommissioners@iweld.gov>wrote: Good afternoon, Your email has been received. 1 Sincere regards, -,3ittaztt,-1= COUNTY,CO Chloe A.White Deputy Clerk to the Board Supervisor Desk: 970-400-4213 P.O. Box 758, 1150 0 St., Greeley, CO 80632 0 X 0 00 Join Our Team Important:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Kenneth Riley<kennethmriley@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:44 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Impending Risks NOT Worth Economic Stimulation Dear Commissioner, I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Weld County to address the proposed expansion of industrial data centers in our region.While economic development is a pillar of your platform,the specific health risks associated with these facilities are documented and significant. I am submitting this letter to ensure there is a clear record of these concerns, as the decision to permit these facilities carries a heavy burden of responsibility for the long-term well-being of your constituents. The following risks require your immediate oversight: • Chronic Acoustic Stress: Large-scale data centers generate constant low-frequency noise and infrasound. Unlike intermittent industrial noise,this 24/7 exposure is linked to sleep deprivation, cardiovascular stress, and neurological impacts. Permitting these centers near residential or agricultural zones ignores the physiological toll on the people you represent. •Water Resource Security: In our semi-arid climate,the massive water consumption required for data center cooling is a direct threat to our local supply.Any disruption to the water table or local utility rates will be viewed by the public as a direct result of the Commission's oversight. • Grid Instability:The immense energy demand of these facilities risks the reliability of our electrical grid. Should our community face brownouts or increased energy costs during extreme weather,the responsibility will lie with those who prioritized data processing over resident safety. Weld County residents are paying close attention to how their elected officials balance corporate interests against the health of their families. Decisions made today regarding these permits will serve as a lasting record of this Commission's priorities.We expect our leaders to be the first line of defense against projects that 2 jeopardize our quality of life, and the electorate will inevitably hold this administration accountable for any future health or environmental crises resulting from these approvals. I respectfully request that the Board implement a moratorium on all data center permits until a comprehensive, transparent health-impact assessment is conducted.We trust you will act in a manner that protects your constituents, rather than one that creates a legacy of community harm. Sincerely, Kenneth Riley 224 aspen grove way,severance 970-672-7241 (e) Kennethmriley( g_m .com • Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Center Concerns EXHIBIT a a _a_ From:Abigail Riley<abigailhriley@gmail.com> OQr2'.DZ02/p-O► Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:47 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Concerns Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Weld County to address the proposed expansion of industrial data centers in our region.While economic development is a pillar of your platform, the specific health risks associated with these facilities are documented and significant. I am submitting this letter to ensure there is a clear record of these concerns, as the decision to permit these facilities carries a heavy burden of responsibility for the long-term well-being of your constituents. The following risks require your immediate oversight: • Chronic Acoustic Stress: Large-scale data centers generate constant low-frequency noise and infrasound. Unlike intermittent industrial noise, this 24/7 exposure is linked to sleep deprivation, cardiovascular stress, and neurological impacts. Permitting these centers near residential or agricultural zones ignores the physiological toll on the people you represent. •Water Resource Security: In our semi-arid climate, the massive water consumption required for data center cooling is a direct threat to our local supply. Any disruption to the water table or local utility rates will be viewed by the public as a direct result of the Commission's oversight. • Grid Instability: The immense energy demand of these facilities risks the reliability of our electrical grid. Should our community face brownouts or increased energy costs during extreme weather, the responsibility will lie with those who prioritized data processing over resident safety. Weld County residents are paying close attention to how their elected officials balance corporate interests against the health of their families. Decisions made today regarding these permits will serve as a lasting record of this Commission's priorities.We expect our leaders to be the first line of defense against projects that jeopardize our quality of life, and the electorate will inevitably hold this administration accountable for any future health or environmental crises resulting from these approvals. I respectfully request that the Board implement a moratorium on all data center permits until a comprehensive, transparent health-impact assessment is conducted.We trust you will act in a manner that protects your constituents, rather than one that creates a legacy of community harm. Sincerely, Abigail Riley 1 Esther Gesick \I- Subject: FW: Data center concerns From:Abigail Riley<abigailhriley@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:41 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Data center concerns Dear Weld County Commissioners, I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property.As a Weld County resident, I am greatly disturbed that we are even considering this... It will absolutely be a net detriment to the community in terms of emissions, energy usage, and negative health impacts to our community. There are too many unknowns when it comes to these globalistic tech companies, and what they will be bringing with them into our community...Some of the biggest concerns being: 1. Noise pollution in the form of infrasound (inaudible sound frequencies to the human ear)that greatly affect humans and animals,that would/could be constantly emitted from this facility and felt from miles away.The effects of infrasound have been known to cause negative changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, cardiac heath,and mental health. see references here: https://p_m_c.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8411947/ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/3/1553 2.They say that they plan on running a closed loop evaporative cooling system, and that their usage would be comparable to other businesses in the area.This is a way to get their foot in the door.They will likely change their needs after their plan to move forward is in motion. Likely providing incentive in the form of money towards local government. If you care about your community, I urge you to listen to your residents rather than be persuaded by the money. Every single Weld County resident, (excuse me)Colorado resident, is extremely concerned with our nationwide drought.We DO NOT HAVE the water to send to the facility as it is! Meanwhile,the Town of Windsor is increasing prices for water, effective 2/1/2026, +25%across the board. It is completely outrageous to try to shove this data center(THAT NO ONE WANTS) into the equation. 3.Xcel energy raised some monthly bills 26%this year. Meanwhile, a data center of this magnitude is likely to consume up to 20%of our entire county's usage.Again,what the heck are we doing here even considering this??? 4.This is not going to bring a new wave of job opportunities to our community.Yes,they bring money into the community(which means nothing for us unless it is allocated in the right way), but the relative amount of people in our community they will employ is NEGLIGIBLE.To be clear, I am not counting the temporary contractors that would be hired to build the data center,although even then there is almost no doubt those contractors will NOT be local. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NET NEGATIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. Sincerely, Abigail Riley 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW. Data center concerns From:Abigail Riley<abigailhriley@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:48 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Data center concerns I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site(2000 Howard Smith Ave).While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration,"a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center.These facilities are not traditional offices;they are massive industrial"heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1.Water&Chemical Contamination:The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000- square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event,this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures,toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2.Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise,this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents.The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion:The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre"Limit of Disturbance"for Phase 1. By doing so,they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE)that would require public oversight.Their own plans, however, show a much larger"Common Plan of Development"that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals"from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging.A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review(USR),the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Abigail Riley 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW Data center concerns From:Abigail Riley<abigailhriley@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:48 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Data center concerns I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site(2000 Howard Smith Ave).While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration,"a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt AI data center.These facilities are not traditional offices;they are massive industrial"heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1.Water&Chemical Contamination:The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000- square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event,this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures,toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2.Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant,24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise,this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents.The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion:The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre"Limit of Disturbance"for Phase 1. By doing so,they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE)that would require public oversight.Their own plans, however, show a much larger"Common Plan of Development"that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals"from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging.A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review(USR),the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Abigail Riley 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Please delay approval of Ordinance 2026-01 From:Abigail Riley<abigailhriley@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,April 2, 2026 4:38 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Please delay approval of Ordinance 2026-01 Dear Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for your willingness to hear from residents like me and for taking cautious, rational steps as you consider Ordinance 2026-01. I am writing today because I do not believe enough information is yet available for a final decision on this zoning ordinance. Because this ordinance could shape how data centers are allowed in unincorporated Weld County moving forward, I believe it deserves more time, more transparency, and more public understanding before this vote is taken. This issue matters to me because [share your story/reason here]. At this point, I would like to see more data, research, and public information on several important topics that many residents are still trying to better understand. •water and electricity use &impact on utility rates (rate payer protections &Capital cost recovery) • review of comparative studies on health, agriculture, and quality of life • alignment with local water, energy, &economic plans • impact on property value, residential development, &insurance rates Today, I am asking that this decision be delayed to allow more time for care, transparency, and enough information to make a responsible decision. A continuation would allow more time for questions to be addressed and for the public to better understand the potential long-term impacts of this ordinance. Thank you again for your time,your willingness to listen, and your thoughtful consideration. I respectfully ask that you vote to continue Ordinance 2026-01 until more information is available and the community has had a fuller opportunity to understand and weigh the impacts. Sincerely, Abigail Riley 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Center Conerns EXHIBIT 1 /IR„ From: Heidi Weed <heidilweed@hotmail.com> beta ,-0/ Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 6:47 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Conerns This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links,or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to formally submit evidence regarding the severe public health risks associated with industrial data center developments. This letter serves as a documented notification of these risks to ensure that, should the Board choose to permit these facilities, there is a clear record of the specific harms presented to your constituents. Under current leadership, the decision to prioritize rapid industrialization causes concern that we will approve data centers for revenue before considering the impact to resident safety which carries a profound burden of personal and professional accountability for the long-term health outcomes of Weld County families. Scientific Basis for Opposition The following evidence, grounded in peer-reviewed research and 2025/2026 impact reports, demonstrates why these facilities are incompatible with residential and agricultural zones: • Chronic Acoustic Stress &Cardiovascular Disease: A 2024 Harvard University study and a 2025 review in The BMJ link chronic industrial noise to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and "takotsubo cardiomyopathy" (stress-induced heart failure). Unlike intermittent noise, the 24/7 low- frequency hum from data center cooling fans is documented by the Environmental Health Project(2026) to exceed 85-90 decibels, levels known to cause permanent sleep-wake cycle disruption and cognitive impairment. •Water Scarcity as a Health Crisis: In semi-arid regions like Colorado, data centers consuming up to 5 million gallons per day(equivalent to a city of 50,000 people) create "water stress."A January 2026 report from Al Jazeera details how AI-driven water scarcity correlates directly with increased gastrointestinal illness and declining hygiene in nearby communities as local aquifers are depleted. •Air Toxicity from Backup Power: Data centers rely on massive diesel generators for redundancy. According to a September 2025 study, the resulting nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter are projected to cause 600,000 new asthma cases and over 1,300 premature deaths annually in the U.S. by 2030. Placing these "pollution clusters" in Weld County will directly degrade our air quality. The Standard of Accountability As elected officials, your primary mandate is the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare. Ignoring the aforementioned data in favor of short-term tax revenue establishes a legacy of negligence. We, the residents of Weld County,will hold this Board accountable for any subsequent rise in local respiratory issues, cardiovascular stress, or utility instability that follows these approvals. I respectfully demand an immediate moratorium on all data center permits until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment—specific to Weld County's high-desert climate and acoustic profile—is conducted and presented to the public. We expect our leaders to act as our first line of defense, not as facilitators for industries that jeopardize our lives. Sincerely, Heidi Weed 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Center Concerns From:Stephanie Jones<step it up1011@live.com> 909.9` �r, ar Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 9:02 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weid.gov> Subject: Data Center Concerns This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information,clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to formally submit evidence regarding the severe public health risks associated with industrial data center developments. This letter serves as a documented notification of these risks to ensure that, should the Board choose to permit these facilities, there is a clear record of the specific harms presented to your constituents. Under current leadership, the decision to prioritize rapid industrialization causes concern that we will approve data centers for revenue before considering the impact to resident safety which carries a profound burden of personal and professional accountability for the long-term health outcomes of Weld County families. Scientific Basis for Opposition The following evidence, grounded in peer-reviewed research and 2025/2026 impact reports, demonstrates why these facilities are incompatible with residential and agricultural zones: • Chronic Acoustic Stress & Cardiovascular Disease: A 2024 Harvard University study and a 2025 review in The BMJ link chronic industrial noise to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and "takotsubo cardiomyopathy" (stress-induced heart failure). Unlike intermittent noise, the 24/7 low- frequency hum from data center cooling fans is documented by the Environmental Health Project (2026) to exceed 85-90 decibels, levels known to cause permanent sleep-wake cycle disruption and cognitive impairment. • Water Scarcity as a Health Crisis: In semi-arid regions like Colorado, data centers consuming up to 5 million gallons per day (equivalent to a city of 50,000 people) create "water stress." A January 2026 report from Al Jazeera details how Al-driven water scarcity correlates directly with increased gastrointestinal illness and declining hygiene in nearby communities as local aquifers are depleted. • Air Toxicity from Backup Power: Data centers rely on massive diesel generators for redundancy. According to a September 2025 study, the resulting nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter are projected to cause 600,000 new asthma cases and over 1,300 premature deaths annually in the U.S. by 2030. Placing these "pollution clusters" in Weld County will directly degrade our air quality. The Standard of Accountability As elected officials, your primary mandate is the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare. Ignoring the aforementioned data in favor of short-term tax revenue establishes a legacy of negligence. We, the residents of Weld County, will hold this Board accountable for any subsequent rise in local respiratory issues, cardiovascular stress, or utility instability that follows these approvals. i I respectfully demand an immediate moratorium on all data center permits until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment—specific to Weld County's high-desert climate and acoustic profile—is conducted and presented to the public. We expect our leaders to act as our first line of defense, not as facilitators for industries that jeopardize our lives. Sincerely, Stephanie Jones 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT ga From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Oab20241-Q/ Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 12:47 PM To: Molly Wright<mrwriRht@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Lainie Last Name Peltz A data center is not suitable near residential areas. The demand on water and electricity is huge and I understand the noise, while supposedly within approved decibels, is extremely bothersome. The impact on our wildlife near the Poudre River Question / corridor and the residents on the west side of 257 will be very Comment detrimental. I encourage you to look at placing data centers in uninhabited spaces in Weld County. There is plenty of wide open space in our county that should be considered instead. Please don't allow data centers near residents. Email lfpeltz@gmail.com Phone 970-412-9389 1 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: No to Data Centers in Weld County - bu From:Gabrielle Green<gabriellearmerpsyd@gmail.com> Oet)Z-L_OI Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:00 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissionersPweld.gov> Subject: No to Data Centers in Weld County Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned to hear that there is talk of a data center being put in Weld County. I am writing to formally submit evidence regarding the severe public health risks associated with industrial data center developments. This letter serves as a documented notification of these risks to ensure that, should the Board choose to permit these facilities, there is a clear record of the specific harms presented to your constituents. Under current leadership, the decision to prioritize rapid industrialization causes concern that we will approve data centers for revenue before considering the impact to resident safety which carries a profound burden of personal and professional accountability for the long-term health outcomes of Weld County families. Scientific Basis for Opposition The following evidence, grounded in peer-reviewed research and 2025/2026 impact reports, demonstrates why these facilities are incompatible with residential and agricultural zones: •Water Scarcity as a Health Crisis: In semi-arid regions like Colorado, data centers consuming up to 5 million gallons per day(equivalent to a city of 50,000 people) create "water stress."A January 2026 report from Al Jazeera details how Al-driven water scarcity correlates directly with increased gastrointestinal illness and declining hygiene in nearby communities as local aquifers are depleted. • Chronic Acoustic Stress &Cardiovascular Disease:A 2024 Harvard University study and a 2025 review in The BM1 link chronic industrial noise to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and "takotsubo cardiomyopathy" (stress-induced heart failure). Unlike intermittent noise, the 24/7 low- frequency hum from data center cooling fans is documented by the Environmental Health Project (2026) to exceed 85-90 decibels, levels known to cause permanent sleep-wake cycle disruption and cognitive impairment. •Air Toxicity from Backup Power: Data centers rely on massive diesel generators for redundancy. According to a September 2025 study,the resulting nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter are projected to cause 600,000 new asthma cases and over 1,300 premature deaths annually in the U.S. by 2030. Placing these "pollution clusters" in Weld County will directly degrade our air quality. The Standard of Accountability As elected officials,your primary mandate is the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare. Ignoring the aforementioned data in favor of short-term tax revenue establishes a legacy of negligence.We, the residents of Weld County, will hold this Board accountable for any subsequent rise in local respiratory issues, cardiovascular stress, or utility instability that follows these approvals. I respectfully demand an immediate moratorium on all data center permits until a i transparent, independent health-impact assessment—specific to Weld County's high-desert climate and acoustic profile—is conducted and presented to the public.We expect our leaders to act as our first line of defense, not as facilitators for industries that jeopardize our lives. Best, Gabrielle Green, PsyD (she/her/hers) Licensed Clinical Psychologist (PSY.0006179) Compassionate Path Psychology, PLLC www.compassionatepathpsychology.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail message,including any attachments,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential or privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure,or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient,immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you have received this transmission in error,please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email and any attachments without viewing or reading them. Please be aware that email communication can be intercepted or misdirected in transmission.To protect your confidential information,please consider communicating any personal identifying information such as your birth date or personal medical information by telephone or through the SimplePractice platform. If you are experiencing a mental health emergency,please call 911 or go to the nearest emergency room. 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Centers EXHIBIT i From: Kyle Brady<kbradynd@gmail.com> ORD20 -CI Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:34 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data Centers Good Evening, I've seen recently that there is a proposed data center site in Weld County. As a long time resident of Weld County I'd like to offer my strong dissent to that idea. In addition to the water usage and environmental issues these cause they also offer very little value to citizens or frankly to the world in general. I can assure you that I am not the only person in the county who feels this way.Thank you for your time and consideration Kyle Brady 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: No data center in Weld County ' I a a From: Caitlin <caitlin.mccrory75@gmail.com> to • Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:57 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov>; Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: No data center in Weld County Subject line: Data Center Concerns Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to formally submit evidence regarding the severe public health risks associated with industrial data center developments. This letter serves as a documented notification of these risks to ensure that, should the Board choose to permit these facilities,there is a clear record of the specific harms presented to your constituents. As a family who is deeply invested in agriculture in Weld County, you are putting at risk not only our livelihood but also the future of so many families' agricultural operations if you move forward with the data center, so I'm asking that you listen to your constituents and think out their future and value it more than cave to the influence of a wealthy developer. Under current leadership, the decision to prioritize rapid industrialization causes concern that we will approve data centers for revenue before considering the impact to resident safety which carries a profound burden of personal and professional accountability for the long-term health outcomes of Weld County families. Scientific Basis for Opposition The following evidence, grounded in peer-reviewed research and 2025/2026 impact reports, demonstrates why these facilities are incompatible with residential and agricultural zones: • Chronic Acoustic Stress &Cardiovascular Disease: A 2024 Harvard University study and a 2025 review in The BMJ link chronic industrial noise to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and "takotsubo cardiomyopathy" (stress-induced heart failure). Unlike intermittent noise,the 24/7 low- frequency hum from data center cooling fans is documented by the Environmental Health Project(2026) to exceed 85-90 decibels, levels known to cause permanent sleep-wake cycle disruption and cognitive impairment. •Water Scarcity as a Health Crisis: In semi-arid regions like Colorado, data centers consuming up to 5 million gallons per day(equivalent to a city of 50,000 people) create "water stress."A January 2026 report from Al Jazeera details how AI-driven water scarcity correlates directly with increased gastrointestinal illness and declining hygiene in nearby communities as local aquifers are depleted. •Air Toxicity from Backup Power: Data centers rely on massive diesel generators for redundancy. According to a September 2025 study, the resulting nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter are projected to cause 600,000 new asthma cases and over 1,300 premature deaths annually in the U.S. by 2030. Placing these "pollution clusters" in Weld County will directly degrade our air quality. i As elected officials,your primary mandate is the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare. Ignoring the aforementioned data in favor of short-term tax revenue establishes a legacy of negligence. We, the residents of Weld County, will hold this Board accountable for any subsequent rise in local respiratory issues, cardiovascular stress, or utility instability that follows these approvals. I respectfully demand an immediate moratorium on all data center permits until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment—specific to Weld County's high-desert climate and acoustic profile—is conducted and presented to the public. We expect our leaders to act as our first line of defense, not as facilitators for industries that jeopardize our lives. Sincerely, Caitlin McCrory Evans 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW:Al Data Center IT uK From: Deven Warren <dwarrentuba@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:31 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Cc: Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey<jmaxev@weld.gov> Subject:Al Data Center Good morning Karla, I hope this email finds you well. I'm reaching out as a concerned citizen of Greeley,Weld County, and Colorado as a whole. I would like to start by saying economic development should be a priority as a community, but preservation of natural resources and communal health needs to take precedence over economic development.Al data centers are well known for using copious amounts of water from the local environment, and we live in a state where "extra"water is not something that ever exists, as a matter of fact,we are in a pretty severe drought, and that will only continue with the lack of precipitation during this incredibly dry winter.We, as good stewards of this land, cannot allow private companies to take away resources that can be used to fed our local communities and provide economic benefits that way. Second, Al data centers are not good ways to increase economic value to a community.While the up front benefits of building this massive infrastructure seems all wonderful, as soon as construction ends, that's typically where economic value ends. These buildings are typically very empty with few people on property at any given moment.This will NOT provide long term jobs, and only take away land and resources that's can be used to develop the area and give the community what it actually needs,jobs and food.This data center will do neither of those tasks. Lastly, I would like to emphasize the health risks to the local population. Data centers use up large amounts of energy, energy that produces sound and air pollution.These two sources of pollution has been proven over many communities to harm the local population and lead to people moving out, leading to less money and spending power in the region, or people getting sick at a significantly higher rate than communities without data centers. Please, I ask that you fully understand and comprehend that this decision will cost human lives. It won't be immediate, and a majority of this board will probably not be in power anymore, but this will cost lives.As a farming community,we CANNOT risk the lives of our livestock or other humans for this. It will tank our economy. Also, data centers drive down property value of those around it.This will hurt the local community and population in every way. This will damage Weld County economically, health wise, and the local environment. If there is any other step I may take as a citizen, I plead with you that you let me know how. I know that a majority of your citizens and constituents adamantly oppose this being built in our backyard.Think about our pets, our land, our kids, and our future. Do not allow this leech to be built in our community. i I would genuinely enjoy talking about this further with anyone seated on the board. Thank you very much for listening to your constituents. Deven Warren dwarrentuba@gmail.com 720-775-5057 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Al Data Center EXHIBIT D a 8 From:Jill Parker<jillparker2014@gmail.com> bQ,OZo2G-01 Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:25 PM To: Commissioners<COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Al Data Center This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. As a citizen of world County for 10 years now, I am vehemently opposed to the proposed data center planned for the Kodak land. There is no reason for the center to be allowed to go in here. It will not create jobs. I do not believe there's any beneficial tax incentive. But it will be a drain on our already stressed natural resources. We do not want this data center. Al is bad for the environment and not needed. Thank you, Jill Esther Gesick From: Cole Evans <cevans2830@gmail.com> EXHIBIT Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:33 PM To: Ask The Commissioners; Esther Gesick Subject: No Data Center in Weld County ORAZo21.-0 1 This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information,clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to formally submit evidence regarding the severe public health risks associated with industrial data center developments.This letter serves as a documented notification of these risks to ensure that, should the Board choose to permit these facilities, there is a clear record of the specific harms presented to your constituents. As a family who is deeply invested in agriculture in Weld County,you are putting at risk not only our livelihood but also the future of so many families' agricultural operations if you move forward with the data center, so I'm asking that you listen to your constituents and think out their future and value it more than cave to the influence of a wealthy developer. Under current leadership, the decision to prioritize rapid industrialization causes concern that we will approve data centers for revenue before considering the impact to resident safety which carries a profound burden of personal and professional accountability for the long-term health outcomes of Weld County families. Scientific Basis for Opposition The following evidence, grounded in peer-reviewed research and 2025/2026 impact reports, demonstrates why these facilities are incompatible with residential and agricultural zones: • Chronic Acoustic Stress &Cardiovascular Disease: A 2024 Harvard University study and a 2025 review in The BMJ link chronic industrial noise to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and "takotsubo cardiomyopathy" (stress-induced heart failure). Unlike intermittent noise, the 24/7low-frequency hum from data center cooling fans is documented by the Environmental Health Project(2026)to exceed 85-90 decibels, levels known to cause permanent sleep-wake cycle disruption and cognitive impairment. •Water Scarcity as a Health Crisis: In semi-arid regions like Colorado, data centers consuming up to 5 million gallons per day(equivalent to a city of 50,000 people) create "water stress."A January 2026 report from Al Jazeera details how AI-driven water scarcity correlates directly with increased gastrointestinal illness and declining hygiene in nearby communities as local aquifers are depleted. i •Air Toxicity from Backup Power: Data centers rely on massive diesel generators for redundancy. According to a September 2025 study,the resulting nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter are projected to cause 600,000 new asthma cases and over 1,300 premature deaths annually in the U.S. by 2030. Placing these "pollution clusters" in Weld County will directly degrade our air quality. As elected officials,your primary mandate is the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare. Ignoring the aforementioned data in favor of short-term tax revenue establishes a legacy of negligence.We, the residents of Weld County, will hold this Board accountable for any subsequent rise in local respiratory issues, cardiovascular stress, or utility instability that follows these approvals. I respectfully demand an immediate moratorium on all data center permits until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment—specific to Weld County's high- desert climate and acoustic profile—is conducted and presented to the public. We expect our leaders to act as our first line of defense, not as facilitators for industries that jeopardize our lives. Sincerely, Cole Evans 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Input on data center zoning regulations MI MR From: Dan/Lynn Meyers<dnlmeyers@comcast.net> Vtft_ , . . Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:08 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Input on data center zoning regulations Hello Weld County Commissioners, I am currently a resident of Severance Colorado. I wanted to take a few minutes to address some concerns that would face the residents of our community and surrounding communities that would be affected by a data center in our area. I am sure you have seen much of the data below, but in case you haven't here it is for your review. Since we are >4.5 miles from the proposed site in Windsor, we do have concerns for the residents and business that are in proximity to the Health Impacts. My major concerns are the Electric requirements, presently low 15-30KW, but proposed at max capacity of 1GW!! This would have a profound affect on the system and could require large infrastructure improvement - at a cost. Requirement on renewable energy sources may be a viable option. Water requirements could be massive (ag vs industry decision). I would suggest researching the validity of closed loop systems and water requirement claims. As I was concluding this email, I heard the geese taking flight. What is the impact on the wild and domestic animals in our communities? Thanks and good luck on your decision making, Dan Meyers If a data center is built in Windsor Colorado, what would the impact be on these health issues and what would be the environmental impact on water and electricity? A data center development near Windsor , currently proposed by Global Al at the former Kodak/Carestream campus (2000 Howard Smith Ave.), would have significant local impacts due to its massive scale—potentially reaching 1 gigawatt (GW) in capacity. DatacenterDynamics+2 1 . Health Impacts on the Windsor Community • Air Quality: The facility would likely house numerous diesel backup generators. While these are for emergencies, routine testing releases nitrogen oxides (N0x) and fine particulate matter i (2.5 PM). Environmental studies suggest health risks like asthma and respiratory issues can be detected up to 0.6 miles from such sites. • Noise Pollution: Residents within 0.25 to 1 mile may experience a constant low-frequency hum from industrial cooling fans and HVAC systems. Weld County is currently drafting an ordinance (final reading April 6, 2026) to establish specific zoning and noise standards for such facilities. • Light Pollution: Hyperscale sites require 24/7 security lighting, which can disrupt circadian rhythms for nearby neighbors and impact local wildlife. Environmental Health Project+5 2. Impact on Water Resources • High Consumption: A standard hyperscale facility can use 3-7 million gallons of water daily for cooling. • Local Strain: In semi-arid Colorado, this demand competes with agriculture, the state's largest water user. • Company Claims: Global Al has stated their system will use liquid cooling that recycles water, claiming usage comparable to a single-family home. However, environmental groups remain skeptical of these "closed-loop" claims without strict monitoring. National Institutes of Health(NIH)I(.gov)+4 3. Impact on Electricity and Utility Rates • Grid Demand: At its full 1 GW potential,this single site would consume a massive amount of power—for context, a 160MW facility can use as much energy as 176,000 homes. • Rate Hikes: Massively increased demand can force utilities like Xcel Energy to build new infrastructure, the costs of which are often passed to residential customers. • Legislative Action: Colorado Senate Bill 26-102 was recently introduced to mandate that data centers use 100% renewable energy by 2031 to prevent them from undermining state climate goals. Current Status Weld County has extended its timeline for a data center ordinance to April 2026 to allow for more public input on these exact resource and health concerns. Instagram 2 Would you like to see the specific details of the Weld County ordinance regarding how close these facilities can be built to residential areas? 3 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Center EXHIBIT I Oil From: Riley<katcook99@gmail.com> 0 ZO -ID) Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 8:26 AM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center As a citizen of Weld County I am against the construction of any data centers in our county. They are disruptive to the natural environment and suck up our resources such as electricity and water. In other states, data centers have been proven to cause utility bills for citizens to skyrocket. This is not okay and I do not want this. My name is Katherine Cook and my phone number is 970-347-0728. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Formal Opposition to Proposed Data Center Development in Windsor, Weld County EXHIBI From: Dayla Cook<dayla73@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 9:05 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Q' ► a_ --D) Subject: Formal Opposition to Proposed Data Center Development in Windsor, Weld County Ms Ford, My name is Dayla Cook, and I am a resident of Severance, Colorado, located in Weld County. I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed data center planned for Windsor,which sits just a few miles from my community. As a citizen of this county, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on our region. Data centers are well-documented to place enormous strain on local resources—particularly electricity and water which is already precious and limited here in Colorado. In communities across the country where data centers have been approved, residents have seen their utility bills skyrocket as these facilities consume disproportionate amounts of power from the local grid. This is an unacceptable burden to place on working families in our area. Perhaps even more alarming is the water consumption. Colorado already faces serious water scarcity challenges, and data centers are known to use millions of gallons of water annually for cooling purposes. Approving this development would be irresponsible stewardship of our most limited natural resource. I urge Weld County and the Town of Windsor to reject this proposal and prioritize the well-being of current residents over the interests of large corporations seeking to exploit our infrastructure. I expect a response and welcome the opportunity to speak further on this matter. Respectfully, Dayla Cook Severance, CO—Weld County Resident 970-518-9497 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Center EXHIBIT g —2 _Ac1)___ From: Lori-Ann Gonzales<Iagonz329@gmail.com> URD 2-0249—Ol Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 10:40 AM To: askthecommissiooners@weld.gov; Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center I have heard that there is at least 1 proposed data center being considered in Weld county and would like to voice my sincere concern and quite frankly outright dismay that this is even a consideration for many reasons, but most importantly,where is the significant amount of water needed to cool these centers,going to come from? We are already paying exorbitant prices for water, reportedly due to its scarcity and are consistently encouraged to conserve water whenever possible, and yet this is still a consideration? Please use some common sense. These data centers do not belong in an arid state that already has strained water supplies!!! I would think this would be more than obvious to anyone who ever spoke to a farmer working to grow our and other nation's food supply. Look at the water levels in our lake and rivers that are already low and, especially this year,will likely drop to their lowest levels in years. Lake Dillon Marina has already announced it won't even be open this summer due to the lack of snowpack needed to fill it. I for one, live in Colorado, specifically because of its access to outdoor activities, including many water sports and love to camp and enjoy the opportunities to commune with nature. However, as water becomes more and more scarce,there will be little left to enjoy if we don't have water to fill the lakes and streams and the risks of enjoying these areas is already fraught with the very real threat of wildfires, such as we've rarely seen before! In addition, it is my understanding that these data centers will cause noise pollution in the form of a measurable "hum"for anyone within a 5-10 mile radius! l do not think that anyone would say they look forward to more noise pollution than we already have. So....What is the upside to it for this county? it is my understanding that these centers are meant to operate pretty much autonomously,so they will not bring a sizeable number of ongoing jobs to the area. They don't sell anything or make anything that would significantly add to the local economy or tax base. So what do the constituents get in exchange from this venture? How does it make any sense, economically, or otherwise to even consider this proposal?What it will do is fill Martin Lind's pockets, and although I'm all for entrepreneurship and capitalism, I don't see the need to put our already extremely limited water resources and the farmers' crops and their significant contribution to our food supply at risk for a venture as unbelievably outrageous as this one! Why not put these centers where water is readily available, such as near the coasts or large rivers where an overabundance of water is often a problem? Regardless,they do NOT belong in an arid climate where every drop of water is so precious. I am not necessarily a person who voices my opinion about some of the more outlandish things that I hear, however,this is one that I believe is so Obviously so clearly a BAD IDEA,that I find myself compelled to speak out in HOPES that someone in power will speak up and state that this is a BAD IDEA!! Lori-Ann Gonzales 1432 Tule Dr Severance, CO 80550 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT D � From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> 014320a-0i Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:17 AM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Liz Last Name Gullette Question/ No Data Center in Windsor. We do not want to pay for Comment it Email Phone 970-686-8000 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW No to Kodak Rezoning for Data Center From: Liz Gullette<lizgullette@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:25 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: No to Kodak Rezoning for Data Center Good Morning- Please record my NO vote to rezone the Kodak property in Windsor CO for a proposed data center.We do not need this in Windsor and it will raise energy costs and negatively impact our town. Sincerely, Liz Gullette 1555 Highfield Dr Windsor, CO. 80550 R 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT D D From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 10:40 AM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Elizabeth Last Name Kueny I live in Windsor and object to an Al data center being built. My Question/ husband and I walk the trail near the proposed location. It is Comment ubundant with wild life that will be driven away by noise and light polution. The river runs nearby too I worry about the ecological impacts. Email eand_mkueny@msn.com Phone 9705762064 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT § pc.G From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> 0.020 _01 Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:47 AM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject:Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Jeremy Last Name White Weld county will not benefit from any data centers regardless of what special interests are saying.These data centers will degrade the quality of life for residents through water Question/ consumption, energy consumption, and noise,while providing Comment no long-term tangible benefits to the residents - basically data centers will consume infrastructure and resources,will the economic benefits will be out sourced.The cost-benefit analysis is clear- please do not approve any rezoning for data centers in Weld county Email jtwhite1000@gmail.com Phone 9708001037 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT a a 9 From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreplv@openforms.com> �� ,7t Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 12:13 PM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning 1 OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name David Last Name I live in Milliken. Please do not allow a power and water Question / wasting facility, with little or no long term employment, to be Comment built in Weld county. Thank you. Email Phone i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT lb (VI From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> (21 _Oi Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:50 PM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject:Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Kirsten Last Name Richard Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Ordinance 2026-01 and the potential rezoning of agricultural or light industrial land for high-density Al data centers, specifically the project currently being evaluated near the Windsor/Greeley Question / boundary. Comment As the Board considers the final reading on April 6, 2026, I urge you to consider that Al data centers represent a fundamental shift in land use that our current 2020 Comprehensive Plan did not anticipate. Granting these "Use by Special Review" permits in Agricultural zones threatens the very rural character the County is currently surveying residents to protect in the 2026 Comprehensive Plan update. i Specifically, for our region, I am concerned about: Impact on the North Weld County Water District: While proponents claim minimal usage,Al facilities of this scale typically require significant liquid cooling infrastructure. In a high-desert climate like ours, diverting water from agricultural use to "cooling water tanks" (as defined in the ordinance) is a long-term risk to our farming heritage. Infrastructure & Utility Burden: Our local grid should not be a "proving ground"for 50-megawatt loads. I am concerned that the infrastructure upgrades required for these facilities will lead to rate increases for Weld County residents, similar to those being debated at the state level in HB26-1030. Acoustic Compatibility:Weld County's open landscape allows low-frequency noise to travel for miles. The constant 24/7 hum of cooling fans is a direct violation of the peace and quiet that residents in unincorporated Weld County expect. I ask that the Board extend the moratorium on data center approvals until the 2026 Comprehensive Plan is fully adopted. We should not be rezoning land for a "new" industry before our community-driven vision for the next decade is even finalized. Please include this letter in the official case file for Ordinance 2026-01 and the upcoming April 6th hearing. Sincerely, Kirsten Richard Email krstena_richard@weldre4.org Phone 970-980-6002 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning 1111/ From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:55 PM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Dana Last Name Regalado Question/ I beg you, please do the right thing and do not allow this data Comment center project to go through. Email windsorcounselingCcgmailcom Phone 9705450402 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> a RD4121e.- I Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 3:49 PM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject:Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Karen Last Name Johnson I would like to urge the commissioners to carefully consider NOT allowing a data center to be allowed to be built at the land they purchased at or near the old Kodak site by Windsor. As a resident who lives less than a mile away I am very concerned about the noise and light pollution, the water usage considering Question/ Northern Colorado is running into issues with water availability Comment as communities continue to grow in population. I am especially concerned about the damage that could/would be done to the Poudre River corridor and wildlife at that location. Please consider not allowing a data center to be built there or anywhere near our precious natural resources that cannot be regained once lost. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Email teachcake@comcast.net Phone Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT 1PL From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> d ' a '-D1 Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 5:51:17 PM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Julia Last Name Michels Question/ Please vote no and prevent any zoning for a data center. They are too noisy, Comment bad for the environment, and unnecessary. Email jmmworkathome@ymail.com Phone 970-213-4129 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT D-4$ VIA From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> OtZO24o`0l Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 6:04:02 PM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Julie Last Name Lezama Question/ The people need to vote on the data center wanting to go into Windsor, before Comment allowing them to build. Just like the mess with the Cascadia. It should have e be heard by the people first Email julie.lezama@gmail.com Phone 9705902351 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Al data center! EXHIBIT From: Cathy Pitz<pitz.cathy@gmail.com> 0 2oart) Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 4:29 PM To: Ask The Commissioners<,AskT heComrn_ issioners@weld.gov> Subject: Al data center! This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Al data center near Windsor. I live less than 2 miles from the data center site . I am worried about the air, land and water pollution that these type of centers emit. I'm also concerned about the noise that come from these data centers. Other questions I have: where is the extra water and power going to come from? Lastly, a large number of my neighbors are upset about their property values going down. Could you please contact me in writing as to how you are going to address all the above issues? Thank you, Cathy Pitz 437 Pelican Cove Windsor Sent from my iPhone Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT jr A . 0 From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 8:21 AM RD7117le-0l To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Sally Last Name Brunk My community absolutely does NOT want a data center across the street from us! I live in Water Valley and have done a lot of research on data centers. The constant noise alone should be a Question/ reason not to approve this! It won't provide significant well Comment paying jobs. As the town of Windsor grows,this area has so much more to offer and can bring in far more tax dollars long term.This will be a prime area for things like Target, groceries, ect... these bring jobs and money to Weld County. Email sallybrunk@comcast.net Phone 3038833115 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning EXHIBIT From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> ORD207lo-Ol Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 4:42:01 PM To: Diana Aungst<daungst@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Darcy Last Name Whitlock How will Weld County protect water usage for residents, and everyone Question / downstream served by our watershed? Data Centers use an excessive amount Comment of water and CO has faced enough drought in recent years that prove we cannot support a data center. Email rattlefox(agmail.com Phone i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Proposed Global Al development at former Kodak center From: Darcy Whitlock<darcywhitlock@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:21 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck <pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Proposed Global Al development at former Kodak center Hi, I am a Windsor resident and urge you to reconsider the proposed data center in light of the extreme negative environmental impacts it will have on our community.There is no development income that will equal the risk to Windsor and the surrounding areas.Where is the water coming from?Who will bear the electricity burden? How are you preventing air pollution? Droughts and increased fire risk are already a near-yearly concern that will only increase in the future.You don't want the town to die because the data center consumes resources the town relies on. Please think with your conscience, not your pocketbook. Darcy Whitlock 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: GLOBAL AI DATA CENTER Pk 0 C�1D2O2Lp-DI From:Victoria Proud Walker<vpw1556@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,January 14, 2026 12:25 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: GLOBAL Al DATA CENTER Hi Commissioner Maxey, I am a Windsor resident, residing in HighPointe Estates which is directly located, as the crow flies, across from the Global AI site. I've reached out to numerous officials regarding the data center and have learned that the rules and regulations for operation may be influenced/written by Weld County, depending upon the final annexation. I'm not sure you are aware that data centers bring a few positives, some limited job creation, but many negatives to a community. Even though this was an industrial site, this usage will be very different. Centers use huge amounts of water, electricity, omit brutal, low frequency noise and light pollution. Many of these escalations, according to articles written by residents located near data centers, are passed along to the same residents. I'm asking that Weld Co. Commissioners consider at least one of the significant problems that arise from these centers - noise pollution. For your information, I'm attaching a link outlining the noise pollution from the centers for your review. This video does provide a potential solution to the problem which I hope will be seriously considered by Weld Co. and Global AI. Thank you for your time and hopefully examination of this issue. Best, Victoria Walker Windsor Resident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbXgvAv-P7Y&authuser=0 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: GLOBAL Al DATA CENTER - Windsor/Weld Co. EXHIBIT Al,... Q (2) From:Victoria Proud Walker<vpw1556@gmail.com> b2b202LO1 Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 2:54 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov>; David Eisenbraun <deisenbraun@weld.gov>;Julie Cline <jcline@windsorgov.com> Subject:GLOBAL Al DATA CENTER-Windsor/Weld Co. Hello Commissioners - I've reached out previously re. the acquisition of the Carestream facility by Global AI to Commissioner Moxley, David Eisenbraun and Mayor Cline and have copied them in this email. Much discussion has been given to the complaints leveled against data centers by residents re. increased utility costs, electrical usage and air pollution. Included in this list is often noise pollution, noise on a high frequency level produced by components of the data center. Codes/regulations are written by local communities for this type of a more "standard" noise pollution. I'm reaching out to once again illustrate my concerns re. low frequency noise, infrasound... noise below 200 Hz. Experts in multiple fields - including noise engineering and medical scientists have studied infrasound. It is perceived by humans as a vibration, buzzing or hum that penetrates homes and can travel, especially at higher altitudes, many miles...It causes physical harm as well as psychological issues for residents. Data centers produce this noise constantly. I'm hoping that this issue as well as all issues I've noted will be given your attention and presented to Global AI before finalizing this location. Unfortunately, I've also learned from Global AI's website that they may increase the size of this data center to 1GW - considered huge by the industry and a further major problem for Windsor/Weld, especially in close proximity to many residents. We moved to Windsor because we loved the small town atmosphere and the dedicated open spaces - never imagining a usage this destructive would be allowed in an area zoned for more typical industrial uses. Thank you for the opportunity to present this information. Best, Victoria Walker HighPointe Estates 1 EXHIBIT Esther Gesick a _ From: Marc Savela <msavela@broerealestate.com> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 10:56 AM 4 op_r,zo21,"o To: Karla Ford; Jason Maxey; Scott James; Lynette Peppier; Kevin Ross; Perry Buck Cc: Dean Brown; David Eisenbraun; Esther Gesick Subject: RE: Ordinance 2026-01 - Stakeholder Engagement Attachments: Broe Ordinance 2026-01 3.9.26.pdf This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of the Board and Weld County Planning— Thank you for your commitment to additional stakeholder engagement and outreach regarding Ordinance 2026- 01. Please see the attached letter with items to consider as we work together to evaluate the potential impacts to Weld County. We look forward to staying engaged in this process. Thank you. Marc Savela Senior Vice President— Development Broe Real Estate Group msavela@broerealestate.com From: Marc Savela Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 4:57 PM To: 'kford@weld.gov' <kford@weid.gov>; 'jmaxey@weid.gov' <jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; 'Ipeppier@weld.gov' <Ipeppler@weid.gov>; 'Kevin Ross' <kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Cc: Dean Brown <dbrown@broereaiestate.com>; 'deisenbraun@weid.gov' <deisenbraun@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 -Second Reading Request for Delay and Continuance Dear Members of the Board - Please see the attached letter requesting a delay of the second reading of the pending Data Center ordinance before you to allow for additional stakeholder engagement. Thank you. Marc Savela Senior Vice President— Development Broe Real Estate Group Main 303.398.4575 I Direct 303.398.0418 I Mobile 303.587.0261 msavela@broerealestate.com I www.BroeRealEstate.corn 252 Clayton Street, Denver,Colorado 80206 1 B ro a 252 Clayton Street, 4th Floor Denver, Colorado 80206 303.398.4575 Real Estate Group BroeRealEstate.com March 9, 2026 Weld County Board of Commissioners and Planning Director 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Comments on Weld County's Regulation of Data Centers—Ordinance 2026-01 Dear Members of the Board and Planning Director: On behalf of the Broe Real Estate Group,thank you for your decision to continue the final reading of the Ordinance 2026-01 while Weld County considers additional regulations. As a leader in Weld County's industrial space with technical expertise in engineering and development, Broe would like to propose a meeting with the Board, the Planning Department, and other stakeholders before the Board reconvenes on April 6, 2026. This meeting will allow us to engage in a productive and collaborative conversation on Ordinance 2026-01. In advance of this proposed meeting, we respectfully request that you consider the following discussion points and recommendations for zoning and planning regulations for data center developments. These suggestions are based on empirical data, legal expertise, regulatory trends and lessons learned from other states and jurisdictions. 1. Use by Right vs. Use by Special Review - Data centers are a new and quickly evolving industry with unique demands.These developments range widely in size and scale,and employ differing processes and operational conditions; they are not one-size-fits-all. As such, consideration should be given to data centers being a "Use by Special Review." The special review process is an opportunity for Weld to consider the unique characteristics of each data center, study ever-evolving lessons learned, and assess compatibility with adjacent lands and neighbors. Appropriate siting will maximize a center's economic benefits, and ensure its success and compatibility with surrounding lands and uses. Data Centers are not yet fully understood, but a"Use by Special Review" designation will give Weld the ability to adapt as new opportunities and considerations emerge.Considerations during the special review process may include: a. Data Center operational characteristics; b. Adjacent lands and uses; c. The need for setbacks and screening that consider all potential impacts and surrounding uses; d. Job creation; and e. Existing resources and capacities. 2. Zoning - Heavy Industrial. In addition to being subject to a the special review process, appropriate zoning should be discussed during the workshop to determine if data centers should be classified as light industrial,medium industrial or heavy industrial.Data centers'operations typically have all the hallmarks of a heavy industrial use: they require large footprints, incorporate sound buffers,are resource-intensive,and have limited public access. 3. Agency Standards. Colorado legislature is currently considering two bills that concern the regulation of data centers, HB26-1030 and HB26-102. The Federal government is also considering new regulations addressing data center operations.While State and Federal action are pending,Weld County may want to reserve the flexibility to revise the Ordinance 2026-01 to align with state and nationwide standards,programs and regulations for all data centers that have not yet been approved by Weld County at the close of the 2026 legislative session. We would appreciate the opportunity to further discuss how data centers can successfully co-exist with adjacent uses,and to understand Weld County's evolving approach to these considerations. Please contact either Marc or Dean to schedule an information and workshopping session between Broe,the Board, the Planning Department,and other stakeholders prior to April 6,2026. Please regard us as a partner and resource in your efforts to balance adequate safeguards with new development opportunities. Sincerely, Dean Brown Senior Vice President—Industrial Broe Real Estate Group dbrown@broerealestate.com or(661)-703-8402 //41fte Marc Savela Senior Vice President—Development Broe Real Estate Group msavela@broerealestate.com or(303)-587-026 I Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Perry Buck D Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:52 AM kirk. i To: Esther Gesick ZD 'D Subject: Fw: 260327 - follow up - P. Buck Attachments: Air.Handler jpg;Air.handler2jpg; DJI_0177.JPG; DJI_0178.JPG;fence-line.pdf; Fence.Line3 jpg; Fence.Line2 jpg; Fw: Bryan Lobato has shared a file "DJI_0175.MP4" with you Please include this letter for the record. Thank you Get Outlook for iOS From: Perry Buck Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 8:20:13 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier <Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: FW: 260327-follow up- P. Buck Spoke with Dan Here is what he had to say to me COUNTY,CO Perry L. Buck Commissioner At-Large Board of Weld County Commissioners Desk: 970-400-4206 Cell: 970-302-4013 P.O. Box 758, 1150 0 St., Greeley, CO 80632 0X 0 00 Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 From: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 6:20 PM To: Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: 260327 -follow up- P. Buck This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Perry- Great speaking with you and I appreciate the time! As I mentioned on the call,this zoning process and Ordinance 2026-01 is moving fast—Broe believes to fast to make certain the result is success for Weld County and Data Centers. Our points are very simple;this is not a use that can be responsibly approved with anything less than a Use by Special Review(with mins.for setbacks, noise levels, computing thresholds, and consideration for development, economic impacts to the region). Data centers are new,dynamic, and evolving—One size will never fit all; And Industrial zones I-1, 1-2 nor 1-3 are not a fit,the guardrails are just not in place and can't be in place because nobody knows. I am not confident the Board agrees with us on these two very critical points. At both workshops the Weld County planning team assured all in attendance that their review of each data center would be thorough, and that necessary guardrails would be required. When asked what those guardrails would be the response was"We don't know"—A great honest answer, because nobody knows! And a great answer that reinforces the absolute need for more time and a Use by Special Review designation. As I mentioned at both workshops, Broe has done two minor projects in Weld County, I-1 zoning, and was required to go through the USR process on both. Attached are photos (and a video in the email)of the project that the public is not to mention because it is not a project. It is 100 yards from my office and is in full construction mode.You are welcome to come out and take a look anytime—My office is at 2005 Howard Smith Avenue East—The project is due south of my office. This is a data center. Broe has attempted to coordinate with this group for months regarding power, insurance, coordination and on and on with no luck. It is very clear the group has no interest in working with anyone. For some reason they feel empowered to move full speed ahead, in parallel with the zoning process that will "officially"give them the right to do what is already underway. I can't not think this project is the reason the zoning process is being rushed. And this project is only 100 yards from the two projects mentioned above that Broe was required to run through a USR process. Something just does not feel right. Now is the time to pause,get the zoning issues in order allowing Data Centers to move forward successfully in Weld County. Thanks Perry,we look forward to working with and assisting the County in any way. Dean A. Brown Broe Real Estate Group Senior Vice President Industrial 0:970-460-8754: 2 C:661-703-8402 2005 Howard Smith Avenue East, Windsor,CO 80550 http://broerealestate.com dbrown@broerealestate.com From: Dean Brown Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:42 PM To: 'Perry Buck'<pbuck@weld.go\,> Subject: RE: Inquiry from Meet the Commissioners Webpage Yes. I will send an invite. Thanks! Dean A. Brown Broe Real Estate Group Senior Vice President Industrial 0:970-460-8754: C:661-703-8402 2005 Howard Smith Avenue East, Windsor, CO 80550 http://broerealestate.com dflrrown@broerealestate.com From: Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 1:53 PM To: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate.com> Subject: Re: Inquiry from Meet the Commissioners Webpage CAUTION:This email originated from outside of OmniTRAX or BROE. I will be done around 4:30 today? Will that work? Get Outlook for iOS From: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 11:55:34 AM To: Perry Buck<pbuck@weid.gov> Subject: RE: Inquiry from Meet the Commissioners Webpage This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Perry- If an in person does not work a call is fine. Does that work better with your schedule?? Dean A. Brown Broe Real Estate Group Senior Vice President Industrial 3 0:970-460-8754: C:661-703-8402 2005 Howard Smith Avenue East, Windsor,CO 80550 http://broerealestate.com dbrown@broerealestate.com From: Dean Brown Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 10:31 AM To: 'Perry Buck'<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: RE: Inquiry from Meet the Commissioners Webpage Thanks Perry- How are you looking next week? Dean A. Brown Broe Real Estate Group Senior Vice President Industrial 0:970-460-8754: C:661-703-8402 2005 Howard Smith Avenue East, Windsor,CO 80550 http_//broerealestate.com dbrown@broerealestate.comn From: Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 9:42 AM To: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate.com> Subject: RE: Inquiry from Meet the Commissioners Webpage CAUTION:This email originated from outside of OmniTRAX or BROE. Hi Dean Thank you for your email I have two full days of meetings Thursday and Friday, sorry we can't meet this week Thank you for attending the community meetings on just setting code for data centers Perry WELff • ; sa COUNTY,CO Perry L. Buck Commissioner At-Large Board of Weld County Commissioners Desk: 970-400-4206 Cell: 970-302-4013 P.O. Box 758, 1150 0 St., Greeley, CO 80632 4 0X 0 00 Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 10:38 PM To: Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Inquiry from Meet the Commissioners Webpage This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening Perry- Dean Brown here. I hope you are doing well! I apologize for the late email—The day was a bit crazy but I wanted to make sure I reached out to you today and see if you might be available for breakfast lunch or coffee this week to chat about data centers. Please let me know. It was good seeing you this past Monday evening! Dean A. Brown Broe Real Estate Group Senior Vice President Industrial 0:970-460-8754: C:661-703-8402 2005 Howard Smith Avenue East, Windsor, CO 80550 http://broerealestate.com dbrown@broerealestate.com 5 Esther Gesick From: Bryan Lobato <blobato@broerealestate.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 11:11 AM To: Dean Brown Subject: Fw: Bryan Lobato has shared a file "DJI_0175.MP4" with you Hi Dean, Try forwarding this email to whomever you need to see the video. Hopefully this works! Thanks. Video Password is : 8JGwjp1mKx92 Best, Bryan Lobato, Facilities Manager Broe Real Estate Group Mobile 303.250.6614 BLobato(c�broerealestate.com I BroeRealEstate.com 2005 Howard Smith Ave. E,Windsor, CO 80550 0 Bryan has shared the following file with you: Video of C-20 flyover. Password is:8JGwjp1mKx92 DJI_0175.MP4 The file is password protected.The password will be shared with you separately. Your access expires on May 01,2026 1 13- ©2026 Egnyte,Inc.AU rights reserved. Contact UsiEgnyte.com 2 wwr .. .1 .� > -; ..l', . )* -\ \ Y cc t .�. + i,i � � ) A, tt^ xi > , > 0., )1' ' { '� . \ :•.. :,:,,,,k" .,A.: .14 94'i ''''"---.160' <- ..e.,44/t:;::: i ‘..- 111:' //y t a t - . . \> ,7 j fr— .. - , , 1,8v.:t t. , fit = II(. >< 4 l,'''''' ,,,, I ,, , ,r. OP':-/-\>\ \ "' ________ 0 .Oil° \\\,. ,.„f,,; # 4. •• g - , . .1•,;',.,t tti;t, . t),,,:. ,1.4 \ 1 , ,r'' " .,, 1 - 1 ..,00. .. 4 _ ...._. .. , .;:.i7.,,,,i.i; ‘4tii,, 1. , __ 1 1 ,‘ f t 0. i 1 i , - II I - A. kfre, ... _• 1 0 J.:, ,, ,41,:al • • ',._r•,,' - I - ' • ,i . . ." I �.. ... . ....4.1„.1 f ` Asl . ... .. , .... . .4k, * I w4— • , , , I • N• sw___...i '111°: . "..--.:::.:tr.:2:0P:•Nti:,:1, 1:: *1 ; ;d, AVI - 74'00F•ito' A.;'...`"; - I 47t ..././". .,.I7 I tt .• ! i ail,.. • rr•} 1 \ \ , \ 7 \ \ -\ '\ \ \ \- \. `i' ::\ ' ` \ . � . . � \, \ - \- \ \- • _ % ;; _,. - ` \ -\ � \ \ 4 �-t'.'It '-fi ~� `''� s \ yam , -� .*:.s- . .I. _ ., "\ > , `�� ' ) \i ♦ � opsitvarVR y \ , . , t '� - i • 'fir _\x N N '' ' 1 ': -44 P A. \ l \ l \ V 7 v Ar \ \ 11 ?If\-‘ , \, _ * v. \ \ ---: \ ., ,` , , - V \ \ \ \ 1 t. ,a ;.. ,.: • ,- -, i .,.. r. , ,, . , .....7 :. 4, , , :y .04* 4 \ \ \ is \ \` \ \ • =, aye 44 . , s:t4 0 4,,e ilia' 411 \ 2 \\ \\ if t ' i 14 )', i ) fal4:\ies)..... \‘''.4 , „.._____--) V..., , L--1__.- _Z__11—/• \ \ \ \ ..---- . —Th-47 \ \ \— - \ \ \ \ \ `4., Ai) i i j I If \\AAi . \-- -,,, 0\ , ie.. --iiiN . ,,.-. jp. 4, i 2 ., _. , , j -4,,, 4: / :,-._:-.4 / / N i / / / / / )4\4;61\4)66\JI\\)1\AI i , r i i i ) 1 J i 1 / i 1 172, 1, 1' \ / / i 11 i i I' / i` i I Af fy J ) i ) / 1 I ) I / /j .1Aytid/ / t. / / i i i i / ii i i , A/ fi , / iiiii i i / - ) ) / / ijiii\ i i ,) , "I ‘1 / / � / / i i i / i 1- / / / i/ / / . I i / i / 1i / / / / , . / I / / / , , / / / , , 1 , / 1 ,' Ik -- 1 l 1.4 '\ 1 , lc / \ r ft 1 1 t1' .„-.• " l.t/ il, ' ,/ f 2 , '. V r/ I / X / - , f / is „id / p► 1 4,7/ II A 'a I i ' T. 4,\111111111144414\ 011‘.. t IN v 1 '...> y / 4 i !� ate f 41111114) i } / -woo. a may . y: , � Y '' "' \ ''', . _.. i - r"r • ,.., at 401/91141W41. "2.- s...... ' mk. , ..* ,. de .,,,.. .. . .,e ...• 41. ' 4 -1.,.II . . blikabl - -t'''' • ii.o. • . . _ ,. . . •. •• '-il 1111401111010 4411111%111111111k .4: ., - . . , _ • 7tivillibumw. . -. 411111. . . - , , :-..;:,..._ ,:-•.1,‘,. , ••.,iff.• , - -• - • • - - .- . , ,•- . -...• ___________________________. .._ _ ___.. ._. . _ - - *%i fir k, j14,1( .____. _ _ - -•- ---- - __ • . , -. . . . - • ......___-.0:-.4.,/"9,...,--vi, • _- _ ___ ______._..__ __ . - .....440,k• • --:. . • •ey•-•=q--_-••:-.-No' -'--Ilot ••''. .• , . 4 , . . . .. . „_ ,'• _ .,., . . • „ „ „ , , , . .. , at- ' • • , ',,-.. -...4r,•,,ws. . „ , , , -, „ . ' .,... . .-. , ,'A'' \'0-4'ii., A-1 ..'..74.,...-...TA-'•;',..:". . ,•...,..,.-...,'1,,\,.,.-,,.-.'.,1..,-.,.,. ,v-. \• , , , _ ,, .\.\...'_.,,,, \ - _ . - .. * v.s ‘, .. 5 . 5 -,1-, ,,\\ \- •_.<.,. ., -% . . • .,'•• :,•... .....• ,..._...._ • ... . . . . , , • ..,,.•,,,,.., ••••,\s......,,,,,,•\'7•• • ' _ ,, . . • . ... '-`"••\`'?..i,-\\ . - ''t.\•. ,• - '-,- ''.. . , - * . \. '•k'•;•••': ..-•• ' ,S;NS-..,.\•5,•• •:,\- <_...•-.- - ,. •--- ; if A,,,,i,.,.. ..rc.. ,,,i..?,\•;„,,„....,,,x. ,., ,.., , •..„,_. ',,& ,..,., „.,>,.,,,,ls. 1..„,,,, ‘„ ,,, ., . _ ., .,...s . . •\ • -- . ,‘ •., - . *•:-/•-- -.. '"Y : ,i„,--i- •-•,-;*'•-!K\:- i -•;''':',-" 4. ,,' •,• , - \..,.\ 4,1... , • .. . - . ._, - , 4.., •_ , ,•.,,..,„,,,„. .,,• c. -,N;:, . , ,Pa.• ,". • -. .. • • • ...Nt.,..N.Y•-- ,.<? . --, •:". - - ,...R•• •, • --., *-z.--- * • ...',.. •••••••••4•.•',17,4•7' •*,-, ......* "*\ •.,,,,, -.. -111.** - - • -- - ._ . -*MI kl 'VS. - . - '' - '' -• += ' - ,. '.. , 4; -- .,,..--'\.,a4-0 .. •=' ,,,..,AL,A_ * 4*--.,7-t-f\' ,...-'4.--•. - - -- • - - ,_. .. • , • ., ' '• " ';%•'' ' ' • --4\tT.40--4-'-4 -, .--..'s•-••. ,,• .. *--•. - _ ,- ,. - ',:-'-al- -.-.:•,•-•.; -'1 --.... . % • •,- .7-... - .• ..4,,f. ...• • -,-. ,,_rlt,a .,„„, . . .• . :-. .1.* _ - - - -- . .i 044-0-N--••-N:. -:-:>::,..,-\-,•• •3kit(4.,--...,„- ,,...4.7,,,,-!.ikk .4-.::,...,-,,...„..t.,--,.2.-•-••• .. - , -.7..- r ---- _ _.-1-,- -..;- -,..-.... -_•,,-•;• -,,,_. .1;•••,,, ,- ,...„ . . . . .. - _• , . _. , _-„,,..:..„-, . ,..-., _ •.•,',`• "-•,it -4;•.-----0- 'Iir.'.."--, ....,^-- -''-'4'..." -, -- '4 .-- ,.. - - t&P" ' .114t174--"`%1:0/72;V••-•.fie -'°I'''.1...i,''''• ''.;',.;.:.4,,-,`,"`",'„,-.?„.0,t.07 ----' ' ".', -.i.o.._......,•''.- ."1"2-- if..-:.'.;' -'''''—• .-- '- ' -"--.-'''-----:" '---- • ' - - _ - ... . . . . _ . ,- .,.•-ars- -t . • .- . . . . ..•, . _, . ...._,_ --- ' _ , . - - .--_-. .- - , _ - - _ S. '-'•-''..--.1--:-' . ' -- .. -' '.'- • • •. ,-- ,-,-'l':r.t'T. -frA.INctrit, ''', ' ;"4". ,‘',.,,. - , -,-=. -.• .. .:- - .,-.,• .,.';„, '... • • . . ".. . - -• .'_.......::, - • .r'- . '",`'":.' :.'.-^...;•••'.:.-.,', -.11',,:'.'i-7.,`"•--- ',.' •', ' ';' :' '...-''''•• •".• :.,''.'.-... ,*;';.;;.,..'.1_`-''','...,,'''..4.'..,-`,,'"I''' • • ..- ., '. .-_,T-t....,-":."...::,.._,-:-...-.:-.,..-0:1,1-:''..-:-•-',;':"......:.,-.-. i'4.::, ?,:i,'-;,',:,;.'i,.x.i.'';,'.4.•,...,i'r Zit•,i.L.4.,4...,7:7,',....114,;?:,...:.7,...-\--:,,,-.,...,...,,,,;'),..+,...•,-4,.....„.2.i.,,,,,,,',.,-..m.sr.i:.,......,;;;,.;:.-:,:iys.,...:;,..;.t.''1,:t.,-t. -* -.,::,-,', .. ... . .,.,. . 1 , . . . -ir- : . . , . , ... . _. . .. ._ _.. .. 4.7 . „. . . .. .. . , ..,„..77,7„,wsres.t.t.iltr,r,r9„,. ,..w.„— Esther Gesick EXHIBIT ▪ A• 7Rs_ From: Marc Savela <msavela@broerealestate.com> Z Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:44 PM 34.1D4024P-U To: Karla Ford;Jason Maxey; Scott James; Lynette Peppier; Kevin Ross; Perry Buc Cc: Dean Brown; David Eisenbraun; Esther Gesick Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 Information for additional consideration Attachments: Broe Letter to BOCC - Ord 2026-01 - 4.02.26.pdf This Message Is From an External Sender This email was sent by someone outside Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of the Board and Weld County Planning Thank you for the ongoing efforts and stakeholder meeting regarding Ordinance 2026-01. Please review the letter containing additional information for consideration prior to the hearing scheduled 4.6.26. We remain committed to appropriate regulations for these proposed facilities within the county. Thank you. Marc Savela Senior Vice President— Development Broe Real Estate Group msavela(a broerealestate corn From: Marc Savela Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 10:56 AM To: 'kford@weld.gov' <kford@weld.gov>; 'jmaxey@weid.gov' <jmaxey@weld.gov>; 'Scott James' <sjames@weld.gov>; 'Ipeppler@weid.gov' <Ipeppler@weid.gov>; 'Kevin Ross' <kross@weld.gov>; 'Perry Buck' <pbuck@weld.gov> Cc: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate.com>; 'deisenbraun@weld.gov' <deisenbraun@weld.gov>; 'egesick@weid.gov' <egesick@weld.gov> Subject: RE: Ordinance 2026-01 -Stakeholder Engagement Dear Members of the Board and Weld County Planning— Thank you for your commitment to additional stakeholder engagement and outreach regarding Ordinance 2026- 01. Please see the attached letter with items to consider as we work together to evaluate the potential impacts to Weld County. We look forward to staying engaged in this process. Thank you. Marc Savela Senior Vice President— Development Broe Real Estate Group msavela@broerealestate com From: Marc Savela Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 4:57 PM To: 'kford@weld.gov' <<ford@weld.gov>; 'jmaxey@weid.gov'<jmaxey@weld Gov>; Scott James<siames@weld.gov>; 'Ipeppler@weid.gov' <ipeppler@weld.gov>; 'Kevin Ross' < ,ss@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Cc: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate_com>; 'deisenbraun@weld.gov'<deisenbraun@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01-Second Reading Request for Delay and Continuance Dear Members of the Board- Please see the attached letter requesting a delay of the second reading of the pending Data Center ordinance before you to allow for additional stakeholder engagement. Thank you. Marc Savela Senior Vice President— Development Broe Real Estate Group Main 303.398.4575 Direct 303.398.0418 I Mobile 303.587.0261 msavela(a�broerealestate.com I www.BroeRealEstate.com 252 Clayton Street, Denver, Colorado 80206 2 B ro a 252 Clayton Street,4th Floor Denver, Colorado 80206 303 398 4575 Real Estate Group BroeRealEstate corn April 3,2026 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley,CO 80631 Re: Comments on Weld County's Regulation of Data Centers—Ordinance 2026-01 Dear Members of the Board. On behalf of the Broe Real Estate Group("Broe"),we recognize the efforts being made to proactively draft clear regulations with respect to data center users in Weld County (the "County"). As you may be aware, Broe is a Colorado-based real estate and investment company that has been doing business in the state for over 50 years. Our multibillion-dollar portfolio includes the Great Western Industrial Park("GWIP"),and Access 25 Industrial Park("Access 25"). GWIP spans 3,000 acres and includes residential, industrial and commercial development,while Access 25 spans 300 acres with a main focus on industrial projects. Our portfolio in the County alone reflects our genuine commitment to the future of the County and its neighbors, as evidenced by the range of land uses we support in an effort to contribute to a well-rounded community. Given the evolving research, case studies from across Colorado and the country, and the County's codified responsibility to its community,we urge the Board to permit data centers only in the Heavy Industrial(I-3)zone district under a Special Use Permit. We and our representatives have remained engaged in all opportunities to discuss Ordinance 2026-01. We understand the Board has received our previous letters on this matter,dated February 25,2026 and March 9, 2026. Additionally,we have had the opportunity to speak with a number of you individually and meet with County Planning Director, David Eisenbraun, and County Planning Manager, Max Nadar, to discuss concerns in further detail,as reflected herein. We appreciated the opportunity for this dialogue and learned notable context, including the planning staff's initial recommendation against including data centers as a use by right, subject to review without public hearings, in all industrial zone districts. Following that meeting, we attended the offered public meetings held on March 23, 2026 and March 24, 2026, during which we learned our concerns are shared by the public. To date,the County has characterized Ordinance 2026-01 as a necessary step to provide a clear mechanism in the Weld County Code(the"Code")for enforcement of policy and regulations regarding data centers,as well as a proactive approach to potential data center development. While we do not dispute the authenticity of these intentions,the text of the ordinance is inconsistent with such intentions. Further,the resulting text amendment, taken together with existing regulations, will not prevent the adverse impacts acknowledged by the County and the community. The touted transparency of the Code amendment process alone is materially undermined by the resulting land use process that will ultimately consider proposed data center developments throughout the County. 6600036 5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 2 The County's messaging that the ordinance is"not about any specific project"' is technically accurate,but must be taken alongside the County's additional statements that"[o]ne area of unincorporated Weld County, zoned industrial since 1976 and located near municipal boundaries,is currently being evaluated for a future data center"'and that the County has"quite a few inquiries coming in."3 The County's most recent news update fails to acknowledge the County's intent to partner'with the data center company Global AI,with backing from the Saudi Arabian AI venture"Humain."5 In February,Planning Director,David Eisenbraun, discussed the plans for data centers in the County and,particularly,at GWIP,with CBS Colorado. "The county is partnering with a company named GlobalAl to build the county's first data center near Windsor."' "David Eisenbraun, planning services director for Weld County,told CBS Colorado this first data center is just the beginning of what the county hopes will be a bright future in hosting data and AI facilities. He took CBS Colorado to a property known as the Great Western Industrial Park, previously home to companies like Kodak. However, the property has struggled to retain companies,paving the way for GlobalAl to expand into the space."' The report noted the steps already taken to permit Global AI to operate a data center out of the GWIP site. "While there is currently a tenant operating an unrelated business out of a portion of the property, Eisenbraun said GlobalAl has beg[u]n the process of trying to obtain some of the space for a future data center. The county has already granted permits for the initial phase of the facility which consists of demolishing the interior of the facility in-part."' The County's claim that the sudden rush to amend the Code "is not about any specific project"' is questionable seeing as: the County is positioning itself as a partner on a specific project; has "already granted permits for the initial phase of the facility" for that same specific project; and Planning Director, David Eisenbraun,"took CBS Colorado to a property known as the Great Western Industrial Park"where he stated the property"will be the [C]ounty's very first data center."1' The Planning Director's statements align with public records,which confirm a development project is very much underway at 2000 Howard Smith Avenue at the previous Carestream site within GWIP. Multiple https://www.weld.gov/Newsroom/2026-News/Settinb the-record-straight-on-Weld-County-Code-Chapter-23 2 https://www.weld.gov/Newsroom/2026-News/Weld-County-extends-timeline-for-proposed-data-center-ordinance 3 https://hoodline.com/2026/03/ai-data-land-rush-has-weld-countv-scrambling-for-rules/ https://w\vw cbsnews.com/colorado/new sidata-ai-centers-colorado-clobalai-windsor/ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/humain-forges-partnership-with-global-ai-to-build-large-scale-ai-data- centers--compute-capac ity-i n-the-us-and-global lv-with-the-latest-nvidi a-ai-infrastructure-302620669.11tm I 6 https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/data-ai-centers-colorado-clobalai-windsor% 'Id. $1d. 9 https: iwww.weld.govMewsroom/2026-News/Setting-the-record-straight-on-Weld-County-Code-Chapter-23 10 https://ww-w.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/data-ai-centers-colorado-clobalai-windsori 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 3 permits are under review and multiple permits have already been issued to Global AI. The first request for a Demolition Permit was submitted by applicant John Peret of Phoenix Construction on behalf of the Owner, identified as Global AI,on January 5,2026. A summary of permits to date is as follows: 1. Demolition Permit request, submitted January 5,2026. (Record#CMA26-0006. Record Status: Issued.) The application form lists John Peret as applicant on behalf of owner Global AI. A request to amend and revise this permit was submitted by John Peret on March 12,2026. The amended request listed X-Wave Tech,self-described as providing"infrastructure solutions engineered to meet the exacting demands of modern data centers and communication hubs', as general contractor. (Record # CMA26-0006. Record Status: Issued.) 2. Pre Application Meeting request, submitted February 4, 2026. (Record # PRE26-0028. Record Status: Incomplete.) The Pre-Application Meeting request form, submitted by the applicant, describes an interior renovation of the Kodak Facility Building for construction of infrastructure for data halls. The existing and proposed potable water source is listed as water from the City of Greeley. Operational details note that the data center will be running 24 hours a day and that upon completion of construction the facility will be run by 20 full-time workers. Where the application form requests information on potential on-site nuisances, the applicant writes "the facility will not create dust,waste,debris,visual,noise or odor."' The County staff's correspondence and referral agency responses to this Pre-Application Meeting request reveal two deeply concerning findings:Global AI and the County have been proceeding to process Global AI's data center as a Site Plan Amendment since February and referral agencies have identified notable restrictions on Global AI's project plans. a) Site Plan Amendment. Pre-Application Meeting request form notes the Project Type as a Site Plan Review. Under the Code, today and when this request was submitted, a data center use in I-1 can only be processed under Code Section 23-3-310.F.12 as a "Use by Special Review" and so long as "the use complies with the general intent of the Zone " https://x- wavetech.com/#:—:text—We°020provide 020a%20complete%20range,data%20centers%20and%20communication% 20hubs. 12 See PRE26-0028,https://aca- prod.accela.com!WELD/Cap/CapDetaiI.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&caplD I=26CAP&capID2=0 0000&cap I D3=000GC&agencyCode=WELD&IsToShowl nspection= 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 4 District." The Record includes no correspondence from County staff indicating the requested Site Plan Review process would be unlawful under the Code. b) Power Availability,Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association,Inc. On March 2,2026,the Executive Vice President of Engineering and Grid Advancement for Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association,Inc. ("PVREA")provided a response letter on the application noting the reduced load availability to Global AI over the next few years. The requested load at this time is 35 MW. PVREA flagged that only 23 MW would be available starting in 2029, and that"[a]dditional capacity reductions are anticipated beginning in 2030 due to updated load forecasts, regional load growth, and summer peak system constraints."13 The letter further states that"Tri-State will coordinate with the Southwest Power Pool RTO to pursue long-term transmission improvements in the region to enhance reliability and load-serving capability,"indicating the potential need for system upgrade to accommodate Global AI.I" c) Water Service, City of Greeley. On March 27, 2026,the Director of Water and Sewer for City of Greeley (the "City") provided a response letter on the application acknowledging Global AI's rights as successor-in-interest to Carestream,Inc under the 2'Amendment to Water Service Agreement dated February 29, 2024 (the "2"d Amendment"). The letter provides material clarity as to the long-term status of water availability,as follows: "The 2"d Amendment does not provide any commitment to a durable water supply or any water service commitment to the Global AI site The 2"d Amendment is a short-term agreement and does not,under any circumstances,permit any extension or water use on the former Carestream property beyond the current renewal period that expires on March 31,2027 Greeley will not support, endorse,or tolerate any effort by Global AI,its agents, or successors in interest in obtaining land use approvals or a Certificate of Occupancy (CO)based on the short-term water provided by Greeley under the 2"d Amendment" "Any future water service by Greeley to this site will require the execution of a new treated water service agreement with the city. At a minimum, such an agreement will require annexation of the property to the City of Greeley and the dedication of raw water by Global AI to support treated water service requirements, as outlined in the Greeley Municipal Code. In the absence of annexation and such an agreement,any continued connection to the Greeley system and use of Greeley water supplies (including via Kodak Alaris infrastructure) by Global AI beyond March 31, 2027, is strictly prohibited, 13 Id '4 Id 6600036 5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 5 and the City will undertake any legal action it deems appropriate to enforce that." (emphasis added)15 As of April 1,2026, a hold has been placed on this Record. Planning staff notes that"[p]roposed water supply is insufficient to proceed" and with respect to electricity, the "applicant needs to provide the electricity demand for the request" and "[i]f the demand exceeds the agreement, an alternative electrical supply will be required."16 3. Commercial Alteration request, submitted February 9, 2026. (Record # CMA26-0012. Record Status: Issued.) On February 11, 2026 County Permit Tech, Billie Moore, asked Planning Director, David Eisenbraun,and Planning Manager,Max Nader,whether he could release the permit or continue to "zone hold" since the planner intake states "to accept the permit but do not issue."" Planning Manager,Max Nader,responded with"You may proceed with releasing",but did not explain why. 4. Commercial Alteration requests, submitted February 10, 2026. (Record ## CMA26-0014 and CMA26-0015. Record Status: Issued.) Although the Record Status shows as Issued, associated correspondence on the Record indicates final approval has not been issued. At some point,a planning hold was placed on these Records. Then,on February 18,2026 County Staff Planner,Angela Snyder,wrote to County Permit Tech,Billie Moore,to release CMA26-0014 and CMA26-0015 and explicitly stated the Records could be released "prior to the current amendment request." 5. Commercial Alteration request, submitted March 10, 2026. (Record # CMA26-0021. Record Status: Issue Hold.) As of March 30, 2026, a hold has been placed on this Record. Planning staff notes that final approval cannot be scheduled until planner approval due to a need to"verify prior to operation land use confirmation" and that there is a zone hold pending with a note regarding the Site Plan Amendment. These notes lack clarity but indicate the County's initial intent to proceed under the unlawful Site Plan review process for an undefined and unlisted use in the Code. '5 Id 16 Id 17 https://aca- prod.accela.com/WELD/Cap CapDetail.aspx?Module=Building&TabName=Building&caplDI=26CAP&capID2=0 0000&capID3=000HP&agency Code=W E:LD&IsToShowInspection= 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 6 Based on the permitting records, the County has been processing the Global AI preliminary development permits for the last two months, including demolition and interior renovations, in furtherance of the data center use. Further,the County has been processing the use approval under a Site Plan Amendment with the intent to align final approval with the Code amendment If the Code amendment is not approved in its current form, Global AI cannot proceed under the current Site Plan Amendment clearly endorsed by the County to date There are no correspondence records indicating the County has conveyed to Global AI that the data center use is not permitted in I-1 without a Special Use Permit. It is highly unusual for a developer to spend the time and fees involved in preparing application materials and associated plans without assurance from the jurisdiction that those efforts align with the correct land use process. The public records do not provide verbal communications between the County and Global AI, and it is concerning to imagine what verbal commitments have been made to Global AI that would provide Global AI with the assurance to proceed as reflected over the last two months. Despite these findings,the County maintains there is no specific project to discuss in connection with Ordinance 2026-01. In addition to this lack of candor with respect to the Global AI project, the County's most recent news update presents misguided information to the public in stating that—even if there were a specific project— "Commissioners cannot speak to any specific project,because they sit in a quasi-judicial role when it comes to land use" This statement is highly misleading to community members unfamiliar with rules of ex parte communications,which require no such restriction at this time,since no formal project application has been submitted. To dispel any confusion, Commissioners are permitted to discuss specific projects, properties, and land use proposals with community members up to and until a formal application is submitted. The proposed Code amendment would allow the Global AI project to proceed to development through administrative review,eliminating public hearings and enabling broad data center uses in incompatible zone districts without meaningful public review or tailored enforceable conditions. Therefore, the County's invitation for public comment at the appropriate time and through the proper process is hollow, as the proposed Code amendment eliminates any such opportunity. We urge the County to consider the additional expertise, due diligence, and text amendments necessary to fulfill stated commitments, and adhere to the Code and the Comprehensive Plan. In rendering a final decision on a Code amendment,the Board shall find that the proposed amendment will be consistent with the future goals and needs of the County,as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan,as well as the intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance,as outlined in Code Section 23-1-40. For the following reasons,the proposed Ordinance 2026-01 fails to do so. 1. The County's proposal to add an inconsistent use to the Light Industrial and Agricultural zone districts does not properly classify land uses,encourage the most appropriate use of the land,conserve the value of property,nor"[h]armonize development with surrounding land uses."Code§§22-2-30 and 23-1-40. 6600036 5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 7 Data centers do not align with the purpose nor existing permitted uses in the Light Industrial ("I_l")and Agricultural("A")zone districts. The purpose of the I-1 zone district is to provide a zone to accommodate light industrial and compatible commercial uses that create minimal negative impacts and are conducted primarily in enclosed buildings."Code §23-3-310.A. I-1 properties are"accessible to the public,consumer-oriented, less resource-intensive than heavy industry, have minimal environmental impacts, and may be located near residential areas if designed properly."Id. Additionally,I-1 properties should provide economic development and employment opportunities. Id. Uses in the I-1 zone district permitted subject to Site Plan Review include car washes and gas stations,distribution centers, hotels,offices, lumberyards, and indoor manufacturing,fabricating,assembling or warehousing. Code§23-3-310.A. Each of these uses are consistent with the stated purposes of the I-1 zone district. Further, any potentially permitted uses in the I-1 zone district that may generate minimal negative impact (e.g.,noise or emissions)require a Special Use Permit. For example,concrete batch plants and meat processing uses require a Special Use Permit to operate, ensuring opportunity to restrict hours of operation, lighting,noise limits,and heightened buffering. Further,these uses,while permitted on a limited basis,provide long-term,stable employment opportunities. The A zone district was"established to maintain and promote agriculture as an essential feature of the County."Code §23-3-10. Additionally,the A zone district"is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agricultural activities and activities related to agriculture and agricultural production, and for areas for natural resource extraction and energy development,without the interference of other,incompatible land uses."Id. Ordinance 2026-01 requiring a Special Use Permit for data center uses does not offset the blatant misalignment with the district's purpose nor with similarly treated uses (e.g., child care centers, lumberyards, and compost facilities). Further, certain uses less intensive than data centers and subject to a Special Use Permit are automatically subject to"supplementary regulations"pursuant to Code Section 23,Article IV. With respect to the bulk and scale of the primary structure, data centers share similarities to uses permitted in I-1 and A zone districts. Although the primary structures may appear similar, data centers are not warehouses or schools. Data centers have proven to be most similar to utility facilities and energy processing facilities. Noise levels reach 100 decibels inside facilities and pump out consistent emissions, due to the need for constant, reliable power generation and,therefore,necessary backup systems.18 Over the last few years,jurisdictions across Colorado have begun to permit data centers prior to gaining an understanding of the nature of the use. For example,in Denver,a data center was classified as a"Wholesale Trade or Storage"use. Now,after large data centers have sprung up 18 https:i/www.wri.org/insights/us-data-center-growth- impacts#:-:text=4)%20Mitigating%20noise,plans%20and%20ongoing°o20monitoring%20commitments 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 8 throughout Denver, City officials are planning to place a moratorium on new data centers to give City officials the opportunity to"to review rules around energy and water usage,zoning regulations and potential impacts on residents' utility bills."19 In Larimer County, County officials have preemptively placed a moratorium on new data center applications until August 2026 to allow County staff the opportunity to develop land use regulations to address the specific impacts 2° Consistently, Colorado jurisdictions are realizing that data centers are district uses with significant and weighty negative impacts that warrant further analysis. For these reasons,a data center cannot be deemed compatible with I-1 and A zone districts nor the adjacent, transitional districts that permit residential uses. Permitting data centers, particularly without public hearing review procedures, in close proximity to residential areas does not provide harmony in surrounding land uses due to the extensive human health and well- being concerns further outlined below. Further, permitting data centers in close proximity to residential areas is likely to diminish those residential property values. Due to the public's growing knowledge of data center impacts,home buyers are aware of the consistent noise and light pollution,emissions,and potential utility bill increases associated with living nearby. 2. The County's proposed land use review process does not"regulate the use of land on the basis of the impact of land use changes on the community or surrounding area." Code §23-1-40. Ordinance 2026-01 would permit data centers as uses by right in all industrial zone districts, including the I-1,Light Industrial zone district,that meet the objective standards for Site Plan Review. The Site Plan Review process is not intended for this type of use. Site Plan Review provides some level of development review, but is generally intended to flag inconsistencies with underlying Code regulations and standard development deficiencies,like having a source of water and complying with state-wide noise standards. This review procedure is not tailored to new and emerging uses but uses for which the County has familiarity and established practices. The Special Use Permit process is intended to provide case-by-case review of uses that cannot be deemed compatible with uses by right but could by adhering to tailored conditions. The County has no experience reviewing data center applications nor monitoring operations within its jurisdictional boundaries. It would be irresponsible of the County to expect planning staff and referral agencies to independently assess all potential adverse impacts of data centers or to anticipate every inquiry necessary to ensure application transparency. 19https:i/www.axios.com/local denver//2026/03/02-'denvers-considers-data-center-moratorium 20 https://www.larimer.cov/planningitemp-moratorium-data-centers 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 9 Permitting data centers in low to medium intensity zone districts without public hearings and without the assumption that each project requires tailored conditions, would demonstrate a clear disregard for the negative impacts of data centers that communities across Colorado and, more so,the country,have come to discover. The County states that Ordinance 2026-01 is not about any specific project and if community members are"interested in a specific project,the County encourages you to speak in favor of or in opposition to that project," but to do so "through the correct process at the correct time."21 Further,the County states that"public input is a critical part of the process" and "productive conversation depends on accurate information."22 These statements lack candor and are in direct conflict with the text of Ordinance 2026-01. If approved, the County is stifling the opportunity for a public "productive conversation" on any specific project. Telling community members that they must wait for the appropriate time to voice concerns is disingenuous, since there will be no public venue to share such concerns. Instead,the burden will be placed on community members to track development applications, write letters to planning staff,and wonder whether those comments are acknowledged by their County leaders. Permitting the data center use in any zone district by right, subject only to further administrative approval,diminishes the transparency promised on this matter. 3. The County's proposal to permit data centers in Light Industrial and Agricultural zone districts does not necessarily promote economic growth and stability. Code§22-2-10. The County has acknowledged the potential revenue that data centers may bring in the form of property, sales, and use taxes. Particularly,the County Planning Director, David Eisenbraun, told CBS Colorado that,while"data centers may not create a significant number of jobs",they are expected to create a steady flow of cash from taxes,particularly on data center equipment.23 However,these predicted benefits can be significantly offset by local and state tax incentives. The state legislature is actively advancing a bill,HB26-1030,that would allow a"100%state sales and use tax exemption on qualified purchases to the operator of a certified data center" for 20 years.24 With respect to job growth and employment opportunities, data centers have the ability to provide short-term, temporary construction jobs, but do not provide stable employment opportunities. Although data centers consume extensive land areas, once built, they require few long-term employees. The County should consider the realistic economic benefits of data centers,including job creation,in comparison to the costs imposed on the local community. The lack of revenue potentially associated with data centers directly impacts funding for community resources and shifts the economic burden to residents. 21 httpsJ/www.‘+eld.gov/Newsroonv2026-News;Setting-the-record-straight-on-Weld-County-Code-Chapter-23 22 Id. 23 htti s://www.cbsne«s.com/colorado/newsidata-ai-centers-colorado-globalai-windsori 24 httpsJ/leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1030 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 10 4. The County's proposal to permit data centers by right, subject only to administrative review in low to medium intensity zone districts,and without mitigating development and performance standards, directly conflicts with the foundational intent of the Code to "protect the public health,safety and welfare"as further pledged in the Comprehensive Plan. Code§§22-2-10 and 23-1-40. The adverse impacts of data centers on human health and the environment are not yet fully understood, but clear trends have emerged over recent years. Any commitment to protecting the public health,safety and welfare should ensure mitigation of the following: (a) Water consumption. Water usage is highly dependent upon data center size and systems, but on average, mid-sized data centers require approximately "110 million gallons of water per year for cooling purposes, equivalent to the annual water usage of approximately 1,000 households."25 Large data centers require approximately 1.8 billion gallons annually.26 Data center uses have begun to shift to"closed loop"systems which can decrease daily consumption,but require higher electricity demands which indirectly increase water consumption. While closed- loop systems can decrease water consumption, that decrease must be considered in the context of indirect water consumption and while recognizing lower water consumption does not equate to low water consumption. (b) Energy Bills. Data centers can increase energy bills by triggering development of new power infrastructure either for data center users or surrounding users impacted by data center consumption. Most often though, residents are seeing an increase in energy costs due to the necessary improvements for electricity transmission and distribution (e.g. high-voltage lines), the funding of which is passed through consumer rate changes.27 (c) Noise Pollution. Data center infrastructure maintains 24/7 noise levels of 85 to 100 decibels,comparable to heavy machinery.28 The high-frequency noise levels, while concerning, can be partially mitigated by extensive buffering and sound barriers,so long as jurisdictions put those restrictions in place and monitor ongoing commitments. What is more concerning though, is the consistency of noise produced by data centers. Unlike more traditional industrial uses,data centers do 25 https://www.eesi.org/articles view/data-centers-and-water-consumption 26 Id. 27 https://www.brookings.eduiarticles/confronting and-addressing-risin7 energy-bills-linked-to-data-centers/ 28 https://www.wri.ore/insights/us-data-center-growth-impacts 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page I not have standard day-time operating hours. Instead, the noise produced by cooling systems, extensive generators, and on-site power plants is constant. This consistency,along with the low-frequency noises,is often cited as the main driver to neighbor discomfort and health concerns. Across the county,neighbors adjacent to data centers endure sleep-deprivation, anxiety, nausea, vertigo, and increased blood pressure. In rural settings, these "hums" are reportedly heard miles away from data center locations.29 Additionally,these low-frequency noises have very long wavelengths and are not only experienced audibly. This type of noise is characterized by a vibrational feeling, which cannot be blocked using traditional buffering methods,but only mitigated by ensuring distance from the source. (d) Heat Island Effect. It is well understood that data centers require extensive cooling mechanisms and that cooling can strain water and energy resources. Additionally, though,that cooling process dissipates heat,typically from rooftop vents, into the surrounding area. Temperature increases of approximately 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded in nearby neighborhoods by Arizona State University researchers.30 Notably,the research found increased temperatures in neighboring communities that should have actually experienced lower temperatures,due to the surrounding landscape.31 Due to data centers operating at all hours,the potential increase in night time temperatures in already hot climates is particularly concerning,since heat mortality occurs more frequently during the night. • 5. Finally,the adoption of Ordinance 2026-01 at this time may constitute an inefficient use of County resources,given the potential for imminent changes in applicable state law. As noted above,HB26-1030 proposes a 20-year incentive program to exempt 100%states sales and use tax for medium to large scale data center users. Another"competing"bill, SB26-102, would add regulatory requirements for data centers with a peak load of more than 30 megawatts. The regulations would consider electricity and water consumption, as well as protecting residents from offsetting data center resource strains. Ordinance 2026-01 contemplates none of these material considerations and simply provides a broad definition for data centers uses,as well as an expedited review process in incompatible zone districts. The County notes the need to proactively develop parameters with which data centers must abide,but Ordinance 2026-01 only defers to existing regulations for other types of land uses. 29 https:rrvtww.eesi.org/articlesiviewiconununities-are-raising noise-pollution-concernsabout-data-centers 30 https://www.azlamily.com/2026/03%'I8/arizona-data-centers-warming-neighboring-communities-bv-several- degrees/ 31 Id. 6600036.5 Weld County Board of Commissioners April 3,2026 Page 12 The stated intentions behind the need for this Code amendment is not reflective in the text of Ordinance 2026-01. Moreover, should a formal data center application be submitted in the interim, the County currently possesses adequate authority and procedures to review and evaluate such an application, since unlisted uses similar to permitted uses may proceed under a Special Review Permit and the associated procedures. At this time, passage of Ordinance 2026-01 would only serve to expedite the review of data center applications, potentially limiting the ability of County officials to consider and craft appropriate conditions for approval. We understand the County's position and seek only to advocate for additional research and procedure reflective of the impacts of data centers. With any developing industry,there will be lessons learned along the way, and we urge the County to allow future opportunities to integrate best practices as they become available. We look forward to hearing a productive discussion on the matter on April 6t. Sincerely, li 0. A.L........_' Dean Brown Senior Vice President—Industrial Broe Real Estate Group dbrown@broerealestate.com or(661)703-8402 Mg..17 Marc Savela Senior Vice President—Development Broe Real Estate Group msavela@broerealestate.com or(303)587-0261 6600036.5 EXHIBIT - SEsther Gesick 00)2o2b-of Subject: FW: Support for the Proposed Global Al Data Center in Weld County From: Dayna Prach <davna.prach(a@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:36 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxev@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Support for the Proposed Global Al Data Center in Weld County Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my support for the proposed Global Al data center planned for Windsor. As both a homeowner and business owner in Weld County, I care deeply about the long-term strength, stability, and responsible growth of our community. Weld County has consistently demonstrated thoughtful leadership in balancing economic development with the character and values that make this area such a desirable place to live and work, and I appreciate the role you continue to play in guiding that progress. Projects like this represent an important opportunity for responsible economic growth. A development of this scale has the potential to create meaningful jobs, generate opportunities for local businesses and contractors, and strengthen the county's economic foundation in ways that benefit residents for years to come. A stronger commercial tax base is especially important as our region continues to grow. Strategic investment from projects like this can help support county services and infrastructure while helping maintain tax stability for homeowners and families across Weld County. Beyond the local economic benefits, Al infrastructure is becoming increasingly important to innovation, research, and national competitiveness. Facilities like this help position communities such as Weld County to participate in emerging industries that will shape future economic development, technology advancement, and even national security. I also believe this project presents an opportunity to further establish Weld County as a place where forward-thinking investment, technology, and research can successfully coexist with strong local values and practical planning. Thank you for your continued service and leadership, and for the work you do in evaluating projects that impact the future of our county. Sincerely, Dayna Prach 1992 Cayman Drive, Windsor CO 80550 i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT �. Subject: FW: Proposed Al Data Center s A 0kb2O210-0( From:Jerry Helgeson <ihelgeson@budhouseaed.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 5:09:16 PM To: Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed Al Data Center Kevin, I am writing to formally express my support for the proposed Al data center project in Weld County. This project represents a significant opportunity for our region.The anticipated private investment,job creation, and long-term economic benefits align with the continued growth and stability of our community. Developments of this nature not only strengthen the local tax base but also help ensure that Weld County remains competitive in attracting advanced industries and future-focused technology infrastructure. In addition to its economic impact,the project supports broader goals of innovation and responsible development—both essential for maintaining the county's momentum and preparing for the needs of future generations. I appreciate your ongoing leadership and thoughtful evaluation of initiatives that could enhance Weld County's prosperity and resilience. Thank you for considering this project. Sincerely, Jerry Helgeson 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning 2 D141.202104) From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 8:56:45 PM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Wendy Last Name Nettleton I am concerned about water supply for theAl data center. This will affect Question / residents of FC, Loveland and Weld County not to mention the farmers and Comment ranchers. Please reconsider, this will hurt our community not help it. Email wmnettleton@gmail.com Phone 714-392-9344 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning s A. V OQ w2lc-d I From:Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 9:26:36 PM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Lindsey Last Name Freeman Please do not approve this proposal for a data center in weld county. The Question/ evidence is clear that this is not good for the local economy or the environment. Comment We are in a historic drought and water crisis and cannot afford to power this madness. Email lindseyfreema@gmail.com Phone 3173586948 EXHIBIT Esther Gesick A a . From: Ask The Commissioners (Okb 14.'O1 ► Subject: FW: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) From: Ken Riley<kennethmriley@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 15, 2026 6:50 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey <jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov> Cc: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>; Chloe White <cwhite@weld.gov>; Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov>; Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) To the Weld County Commissioners and Chair Persons I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews.Under no circumstance should the construction of these deeply damaging AI Data Centers be considered a simple "alteration". What is being built?A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial"heat engines" requiring 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water&Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. Multiple credible studies demonstrate the severe health impacts to those that live in proximity..(Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure - PMC,The Dangers of Data Centers, Data Center Noise Regulation: a smarter approach to a global problem - Industrial Noise &Vibration Centre) 3. Regulatory Evasion:The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance" for Phase 1. By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE)that would require public oversight. However, their own plans show Phase 2, a much larger "Common Plan of Development" that will eventually cover several acres. By publishing these plans they admit that expanding beyond one acre is not just possible, but is the current plan, clearly showing an effort to avoid regulation. i The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals" from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review(USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. This clearly demonstrates intentional negligence regardless of the threat and harm to the community's health and infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Kenneth Riley (m) 970-672-7241 (e) Kennethmriley@gmail.com 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Dissent for Al Data Center1.1 02b2O2Io..O1 From: Evans, Kyle < vansK@AyresAssociates.com> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:05 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Dissent for Al Data Center Commissioners, I am writing as a Larimer County resident who is worried about the proposed 500-acre Al data center. I support economic growth, societal progression, and access to powerful tools. I am not anti-Al. However, I don't think this project is a smart choice for the Northern Colorado community. Specifically, I fear the project will negatively impact our water supply, increase energy demand in the area, make permanent and unpredictable alterations to land-use (from this project and into the future), incur unknown economic trade-offs, and fail to produce meaningful employment opportunities. Water: Colorado is already struggling with water demand, and even local officials have pointed out growing tension between urban and agricultural water needs. A recent Longmont Leader report described how cities are aggressively securing additional water rights as the supply tightens in our region. Data centers are known to use large amounts of water for cooling, especially Al data centers, and approving this project without a clear understanding of water-use impacts puts local farms and residents at risk. Energy: According to coverage in the Greeley Tribune (summarized in a recent Weld County news sheet), Al data centers require "enormous" amounts of electricity. Northern Colorado utilities are already facing major challenges in meeting increased demand. A facility this large will probably force expensive grid upgrades. The costs of these grid upgrades will be borne by ratepayers, not by the company that builds and operates the data center. Land-Use: Considering this project has already catalyzed a rezoning conversation, Weld County itself has clearly acknowledged that data centers raise serious land-use questions. The county recently extended its timeline for new zoning rules because data centers aren't even defined in the current code, and officials say they need more study and public input before moving forward. A 500-acre industrial complex would permanently change the character of the area, assuredly limiting future options for agriculture or housing. Economics: Reported by the Longmont Leader, the proposed project is tied to a state bill offering 20 years of sales-tax exemptions for data centers. That means Weld County will take on the environmental and infrastructure burdens while receiving very little tax revenue in return. Surrounding civil infrastructure will be the responsibility of Weld County. These economic burdens will be passed on to the community, one way or another. Jobs: The boost in short-term employment opportunities will be outweighed by the fact that data centers create very few long-term jobs (dozens). The few long-term jobs that are created require specialized training and/or advanced technical backgrounds. Without a thoughtful workforce training plan, it is unlikely that those long-term jobs will be filled by locals. In summary, I do not want to see this Al data center go to construction. I do not want a zoning code change to allow for this project, or more like it. The negative impacts, rather than the few benefits, will be overwhelmingly felt by communities in Northern Colorado. Thank you for taking the time to read this, Kyle Evans Kyle Evans, EIT 1 Hydraulic Engineering Staff VtL AVRES TOP r RIVER ENGINEERING-. WATER RESOURCES / 411* 3665 JFK Parkway, Bldg. 2, Suite 100 I Fort Collins, CO 80525-3152 Office: 970-797-3542 ! Direct:970.797.3542 Ayres Associates Inc. www.AyresAssociates.com Ingenuity, Integrity, and -ger. . f in 0 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Data Center Zoning Complaint! a O LO From: stephen agenbroad <sagenbroad@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:17 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Al Data Center Zoning Complaint! Hi. Please pass this email to the entire board of Commissioners: Commissioners, I am writing as a Larimer County resident who is worried about the proposed 500-acre Al data center. I support economic growth and the powerful tool that Al is. I want to emphasize that I am not anit-Al. I am a water resource engineer who cares deeply for our Northern Colorado community. However, I don't think this project is a smart choice for the Northern Colorado community. Specifically, I fear the project will negatively impact our water supply, increase energy demand in the area, make permanent and unpredictable alterations to land-use, incur unknown economic trade-offs, and fail to produce meaningful employment opportunities. Water: Colorado is already struggling with water demand, and even local officials have pointed out growing tension between urban and agricultural water needs. A recent Longmont Leader report described how cities are aggressively securing additional water rights as the supply tightens in our region. Data centers are known to use large amounts of water for cooling, especially Al data centers, and approving this project without a clear understanding of water-use impacts puts local farms and residents at risk. Energy: According to coverage in the Greeley Tribune (summarized in a recent Weld County news sheet), Al data centers require "enormous" amounts of electricity. Northern Colorado utilities are already facing major challenges in meeting increased demand. A facility this large will probably force expensive grid upgrades. The costs of these grid upgrades will be borne by ratepayers, not by the company that builds and operates the data center. Land-Use: Considering this project has already catalyzed a rezoning conversation, Weld County itself has clearly acknowledged that data centers raise serious land-use questions. The county recently extended its timeline for new zoning rules because data centers aren't even defined in the current code, and officials say they need more study and public input before moving forward. A 500-acre industrial complex would permanently change the character of the area, assuredly limiting future options for agriculture or housing. Economics: Reported by the Longmont Leader, the proposed project is tied to a state bill offering 20 years of sales-tax exemptions for data centers. That means Weld County will take on the environmental and infrastructure burdens while receiving very little tax revenue in return. Surrounding civil infrastructure will be the responsibility of Weld County. These economic burdens will be passed on to the community, one way or another. Jobs: 1 The boost in short-term employment opportunities will be outweighed by the fact that data centers create very few long-term jobs (dozens). The few long-term jobs that are created require specialized training and/or advanced technical backgrounds. Without a thoughtful workforce training plan, it is unlikely that those long-term jobs will be filled by locals. In summary, I do not want to see this Al data center go to construction. I do not want a zoning code change to allow for this project, or more like it. The negative impacts, rather than the few benefits, will be overwhelmingly felt by communities in Northern Colorado. Thank you for taking the time to read this, Stephen Agenbroad Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) EXHIBIT 1pa From: dani pritchard <dani_pritchard@yahoo.com> oQD2O34O-0l Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 8:55 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov>; Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) To the Weld County Commissioners and our Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial "heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large- scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water & Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance" for Phase 1. By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE) that would require public oversight. Their own plans, however, show a much larger "Common Plan of Development" that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals" from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review (USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Daniela Ray The Overlook Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize Conquer 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No to data centers in weld county "B_A o2beo?_lo-Ol From:Jeremy White<jtwhite1000@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 3:52 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: No to data centers in weld county Hello, Im a voting citizen of weld county. Im also a practicing geoscientist. A data center in the dry,water- restricted climate of northern colorado is a poor use of our limited resources. Data centers consume large amounts of power and water, essentially using our tax-funded infrastructure without paying in. Data centers may bring temporary construction jobs, but then provide minimal additional long-term economic benefit. There are much better uses of our shared resources in weld county. Jeremy White 1218 Crescent Dr,Windsor, CO 80550 i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Global Al Center II .11.$via ORDZO&p-O From: Loree Devine<moonmuse21@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 21, 2026 7:22 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Global Al Center To the Weld County Commissioners and our Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site(2000 Howard Smith Ave).While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration,"a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center.These facilities are not traditional offices;they are massive industrial"heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1.Water&Chemical Contamination:The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000- square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event,this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures,toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2.Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant,24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise,this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents.The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion:The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance"for Phase 1. By doing so,they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE)that would require public oversight.Their own plans, however, show a much larger"Common Plan of Development"that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals"from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging.A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review(USR),the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Loree Devine 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Public health and environmental risks 1. e., Q2�azD�-o� From: Mary Hanna <mxhanna@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 9:09 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Public health and environmental risks Subject: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) To the Weld County Commissioners and our Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial "heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water & Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000- square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance" for Phase 1. By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE) that would require public oversight. Their own plans, however, show a much larger "Common Plan of Development" that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals" from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review (USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Mary Hanna 642 Denali Ct Windsor CO "When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. " — John Muir 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center 43•11) 20210-Ot From:Jennifer Cheney<jenecheney@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 6:46 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Hello Ester Gesick, My name is Jen and I am reaching out voicing my concerns about the data center coming to Windsor. This area is already taxed for natural resources and the data center would put us over the top. I'm concerned about the noise and possible future health issues of living in a community with a data center. Please do not allow this to be built. It will not increase jobs long term or help the community at all. Please keep Colorado beautiful and a destination may want to live and visit. Thank you for your time in listening to my concerns and taking them to heart. Jennifer Cheney EXHIBIT Esther Gesick 1*E b2o210-01 Subject: FW: I would like more information on the proposed data center in Windsor From: Lisa Dobel <dobell757@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 21, 2026 8:00 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: I would like more information on the proposed data center in Windsor I would like the opportunity participate and comment. It is pretty sneaky that the the residents most affected are being circumvented by the company planning this facility!That says a lot about their quality, honesty and care about the local community! Thank you, Lisa Dobel Esther Gesick From: Lisa Dobel <dobell757@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:13 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Make the company answer to local communities before allowing an Al Data Center This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. I don't care who annexes this facility but before any approval for an Al Data Center happens this company needs local community approval! They need to pay for and maintain any infrastructure required to operate it. They can be allowed to create ZERO noise pollution. An pay for construction and operation of 100% renewable power supply to accommodate their electric needs. The air quality on the front range has gone from moderately dangerous to human health to serious already. Their power demand cannot increase air pollution on the front range by requiring increased fossil fuel to accommodate them. Their water needs cannot exceed what is needed to operate with out millions of gallons for cooling purposes And all of this with zero reimbursement from local government bodies! Again there is zero benefit to the local community from this proposed deal. I live close to this facility, and we the people, will make sure they don't operate without all these requirements being met. You can add this comment to the request for input on Al Data Center rules Weld County is making it so they can destroy our community with no local input. When Kodak and CareStream operated there we had zero noise pollution to the local community. They also operated without wasting millions of gallons of water in a high desert location with limited water resources. Lisa Dobel 1301 Lake Circle Unit C Windsor, CO 80550. Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Urgent matter F 20.a'o—Ol t From:Vanessa Arostegui <arvanessagarcia@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2026 8:45 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Urgent matter The amount of water needing for this is worrisome!We aren't getting enough snow we have declared drought. In the WINTER season. Not spring not summer, but in the winter!!! We shouldn't have wildfires during the winter. Aren't you concern for yourself or family or friends or even pets?What are you personally getting out of this?We should focus more on how to help stop climate change and stop global warming! That is something we should address and explore! Not some ai center. Where are our priorities?? To the Weld County Commissioners and our Windsor Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration,"a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial "heat engines"that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water& Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks"hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre"Limit of Disturbance"for Phase 1. By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE)that would require public oversight. Their own plans, however, show a much larger "Common Plan of Development"that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals"from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review (USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT N 21. ..C., Subject: FW: Comment: Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers g 2bZ0-ot From: Tiana <tianablackmon@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 8:06 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Comment: Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers Dear Members of the Board, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed ordinance regarding the establishment of data centers in our community, as detailed in the first reading of Chapter 23, Zoning, specifically the inclusion of data centers in the A (Agricultural) Zone District and other industrial zones.While it is acknowledged that data centers are integral to our digital economy, I urge you to consider the significant negative impacts they may have on our community and environment before proceeding with this ordinance. First and foremost, data centers consume vast amounts of energy and water, raising serious concerns about their environmental footprint. For instance, a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that data centers in the U.S. alone consumed about 70 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2014, and this number has risen to 176 Terrawatt hours (as of 2023) as demand for digital services expands -this is comparable to the energy consumption of 16 million homes for the year. This immense energy consumption not only contributes to increased greenhouse gas emissions but also places undue strain on local energy grids, especially during peak usage. Furthermore, many of these facilities rely on water for cooling purposes, which can exacerbate local water scarcity problems, particularly in regions prone to drought. Additionally, the establishment of data centers impacts local land use and can threaten agricultural sector viability. By re-zoning agricultural land for industrial purposes, we risk displacing traditional farming operations and reducing local food production capabilities. This transition can lead to detrimental economic shifts, ultimately harming our community's long-term sustainability and food security. There are also concerns regarding the potential for increased traffic and noise pollution associated with data centers. The heavy machinery required for construction, as well as the ongoing operations of these facilities, generates substantial noise and increases vehicle traffic, impacting the quality of life for nearby residents. The scale of these facilities can often lead to the creation of massive concrete structures that are incongruous with the character of our agricultural landscape, disrupting both the aesthetic and cultural values of our community. Moreover, the proliferation of data centers raises cybersecurity and privacy issues. As they become larger repositories of our digital information, any breach at these facilities poses significant risks to individuals and businesses alike, heightening the need for robust security measures that may not be feasible for smaller municipalities. In conclusion, while the integration of data centers may present economic opportunities, it is critical to i weigh these against the potential environmental degradation, disruption of local agriculture, increased traffic, noise pollution, and cybersecurity challenges. I urge you to consider these multifaceted implications and to prioritize sustainable development practices that better align with the long-term well-being of our community and environment. Thank you for considering my plea in opposition to this ordinance as you deliberate on the future of our community's zoning regulations. Kind regards Tiana Blackmon 229 1st St Unit A Windsor, CO 80550 2 Esther Gesick From: Ask The Commissioners Subject: FW: NO on Al Data Centers From:Tiana<tianablackmon@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:53 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: NO on Al Data Centers Dear Members of the Board, I am writing to express concern regarding the current approach to zoning and regulation of Al data centers in our county, particularly the classification of these facilities as"light industrial." First, I urge you to reconsider whether"light industrial"is an appropriate designation for Al data centers.This classification typically carries the least amount of regulatory oversight,yet these facilities operate at a scale and intensity that more closely resembles heavy industrial use. Given their substantial energy demands, infrastructure requirements,and potential community impacts, a more stringent zoning category would better reflect their true footprint and ensure appropriate safeguards are in place. Second, I want to address the repeated deferral of pollution concerns to the Environmental Protection Agency. While it is true that the EPA sets baseline regulations, it is also true that many federal protections have been reduced in recent years, leaving gaps that directly affect local communities. Importantly,the county has the, authority to implement standards that are more stringent than federal requirements. Relying solely on federal oversight overlooks the commission's ability—and responsibility—to protect residents through stronger local regulations tailored to our specific needs and risks. Third,water use has been presented as a minimized concern due to the use of closed-loop cooling systems.While these systems do reduce on-site water consumption,they come with a significant tradeoff:substantially higher energy demand.That increased energy must be generated elsewhere, often by power plants that themselves consume large amounts of water. In effect,this shifts rather than eliminates the water burden.Although utilities and state agencies play a role in energy production,the county can still influence outcomes by conditioning project approvals on responsible energy sourcing strategies,such as reducing reliance on water-intensive power generation. - Ultimately, it is misleading to suggest that the county lacks meaningful authority in this matter.Through zoning decisions and conditional approvals,the commission has powerful tools to require stronger oversight, enforce higher standards,and guide whether and how these facilities are developed—or whether they are appropriate for this community at all. I encourage you to fully exercise that authority to ensure that any decisions made reflect the long-term interests of the county and its residents.Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tiana Blackmon 229 1 st St. Windsor,CO 80550 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT NSubject: FW: We do NOT want a data center here!! OPD 2O2—O From:Jennifer Walker<jenniferandajfitzgerald@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 12:06 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: We do NOT want a data center here!! To our elected officials, As a Greeley resident and property tax payer, my household does NOT want or support a data center being constructed in our community. Given Colorado has already received less snow this year than normal and is experiencing 70 degree weather in March, a data center would put significant strain on our farming community. It is common knowledge that data centers create an enormous use of water and electricity(the financial burdens of which have been shown to be passed on to consumers), and emit humming noise heard from miles away. The toll that comes from such a large industrial facility is not worth the risk to our economy and community. I implore you to take action to prevent our community from becoming subjugates to these corporations that don't live here and don't understand our values. We want freedom from corporate and governmental control, not more of it. Respectfully, Jennifer Walker 628 15th St Greeley, CO 80631 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT b --g Subject: FW: Data center •1. Q120302 0( From:Chad Christensen<christensen.c34@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 10:53:07 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Data center Hello, As a member of Weld County I am against the construction of data centers given the impact it will have on our community including noise pollution along with enormous energy and water consumption. Chad Christensen 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Concern Regarding GlobalAl Facility �3 oft z4.2L,-a From: Marisha Pelnar<mvpelnar@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:51:29 PM Cc: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Concern Regarding GlobalAl Facility Good Afternoon, I am contacting you as a concerned resident of Windsor and Weld County. I have been made aware of the proposed data center in the old Kodak industrial site. As a mother of young children, I am worried about the long-term environmental effects of an Al data center so close to our home. I am also concerned about the historically poor local benefits of Al data centers and the potentially staggering costs. I hope Weld County will stand up for the residents and farms in the area. I realize you may see more of a benefit to this endeavor than I do, however, I ask that you remain critical of the company's proposal. Please keep in mind that two things can be true -America might need more data centers and the current race to build is leaving behind thoughtful regulation and governance decisions. Sincerely, Marisha Pelnar ;40, �-- EXHIBIT • off, EN r WELD COUNTY, CO Home(https://www.weld.gov/Home) / 2026 News(https://www.weld.gov/Newsroom/2026-News) / Informational sessions on proposed code update regarding data centers Informational sessions on proposed code update regarding data centers Published on March 16, 2026 The Weld County Planning and yyELO „,� Development Services Department will host two informational sessions for residents regarding a proposed code update (Chapter Development Activity Map 23 of the Weld County Code) to address A tour of active and upcoming development projects in Weld County,Colorado data centers in unincorporated areas of the county. The public is invited to attend either meeting and learn about the proposed ! �!�i update, which will go to third and final reading on April 6 at the 9 a.m. board of commissioners meeting, and why it is being considered. Informational sessions will be held: Monday, March 23, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. at the Weld County Administration Building Events Center, located at 1150 0 St., Greeley. Tuesday, March 24, from 6 to 7:30 p.m. at the Weld County Southwest Services Complex, located at 4209 County Road 24.5, Firestone. Since data centers are not currently defined in the county's code, the update through this ordinance is necessary. Under the proposal, data centers could be considered in unincorporated Weld County in the industrial zone through the county's administrative Site Plan Review (SPR) process or in the county's agricultural zone through a Use by Special Review (USR) process. The informational sessions will also include brief explanation about how and why the county does not manage or have jurisdiction over water or power, two items that often come up in discussions about data centers. The final public hearing for the proposed code amendment is scheduled for April 6 at 9 a.m. in the Centennial Hearing Room at the Weld County Administration Building, 1150 0 St. in Greeley. For more information about the proposed ordinance and Weld County planning processes, visit the Long-Range Planning webpage (https://www.weld_gov/Government/Departments/Planning= and-Development-Services/Planning-and-Zoning/Long-range-Planning? tang update=639089112489929015). Tagged as: Media Releases 3/23/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services 7►r!±!y Informational Session Chapter 23 - Zoning Inclusion of Data Centers An overview of Chapter 23- Data Center regulations, presented by Department of Planning Services staff weld.gov� 1 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services Define and Clarify Right now, Weld County Code does not address data centers at all. Therefore, there are no current guidelines for the Planning Department to refer to if/when an application for this type of use is received. The code change will: 1 . Define what is considered a data center 2. Clarify where data centers are allowed within unincorporated Weld County 3. Address noise level standards weld.gov� 2 1 3/23/2026 Weld County Government 1'j, Department of Planning Services Co-��L,T'L Define Definition of Data Center: DATA CENTER: A BUILDING or BUILDINGS used to house information technology or telecommunications equipment with which digital information is processed, transferred, and/or stored. A DATA CENTER may include associated ancillary STRUCTURES, including, but not limited to, OFFICES, security BUILDINGS, cooling water tanks, and backup power systems with a total capacity of less than fifty (50) megawatts. weld.gov \ 3 Weld County Government ��j Department of Planning Services WELD Clarify Specify where allowed: • All Industrial zones (I-zone): Site Plan Review. • Site Plan Review(SPR): Involves site-specific review and may include conditions or requirements based on the proposal's location and type but does not include a public hearing component. • Agricultural zones outside of subdivisions and historic townsites(Ag-zone): Use by Special Review. • Use by Special Review (USR): Involves site-specific review, may include conditions or requirements based on the proposal's location and type, and includes a public hearing component. —� weld.g0 �\ 4 2 3/23/2026 Weld County Government `j. Department of Planning Services Ca�,YL Noise • Change reference to C.R.S. to Chapter 14, Health and Animals, Article IX, Noise, of Weld County Code. • Only addresses db(A). (Same definition as C.R.S.) • Add a db(C) limit of 65 decibels at any point within 25 feet of property line. Land Use 7 a.m.to 9 p.m.(db(A)) 7 p.m.to 9 a.m.(db(A)) Residential or 55 50 Commercial Areas&Non- specified Areas Industrial Areas 80 75 &Construction Activities weld.gov \\ 5 Weld County Government WELaDepartment of Planning Services COUNTY. Noise • USRs: Sec. 23-2-250. - Operation standards. • Subsection A: • The operation of the USES shall comply with the noise standards enumerated in Section 25-12-101 , et seq., C.R.S. • SPRs: Sec. 23-2-160. - Application requirements for site plan review. • Section 1 : Noise. USES shall be located, designed and operated in accordance with the noise standards as established in Section 25- 12-101 , et seq., C.R.S. weld.go� 6 3 3/23/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services DECIBEL SCALE Noise 140 dB Fireworks .3o dB let[.amine USES shall be located, designed, and 1¢odB 5;en I I operated in accordance with the „odB T.0.06on noise standards as established in 100 dB 01Beo9rer ' Chapter 14,Article IX,of this code. In qo dBMEM Ba;. ".. addition to the dB(A) noise limits in Bode Truck IOW Section 14-9-40 of this code, no USE 70 dB I car :p shall be allowed to exceed a C-scale � 60 dB Con .e. 1011 rite noise limit of 65 dB(C) as measured at any point within twenty-five (25) feet So dB I Petri;era.or . of the subject property boundary. 40dB 11=1. 30A° MIL..._ Rustled Leaves 41110 A noise mitigation plan indicating odB11111 't anticipated noise levels and n dB Breuh proposed mitigation may be required. dB \/ weld.gov 7 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services LEt �o�'=B',LL Important facts • Weld County does NOT provide utilities • Weld County does NOT provide water Applicants are responsible for coordinating directly with the appropriate utility providers to verify required service capacities. weld.gov \\ 8 4 3/23/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services 7��+ i What's next? Third reading for Ord26-01 to be heard on April 6, 2026. Location: 1 150 0 Street, Greeley, CO 80631 Time: 9:00 am Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers ,;- ,. Fo. ,o ' weld.gov� 9 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services oA„Y�o Connect with Us! General questions on code: Maxwell Nader, Deputy Director Comments for Ord26-01: mnader@weld.gov AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov Jim Flesher, Long Range Planner jflesher@weld.gov weld.gov� 10 5 3/23/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services Co„;!r,CO Connect with Us! www.weld.gov @WeldCountyCO @WeldCountyGovernment @weld-county X _weldgov 0 @WeldCountyCO weld.go� 11 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services COUNTY.CO DECIBEL SCALE tao dB r[rewotks �_it too dB IIMIMM12tEr_.2.___gine too dB no dB TrnOhnne ioo dB Helicopter 90 OP11111.11111. Belt Dtyer T 8o dB Truck 7odBMIMI Car .0 e1 6o dB .. .^,1` Conversation 7 -- v ro dB �- Refrigerator . ao dB Rain 3.d^ Rustle of Leaves 414 rodb Whisper wit 10 d b Breath weld.gov� odI 12 6 3/23/2026 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services o, n o Noise, decibels, dB(A) vs. dB(C) • dB (Decibel): • One-tenth of a bel, a measure of loudness or sound pressure named for Alexander Graham Bell, which is why the B is usually capitalized. • A weighted scale for judging loudness that corresponds to the hearing threshold of the human ear. • Not a straight line. A 50 dB(A) noise is about 316 times louder than a 25 dB(A) noise. • dB(A): Primarily focuses on mid-range frequencies, making it suitable for general noise assessments. • dB(C): Provides a flatter response across the frequency spectrum, capturing low-frequency and peak sounds, which is useful for measuring impulse noises. weld.gov \` 13 Weld County Government Department of Planning Services co -tc.11 Section 25- 12- 101 , et seq., C. R.S. • Maximum permissible noise levels. • Only addresses db(A). • "db(A)" means sound levels in decibels measured on the "A" scale of a standard sound level meter having characteristics defined by the American national standards institute, publication Si. 4- 1971 • Several exemptions such as railroads, electrical transmission lines, etc. Zone 7 a.m.to 7 p.m.(db(A)) 7 p.m.to 7 a.m.(db(A)) Residential 55 50 Commercial 60 55 Light Industrial 70 65 Industrial 80 75 weld.gov \\ 14 7 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center S 410 L cJ b ZOZ '-01 From: Glen Brozovich <glenrb5l@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:57 AM To: Maxwell Nader<mnader@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center I attended your meeting Monday evening to discuss zoning for a Data Center. Several good points were brought up which your group acknowledged and noted. I do believe that it would be a good idea to have follow up meetings when the County finalizes the Zoning Code.There are several examples of poorly planned Data Centers across the country that have been highly publicized. As mentioned last night the towns and counties need to get it done right the first time. Thanks for your time and information last night Glen Brozovich 2127 Gather Dr Windsor i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: 14% a �. s From: Ed J. <bikeed2929@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:09 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Forget annexation, the whole project should be halted. The energy an Al data center uses is extremely high. Look into other sites and the problems that resulted. Especially, if power is generated on site. Plus, very few jobs are created. Windsor will regret this if it is approved. Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data center a B . oRtstx 2(o-OI From: Marie Torgerson <travandmarie@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:29 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Data center I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Al data center development near our neighborhood. While I understand the growing demand for digital infrastructure, placing a large-scale data center in close proximity to residential homes raises several serious concerns that I urge you to carefully consider. First, the environmental impact cannot be overlooked. Data centers require significant amounts of electricity and water to operate and cool their systems. In a region where resources can already be strained, this level of consumption could negatively affect both the environment and local infrastructure. Second, the potential for constant noise from cooling systems and backup generators is troubling. These facilities often operate 24/7, and the persistent hum can disrupt the quality of life for nearby residents. Third, there are concerns about property values. The presence of an industrial-scale facility adjacent to a residential area may deter future buyers and reduce home values, directly impacting homeowners who have invested in this community. Additionally, increased traffic during construction and ongoing operations could create safety issues and congestion in what is currently a quiet neighborhood. I respectfully ask that you reconsider the location of this project and explore alternative sites that are better suited for industrial development, away from residential communities. At a minimum, I urge you to conduct a thorough environmental and community impact assessment with full transparency and meaningful opportunities for public input. Thank you for your time and consideration of the concerns of local residents. Sincerely, Travis and Marie Torgerson Esther Gesick Subject: FW: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) EXHIBIT From: Melissa Bressler<mbressler521@gmail.com> ; 11w0 Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 1:13 PM OQDzcao-bl To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) To the Weld County Commissioners and our Windsor Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial "heat engines"that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large- scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water& Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance" for Phase 1. By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE) that would require public oversight. Their own plans, however, show a much larger "Common Plan of Development" that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals" from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review (USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al center17 C� ZoZlo-01 From: Sherri Stinnett<sherri@sorarg.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 2:53 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Al center Please do not allow the Al center in Weld County. We do not need or want it in Weld County. I live in Weld County, and it would be very close to my house. As we have all seen in the past what we are told is going to happen isn't always the case without very strict regulations and oversight. If not, companies will always do what makes them the most money. Thank you, Sherri Stinnett Esther Gesick From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@uc-cxn- ladc.co.weld.co.us> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:00 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Message from Unavailable (9706991745) Attachments: VoiceMessage.wav r . , 0, Categories: ViewMail Yes, hello. My name is Roxanne. I am a resident of Greely in Well County and I'm trying to figure out why you're building an Al data center in Colorado.Where do you expect the money and the electricity and the water to come through?We're in one of our biggest throats ever, and you guys want to add a data center in Colorado and kill millions of people. Make it make sense.970-699-1745. 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al DATA CENTER I .iR B C wzoZ.io-OI From: kim b. <ak kimby@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:17 PM To:Jennifer Finch <jfinch@weld.gov> Subject: Al DATA CENTER I urge the commissioners to vote NO! EVERY TOWN that has let these in REGRETS IT!! Water usage, even on closed systems is too much for our County to bear! Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer 1 Esther Gesick From: Ask The Commissioners Subject: FW: Al Data centers From: kim b. <ak_kimby@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:25 PM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Al Data centers WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT AN Al DATA CENTER in Weld County, or in Colorado for that matter. vrry town that I have read abpit thst let one of these in REGRETS IT! Evrn a closed loop system uses too.much water gor our water lacking County!! Also. CLOSED LOOP SYSTEMS use more electricity/Energy this will be a burden on us! We are 67 and 68 and have gotten along perfectly well without Al in our lives!Dont cave in because of dollar signs in your eyes!!Vote NO! Greg and Kim Bowdish 404 Immigrant Trail, Severance Yahoo Mail: Search,Organize, Conquer Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Annexation of property for data center and data center in general EXHIBIT From: Caitlin Kingsbury/Dunlap<cedunlap85@gmail.com> iito s Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:27 PM • To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> ♦'+► Subject: Annexation of property for data center and data center in general Hello, I'm writing as a concerned resident who feels deeply uneasy about the proposed data center. A lot of us in the community are struggling to understand how this project makes sense, especially given what we're dealing with right now. We're in a drought, and our water bills just went up by 26%. Families are being asked to cut back and conserve, yet this facility would use an enormous amount of water every single day. It feels unfair and out of touch with the reality we're living in. There's also the issue of power. Data centers require huge amounts of electricity, and it's hard not to worry about what that means for our grid, our costs, and our environment. Our grids already have issues. On top of that, people in other communities have reported health concerns tied to similar facilities — noise, pollution, and general strain on local resources. These aren't small things to brush aside. Have you seen the damage the polluted water did in friendly hills in Morrison, CO in the early 80's. Children died of cancer rates unseen before, meningitis and other deadly illnesses, all from Lockheed Martin (then Martin Marietta) polluting the water. Those children died horrible deaths. It's unclear how safe these data centers are and what they do to the water and the death of our children would be on your shoulders. And everyone would know and remember your names. What makes this even more frustrating is that many of us feel like we haven't been told the full truth. We were told this project couldn't be stopped, yet other towns have successfully pushed back on similar developments. It leaves people feeling misled and, honestly, gaslit. That kind of breakdown in trust is hard to repair. Not to mention the only reason we even knew about these meetings was community sharing. The whole thing lacks integrity and will not be forgotten. I'm asking you to put the community first. This project doesn't reflect our needs, our current conditions, or our long-term well-being. I strongly urge you to reconsider and reject the data center proposal. Please think of the people you represent and prioritize real people over money. Thank you Caitlin Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners / le) Subject: FW:Al Zoning in Weld County WZ(O-n1 From: Hardy Massoudi <hardymassoudi@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:35 PM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Cc: Lisa Massoudi <Imm2819@yahoo.com> Subject:Al Zoning in Weld County Dear Commissioners, I would appreciate you considering the postponement of the AI zoning vote in our county till more data is becoming available. The environmental impacts of AI data centers are well documented via their immense energy consumptions, intensive water usage for cooling and noise pollution to support their year around operations. Yours, Hardy Massoudi 7004 Ruidoso Drive Windsor, CO 80550 970-222-9999 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al data center 1 1 • UL We o-n! From: noreply@chamberdata.net<noreply@chamberdata.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:41:38 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Al data center ** Reply e-mails should be sent to Tim Hermanson at hermanson.timothyftgmaiL.com. ** Please delay any zoning/approval decisions on proposed Al data center until we residents get more information. We need to see impact studies and specific proposals. These centers have destroyed communities all over the country and left residents footing the bill for increased water and electricity costs, not to mention light and noise pollution. I am very skeptical of the cost-benefit proposition as well. Once the center is built, they require very little staff so this is not about bringing jobs into the community either. Thank you. This email originated from your listing in the online directory for the Carbon Valley Chamber of Commerce Esther Gesick EXHIBIT , t Subject: FW: DELAY REZONING FOR Al DATA CENTER 1. V O12-1Z0?.0-01 From:Jackson Burke <coloradojaxl@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:53 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weld.gov>; Houstan Aragon <haragon@weld.gov> Subject: DELAY REZONING FOR Al DATA CENTER Karla and Other Weld County Commissioners, I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property. As a Weld County resident, I am greatly disturbed that we are even considering this... It will absolutely be a net detriment to the community in terms of emissions, energy usage, and negative health impacts to our community. I am an environmental professional. A Colorado native. A supporter of bolstering our local economy. However, there are too many unknowns when it comes to these globalistic tech companies, and what they will be bringing with them into our community... Some of the biggest concerns being: 1. Noise pollution in the form of infrasound (inaudible sound frequencies to the human ear) that greatly affect humans and animals, that would/could be constantly emitted from this facility and felt from miles away. The effects of infrasound have been known to cause negative changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, cardiac heath, and mental health. see references here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8411947/ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/3/1553 2. They say that they plan on running a closed loop evaporative cooling system, and that their usage would be comparable to other businesses in the area. This is a way to get their foot in the door. They will likely change their needs after their plan to move forward is in motion. Likely providing incentive in the form of money towards local government. If you care about your community, I urge you to listen to your residents rather than be persuaded by the money. Every single Weld County resident, (excuse me) Colorado resident, is extremely concerned with our nationwide drought. We DO NOT HAVE the water to send to the facility as it is! Meanwhile, the Town of Windsor is increasing prices for water, effective 2/1/2026, +25% across the board. It is completely outrageous to try to shove this data center (THAT NO ONE WANTS) into the equation. 3. Xcel energy raised my monthly bill 26% this year. We sit at home in the dark, no TV, no Lights. Last month was yet again the BIGGEST BILL we have ever received! Meanwhile, a data center of this magnitude is likely to consume up to 20% of our entire county's usage. Again, what the heck are we doing here even considering this??? 4. This is not going to bring a new wave of job opportunities to our community. Yes, they bring money into the community (which means nothing for us unless it is allocated in the right way), but the relative amount of people in our community they will employ is NEGLIGIBLE. To be clear, I am not counting the temporary contractors that would be hired to build the data center, although even then there is almost no doubt those contractors will NOT be local. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NET NEGATIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. Jackson Burke 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Kodak data center a i °16,Ail ORt -ol From: Ruth Brunner<ruthbrokering@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:35 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Kodak data center Hello, The Kodak Data will negatively impact the people who voted for our present county commissioners. If you need more reasons read the Next Door posts and cast a NO vote Regards Ruth Sent from my iPhone 1 Esther Gesick From: Karla Ford Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:35 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Dear Weld County Commissioners, — Nextdoor Get Outlook for iOS From: Ruth Brunner<ruthbrokering@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:21:25 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Dear Weld County Commissioners, — Nextdoor This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Hello Weld Ct Commissioners, If you haven't read post link below, please give these reasons full consideration for the people who elected you to service of Weld Ct. Kind regards, Ruth Check out this post on Nextdoor: https://urldefense.com/v3/ https://nextdoor.com/p/ZTHyKppFj4Lg?utm source=share&extras=MzAO NDU1MzM*3D&share platform=6&utm campaiqn=1774394354772&share action id=c96caa9f- 31 d5-4512-a407- 165432d6f035 ;JQ!!KFsiObvCuhO!8Xxbdj2civwaONuJOf4gYW5nKSs512xEYgBv1 HiljkdUmPaqGnEo pesZdR7GkTnf6xgtMgoo1 xymhjcAlVm$ Sent from my iPhone Esther Gesick EXHIBIT 14 From: Ask The Commissioners111.8 _ Subject: FW: Weld county Ai data center OZIN2021,-O/ From:Jeremy Oleson <olesonj95@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:41 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Weld county Ai data center Hello my name is Jeremy oleson I live in Windsor, Weld county. I want to urge my concern and recommendation to delay the April vote for an Al data center to be built in Weld County. Please delay the vote until more information about the project is presented to the public. 1) is it true and if so why, is the zoning set as a light industrial zoning? Explain why this isnt planned for Heavy Industrial or specialized Data Center Overlay Zones? Light industrial zoning is inappropriate for Al data centers because it often directly borders residential, commercial, or light business uses, causing major conflicts. It also comes with the least amount of regulation. 2) pollution - i understand the commissioners cannot override the EPA but I am wondering what conditional use permits /development agreements you could require like *Noise limits *Operational restrictions (hours, cooling systems, etc) *Site-specific environmental protections 3)what benefits does the community of Weld county get from this ai data center? 4)what evidence or analysis has been used to determine that this data center is necessary, rather than just beneficial? 5)where's the water?there's solid evidence Weld County is getting more water-stressed from climate change. It's not a straight drop every year, but hotter temps, earlier snowmelt, and more evaporation are making water less reliable overall. You can say itl be closed loop systems but theres gotta be a catch. Why would my water bill already increase in windsor 26%this year? We need more insight on this before its voted on. Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Annexation B Y - O2.b2o210-o I From: ddhelmboldt<ddhelmboldt@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:12 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Annexation Please don't approve annexation for the Al facility! I'm a Windsor resident and am asking for what's best for our quality of life! Deanne Helmboldt 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Proposed Kodak property DatA Centrt , i E 8 Oeb Zo?14-1 From: shawnFirst Name Raffelson <redsraff@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:29 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Proposed Kodak property DatA Centrt Dear Weld County Commissioners, I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property. As a Weld County resident, I am greatly disturbed that we are even considering this... It will absolutely be a net detriment to the community in terms of emissions, energy usage, and negative health impacts to our community. I am A Colorado native and supporter of bolstering our local economy. However, there are too many unknowns when it comes to these globalistic tech companies, and what they will be bringing with them into our community... Some of the biggest concerns being: 1. Noise pollution in the form of infrasound (inaudible sound frequencies to the human ear)that greatly affect humans and animals,that would/could be constantly emitted from this facility and felt from miles away. The effects of infrasound have been known to cause negative changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, cardiac heath, and mental health. see references here: https://pmc.ncbi.ntm.nih.gov/articles/PMCP411947' https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/3/1553 2. They say that they plan on running a closed loop evaporative cooling system, and that their usage would be comparable to other businesses in the area.This is a way to get their foot in the door.They will likely change their needs after their plan to move forward is in motion. Likely providing incentive in the form of money towards local government. If you care about your community, I urge you to listen to your residents rather than be persuaded by the money. Every single Weld County resident, (excuse me) Colorado resident, is extremely concerned with our nationwide drought.We DO NOT HAVE the water to send to the facility as it is! Meanwhile, the Town of Windsor is increasing prices for water, effective 2/1/2026, +25%across the board. It is completely outrageous to try to shove this data center(THAT NO ONE WANTS) into the equation. 3.Xcel energy raised my monthly bill 26%this year. We sit at home in the dark, no TV, no Lights. Last month was yet again the BIGGEST BILL we have ever received! Meanwhile, a data center of this magnitude is likely to consume up to 20%of our entire county's usage.Again,what the heck are we doing here even considering this??? 4.This is not going to bring a new wave of job opportunities to our community.Yes,they bring money into the community(which means nothing for us unless it is allocated in the right way), but the relative amount of people in our community they wilt employ is NEGLIGIBLE. To be clear, I am not counting the temporary contractors that would be hired to build the data center, although even then there is almost no doubt those contractors will NOT be local. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NET NEGATIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. S.R. 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: In concern of the proposed Al data center MP A From: Nikola Reinfelds<nikola.renee@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:03 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier <Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: In concern of the proposed Al data center Hello! My name is Nikola, constituent from Windsor, 80550. I am a mom of three children, a wife to a war veteran and I run a local nonprofit called Stork Support of Northern Colorado. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meetings in person, but for the future and safety of my children and our community I must make my voice heard. There is not one person in our community that wishes to bring upon the damage, pollution, strain on our already scarce resources and detrimental consequences that we would all have to live with, or rather die from, if an Al Data Center is allowed in Weld County. I've heard as commissioners you believe that there is nothing you can do to stop it, but I believe you do have the power and should use it for benefiting and protecting your constituents. If you didn't already know, water costs in Windsor was raised 26%this year. Families are already barely surviving with the high cost of living and scarce resources. The water use alone is a reason to stand against this development and fight to protect your people. The proposed closed system is not the solution. It only leads to more energy strain and pollution. As the Executive Director of a nonprofit that serves both Larimer and Weld counties, I can tell you with confidence that Weld County is a resource desert. There is so much more that our community needs from you than to serve the rich who have no care for families or the environment. I beg you to stand up and fight for what is right. Delay any decision until you have more data and information. Protect your community, not the already rich's pockets. Because they would never protect you. They only want what they can take and they only give what profits them. Your Community only gets what they can give and they give it all freely. Please protect us! Best regards Nikola Nikola Reinfelds Email: nikola.renee@gmail.com Phone: 785.766.7186 Esther Gesick a EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center Kodak Property C s IIMIP � ORD ZOZ(o-q From: Sheila Webber<13sheilaw@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:15 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Kodak Property Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am writing tonight to request the delay/cancellation of rezoning for the former Kodak property to allow a data center there. I live near Weld County, have friends who reside near the Kodak property, i go birding in Weld County and am a Northern Colorado resident worried about the environment and our water. Data centers will not be good for our communities. They use extreme amounts of water, that we are all aware we do not have. They are noisy, polluting, water and power hungry monstrosities that are not a benefit to us at all. I am aware you have probably heard all the arguments against these data centers, but here are my concerns; 1 Noise pollution in the form of infrasound that greatly affect humans and animals. These sounds can be felt from miles away. The effects of infrasound have been known to cause negative changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, cardiac health, and mental health. See references here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8411947/ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/3/1553 2. Data center companies tout a plan to run the center on a closed loop evaporative cooling system, and that their usage would be comparable to to other businesses in the area. They will likely change their need for water after they have their plan to go ahead with the center already in motion. Please listen to the residents of your community and please do not be swayed by any money they want to throw out as incentive. This is your water too, and we cannot drink money! 3. Xcel energy has been raising costs. This does not affect me directly, but I am concerned about my friends who are affected and for the community as a whole. A data center will likely consume up to 20% of the entire county's usage. For what? 4. No job creation in the long-term, So the net negative for the community speaks volumes. Please do not rezone to allow this data center into Weld County. I appreciate your consideration, Sheila Webber 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al data centers _ es 012-1Y2,0210-01 From: Ryan Clement<XFactor465@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:52 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject:Al data centers I am writing as a concerned resident of Windsor and Weld County to strongly oppose the development of any new AI data center in our area. While I recognize the growing demand for computing infrastructure to support artificial intelligence and technology innovation, I believe the significant negative impacts on our community far outweigh any potential benefits. Al data centers are known to consume enormous amounts of electricity, which could strain our local power grid, drive up energy costs for families and businesses, and hinder Colorado's progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals. They also require vast quantities of water for cooling— resources that are already precious in our semi-arid region—potentially affecting water availability for residents, agriculture, and the environment. Additionally, these facilities often generate constant noise from cooling systems and heavy equipment, which would disrupt the quality of life in nearby neighborhoods. Construction and ongoing operations could increase traffic, degrade air quality, and place unnecessary burdens on our roads and public infrastructure without adequate compensation from the developers. As someone who values Windsors balanced growth, natural beauty, and sustainable future, I urge you to reject proposals for Al data centers in our community. Please prioritize the well-being of current residents over unchecked industrial expansion. I respectfully request that any applications be denied, or at minimum, that a full moratorium and comprehensive impact study(including energy, water, noise, and ratepayer protections) be required before any further consideration. Thank you for your time and attention to this important local issue. I would appreciate a response outlining your position and any actions being taken. I am happy to discuss this further if needed. Sincerely, Ryan Clement Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners c..b Subject: FW: Al data center Okn?,0 ,0) From: Emilee Akey<emilee.akey@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 8:41 PM Subject: Al data center Dear Weld County Commissioners, I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property. As a Weld County resident, I am greatly disturbed that we are even considering this... It will absolutely be a net detriment to the community in terms of emissions, energy usage, and negative health impacts to our community. I am a Colorado native. A supporter of bolstering our local economy. However, there are too many unknowns when it comes to these globalistic tech companies, and what they will be bringing with them into our community... Some of the biggest concerns being: 1. Noise pollution in the form of infrasound (inaudible sound frequencies to the human ear) that greatly affect humans and animals, that would/could be constantly emitted from this facility and felt from miles away. The effects of infrasound have been known to cause negative changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, cardiac heath, and mental health. see references here: https://urldefense.com/v3/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8411947/https:/*www.mdpi.com/2076- 3417/16/3/1553 ;Lw!!KFsiObvCuh0!8T3yB 67CXejsC29 fiQcRD56cwPLR-T8Ij AcHRn4KA6gghwn618CV5q- 6igdTD0G913KaOP tq4BKnZFF9MQ9cyTDAaw$ 2. They say that they plan on running a closed loop evaporative cooling system, and that their usage would be comparable to other businesses in the area. This is a way to get their foot in the door. They will likely change their needs after their plan to move forward is in motion. Likely providing incentive in the form of money towards local government. If you care about your community, I urge you to listen to your residents rather than be persuaded by the money. Every single Weld County resident, Colorado resident, is extremely concerned with our nationwide drought. We DO NOT HAVE the water to send to the facility as it is! Meanwhile, the Town of Windsor is increasing prices for water, effective 2/1/2026, +25% across the board. It is completely outrageous to try to shove this data center (THAT NO ONE WANTS) into the equation. 3. Xcel energy raised everyone's monthly bill 26% this year. We keep one lamp on and an LED TV at sundown, and heat at 63°. Last month was yet again the BIGGEST BILL we have ever received! Meanwhile, a data center of this magnitude is likely to consume up to 20% of our entire county's usage. Again, what the heck are we doing here even considering this??? 4. This is not going to bring a new wave of job opportunities to our community. Yes, they bring money into the community (which means nothing for us unless it is allocated in the right way), but the relative amount of people in our community they will employ is NEGLIGIBLE. To be clear, I am not counting the temporary contractors that would be hired to build the data center, although even then there is almost no doubt those contractors will NOT be local. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NET NEGATIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. Emilee Akey 8185 Blackwood Dr Windsor, CO 80550 970-215-7354 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al data center b d . 6 02DZa -OI From: Becca <becca.otte@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 8:48 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Al data center Hi I'm writing to express my concern over the Al data center, which I vehemently oppose due to water scarcity concerns Thank you Rebecca Holder-Otte Windsor resident 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Kodak building Ce 11,F Of2b2.0240_o From: C Helm <chloe.elise.helm@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:00 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Kodak building Hi I would like to express my concerns of the Kodak building being used as an Al data center. I live in Windsor and will seriously consider moving if this happens. I see no long term positives for the community. My vote is strongly against the use of any buildings in the town of Windsor and surrounding areas to be used as an Al data center. Thank you Chloe Helm Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No way on the data center! aw. From:Jacquelyn Rendall <jacquelynrendalll@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:11 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: No way on the data center! Hello, Please, whatever you can do to stop the data center coming to the old Kodak plant—do it. Many (including myself)will be looking to leave the Windsor area if this happens. We don't want it here, we don't want it at all. There are too many unknowns about health and noise. Windsor is finally growing, don't kill our town- and the fact that it is a desirable place to live—with this in our backyard. Thank you. Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Ordinance 2026-01 s IMP 14 (pD Zoz,k-ot From: Giovanni Presutto <jp.presutto@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:40 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 No—this will not benefit anyone. Residents will face higher water and electricity bills, and we simply don't have the infrastructure to support a project like this. What does this data center actually give back to the community? Nothing. It doesn't create meaningful jobs or provide any real value to the town. All it will do is drain resources that are already strained—especially given the unusually warm winter we've had. Will this facility be subject to rolling blackouts like the rest of us? This is one of the worst ordinances I've seen. It should have been stopped by the committee when it was first proposed. The fact that it has made it this far suggests a serious lack of understanding of the tech sector and a failure to act in the best interests of the community they were elected to serve. I hope you read this and understand you are elected to serve for the people by the people John Presutto Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: NO NO NO to the data center a C Oebe4210-01 From: yvette ruebel <yruebel@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:14 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: NO NO NO to the data center Please do not allow this to be built in our town or county! We are already over run with to many subdivisions and water is an issue!! Yvette Ruebel 1136 East Stuart St. Suite #2-140 Fort Collins, CO 80525 WK 970-419-3276 Fax 970-419-0997 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: SHUT DOWN THE WINDSOR Al DATA CENTERS! ORDZOZ(v^D From: Kate Robbins<kateorobbins14@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:35 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: SHUT DOWN THE WINDSOR Al DATA CENTERS! WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A WATER CRISIS! WE ARE ALREADY HAVING AN OMINOUS FIRE SEASON! DO SOMETHING! SHUT DOWN THE WINDSOR Al DATA CENTERS! Kate Robbins (she, her) Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No on Al Center in Windsor D - K From: Brianna Osusky<mcneil81@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:02 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: No on Al Center in Windsor AI, simultaneously poses a significant environmental and infrastructure challenges, consuming vast amounts of water and electricity and creating immense, often hidden, pressures on local communities. Here is the breakdown of the "real truth" based on current investigations: 1. The Power and Water Reality Insatiable Energy Demand: Data centers are driving a massive surge in electricity demand. Al models, in particular, require immense power, with data centers projected to consume up to 21% of all electricity globally by 2030. In the US, this demand could result in an 8% increase in average electricity bills by 2030. "Hot and Thirsty": Data centers require massive quantities of water for cooling, particularly in arid climates, sometimes utilizing millions of gallons daily—enough to supply a small city. Hidden Environmental Costs: Actual carbon emissions from data centers owned by major tech firms may be over 7 times higher than officially reported, according to an analysis of emissions between 2020-2022. 2. The Economic and Community Impact Low Local Employment: While they create numerous construction jobs, data centers are not significant long-term job producers. Once operational, a massive facility might employ only a small number of technicians (sometimes fewer than 50). Tax Incentive Backlash: Tech giants often receive large tax breaks to build in rural or suburban areas. However, these incentives can reduce tax revenue available for local schools and services, leaving residents with the long-term cost of infrastructure, while the data centers often pay significantly reduced taxes. Rising Utilities for Residents: In several cases, residents are subsidizing the power infrastructure for these corporations, experiencing higher electricity rates even while their own usage decreases. 3. The Tech Landscape "Macrohard" and Al: The rush to build is fueled by a fear of missing out on the Al race. Trillion-dollar companies are building faster than they can secure green power, often leading to the continued use of, or increased demand on, fossil fuel plants. Underutilization: While demand is high, many existing servers sit idle or underutilized, resulting in significant energy waste. Noise Pollution: The cooling systems and backup generators at these sites can produce significant, continuous noise pollution that negatively impacts surrounding residential communities. 4. Myth vs. Reality Myth: "The Cloud" is invisible and harmless. Truth: "The Cloud" is someone else's computer in a physical building that consumes resources and produces pollution. Myth. Data centers are heavily regulated. Truth: Many are built without sufficient transparency regarding their environmental impact, and some companies use loopholes to avoid proper utility planning. In summary, data centers are driving a rapid, often unregulated expansion of physical infrastructure that poses a "data drain" on local resources, requiring a new focus on efficiency and transparency to ensure they do not create long-term burdens on communities. WORK CITED: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, You Tube, Science Technology and Public Policy, Redditt I vote NO on Al center Sent from my 'Phone 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property 27___Lo. 0c 07k-01 From: Nina Flohr<nina@mjfmanufacturing.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 7:34 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property Dear Weld County Commissioners, I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property.As a Weld County resident, I am greatly disturbed that we are even considering this... It will absolutely be a net detriment to the community in terms of emissions, energy usage, and negative health impacts to our community. I am an environmental professional.A Colorado native.A supporter of bolstering our local economy. However,there are too many unknowns when it comes to these globalist tech companies, and what they will be bringing with them into our community...Some of the biggest concerns being: 1. Noise pollution in the form of infrasound (inaudible sound frequencies to the human ear)that greatly affect humans and animals,that would/could be constantly emitted from this facility and felt from miles away.The effects of infrasound have been known to cause negative changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, cardiac heath,and mental health. see references here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8411947/ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/3/1553 2.They say that they plan on running a closed loop evaporative cooling system, and that their usage would be comparable to other businesses in the area.This is a way to get their foot in the door.They will likely change their needs after their plan to move forward is in motion. Likely providing incentive in the form of money towards local government. If you care about your community, I urge you to listen to your residents rather than be persuaded by the money. Every single Weld County resident, (excuse me)Colorado resident, is extremely concerned with our nationwide drought.We DO NOT HAVE the water to send to the facility as it is! Meanwhile,the Town of Windsor is increasing prices for water, effective 2/1/2026, +25%across the board. It is completely outrageous to try to shove this data center(THAT NO ONE WANTS) into the equation. 3.Xcel energy raised my monthly bill 26%this year.We sit at home in the dark, no TV, no Lights. Last month was yet again the BIGGEST BILL we have ever received! Meanwhile, a data center of this magnitude is likely to consume up to 20%of our entire county's usage.Again, what the heck are we doing here even considering this??? 4.This is not going to bring a new wave of job opportunities to our community.Yes,they bring money into the community(which means nothing for us unless it is allocated in the right way), but the relative amount of people in our community they will employ is NEGLIGIBLE.To be clear, I am not counting the temporary contractors that would be hired to build the data center,although even then there is almost no doubt those contractors will NOT be local.THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NET NEGATIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. PLEASE REACH OUT TO THE WELD COUNTY COMMISIONERS AND URGE THEM NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS!!! 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No Data Center _Ctidryy_ ZoZLD—a From:Jeannie Stroup <jjett4702@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 8:09 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: No Data Center Do not put this horrific thing in our beautiful town of Windsor. No one can afford it, for our pocketbooks or our health. Property values will be eliminated, who will buy here? I know I will be moving. You say oh well one person but there will be many more. No one wants higher prices or more health concerns. Be smart, show you care about the people of Windsor, not just the greed of money for the city. A concerned citizen who doesn't want to move. Sent from my iPhone Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners /r Subject: FW: Input for Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers s C • ki O0?-0 -01 From: Glenn Harm <glennharm@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:18 AM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Input for Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed data center ordinance and to provide input for your consideration. Opposition Large data centers place a disproportionate strain on local infrastructure while delivering relatively limited community benefit. They consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, potentially driving up utility costs and stressing regional resources, especially in areas prone to drought or grid constraints. Meeting this demand often requires utilities to build new generation and distribution capacity, and when those costs are spread across the broader customer base, residents can end up subsidizing private operations through higher rates. Despite their size, data centers create relatively few permanent jobs and can displace land better suited for more community-oriented development, while also raising concerns about noise, environmental impact, and long-term sustainability. For these reasons, I oppose the proposed data center ordinance and would support a specific ban on large data centers in Weld County. There is precedent for this type of policy decision: in 2013, Weld County enacted a ban on commercial marijuana operations in unincorporated areas, reflecting both legal uncertainties and community opposition. While I recognize that such action would require time and resources, I believe voters should have the opportunity to decide whether large data centers align with the long-term interests of Weld County. Recommended Conditions and Considerations Before adopting new code, I encourage the Board to pause to ensure that community input is fully considered and to evaluate whether it may be beneficial to wait for forthcoming state-level guidance currently under development. Taking additional time now can help avoid unintended consequences and ensure a more durable policy. During public meetings, it was stated that the proposed code draws from other jurisdictions. However, it is unclear whether sufficient weight has been given to real-world outcomes in communities where data centers are already operating. That distinction is important. In multiple locations—including Northern Virginia, Arizona, Texas, and Arkansas—residents have reported ongoing impacts such as constant noise, sleep disruption, and diminished quality of life. In some cases, these issues have persisted long after construction and have led local governments to reconsider or restrict further development. These experiences provide valuable lessons that should inform any local code and broader policy decisions, including whether allowing large data centers is appropriate. If the County ultimately chooses to move forward, I recommend incorporating clear, enforceable requirements that prioritize transparency, accountability, and protection of nearby residents. For example: • Public Reporting and Transparency: Require a publicly accessible monthly dashboard reporting water usage and discharge,total electricity consumption (including energy source breakdown), and continuous sound monitoring at multiple property boundary locations.All data should be independently audited. • Noise Standards: Establish strict, enforceable decibel limits at property lines (including low- frequency noise),with continuous monitoring and meaningful penalties for violations—not solely complaint-based enforcement. • Setbacks and Buffers: Require substantial setbacks from residential areas, schools, and hospitals, along with physical sound barriers and landscaping buffers to reduce visual and noise impacts. • Water Use Limits: Implement caps on water consumption, especially during drought conditions, and require the use of non-potable or recycled water where feasible. • Energy Infrastructure Cost Protection: Ensure that any required upgrades to generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure are fully borne by the developer/operator, preventing cost shifting to residents through higher utility rates. • Backup Power Restrictions: Limit the use of diesel generators, including restrictions on testing frequency and runtime,to reduce air and noise impacts. • Decommissioning Requirements: Require a funded decommissioning plan to ensure sites are restored if facilities become obsolete. These standards would help ensure that, if approved, data centers operate in a way that minimizes community impact and does not impose unintended costs on residents. Best regards, Glenn Harm Windsor, CO 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: D co V2,DZ0Z From:Tom San Filippo <sanfilippo.t@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:41 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Dear Weld County Commissioners, I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property. As a Weld County resident, I am greatly disturbed that we are even considering this... It will absolutely be a net detriment to the community in terms of emissions, energy usage, and negative health impacts to our community. I am a multiple home owner in Greeeley. A supporter of bolstering our local economy and not allowing outside interests to overtax our infrastructure that they have not helped build. This will raise prices for our residents and hurt our businesses while offering this county nothing but net negatives. However, there are too many unknowns when it comes to these globalistic tech companies, and what they will be bringing with them into our community... Some of the biggest concerns being: 1. Noise pollution in the form of infrasound (inaudible sound frequencies to the human ear) that greatly affect humans and animals, that would/could be constantly emitted from this facility and felt from miles away. The effects of infrasound have been known to cause negative changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, cardiac heath, and mental health. see references here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8411947/ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/16/3/1553 2. They say that they plan on running a closed loop evaporative cooling system, and that their usage would be comparable to other businesses in the area. This is a way to get their foot in the door. They will likely change their needs after their plan to move forward is in motion. Likely providing incentive in the form of money towards local government. If you care about your community, I urge you to listen to your residents rather than be persuaded by the money. Every single Weld County resident, (excuse me) Colorado resident, is extremely concerned with our nationwide drought. We DO NOT HAVE the water to send to the facility as it is! Meanwhile, the Town of Windsor is increasing prices for water, effective 2/1/2026, +25% across the board. It is completely outrageous to try to shove this data center (THAT NO ONE WANTS) into the equation. 3. Xcel energy raised my monthly bill 26% this year. We sit at home in the dark, no TV, no Lights. Last month was yet again the BIGGEST BILL we have ever received! Meanwhile, a data center of this magnitude is likely to consume up to 20% of our entire county's usage. Again, what the heck are we doing here even considering this??? 4. This is not going to bring a new wave of job opportunities to our community. Yes, they bring money into the community (which means nothing for us unless it is allocated in the right way), but the relative amount of people in our community they will employ is NEGLIGIBLE. To be clear, I am not counting the temporary contractors that would be hired to build the data center, although even then there is almost no doubt those contractors will NOT be local. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NET NEGATIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS AND DO THE RIGHT THING. PLEASE REACH OUT TO THE WELD COUNTY COMMISIONERS AND URGE THEM NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS!!! Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Annexation a CID 0 ZoZlo-01 From: Margaret Sandstrum <msandstrum@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:43 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Annexation I am strongly against the annexation of the Kodak site for AI data center. The long-term effects of such a center are unknown. Please vote NO for annexation. Margaret A. Sandstrum 1000 Teton Court Windsor 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Inquiry from Public Webpage C IMI ZO From: Bruce Serby<bserby@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 10:02 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Inquiry from Public Webpage Please tell the Weld County Commissioners to not approve the data center. The negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Thank You Bruce Serby Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Global Al data center e _� 0 2(o-bl From: Kendra P<kendrare105@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 10:21 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Global Al data center Hello, I wasn't able to attend the meeting last night, but I have a lot of concerns about this prospective location/project. I don't think the appropriate studies have been done and I would like to ask you to delay the vote. Thank you, Kendra Palmer Windsor resident 720-480-0419 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT To: Esther Gesick COOS Subject: FW:Al Message - Message from S STONEBURNER (3302218475) Attachments: VoiceMessage.wav 02b2.021,9-01 Hello. My name is Joshua Stoneburner. I'm a resident of northern Windsor. I'm calling because there is a debate today about AI; I think it is a horrible idea. It's going to just drain our already limited water resources, causing water to be really expensive and more drought issues, as well as energy costs are going to skyrocket,which they are already horrible now. But the Al systems will use tons of energy and they are heavily pollutant.When the wind blows east it will not really affect me, but it will contaminate the groundwater which is our drinking water. So, I suggest voting against this and having the Al move somewhere else that has more water and free energy because Al is not going to bring us jobs. It might for temporary for a year, but Al's whole point is to replace Americans and their jobs. It only takes like ten people to run the whole Data Center, so we're not really adding jobs by polluting the environment with this.Anyways,you can reach me at 330-231-8475.Thanks! COUNTY,CO Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board Desk: 970-400-4226 Cell: 970-302-7415 P.O. Box 758, 1150 0 St., Greeley, CO 80632 013000 Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Linda Kane<Ikane@weld.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 10:27 AM To: Karla Ford<kford@weld.gov> Subject: FW: Message from S STONEBURNER (3302218475) Hi Karla, This is a message about Al I think is better suited for commissioners. Thank you! Linda Kane Secretary i Weld County Council Desk: 970-400-4780 Cell: 641-903-9470 P.O. Box 758, 1150 O St., Greeley, CO 80632 IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Data Center e _T 0QDZo ,—Di From:Ashlee McPherson <ashleemcphersonll@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 10:52 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject:Al Data Center As a Windsor resident of 20+years, paying rent, utilities taxes and contributing to this community. I find it absolutely devastating and disappointing that we are even considering building an Al data center here. You are going to ruin our town if you let this happen. Ashlee McPherson-Rydbom (970)324-6275 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: data center C OP2b2D2r,-0 From: david_w_80634@netzero.net<david_w_80634@netzero.net> On Behalf Of david_w_80634@netzero.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 11:30 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: data center NO data center. We are always in drought conditions. We are agriculture and our farmers need water, as do our homeowners who are trying to supplement food with vegetable gardens. THIS IS NOT WISE. I'm really starting to doubt all you commissioners. Debora Bartkowki Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Opposition to Al Data Center a C ON 0PDZOVV-DI From: Rachel Snow<ssnow.rachel@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:20 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Opposition to Al Data Center Hi Karla, I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express my formal opposition to the proposed Al center at the former Carestream Health site in Weld County. I have significant concerns regarding the potential impact this development may have on our community. Specifically, I am concerned that the facility will lead to increased noise pollution and higher energy costs, both of which would be detrimental to local residents. I request that these factors be fully considered and that the development be reconsidered to protect the well-being of the community. Best regards, Rachel Snow Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Please delay Al vote C- a 021)202(o—Oi From: Karen Cox<coxxxxkr@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:26 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Please delay Al vote After reviewing environmental impact statements from Cornell University as well as my own concerns about the ethics of Al replacing humans without more safeguards, I urge the Weld County Commissioners to delay the vote for a new Al Data Center. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Cox 720-320-7808 Windsor, CO Esther Gesick Subject: FW: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) EXHIBIT From: Christine McDaniel <christine.shack.harris@gmail.com> 41 Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:30 PM 0ltb2C21° To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov>; Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) To the Weld County Commissioners and our Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial "heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water & Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance" for Phase 1. By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE) that would require public oversight. Their own plans, however, show a much larger "Common Plan of Development" that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals" from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review (USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. Not to mention, we are limited on water and there is so much building going on. While some Data Centers state they are recycling water to keep the rooms cooled, at some point new water will need to come, especially as it evaporates. Electricity rates will sky rocket with how much energy is drawn to keep these powered, even IF they state they will use or provide solar. This is a greater risk than I think anyone is prepared to handle and maybe don't realize how out of control allowing this decision to pass can be. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. And really, even with these assessments ran and results provided, if it shows on the lower end of risk, we don't know what it means long term and it should absolutely not be considered at all in the future. Sincerely, Christine Timber Ridge Subdivision - Severance P 4 + ! VIRTUAUEXECUTIVE ASSISTANT t. (505)716-7809 chnstine shack.harnstgmail.com 7 Q Northern Colorado 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT C "' y From: Maxwell Nader Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:53 PM Q2b202/0-Dj To: Commissioners Cc: David Eisenbraun; Esther Gesick; Bruce Barker; Karin McDougal;Jim Flesher Subject: Data Center Information - BROE Real Estate Group Attachments: BL1.Data Center Opposition Matrix.xlsx; Data Center Opposition.pdf Commissioners, Dean Brown with BROE Real Estate Group wanted us to pass along the information regarding Data Centers. I would consider this as part of the record for ORD26-01. Let me know if you have any questions.Thank you. Best, WEER COUNTY,CO Maxwell Nader Deputy Director Dept. of Planning Services Phone: 970-400-3527/970-305-6180 1402 N 17th Ave. Greeley,CO 80632 111000 Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 f�. at,y I , 4., '''P T - P&I-tat Ceti-tors _ t%. . . -_,..,-.., ... 4 . . . Vvlarcln 202(0AI ,t. . .. 1110 . ram `Mt,iiiiiiati i it althrip.',ON 1444`. iiiiiit IL - . - • _. __.._ do M- I _ /. w 'A •. i 1 • 4 Omns POWERED BY RAIL&REAL ESTATE Confidential • Overvi w •01 es 11111._ obi 0" Now e WOO moo . low 008 we elm■rt Ni■i In no annottoal " Omni Confidential Broe Research Team MAIN. Agl1 At.(SrArr Data Centers - Overview MI • Data centers are physical facilities (rooms or building) that house servers, storage systems, networking gear, and supporting infrastructure like power and cooling to run applications and store data for organizations. — • Hyperscale data centers are very large data centers engineered for extreme scalability and ' capacity to handle massive workloads such as Al, cloud computing, and global online services. — • Can handle millions of virtual machines or very large distributed applications • Highly automated operations equipped with rapid provisioning and automatic failover for 24/7 reliability i • Standardized design allows for additional racks, power, and cooling to be added in _ . ', I 1, repeatable building blocks as demand increases III _ ,,;„, • .i' • Construction of new, massive hyperscale data centers is becoming increasingly necessary to — ..'�;. C attempt to keep up with Al demand Si �.� , . • As demand increases, many people are also becoming increasingly concerned about what effects • ' �+7 011 y as► .. µ /� these hyperscale data centers will have on people living near them, as well as the environmental . • •' 1 .,...00I. and electrical power grid concerns that come with the construction of such facilities ;0 , •• •.,.�4 gr ,. • Recent Data Center News Headlines IIIL CNBC BUSINESS • .,earg HE 1!a EOM : ....*:e ! • - , ...• "Data centers emerge as growing wedge issue in midterm races" - The Hill 'fit I` - ::: ' r . ,!. Vim • "Who is really footing the Al energy bill? Inside the debate about data center electricity ..''., .. "•A.. costs"— CNBC ` . ^, h. • N `� �• . , ▪ US Data Center Boom Slows Due to Power Grid Limits, WoodMac Says"- Bloomberg 1 • •r .•,� • "Google commits$18 to North Carolina data centers as Al demand surges"—Fox Business 11 • "Microsoft is pouring$52M into this tiny Texas Hilla Country town"— Yahoo Finance , iI ( •• ;,• L • "Data Centers Overtake Offices in US Construction-Spending Shift"—Bloomberg : 4 , No '- `'�� Ir , fi "For the simplest OpenAl ChatGPT tasks, like re-wording your email, their popular GPT-5 model �'� uses as much electricity as it takes to power a three-watt LED light bulb for around 20 minutes jj OpenAl and a little less than a teaspoon of water. For one person and one prompt, this may not seem like , much...until you realize that OpenAl receives roughly 2.5 billion queries a day." Omni Confidential Broe Research Team iVMfMCRYRM{•Rf.!VIM Data Centers — Map 4 Data Centers in the U.S. 598"' q8 operating hyperscale Notes:Map only displays data center projects with a power capacity value. data centers Cancelled •Operating 111 Planned 17K MW of capacity • • • • • Fargo • • •7 . 0 • fgliMiritit 63"3;s) a� G'i•ago • ,a a 'i"`" • Pittsburgh.', ��-�.�p�� u- Washington tv 1lthC1 • � Columbus • • .. . .Virginia S •• O. • • • e • • • ` i • . • • •Atlanta • . • • • Della • • • • • e •• Abilene • Oj 873+ planned projects 5,000 WWII, Power capacity(MW) 2,000 r 500 254K MW of planned capacity 'aurre f ranv nv.ha!:--[0r 1er I',a. er-Ge!the data• e n1.,d,:^.th.Datawrapper .i. OmnuTRa Confidential Broe Research Team nO•rcioar•.vi a 0164 rsrarr Data Centers — Scale III ` IIIIIII"N . o cocci y Data Center Size = ,; ., HyperScale MTDC Edge Edgier Edge-lest Power 100 — 300 MW 10 — 50 MW 5 — 10 MW 1 —2 MW 0.25 MW Size 500,000 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. Cost $1 B $50 — 150M $10 — 30M $5 — 10M $1 — 3M Latency < 100ms < 60ms < 10 - 40ms < 5ms < 1 ms # Racks 10,000 - 30,000 1,000 — 2,000 500 100 - 200 25 # Interconnects 10,000 — 100,000 2,000 — 20,000 500 — 2,000 100 — 1,000 25 — 100 Manned? Manned Manned Manned Un-Manned Un-Manned OnPn. PDw1M0•Y M'l l MA!(SIAfI7Ri Confidential Broe Research Team Data Centers — Largest Planned Data Centers 6 anc GW Rh iiiiiiiixtiragmcs-fiwr Fermi Phase 3 (SMR/Expansion) // Pacifico Energy Pacifico Energy • • 7,650 MW planned capacity ! --. _I- - -----�- a America F 4,600 M - _ W planned capacity _ Expected Year: 2027 - — r " , -' '_ Expected Year: 2036 F.,, � "' S' • Location: Pecos TX — :. 1y, __ _�-. —��,. • Location: Carson, TX 1� _ 4L- '` --- - New Era Lea Data Center • New Era Energy ` *— ._,„� „ dl' __ 7,000 MW planned capacity - -- Homer CityEnergyCampus -�� i� %� •s: P r "\ • Expected Year: 2028 � • Homer City Redevelopment �' Location: Lea, NM "`-s 4,500 MW planned capacity \ %ulir iii11111i'li � _ � - , - ( ��, `� Expected Year: 2027 ' #.- ='� ,�,, 4 Location: Indiana, PA c„+ �` �\� ;r; sa4 p•l /DIP f, ��r_ '� f '',�- w' Monarch Compute Campus Phase 2 TRACT`ALDWE"°""fl'DATA CENTER CAMPUS "' Tract Caldwell Valley -..' /' 3,000 AQES I U►T04 6w GPMMTY _ :oas. « n«• American Intelligence & Power tract - • Tract (Denver-based) / p ` (acquired Mar 2026 by Nscale) —r • 4,000 MW planned capacity t = _f i 6,000 MW planned capacity ,, -'`° '"' I Location: Caldwell, TX I.::. 44 Location: Mason, WV -ca ' �o __ -N �, 4FRYT•1 y • .es Tw ° -3,000 ACRES I UPTO4 GW T f lF '?„'. -6"Asagau: E aka' a A NSCALE ,,t OmniTR/( Confidential Broe Research Team IOMTRO•rX%l A MEAL 151Alf Data Center Alley SII • The world's densest data center hub lies in Northern Virginia, with the area around - -- aws MIaye aws Ashburn in Loudoun County commonly being called Data Center Alley i `11' '7' • Often described as the corephysical " i ' �p backbone of the Internet, given the local +` �\ LUM•N�wra �'t +emu..�i• `� facilities handling of a very large share of global online traffic/cloud workloads 1,`= + . r tala • Tax incentives, a Fast-Track Commercial Incentive Program, attractive energy "" 0s- :, ® i aws costs, and an unmatched fiber infrastructure were all components of how '�" -� ' '� ws • ,. dai Ashburn became the data center capital of the world i� • History Ier' 411/ + • Loudon County is just 34 miles from Washington, D.C. Rim `' _"J • In the late 1990's, Ashburn is identified as the ideal location for data centers and , s %' Internet infrastructure expansion due to proximity to Washington D.C. . "` �. f Y �" �STe,CK '�_ • D.C. workforce composed of large concentration of tech workers, government .c ., ' "e '•` • contractors, and security experts ; `: '''" c,Sr s .- — - ' _ r • Once initial fiber infrastructure was developed in the early 2000's, there was now a massive, existing, high-speed digital "backbone" to attract more projects (data gravity) Malor Uata Centers In Vuqnla • Virginia's significant tax exemptions on computer equipment and software was ,;;,;r, r:,e, Facet.. RagngWu logy Services(OTSP Glonalin.Data Centers Sabey Data Centers rl ¢Metro Con umcaows C`ma SAIL and VITA highly attractive to tech companies ,Plant,IAmnm:a•"" H_D Cente„ Stack Infrastructure Capital One Hop°,Internet Corp• TNUSVS(Native Cloud) CloudKr Inrotel Systems Vantage Data Centers • Compatgmmumller, ' lean in Ratain /ay° M.tn,. Loudoun County government officials planned and zoned areas specifically for Compass Dnta ad<r. 1,41, Racanpoxe• ergs,rr p• COPE MF% CvmsOn Real(stale Mi cosolt neralGCary71 Data Center Alley industrial technology growth early on meD wttD• Mineral Dap DPIDa• HWtagIntx Amman• DP l�Uata• UneParlm ATAC • Dpaal Realty(rust' OVH Statistics dge onnex• P�.el iaclay Data Center lgumn• PooraOne' •' •• Erpens Data Centers• Petspects • Handles an estimated 70% of global internet traffic • 200 operational data centers currently • 43 million SF of data center space A •;; • • 117+ more data centers in development now • • Area consumes more power the total consumption of Denmark �' •• • ,mbcly DtM:Iosed Data Center location OmnirRipe Confidential Broe Research Team roararn n.a.yu era:r su rr 8 NIMBYIsm 000 •Ns IMO gam NM - III NU NM MUM nee OmniTR Confidential Broe Research Team pg..,awi a*tAI ISIan Data Centers — NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) Opposition 9 • Currently, data centers (especially hyperscale-sized facilities) are under intense public scrutiny, primary centered around the following concerns: 4f0G • Noise pollution 0'QT4 p e TIF • Cooling equipment q N F F or R • Backup generators/electrical gear L� ��5 r R4Nk/cT ` 1 D, w • Construction noise during development � �j C� \� H� • Air pollution ��-�a�� -- 1.9aData'enrerl ,,r ��a�� • Large backup generators DATA CEN • Gas turbinesY's " • Grid electricity still drawn from fossil-fuel plants / , g t,0410T No GC NTER l wV R „z • Aj— 7ECt Water usage/pollution aaNKUN • Millions of gallons/day used for cooling sE��( " p��Nrs con, • ,.4,rk. • Aquifer strain/competing with agriculture • Health of nearby residents I I/ tra • Low frequency humming causes stress/sleep disruption/annoyance COON SE LO \\ II - --� H 0 O �y • Light pollution from security measures AN • Complaints of water supply quality decline C� IC - 0A DATA 0� AI • Electricity demand & higher bills C0Nfi�RS D A CBTERs • Potential for forced grid updates • Raise in retail electric rates/increased blackout risks Mi i • Loss of land & community character r -------I- -_ 1 to • Conversion of farmland/forests/open space ( • Impact on existing property values /? • NIMBY protests against new data center development projects have �[= E� / become more frequent in the United States, with manyprotesters equating o 4 ait qq g _ _. 1 data centers to tech billionaires/corporate greed0• According to DataCenterWatch.org, $64.4B of data center projects have 1711___,--1 C�11A1 PtD �` ,- IT been blocked or delayed by local authorities in the last two years , 0y., _ OmniTIL Confidential Broe Research Team 00WIRID!v•AIL!IV Al ISIALI Data Centers — NIMBY Opposition vs Investors 10 • NIMBYism against data centers has gained considerable backing in recent years • What started as isolated NIMBYism has now grown into a coordinated national movement • The complaint playbook is now standardized • Opposition campaigns all include three primary listed complaints: water, electricity rates, and noise • Electoral consequences are very real • Both Warrenton and King George County's Amazon data center projects in Virginia caused mass resignations • Warrenton: every supporting council member lost re-election • King George: County Attorney, Administrator, and Finance Director all resigned • Regulations only turn one direction • No jurisdiction that has tightened data center rules has subsequently loosened them 0 0 • Data center markets with the highest near-term risk: • Virginia —statewide tax exemption now under threat with every county tightening rules ► TITHE • Georgia — moratoriums still expanding and $2.5B tax exemption threatened DATA • Illinois—44+ GW worth of projects in various stages threatened by Gov. Pritzker's proposed two-year CEN suspension of tax incentives � • , N' • Arizona—water restrictions are eliminating possibility for evaporative cooling ,,'4 • Michigan - several (20+) moratoriums throughout the state, making site selection is unpredictable/unappealing =t. — NO • Developers who proactively address community concerns may face meaningfully lower opposition risk • Disclosure of water and energy usage • Commitment to air-cooled systems • Full infrastructure cost payment • Avoiding NDAs • Example: Microsoft's "Community First Al Infrastructure Initiative" that addresses water use, new jobs, tax revenue, and energy costs • Microsoft committed to paying their own way when it comes to electricity, closed-water loop system Omni 7Rl Confidential Broe Research Team POsTMDev 01A4 A A1.4ES.AYI Microsoft's "Community First Al Infrastructure Initiative" In Microsoft's Community-First Al Infrastructure Plan / — 1 We'll pay our way 2.We'll minimize 3.We'll create jobs . 4.We'll add to the 5.We'll strengthen to ensure our our water use and for your residents. tax base that funds your community datacenters don't replenish more local hospitals, by investing in •increaseyour ofyour water tovest in partnerships schools, parks, train local local Al training electricity prices. than we use. construction workers and libraries. and non-profits. • Pay utility rates that are • Reduce the amount • Expand our • We won't ask • Partner with schools, high enough to cover of water our Datacenter Academy municipalities to community colleges our electricity costs datacenters use program to train more reduce their local and universities to • Collaborate with utilities Replenish more water individuals for ongoing property tax rates provide Al training on plans to add to the than we use operations roles for datacenters • Support adults with electricity we will need • Encourage • We'll support policies Al tools and skills • Provide greater policymakers to to invest the added through Al learning • Innovate to make local transparency support new job taxes we pay in the hubs in local libraries our datacenters • Advocate for public opportunities vital services the more efficient • Support AI skills policy that helps community cares about • Advocate for public minimize water use training for businesses policies needed for • Invest in local affordable, reliable, non-profits and sustainable power ■! Microsoft Copilot Omnalcrilye Confidential Broe Research Team rtrnremnr ewu eru rsr.n Data Center Setbacks . - � _ .... Ns climato.. ... ... _ _ •.. ... � .. Omni..P- Confidential Broe Research Team NMYR(D lv RAfl!Rf11 ISIAft Data Centers - Moratorium Legislation In • Statewide moratorium legislation around data centers have been introduced in at least 12 states State Bill Duration Status y Virginia HB 1515 Until Jul 2028 or Carried over to MARYLAND grid queue cleared 2027 1 GA Georgia HB 1012 Until Mar 2027 Under MA consideration 'r Maryland HB 120 Open-ended; tied Under SOUTH DAKOTA WISCONSIN to co-location consideration policy Michigan HB 5594—5596 Until Apr 2027 In committee; VERMONT likely veto from Gov. Whitmer SOUTH Oklahoma SB 1488 Until Nov 2029 Missed deadlines; CAROLINA unlikely to advance NEW HAMPSHIRE Minnesota SF 4298 Until 1 year after Introduced PUC report NEW YORK New York A 10141/S 9144 Up to 3 years Introduced MINNESOTA New Hampshire HB 1265 1 year statewide Introduced South Dakota SB 232/HB 1301 1 year on Did not advance hyperscale /MI Vermont S.205 Through Jul 2030 Introduced Wisconsin SB 1061 Until legislature Introduced enacts protections VIRGINIA GEORGIA South Carolina S. 784 Within 6 months Introduced Omni Confidential Broe Research Team N r[1RfO vR4'11 Rfll I[I,[ff Data Centers — Notable BLOCKED Projects .gyp 10\ 14 Location Project Developer Complaints Source of Validated? Project Complaints Value Brandy Station Culpeper Culpeper Rural preservation,impact on Culpeper Local residents, Yes $12B (Culpeper Co.),VA Acquisitions Acquisitions LLC Battlefields State Park.Planning Commission Culpeper Co. project denial unanimous Planning Commission (Google/Meta rumored) Goodyear/ Tract data center Tract Building heights,noise pollution,strain on local Local residents,city Yes $14B Buckeye,AZ campus utilities. Residents organized and successfully officials pressured local authorities to block rezoning. Chandler,AZ Active Active Noise,infrastructure impacts.City Council Chandler City Yes $2.5B Infrastructure data Infrastructure voted unanimously against.Pre-existing Council, local center(422K SF) CyrusOne noise complaints in same city cited residents as precedent Peculiar,MO Harper Road Diode Ventures Sight pollution,noise,declining property values. Local group'Don't Yes $1.5B Technology Park Local group'Don't Dump Data in Peculiar' Dump Data in Peculiar', organized.Planning Commission amended Peculiar Planning zoning to exclude data centers entirely Commission Leesburg,IN Undisclosed data Undisclosed Town council refused to rezone Leesburg Town Yes N/D center(554 acres) agricultural/rural land for industrial data Council center use Chesterton, IN 200-acre, 150K SF Provident Environmental impact concerns, noise, Local residents, city Yes $1.3B Realty Advisors low employment generation officials San Marcos,TX Unnamed data Undisclosed Excessive energy demand on grid already Local residents, San Partial $1.5B center(200 acres) prone to brownouts; two other data Marcos City Council centers already planned for the area Confidential Broe Research Team Data Centers — Notable DELAYED Projects Mil Location Project Developer Complaints Source of Validated? Project Complaints Value Prince William PW Digital QTS Realty Environmental impact, noise, grid Local activist Pending $24.7B Co., VA Gateway Trust/ strain, damage to historic sites.Three groups, VA Court Compass lawsuits filed by activist groups of Appeals (appeal Datacenters filed) Sealston, King Birchwood Amazon Noise pollution, high energy demand, King Geoge Board Yes $6B George, VA Campus: Amazon increased traffic, environmental risks to of Zoning, local the Rappahannock River, desire for residents more local, financial benefit Henrico Co., VA DC Blox (195K SF) DC Blox Noise, aesthetics, proximity to County staff, local Partial $500M (50MW) residential areas. Withdrawn Nov. residents 2024; revised smaller project submitted Feb. 2025 Santa Clara, CA 2805 Bowers GI Partners Data center concentration, water and County Partial $79M Ave. data center power consumption. Planning commissioners, Commission denied permit Mar. 2024; Georgia Public later approved after 5 months of Broadcasting, community engagement residents Warrenton,VA Amazon data Amazon Community opposition to siting. Residents Warrenton voters, Yes N/D center (proposed) voted out entire pro-data-center town council local media in Nov.2024 election,replacing with opponents. OnunITR Confidential Broe Research Team POW MOS V 11.8 MA(IVAI! Data Centers — Notable MORATORIUM Projects OMIIIIIIIIIMIMII 16 Location Project Developer Complaints Source of Validated? Project Complaints Value Prince George's Landover Mall Undisclosed Environmental racism concerns, Residents (Taylor Yes N/D Co., MD data center & developer pollution, noise, electricity cost spikes. Frazier McCollum), countywide 22,500-signature petition. County petition, pipeline approved without community input community demonstrations Georgia (8 Multiple data Various Water and energy overconsumption, Santa Clara Partial Multi- counties &cities) center proposals (Amazon, Meta, lack of zoning standards, insufficient Planning billion (Clayton, Pike, others) community input. Triggered in part by Commission, local Lamar,Troup, Newton County water crisis fallout residents Coweta, LaGrange, etc.) Stormville/ Multiple upstate Various Water use, grid stress, rural character. NY state lawmakers, Partial Multi- Columbia Co., NY NY projects NY three-year moratorium proposed in local officials billion legislature Kootenai Co., ID Various proposed Various Water and electricity demand. Kootenai Co. Partial N/D data centers Emergency moratorium on new data commissioners center permits Oldham Co., KY Project Lincoln Western Grid strain,community opposition.Described Local officials, Partial $6B (150-day (600 MW Al data Hospitality as state's largest economic development Heatmap moratorium) center) Partners project;dropped July 2025. investigation Omni Confidential Broe Research Team IOMYR!!D!V MY a•!Ai!SIAI! A Data Centers — Notable OPERATIONAL ISSUE Projects Location Project Developer Complaints Source of Validated? Project Complaints Value Memphis,TN Colossus 1 & 2 xAl (Elon Musk) Illegal operation of 35 gas turbines NAACP, Southern Partial $20B (permitted for 15).Air pollution surges in Environmental Law majority-Black neighborhoods. NOx Center(SELC), local emissions,formaldehyde. Noise described residents,TN Rep. as 'constant jet engines.' Water cooling Justin Pearson,TIME strain on regional aquifer investigation Southaven, MS xAl power plant xAl/MZX Tech 27 temporary gas turbines operating near Local residents, NBC Partial $1-2B (MACROHARDRR) LLC residences. Continuous noise(leaf blower' News, Mississippi /jet engine 24/7).Air emissions Today, FOX13, unmonitored under 'temporary-mobile' NAACP, SELC loophole.Children with respiratory problems reported. $7M sound wall described as ineffective. Newton County, Stanton Springs Meta Well water failures for multiple NY Times Partial $750M GA Data Center households starting 2018 — dry taps, investigation (July sediment buildup, appliances broken. 2025), BBC, local Meta accounts for—10% of county's total residents Beverly& daily water use. County projected to reach Jeff Morris,Newton water deficit by 2030 County Water Authority director Mike Hopkins OmntTR/y( Confidential Broe Research Team Nxa((f llv Rx'1+Rl.l:(S+:I 18 Legislation News : • MI sum : item:.•11": ; ,11 moo all IN 1111300 O inns Confidential Broe Research Team IOW1ASDAYMY••(AL(STAR Data Center Legislation/Events 19 • Federal Legislation/Events • Clean Cloud Act (Apr 2025) - Introduces emission standards for data centers, CO2 caps/fines, zero-emission PENT 04' by 2035 4<, • Power for the People Act (Jan 2026)— Proposes FERC to create "data center load queues" and allocate * " transmission costs to data centers; state-level rate classes; encourages data centers to build their own on-site c = power generation using clean energy sources • PJM Capacity Auction Shock (Jul 2025) — record-high energy prices for PJM region (13 states) largely ,ct`O4' attributed to data center demand STgTES O�P • ANOPR on Large Load Interconnection (Oct 2025) — DOE invoked rarely used authority to direct FERC to initiate ANOPR over streamlining "large loads" to the interstate transmission system, driven by rapid Al data center growth • Colorado Legislation/Events • SB26-102—Aims to create strict guardrails on large data center development to protect ratepayers/the environment; requires 100% renewable energy, self-payment of electricity/grid infrastructure, water efficient technologies • Sponsors: Sen. Cathy Kipp (D), Rep. Kyle Brown (D) • HB26-1030/SB25-280 — Proposes a 100% state sales and use tax exemption on qualified purchases for 20+ years for developers meeting criteria; called a "handout bill" by critics • Developers must invest at least $250M in construction, at least 25+jobs, specific criteria for water/energy efficiency • Denver City Council member Paul Kashmann: "City must pause data center development over their massive size, heavy power and water demands, as well as over vague definitions in current zoning laws" • Mayor Mike Johnston called for a one-year moratorium on building data centers, likely starting Spring 2026; unlikely to be a permanent new policy—city would treat moratorium as a pause to conduct additional review of data center regulations • Virginia Legislation/Events • HB 1515—Statewide moratorium until July 2028; carried over to 2027 session pi, • HB 507—Tier IV Generator Requirement (lowest emission)for all data center air permits after July 2026; PASSED • Sales Tax Exemption Sunset Acceleration—VA Senate voted to speed up end of$1.6B/year exemption from 2035 to Jan 2027; in conference committee Omnillnyt Confidential Broe Research Team NMI xI[IA. M'!1 MIA:ISIAII More Data Center News 20 • "A humming annoyance or jobs boom?Life next to 199 data centers"- BBC- Oct 2025 (Link) • Focuses on "Data Center Alley;" specifically Loudon County, VA • 200 facilities in county • "There are no birds around here anymore" — local resident on how constant hum/buzz scares wildlife • "I live near 14 data centers. The noise and smell are terrible, but I refuse to leave my dream home."— Business Insider— Oct 2025 (Link) • Northern Virginia focus (again) • Local resident says she faces diesel smells and constant buzzing but refuses to move; urges other residents to fight against data center expansion at a local level • "Independence residents speak out at city council meeting on$150 billion Al data center"— KSHB—Feb 2026 (Link) • City of Independence (near Kansas City) is fighting back against $6B+ Nebius Al data center development project • In March 2026, the City Council approved the development; residents threatening legal action and referendums over large tax breaks • City Council voted to give 90% tax abatement on up to $150.6B in investment for the data center campus over 20 years • "A data center opened next door. Then came the high-pitched whine."— Politico— March 2026 (Link) • Vantage's Sterling, VA location • Local residents "barraged" by a high-pitch whine coming from nearby data center (powered by eight gas turbines) • One resident installed an air quality sensor outside her home to monitor impact of the data center • Noise seems to be worse on hotter days • One woman was considering spending$8K on soundproof windows for her sons' bedrooms to help them sleep at night • "The Industry Comes In and Kills the Work of Local Citizens"— Politico— February 2026 (Link) • Gainesville, VA • Prince William County supervisor Bob Weir died in 2025; responsible for advocating regulation around data centers • After his death, his colleagues disbanded Weir's panel, undoing his legacy and gutting years of resident's work • Kenny Boddye drafted noise ordinance with increased noise limits and a more sensitive method for measuring sound • "It's not a fair fight. It's regular people fighting Amazon" —Former advisory committee member/resident NEWS � vJ Omni Confidential Broe Research Team IVR}RIDRIRA!•RIR[ISlR It US Data Center Opposition Matrix — Overview prox. 2023-2026 I Compiled March 2026 ric Value Notes Source(s) stment $64 billion $18B directly blocked; $46B delayed Data Center Watch / Introl (2026) groups 188+ Active across 40 states Data Center Watch lislation proposed/enacted 14+ No state-level bill has passed its originating chamber as of March Good Jobs First, MultiState (2026) 2026 sst 6 weeks of 2026 300+ 9x increase vs. same period 2024 Stateline (Mar 2026) s 27+ More than any other state; multiple bills pending in legislature Bridge Michigan/WKAR (2026) is 5+ Marshall, White, Putnam, Huntington, Fulton Counties InkFreeNews/ Daily Journal (2025) tax breaks under $983 million Gov. Pritzker proposed 2-year suspension of incentives (Feb NRDC/ NBC News (2026) 2026) K exemption under threat $1.6 billion Senate voted to accelerate sunset; House preserves with Introl/Virginia Mercury(2026) conditions; in conference e tax revenue $2.5 billion HB 1192 to suspend passed legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Capitol Beat/ DMA(2024) Kemp (2024) )pposition 18-24 months Developers who fail to proactively address water/noise/energy Introl (2026) concerns July 2025) 10x to $329/MW-day Extra $9.4B cost to consumers; driven by data center load growth Utility Dive/ UCS (2025) 643 —13% of global capacity in Northern Virginia alone JLARC (2024) thin 60 mi of Atlanta 26 under construction + 52 As of mid-2025 Georgia Public Broadcasting (2025) planned versal) Water use; electricity rate Present in virtually every opposition campaign nationally Multiple sources increases; noise pollution Colorado — Data Center Opposition Cases on as of March 2026 Data Center Name Owner/Developer Nature of Complaints Source of Complaints Validated?(Y/N+Outcome) CoreSite DE3 Campus CoreSite(Denver-based) Environmental justice;up to 805,000 gal/day water use;65-75 MW power GES Coalition(Alfonso Espino),hundreds of residents, YES—Directly triggered Denver's proposed citywide moratorium demand:diesel backup generator emissions:no community notification required former Councilmember Candi CdeBaca,Councilmembers (Feb 23,2026):CoreSite pulled out of community meeting:Phase under use-by-right zoning;surveillance/deportation concerns Kashmann/Watson/Gonzales-Gutierrez 1 construction continues but Phases 2-3 blocked pending moratorium:CoreSite forfeited$9M in city tax breaks All new data center projects N/A(citywide policy) Water use,power consumption,zoning gaps,ratepayer cost-shifting, Mayor Mike Johnston,Councilmember Darrell Watson YES—One-year moratorium formally announced Feb 23,2026; environmental justice (sponsor),Council member Stacie Gilmore(called for ordinance expected to be filed by March 31,2026:existing outright ban),Councilmember Paul Kashmann permits exempted;awaiting council vote QTS Aurora-Denver Campus QTS Realty Trust(Blackstone) 177 MW load(state's largest single customer):confidential discounted CO Office of Utility Consumer Advocate(Joe Pereira),CO YES—PUC imposed'commercial principles'for 50+MW 'economic development rate'from Xcel Energy;ratepayer cost-shifting;$28M PUC(Chairman Eric Blank,Commissioner Megan Gilman), customers:$250K nonrefundable deposit, 15-year contracts,75% private 230-kV transmission line;minimal jobs(70-85 permanent for$1 B+ Colorado Energy Consumers,former PUC Commissioner early-exit fee.cash security(Dec 2025):PUC capped new investment);greenhouse gas concerns John Gavan,CO Renewable Energy Society generation at 6.000 MW;large-load tariff ordered Global Al Data Center GlobalAI Cloud/GlobalAl(Colorado)LLC Water use;noise;infrastructure demands;compatibility with surrounding land Residents at commissioner meetings,environmental YES—Weld County began drafting Code Ordinance 2026-01 (New York-based:Nvidia and Saudi uses:up to 1 GW ultimate capacity on 438-acre former Carestream/Kodak site: advocate Megan Meyer(Greeley Tribune op-ed),local (Nov 2025);public input hearing scheduled April 6,2026;timeline company Uman partners) $2-20B investment range Facebook organizing groups,Weld County Commissioners extended for additional public comment:no moratorium imposed but new zoning rules pending Countywide data center zoning regulations N/A(countywide policy) Need for regulatory framework:data centers in agricultural zones;water,noise, Weld County Planning Department(David Eisenbraun), YES—Proposed ordinance would require Site Plan Review for infrastructure Board of Commissioners industrial zones and Use by Special Review with Board approval for agricultural zones;active development with public hearings Countywide moratorium(no specific project N/A(preemptive,triggered by two unnamed Water usage.energy demand.setback requirements,community impact, Larimer County Board of Commissioners.county YES—30-day moratorium approved late Jan 2026;six-month named) developer inquiries) existing 1041 regulatory process from 1970s doesn't define'data center' environmental planner Scott Benton moratorium enacted after Feb 9 public hearing;county planners drafting new regulations on water,energy,setbacks,and community impacts Granite Renewables hyperscale data Granite Renewables(New York-based) No existing data center regulations;water scarcity(South Platte River disputes Board of County Commissioners(Jim Santomaso,Mike YES—Six-month moratorium imposed Oct 21,2025(covering center with Nebraska):proximity to Minuteman missile silos;impact on agricultural Brownell.Jim Yahn) data centers.solar,wind,battery storage):new regulations land:potential$15B investment on-4.000 acres adopted;moratorium lifted late Feb 2026 after regulatory framework established Novva Data Centers Colorado Springs Novva Data Centers(Salt Lake City/West Water use:facility still using evaporative cooling despite'water-free'branding; Western Resource Advocates(Deborah Kapiloff,Lindsay PARTIAL—No moratorium or permit denial;facility continues Campus Jordan,UT;CEO Wes Swenson;backed by up to 300,000 gal/day of potable water;expansion from 6 MW to 30-40 MW on Rogers),Colorado Sun journalists,statewide policy operating and expanding;Colorado Springs Utilities adopted new CIM Group REIT) 68-acre campus;$200M+investment advocates large-load requirements(10-year contracts.collateral, infrastructure cost responsibility)Oct 2025; Novva promised transition to closed-loop cooling Large-load utility pricing plan N/A(citywide utility policy) Data center infrastructure costs being shifted to residential ratepayers Colorado Springs City Council,Colorado Springs Utilities YES—New utility pricing plan approved Oct 2025 requiring 10- year contracts with collateral for loads>10 MW:large-load users solely responsible for infrastructure costs;minimum monthly bill requirements AX2 Data Center(cryptocurrency) AX2 Data Centers(Denver-based startup; Renewable energy goal conflict(50 MW coal-powered demand would negate Pueblo's Energy Future(David Cockrell,Steve Andrews). PARTIAL—PUC voted 2-1 (April 25.2019)for preliminary president Sarah von Hell;connected to wind farm gains);first use of controversial 2018 economic development rate state legislators,clean energy advocates approval of discounted rate:project largely failed to materialize; Crypto Resources USA of Calgary) law:transparency concerns;minimal jobs(-40 at-$50K for$100M investment) controversy became precursor to broader statewide data center energy debate BlueSky Al Data Center BluSky Al Inc.(Salt Lake City;OTCID: Controversial proposed rural data center on 36-acre parcel; 15 MW modular Local civic leaders,community members at Chamber Mixer UNCERTAIN—Six months after purchase contract(Aug 2025), BSAI) 'SkyMod'facility;heated community discussion when mentioned at Chamber property had not closed;city administrator and mayor said they Mixer had never been contacted by BlueSky Al;project status unclear N/A(preliminary discussions) N/A Water scarcity in San Luis Valley;how data centers fit into rural land use County commissioners NO—Preliminary discussions only as of early 2026;no formal framework moratorium or regulation adopted FRII Data Center Front Range Internet Inc.(FRII)/Halton& Operational mismanagement;erratic owner behavior threatening service Woodward Inc.(Fort Collins manufacturer),Katmai Energy YES—Court ordered FRII into receivership(Oct 2022);receiver Howard Peters disruptions;cash transfer allegations;customers stranded LLC,Zayo Group LLC(Boulder),BBB complaints sued former owners for fraudulent asset transfers(July 2023); customers transitioned to Fort Collins Connexion and Loveland Pulse;facility now operated by Front Range Digital Holdings LLC Virginia — Data Center Opposition Cases )icenter;every core county has tightened rules 2022-2025 Project Name&Developer Key Complaints Source of Complaints Validated/Outcome Source(s) PW Digital Gateway—QTS/Compass Historic preservation(Manassas Battlefield),power grid Oak Valley HOA,American Battlefield Trust, pQ VALIDATED—Rezoning approved 4-3(Dec 2023);court ruled Data Center Watch; Data Center Dynamics (-2,100 acres,37 data centers) strain, noise, rushed lame-duck approval Coalition to Protect PWC, National Park Service rezoning'void'(Aug 2025);VA Court of Appeals barred construction pending appeal;oral arguments Feb 2026;decision pending Amazon Data Services—AWS(undisclosed Noise,traffic, historical town character, FOIA violations, 500+residents,Robert Duvall,Citizens for iQ PARTIALLY VALIDATED—Approved 4-3(Feb 2023)with 27 Introl; Data Center Watch scale) conflict-of-interest(town manager resigned to join Fauquier County, Piedmont Environmental conditions;multiple lawsuits filed;every supporting council member Amazon) Council lost re-election Catlett Station—Headwaters/Stream Data Visual impact, noise,water, nearly 200 unresolved staff Protect Catlett, Piedmont Environmental Council QQ VALIDATED—Developer withdrew application(Jul 2024) Data Center Watch Centers questions before hearing County-wide zoning overhaul(all developers) Noise,visual impact, land values,grid strain, loss of Residents, HOA Roundtable(50+HOAs), ❑Q VALIDATED—Eliminated by-right development(Mar 2025,7-2 Data Center Watch; Introl community character Piedmont Environmental Council vote);all new data centers require special exception; Phase 2 underway Zoning Ordinance Amendment(all developers) Noise,diesel emissions,proximity to residential/Metro Residents, Save Pleasant Valley,Sierra Club, .p VALIDATED—New ordinance approved(Sep 2024,8-2):200- FFXnow; Data Center Watch stations,Occoquan Reservoir watershed threat Nature Forward ft residential setback,300-ft generator setback, 1-mile Metro buffer, noise studies required Chantilly Premier—Penzance(402,000 SF,27 Noise,diesel exhaust near Occoquan Reservoir, Save Pleasant Valley,Virginia Run HOA, ,L APPROVED BUT CATALYTIC—Approved 8-1 (Jan 2024); FFXnow(Jan 2024) diesel generators) developer refused to disclose end user acoustics experts broke ground fall 2025;opposition directly catalyzed county-wide zoning reform XX Tech Park—Culpeper Acquisitions($12B, Battlefield/historic preservation(Brandy Station Civil War Brandy Station Foundation,American Battlefield pQ VALIDATED—Planning Commission unanimously Data Center Watch 426 acres) site),farmland loss,water, noise,transmission lines Trust,Piedmont Environmental Council recommended denial(Jun 2024); Board eliminated technology zone;project inactive Birchwood Campus—Amazon(869 acres, 19 Tax incentives,water demand(6.6M gal/day permit), New Board of Supervisors, residents,multiple ❑.i VALIDATED—New Board voted to downzone 893 acres back Data Center Watch; Project Censored buildings) eminent domain fears;Amazon hired firm to'dig up dirt county officials to agricultural(Apr 2024); BZA denied Amazon's appeal;County on people' Attorney,Administrator, Finance Director all resigned; project stalled DC Blox Azalea(hyperscale,exact scale Noise,air pollution, proximity to residential Residents, Henrico Planning Commission 0 VALIDATED—Planning Commission recommended denial; AllSides; Richmond BizSense(2024) undisclosed) neighborhoods,aesthetics applicant withdrew; DC Blox filed revised smaller plan(Jan 2025) Provisional Use Permit requirement(all Unchecked expansion, noise,disproportionate burden on Varina District Supervisor,residents,county QQ VALIDATED—All hyperscale data centers now require PUP Data Center Frontier;Richmonder(2024) hyperscale developers) Black communities in Varina District planning staff with public hearings(Jan 2025); property tax raised from$0.40 to $2.60 per$100 AWS Data Center Campus(existing Noise measured at 67.4 dB against 55 dB nighttime Great Oak HOA, HOA Roundtable, PWC e VALIDATED—Ongoing complaints since 2022 catalyzed Data Center Dynamics; Data Center Watch operations) ordinance limit;vibration affecting Great Oak subdivision residents broader Prince William County opposition;county imposed strict decibel limits Copper Ridge/CTC—STACK Infrastructure Scale(20x town's power demand), noise near National Coalition to Save Culpeper,veterans' Q APPROVED—Approved(Sep 2023);financial agreement Data Center Watch (scale:—20x town's power demand) Cemetery,substations,water organizations, residents under scrutiny(Oct 2025);opposition ongoing HB 1515—statewide moratorium(all Electricity demand growth(Dominion contracted capacity Del. Irene Shin,environmental groups, ratepayer Q PENDING—Bill carried over to 2027 session after failing to Data Center Dynamics;Virginia Mercury developers) doubled to 47.1 GW),grid reliability, ratepayer costs advocates pass originating chamber (Mar 2026) Sales Tax Exemption Sunset—all developers Foregone tax revenue,clean energy requirements,grid Virginia Senate majority,environmental groups, Q PENDING—Senate voted to accelerate sunset to Jan 2027; Introl; Inside Climate News(Feb 2026) ($1.6B/year) reliability JLARC House preserves with clean energy conditions;conference committee as of Mar 2026 Jrawn/Developer retreated m/Pending/Contested ng/Enacted 'suit/Active litigation Arizona — Data Center Opposition Cases sue;every major metro has enacted restrictions Project Name& Developer Key Complaints Source of Complaints Validated/Outcome Source(s) *oject Blue—Beale Infrastructure/AWS Water usage(hundreds of millions of gallons), No Desert Data Coalition, residents,Tucson City .iQ VALIDATED—Tucson City Council unanimously rejected AZBEX; Circle of Blue(2025) 3.6B) secrecy/NDAs,coal energy extension Council annexation(Aug 2025),blocking city water access; large water user ordinance passed;AWS withdrew;AZ AG challenged energy approval(Jan 2026) -ice Road Innovation Campus—Active Water,electricity, noise,Al concerns;former Sen. 40+public speakers,city residents VALIDATED—City Council unanimously rejected 7-0(Dec Daily Independent/YourValley(2025) frastructure(433K SF Al data center) Kyrsten Sinema lobbied personally for developer 2025) 'act Technology Park—Tract/Stonepeak Residential incompatibility,building height, noise,water City planning staff, residents ❑Q VALIDATED—Application withdrawn(Apr 2025);one of largest Data Center Watch 14B,529 acres) single project withdrawals nationally mning Ordinance(all developers) Grid strain,fire risk, noise,visual impact,walkability,Al Mayor Kate Gallego,Village Planning 0 VALIDATED—Zoning ordinance passed unanimously(Jul AZBEX(2025) energy concerns Committees, residents 2025):special permit required, industrial/commercial zones only, 300-ft noise mitigation buffer, half-mile transit buffer sale Infrastructure(600 acres) Water,electricity costs, noise, health concerns; potable Residents, No Desert Data Coalition .Q VALIDATED—Ordinance prohibiting potable water for cooling AZBEX;Circle of Blue water use for cooling (Dec 2024); rezoning approved only with air-cooled requirement (Jan 2026); residents may force public vote eta Data Center($800M) Water usage(1.25M gal/day)during drought conditions Vice Mayor Jenn Duff,environmental advocates ©APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS—Approved(May 2022)with NBC News;Circle of Blue(2025) one dissent; Meta committed to restoring 200M gallons annually odernized Zoning Ordinance(all developers) Zoning gaps for unincorporated county areas;ad hoc Board of Supervisors, planning staff .ie VALIDATED—Unanimously approved(Dec 2025):data AZBEX(2025) approvals without community input centers restricted to IND-2/IND-3 industrial districts only rawn/Developer retreated i/Pending/Contested g/Enacted ;uit/Active litigation Illinois—Data Center Opposition Cases suspension,44 G W of projects in pipeline ect Name&Developer Key Complaints Source of Complaints Validated/Outcome Source(s) wltiple phases,undisclosed scale) Noise(like a helicopter on our roof),water usage,rising Residents,environmental groups CI VALIDATED—6-month moratorium approved(Jan 2026)while Fox 32 Chicago;CBS Chicago(2026) utility costs:city had no zoning definition for data centers city develops ordinance (200K SF,dozens of diesel Diesel emissions(carcinogenic),noise,proximity to 5 Residents,Councilman Ian Holzhauer,physicians' 0 VALIDATED—Voted down(Jan 2026);found inconsistent with CBS Chicago;WTTW(2026) residential subdivisions;29 physicians organized in group Master Land Use Plan opposition -s(256K SF,50 MW) Diesel generators,noise,site contamination;300+attended Residents.Lisle officials ❑Q VALIDATED—Application withdrawn(Mar 2026)after public The Real Deal(Mar 2026) hearing pushback ect Vector'—Endeavour Energy Farmland loss,noise/light pollution.wildlife impact;ComEd Residents.citizen groups,agricultural advocates L PENDING—Under review;ComEd transmission upgrades IPM Newsroom(2026) iM SF) transmission upgrades($197M)needed required;plans to use own generators initially ogy/Donato Solar(30 acres) Proximity to residential neighborhoods.noise,visual impact Residents,planning commission ❑Q VALIDATED Rejected 5-2(Sep 2025)after planning IPM Newsroom(2026) commission reversed earlier support final'—Pioneer Development Unprecedented scale,proximity to homes and equestrian Residents,local businesses,equestrian n APPROVED DESPITE OPPOSITION—Approved(Mar 2026), The Real Deal(Mar 2026) .17M SF—potentially world's center,noise,farmland loss community opposition ongoing tlogy Center— Water/electricity(enough to power all Chicago households), Residents(packed chambers+overflow rooms), Q UNDER DEBATE—Heated public opposition ongoing(Mar ABC7 Chicago(2026) uerHouse(800 acres.1.8 GW) aging aquifer,farmland loss city officials 2026);vote pending 500M,634 MW) Noise,farmland loss,fossil fuel use,electric rate increases Coalition for Springfield's Utility Future Q PROCEEDING—ZBA supported 5-0;proposed moratorium Illinois Times(2026) failed 4-5 in committee;full board vote pending ,I Data Center(undisclosed scale) Lack of transparency classified as'minor change' Residents.DePaul journalism investigation n UNDER CONSTRUCTION—No public hearing held; NBC Chicago(2026) requiring no public hearing;constructed without community investigation ongoing notice —Tax Incentive Suspension(all Utility rate increases($70/month projected for Chicago-area Governor Pritzker,Citizens Utility Board,NRDC, O VALIDATED—2-year suspension of data center tax incentives NRDC:NBC News;WTTW(Feb 2026) households by 2028),$983M in prior tax breaks,grid strain ratepayer advocates proposed(Feb 2026):legislation advancing doper retreated Contested litigation Ohio, Indiana & Midwest— Data Center Opposition Cases Indiana& Ohio are primary flashpoints Project Name& Developer Key Complaints Source of Complaints Validated /Outcome Source(s) I moratorium(all developers) Noise, electric bills,water usage Residents,township trustees ID VALIDATED—First Ohio moratorium(Sep 2024) Signal Ohio(2025) rometheus(world's first>1 GW data 24-hour construction for 9+years, noise, light pollution Residents,environmental groups , PROCEEDING—Meta investing in Oklu nuclear reactors; Signal Ohio;WOSU (2026) (neighbors need blackout curtains a mile away) construction ongoing n(1.5 GW campus) Developer couldn't answer cooling/noise questions at Planning commission, residents Q DELAYED THEN APPROVED—Planning commission tabled; WCPO; Journal-News(2026) planning commission City Council approved zoning changes(Feb 2026) ed(-2 GW—largest planned in Ohio) Scale, energy demand, community impact, lack of Village council, residents QQ VALIDATED—180-day ban introduced; passed first reading WCPO;Journal-News(Feb 2026) developer transparency (Feb 2026) it moratorium(all developers) Community opposition; need for regulatory framework Residents, city officials QQ VALIDATED—12-month pause adopted Signal Ohio(2025) uncil hearing on data center growth Energy rate increases(Meta&Microsoft offsetting rising Columbus City Council,WOSU investigation Q PENDING—City Council held hearing (Mar 2026); no action WOSU (Mar 2026) e developers) utility rates), ratepayer impact yet ($2B, 892 acres);originally 36 diesel Diesel generator expansion(36— 179),wetland Citizens Action Coalition, City Council President, Q PENDING—IDEM hearing held(Nov 2025); permitting WANE 15(2025-26) ors expanded to 179(528 MW, 1.07M gal destruction, air pollution near schools,water 100+attendees at IDEM hearing decision pending ($15B northern IN campus,500 acres Environmental destruction(bald eagle nest, proximity to 3,000+Facebook group members, 3,000+petition Q APPROVED BUT CONTESTED—City Council approved; Chicago Tribune;WGN-TV(Nov 2025) •iana Dunes) Indiana Dunes National Park),well contamination risk, 35- signatures, Calumet environmental groups residents filed lawsuit year 100%tax exemption n($11 B Al training facility) Dewatering activities'messed up'private wells, unfavorable Residents, county officials Q UNDER CONSTRUCTION BUT CONTESTED—County WTHR(2025) county staff recommendation council expected to reject expansion I moratorium(all developers; proposed Need for environmental impact study; rapid development Residents, county commissioners Q VALIDATED—First Indiana county moratorium(Feb 2025) InkFreeNews; Daily Journal(2025) near Culver) without framework I moratorium(proposed project near Community concerns, rapid development Residents(packed public meetings) ID VALIDATED—Moratorium approved(Oct 2025) InkFreeNews; Daily Journal(Nov 2025) :) I moratorium(wind, solar,data centers, Broad energy/development concerns Residents, county commissioners QQ VALIDATED—One-year moratorium(Nov 2025) Daily Journal(Nov 2025) d moratorium(data centers, battery Multiple industrial development concerns Residents, county commissioners c- VALIDATED—One-year moratorium adopted unanimously InkFreeNews(2025) CO2 pipelines) I moratorium(all developers) Community concerns, lack of regulatory framework Residents, county commissioners QQ VALIDATED—Temporary ban approved(Mar 2026) InkFreeNews(Mar 2026) 'e data center on farmland(developer Farmland loss, community character,environmental impact Residents, town board Q LEGAL DISPUTE—Town board said no; developer sued the Washington Post(Oct 2025) )sed) township ioratoriums statewide following Public Act Grid strain,water, noise, rapid development after state tax Residents, local boards, Rep.Jennifer Wortz(R, QQ VALIDATED—27+moratoriums as of Feb 2026; HB 5594- Bridge Michigan;WKAR(Feb 2026) 124) breaks enacted bipartisan) 5596 proposes statewide halt through Apr 2027 I moratorium(all developers) Water contamination concerns; first-mover opposition in Residents QQ VALIDATED—One-year ban(Aug 2025); among first in the Stateline(Mar 2026) Missouri nation eveloper retreated ng/Contested ted ye litigation Georgia & Southeast— Data Center Opposition Cases st'of data centers;wave of ordinances swept through 2024-25 Project Name&Developer Key Complaints Source of Complaints Validated/Outcome Source(s) County-wide moratorium+proposed 95.57-acre Noise,pollution,environmental equity,energy/water use, Renew DeKalb, residents,Commissioner Ted Terry ❑.i VALIDATED—Moratorium extended to June 2026;draft Rough Draft Atlanta(Dec 2025);GPB data center in Ellenwood health concerns; packed commission meetings ordinance restricts to industrial zones with special land use (2025) permits;$250K health study proposed County-wide moratorium(multiple developers); Rapid development pace,zoning codes didn't include'data Residents,county commissioners 0 VALIDATED—Moratorium enacted(2026);City of Covington AJC(Mar 2026);GPB(2025) AWS purchased 985 acres for$270M center'definition also enacted 180-day moratorium Stroud's Creek data center—city annexation City annexed Newton County land for data center despite Newton County officials,Georgia DCA , , LEGAL DISPUTE—City faces decertification by Georgia DCA AJC(Mar 2026) controversy county filing for arbitration;circumvented county opposition for proceeding with annexation during arbitration Various moratoriums(multiple developers) Development pace, lack of zoning framework,utility Residents,county commissioners in multiple QQ VALIDATED—All five jurisdictions enacted moratoriums(Sep GPB(Oct 2025) impacts jurisdictions 2025) Active moratorium with draft ordinance(all Buffering, noise,design standards,traffic, utility capacity County officials, residents QQ VALIDATED—Active moratorium with ordinance in GPB(Oct 2025) developers) development Zoning Ordinance(all developers);211%growth, Rapid expansion(211%growth),730 MW energy use, Atlanta City Council, residents,environmental pQ VALIDATED—Data centers prohibited within 22-mile Beltline Capital B News;GPB(2025) 730 MW energy use water scarcity,community character advocates overlay(Sep 2024); special use permits required everywhere else HB 1192—tax exemption suspension(all Foregone tax revenue($2.5B/year),lack of transparency, Georgia House(passed 96-71) X VETOED—Passed legislature but vetoed by Gov.Kemp Capitol Beat; DMA(2024) developers);-$2.5B/year foregone revenue community impacts (2024); HB 1012(2026)would bar all permits until Mar 2027— under consideration Project Boulder—Eagle Rock Partners(1 GW, Proximity to ACE Basin conservation estuary,water usage, 7 bipartisan SC state legislators,packed Q CONTESTED—Two residents sued over zoning change; SC Daily Gazette(Dec 2025, Feb 2026) $6B,859 acres near ACE Basin estuary) NDAs preventing public disclosure,energy grid auditorium,Coastal Conservation League bipartisan opposition proclamation signed;amended application not yet filed(Mar 2026) Project Spero/TigerDC($3B) Secrecy/NDAs,community opposition, lack of project 1,200+petition signatures,county council members QQ VALIDATED—TigerDC abandoned plans after council SC Daily Gazette;Spartanburg.com details members vowed to vote no (2026) QTS($1 B,400+acres near Lake Wylie) Construction impacts,community concerns;QTS Lake Wylie community residents L PROCEEDING—Under construction;community renewed Post and Courier(2024) purchased additional 400 acres concerns over expansion Google data center(Berkeley County facility) Water usage secrecy;Google's facility uses 776M gallons Resident sued county for water usage records QQ VALIDATED—Lawsuit forced county to publicize water data Post and Courier(2024) annually (2024) General moratorium proposed(multiple Grid strain, utility costs,rapid growth without community Town officials, residents 0 PENDING—Moratorium under consideration as of Mar 2026 NC Newsline(Mar 2026) developers) input 1,800-acre data center near Dan River Environmental impact,community character, Dan River Residents,environmental groups Q OPPOSITION ONGOING—Active community resistance; no NC Newsline(2026) (developer undisclosed) watershed resolution rawn/Developer retreated /Pending/Contested g/Enacted >uit/Active litigation Texas — Data Center Opposition Cases stance;ERCOT must nearly double 2024 production by 2031 Project Name&Developer Key Complaints Source of Complaints Validated/Outcome Source(s) lack Mountain($10B campus,scale Water usage,pollution, lack of communication with Residents, Fort Worth City Council Q DELAYED—City Council tabled vote pending infrastructure Texas Tribune(Feb 2026) ndisclosed) community during planning impact report ifrakey($10B, 520 acres) Water,electricity,farmland loss;3,000-signature petition Rural residents,state Rep. Pat Curry, local Q CONTESTED—Active opposition ongoing; no resolution as of Texas Monthly;Governing(2026) officials Mar 2026 ;eneral moratorium proposed(all developers; Noise,water,energy; proximity to Dinosaur Valley State Residents,county commissioners X REJECTED—Moratorium rejected after state senator Texas Tribune(Feb 2026) linosaur Valley proximity) Park threatened legal action ;targate—OpenAl/SoftBank(1.2 GW;part of Grid strain equivalent to 1 M+homes; ERCOT capacity ERCOT,policy analysts,energy researchers Q PROCEEDING—Under construction;grid strain concerns Texas Policy Research(2026) 500E Al network) concerns unresolved ,B 6(2025)—Large Load Customer Grid stability,emergency curtailment authority, ERCOT ERCOT,state legislators, ratepayer groups Q ENACTED—SB 6 enacted(2025):requires ERCOT-authorized Texas Policy Research(2026) lanagement(>75 MW) reliability backup generation and curtailment capability for loads>75 MW lultiple developers(ERCOT grid concern) ERCOT projects Texas must nearly double 2024 energy ERCOT, residents,state Republican Executive Q SYSTEMIC—State Republican Executive Committee passed KERA News(Mar 2026);Texas Monthly production by 2031 to meet data center demand Committee near-unanimous resolution(Feb 2026)calling for'rigorous (2026) assessments,'pausing open-loop water data centers,local oversight rawn/Developer retreated n/Pending/Contested g/Enacted suit/Active litigation Northwest, Nevada & Other States — Data Center Opposition Cases linnesota, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania. Colorado, New York Project Name&Developer Key Complaints Source of Complaints Validated/Outcome Source(s) Google(multiple campuses; 274.5M gallons Water secrecy(Google claimed'trade secret'), The Oregonian(sued for records),WaterWatch of pQ VALIDATED—City NDA overturned after lawsuit;water data NBC News;Oregon CUB(2025) consumed in 2021) consumption>25%of city water,aquifer impact;city Oregon released(2022);expansion ongoing;Amazon officials under ethics lobbying for Mt. Hood forest land for reservoir investigation for land deal Meta/Apple(multiple data center campuses) Aquifer depletion(well dropped 53 ft in decade),tax Residents,WaterWatch of Oregon Lh ONGOING—15-year enterprise zone exemptions expiring Oregon CUB;Clean Energy Transition exemptions($695K total property taxes on massive (2026); BPA grid changes limited further capacity;Oregon created (2025) campuses) Data Center Advisory Committee 11 HB 3546'POWER Act'(all>20 MW developers) Residential ratepayer cost-shifting;grid strain from large Consumer utility advocates, Rep. Pam Marsh, QQ ENACTED—Signed Jun 2025: new customer class for>20 Oregon CUB;Clean Energy Transition loads Oregon CUB MW users; 10-year contracts with minimum payment (Jun 2025) commitments;prevents residential cost-shifting HB 2515—Statewide regulation(Microsoft, 86%electricity rate increase over 20 years, ratepayer cost- Rep. Beth Doglio,Tacoma Public Utilities,Yakama X KILLED—Bill killed in Senate(Mar 2026)after intense Clean Energy Transition; NatLawReview Amazon,et al.); 86%electricity rate increase shifting($584M in tax breaks 2012-2023),grid strain Nation, NW Energy Coalition Microsoft/Amazon lobbying;sponsors vowed to return in 2027 (2026) projected over 20 years Microsoft+29 data centers(Grant County total) Grid strain, hydropower share fell from 67%to 55%, natural Former Mayor Patty Martin, NW Energy Coalition, Q PROCEEDING WITH COMMITMENTS—Microsoft Clean Energy Transition(2025); gas buildout threat; property taxes up 1,277%to$54M ratepayers announced voluntary commitments(Jan 2026):closed-loop water, NatLawReview(2026) no tax incentives,full infrastructure cost payment Webb Data Center(82K SF) Environmental impact,water usage,energy Sierra Club Toiyabe Q APPEALED—Planning Commission approved;Sierra Club Data Center Watch appealed to City Council(Jan 2025) Moratorium proposal(all developers)+Oppidan Comprehensive regulatory framework needed; noise, Former AG Frankie Sue Del Papa,Sierra Club, Q MIXED—Planning Commission recommended pause 4-2; Data Center Watch(2025) Data Center water,energy in working-class neighborhoods residents City Council rejected moratorium AND minimum standards(tied vote);Oppidan denied by Planning Commission but Council overrode Peru Shelf Technology Park—Tract($100B Energy grid strain(NV Energy says grid may need to Environmental groups, NV Energy Q PROCEEDING—Broke ground;NV Energy pursuing$4.2B Data Center Watch ultimate,810 MW first phase) quadruple);water Greenlink West transmission line Amazon(348 acres near closing Sherco coal Backup diesel generators(250+)triggered environmental MPCA(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), ❑Q VALIDATED—Amazon suspended project(May 2025)citing Grand Rapids Herald-Review; InForum plant) review; proximity to coal plant closure environmental groups permitting difficulties (2025) 200-acre data center(developer undisclosed) Environmental review inadequacy; improper EAW process 'Stop the Hermantown Data Center'group, MCEA 0 VALIDATED—City rejected scrutiny requests; MCEA filed Grand Rapids Herald-Review(2025) lawsuit General moratorium(all developers) Data center impacts on community;first moratorium in City Council ❑.i VALIDATED—One-year moratorium(Feb 2026);first in InForum(2026) Minnesota Minnesota Proposed Al data center(developer undisclosed) Environmental,community concerns Residents Q VALIDATED—Residents successfully forced cancellation Common Dreams(2026) General moratorium(all developers);20,000+ Community concerns;20,000-signature petition;electricity Residents, community demonstrations,county ,Q VALIDATED—180-day pause enacted;special task force WJLA; Stateline(2026) petition signatures cost increases officials studying impacts Data center campus application(developer Community opposition; local land use concerns Residents, Board of Supervisors ❑Q VALIDATED—Unanimously rejected(Nov 2025) Stateline(Mar 2026) undisclosed) City-wide moratorium proposed(CoreSite and Community frustration,environmental cost,electricity cost- Mayor,City Council members, residents , , PROPOSED—Moratorium proposed(Feb 2026); under Stateline(Mar 2026) others) shifting;Colorado has no data center sales tax exemption consideration A 10141 /S 9144—3-year moratorium(all Grid strain,environmental impact,Al energy consumption State legislators,environmental groups Q INTRODUCED—Bills introduced(Feb 2026);no committee TechCrunch(Feb 2026) developers) concerns action yet Irawn/Developer retreated n/Pending/Contested ig/Enacted suit/Active litigation Federal & State Legislative Actions y orders at federal and state level 12023-2026 Bill/Action Description Key Complaints Addressed Sponsor/Agency Status as of Mar 2026 Source(s) i Act(S. 1475,Apr 2025) Emissions standards for data centers>100 kW;regional caps Carbon emissions,Al energy consumption, Sen.Whitehouse+Sen. LI REFERRED TO COMMITTEE—No floor vote U.S.Senate EPW;Carbon Herald(2025) declining 11%/year to zero by 2035;$20/ton CO2-equivalent climate goals Fetterman scheduled fines le People Act(S.3682,Jan 2026) Directs FERC to create'data center load queues';requires Ratepayer cost-shifting,grid reliability, Sen.Van Hollen+7 co-sponsors Q REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Data Center Dynamics(2026) utilities to allocate transmission costs to data centers,pushes transmission cost allocation state-level rate classes 9tion Order(Dec 2025) Found PJM tariff'unjust and unreasonable';directed PJM to Grid reliability,ratepayer protection,co-location FERC Commission ❑Q ORDERED—PJM must create new tariff rules FERC;Utility Dive;Day Pitney(Dec 2025) establish transparent rules for data centers co-located with cost allocation generators;previously rejected Talen-Amazon nuclear co- location(Nov 2024) ity Auction Shock(Jul 2025) Clearing price jumped 10x to$329.17/MW-day;consumers hit Ratepayer cost-shifting,grid capacity PJM Interconnection(market Q ONGOING—Systemic cost increase;multiple Utility Dive(2025) with$9.4B extra costs;UCS estimates$4.3B in infrastructure outcome) regulatory responses underway costs approved solely for data center connections socialized to ratepayers Large Load Interconnection(Oct Secretary of Energy directed FERC rulemaking on large load Grid reliability,data center interconnection queue Dept.of Energy Q RULEMAKING INITIATED WilmerHale(Feb 2026) interconnection to interstate transmission Statewide Moratorium Would halt all new data center applications until July 2028 or Grid strain,environmental review,community Del.Irene Shin CARRIED OVER TO 2027 SESSION Data Center Dynamics;Virginia Mercury grid interconnection queue is cleared impacts (2026) Exemption Sunset Acceleration Virginia Senate voted to accelerate end of$1.6B/year Foregone tax revenue,clean energy,grid Virginia Senate majority;House Q IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE(Mar 2026) Introl;Inside Climate News(Feb 2026) exemption from 2035 to Jan 2027;House preserves with reliability substitute clean energy requirements Tier IV Generator Requirement Requires Tier IV(lowest-emission)diesel generators for all Diesel emissions,air quality near residential Virginia General Assembly Q PASSED LEGISLATURE Virginia Mercury(Mar 2026) data center air permits after July 2026 areas ;S-5 Rate Class(SCC, Nov 2025) New electricity rate class for customers demanding 25+MW Ratepayer cost-shifting,grid reliability,demand VA State Corporation Commission ❑Q APPROVED—Effective Jan 2027 American Action Forum(2025) with 75%+load factor;requires 14-year contracts and certainty minimum demand charges er—2-Year Tax Incentive Proposed two-year suspension of all data center tax Utility rate increases(projected$70/month for Gov.JB Pritzker Q PROPOSED—Legislation advancing in General NRDC;NBC News(Feb 2026) i(Feb 2026) incentives;$983M in estimated prior lifetime tax breaks to 27+ Chicago-area by 2028),economic fairness Assembly data centers t(HB 5513/SB 4016) Requires clean energy,prohibits ratepayer cost-shifting, Electricity rates,clean energy,water use Bipartisan sponsors n INTRODUCED—In committee IPM Newsroom(2026) creates Water Impact Permits for large data centers •Tax Exemption Suspension(2024) Would have suspended data center tax exemptions;Georgia Foregone tax revenue,economic equity, Georgia House(96-71 vote) X VETOED BY GOV.KEMP(2024);HB 1012(2026) Capitol Beat; DMA(2024) estimated$2.5B/year in foregone revenue;passed legislature community impacts re-introduced 96-71 OWER Act'(Jun 2025) New customer class for users>20 MW; 10-year contracts with Ratepayer cost-shifting,grid reliability,large load Rep.Pam Marsh+sponsors Q ENACTED—Signed into law Jun 2025 Oregon CUB;Clean Energy Transition minimum payment commitments;prevents residential cost- cost allocation (2025) shifting Statewide Regulation(2026) Comprehensive data center regulation;86%electricity rate Ratepayer costs,tax equity,grid reliability Rep.Beth Doglio+sponsors X KILLED—Senate killed(Mar 2026)after Clean Energy Transition;NatLawReview increase projections;end to$584M in prior tax breaks Microsoft/Amazon lobbying;will return in 2027 (2026) •ge Load Customer Management For customers>75 MW:requires ERCOT-authorized backup Grid stability,emergency curtailment,ERCOT Texas Legislature Q ENACTED(2025) Texas Policy Research(2026) generation and curtailment capability during grid emergencies reliability 596—Statewide Moratorium(2026) Would halt all data center construction through April 2027; Grid strain,water use,noise,community Rep.Jennifer Wortz(R)+ Q IN COMMITTEE—Gov.Whitmer likely to veto if Bridge Michigan;WWMT(2026) bipartisan;27+local moratoriums have already passed character bipartisan co-sponsors passed 9144—3-Year Moratorium(Feb Up to 3-year pause on new data center permits;tied to Grid strain,environmental review,Al energy State legislators n INTRODUCED—No committee action TechCrunch(Feb 2026) comprehensive environmental review consumption Legislation(2025-26) Gov.Morrisey signed law preempting counties from imposing Business development,data center attraction Gov.Patrick Morrisey+ Q ENACTED—Counter-movement to national MultiState(2026) local data center regulations;also includes FOIA exemptions Legislature moratorium trend for data center data nrn/Developer retreated Pending/Contested Enacted t/Active litigation Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Delay vote of Al Center C 3 Obi —0) From: Margarita Shawcross<mcshawcross@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 1:00 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Fwd: Delay vote of Al Center Hello, Is there a recording of the meetings about the data center? If so, could I get a copy? There needs to be more public input and research done before we move forward to changing codes regarding the location of the project. I would like to ask you to delay the vote. Maggie Shawcross 1806 Montview Blvd, Greeley, CO 80631 9703028290 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: NO to the Global Al Data Center at 2000 Howard Smith Ave11. _ QPb jOVP'QI From: Kaitlyn Christensen <kchris72312@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 2:25 PM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: NO to the Global Al Data Center at 2000 Howard Smith Ave. To the Weld County Commissioners and our Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial "heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water & Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance" for Phase 1 . By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE) that would require public oversight. Their own plans, however, show a much larger "Common Plan of Development" that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals" from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review (USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. Not to mention, we are limited on water and there is so much building going on. While some Data Centers state they are recycling water to keep the rooms cooled, at some point new water will need to come, especially as it evaporates. Electricity rates will sky rocket with how much energy is drawn to keep these powered, even IF they state they will use or provide solar. This is a greater risk than I think anyone is prepared to handle and maybe don't realize how out of control allowing this decision to pass can be. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. And really, even with these assessments ran and results provided, if it shows on the lower end of risk, we don't know what it means long term and it should absolutely not be considered at all in the future Kaitlyn Christensen Fundraising, Grant, and Administrative Director Wildfire Arts Center es: WILDFIRE COM v1UNITY ARTS CENTER 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Ordinance 2026-01 1 3 Z )2(o-O/ From: Paola Rivera<pao.riv@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 2:54 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Re: Ordinance 2026-01 Good afternoon, I am writing in opposition to Ordinance 2026-01. Approving data center development at this time raises three concerns ! don't believe have been adequately addressed: 1.Water impact: Our region already faces water stress, and data centers are among the most water-intensive facilities in existence. I note that the county's own communications state that informational sessions will include explanation of why the county lacks jurisdiction over water and power.With respect,this conflates two separate issues—and the relevant one here is water consumption, not power infrastructure.The absence of jurisdiction does not reduce the impact on local water supply, nor does it absolve the council of responsibility for approving a facility that will place new demands on it. No approval should proceed without a rigorous, independent water management study 2. Community benefit:The parent company is UAE-based.The county should be required to demonstrate,with specifics, how this project serves local residents rather than primarily serving foreign investors. Informational sessions with limited attendance are insufficient. Full reports from an independent study should be made publicly available so that residents can engage with the actual data before any vote proceeds. 3. Industry risk:The Al industry's rapid expansion shows signs of being a speculative bubble.Tying our community's infrastructure to that trajectory is a risk that deserves serious scrutiny, not a fast-tracked vote. I am asking the county to delay approval for at least two years to ensure these questions are properly studied and answered. Kind regards, Paola 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Letter of Support Al Data Centers; Power Generation; and Water Reserviors -- I want them ALL EXHIBIT C0_ D � From:polliarl@aol.com <polliarl@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 3:10 PM 242-10°D( To: BOCC<BOCC@weld.gov> Subject:Al Data Centers; Power Generation; and Water Reserviors-- I want them ALL Hi Weld County Commissioners: We are writing to place our names on record as supportative of any efforts to design, develop, build, operate, partner, or expand Data Centers (regardless of purpose to include Artificial Intelligence (Al) or simply data storage); power generation and or storage to include from oil, gas and coal; and the collection and storage of any and all water sources to support not only our Weld County residence but with an objective to be a net supplier of any excesses we are able to produce or generate when it's in the interests of our community. Steven and Bonnie Polliard 5863 Crooked Stick Drive Windsor CO 80550 (personal residence) 520-401-2323 cell polliarl @aol.com home contact@polliardstrategicconsulting.com business Polliard Strategic Consulting — Defense & Retirement Planning Retirement Planning 1 Esther Gesick \ EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center a" -� a oQb20240-Ol From: Susan Bogenschild <susanbogen@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 3:26 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Fwd: Data Center I understand you are requesting comments about the proposed annexation for the Data Center(DC). -what commitment do you have toward bettering Weld County? -After a DC is built, exactly how many long term full time jobs will be available? - Colorado and the rest of the southwest is experiencing a critical water shortage. We have been asked to cut way back on watering our yards and gardens. Many of us rely on the produce we grow. -What EXACTLY are DC water requirements during construction and longterm? -what are your plans to remediate the noise pollution inherent with DCs? -How, EXACTLY would a DC benefit the people living in Weld County, aside from a handful of jobs?Al is unnecessary for most of us. Explain how I'm wrong. - NOBODY wants a DC in their community. Noise pollution, water pollution, disruption in power, water consumption at a critically scarce transition in Climate Change. - Some European communities are building DCs underground to minimize the impact on the community. Have you considered this option? None of us want or need this Data Center. Please figure out a better use of Weld County resources. Susanbogen@msn.com Windsor, Colorado Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center - Just say No 1-7) • E UPbzoetext From: Suzanne Jorissen <suzjorissen@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 5:30 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov>; Chloe White <cwhite@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center-Just say No Good day, I just heard on the news that there is a consideration for a data center in Weld County. YIKES Please - I urge you -forward this to the board - any anyone and everyone that will listen - please look further into this matter of a data center, as it is nothing but resource draining and a waste. Please -do your research - it is NOT a benefit to our county. Building the data center will only employ construction workers for a year and it will not bring other employment to more than 10 people to run these large and pathetic structures. And- it will use all of our very valuable electric, already scarce water and other resources while leaving a nuclear mess in 10 years when it's no longer relevant. I would think protecting your citizens is more important. Look into the mess it leaves, the broken promise of jobs to the area and the lies the investors are telling. Just Say NO. Where do I vote NO on this??? thank you, Suzanne Jorissen 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Windsor Al data center T . p O04o242-O( From: zachary mcdaniel <zmcdanie101@live.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 5:46 PM To: Ask The Commissioners <AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Windsor Al data center To the Weld County Commissioners and our Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave). While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center. These facilities are not traditional offices; they are massive industrial "heat engines" that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1. Water & Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event, this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures, toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch, threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2. Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise, this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance" for Phase 1 . By doing so, they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE) that would require public oversight. Their own plans, however, show a much larger "Common Plan of Development" that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals" from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging. A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review (USR), the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. Not to mention, we are limited on water and there is so much building going on. While some Data Centers state they are recycling water to keep the rooms cooled, at some point new water will need to come, especially as it evaporates. Electricity rates will sky rocket with how much energy is drawn to keep these powered, even IF they state they will use or provide solar. This is a greater risk than I think anyone is prepared to handle and maybe don't realize how out of control allowing this decision to pass can be. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed. Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. And really, even with these assessments ran and results provided, if it shows on the lower end of risk. we don't know what it means long term and it should absolutely not be considered at all in the future. Sent from my iPhone 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Object to data center B From: Lori Poe <Ioripoe50@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:34 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Object to data center Hi, I am very concerned about a data center being proposed in Windsor even if on the edge of town. There are no specific regulations which is a main reason many areas in this country are concerned as well. Data centers use so much water for cooling and in electricity to power the centers. This area has limited water even without the data center and to see water used en mass would be detrimental to the community. Higher electric bills will be a major negative for residents. I am opposed to any data center for this area. Lori Poe loripoe50@gmail.com 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No to Windsor Al Center D 9 _I• __lel 02 Zou,or From: Stu Greene<homefrystu15@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 8:55 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Cc: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: No to Windsor Al Center Hello Janson, My name Stu Greene and I am a resident of Windsor. I was unable to attend the 2 townhalls to voice my concern in person, so I am writing you to ask that you help put a stop to the Al center that is proposed to be constructed in Windsor. We are already facing rising costs of water and electricity that make it hard to survive, with the proposed Al center it will make it that much harder to live. It has already been documented in other areas around the country that allowing Al centers to be installed raises the cost of utilities and has very minimal, if any, benefit to the surrounding community. As a state we are already facing water shortages due to a very hot and dry winter and adding an AI, or even datacenter, will make water more scarce. I ask that you put people of this community before profit, people of this community before corporations. It is hard enough in the world right now and adding in extra cost and environmental concerns to our everyday lives. Thank you, Stu Greene Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Karla Ford Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 9:02 AM To: Margarita Shawcross 202lp-0I Cc: Maxwell Nader; Esther Gesick; Esther Gesick Subject: RE: Delay vote of Al Center By way of this message, I am sending your question to Max Nader, Deputy Director of Planning, and he can assist you with your questions. s6 .: COUNTY,CO Karla Ford Office Manager& Executive Assistant Board of Weld County Commissioners Desk: 970-400-4200/970-400-4228 P.O. Box 758, 1150 O St., Greeley, CO 80632 Ox OO Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Margarita Shawcross <mcshawcross@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 8:55 AM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Re: Delay vote of Al Center This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Can a question be asked of the commissioners? Using HB26-1030, states that to incentivize efficient data center development, the program allows a 100% state sales and use tax exemption on qualified purchases to the operator of a certified data center. Does that mean that if built this data center will not pay any taxes for the next 20 years, including property tax? And, eventually, which town/city will be benefiting from the tax revenue? And will. Greeley water be used for the project, even though the project is in Windsor? Lots more discussion needs to happen before this happens. Could you tell me, who is my commissioner (I live at 1806 Montview Blvd.)? Thank you, Maggie On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:26 PM Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>wrote: There was not a recording of the meetings on Monday or Tuesday. Your email will go into the public record. Thank you. - Hh COUNTY,CO Karla Ford Office Manager& Executive Assistant Board of Weld County Commissioners Desk: 970-400-4200/970-400-4228 P.O. Box 758, 1150 0 St., Greeley, CO 80632 0 X 4D ® O Join Our Team IMPORTANT:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 2 From: Margarita Shawcross<mcshawcross@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 1:00 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Fwd: Delay vote of Al Center This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use extra caution and avoid replying with sensitive information, clicking links, or downloading attachments until their identify is verified. Hello, Is there a recording of the meetings about the data center? If so, could I get a copy? There needs to be more public input and research done before we move forward to changing codes regarding the location of the project. I would like to ask you to delay the vote. Maggie Shawcross 1806 Montview Blvd, Greeley, CO 80631 9703028290 3 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Windsor/Weld Co. Plan I 4.1) oRD2oe14-01 From: Kendra Parks<keparks23@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 9:52 AM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Windsor/Weld Co. Plan Dear Commissioner, I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Weld County, specifically Windsor area. The concern involving the data center weighs heavily on myself, as well as, many of the other residents. We moved here a year ago and have since had a newborn. Our intention was to make Windsor area home. With the data center, we are highly concerned of the negative impact it will bring to our community in regards to energy costs, water implications, and pollutants. We are aware of the research and lack thereof of long term effects of these data centers in communities.There are too many unknown factors and not enough benefit for the community to make a decision so quickly. I urge for opposition against allowing the data center in the Windsor area that will be so close to residential areas, schools, and public areas (the new Future Legends). Windsor has also carried a prestige to living in the area and this will bring more negative consequences again, than beneficial to the community. Sincerely, Kendra Blanco Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners I I e. K Subject: FW: Data Centers:An Alternative Qeb2,02,0I01 From: Prudence Carter<prucarter8@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 10:52 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data Centers: An Alternative Here's an article on data center alternatives from: The Ad Hoc Group 1 Will data centers start investing in your home? Ste, , t. -0. = A i 46) I fl 1,114iirl I: a I® % i o ' 1 III �— _--A ALP; r1H / 'II�__ y, :sir ;; A; iiiihea c , . _ . --...... ,,/ I i i •4I Artwork by Latitude Media. The U.S. power grid has a timing problem. Electricity demand is accelerating quickly, driven in part by data center buildout. But the infrastructure needed to serve that demand moves slowly. New transmission lines can take a decade to permit and build. Distribution upgrades are lagging. Generation projects sit in interconnection queues for years. In some markets, the average time between a project requesting grid access and actually plugging in now stretches anywhere from three to eight years. That mismatch is starting to shape the politics of data center growth across the country. Companies are eager to reap the benefits of Al, but Americans are increasingly wary of the costs: rising electricity bills, grid congestion, and infrastructure investments that appear to serve tech companies more than local residents. So stakeholders are beginning to ask a simple question: If large loads need power quickly, shouldn't they help the system that powers them? Illinois offers a glimpse of how that conversation is evolving. Legislation under consideration would require large data centers to bring their own clean capacity equal to their maximum demand or to provide flexibility that reduces their impact on the grid. Importantly, the bill defines clean capacity broadly: it could include not just new 2 wind, solar, and storage, but also demand response, energy efficiency,virtual power plants, and other demand-side technologies. In other words, the policy explicitly recognizes that capacity doesn't have to come from a new power plant. It can also come from reducing or shifting demand. And not just on-site demand, but by making investments in distributed energy resources that can support nearby communities. That idea sits at the center of a recent report AHG put together with the Alliance to Save Energy. Instead of building new centralized generation to accommodate a data center, the large load funds investments in distributed energy resources and demand- side upgrades. By lowering peak demand in targeted locations on the grid through technologies like heat pumps, rooftop solar, batteries, and demand response,this approach creates the capacity headroom needed to serve the new facility. The idea isn't to power an entire hyperscale data center with residential solar panels. It's to address the last slice of capacity that often determines whether a project can interconnect this year or wait several years for transmission upgrades.Think of it as the distributed version of"bring your own capacity." The strategy is already beginning to show up in real-world projects. Earlier this year, Google announced an agreement with Xcel Energy in Minnesota that will bring roughly 1.9 gigawatts of new clean energy onto the utility's system. While many of these investments are utility-scale generation resources, Google is also funding investments in Xcel's distributed battery network through its Capacity*Connect program, which aggregates smaller batteries across the system to increase available grid capacity. That approach reflects a broader realization emerging in the electricity sector: some of the fastest capacity the grid can access is already sitting inside homes and buildings. Replacing inefficient electric resistance heating with modern heat pumps, for example, can dramatically reduce winter peak demand. Distributed batteries can shift electricity consumption away from peak hours. Smart thermostats and other flexible devices can reduce load exactly when the grid needs relief.Taken together,these resources start to look less like scattered efficiency programs and more like a new form of infrastructure. Unlike most grid infrastructure, those investments deliver immediate benefits to households. A high-efficiency heat pump, especially when it replaces a low-efficiency solution like electric resistance heating, can cut a family's electric bill by hundreds of dollars per year. Weatherization upgrades improve comfort while lowering energy consumption. Batteries and flexible demand technologies help stabilize the grid during extreme weather, offering an important resilience benefit for homeowners. The community benefit piece matters more now than even a few years ago. Across the country, data center development faces growing local resistance. Residents worry about electricity prices, water use, and whether massive new facilities will strain infrastructure without delivering meaningful benefits in return. At least 25 U.S. data 3 center projects were canceled in 2025 due to local community opposition, quadruple the number in 2024. Distributed capacity offers a different model. Instead of arriving as a massive new electricity consumer, a data center can arrive alongside a wave of investments that make the local grid stronger and homes cheaper to power. Utilities are increasingly interested in this approach as well. Many are searching for ways to manage rapid load growth without triggering massive capital spending on new infrastructure. Distributed resources can often be deployed far faster than new power plants or transmission lines, offering near-term capacity relief while long-term projects move through planning and permitting. None of this happens without detailed planning, of course. Distributed capacity has to be deployed in the right locations to relieve actual grid constraints. Utilities need reliable ways to measure and verify the capacity value of demand-side resources. And programs need to be designed to serve as genuine community investments — not just tech companies buying goodwill. But the direction of travel is becoming clearer. The traditional model of grid expansion — build generation, then transmission, then distribution —was designed for a world where electricity demand grew slowly and predictably. The world we're entering now looks very different. With demand rising quickly, and affordability concerns increasing, the most interesting question may not be whether data centers bring their own power. It's whether they bring energy solutions to everyone else along the way. —Annie Gilleo, Vice President, AHG 4 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No Al Center in Windsor a � ims dtbeCtiAr.01 From:ANGELA Antonacci-Sarnecki <a.antonacci@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 11:17 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: No Al Center in Windsor Hello, I'm a newer resident to Windsor, moving for Illinois. My husband retired from the Army after 25 years and started a second career with Fort Collins Police Services as an officer. When looking for home in the area, we chose Windsor because it felt like a safe, small "big" town. However, since moving here, we've been notified last minute they are building a King Soopers a few blocks from our beautiful home, basically in the middle of a residential area, and now this Al data center is on the table. We are so disappointed in the choices this town is making and they all seem to based around money, no real concern for the residents or environment. When we left Illinois, we faced the same issues, Al data centers were a hot topic; however, Illinois realized how devastating it would be not only to the environment, but they also knew there was not enough research to see how these data centers could harm humans or animals in the surrounding areas. Let alone the financial impact of the residents due to higher electricity/water cost; and that is in Illinois where water is not a concern. Our utilities are so much higher here in CO already, I cannot imagine how this would impact utilities. My ask is that you do not allow this data center to come to Windsor, Greeley, or anywhere near Weld Co. The short term financial incentives will not be worth the long term damage you will cause to the town, environment, people or the animals here. Please think about the future of the town, the people's health and the beautiful animals that occupy this land. We really don't want to sell our beautiful home in Windsor so soon and move out of Windsor due to this. Please vote no to the Al Data center. Sincerely, Angela Antonacci-Sarnecki, MBA Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center t ,.___41 From: Ronna Johnston <ronnajohnstonl@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,January 15, 2026 6:50 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Hello, I am a concerned citizen from Windsor Colorado and have been reading about the proposed data center. I strongly oppose this project. I am concerned about the water and electricity requirements and well as pollution. Windsor is already growing fasted than it can handle and the infrastructure demands are already too great. Do not add to the problems. Thank you. Ronna Johnston 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW:Al data center From: Ronna Johnston<ronnajohnstonl@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 6:18 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject:Al data center l am a resident of Windsor. I totally oppose any zoning and building of the data Al centers. Electricity and water scarcity, sound pollution, and possible air pollution.This will kill the quality of life in Windsor. Please don't even think of allowing this to happen. Ronna Johnston i Esther Gesick` Subject: FW Ordinance 2026-01 From: Ronna Johnston<ronnajohnstonl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 4:19 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 I'm a resident of Windsor and I am writing to object to the Al data centers proposed for the old Kodak area. Besides the water and electricity requirements,which are ridiculously intense, there is the issue of noise and pollution.This will destroy the property values in our area and interfere with our quality of life. Absolutely do not allow this data center to happen. Ronna Johnston 3 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Ordinance 2026-01 From: Emily Pearson <emily.lauren.pearson@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2026 9:56 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 Good evening, I am a Weld County constituent (295 Columbus St, Windsor, CO) and wanted to express my thoughts about the proposed data center near Windsor. As a long term resident of northern Colorado, I've seen my share of explosive growth, however the proposed data center is especially concerning. The potential for a rise in energy costs and consumption is my main concern. Data centers are known to consume as much water and electricity as a town the size of Windsor on a daily basis. The addition of a data center will only strain our resources further. Our natural resources are already limited in the area and with such a warm winter, water restrictions are likely this summer. With such an increase in consumption, one can only expect that energy costs will rise more than they already have in the past 5 years. Overall I'm asking the commissioners to really think long and hard about who the addition of the Data Center truly benefits, because it's not the constituents in the county, it's not the natural resources, and it's not the environment. Please consider voting for a continuation at the April 6th meeting. This would allow for more time to better understand the full impact of this decision on our local communities. Thank you, Emily Pearson EXHIBIT Tara Johnson ; • 2158 Longfin Dr. ` ��0 Windsor, CO 80550 Email:TaraJohnson110@gmail.com Dear Commissioners, I live in the Water Valley area and will have a direct visual line of sight to the proposed data center site. I understand the value of economic development, but I am concerned about long-term impacts to the character of our community. In addition to visual impacts, many communities near data centers have reported a constant low-frequency humming sound from cooling systems and equipment, particularly noticeable at night. I would ask that this concern be taken into account. I respectfully ask that any approval include: • Substantial landscaped berms and tree buffers to reduce visual impact from surrounding neighborhoods, especially elevated areas • Strict lighting controls to prevent nighttime light pollution • Enforceable noise limits, including consideration of low-frequency"hum"from cooling systems and restrictions on generator testing times • Clear limits and transparency regarding water usage, particularly with future expansion phases • Requirements that any future expansion undergo additional public review These measures would help balance growth with preserving the quality of life that makes Windsor unique. Thank you for your consideration, Tara Johnson Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Oppose Construction of Al/Data Center Facilities in Weld County EXHIBIT From: Sydney Martin<syma7842@bu.ed > D _� Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 12:33 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> 0 7:021a- t Subject: Oppose Construction of Al/Data Center Facilities in Weld County Dear Weld County Commissioner Peppier, I am writing as a concerned constituent to urge you to oppose any approval, permitting, or support for the construction of large-scale Al or data center facilities in Weld County. These facilities pose serious and unacceptable risks to our communities, infrastructure, and environment. These risks far outweigh any speculative economic benefits. Large Al and data center operations are extraordinarily resource-intensive. They consume massive amounts of electricity and water, placing additional strain on Colorado's already stressed power grid and limited water supplies. Weld County residents should not be expected to absorb higher utility costs, increased infrastructure burden, or environmental degradation so that private corporations can run energy-hungry computing operations. Additionally, these facilities contribute significantly to carbon emissions through energy demand and backup power systems, undermining Colorado's climate goals and long-term sustainability commitments. Approving such projects directly contradicts the state's responsibility to reduce emissions and protect air and water quality (especially in communities that already bear disproportionate environmental impacts). There are also serious concerns around land use, zoning, transparency, and public accountability. These projects are often fast-tracked with minimal community input, leaving residents with permanent consequences and little recourse once construction begins. Weld County should not be treated as a sacrifice zone for speculative tech expansion. I strongly urge you to oppose policies or approvals that would allow Al or data center facilities to be built in the county and instead prioritize sustainable development that genuinely benefits local residents. I expect our elected officials to protect communities (not corporate interest) and I hope to see you take a clear public stance against these projects. Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response and to understanding what actions you are taking to prevent this development. Sydney Martin Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW:Ordinance 2026-01 _..qt:___D OR & DI From:Jasmine Burkes<jcb818@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 8:33 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject:Ordinance 2026-01 Dear Ms. Gesick, I am writing as a resident of the neighboring Larimer County to ask for a continuation vote on the above referenced ordinance for the proposed Al data center.This continuation would allow more time to provide data, question utility providers, and make sure people are aware and able to share their thoughts and concerns. I am concerned about the negative impacts on community health & resources and the rising electricity costs that a data center could cause. It would also offer little to no benefit to the community, limited employment opportunities, and very little tax revenue or infrastructure. I hope that the vote on April 6th will bring about a continuation vote on this ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration, Jasmine Burkes 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Concerned a 1 iarg ORbtn -O r From:Jackie Wright<baby72302@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 2:32 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Concerned Hello, I am reaching out because I oppose the proposed annexation of the property around the old Kodak building. This should not be approved. I am deeply concerned with the lack of oversight and community input to something that will impact us all, not to mention the devastation this causes the environment. Say NO to the annexation and NO to Al data centers in Colorado. Best, Jackie Wright 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Opposition to the Annexation of Land for Ai Data Center EXHIBIT rb .5 From:Anita Solomon <anita81223@yahoo.com> CAM 20240-0( Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 8:24 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Opposition to the Annexation of Land for Ai Data Center I live in Weld County and am opposed to the annexation of the former Kodak property for the Ai Data Center. I am opposed to any Ai Data Center to be built in Weld County. Sincerely, Anita Solomon Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center MOT O12b202Ee-0 I From:Stephanie Webb<stephanie.webb@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 7:28 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Hello, I was told you were the one to talk to about helping prevent another data center from being built and destroying another city. We don't need more data centers, they aren't improving our lives, they are making them worse! If anything we need to get far far away from Al and go back to real human connection and using our own brains so they don't turn to mush. All these Al data centers are gonna do is come in and use up all the resources and help Al take all of the jobs. We don't need the tax revenue, we need trees and water for the next generations. Stop letting these businesses take everything from us. Thanks, Stephanie Webb Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No data centers I (iiil( 0 Z6-0 From:Julie Oldright<julie.oldright@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 5:58 PM To: Commissioners<COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us> Subject: No data centers Hello, As one of your constituents i am asking for a no vote or decision on ai data centers. We the people do not want one of these god forsaken things around weld county. Haven't any of you watched movies with ai, Terminator, i robot, robocop. Never fairs well for the humans. You guys are putting us all at great risk if you vote for these to come to the area. They do not produce a tremendous amount of jobs, they use too much power and water. We are already in a crisis with these two things. Thank you for your attention to this matter, JDO 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data center From:Julie Oldright <julie.oldright@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 6:28 AM To: Commissioners<COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Data center Dear Members of the Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Weld County to address the proposed expansion of industrial data centers in our region. While economic development is a pillar of your platform, the specific health risks associated with these facilities are documented and significant. I am submitting this letter to ensure there is a clear record of these concerns, as the decision to permit these facilities carries a heavy burden of responsibility for the long-term well-being of your constituents. The following risks require your immediate oversight: • Chronic Acoustic Stress: Large-scale data centers generate constant low-frequency noise and infrasound. Unlike intermittent industrial noise, this 24/7 exposure is linked to sleep deprivation, cardiovascular stress, and neurological impacts. Permitting these centers near residential or agricultural zones ignores the physiological toll on the people you represent. • Water Resource Security: In our semi-arid climate, the massive water consumption required for data center cooling is a direct threat to our local supply. Any disruption to the water table or local utility rates will be viewed by the public as a direct result of the Commission's oversight. • Grid Instability: The immense energy demand of these facilities risks the reliability of our electrical grid. Should our community face brownouts or increased energy costs during extreme weather, the responsibility will lie with those who prioritized data processing over resident safety. Weld County residents are paying close attention to how their elected officials balance corporate interests against the health of their families. Decisions made today regarding these permits will serve as a lasting record of this Commission's priorities. We expect our leaders to be the first line of defense against projects that jeopardize our quality of life, and the electorate will inevitably hold this administration accountable for any future health or environmental crises resulting from these approvals. I respectfully request that the Board implement a moratorium on all data center permits until a comprehensive, transparent health-impact assessment is conducted. We trust you will act in a manner that protects your constituents, rather than one that creates a legacy of community harm. Sincerely, Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Unique Al letter s "'V Attachments: Residents Letter - County Ordinance 2026-01.pdf O b2.1 '-01 From: Ken Brown <brown.kenmc(a@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 9:56 AM To:Jason Maxey<imaxey@weid.gov>; Scott James<siames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; pbuck@weld.og; David Eisenbraun <deisenbraun@weld.gov> Cc: Hansen93@comcast.net; autumnleopold@gmail.com Subject: Community Letter- Regarding Ordinance 2026-01 Good morning County Commissioners and Director, Thank you again for giving us opportunity to share our concerns regarding Ordinance 2026-01. As residents of Weld County, we understand and can appreciate the work you all do to attract and grow new investment opportunities within our county. Thank you. We also understand that Data Centers are a new frontier and we thank you that you are willing to take this slow and are listening to our concerns as you create standards moving forward. I've met with several community stake holders over the past couple of weeks and we want to share the attached letter with you as you continue your discussions. We also look forward to attending the community workshop. Please let us know when that will be at your earliest convenience. Kind regards, Ken Brown and the citizens of Windsor. March 10, 2026 Weld County Board of Commissioners and Planning Director 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re. Community Comments on Weld County's Regulation of Data Centers—Ordinance 2026-01 Dear Members of the Board and Planning Director, On behalf of residents of The Town of Windsor, including RainDance and Water Valley homeowners, thank you for continuing the final reading of Ordinance 2026-01 Many of us live-in the beautiful and quiet golfing and outdoor communities that are located roughly 2,000 feet from the proposed Global Al site In addition to these existing neighborhoods, there is a residentially zoned development that is less than 450 feet away from the proposed site. Given the proximity of our neighborhoods to the Al Global site, we feel strongly that families, homes, and daily residential life will be directly affected by the decisions about how Al facilities like this are permitted and regulated moving forward. Because this project Would operate so close to established neighborhoods, we respectfully ask the Board and Planning Department to hold a public meeting with nearby residents and stakeholders'before the Board reconvenes on April 6, 2026. This would allow those of us who live closest to the proposed site to better understand the County's plans and share concerns about"potential impacts-on our community. As Weld County continues to set its standards for Al Data Centers moving forward, we ask that you take the following into consideration 1. Zoning Process As mentioned in previous correspondence, Data centers are a new and, in many cases, minimally regulated type of development. Their size, power requirements, cooling systems, backup power infrastructure, and operational characteristics can vary significantly. Because of these unknowns, developments of this scale should be considered through a Special Review process, no matter the underlying zoning, rather than automatically being allowed as a use-by- right A Special Review process allows the County to carefully evaluate each project based on its specific impacts and location This review should include consideration of the following • Proximity to residential neighborhoods and other surrounding uses • The specific operations taking place on the land site or within a facility • Appropriate setbacks and screening to reduce potential impacts such as noise, lighting, and industrial infrastructure • Other infrastructure demands, including power generation, water usage and treatment, and other support systems • Noise— Please work with Dr Deanna Meinke and her counterparts to set appropriate noise frequency standards (both for dBA and dBC) Given that homes in the Water Valley Master Association are located within 2,000 feet and the residential development with some as close as 450 feet, these factors are particularly important for the Global Al location but should be considered in all scenarios moving forward. We also ask the County to carefully evaluate how data centers are classified within the zoning code. Al data centers can be developed utilizing raw land sites with mobile sea freight containers or developing or repurposing large buildings. They require excessive exterior lighting, need significant electrical infrastructure, and require cooling systems and substantial backup power systems (diesel generators and/or methane turbines) to operate These characteristics are more consistent with heavy industrial uses rather than light or medium industrial classifications. Proper zoning classification is important because it determines the types of setbacks, buffering, and review processes required, especially when development occurs near existing residential areas. These review processes must take into consideration that the data centers will be running 24 hours a day 365 days a year The noise and environmental impacts are not just felt during the building process but in perpetuity as long as the data center is operational 2. Recommended Improved Data Center Definition This language better protects residents, Weld County and future environmental considerations. ARTICLE I - General Provisions Amend Sec 23-1-90. — Definitions, as follows. [Change all italicized terms throughout this section to non-italics.] The following specific words and phrases, when appearing in this Chapter in uppercase letters, shall have the meanings stated in this Section' DATA CENTER: Any property, including raw land or improved site, that will be used pnmardy for the processing, storage, management, or transmission of digital information through computer servers or telecommunications equipment. A DATA CENTER includes all supporting infrastructure necessary for its operation, including but not limited to: • server buildings and equipment halls • electrical substations and switchgear • backup or primary power generation systems, including generators or turbines • energy storage systems • cooling systems including chillers, cooling towers, or liquid cooling systems • water storage, treatment, or distribution systems • fuel storage and delivery systems • fiber and telecommunications infrastructure • operations, security, and maintenance buildings • any use of sea freight containers or trailers For the purposes of zoning and permitting, all land, buildings and infrastructure located on contiguous property or under common ownership that support data center operations shall be considered a single DATA CENTER campus, regardless of whether construction occurs in phases. Additionally, any increase in data center computing power or addition of self(power) generation, back up power of 25MW or more shall require another "Special Review." As residents we understand Weld County continues to grow and attract new investment Our goal is not to oppose development, but to ensure that projects of this scale are carefully evaluated when they are located close to established neighborhoods and residential zones We respectfully request the opportunity to participate in a discussion with the Board and Planning Department before the final decision is made As residents who would experience the day-to-day impacts of this project, we believe our perspective is important to the process Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Concerned Residents of The Town of Windsor, Water Valley and RainDance Near the Proposed Global Al Site Ken Brown, Water Valley Jennifer Hansen, Water Valley Autumn Leopold, Raindance Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Strengthening Proposed Ordinance 2026-01: Recommendations and Questions from Residents EXHIBIT From: Autumn L. <autumnleo old mail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 4:37 PM O��o OI To:Autumn L. <_iutumnleopold@gmail.com> Subject: Strengthening Proposed Ordinance 2026-01: Recommendations and Questions from Residents Strengthening Proposed Ordinance 2026-01: Recommendations and Questions from Residents Dear Members of the Weld County Board of County Commissioners and Planning Director, On behalf of residents of Windsor, including homeowners in RainDance and Water Valley, thank you for continuing the final reading of Ordinance 2026-01 while Weld County considers additional regulations. We appreciate the Board's willingness to take additional time on a decision of this importance, and we are grateful for the public meetings that have already been held to allow community input. This letter has two parts. Part One identifies specific technical questions about the proposed facility that we respectfully ask the Board to require Global Al to answer on the record before any permits are issued. Part Two offers recommended improvements to Ordinance 2026-01 itself. PART ONE: QUESTIONS THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE GLOBAL Al TO ANSWER Before the County can properly evaluate this project — and before the community can meaningfully assess its long-term impacts —the following specific questions need to be answered by Global Al on the record. These are not abstract concerns. They are concrete architectural, operational, and infrastructure commitments that directly determine the facility's real-world impact on our neighborhood, our water supply, and our environment. We ask that the Board require Global Al to provide written, verified answers to each of the following questions as a condition of any permit application being deemed complete. 1. Architecture: Air-Gapped, Single-Tenant, and Cooling System Global Al publicly markets its facilities as air-gapped, single-tenant, and 100% liquid-cooled. These are specific, concrete architectural commitments — not vague marketing language — and the community and County deserve verified confirmation that each will be implemented at the Windsor location. a) Will the Windsor facility be air-gapped, meaning physically isolated from all external networks, with no shared infrastructure connections to outside systems? b) Will the facility operate as a single-tenant environment, meaning no shared computer or data infrastructure with other customers? c) Will the facility use 100% liquid cooling, or a hybrid of liquid and air cooling? This distinction matters significantly. 100% liquid cooling and hybrid cooling have meaningfully different noise profiles, energy demands, and water consumption footprints. Whichever approach is used should be specified as a binding permit condition — not left to the developer's discretion after approval. 2. Computing Hardware and Power Density d) Will the Windsor facility deploy NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 racks, which are rated at approximately 120 kilowatts per rack'? If so, how many racks are planned at launch, at 100 MW capacity, and at full buildout? The answer to this question directly determines the scale of power infrastructure, cooling demand, backup generation requirements, and physical footprint that neighbors will live adjacent to—permanently. 3. Power Infrastructure and On-Site Generation e) Will the Windsor facility use Bloom Energy fuel cells as a primary or supplemental power source'? If so, at what capacity, and on what timeline'? Bloom Energy fuel cells operate continuously as baseload power and represent a fundamentally different infrastructure profile than diesel generators—quieter, cleaner, and pipeline-fed rather than reliant on large on-site fuel storage If fuel cells are part of the plan, the County and community need to know whether this is a day-one operational commitment or a future phase goal f) What is the planned backup generation capacity in megawatts, and what fuel source will it use—diesel, natural gas, or hydrogen'?A 100 MW facility typically requires 20 to 40 large diesel generators for full backup coverage. Residents within 450 feet have a legitimate and urgent interest in knowing the scale, fuel type, noise output, and emissions profile of this equipment before permits are issued g) Global Al has publicly stated that GPUs consume approximately 40% of data center power while cooling and infrastructure consume the remaining 60% The Board should be aware that this framing requires scrutiny Historically, IT equipment including servers and GPUs consumes the majority of data center power—typically 60% or more—while cooling accounts for 30 to 40% The 40/60 split Global Al cites is more plausible for ultra-dense Al workloads specifically, where rack power densities exceed 100 kilowatts, but it is not representative of the industry broadly and should not be treated as a standard baseline. We ask the Board to require Global Al to provide a verified, facility-specific power use breakdown for the Windsor location — not generalized marketing figures—so that the true demands on the local power grid, cooling infrastructure, and water systems can be properly and independently assessed 4. Water Management: Closed Loop, On-Site Treatment, and Long-Term Ownership Water management is one of the most consequential and least understood aspects of a large-scale Al data center. The Board should require Global Al to answer the following questions specifically and in writing h) Will the facility use a true closed loop liquid cooling system, or an open cooling tower system'? This distinction is critical Liquid cooling alone does not automatically mean sustainable or water-efficient An open cooling tower system wastes enormous amounts of water through continuous evaporation— potentially millions of gallons per year at this scale A true closed loop system, by contrast, recirculates the same water continuously with minimal annual loss. The type of cooling system used must be specified as a binding permit condition, not a general commitment to liquid cooling that leaves the specific implementation undefined i) Will Global Al have on-site water treatment capability at launch? On-site water treatment—where a facility processes and conditions its own water supply rather than relying entirely on the municipal system — requires significant capital investment and regulatory permitting beyond the data center itself It is an important operational capability, but it takes years to implement fully. The County and community deserve a clear answer is on-site water treatment operational at launch, or is it a planned future phase'? If the latter, what is the committed timeline'? j) Does Global Al intend to pursue full ownership of water management at the Windsor location in the future, including reclaimed water sourcing and on-site treatment'? Global Al has described water sovereignty—a facility that sources, treats, circulates, and manages its own water independently of municipal supply—as a core element of its vertical integration strategy This is a meaningful long-term differentiator for a sovereign 2 data center However, reclaimed water infrastructure and on-site treatment require formal agreements with municipal utilities, state-level permits from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and multi-year construction timelines. We ask Global Al to clearly and specifically distinguish which water management capabilities will be operational at launch versus which are planned for later phases, and to provide a committed timeline for each milestone. 5. Scale and Long-Term Growth: Will Windsor Be Capped at 100 MW? k) What is the intended maximum power capacity of the Windsor location specifically, and will Global Al commit to a binding cap as a condition of the initial permit? This is perhaps the single most important question in this letter, and we ask the Board to treat it accordingly Global Al has publicly stated corporate growth targets of 100 MW in 2026, 250 MW in 2027, and 1 gigawatt by 2029. A 1 gigawatt facility would consume power equivalent to approximately 800,000 average American homes and would require infrastructure on par with a dedicated power generation plant That is not a data center—it is a regional industrial anchor with transformative and permanent impacts on the surrounding area. A 100 MW facility and a 250 MW facility are not simply bigger versions of the same thing They differ fundamentally in noise output, power infrastructure, water demand, traffic generation, visual impact, and emergency management requirements The gap between 100 MW and 1 GW is even more dramatic If Global Al's corporate growth roadmap contemplates the Windsor site scaling significantly beyond 100 MW, the residents of Water Valley, RainDance, and the broader Windsor community deserve to know that now— before permits are issued — not after the infrastructure is in the ground, the facility is operational, and expansion has already begun under permits that were never designed to govern a facility of that scale We ask the Board to require a written, binding answer to this question as a non-negotiable condition of permit approval. PART TWO: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ORDINANCE 2026-01 OUR PRIMARY CONCERN: THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED IS A DEFINITION, NOT A STANDARD In its current form, Ordinance 2026-01 does one thing: it adds a definition of"Data Center"to the Weld County ' Code, capping that definition at facilities under 50 megawatts While a clear definition is a necessary first step, a definition alone provides no protection for residents, no operating standards for developers to follow, and no enforcement tools for the County For a facility proposed at 35 MW at launch with a stated path to 100 MW or beyond, located 450 feet from residential zoning and within 2,000 feet of established neighborhoods, the ordinance needs to go significantly further The impacts of a data center are not temporary construction impacts They are permanent, continuous, and cumulative. The ordinance must reflect that reality. 1. Use by Right vs. Special Review Process Data centers are a relatively new and rapidly evolving type of development whose size, power requirements, cooling systems, backup power infrastructure, and operational characteristics can vary significantly from project to project. Developments of this scale should not be automatically permitted by right. We ask that the Board require a Special Review or Conditional Use Permit process for any data center exceeding 10 MW, including consideration of 3 • The operational characteristics of the facility, including hours of operation, noise sources, and power demand • Proximity to residential neighborhoods and other surrounding uses •Appropriate setbacks and screening to reduce impacts from noise, lighting, and industrial infrastructure • Infrastructure demands including power generation, water management, and transportation • Phase-by-phase expansion, with each significant capacity increase requiring a new review •Annual compliance reporting to verify ongoing adherence to permit conditions 2. Appropriate Zoning Classification Facilities of this type include large buildings, significant exterior lighting, high-voltage electrical infrastructure, industrial-scale cooling systems, and large backup power systems including diesel generators and natural gas or methane turbines These characteristics are more consistent with heavy industrial uses than with light or medium industrial classifications The noise and environmental impacts are not limited to the construction period —they are experienced continuously, in perpetuity, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Zoning classification must reflect this operational reality 3. Tiered Data Center Definitions The current definition applies only to facilities under 50 MW The proposed facility is designed to scale well beyond that threshold We recommend the Board adopt a tiered definition framework: - • Standard Data Center Under 50 MW • Large-Scale Data Center 50 to 200 MW • Critical Digital Infrastructure Campus Over 200 MW Each tier should trigger progressively more rigorous permit requirements and operating standards, giving the County appropriate oversight at every stage of growth. 4. Improved Data Center Definition We recommend replacing the current definition with the following comprehensive language DATA CENTER A facility or campus consisting of one or more buildings and supporting infrastructure used primarily for the processing, storage, management, or transmission of digital information through computer servers or telecommunications equipment. A DATA CENTER includes all supporting infrastructure necessary for its operation, including but not limited to • Server buildings and equipment halls • Electrical substations and switchgear • Backup or primary power generation systems, including generators or turbines • Energy storage systems • Cooling systems including chillers, cooling towers, or liquid cooling systems •Water storage, treatment, or distribution systems • Fuel storage and delivery systems • Fiber and telecommunications infrastructure • Operations, security, and maintenance buildings For the purposes of zoning and permitting, all buildings and infrastructure located on contiguous property or under common ownership that support data center operations shall be considered a single DATA CENTER campus, regardless of whether construction occurs in phases Backup power generation capacity or total electrical demand exceeding fifty (50) megawatts shall require additional Special Review or approval 4 This language is critical because it prevents a developer from treating each construction phase as a separate, smaller project in order to avoid the review thresholds that would apply to the full buildout 5. Setback, Noise, and Environmental Standards Setbacks: • Minimum 200-foot setback for primary structures from residential zone boundaries • Minimum 300-foot setback for backup generators, cooling equipment, and fuel storage • Mandatory 100-foot landscaped buffer along all residential-facing boundaries ' Noise: • Maximum 50 decibels daytime and 45 decibels nighttime at the nearest residential property line • Generator load testing restricted to weekday daytime hours only • Independent acoustic study required before permits are issued, modeling full operational load at maximum permitted capacity Environmental: • Mandatory Phase I Environmental Site Assessment before construction permits are issued • Secondary containment for all fuel and chemical storage _ • Groundwater monitoring wells at the downgradient property boundary, given Weld County's location above the Denver-Julesburg aquifer • Stormwater Management Plan required as a permit condition • Coordination with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for all water discharge permits •Annual environmental compliance report submitted to the County and made publicly available 6. Phasing and Expansion Controls •Any increase in power capacity exceeding 10 MW over the originally permitted level requires a new Special Review hearing •Any addition of backup generation capacity requires noise impact assessment and building permit review •A maximum buildout capacity for the specific parcel shall be established at the time of initial permit approval •A Development Agreement shall document phasing commitments, community benefit obligations, and site restoration requirements before any permits are issued 7. Community Protection and Accountability •Appointment of a community liaison by the operator, with contact information publicly posted •A formal neighbor complaint process with mandatory County response timelines • Third-party noise and environmental monitoring funded by the operator, with results reported annually to the County and made publicly available •A financial assurance bond sufficient to cover full site restoration if the facility is ever abandoned •A Community Benefit Agreement for any facility exceeding 50 MW, negotiated before final permit approval A NOTE ON TIMING We recognize that the Board may feel some urgency given active development interest in the county, and we respect that We are not asking for indefinite delay We ask instead for one of two paths Preferably, the Board could table final action on Ordinance 2026-01 to allow staff and legal counsel to incorporate the standards described above into a more complete and protective ordinance, and to require Global Al (and other data centers in Weld County) to provide written answers to the questions raised in Part One before any application is deemed complete 5 Alternatively, if the Board wishes to pass the current definitional language now, we strongly encourage the Board to simultaneously direct staff to develop the accompanying use standards as an urgent follow-on ordinance, and to require any data center applicant to enter into a voluntary Development Agreement with the County before any permits are issued in the interim CLOSING Weld County has a genuine opportunity to welcome significant economic investment while setting a high standard for how that investment treats its neighbors, its water, and its land. A clear, well-crafted ordinance benefits everyone and residents know what to expect, developers know what is required, and the County has the tools it needs to hold all parties accountable over time We are grateful for the Board's time and serious consideration of these recommendations and look forward to continued dialogue as this process moves forward Respectfully submitted, Concerned Residents of Water Valley and Raindance Near the Proposed Global Al Site Ken Brown Jennifer Hansen Autumn Leopold 6 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data Center - dBC Noice Level Follow-up Attachments: Data Center Noise Monitoring - Larson Davis.pdf; What are the 5 Main Causes of Noise in Data Centers_.pdf; DCOAG Great Oak Status Proposed Ordinance Levels PowerPoint 20250409_0.pdf EXHIBIT • . From: Ken Brown <brown.kenmc@gmail.com> � Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 3:50 PM 49zio To: Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; David Eisenbraun <deisenbraun@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center-dBC Noice Level Follow-up Commissioner James, Commissioner Maxey and David, Thank you again for allowing me to express my concerns last week regarding the Data Center in the Great Western Industrial Park. Per your request, I've attached some preliminary resources regarding the effects of data center noise levels, especially low frequency dBC, on the surrounding community. As mentioned during last week's meeting, dBC level research specifically as it relates to data centers, is new frontier. Therefore, much of the information I've found is from people's real time experience in other states. Please watch the new articles in the below links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbXgvAv-P7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfLFFgbZ1 X8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD5U-SoS8gw https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9ByT2TUO2DM All this to say, peer reviewed articles are underway. I've been in dialogue with several University Audiology departments from around the county including a few in our own state. They are going to send me more information soon and I will be sure to share once received. I would also like to share the below email(in blue) I received from a practicing Audiologist here in Colorado. I do strongly request that the County implement strong regulations on dBC levels for this Data Center as it will have lasting impacts on the community. It will be much easier to regulate on the front end than retroactively. I look forward to continuing dialogue. Ken 720-527-6507 Dear Ken, Thank you for reaching out and for the thoughtful and proactive work you are doing with Weld County. You are asking the right questions, particularly as communities begin to encounter continuous, low- frequency noise sources that do not fit neatly into traditional industrial noise frameworks. I just saw a few lectures on this at the National Hearing Conservation Associations annual conference a couple weeks ago in TX. You are correct that A-weighted decibels(dBA), which are most commonly used in environmental noise regulation, significantly underrepresent low-frequency sound energy. C-weighted measurements(dBC) are more appropriate for capturing low-frequency noise and infrasound components, especially from large mechanical systems such as cooling towers, backup generators, and ventilation infrastructure that operate continuously, as is typical for data centers. From a scientific standpoint, there is growing evidence that chronic exposure to low-frequency noise can contribute to adverse health and quality-of-life outcomes, even at sound pressure levels that may appear acceptable when assessed only with dBA metrics. Peer-reviewed research and guidance from organizations such as the World Health Organization, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the International Organization for Standardization have identified associations between persistent low-frequency noise and outcomes including sleep disturbance, increased stress responses, annoyance, reduced cognitive performance, and impacts on mental well-being. These effects are particularly notable because low-frequency noise propagates efficiently over long distances, penetrates buildings more readily, and is difficult to mitigate once a facility is operational. While data centers themselves are a relatively new land-use challenge, the acoustic profile you are describing is not new from a physiological perspective. Similar concerns have been documented in communities near oil and gas compressor stations, wind energy facilities, and large industrial HVAC installations. In those sectors, dBC limits and low-frequency specific criteria have increasingly been recognized as necessary complements to dBA-based standards. Weld County's existing oil and gas regulations are therefore a reasonable and scientifically defensible reference point for emerging data center policy. To answer your specific question, this topic has been studied more broadly under environmental acoustics, low-frequency noise exposure, and community noise research rather than under"data centers"as a standalone category. University-based research groups in audiology, acoustics, environmental health, and mechanical engineering have published relevant work, and there is a strong body of literature addressing continuous tonal noise and low-frequency hum in residential settings. I would encourage the Commissioners to consider requirements that include both dBA and dBC limits, long-term monitoring, nighttime criteria, and clear mitigation plans prior to construction approval. While I get the money and economics behind adding one of these centers and how that could be great for the community, I commend you for grounding this discussion in science and public health rather than waiting for impacts to emerge after the fact. Please feel free to stay in touch, and thank you again for the important work you are doing for your community. 2 Search... / Search +1 888.258.3222 TOTAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION "LARSON DAVIS Search PCB DIVISION Contact Request a Quote Home / Noise Monitoring And Industrial Hygiene Applications / Environmental Noise Monitoring / Data Center Noise Monitoring Data Center Noise Monitoring Measure Noise for Compliance and Community Relations Data centers are an essential part of our economy and infrastructure.As data centers are being built throughout the world,noise complaints related to the _ facilities are increasing.The need to comply with local noise ordinances and maintain positive community relationships can be challenging for those running • these facilities. Noise Monitoring Systems with simple yet customizable set up �I - ii and automated alert and alarm notifications make it easier to track noise in real- , di 4 '� "" time. Read on to learn more about the nature of data center noise,why it , OW _ sometimes seems more bothersome that other types of noise,and what you can do about it. Types of Data Center Noise Exterior Exterior noise at data centers or crypto mining operations are most often caused by exhaust vents in cooling equipment (chiller fans)or on-site power generation. The noise can be thought of as having two components 1. Mid-and high-frequency broadband noise-The mid-and high-frequency broadband noise generated by cooling fans is often directional.Abatement by traditional acoustic barriers is possible.Traditional measurement techniques and A- frequency weightings adequately describe the problem. 2. Low-frequency tones or hum-Low-frequency tones from data centers(fan hum)are often particularly bothersome because they are not reflected well in A-weighted measurements(a common frequency weighting applied to noise measurements that attenuates low-frequency noise).low frequency humming doesn't contribute much to A-weighted noise levels but is often the source of complaints Interior Employees inside data centers are subject to continuous noise that could be hazardous to hearing health. Personal noise exposure levels for data center workers should be considered. Noise levels can be measured in various places inside a facility and marked on a map to create a plant sound survey.Alternatively,personal noise exposure can be measured with a personal noise dosimeter,which is worn by an employee and measures noise throughout their work shift to ensure that operations do not exceed established workplace noise limits. We use cookies! The Role of Noise Monitoring at Data Centers Hi,this website uses"essential cookies"to ensure its • Assess baseline levels before construction proper operation and"tracking cookies"to understand how you interact with it.These cookies • Assess data center noise levels before and after noise abatement steps are turned on by default,click"Let me choose"to customize your s lecti ns. • Perform a sound survey and create a noise map to locate problem areas for indoor noise levels • Determine employee personal noise exposure or personal noise dose Accept all Let me choose Tools for Data Center Noise Monitoring +1 888.258.3222 TOTAi rUST`3Mi=R SATISFACTION • Handheld Noise Monitor: Used for walkaround noise measurements,short-term measurements,task-based •.easurements or sound surveys <<*>> • I 114.0 • AIL : "a stems: Used for longer-term monitoring in outdoor conditions • Personal Noise Dosimeter: Used for noise dosimetry or personal noise exposure monitoring Larson Davis offers a range of solutions for Data Center Noise Monitoring. Key benefits of our cell:Mg-is inclifnuest a Quote 1. Real-Time Monitoring:Continuously track noise levels in real-time,allowing you to identify potential issues promptly. Instant alerts can be set up to notify you of any breaches in pre-defined noise thresholds. 2. Comprehensive Data Analysis:Collect and analyze noise data over time to identify patterns,trends,and potential areas of improvement. Our Sound Level Meters and noise dosimeters provide detailed reports and visualizations for better decision-making. 3.Analysis of the Frequency Content of the Noise: Using C-or Z-weightings together with Octave Band or FFT Analysis helps you better understand the annoying low-frequency tones associated with cooling fans.We offer Class 1 Sound Level Meters for the most accurate measurements across all audible frequencies. 4.Compliance Monitoring: Ensure adherence to local regulations and industry standards.Our Sound Level Meters help you demonstrate compliance with noise level requirements,avoiding potential penalties and legal issues. 5. Remote Accessibility:Access noise data and monitoring reports remotely,enabling you to stay connected and informed even when you are away from the data center. 6. User-Friendly Interface:Our Sound Level Meters feature intuitive interfaces and easy-to-use controls, making it simple for both technical and non-technical personnel to operate and interpret the data. 7.Customization:Tailor the settings and parameters of the Sound Level Meter to meet your specific monitoring needs. 8. Expert Support and Training: Benefit from our dedicated customer support team, ready to assist you with any inquiries or technical issues. Why is Data Center Noise in Communities So Frustrating? Most community noise regulations offer noise limits in the 50 dB to 60 dB range. However,these regulations were not written with constant,low-frequency noise in mind. Data center noise occurs 24 hours a day, including overnight when ambient noise levels tend to be lower.A 50 dB noise during the daytime may not be annoying,whereas it would be noticeable at nighttime. In addition,many regulations were written to measure with A-weighted noise levels,so the lower frequency noise is not captured as well in the measurement. Data Center Noise Abatement Methods Noise from fans can be reduced with traditional acoustic barriers or acoustical shrouds; however,these shrouds can reduce fan efficiency.An alternative is utilizing larger fans or fans with high efficiency so that fan speed can be lowered. Because of the relationship between air speed and noise,decreasing fan speed a small amount can decrease noise significantly. Getting Started Measuring Data Center Noise Proactively monitor and manage noise levels around your data center. Enhance operational efficiency, maintain regulatory compliance,and foster a harmonious relationship with your surrounding community. For short-term use,5ound Level Meters and systems are available to rent. Your local Larson Davis representative will be glad to help determine what products best fit your measurement requirements.To learn more, please fill out the Contact an Expert form,and member of our team will be in touch. We use cookies! Hi,this website uses"essential cookies"to ensure its proper operation and"tracking cookies"to understand how you interact with it.These cookies are turned on by default,click"Let me choose"to CONTACT AN EXPERT customize your selections. Share Data Center Noise +1 888.258.3222 TOTAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION Sound Level Meters •tA SflNYfAVIS Personal Noise Expcitctit#IVISION Rent Systems Contact Request a Quats DOWNLOAD DATASHEET CONTACT AN EXPERT About Larson Davis Subscribe Contact Larson Davis instrumentation is used in Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest 3425 Sensorlinesm community and environmental noise technical news,training opportunities,& Walden Ave 716.684.0001 monitoring,measurement of building product updates from Larson Davis. Depew,NY acoustics,managing worker exposure to 14043 USA noise and vibration,and various automotive, aerospace,and industrial applications. SUBSCRIBE TO LD Email Sales Sales and Larson Davis is a division of PCB Support Technical: Piezotronics,Inc.,a wholly owned subsidiary Email 716.926.8243 of Amphenol Corporation. Technical Support Full About Us Cookie Preferences I Privacy Policy I Website Terms of Use I Factory Calibration I Equipment Rental I Product Repair I Amphenol Human Trafficking and Slavery Statement I CA Prop 65 Warning ©2026 PCB Piezotronics,Inc.-all rights reserved.In the interest of constant product improvement,specifications are subject to change without notice.Detailed trademark ownership information is available at www pcb.com/trademarkownership. We use cookies! Hi,this website uses"essential cookies"to ensure its proper operation and"tracking cookies"to understand how you interact with it.These cookies are turned on by default,click"Let me choose"to customize your selections. 2/17/26,2:19 PM What are the 5 Main Causes of Noise in Data Centers? Data Center Knowledge. DATA STORAGE What are the 5 Main Causes of Noise in Data Centers? Architects, cloud-computing giants, and engineers work tirelessly to reduce energy consumption, conserve water, and ensure pristine indoor air quality in data centers. However, one often overlooked problem with data centers is the amount of noise they create, which is mostly generated from the equipment used to keep them from overheating. March 17,2025 3 Min Read /1/01 • • • ‘111,10' , 16, 4011111010.4111181111111111111111111111.1116' . / =- - Sponsored by Ketchum & Walton Co. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-storage/what-are-the-5-main-causes-of-noise-in-data-centers- 1/4 2/17/26,2:19 PM What are the 5 Main Causes of Noise in Data Centers? Data Center Knowledge, Here's more on the 5 causes of data center noise and how to control it. What Are the Health Effects of Data Center Noise? Neighborhood noise disturbances aren't uncommon and are usually resolved peacefully. However, when your neighbor is a 100,000 square-foot server farm, you can't just knock on the door and tell them to keep it down. This has forced many residential communities to suffer from health effects that go far beyond hearing damage. This is because data centers don't emit a high-frequency, ear-piercing sound that easily damages hearing, but rather a low-frequency humming noise that has a much more subtle effect on people. Although you may not be cognitively aware of the sound, your brain is, and it's constantly processing the noise 24/7. Overtime, long-term exposure to low-frequency noise leads to the following symptoms: Cognitive impairment Sleep disturbances Stress Anxiety Increased risk of cardiovascular disease. 1. Air Handling Units The air handling unit's job at a data center is two-fold: 1) ensuring proper ventilation to remove contaminants from the facility and 2) preventing the server hall from overheating. Data centers may have up to a dozen rooftop air handling units producing roughly 85-100dBA at once. 2. Air-Cooled Chillers https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-storage/what-are-the-5-main-causes-of-noise-in-data-centers- 2/4 2/17/26,2:19 PM What are the 5 Main Causes of Noise in Data Centers? Data Center Knowledge _. a Harley Davidson speeding down the highway. 3. Cooling Towers Cooling towers take hot water from the buildings liquid chillers and disperse it into the atmosphere. The remaining water is cooled and reintroduced back into the building. The many moving parts involved in this process work together to generate up to 85 decibels of noise. Data centers typically have around one to three cooling towers on their rooftop. 4. Server Halls Like air-cooled chillers and air handling units, servers also have their own internal fans that work to keep essential components, like chips and circuit boards, from frying. These fans produce noise levels of up to 90dBA. While this noise is less of a concern for residential areas, data center employees are the ones who suffer the negative health effects of long- term exposure. 5. Back-Up Generators Data centers are expected to stay in operation 24/7 365. Just a few hours of downtime could cost businesses thousands of dollars due to service disruptions. When data centers experience a power outage, their diesel generators kick on to keep everything running. While this helps businesses that depend on the cloud, it forces neighboring areas to endure noise levels of 110dBA. Control Data Center Noise & Promote a Healthy Community There are several effective noise control solutions that help block soundwaves while ensuring adequate air flow to maintain proper cooling levels within a data center. One option is to install acoustical louvers - enclosures with steel blades that block sound waves without restricting airflow. These blades come in different levels of thickness depending on your unique needs, and are the ideal noise control solution for data centers. You can also consider installing noise barrier walls on the rooftop or around the perimeter of the data center to provide a buffer that prevents sound from reaching nearby neighborhoods. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-storage/what-are-the-5-main-causes-of-noise-in-data-centers- 3/4 2/17/26,2:19 PM What are the 5 Main Causes of Noise in Data Centers? Data Center Knowledge, To learn more about how to turn data centers into healthy buildings, download this white paper, Rise of the Machines: How to Transform Data Centers into Healthy Buildings Amid the Al Boom. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-storage/what-are-the-5-main-causes-of-noise-in-data-centers- 4/4 Great Oak Status - DCOAG 1- - _ - - Proposed Ordinance Levels 9 April 2025 : t. Great Oak Subdivision Dale Browne • JL - .Y` -�.--wo. � '...--':. _\ �.ice " � ► - �� .. —Day]5-Pt AVG(®A) 'INN 25-Pt AVG WM) Great Oak Noise - Proposed Ordinance Levels • •AWSgerreraterram Ne.aN.. ...gm) ———Dry Ord.Lim a(dBA) ———Night Ord.lima NM) Great Oak Measurements -. lrN��...diva. meben ak,un trmare yr.., Dry ES-Pt AVG(®C) Night E5 p1 AVG(dat) inaids Nano-auk aM 18 Oct 2024-4 Apr 2025 _ .. •aMn Naar-rag ON_dwvdo..nor ———oar our uma NBC) Night our,aura WO 90 85 = 1311221=1 ._ 80 74 75 1I AWS Tanner Way Noise Signature-After louver changes(10/20/24) 70 65 Daytime 88(C) ...."-----____ \ _ 60 55 Dlytime d(Aj LQw F1Qcu,enLyN.Qase ld6(Ca—dB(All=15,2_Ave.r_age 50 45 Nighttime 88(A) i—^- 40 35 30 25 20 tio‘~°\Vb y,\A\~d yy\L,\Va 1I\h\0 0 yL\yC\‘a 1 \1\�y 1\Y`O\~( 1\)oV1 1\'1)\11 L\1^\may ,\y3\,4 ,\1Ae6y 2 Noise Limit Proposal History — Continuous Sound 1 - Continuous Sound, L50s, + 5 dB Octave-band sound levels, continuous • Median+5 Residential Extra protection for continuous noise The equivalent coaxed o steady state levels,if all IVJiiJ �■ t" '�� bands coaxed out: 6@ Weighting Day Night •Windspeed s 6 mph 31.5 65 60 Ly,SS° 48 43 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 80,00 63 60 55 125 55 50 1 L0050 65 60 I Day:Lp,so 65 60 55 50 45 41 38 36 35 250 50 45 500 45 40 Night:Lp,50 60 55 50 45 40 36 33 31 30 1000 41 36 •Option to overlook if 2000 38 33 Day:LPA 50<—48 Lpc,so<65 critters active 4000 36 31 Night:L <43 L <60 g pA,50— pC,50— 8000 35 30 History of proposed changes to Residential Noise Levels dB(A)Day dB(A)Night dB(C)Day d8(C)Night Remarks Current Ordinance 60 55 N/A N/A Cnterion Development 50 44 N/A N/A 20 Nov 2024 David Nelson to DCOAG.Manassas"Quiet Urban and Normal Suburban Residential" Criterion Development 45 39 N/A N/A 20 Nov 2024 David Nelson to DCOAG.Many PWC Residential Areas"Quiet suburban Residential" Criterion Development 50 45 Proposed with+5dB,Page 11 Criterion Development 52 47 65 60 Data Centers @ Cntena,Page 12,included in draft Ordinance Feb 2025 Continuous Ord.Limits 48 43 Time Varying and Continuous Ordinance Limits,8 Jan 2025.Derived from Octave bard limit additior Site Visits DCOAG Site Visit Data and Observations 20250206,6 Feb 2025 Sec.14-4. Industrial,Construction and Commercial Noise These numbers include a +5 dB increase to help mitigate the 14-4.1-Maximum pemrissible sound levels generally. impact on other noise emitting entities. The DCOAG has not A Location,Type of Noise and Measurement Except as oBerwee provided.any n ewhichemanates for any operation acrrady or source and which agreed to this. The resident team has proposed that exceeds the maxmum pemlasible sound pressure levels established in Tables 14 4.1 and 14 4 2 below is herebyorohOrned The location olthem urement stall detenThne the appiirablezona,9d d classrboation continuous emitters be separately addressed at lower levels nose Imd.AI property bourdanes between dissenter znnkg dstct cIass6®tias,the units 14 the mon restricts dassisrflm shall apply (w/o +5 dB at a minimum). Table 14.4.1 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EQUIVALENT CONTINUOUS SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS(Leq) SeeadlressereleM _.. .. dBVA1.d6(Bl and M(C)One, iZonig DAnd Maximum dBA Maximum tlBA AlaumumdBC Maximum dBC Classf flan Daytime • Nighttime Daytime_r Nighttime Residential ,5252 47 85 60 AO Mired Use 82 57 170 014 _Commerrr 85 00 75 75 E }a..n / IadusflHl 78 72 Bo 1 80 ` Table 14-4 2 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE MEDIAN SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS(Lso)FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS t3CTAVE BAND DAYTIME NIGHTTIME- a The En0ineeringl BBIHBx (Ho Higher than Leq Table for dBC? 31.5 85 80 83 80 58 c'"�.• —„' 125 55 S) dB Calculator 250, 50 45 500 45 40NI . 31.5Xz 63Nz 125142 250Xz SOONz 1kMz 21011 4k Xz ekMz dB d6(A) 1,000 41 38 60 55 50 45 40 36 3 31 30 61,7: 43.3 Z003 38 33 \--._,i 4,000 38 31 8.000 36 38 Daytime 60 55 SO 45 4 38 36 3541 481 How does the new ordinance determine violations? Reported 14-4.2(4)Ongoing operations or activities shall be measured over a Noise Event minimum 10-minute duration. I a.This requirement shall not prohibit county staff or law enforcement from collecting shorter-duration observations subject to nuisance complaints regarding short-term activities or operations.Such Measure observations shall consist of a minimum of three instantaneous readings, a ID or a minimum 60-second duration reading.The geometric mean of these Noise readings will be used as the average sound level and compared to the category levels set forth in section 14-4 above. b.If the background noise is equal to the levels set forth in section 14-4 ] above,three dB shall be subtracted out of the average sound level. Impulse Intermittent continuous c.Impulse sound sources observed to have Lmax exceeding Leq by 25 dB during daytime hours,or by 15 dB during nighttime hours,shall have 5 dB added to the measured Leq for purposes of comparison to Table 14-4.1. anmum MieYulbk Impulse Levels Omni 444 Questions Daytime: 65 60 55 so 45 43 34 36 35 1. [b.above]What is background noise in Great Oak(already has noise) 16ghttMe.60 SS SO 45 40 36 33 33 30 so how can one determine that 3 dB should be subtracted? am_.d "ay 2. [c.above]Impulse is determined by Lmax not Leq,so what does+5 to Maximum Permissible Equivalent Sound Pressure Levels ILEA) Leq do for enforcement? ,w .g 3. Is a 10-minute duration adequate for"Continuous"classification? " Proposal for using this to in initiate a 30-day perimeter monitoring to " " cover legal challenges needs to be considered e ,. >: s DCOAG Resident Annoyance Perception .l.00 Only •2.Qul4hn •S-lo d .6-Very loud P-Undr66• I I d I 1I I I III I' 5556 569 ST.0 u 6161 62.62 63-64 ii 65.6E Great Oak informal perception comments taken along with measurements 16 Feb to 4 Apr 2025, dB(C) �Jj UI) JJiJ Di �i1'1 - fiuF Fjjj \ I , Noise Level Ceilings based on Great Oak Data Continuous Industrial Noise (Octave Bands) • Represents a CEILING foraggregated noise affectinga "e''"""° °ylpO""•"M6M OA L P Bane Dar Lp50 "kk� °+r WO �� A o,y a Night residential area 31.5 i 65 60 59 54 (6.0) (6.0) 63 60 55 53 48 (7.0) (7.0) • Recognizes that the data center noise issue is 125 55 50 48 43 (70) (70) primarily with low frequency noise 250 50 45 43 38 i70i (7.0) 500 45 40 40 35 (50) (50) • Considers noise perception with very few l0°0 41 36 36 33 (50) (3.°) measurements below 60 dB(C) 2000 38 33 35 31 (20) (10) 4000 36 31 34 30 (7.0) (1.0) • More low readings might change that 8000 35 30 34 30 (10) 0.0 4A) 48 4.1 44 39 (4.7) (3.9) • Eliminates+5db for false positives m• Q 62 60 55 (6.3) (6.3) AdB-a(A) 18 18 17 16 I (1.6) I (24) •dB includes more of 31 5 Octave than dB(C) • Reduces Low Frequency octaves more than others to drive meaningful reductions in noise intensity and �e annoyance Qo5 • Does NOT account for multiple collocated data center �� 3 campuses Intermittent Noise (Leq) q • Will require noise budgets or other means to force lower levels TO a°P to stay below the aggregated levels in the affected residential Zoning District Maximum dBA imumdBA Maximum dBC Maximum dBC area—proposals thus far have been silent on this aassitlotion Daytime Nighttime Dayime Nighttime • Any level over 45 dB(C) means that PWC residents Residential 48 43 60 65 MI4ed Use District 60 55 70 65 would be making a concession to huge companies Commercial 65 60 75 75 that are impacting one of most precious assets industrial 79 I 72 80 80 iUili 9Jii1 — JJ �— rriJJ� Approach for Multiple Data Center Campuses TO-Multiple Campuses Zoning District Classification Maximum dBA Maximum dBA Maximum dBC Maximum dBC Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Residential 48 43 60 55 Residential 2 NCINS' 45 40 57 52 Residential 3 NCINS• 42 37 54 49 Residential-4 NCINS' 39 34 51 46 Mixed Use District 60 55 70 65 Commercial 65 60 75 75 Industrial 79 72 80 g0 •NCINS=Nearby Continuous Industrial Noise Sources,Limit applied to each industrial noise emitter • Avoid statutory concerns with noise budgeting • Similar approach can be applied to octave band calculations if retained • Classification needs to be defined and named • PWC [Planning] Department should have responsibility to look at all zoned data center parcels to identify applicable table and date of applicability (operational..) • Consider using linear distance/direction to/from affected residential area, not all may be"adjoining"each other so avoid that in the definition • May need more than 3 rows • Need to address jurisdictional concerns as well (Project Gold Is there a simpler approach? • Issues • Impulse(defined)and intermittent(not defined)are close in nature,but have different limits and methods(Lmax/Leq) Reported • may be chalenged in court by"type of noise"since Impulse levels are more lenient. Noise Event • Continuous(defined as"essentially constant")uses octave bands requiring further measurement analysis/calculations • Requires 10 minutes of Leq to categorize as"Continuous" • Added octave bands levels for CONTINUOUS noise results in higher dBC noise limits than the Intermittent table Measure • Complicated measurement requiring special training and mathematical analysis &ID Noise • Legal challenges will be complicated and costly to PWC category • Complicated process for PWC PD,requires calculation of geometric mean. • Does not account for co-located data center campus"Noise I Budgets" • Addressngthe+3d8per additional data center's mandatory,even if this means setting Meer Impulse Intermittent Continuous Ieveis to avdd ste tuCory restrianrs P • Change Proposed • Define Continuous as"Continuous Industrial Noise" Permissible °"'"""`"l`ma'' • Define"Intermittent" w PIM Maximum w.+. • Consider dropping octave bands ••"••" n 6Z 9D " • Apply table 14-4.2 to consistently to both Intermittent and Continuous noise • Reduce the Residential levels per this slide • Removes+5db buffer added by staff TO • Better supports"noise budgets"to address additive noise from Non centers Zoning District Maximum MA Maximum d8A Maximum d8C Maximum dBC • Supported by 3years of data recorded in Great Oak Classification Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime • Consider specific exemptions for non industrial Intermittent noise to manage concerns Residential 48 43 60 55 for hosp i[als and other publi entities _Mined Use District 60 55 70 65 Commercial 6S 60 75 75 Industrial 79 72 80 80 Resident Testing Goals and Approach • Will involve the collection and correlation of measurements (meter) and homeowner perceptions of the current data center noise • Collect 72 hours of measured noise data, from 3 Great Oak locations • Include dB(A), dB(C), Octave bands and audio recordings • Gather Great Oak Homeowner noise perceptions 5 to 10 times per day from at least 10 affected or potentially impacted homes • Will benefit from an online survey tool, hopefully 50 to 100 entries over 3 days • To be correlated by time of day and meter measurement levels • Location [address] possible but may not add much for analysis 10 Resident Testing Design Metering Requirements Human Perception'Requirements • Three locations • Perception survey will be taken prior • 10200 and 10224 Winged Elm - to or without use of a meter confirmed • Simple and quick to use • Loblolly possible after 4/15 (front yard) • 3 days w/weekend, outside only • Can be imported into spreadsheet • Outside only • Consider perceived noise annoyance • Technical and privacy issues inside during the measurement period • Measurement guidance set/agreed • Survey options on next slide under consultation with Mr. Nelson • Goal is to get as many residents on • Raw data made available to the the Tanner Way side of Great Oak as possible to complete an online survey, DCOAG to correlate perceptions with measurements 5 to 10 times per day/night throughout the'measurement period 11 Perception Survey options Loudness-the attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which sounds can be ordered on a scale extending from quiet to loud"(Moore, 2004,p. 127). It is influenced by the spectral content and temporal variations of the sound as well as by intensity. Annoyance-a person's individual adverse reaction to noise The term reaction to noise denotes an emotional response and may be related to dissatisfaction and bother due to the sound(Holm Pedersen,2007), also ISO 15 666(SIS,2002). Table 1. Rating test labels • Option 1 Thinking about the noise you are hearing,how much does noise from the nearby data center bother,disturb Loudness Annoyance or annoy you? • [1]Not at at,[2]slightly,[3]moderately,[4]Very,[5]Extremely Unpleasant 7 Unpleasant Very loud 6 Extremely annoying • Option 2:Thinking about the noise you are hearing,what Loud 5 Very annoying n number from 0 to 10 best shows how much you are Comfortable 5 Annoyingrybothered,disturbed,or annoyed by the nearby data center 4 noise Soft 3 Slightly annoying • If you are not annoyed,choose 0, Very soft 2 Not annoying • if you are extremely annoyed choose 10, Inaudible 1 Inaudible • if you are somewhere in between,choose a number between 0 and 10 Source Nordic Audiological Society,Loudness and annoyance of disturbing sounds—perception Source ISO/TS 15666 2021(E)Acoustics—Assessment of noise annoyance by means of by normal heanng subjects social and socio-acoustic surveys 12 Backup Slides 13 BOCS Meeting Notable Moments • Discussion on octaves, focused on dBA levels, not dB(C) (see slide 5) • Great Oak data discounted as "not having octave bands". True but misrepresents 3 years of dBA and 5 months of dB(C) • PWC (Wade and Nelson) tests were at best instantaneous and CANNOT accurately reflect the 24x7 lived experience • Great Oak measurements were masked by traffic noise. This is the result of testing from 4:30 AM to 5:00 • Commuters have always been early from PWC to DC • Trash trucks also stage at community entrances at 5 AM • Construction (dirt)trucks are also out early, note Sup. Gordy's Jake Break worry • There is no solution for multiple data centers, aside from a discussion on needing a noise budget • A noise budget will require a significant reduction in levels. 60/65 db has to come down by up to 9 decibels for the area surrounding Great Oak. 14 4 i ,i�(at,asas• :9 sti "1', , AWSTanner Way,4 bu • ildings, f F 0 A 1-story,600'to GO Digital Second Manassa4/ f: NEW-Black +4(4) - ; - 2-St. ,� ye,00'to Gd ' _ 0 Chamber Private �„ ,/� „� 'r� #;, E ui 3/25 al i2,, CloudHQMCC5 to GO S , >ftt)onaI 5 ( Historic Site' .117 . '.�r, ': • 525'to GO ?- 1800'to GO 13 r,'. +. f'.i1 • 4 25 i �, ,�' , � x:1'�CloudHQMCC6A/Z and E'} nt ,d i *y, 2(2o) 3200'to GO ` 9 fill r. 3,-• ♦ I A • Digital Second Manassas 8ioW t ,:' Four 2-story,1500'to G0 $ f +1)ls) yy +4(9) ' LDS Church -. Great Oak(GO) •., ' A �� i t CloudHQMCC4 •.:F` e�' 291 SF/30+yr5 ;�i 3600'to GO 'S ' 1 i _ to • la CloudHQMDCI-3 ;f ..� 1' ,d 9 ' +1(17) 3 buildings,proposed ` ' '�.' a Cloud HQ MCC3 80',2 or 3-story .303) °' � � — 1900'to GO 1200'to GO by +111* • \ • CampuslDOn0. © CloudHQMCC1 #Campus DC/(Area Total DC) ter. �' 2800'to GO � ':1 Y +1(15) Planning �' 'S'gWS�Manassas OCloudHQMCC2 1 OrOCIoudHQMCC7 CityTBD) 600'toGO 8+Substations Development +i)1\ �� 1400'to GO ti. T to, Operational ,,., 4�, �,, ---, . ,�,- s A • • 129 Hz vm Nc c +ivs�s 300e{— —__.... _ 112 Hz 177 Hz — .ode :Lie70 Hz • i 274H2 • AWS generates continuous low frequency .99e ,® noise (LFN) 47.3 �� - • LFN can be felt and heard sue -- 752 Hz • LFN penetrates walls,can be more irritating inside than outside s ��® • dB(C) measures LFN,dB(A) does not MGM i I s,�� MEM 58.31 80011-1 B.ea In p® --,—J._ (-Low frequency noise .._.��® _--._ I 8964 Hz ,de limmILIIII ilde MR = �.1.1u 75.3 EN • i . lb IIIIMIIMNIMIMIIIIIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIII.-IIIIIIIIIIII.rIo: M111111.11111111111111011111•1111111 mirdiiiiimiiMMilfr IIIIII_..IMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIMIIMINII 63 d o_ O. BHx 1 . ,2Hx ,S. 201.0 MHz 30N2 9014x 5014x e011x BOW 1•Hx 130Hz,BUHz 200Hz 3001lx 40014z 500H2 700Hz 1000fIx 1300Nx 2110Hz 3000Hx 9000Hx BOOOH. BOOM. H000Hz 15000Hx 20000Hz 30000Hz 4c00011x AWS Tanner Way Noise Signature — After louver changes (10/20/24) 25 pt 25 pt Great Oak Noise 25-Point Averages Day AVG IdgA) Nght AVG(dBAI Day Ord Limit ItIBA) Nett ON OnteldBA) AWS Tanner Way —Day 25 pt AVG WO Nght 15 pt AVG OKI Tem Average(@25I 1 Jan 2023-4 Apr 2025 perature 90 ../Fan Retrofit 100% 85 8/18/2023 ..„. AWS Study AWS Study si i 1 ....i Louver Baffles 100% 9/19:21/2023 4/23-25/2024 i ,..i ,. i 1 10/8/2024 , • •• -• • . • •• • ••: :. I i 75 i...! 1 I:; AWS Study • 11/4-6/2024 . , . • - 70 . . . , .. ., . 65 NEXT SLIDE ... : •. , • '.. /\....:.,..--...... • ' : ii •; ; "N-\/\,..1\./.../' . . . •• SO 1,.. . • ..' . ••...... , ::. • .. ! , . : .. . _.• ..".. ; • - ' .- ' 35 ...., 30 „ 25 - el, .1) e,I)V. .t,_13 g)\' el?, 1,\- "P. ‘1)\. „09". m,b, 0)\' c9"t' ,,,,ot cbv e.t.a ehy c5‘" ,,,,<-, „1,,,,v c!N 4t" v <,\''' A\N. c>\ NN- 1S1" 'IA cb‘ 'S,• "s, N. N• Low Frequency Noise ( LFN ) Health Concerns LFN is emitted within the range of 20 to 500* Hz by a variety of sources such as heating,cooling, and ventilation systems for buildings In exposure to LFN, significant problems such as depression and mental dysfunction are seen in 3%to 5%more than prevalence in general population. Other problems observed following exposure to low-frequency sound include an increase in heart rate and potentially related problems. Feelings of discomfort, agitation, and restlessness when exposed to LFN have been observed in other patients, which causes people to have difficulty in daily work and job performance. National Institutes of Health:National Library of Medicine,National Center for Biotechnology Information -Health effects from low frequency noise and infrasound in the general population:Is it time to listen?A systematic review of observational studies Christos Baliatsas',Irene van Kamp b,Ric van Poll b,foils Yzermans"Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research(NIVEL),Utrecht, The NetherlandsbNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment(RIVM),Bilthoven,The Netherlands,Epub 2016 Mar 17 Expectations SOURCE:Prince William Times,Peter Cary,Feb 27.2023,Some cities suffering from data center noise turn to tough limits "Data center noise is unique in that it is not so much its loudness that is an irritant as its constancy." Les Blomberg,director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse"Blomberg noted that typical noise limits are focused on transient noise and'not on the 24/7 drone that invades your house."People say noise of 55 to 65 decibels(the range of Prince William's noise ordinance limit)is no louder than human conversation, he said,"but it's like having a conversation with someone you don't want to have,all the time. That's the thing;there's no escaping it." "One solution could be to write an ordinance that penalizes the duration of noise.Alameda, California,regulates noise based not only on decibel level,but also its time length. The longer the noise continues, the quieter it must be.But Blomberg said such an ordinance requires a police officer to stay in place as long as an hour to measure noise duration. "It makes sense,but its not The better solution,he(Blomberg)said-as in Chandler and Niagara Falls-is to require emitters of nonstop noise to be esperially quiet. "It's not unreasonable to choose a night level of 45 decibels,"Blomberg said, "and ime limit of 50". 19 Apparent Violations — Data Centers - Night t u4 C1Q .+s Si o a. !OM TM as no -w Yw boson. t• • a SS a r • 6 • na vom 6r ncrw, +...f. ,e.i.� u ( a a Si a Si110 a Al r • a vrm •••Of i, OF••O• u i• Sl sr Y S1 0 0 a o a u a a f • �a'� vra as Ou••. ra.••1. 1,00 a(y n • Sir rw+a.. u r n n a 4�urr 6a•cask NOM..o.r.s u •f w Y n • a. u • Si .. u a a r a • ss • Lisa aia•wp.. +•aa. u _ vat a••s** W a l=Oa 1a r n i r a a a a r a a worn <a 01•c.r. 6r,•a•r• u e a n a a 014-4 am, vra Mil•wc.a0 r+.r.ar• u e a • a Traf 10 fic? a a n ~aw up ar rangy. •a awe*. wrr 1 lr • A a May as M..CW w•4.4 a a a a a at N is a • 0 r Si a 100Com* a • l n 1t al a a LFN ... ,....i�� ter...... 15115,M I. •13 M. - dB Calculator 31.5Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1kHz 2kHz 4kHz (kHz dB dB(A) 10200 Winged Elm 51 47 45 43 32 23 20 61.3 46.9 10224 Winged Elm -• - 56 48 46 44 33 20 17 62.9 48.3 10087 Post Oak _ 45 45 35 20 17 59.3 47.8 20 Apparent Violations — Data Centers - Day Pate v iwrt.ar. .WN 4.6.•q 115 63 125 250 500 IMO 3000 4000 WOO I5650 WC 50 t0/614_Oft 0w4C.n. tr..r ra.5 l!0 M N M Si M Sf It 51 tl )t a S} N 1049,26 _al_ Dw60M M'w.�_o^Cw. 160 N 13 N N N /1 St II N 11 10 N // t3164 Dy Ow.Gwr . 650 tl /i N M NM N S) 51 N 19 N J6 MOW,1 tdn_ Data Cax.. 164..645.r2 5!D _._. a 15 N N N N N 64 N a A S} N 1696.25 D. DC rTe.* tn.Lw.r 1 550 N N N tl N St 5t 51 Si 3/ 21 M N Ito 61 60 St Sf SI N N 1 S1 56 N. L)�'D Da. Trwc/0C [Me1.D 160 S2 N 60 M N St N 13 15 13 630 57 56 53 .) 43 40 31 31 17 65 59 D.t C..wa, 11 N N N N N N 41 LFN 6cp5J/neeoNODteDuScoi rilttdu 1616 PYSC 1025111506 dB Calculator 31.5Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1kHz 2kHz 4kHz 8kHz dB dB(A Tanner Way _, ,r. S 5' ; 4.. 24 666 93.8 • • 129 Hz E,ea.encz analysts ` asaai 112Hz m 1771f, 4oi 70 Hz 1 %1 Hz -44ae a +sae J_- _ 46® 1367Hz 71 3am1 --IIII -- - 752 Hz • aa� ss®{ ' Ill 1 ! . • aae • ��--. 7--I— -- :,ae— _-■■■■ 470H L MINIM 8964 Hz • 4 )))_..immumummorm= mu . ..._ . . . ., 1 imamm . E 1 ,� ■ �__i■i -- oi� 4 _� C _ C•zas , ' 111111111111111111111111111111; "11111111111111= INIMNNNINIIIIIININIII ! ■:: � - I air so I,, tznz ,SHz 20Hz z4 Hz 50Hz 40Hz 60Hz 60Hz BOHz 10414 !MHz 160Hz 200Hz 220Hz 400Hz 500Hz nom: loop. z000Hz 2000Hz 3000Hz 4000Hz 5025Hz 15000Hz HO.. r502OHz 21g0011z 30540Hz 40000H2 AWS Tanner Way Noise Signature — After louver changes (10/20/24) Diesel Testing — not for DCOAG Wed . Ray Cuervo Rob Pixley They seemed to start ramping about 7:30am. Wade Hugh SOUND METER 3mins Tals 1&2-Sesame Court(He took 2-10 minute measurements from the cul-de-sac) dbA 59.2 • Test#1 8:19am-8:29am dbC 76.6 o Very windy conditions dbc 63.0-inside windows closed,far side of the house Minimaleane eic One airplane flew overhead did a 2nd outside dbC 3 min just now and got 76.9. • Test n8:30am-8:40am seems to be pretty consistent 73-76 dbC. o Very windy conditions Normal o Minimal mad traffic can't say I smell much so far. o Car door shut 76.6 Taata 3 a 4-10200 Winaegt Elm IRS took 2-10 minute measurements from the pr pe_rtyiine) In store • Test#38:48am-8:59am ,��n. Average - Winds somewhat calmer at this location - - Heavy constr alarmsiontaking place across the street(residential project) 44.6 70.2 ( MEASURE • Not sure why but my subsequent emails haven't been showing up on the list • Heavy equipment roller o Hastings Drive traffic noise e 8:30am-almost exactly consistent with 7:30am both dbA and dbC • Test e4 9:OOam-9:1 Oam o Winds 9:30am-1-2 db louder on both A and C.some 10+periods sustained over 80 dbC o Traffic noise 11:10-still about the same as 7:30 and 8:30 o Construction noise 12:15-stilt just as loud. Or° ® Rob Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Support for Responsible Economic Development in Weld County and the Proposed Data Center EXHIBIT a IUD From: Mark Hernandez<markallanhernandez@vahoo.com> �� Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2026 7:17 PM To:Jason Maxey<imaxev@weld.gov>; Scott James<siames@weid.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Support for Responsible Economic Development in Weld County and the Proposed Data Center Dear Weld County Commissioners, My name is Mark Hernandez and I'm a Weld County resident. I'm writing to share my support for responsible economic development in our county, including projects like the Al data center that's currently being discussed. Weld County has done a great job maintaining a strong economy while keeping taxes reasonable for residents, which is one of the reasons I purposely chose to move my family here. My wife and I have children, and having strong opportunities for their future in Weld County is very important to us. Projects like data centers can bring significant long-term investment and property tax revenue, helping strengthen the county's tax base while placing relatively low demand on county services. Investments like this can help support schools, infrastructure, and public safety while helping keep Weld County financially strong. Thank you for your leadership and for considering projects that support responsible growth and long- term economic stability for Weld County. Sincerely, Mark Hernandez Weld County Resident Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Support for the Proposed Al Data Center in Weld County a imx D 2i --OI From:Valerie Hernandez<vqhernandez@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 9:07 AM To:Jason Maxey<imaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Support for the Proposed Al Data Center in Weld County Dear Weld County Commissioners, My name is Val Hernandez and I'm a Weld County resident and Weld County business owner. I'm writing to share my support for the proposed Al data center. My husband and I chose to move our family to Weld County because of the strong economy, the sense of community, and the way the county has worked to maintain a healthy balance between growth and reasonable taxes. It's a place where we felt confident raising our children and investing in our future. As a business owner, I see firsthand how important a stable and growing local economy is. Projects that bring significant private investment into the county can create opportunities not only for one company, but for many local businesses, contractors, and service providers throughout the region. Developments like an Al data center can strengthen the county's tax base while placing relatively low demand on county services. Investments like this help support schools, infrastructure, and public safety while helping ensure Weld County remains financially strong for years to come. Most importantly, my husband and I want our children to have strong opportunities here when they grow up. Supporting responsible economic development helps ensure Weld County continues to be a place where families and businesses can thrive. Thank you for your leadership and for considering projects that support the long-term economic health of our community. Sincerely, Valerie Hernandez Weld County Resident and Business Owner 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Proposed Data Center Support Letter OkbZ0a-a From: Colton Lind <coltonlind2@igmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 9:58 AM To:Jason Maxey<imaxey@weid.gov>; Scott James<sjamesPweld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<IpepplerPweld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Proposed Data Center Support Letter Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am writing as a Weld County business owner, landowner, and lifelong resident to express my strong support for the proposed data center project and data center investment in our county. As we have seen over the past several decades,Weld County has long benefited from the economic strength of the oil and gas industry.The tax revenue generated by that sector has helped fund our schools, maintain our roads, support public safety, and keep property taxes comparatively stable for residents and businesses alike. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that oil and gas revenues will not remain at historic levels forever.As production fluctuates and the industry evolves,Weld County must proactively diversify and strengthen its tax base to ensure its long-term financial success. Strengthening our tax base is essential to helping keep taxes stable for Weld County residents. Responsible economic development that expands commercial and industrial investment helps distribute the tax burden more broadly, reducing pressure on homeowners and small businesses. Projects like the proposed data center provide a significant opportunity to generate long-term, reliable property tax revenue all while placing relatively limited demand on county services. In addition to strengthening the county's financial foundation,this project represents an opportunity to position Weld County as a hub for technology infrastructure and future research and innovation. By embracing modern technology investments such as data centers, it can help signal that Weld County is open for business to forward- thinking industries that will shape the national economy for decades to come. Establishing that presence today will help attract additional technology companies, research partnerships, and supporting businesses in the future that will only rise the tide for all boats in Weld County. Importantly, a project like this does not replace our existing industries in Weld County, it complements them. Diversifying our economic foundation protects our county against downturns in any single sector and creates a more resilient future for local residents, landowners, and families. I respectfully encourage the Board of County Commissioners to strongly support this proposed data center and continued Data Center investment across our county as it presents a great opportunity to strengthen Weld County's financial future while positioning our community for the next generation of economic growth. Thank you for your time and for your continued strong leadership to Weld County and ensuring that it will remain prosperous for the next generation. Sincerely, Colton Lind Weld County Resident, Business Owner, and Landowner 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Support for Proposed Al Data Center Development in Weld County Attachments: Support for Proposed Al Data Center Development in Weld County.pdf Importance: High EXHIBIT "It),... From: Keaton Schumacher<keatonschumacher18(a@gmail.com> O12D2OZ4-OI Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 10:58 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.Rov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Support for Proposed Al Data Center Development in Weld County Importance: High Dear Weld County Commissioners, Please see the attached letter expressing my support for the proposed Al data center project in Weld County. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. Sincerely, Keaton Schumacher Aggie Environmental Services LLC keatonschumacher18@gmail.com ku 970-302-9723 i Aggie Environmental Services LLC Erosion Control • Reclamation • Seeding• Environmental Services Keaton Schumacher 1970-302-9723 I keatonschumacher18@gmail.com Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to express my support for the proposed AI data center project in Weld County. Projects like this represent significant private investment in our community and help position Weld County as a leader in advanced technology and infrastructure.As our region continues to grow,attracting forward-looking industries can provide long-term economic stability and opportunity for residents and businesses. In addition to creating construction jobs and long-term careers in technology and facility operations,projects of this scale can generate meaningful property tax revenue that supports local schools,public services,and community infrastructure. Thank you for your service and for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed data center project and opportunities that support Weld County's continued growth. Sincerely, Keaton Schumacher Aggie Environmental Services LLC Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Different Al letter I O' b2o2L-Of From: Colleen W<cwetteland51@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 5:51 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Please Ensure Strong Guardrails for Proposed Data Centers in Weld County Dear Ms. Peppier, I am writing regarding the proposed data center development and the upcoming public discussions before the Weld County Commission. Data centers are large industrial facilities with significant electricity, water, infrastructure, and public safety impacts. Before any approvals are granted, I urge you to ensure that strong, enforceable guardrails are in place to protect Weld County residents. Specifically, I respectfully ask that the County require: 1. Full transparency about any proposed data center, including projected energy demand, water use, emissions, noise impacts, and long-term expansion plans. 2. A thorough review of public safety, infrastructure, air quality, and noise impacts, with independent analysis where appropriate. 3. Clear requirements that data center developers— not families, farmers, or small businesses — pay for necessary infrastructure upgrades, so existing ratepayers are not burdened with higher electricity costs. 4. Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean, renewable power and does not undermine Colorado's long-term energy and climate goals. 5. Responsible water planning that protects local water supplies and ensures agricultural producers and residential users are not compromised. 6. Assurances that nearby property values will not be negatively affected by industrial-scale operations. 7. Strong, ongoing public engagement and clear communication before any annexations or approvals move forward. 8. Action to prevent pollution and cost-shifting to local communities. Weld County has an opportunity to set a clear standard for responsible development. Decisions made now will shape our community for decades. It is far easier to establish strong protections before approval than to address unintended consequences later. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to Weld County residents. Sincerely, i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center Protections 3 a • ZOZ10—OI From:Amber<amberleighgregor@@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 4:27 PM To: Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler(caweld.gov> Subject: Data Center Protections Dear Lynette Peppier, I am writing regarding the proposed data center development and the upcoming public discussions before the Weld County Commission. Data centers are large industrial facilities with significant electricity, water, infrastructure, and public safety impacts. Before any approvals are granted, I urge you to ensure that strong, enforceable guardrails are in place to protect Weld County residents. Specifically, I respectfully ask that the County require: 1. Full transparency about any proposed data center, including projected energy demand, water use, emissions, noise impacts, and long-term expansion plans. Meaning all information is accessible for FREE and has copies in a 6th grade reading level to comply with ADA practices. 2. A thorough review of public safety, infrastructure, air quality, and noise impacts, with independent analysis where appropriate. 3. Clear requirements that data center developers— not families, farmers, or small businesses— pay for necessary infrastructure upgrades, so existing ratepayers are not burdened with higher electricity costs. 4. Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean, renewable power and does not undermine Colorado's long- term energy and climate goals. 5. Responsible water planning that protects local water supplies and ensures agricultural producers and residential users are not compromised. 6. Assurances that nearby property values will not be negatively affected by industrial-scale operations. 7. Strong, ongoing public engagement and clear communication before any annexations or approvals move forward. 8. Action to prevent pollution and cost-shifting to local communities including a Land Trust Fund from property tax revenue to counteract the quality of life that will be impacted from nearby recreational spaces. 9. A willingness to attach a Community Benefits Agreement with the development so that the aforementioned concerns are mitigated. 10. Alternatively, consider a rural location within Weld County. Weld County has an opportunity to set a clear standard for responsible development. Decisions made now will shape our community for decades. It is far easier to establish strong protections before approval than to address unintended consequences later. We can still be a hub for Al infrastructure without impacting local communities and neighborhoods with the burden of noise, air, and water pollution. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to Weld County residents. Sincerely, Amberleigh Gregor Greeley, CO 970-804-0999 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW:Windsor Data Center E gio� From: Cole Kingsbury<colekingsbury@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 1:11 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck <pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Windsor Data Center Dear Commission Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed data center project. This development is not only irresponsible but directly harmful to our community's well being and long term sustainability. We are currently in a drought, and residents have just experienced a 26% increase in water bills. Approving a facility that will consume massive amounts of water during a time of scarcity shows a disregard for the people who already live here. It is unacceptable to ask households to conserve while allowing a corporation to draw from the same limited supply at an enormous scale. Beyond water usage, data centers require extraordinary amounts of power. At a time when our infrastructure is already strained, adding such a high-demand facility raises serious concerns about grid reliability, increased costs, and environmental impact. Communities across the country have documented health repercussions associated with similar facilities, including noise pollution, air quality issues, and stress on local resources. Many residents also feel misled. We were told that stopping or modifying this project was impossible, yet other communities have successfully halted or reshaped similar proposals. This has created a sense of gaslighting and eroded trust in the process. Transparency and honesty should be the foundation of any major development decision, especially one with such far reaching consequences. I urge you to prioritize the needs, health, and financial stability of the people who already live here. This project is not in the best interest of our community, and I strongly request that you reject it. Thank you, Cole Kingsbury Windsor Resident Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Please delay vote on data center 2 E�� From:Jen Petrik Homes<jenpetrikhomes@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:57 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck <pbuck@weld.gov> Cc: Mike Sherwood <poudrevalleyhomerepair@gmail.com> Subject: Please delay vote on data center Greetings commissioners I urge you to delay the vote on the data center until more information Is available and questions can be answered. Please don't rush such an important decision. If you must vote today i would say the best vote is no at this point. Thank you for your consideration and representing the people of Weld county. Jen Petrik 970-672-6415 1573 brolien dr. Windsor Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: NO to Al Center 9 r E— vR.D202lp-O! From: Duhon Family<duhoncrew@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:22 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: NO to Al Center Dear County Commissioners, I am writing to ask that you do not allow Al Centers to be built in Weld County. Thank you, Heather Duhon Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) EP...F 014,Ww-oi From: Melisa Hardendorf<meliloufra@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:14 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Global Al Data Center Project(2000 Howard Smith Ave) Weld County Commissioner Peppier, We are emailing you to express our concerns regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site (2000 Howard Smith Ave).While the county has permitted this as a simple "commercial alteration," engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. Issues that concern the community: 1.Water&Chemical Contamination: The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event,this system risks "hydraulic overloading." If a cooling chiller ruptures,toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch,threatening local agriculture, soil, and livestock. 2.Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant, 24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise,this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol, and cardiovascular stress for residents.The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3. Regulatory Evasion: The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre "Limit of Disturbance"for Phase 1. By doing so,they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits (CDPHE)that would require public oversight.Their own plans, however, show a much larger"Common Plan of Development"that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on "zombie approvals"from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging.A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review(USR),the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We ask for an immediate halt in construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review can be completed. Community safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Michael Hardendorf Melisa Hardendorf Summit View Subdivision-Severance 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Data Center 2 E.. O12D2o210-0 I From: madison armijo <madison25sa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:58 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Al Data Center Hello Ms. Peppler, My name is Madison and I am a life long Weld County constituent. I was unable to attend the meetings about this subject so instead I am writing to ask that you reject the plans for an AI data center in the unincorporated area of Weld County. I believe this data center is entirely unnecessary and would only bring harm and negative impacts to our community. To reiterate, I am vehemently against the existence of an Al data center in my home, Weld County. I hope that you take this message into account and listen to your constituents who would be personally impacted by this. Sincerely, Madison Armijo 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: One Approval Could Cost Our Community Hundreds of Jobs and KIDS PEOPLE EXHIBIT From: Z C<zillachristyl@gmail.com> a E 14 Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:00 PM (aQb202I0-D1 To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler, kross@wel.gov; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: One Approval Could Cost Our Community Hundreds of Jobs and KIDS PEOPLE I'm sure many people are concerned about water and electricity, but another big major concern is that many companies could also disappear and people/kids health and learning problem. For example,Anheuser-Busch Metal Container in Windsor requires a significant amount of water for its plant.As you know,Anheuser-Busch has already closed three plants in the U.S. due to expensive water and electricity. With large industrial users nearby, such as Kodak,which also require significant resources, rising utility costs could become a serious issue.When water, gas, and electricity become too expensive or difficult to access, companies may choose to shut down or relocate.That could be mean 100 or more jobs being lost again due compete with data center.That's only 1 big business. Imagine many other business, rancher and farmer. Not only that, but the saddest part is how close this is to my children's school,Windsor Charter Academy. My child spends 7-8 hours a day there,five days a week, both inside and outside. How can you guarantee that the teachers and kids will not be disturbed and that we won't need to worry about noise pollution or air pollution nearby? My children's school is only two miles away. Many houses are nearby there. I believe this is something that needs to be considered very carefully, because many people could lose their jobs if water and electricity prices become too high or limited. Most importantly, it is our children who will be most affected by these decisions. Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/fairfield-budweiser-anheuser-busch-closing/ https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/hilliard/decades-after-hilliard-elementary-kids-sickened-by-nearby- plant-data-center-reignites-concerns/amp/ Hope you reject those data center in Windsor and send them somewhere and not in our beloved Weld county, Christy Kane 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT •Subject: FW: Ai data center a egm'' Ot21) -0( From: beka j<beka2387@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:17 PM To: Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Ai data center As a constituent of Weld County I urge you to please place a halt to the Ai data center. I completely understand that it seems like an incredible opportunity but i urge you to please consider the ramifications it would place on a community all ready struggling. A community all ready struggling with not enough infrastructure and to be frank with bigger problems to solve. There are no real studies or data to show the effects this has on a community long term. Please don't put the future of the community at risk not to mention the potential health risks that depths are unknown. Thank you for your time Rebekah Jimenez Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Urgent Concern: Al Data Center Development in Weld County EXHIBIT 2.15 E From: Cierra Cummins<cierracummins@gmail.com> OIQD2O2L-t Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 6:39 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Urgent Concern: Al Data Center Development in Weld County Dear Commissioners, I am writing as a concerned Colorado resident regarding the proposed Al data center development near Windsor. Let me be clear: this is not opposition to innovation. Colorado benefits from forward-thinking industries. However, innovation must be placed where it is sustainable. Colorado, by every environmental and infrastructure measure, is not an appropriate location for large-scale Al data centers. We are a high desert state with chronic water limitations. This is not a temporary drought. This is our baseline reality. Residents are already facing rising water costs, conservation mandates, and long- term uncertainty about supply. In that context, introducing infrastructure that directly or indirectly consumes massive amounts of water is not responsible planning. While it has been suggested that closed-loop cooling systems will minimize water usage, that explanation is incomplete. These systems require significantly more power, shifting the burden upstream to power generation. Power plants, particularly those supplying increased load demand, consume substantial amounts of water themselves. This does not eliminate the problem. It simply relocates it. Additionally, closed-loop systems are not without environmental risk. Over time, the water used in these systems becomes contaminated through repeated contact with machinery, oils, and industrial components. There is currently insufficient clarity and regulation around how this water is treated and ultimately disposed of. Without strict, locally enforced standards, this creates potential long-term environmental impact that our region is not equipped to absorb. Equally concerning is the current classification of these facilities as "light industrial." This designation minimizes oversight and reduces regulatory scrutiny for a development that carries heavy industrial- level impacts on water, energy, and infrastructure. This classification should be reconsidered immediately. It is also important to acknowledge that the County does, in fact, have the authority to act. Through zoning decisions and conditional approvals, you have the ability to require stricter environmental safeguards, demand transparency from developers and utilities, or prevent inappropriate siting altogether. Suggesting otherwise misrepresents the role of local governance in protecting the communities you serve. At this stage, there are more unanswered questions than clear, transparent answers. That alone warrants a pause. I respectfully request the following: • Delay any approval deadlines to allow for additional public input and fully informed decision-making • Require expanded town hall discussions with utility providers and environmental experts present • Reevaluate zoning classifications to reflect the true impact of these facilities • Establish strict, enforceable standards for water use, energy sourcing, and waste management before any approvals are granted Colorado's resources are not infinite. Once strained, they cannot be,easily restored. Decisions made now will shape the long-term sustainability, affordability, and livability of our communities. This is not just a development decision It is a resource decision And it deserves the level of scrutiny that reality demands. Respectfully, Cierra Howard Greeley, CO resident (303)653-4850 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No to Data Center a E,....Ic From:Kris Hazelton<krist estesoarknews.com> Sent:Wednesday,March 25,2026 7:53 AM To:Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject:No to Data Center Dear Weld County Commissioner Lynette Peppier, I am writing as a concerned resident to respectfully share my perspective regarding the potential development of data centers in Weld County. While I understand the desire to attract new investment and economic opportunity,I have significant concerns about whether data centers are the right fit for our community. First,the water demands associated with these facilities are deeply troubling.In a region where water is one of our most valuable and limited resources,it is difficult to justify allocating large quantities to support industrial cooling systems—especially when agriculture and local communities depend on that same supply. Second,the energy consumption required to operate data centers is enormous.This raises questions about strain on our power infrastructure, potential increases in energy costs for residents,and alignment with broader environmental and sustainability goals. Additionally,while these projects are often presented as economic development,the reality is that long-term job creation is minimal once construction is complete.This makes it hard to see a meaningful return for the level of resources and infrastructure required. I am also concerned about quality-of-life impacts,including noise from continuous operations and generators,as well as the industrial scale and visual impact of these facilities in what has long been a community rooted in agriculture and open space. Finally,I urge you to consider whether the county currently has adequate regulations and protections in place to fully evaluate and manage projects of this scale.It seems prudent to ensure clear standards,transparency,and community input before moving forward with any approvals. Weld County is a special place,defined by its agricultural heritage,natural resources,and strong sense of community.I respectfully ask that you carefully weigh whether data centers align with these values and serve the long-term interests of residents. Thank you for your time,your service,and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Kristi Hazelton Windsor, CO kris(estesparknews.com \' • riey/ -i ♦g II Y I Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Please put Weld County residents ahead of corporate demand From:Kris Hazelton<kris@estesparknews.com> Sent:Tuesday,March 31,2026 8:46 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxev@weld.gov> Subject:Please put Weld County residents ahead of corporate demand Dear Weld County Commissioners Maxey,James,Peppier,Ross,and Buck, I am writing to strongly urge you to reject any proposal to bring a data center to Weld County. This is not the right project for our community,and the long-term damage far outweighs any short-term promises of"economic development." Data centers are massive industrial operations that consume staggering amounts of electricity and water.At a time when Colorado continues to face drought,water shortages,and growing strain on natural resources,it is reckless to approve a facility that could use millions of gallons of water simply to cool computer servers.That water should be protected for the people,agriculture,and future of Weld County—not diverted to support an energy-hungry corporate operation. The power demand is just as troubling.A data center would place enormous pressure on the electrical grid and could drive up electricity costs for residents,farmers,and small businesses.Weld County families should not be forced to pay more for basic utilities so a private company can profit while consuming extraordinary public resources. Beyond water and energy use,data centers bring serious environmental consequences:industrial noise,land and habitat disruption, increased emissions,and added strain on local infrastructure.These projects are often sold as"clean"or"quiet,"but the reality is that they are resource-intensive industrial facilities with a lasting footprint on the communities around them. Weld County has built its identity on agriculture,open space,responsible growth,and stewardship of its resources.Approving a data center would move this county in the wrong direction and put corporate interests ahead of residents,landowners,and future generations. Please do not allow Weld County to become the site of a project that will drain our water,stress our power supply,raise utility costs,and damage the environment for years to come. I urge you to stand with the people of Windsor and Weld County and say no to a data center. Sincerely, Kristi Hazelton Windsor resident Kris Hazelton kris@estesparknews.com //,/ ,, rr 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Data Center concern E�,d2)2o2,6-al From: daraweyna@icloud.com <daraweyna@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 12:22 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck <pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Al Data Center concern Hello, My name is Dara Weyna and I live in Water Valley south. I am aware that you are recieving and reviewing the community's overwhelming response to the proposed data center at the Kodak plant. Like many people, my main concern is the lack of information that is being provided to the community on the ramifications of this proposal. I see absolutely zero benefit to having a data center in such close proximity to our neighborhoods and am concerned about noise pollution, resource management and environmental impact as well as home valuations. With our water bills already having gone up by 20%, our electriicity bills soaring and living with extreme drought conditions, this proposal is down right irresponsible and dangerous. I am asking that the Commissioners office extend the April 6th deadline to allow for more time for public input. Thank you, Dara Weyna Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: You Have the Power to Stop This—And We are Watching D E r1 OaD202(0-0( From: Amanda T<luckytohavebeen@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 10:11 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weId.go\;> Subject: You Have the Power to Stop This — And We are Watching Commissioner Peppler, Weld County is in the middle of a historic drought, and you are being asked to approve an Al data center that will compromise our water supply. Do not let anyone tell you there is nothing you can do. There is— and we need you to do it now. We had one of the driest winters on record. It was 90 degrees on March 25th. Our reservoirs cannot absorb the impact of a facility this size, and our current water filtration infrastructure is not equipped to handle the contaminated discharge that closed-loop cooling systems produce. When those systems cycle out water that has contacted industrial coils, oils, and machinery, it carries pollutants our treatment plants cannot filter. There are currently no regulations on how or where closed-loop systems dump that water. That means it ends up in our supply. And when water runs short— because it will—we will be trucking it in at costs that will make the current 26% rate increase look modest. This is a zoning decision. You have direct authority here. You can: - Rezone Al data centers out of the "light industrial" category, which carries the least oversight - Require closed-loop cooling systems that meet strict contamination discharge standards - Condition approval on verified low-water, low-emission energy sourcing - Refuse to approve permits until proper environmental impact studies are complete Other counties have done exactly this. The technology exists to build data centers responsibly— but only if you require it. Right now, companies will take the fastest, cheapest route available. It is your job to make sure that route doesn't run through our water. Please push back the April 6th deadline. Hold more town halls. Bring in utility representatives who can speak honestly about the downstream costs. And do not approve anything until Windsor residents have real answers. We are watching this closely, and we will remember how you respond. Respectfully, Amanda Tarpening Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: concerned citizen of Weld co E0 0324-u From: L Leigh ernnnctorp@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 2:56 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: concerned citizen of Weld co Dear County Commissioners, I am a citizen of Weld County and I am very concerned about the ordinance 2026-01 that will allow the zoning of data centers in industrial zones or agricultural zones even with approval of Site Plan Review or use by special review and include a public hearing. The lack of environmental guardrails on Al data centers is no less dangerous than the lack of the other Al-related safeguards. One of the Guiding Principles of Weld County is: "Protecting Health, Safety, and General Welfare. Land use regulations and policies will protect and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Weld County." How would allowing for the zoning of data centers and their unregulated practices achieve this?After learning about so many other AI data centers that exist in other communities and proposed to create jobs for the community, this has been proven to be a false promise. Please ask yourselves: How have data centers proven themselves to protect and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens? In the recent meetings (3/23 & 3/24) the county representatives stated that they would not be in control of water or energy use of these data centers. If you cannot regulate the detrimental actions of this giant data center, why on earth are you even considering allowing it to be zoned anywhere in our county?! You are able to follow through with strict regulations on zoning. I don't need to regurgitate all of the problems these data centers cause. YOU KNOW THEM. Environmental experts have warned us about the enormous amount of water usage (even in a closed loop evaporation cooling system), massive energy use, and noise pollution. We need to stop these data centers through stricter regulations on zoning. I urge you to push back the April 6th deadline and organize more town halls that include transparency on the permit process, as well as utility representatives that can provide more insight. Thank you for listening to all of the citizens of Weld County. Sincerely, Lucy Canestorp 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Inquiry from Public Webpage Elm D 012.1120te—Dl From: Kelly Gazdik<kellypowers0393@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 2:27 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Inquiry from Public Webpage Hello, I believe this is the email I'm supposed to reach out to about the new data center being proposed for weld county? I'm never one to really email or reach out about concerns, I just vote, but this is just absurd. We should not be building a data center for Al when we're already are regulated on shared water for our lawns. There is not enough water to power something like this. Is not good for the environment, won't hardly help with jobs and absolutely doesn't fit in to the small town feel of weld county. There is no place for it here. How do I go about making my voice heard as I know many other residents of Weld are unhappy and reaching out about their disapproval of the data center. Kelly Gazdik Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners I E' u11D Subject: FW: data center in weld county o,z D( From:AgentTimOssman<bail77999@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 28, 2026 4:05 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: data center in weld county We do not need a data center at the headwaters of the country you dumb ass people! Figure it out and quite ruining everything!You are getting closer to anti-tyrannical action the more crap you put out. then you'll wish you had your comforts and didn't eff around. Or you'll find out 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Concerning the proposed annexation of the property around the old Kodak EXHIBIT From: Laura Kay Guy<elkayhart@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 12:12 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> oR 2OZlo-DI Subject: Concerning the proposed annexation of the property around the old Kodak Good afternoon, I am struggling with understanding how this proposal was allowed to progress this far. To date, I have not spoken to a single member of my community that supports the annexation or data center at all. In all honesty, I would rather see Al and other data processing altogether than have farmers, ranchers, and people face shortages of resources in our drought-stressed climate. The insanity of inviting the types of companies that limit the earning potential for weld county residents is jarring. The potential of 40-100 jobs is unacceptable against the size of facilities and resource-suck this center would create. Stop putting business interests ahead of community survival and sustainability. We will be facing harder times ahead. We need to be investing and focusing on the long-term health of weld county and with the current economic situation and whatever shortages and sacrifices may need to happen if the war effort continues, absolutely no state, county, or city money should be sacrificed or promised to a data center. No discounts for corporate interests. I would rather have no growth than detrimental "growth". This is not progress, it's parasitic. I do not support rezoning any land sourced for agriculture or industry to allow data centers. They can find somewhere more "progressive" and willing to gamble with their citizens' futures. I implore you to stand up and vote no. Protect us. Please. Yours in Optimism, L.K. Guy Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Opposition to Data Centers �s ORAzoD( From: Dyann Smart<mysmartfamily@ymail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 5:52 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Cc: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Opposition to Data Centers Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my opposition regarding the proposed data center ordinance. Large data centers place a disproportionate strain on local infrastructure while delivering limited community benefit. They consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, potentially driving up utility costs and stressing regional resources, especially in areas prone to drought or grid constraints. Meeting this demand often requires utilities to build new generation and distribution capacity, and when those costs are spread across the broader customer base, residents end up subsidizing private operations through higher rates. Despite their size, data centers create relatively few permanent jobs and can displace land better suited for more community-oriented development, while also raising concerns about noise, environmental impact, and long-term sustainability. For these reasons, I oppose the proposed data center ordinance and would support a specific ban on large data centers in Weld County. There is precedent for this type of policy decision: in 2013, Weld County enacted a ban on commercial marijuana operations in unincorporated areas, reflecting both legal uncertainties and community opposition. While I recognize that such action would require time and resources, I believe voters should have the opportunity to decide whether large data centers align with the long-term interests of Weld County. Best regards, Dyann Smart Dacono, Colorado 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Plea to protect Windsor/Weld County from Data Centers 12 ORDzot(o-O( From:Andrea Turbak<vap.andrea@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 11:02 PM To:Jason Maxey<imaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<siames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Plea to protect Windsor/Weld County from Data Centers Good evening County Commissioners, I come to you all with a plea on behalf of my family of 5 to protect Weld County from allowing a data center within our radius. I have been concerned for the health, safety and quality of life for my family since the first mention of the data center.This has been a large topic of conversation in both my neighborhood and at the sports fields where all our kids play Windsor Recreation sports. I haven't met one person who didn't express concern and fear with the possibility of a data center in our area. I hope you are hearing from all of us, but if not, know the alarm bells have been ringing in concern! Weld County stands out from our populated neighboring counties for the protected natural areas and free thinking residents. Please help us protect Weld County by not buying into the data center rush. I know someone that works for a developer that builds data centers in another state. They told me it is called a "gold rush"to get these facilities built.They fight hard to win these contracts, collect their money, and proceed to the next.They said they only have a decade to profit off this industry, so that is why the gold rush term was used. It then leaves the communities to deal with the tremendous burden of these centers for my lifetime and yours! The costs of this project to our resources, health, safety, air quality is not worth the revenue it can produce! Please don't let us fall prey to the sales pitches about benefiting Weld County. I'm truly fearful of the health issues that will affect my family and my children if a data center is in our radius. Please fight on our behalf! I did hear that you all were wonderful and receptive at the recent meeting addressing this issue. I am sorry that I wasn't able to make it in person, but I do ask you to please deny data centers in Weld County. Sincerely, Andrea Turbak 231 Cattail Bay,Windsor, CO 80550 720-666-1235 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center Concerns 02b2021i-DI From: Dave Turbak<dturbak@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:16 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>;Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Concerns Dear Commissioner, For all of the reasons detailed below, I respectfully request that Weld County: • require any proposed data center at the former Carestream site to proceed through Use by Special Review; • require full, public disclosure of projected water demand, cooling method, generator capacity, noise modeling, electric load, and transmission/substation needs; • weigh the site's higher-value alternative as an employment-generating industrial property rather than a low-employment, high-consumption data center use; and • ultimately deny the use because it does not adequately protect the health, safety, welfare, water resources, air quality, and residential character of the surrounding area. I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express serious concerns regarding the proposed data center use at the former Carestream site at 2000 W. Howard Smith Ave. in Windsor. The current Weld County proposal would allow data centers in the Light Industrial zone district through a Special Review Permit, and Weld County's own USR criteria require protection of neighborhood health, safety, and welfare, as well as proof of adequate water service and compliance with air quality regulations. My concern is not abstract. This is a large former employment site in a growing community, and the consequences of converting it to a data center would be long-lasting: very high electricity demand, potentially major water demand, backup-generator emissions in an ozone nonattainment area, constant industrial noise, and very limited permanent employment compared with other productive industrial users. The former Carestream facility employed 236 people. By contrast, current workforce benchmarking for data centers shows that highly automated hyperscale facilities often operate with only 0.15-0.20 employees per MW, or as few as 20-30 permanent staff per 100 MW once online. In other words, approving data center use here could foreclose future higher-employment industrial use at a site that has already supported hundreds of jobs. The health and quality-of-life concerns are serious, especially from noise. Data-center-specific long-term epidemiology is still emerging, but the public-health literature on chronic environmental and industrial noise is already strong. The World Health Organization states that excessive environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance and that evidence is increasing for mental health problems. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found that people who were highly annoyed by environmental or i neighborhood noise had about 23% higher odds of depression and about 55% higher odds of anxiety. A longitudinal study of 11,905 adults in the Gutenberg Health Study found that noise annoyance predicted later depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance, and concluded that regulatory measures are needed "to prevent mental health problems." In 2025, a peer-reviewed article on data center expansion and health specifically noted that "little is known about long-term health outcomes in data center host communities" and recommended siting new data centers away from populated areas. Property values and marketability also matter. The County should not dismiss these concerns. A hedonic pricing analysis of homes near industrial sites found a statistically significant negative effect on _ residential property values, especially at shorter distances, driven by noise, traffic, air pollution, and visual intrusion. A data center introduces those same conditions, plus substations, transmission infrastructure, cooling equipment, and backup power systems. These factors reduce buyer demand and can make nearby homes harder to market. Water demand is another major concern. Windsor itself has a Drought Management Plan and states that drought planning is crucial because the Town continues to grow and new water supplies become more competitive among municipalities. Windsor also maintains watering restrictions and a formal water- efficiency plan. More broadly, Northern Water notes that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project delivers just over 200,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually to more than 1.1 million residents and farmland across northeastern Colorado, underscoring how shared and finite regional supplies already are. Against that backdrop, data-center water use is substantial. EPRI reported in 2025 that U.S. data centers directly consumed 17.4 billion gallons of water in 2023 and that a single 150-MW hyperscale data ' center could consume about 340,000 gallons per day under one efficiency scenario—or, under more water-intensive cooling, about 2.7 million gallons per day. EPRI also emphasized that these figures do not include indirect water consumption from additional power generation. Ceres likewise found that indirect water use from electricity generation can exceed on-site water use and warned that data-center clusters are forming in already water-stressed regions. Electricity demand is equally troubling. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4.4% of all U.S. electricity in 2023 and could rise to 6.7% to 12% by 2028. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found U.S. data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023, with estimates of 325 to 580 TWh by 2028. These are exactly the kinds of loads that can require major transmission, generation, and substation upgrades. That matters for residents' bills. Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about data-center rates and concluded that utilities can shift data-center power costs onto other ratepayers through complex tariffs, contracts, and transmission cost allocation. The paper warns that current rate structures can force the public to pay for infrastructure built for a small number of very large corporate users. The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly warned that data-center growth puts ratepayers at risk of large cost increases, with hundreds of billions in projected electricity costs tied to this expansion over time. Air quality is another reason for caution. Weld County states that all of Weld County is included in the Denver Metro/ North Front Range ozone nonattainment area, and CDPHE states that the area was reclassified to serious nonattainmentfor the 2015 ozone standard in July 2024. CDPHE also explains that 2 NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors, and in Colorado's ozone nonattainment area businesses must report those pollutants at lower thresholds. Data centers commonly include large backup generator systems, and the proposed Weld definition expressly contemplates backup power systems and cooling- water infrastructure as part of a data center use. In an area already struggling to meet ozone standards, adding another major emissions source without rigorous scrutiny is concerning. Please put the long-term interests of Windsor and Weld County residents ahead of a land use that consumes enormous public resources while producing relatively few permanent local jobs. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dave Turbak 231 Cattail Bay, Windsor, CO 80550 303.591.7269 3 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Further study and consideration needed for Data Centers in Weld Count EXHIBIT From: David Wagner<abodagabo@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 1:21 PM b)4i20210_0t' To: Scott James<sjames@weld.gov> Cc:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck <pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Further study and consideration needed for Data Centers in Weld County Dear Commissioner James, Thank you for reaching out to the citizens of Weld via Facebook concerning the possible location of data centers in Weld. As a 74 plus year resident of Weld I am greatly concerned about the known impacts of these projects on the resources, environment, economies, and people in the surrounding areas. The attached article from the World Resources Institute speaks to the major issues of such and installation: 1.Energy use that raises prices for other users in the area. 2.Potential huge impacts on water availability. 3.Air/Climate impacts from backup power sources using diesel and other fuels. 4.Noise pollution from cooling fans and backup generators. 5.Increase competition for land use with agriculture and other industries. 6.The economic trade off of tax revenue generation with small long-term gains in employment. Given Weld County's growing population, limited water resources and rich agriculture history, it appears that the risk/reward of data centers may be asymmetrically biased to the risk side. Thanks again for your consideration on this important matter for the future of our county. Regards, David Wagner 7 Ways Data Centers Affect US Communities I World Resources Institute Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW:Windsor Al Data Center 2 E %NV D12 20210*-Di From:Christine Randle <christy.randle88@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 4:16 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Windsor Al Data Center To whom it may concern, I do not want the Al Data center built in my community. if it is to be built I do not want to fund it via increased utilities. Please do not allow this to happen to the people in our community. Christy Randle 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: NO Al data center! D 3 2aui-0 From: Sarah Peacock<sarahpeahen@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 5:57 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: NO Al data center! To whom it May concern, Northern Colorado and Windsor are not the right location for an Al data center. The high consumption of water and electricity that these centers require would irrevocably damage the ability of farmers and regular people to acquire the water and electricity they need. Windsor should value the needs and rights of its own residenta over billionaire tech companies! Sarah Peacock Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Request for careful review of data center ordinance __ 02D2Dtlo-O I From: Kent Steinhaus<ksteinhaus@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 7:50 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Request for careful review of data center ordinance Commissioners, I'm writing to share concern regarding the proposed data center ordinance currently under consideration. I understand the opportunity these facilities can bring, but this type of development needs a very careful and thorough review before approval. Decisions at this stage will set the framework for long-term impacts across Weld County and beyond. I ask that you take a close look at the following: • Water use and availability, especially given Colorado's existing water constraints • Air quality and environmental impacts, including both construction and long-term operations • Impacts to local power and water infrastructure, and whether systems can support this demand without affecting reliability or cost to residents • Potential impacts to nearby communities, including noise, land use compatibility, and overall quality of life It's important that any approval ensures these facilities do not negatively impact residents of Weld County or the broader Colorado community, either now or in the future. I appreciate the work you're doing and encourage a thoughtful, balanced approach that fully considers these long-term implications. Thanks, Kent Steinhaus Kent Steinhaus i EXHIBIT Esther Gesick From: Ask The Commissioners (: b&, 0( Subject: FW: Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers Attachments: GUEST COLUMN_Colorado's once-in-a-generation opportunity - if we don't regulate it away - Denver Gazette.pdf From: Matt Hengel <mhengel@westsideinv.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:51 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Cc: Maxwell Nader<mnader@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for holding the public meetings on March 23 and 24 regarding Ordinance 2026-01 - Data Centers. While we believe that current I-1 zoning already supports data centers, the partners at Westside Investment Partners, including myself, strongly support explicitly adding data centers as a permitted use within I-1 zoning. These projects provide meaningful benefits to the local community, including construction jobs, long- term operational employment, indirect (multiplier)job creation, and significant tax revenue for Weld County. Additionally, data centers often attract large, reputable companies that are committed to investing in and supporting the communities in which they operate. While some of the concerns raised about data centers are valid, as you noted, many of these issues fall outside the purview of the Board. Colorado's Public Utilities Commission plays an active role in regulating electricity rates, and local cooperatives such as United Power—owned by the members they serve and governed by elected boards—help ensure accountability to ratepayers. Importantly, these providers require data center developers to fund necessary infrastructure upgrades, which can ultimately improve system reliability and help manage costs for existing customers. Water usage is another important consideration. Data center developers recognize the need to minimize water consumption in Colorado due to scarcity, cost, and public concern. The operators we work with are exclusively proposing closed-loop cooling systems that use minimal water. For example, QTS— currently developing one of the largest data centers in Colorado at our Aurora Crossroads project—is implementing a closed-loop system that significantly reduces water demand. I would also like to share the attached guest column from the Denver Gazette, authored by our partner Mark Witkiewicz, which provides additional perspective on why this is a pivotal moment for Colorado in attracting data center investment. We are excited about the opportunity data centers present to strengthen and diversify Weld County's economy, and we respectfully encourage your support of Ordinance 2026-01. Regards, Matt Hengel Principal Westside Investment Partners, Inc. 8350 E. Crescent Pkwy, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 c (303) 210-4929 mhengel@westsideinv.com www.westsideinv.corn 2 Local News - Sports - OutThere Colorado Politics - Business - Outdoors- Opinion - US &World Things To Do - Obituaries Best of Mile High E-EDITION hcbcflS)ct th 47 °F Daily Weather Report rperiC Powered By: ;====-✓ Z! heOCflS)Ct Tpazette Login My Account Subscribe Newsletter • Local News Sports OutThere Colorado Politics Business Outdoors Opinion US&World Things To Do Obituaries Best of Mile High • GUEST COLUMN: Colorado's once-in-a-generation opportunity — if we don't regulate it away By Mark Witkiewicz February 19, 2026 I updated 1 month ago v Itsc441 i\' ,,,1\iv ,,Irtil:1-r-H'\-\\\\\ \ 1 i \\ill ,r, \\\„,i, , ;; I I 1 \\ r' l, if i i I Ott .,,,„,/• Local News Sports OutThere Colorado Politics Business Outdoors Opinion US&World Things To Do Obituaries Best of Mile High T Colorado is at an inflection point. -------------- ----___ As lawmakers debate how to regulate data centers, which are the backbone infrastructure powering everything from cloud computing to artificial intelligence, we face a simple but consequential question: will Colorado help shape the next phase of America's economic growth, or will we watch it happen on the sidelines? My interest in this issue isn't abstract or purely professional. I'm a father raising my family in Colorado. I have deep roots in the skilled trades. When policymakers talk about "infrastructure" or "development," I hear something more human: mortgage payments, apprenticeships, school funding, and whether working families can afford to stay in the communities they love. Data centers sit at the intersection of all of that. Local News Sports OutThere Colorado Politics Business Outdoors Opinion US&World Things To Do Obituaries Best of Mile High 1III- ,:iii:. ,14,014116114:: •11111111.16::: %4k.I.441:67.. lillt\N\ N\\ '\ N. : -- ,',1_Hi ' , • : ' IsN: %k\ kN I No Ns eta eso No � � � � ■ • I1I'11111 Milt . . . A 1 " ' . ■ ■ • ■ • • • • . .. .. .......... �. .,o ■ . . . . . . I!!t!!!!lllt'tttt� � • • . . . • • ' . ..---Ar 1 , • 2163537650 Getty, Ini,L;c, There's a tendency to view data centers as faceless industrial buildings that are energy-hungry, water-intensive, and disconnected from local benefit. If we perpetuate that image, it risks pushing Colorado toward policies that feel principled, but produce the worst possible outcome: zero jobs, zero tax base, and zero leverage to advance our clean-energy goals. Local News Sports OutThere Colorado Politics Business Outdoors Opinion US&World - Things To Do Obituaries Best of Mile High Here's the broader economic reality: according to recent reporting by Axios, major technology companies are projected to spend $650 billion on capital expenditures this year alone, which is roughly 15% of all U.S. business - investment. That number is staggering. Even more important, this spending is- asset-heavy. It flows directly into construction, concrete, steel, electrical work, grid upgrades, and long-term physical infrastructure, not just software and servers. In other words, this isn't uncertain capital. It's a privately funded stimulus for Colorado's skilled trades, grid modernization, and local governments. Private capital from these large, hyper-scalers should be the engine that helps us achieve both economic success and keeps Colorado on track to reach clean energy goals. However, we_must create the right policy framework to allow for success, whether incentives or requirements are put into place, to seize the opportunities they provide. Today's data centers are often one of the most powerful tools for economic equity when they come into a 'community: One of the overlooked benefits? Massive property tax revenue With no additional students added to local school districts, creating a rare surplus and allowing for underfunded or fast-growing districts to build schools, increase teacher pay, and invest in,students without Local News Sports OutThere Colorado Politics Business Outdoors Opinion US&World Things To Do Obituaries Best of Mile High f Some narratives suggest data centers are noisy, diesel-dominated neighbors. When, in reality, today's facilities rely primarily on battery-based uninterruptible power systems to smooth grid demand. Backup generators exist for rare emergencies, not daily operation. In fact, industry is actively transitioning toward larger battery energistorage systems (BESS) to further reduce reliance on generators over time. That transition matters, but it has to be grounded in physics, not aspiration alone. We all share the goal of a cleaner grid. Colorado's businesses are already legally bound to meet 2050'decarbonization and clear energy goals, but data centers require near-perfect reliability. Intermittent energy sources like wind and solar cannot guarantee reliability alone due to their non-continuous and weather- dependent nature. Creating mandates that require "100% renewable, 24/7" power before long-duration storage is commercially viable doesn't accelerate the transition. It effectively functions as a ban. There's also a competitive reality we can't ignore. States like Wyoming, Arizona, and Utah are actively courting this investment and winning the race. If Colorado's regulatory or tax structure makes projects even a few percentage points more expensive, the capital investment will go elsewhere. The emissions won't Local News Sports OutThere Colorado Politics Business Outdoors Opinion US&World Things To Do Obituaries Best of Mile High ADVERTISING rips Bellagio-Sponsored Step Inside Unmatched Luxury at Bellagio With breathtaking views right from your suite, your stay will be nothing short of unforgettable. Book Vegas > Water usage is another area where perception lags behind reality. The data center industry has already moved toward water stewardship as a standard practice. Modern data centers increasingly rely on closed-loop cooling systems that recirculate water rather than consume it. The need for legislated reporting structure and transparency makes sense, however, unless the data center has a private well, all water usage flows through a regulated meter, making it inherently measurable and transparent. The idea that these facilities are unchecked "water hogs" reflects technology from a decade ago, not today's standards and practices. Finally, there's a national context that deserves more attention: artificial intelligence (Al). Al is not a fad. It is the foundation of the next modern-day industrial revolution, with profound implications for economic competitiveness and national security. The infrastructure to support it will be built somewhere in Local News Sports OutThere Colorado Politics Business Outdoors Opinion US&World Things To Do Obituaries Best of Mile High I urge policymakers to take these thoughts into consideration as they negotiate legislation that will determine the trajectory of our future digital infrastructure. Colorado doesn't have to choose between environmental stewardship and economic opportunity. We can require development to pay its own way, protect ratepayers, invest in grid modernization, and accelerate clean-energy innovation, all while welcoming private capital that strengthens our communities. But that requires nuance. It requires collaboration. And it requires resisting the temptation to draw hard lines that feel satisfying but ultimately leave Colorado on the sidelines of its own future. Mark Witkiewicz, based in Denver, is currently a Principal at Westside Investment Partners, Inc. $i Tags Colorado Mark Witkiewicz Reporter Esther Gesick Subject: FW: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project (2000 Howard Smith Ave) EXHIBIT s Ele From: Mannello, Raymond<rmannello@copesan.com> Sent:Thursday,April 2, 2026 1:20 PM ORbLUZIo-OI To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: URGENT: Public Health and Environmental Risks at the Global Al Data Center Project(2000 Howard Smith Ave) To the Weld County Commissioners and our Community, I am writing to formally sound the alarm regarding the Global Al Data Center currently under construction at the former Carestream/Kodak site(2000 Howard Smith Ave).While the county has permitted this as a simple"commercial alteration,"a deep dive into the engineering plans reveals a high-hazard industrial conversion that has bypassed critical modern safety and environmental reviews. What is being built? A 16-megawatt Al data center.These facilities are not traditional offices;they are massive industrial"heat engines"that require 24/7 cooling via high-powered fans and chemical chillers, backed up by large-scale diesel generators. The Three Primary Risks to Our Community: 1.Water&Chemical Contamination:The project's drainage plans show that stormwater from a new 33,000-square-foot concrete pad will be funneled into a private industrial sewer. In a major rain event,this system risks"hydraulic overloading."If a cooling chiller ruptures,toxic glycol could be flushed directly into the John Lamy Ditch,threatening local agriculture,soil, and livestock. 2.Acoustic Stress and Health: Data centers produce a constant,24/7 low-frequency hum. Unlike intermittent construction noise,this frequency is scientifically linked to sleep deprivation, increased cortisol,and cardiovascular stress for residents. The county has allowed this project to proceed without a modern acoustic impact study. 3.Regulatory Evasion:The developer is using a loophole to stay just under the 1-acre"Limit of Disturbance"for Phase 1. By doing so,they have avoided the mandatory State Stormwater Permits(CDPHE)that would require public oversight.Their own plans, however,show a much larger"Common Plan of Development"that will eventually cover several acres. The Accountability Gap: Weld County is relying on"zombie approvals"from 2019 originally meant for medical imaging.A data center is a fundamental change in use. By fast-tracking this permit and skipping a Use by Special Review(USR),the County has denied us our right to a public hearing and ignored the health risks unique to 2026 Al infrastructure. We demand an immediate Stay of Construction until a transparent, independent health-impact assessment and a state-level environmental review are completed.Our safety should not be sacrificed for industrial speed. Sincerely, Ray Mannello Cornerstone raymomannello(a�gmail.corn 253-405-0860 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Request to Require Use by Special Review and Deny Data Center Use at the Former Carestream Site EXHIBIT FFrom: Patti Tupper<ptup711@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 10:04 AM ZO210-DI To: Lynette Peppier<Ip_ ppler@weld.gov> Subject: Request to Require Use by Special Review and Deny Data Center Use at the Former Carestream Site Dear Ms. Peppier, For all of the reasons detailed below, I respectfully request that Weld County: • require any proposed data center at the former Carestream site to proceed through Use by Special Review; • require full, public disclosure of projected water demand, cooling method, generator capacity, noise modeling, electric load, and transmission/substation needs; • weigh the site's higher-value alternative as an employment-generating industrial property rather than a low-employment, high-consumption data center use; and • ultimately deny the use because it does not adequately protect the health, safety, welfare, water resources, air quality, and residential character of the surrounding area. I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express serious concerns regarding the proposed data center use at the former Carestream site at 2000 W. Howard Smith Ave. in Windsor. The current Weld County proposal would allow data centers in the Light Industrial zone district through a Special Review Permit, and Weld County's own USR criteria require protection of neighborhood health, safety, and welfare, as well as proof of adequate water service and compliance with air quality regulations. My concern is not abstract. This is a large former employment site in a growing community, and the consequences of converting it to a data center would be long-lasting: very high electricity demand, potentially major water demand, backup-generator emissions in an ozone nonattainment area, constant industrial noise, and very limited permanent employment compared with other productive industrial users. The former Carestream facility employed 236 people. By contrast, current workforce benchmarking for data centers shows that highly automated hyperscale facilities often operate with only 0.15-0.20 employees per MW, or as few as 20-30 permanent staff per 100 MW once online. In other words, approving data center use here could foreclose future higher-employment industrial use at a site that has already supported hundreds of jobs. The health and quality-of-life concerns are serious, especially from noise. Data-center-specific long- term epidemiology is still emerging, but the public-health literature on chronic environmental and industrial noise is already strong. The World Health Organization states that excessive environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance and that evidence is increasing for mental health problems. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found that people who were highly annoyed by environmental or neighborhood noise had about 23% higher odds of depression and about 55% higher odds of anxiety. A longitudinal study of 11,905 adults in the Gutenberg Health Study found that noise annoyance predicted later depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance, and concluded that regulatory measures are needed "to prevent mental health problems." In 2025, a peer- reviewed article on data center expansion and health specifically noted that"little is known about long- term health outcomes in data center host communities" and recommended siting new data centers away from populated areas. Property values and marketability also matter.The County should not dismiss these concerns.A hedonic pricing analysis of homes near industrial sites found a statistically significant negative effect on residential property values, especially at shorter distances, driven by noise,traffic, air pollution, and visual intrusion.A data center introduces those same conditions, plus substations,transmission infrastructure, cooling equipment, and backup power systems.These factors reduce buyer demand and can make nearby homes harder to market. Water demand is another major concern.Windsor itself has a Drought Management Plan and states that drought planning is crucial because the Town continues to grow and new water supplies become more competitive among municipalities.Windsor also maintains watering restrictions and a formal water- efficiency plan. More broadly, Northern Water notes that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project delivers just over 200,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually to more than 1.1 million residents and farmland across northeastern Colorado, underscoring how shared and finite regional supplies already are. _ Against that backdrop, data-center water use is substantial. EPRI reported in 2025 that U.S. data centers directly consumed 17.4 billion gallons of water in 2023 and that a single 150-MW hyperscale data center could consume about 340,000 gallons per day under one efficiency scenario—or, under more water-intensive cooling, about 2.7 million gallons per day. EPRI also emphasized that these figures do not include indirect water consumption from additional power generation. Ceres likewise found that indirect water use from electricity generation can exceed on-site water use and warned that data-center clusters are forming in already water-stressed regions. Electricity demand is equally troubling.The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4.4% of all U.S. electricity in 2023 and could rise to 6.7%to 12% by 2028. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found U.S. data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023,with estimates of 325 to 580 TWh by 2028.These are exactly the kinds of loads that can require major transmission,,generation, and substation upgrades. That matters for residents' bills. Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about data-center rates and concluded that utilities can shift data-center power costs onto other ratepayers through complex tariffs, contracts, and transmission cost allocation.The paper warns that current rate structures can force the public to pay for infrastructure built for a small number of very large corporate users.The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly warned that data-center growth puts ratepayers at risk of large cost increases,with hundreds of billions in projected electricity costs tied to this expansion over time. Air quality is another reason for caution.Weld County states that all of Weld County is included in the Denver Metro/North Front Range ozone nonattainment area, and CDPHE states that the area was reclassified to serious nonattainmentfor the 2015 ozone standard in July 2024. CDPHE also explains that NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors, and in Colorado's ozone nonattainment area businesses must report those pollutants at lower thresholds. Data centers commonly include large backup generator systems, and the proposed Weld definition expressly contemplates backup power systems 2 and cooling-water infrastructure as part of a data center use. In an area already struggling to meet ozone standards, adding another major emissions source without rigorous scrutiny is concerning. Please put the long-term interests of Windsor and Weld County residents ahead of a land use that consumes enormous public resources while producing relatively few permanent local jobs. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Patti Tupper 219 Cattail Bay,Windsor, Colorado 80550 970-776-0117 3 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center Windsor F -B 0 20210-Of From: Grant Tupper<granttupper@gmaiLcom> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 10:48 AM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Windsor Dear Commissioner, For all of the reasons detailed below, I respectfully request that Weld County: • require any proposed data center at the former Carestream site to proceed through Use by Special Review; • require full, public disclosure of projected water demand, cooling method, generator capacity, noise modeling, electric load, and transmission/substation needs; •weigh the site's higher-value alternative as an employment-generating industrial property rather than a low-employment, high-consumption data center use; and • ultimately deny the use because it does not adequately protect the health, safety, welfare, water resources, air quality, and residential character of the surrounding area. I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express serious concerns regarding the proposed data center use at the former Carestream site at 2000 W. Howard Smith Ave. in Windsor. The current Weld County proposal would allow data centers in the Light Industrial zone district through a Special Review Permit, and Weld County's own USR criteria require protection of neighborhood health, safety, and welfare, as well as proof of adequate water service and compliance with air quality regulations. My concern is not abstract. This is a large former employment site in a growing community, and the consequences of converting it to a data center would be long-lasting: very high electricity demand, potentially major water demand, backup-generator emissions in an ozone nonattainment area, constant industrial noise, and very limited permanent employment compared with other productive industrial users. The former Carestream facility employed 236 people. By contrast, current workforce benchmarking for data centers shows that highly automated hyperscale facilities often operate with only 0.15-0.20 employees per MW, or as few as 20-30 permanent staff per 100 MW once online. In other words, approving data center use here could foreclose future higher-employment industrial use at a site that has already supported hundreds of jobs. The health and quality-of-life concerns are serious, especially from noise. Data-center-specific long- term epidemiology is still emerging, but the public-health literature on chronic environmental and industrial noise is already strong. The World Health Organization states that excessive environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance and that evidence is increasing for mental health problems. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found that people who were highly annoyed by environmental or neighborhood noise had about 23% higher odds of depression and about 55% higher odds of anxiety. A longitudinal study of 11,905 adults in the Gutenberg Health Study found that noise annoyance predicted later depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance, and concluded that regulatory measures are needed "to prevent mental health problems." In 2025, a peer- reviewed article on data center expansion and health specifically noted that "little is known about long- ' term health outcomes in data center host communities" and recommended siting new data centers away from populated areas. Property values and marketability also matter.The County should not dismiss these concerns.A hedonic pricing analysis of homes near industrial sites found a statistically significant negative effect on residential property values, especially at shorter distances, driven by noise,traffic, air pollution, and visual intrusion.A data center introduces those same conditions, plus substations,transmission infrastructure, cooling equipment, and backup power systems.These factors reduce buyer demand and can make nearby homes harder to market. Water demand is another major concern.Windsor itself has a Drought Management Plan and states that drought planning is crucial because the Town continues to grow and new water supplies become more competitive among municipalities.Windsor also maintains watering restrictions and a formal water- efficiency plan. More broadly, Northern Water notes that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project delivers just over 200,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually to more than 1.1 million residents and farmland across northeastern Colorado, underscoring how shared and finite regional supplies already are. Against that backdrop, data-center water use is substantial. EPRI reported in 2025 that U.S. data centers directly consumed 17.4 billion gallons of water in 2023 and that a single 150-MW hyperscale data center could consume about 340,000 gallons per day under one efficiency scenario—or, under more water-intensive cooling, about 2.7 million gallons per day. EPRI also emphasized that these figures do not include indirect water consumption from additional power generation. Ceres likewise found that indirect water use from electricity generation can exceed on-site water use and warned that data-center clusters are forming in,already water-stressed regions. Electricity demand is equally troubling.The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4.4%of all U.S. electricity in 2023 and could rise to 6.7%to 12% by 2028. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found U.S. data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023,with estimates of 325 to 580 TWh by 2028.These are exactly the kinds of loads that can require major transmission, generation, and substation upgrades. That matters for residents' bills. Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about data-center rates and concluded that utilities can shift data-center power costs onto other ratepayers through complex tariffs, contracts, and transmission cost allocation.The paper warns that current rate structures can force the public to pay for infrastructure built for a small number of very large corporate users.The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly warned that data-center growth puts ratepayers at risk of large cost increases,with hundreds of billions in projected electricity costs tied to this expansion overtime. Air quality is another reason for caution.Weld County states that all of Weld County is included in the Denver Metro/ North Front Range ozone nonattainment area, and CDPHE states that the area was reclassified to serious nonattainmentfor the 2015 ozone standard in July 2024. CDPHE also explains that NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors, and in Colorado's ozone nonattainment area businesses must report those pollutants at lower thresholds. Data centers commonly include large backup generator systems, and the proposed Weld definition expressly contemplates backup power systems 2 and cooling-water infrastructure as part of a data center use. In an area already struggling to meet ozone standards, adding another major emissions source without rigorous scrutiny is concerning. Please put the long-term interests of Windsor and Weld County residents ahead of a land use that consumes enormous public resources while producing relatively few permanent local jobs. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Grant Tupper 620-804-0446 3 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Do This Right— For the People Who Live Here ,D.1) F From: Allison Dunning<allison.merrymakers@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 11:16 AM To: Perry Buck<obuck@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gc >;Jason Maxey< naxey@weld.gov> Subject: Do This Right — For the People Who Live Here Dear Commissioners, Thank you for the time and energy you give to serving Weld County. I know these decisions are not simple, and I appreciate the responsibility you carry. I'm writing about Ordinance 2026-01 and the proposed regulations around large-scale data centers. I want to be clear— I am not against development. Growth is part of the future. Technology is part of the future. But growth without boundaries is not progress. It's risk. Right now, this ordinance defines what a data center is— but it does not clearly define how one must operate near existing neighborhoods. It does not establish meaningful setback requirements, enforceable noise limits, environmental protections, or clear controls around long-term expansion. And that concerns me. A facility of this scale operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It includes heavy electrical infrastructure, generators, fuel storage, cooling systems, and significant water and power demand. These impacts don't end when construction ends. They become part of daily life for nearby residents— permanently. If something is going to operate next to our homes indefinitely, we owe it to our neighbors to get the rules right before approval. I respectfully ask that you: • Require a Special Review process for facilities over 10 MW, with public hearings and formal impact studies. • Classify large-scale campuses appropriately under heavy industrial standards. • Create tiered definitions so oversight grows as capacity grows. • Define the entire campus—including generators, substations, cooling systems, and fuel storage—as one project. • Establish clear setback, noise, and environmental standards. • Require public review for significant expansion beyond initial approval. • Put real accountability measures in place, including monitoring and financial assurance. This is not about stopping development. It is about doing development right. We live here. Our children play here. Our water matters. Our air matters. Our quiet nights matter.And once a project of this size is approved, it will shape our community for decades. Please set the standards before the precedent is set. Strong guardrails protect residents and give developers clarity.That benefits everyone. Thank you for your consideration and for serving our county with care. Allison Dunning Greeley Resident 970-405-3852 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Concerning New Data Centers in Weld County a 2 riill) 0 ZOZlo-Q( From: Shirley Smithson <sasmithson@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 12:28 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Concerning New Data Centers in Weld County Please extend the deadline to vote on any ordinance regarding new data centers in Weld County. Although there are benefits, there are many concerns. Strong guardrails need to be in place to: *Protect our community from air pollution and toxic chemicals *Ensure the high energy demands of these new data centers do not derail Colorado from meeting our state's GHG pOLLUTION rEDUCTION gOALS *Do not raise energy costs for rate payers *Protect water resources as Colorado faces extreme drought conditions *Ensures PFAS and toxic chemicals used in cooling process do of end up in our streams and rivers *Address noise and other adverse impacts *Preserve the autonomy and privacy of individuals Thank you, Dr. Shirley Smithson 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Proposed data center Okb7-0Va-Dl From: CB Bowman <cb@cbbowman.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 12:31 PM Subject: Proposed data center Dear Commissioner and Company, For all of the reasons detailed below, I respectfully request that Weld County: • require any proposed data center at the former Carestream site to proceed through Use by Special Review; • require full, public disclosure of projected water demand, cooling method, generator capacity, noise modeling, electric load, and transmission/substation needs; • weigh the site's higher-value alternative as an employment-generating industrial property rather than a low-employment, high-consumption data center use; and • ultimately deny the use because it does not adequately protect the health, safety, welfare, water resources, air quality, and residential character of the surrounding area. I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express serious concerns regarding the proposed data center use at the former Carestream site at 2000 W. Howard Smith Ave. in Windsor. The current Weld County proposal would allow data centers in the Light Industrial zone district through a Special Review Permit, and Weld County's own USR criteria require protection of neighborhood health, safety, and welfare, as well as proof of adequate water service and compliance with air quality regulations. My concern is not abstract. This is a large former employment site in a growing community, and the consequences of converting it to a data center would be long-lasting: very high electricity demand, potentially major water demand, backup-generator emissions in an ozone nonattainment area, constant industrial noise, and very limited permanent employment compared with other productive industrial users. The former Carestream facility employed 236 people. By contrast, current workforce benchmarking for data centers shows that highly automated hyperscale facilities often operate with only 0.15-0.20 employees per MW, or as few as 20-30 permanent staff per 100 MW once online. In other words, approving data center use here could foreclose future higher-employment industrial use at a site that has already supported hundreds of jobs. The health and quality-of-life concerns are serious, especially from noise. Data-center-specific long-term epidemiology is still emerging, but the public-health literature on chronic environmental and industrial noise is already strong. The World Health Organization states that excessive environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance and that evidence is increasing for mental health problems. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found that people who were highly annoyed by environmental or neighborhood noise had about 23% higher odds of depression and about 55% higher odds of anxiety. A longitudinal study of 11,905 adults in the Gutenberg Health Study found that noise annoyance predicted later depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance, and concluded that regulatory measures are needed to prevent mental health problems. In 2025, a peer-reviewed article on data center expansion and health specifically noted that little is known about long-term health outcomes in data center host communities and recommended siting new data centers away from populated areas. Property values and marketability also matter. The County should not dismiss these concerns. A hedonic pricing analysis of homes near industrial sites found a statistically significant negative effect on residential property values, especially at shorter distances, driven by noise, traffic, air pollution, and visual intrusion. A data center introduces those same conditions, plus substations, transmission infrastructure, cooling equipment, and backup power systems These factors reduce buyer demand and can make nearby homes harder to market Water demand is another major concern. Windsor itself has a Drought Management Plan and states that drought planning is crucial because the Town continues to grow and new water supplies become more competitive among municipalities Windsor also maintains watering restrictions and a formal water- efficiency plan. More broadly, Northern Water notes that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project delivers just over 200,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually to more than 1 1 million residents and farmland across northeastern Colorado, underscoring how shared and finite regional supplies already are. Against that backdrop, data-center water use is substantial. EPRI reported in 2025 that U S data centers directly consumed 17 4 billion gallons of water in 2023 and that a single 150-MW hyperscale data center could consume about 340,000 gallons per day under one efficiency scenario, or about 2 7 million gallons per day under more water-intensive cooling EPRI also emphasized that these figures do not include indirect water consumption from additional power generation. Ceres likewise found that indirect water use from electricity generation can exceed on-site water use and warned that data-center clusters'are forming in already water-stressed regions Electricity demand is equally troubling The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4 4% of all U S electricity in 2023 and could rise to 6.7% to 12% by 2028 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found U.S data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023, with estimates of 325 to 580 TWh by 2028 These are exactly the kinds of loads that can require major transmission, generation, and substation upgrades That matters for residents' bills Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about data-center rates and concluded that utilities can shift data-center power costs onto other ratepayers through complex tariffs, contracts, and transmission cost allocation The paper warns that current rate structures can force the public to pay for infrastructure built for a small number of very large corporate users The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly warned that data-center growth puts ratepayers at risk of large cost increases, with hundreds of billions in projected electricity costs tied to this expansion over time Air quality is another reason for caution Weld County states that all of Weld County is included in the Denver Metro/ North Front Range ozone nonattainment area, and CDPHE states that the area was reclassified to serious nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standard in July 2024. CDPHE also explains that NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors, and in Colorado's ozone nonattainment area, businesses must report those pollutants at lower thresholds. Data centers commonly include large backup generator systems, and the proposed Weld definition expressly contemplates backup power systems and cooling- water infrastructure as part of a data center use In an area already struggling to meet ozone standards, adding another major emissions source without rigorous scrutiny is deeply concerning The health stakes extend beyond ozone. Researchers at Caltech and the University of California, Riverside project that air pollution from U.S. data centers could contribute to approximately 1,300 premature deaths annually by 2030,,with a public health burden exceeding$20 billion. A 2025 peer-reviewed study further confirmed that fossil-fueled power plants and diesel backup generators supplying data centers emit pollutants that elevate cancer risk in nearby communities. In Morrow County, Oregon, community members near an Amazon data center reported significant spikes in rare cancers and miscarriages, with 68 of 70 local wells found to violate federal nitrate limits. These outcomes have not yet been established through peer= reviewed causal studies, but the documented pattern of harm is serious enough to warrant the highest level of environmental scrutiny before any approval. Please put the long-term interests of Windsor and Weld County residents ahead of a land use that consumes enormous public resources while producing relatively few permanent local jobs. Thank you for your time and consideration 2 Sincerely, CB Bowman-Ottomanelli 208 Cattail Bay, Windsor, Colorado CB Bowman—Ottomanelli Turning Uncertainty into Leadership Advantages TM CEO, Courage Consulting courage-consulting.com CEO,Association of Corporate Executive Coaches acec-association.org 4 CEO:Association of Corporate Executive Coaches (ACEC)www.acec-association.org 4 CEO: Courage Consulting https://courage-consulting.com/ 3 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Proposed data center 9 From:Anthony Ottomanelli <tottolotto87@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 12:36 PM Subject: Proposed data center Dear Commissioner and Company, For all of the reasons detailed below, I respectfully request that Weld County: • require any proposed data center at the former Carestream site to proceed through Use by Special Review; • require full, public disclosure of projected water demand, cooling method, generator capacity, noise modeling, electric load, and transmission/substation needs; • weigh the site's higher-value alternative as an employment-generating industrial property rather than a low-employment, high-consumption data center use; and • ultimately deny the use because it does not adequately protect the health, safety, welfare, water resources, air quality, and residential character of the surrounding area. I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express serious concerns regarding the proposed data center use at the former Carestream site at 2000 W. Howard Smith Ave. in Windsor. The current Weld County proposal would allow data centers in the Light Industrial zone district through a Special Review Permit, and Weld County's own USR criteria require protection of neighborhood health, safety, and welfare, as well as proof of adequate water service and compliance with air quality regulations. My concern is not abstract. This is a large former employment site in a growing community, and the consequences of converting it to a data center would be long-lasting: very high electricity demand, potentially major water demand, backup-generator emissions in an ozone nonattainment area, constant industrial noise, and very limited permanent employment compared with other productive industrial users. The former Carestream facility employed 236 people. By contrast, current workforce benchmarking for data centers shows that highly automated hyperscale facilities often operate with only 0.15-0.20 employees per MW, or as few as 20-30 permanent staff per 100 MW once online. In other words, approving data center use here could foreclose future higher-employment industrial use at a site that has already supported hundreds of jobs. The health and quality-of-life concerns are serious, especially from noise. Data-center-specific long- term epidemiology is still emerging, but the public-health literature on chronic environmental and industrial noise is already strong. The World Health Organization states that excessive environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance and that evidence is increasing for mental health problems. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found that people who were highly annoyed by environmental or neighborhood noise had about 23% higher odds of depression and about 55% higher odds of anxiety. A longitudinal study of 11,905 adults in the Gutenberg Health Study found that noise annoyance predicted later depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance, and concluded that regulatory measures are needed to prevent mental health problems. In 2025, a peer-reviewed article on data center expansion and health specifically noted that little is known about long-term health outcomes in data center host communities and recommended siting new data centers away from populated areas. Property values and marketability also matter.The County should not dismiss these concerns.A hedonic pricing analysis of homes near industrial sites found a statistically significant negative effect on residential property values, especially at shorter distances, driven by noise,traffic, air pollution, and visual intrusion.A data center introduces those same conditions, plus substations,transmission infrastructure, cooling equipment, and backup power systems.These factors reduce buyer demand and can make nearby homes harder to market. Water demand is another major concern.Windsor itself has a Drought Management Plan and states that drought planning is crucial because the Town continues to grow and new water supplies become more competitive among municipalities.Windsor also maintains watering restrictions and a formal water- efficiency plan. More broadly, Northern Water notes that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project delivers just over 200,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually to more than 1.1 million residents and farmland across northeastern Colorado, underscoring how shared and finite regional supplies already are. Against that backdrop, data-center water use is substantial. EPRI reported in 2025 that U.S. data centers directly consumed 17.4 billion gallons of water in 2023 and that a single 150-MW hyperscale data center could consume about 340,000 gallons per day under one efficiency scenario, or about 2.7 million gallons per day under more water-intensive cooling. EPRI also emphasized that these figures do not include indirect water consumption from additional power generation. Ceres likewise found that indirect water use from electricity generation can exceed on-site water use and warned that data-center clusters are forming in already water-stressed regions. Electricity demand is equally troubling.The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4.4% of all U.S. electricity in 2023 and could rise to 6.7%to 12% by 2028. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found U.S. data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023,with estimates of 325 to 580 TWh by 2028.These are exactly the kinds of loads that can require major transmission, generation, and substation upgrades. That matters for residents' bills. Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about data-center rates and concluded that utilities can shift data-center power costs onto other ratepayers through complex tariffs, contracts, and transmission cost allocation.The paper warns that current rate structures can force the public to pay for infrastructure built for a small number of very large corporate users.The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly warned that data-center growth puts ratepayers at risk of large cost increases,with hundreds of billions in projected electricity costs tied to this expansion over time. Air quality is another reason for caution.Weld County states that all of Weld County is included in the Denver Metro/North Front Range ozone nonattainment area, and CDPHE states that the area was reclassified to serious nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standard in July 2024. CDPHE also explains that NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors, and in Colorado's ozone nonattainment area, businesses must report those pollutants at lower thresholds. Data centers commonly include large backup generator 2 systems, and the proposed Weld definition expressly contemplates backup power systems and cooling- water infrastructure as part of a data center use. In an area already struggling to meet ozone standards, adding another major emissions source without rigorous scrutiny is deeply concerning. The health stakes extend beyond ozone. Researchers at Caltech and the University of California, Riverside project that air pollution from U.S. data centers could contribute to approximately 1,300 premature deaths annually by 2030, with a public health burden exceeding$20 billion. A 2025 peer- reviewed study further confirmed that fossil-fueled power plants and diesel backup generators supplying data centers emit pollutants that elevate cancer risk in nearby communities. In Morrow County, Oregon, community members near an Amazon data center reported significant spikes in rare cancers and miscarriages, with 68 of 70 local wells found to violate federal nitrate limits. These outcomes have not yet been established through peer-reviewed causal studies, but the documented pattern of harm is serious enough to warrant the highest level of environmental scrutiny before any approval. Please put the long-term interests of Windsor and Weld County residents ahead of a land use that consumes enormous public resources while producing relatively few permanent local jobs. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Anthony Ottomanelli 208 Cattail Bay, Windsor, Colorado Anthony Ottomanelli Sales Consultant Blind Tiger Brands 419-344-5783 Jason Maxey: jmaxey@weld.gov Scott James : sjames( weld.gov Lynette Peppier : 1peppler@weld.gov Kevin Ross : kross@weld.gov Perry Buck : pbuckC@weld.gov David Eisenbraun (dept of planning& development sys.) : deisenbraun@weld.gov 3 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT I Subject: FW: In reference to proposed data center 2 .. _k_ 0 rl.-0/ From: Mallory Seargeant<maseargeant@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 29, 2026 2:16 PM To: Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: In reference to proposed data center Dear Commissioner, For all of the reasons detailed below, I respectfully request that Weld County: - Require any proposed data center at the former Carestream site to proceed through Use by Special Review; - Require full, public disclosure of projected water demand,cooling method,generator capacity, noise modeling, electric load, and transmission/substation needs; -Weigh the site's higher-value alternative as an employment-generating industrial property rather than a low- employment, high-consumption data center use; and -Ultimately deny the use because it does not adequately protect the health, safety,welfare,water resources, air quality, and residential character of the surrounding area. I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express serious concerns regarding the proposed data center use at the former Carestream site at 2000 W. Howard Smith Ave. in Windsor.The current Weld County proposal would allow data centers in the Light Industrial zone district through a Special Review Permit, and Weld County's own USR criteria require protection of neighborhood health,safety, and welfare,as well as proof of adequate water service and compliance with air quality regulations. My concern is not abstract.This is a large former employment site in a growing community,and the consequences of converting it to a data center would be long-lasting:very high electricity demand, potentially major water demand, backup-generator emissions in an ozone nonattainment area, constant industrial noise,and very limited permanent employment compared with other productive industrial users.The former Carestream facility employed 236 people. By contrast, current workforce benchmarking for data centers shows that highly automated hyperscale facilities often operate with only 0.15-0.20 employees per MW, or as few as 20-30 permanent staff per 100 MW once online. In other words, approving data center use here could foreclose future higher-employment industrial use at a site that has already supported hundreds of jobs. The health and quality-of-life concerns are serious,especially from noise. Data-center-specific long-term epidemiology is still emerging, but the public-health literature on chronic environmental and industrial noise is already strong.The World Health Organization states that excessive environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance and that evidence is increasing for mental health problems.A 2022 systematic review and meta- analysis found that people who were highly annoyed by environmental or neighborhood noise had about 23% higher odds of depression and about 55%higher odds of anxiety.A longitudinal study of 11,905 adults in the Gutenberg Health Study found that noise annoyance predicted later depressive symptoms,anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance, and concluded that regulatory measures are needed "to prevent mental health problems." In 2025, a peer-reviewed article on data center expansion and health specifically noted that"little is known about long-term health outcomes in data center host communities"and recommended siting new data centers away from populated areas. 1 Property values and marketability also matter.The County should not dismiss these concerns.A hedonic pricing analysis of homes near industrial sites found a statistically significant negative effect on residential property values, especially at shorter distances, driven by noise,traffic, air pollution,and visual intrusion.A data center introduces those same conditions, plus substations,transmission infrastructure, cooling equipment, and backup power systems.These factors reduce buyer demand and can make nearby homes harder to market. Water demand is another major concern.Windsor itself has a Drought Management Plan and states that drought planning is crucial because the Town continues to grow and new water supplies become more competitive among municipalities.Windsor also maintains watering restrictions and a formal water-efficiency plan. More broadly, Northern Water notes that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project delivers just over 200,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually to more than 1.1 million residents and farmland across northeastern Colorado, underscoring how shared and finite regional supplies already are. Against that backdrop, data-center water use is substantial. EPRI reported in 2025 that U.S. data centers directly consumed 17.4 billion gallons of water in 2023 and that a single 150-MW hyperscale data center could consume about 340,000 gallons per day under one efficiency scenario—or, under more water-intensive cooling,about 2.7 million gallons per day. EPRI also emphasized that these figures do not include indirect water consumption from additional power generation. Ceres likewise found that indirect water use from electricity generation can exceed on-site water use and warned that data-center clusters are forming in already water-stressed regions. Electricity demand is equally troubling.The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4.4%of all U.S. electricity in 2023 and could rise to 6.7%to 12%by 2028. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found U.S.data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023,with estimates of 325 to 580 TWh by 2028.These are exactly the kinds of loads that can require major transmission,generation, and substation upgrades. That matters for residents' bills. Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about data-center rates and concluded that utilities can shift data-center power costs onto other ratepayers through complex tariffs,contracts, and transmission cost allocation.The paper warns that current rate structures can force the public to pay for infrastructure built for a small number of very large corporate users.The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly warned that data-center growth puts ratepayers at risk of large cost increases,with hundreds of billions in projected electricity costs tied to this expansion over time. Air quality is another reason for caution.Weld County states that all of Weld County is included in the Denver Metro/North Front Range ozone nonattainment area, and CDPHE states that the area was reclassified to serious nonattainmentfor the 2015 ozone standard in July 2024. CDPHE also explains that NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors,and in Colorado's ozone nonattainment area businesses must report those pollutants at lower thresholds. Data centers commonly include large backup generator systems,and the proposed Weld definition expressly contemplates backup power systems and cooling-water infrastructure as part of a data center use. In an area already struggling to meet ozone standards,adding another major emissions source without rigorous scrutiny is concerning. Please put the long-term interests of Windsor and Weld County residents ahead of a land use that consumes enormous public resources while producing relatively few permanent local jobs.Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mallory Seargeant Address:757 Lakebrook Ct.Windsor, CO Phone number:209-620-5095 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No Al data center in Windsor! 9Fl1=0 0,2 -a From: Stacey Swanson <staceys.1@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 6:37 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: No Al data center in Windsor! I am writing to demand the Weld County Commissioners please NOT pass the rezoning/annexation that is to be voted on which would allow an Al Data center to be built on the old Kocak site in Windsor. Basically, each commissioner should ask themselves one question. Would you want this next to your home? Next to your favorite place to enjoy the outdoors (Poudre River/Trail)? I do NOT want it in our town near homes, schools, daycares, businesses, outdoor recreation and the river. Shame on you for even considering this and allowing the City of Greeley and Lind to persuade or coerce you. Please BLOCK THIS PROJECT for the sake of the citizens who voted you in. Mrs. Perry Buck, we attend church together. Kevin and Scott I was an employee of Weld County when you began your terms and consider all three of you friends. Please think of everyone and how it affects nature and our lives. Thank you, Stacey Swanson Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Data Centers in Weld County s � From:Alyssa B <alyssawbrown@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 7:08 PM To:Jason Maxey<imaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; David Eisenbraun <deisenbraun@weld.gov> Subject:Al Data Centers in Weld County Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to express my thoughts and opinions regarding the current data center regulation discussion. I first lived in Weld County while obtaining my master's degree from UNC Greeley from 2007-2010. After graduating, I lived in Larimer County, Arapaho County, Jefferson County, and then Adams County. In 2024 my husband's job changed and we moved back to northern colorado. We looked at houses in many communities in the area including Loveland, Fort Collins, Berthoud and Windsor. Although farther from his office, we chose Windsor because we loved the small town feel, the access to the outdoors, the people we met here, and the overall quality of life we knew living in Windsor would provide. Data centers are a hot topic across the country. If you spend any time on social media, you can see clip after clip of people across America discussing the ramifications of data centers being built near their homes. It wasn't until I came across an article from 9 News that reported a data center was being built 1.5 miles from my home, that I realized it might be coming to my town, and I needed to educate myself on a deeper level about how these data centers impact local communities. Unfortunately in my research the cons exponentially outweighed the pros. I think the rest of this discussion can be summed up by the following quote attributed to the Cree Native American Tribe, "Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish has been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money." Unfortunately, the discussion can't stop there because money is too strong of a motivation for some and money is the only alleged "pro" to the data center discussion. I wish I could easily rank the cons in order of which ones are most detrimental, but they are so intertwined that weighing them makes it nearly impossible. As a mother of three young children with an undergraduate degree in Public Health Sciences, my greatest concerns likely fall under the umbrella of public health. Noise pollution: I am concerned about the noise generated on site which will impact those living nearby or a continual basis, but I am even more concerned about the low frequency noise pollution that will be emitted from data centers that will have a more hidden, yet significant impact on both people and wildlife. These low frequency sounds are not easily measured but are felt through vibrations and are constantly filtered and processed by our brains and bodies. These low frequency sounds cause anxiety, stress, fatigue, sleep isssues, cardiovascular diseases, blood pressure increases, structural damage to the vestibular system as well as the hair cells of inner ear. There are many research articles that discuss these impacts. It is imperative that data centers are not built within several miles of residential areas, due to the ability of these low frequency sounds to travel long distances. Emissions: I am concerned about the emissions coming from data centers and their impact on public and environmental health. The energy consumption, systems used for cooling and the use of backup generators all contribute to major amounts of emissions being released from these data centers which will impact the air quality around the data centers and in the surrouning area. As previously stated, I currently live 1.5 miles from a proposed data center in Weld County.The emissions released from these facilities produce a profound impact initially on areas within a one mile radius, and then travelling beyond that area (fine particulat matter, nitrogen dioxide) causing a regional and global impact through the release of greenhouse gasses. We spend as much time outside as possible. My kids play soccer at Eastman park. I would not be able to continue to live here in good concsience knowing that I am putting my family at risk of increased chronic illnesses simply due to the proximity that we live to an Al data center. Water Consuption and Contamination: While the county may not have explicit control over the amount of water, source of water, etc. provided to these Al data centers,water consumption and the contaminiation of the water being used is a major factor at play,which the county cannot ignore. Data centers use a substantial amount of water, even in a so called "closed loop" system. In addition,this water that is being run through machines to constantly cool them contain additives to inhibit corrosion, heavy metals, and high levels of salts. Data centers are putting this contaminated water back into our water sources and it absolutely is impacting _ people and the surrounding ecosystem. Often times the water is released at higher than normal water temperatures which negatively impacts aquatic life. Water is so vital to our wellbeing. We cannot allow Al data centers to use and contaminate such an important life force. Financial Impact: Outside of public health, people are concerned about decreased property values as well as customers subsidizing the electic and water bills for these data centers. While this sounds farfetched, it is happening all over the country. Electric bills that used to be reasonable but are now substanially higher because of a data center in their area, increased water bills and people being asked to take shorter showers so data centers can utilize water...these are realities that communities are faciing, and unfortunately once you allow them to come, it is too late. In closing, please think long and hard about how you proceed with allowing Al data centers to occupy Weld County. We could be the wealthiest county in the state but without our health and the health of our land and water, what is the point?We need comissioners to take a stand and realize that these decisions will negatively impact future generations, and I can't imagine you wanting that to be your legacy. If decreasing oil and gas revenue in the county is your motivation to allow data centers here, it's time to get creative.Think of ways to bring industry that doesn't have so many overwhelmingly negative impacts to people and the environment. Hold more town halls, embrace the ideas of your constiutents. Look at how current revenue is being spent. We haven't needed Al up until now, and we still don't need it.Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to this matter. Sincerely, Alyssa Brown 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Opposition To Proposed Data Center in Windsor From:Jennifer Vinella <jennifervinella@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 5:57 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Opposition To Proposed Data Center in Windsor Hello, My name is Jennifer Vinella. As a resident, mother, and local business owner, I am writing to express my firm opposition to the proposed Al data center in Windsor. There is a substantial, growing body of evidence indicating that data centers degrade local community resources. Allowing this facility to operate within our community risks significant negative impacts on the quality of life for all Windsor and Weld County residents. I have attached research highlighting the adverse effects these facilities have on local communities. In an era of increasing drought and limited water—with snowpack currently below 50%—introducing a massive, water-intensive operation is, not only dangerous, but incredibly irresponsible. Our survival as a community should not be jeopardized for corporate development. I urge you to look at the data, prioritize our long-term water and energy security, and vote NO on this project until we have a proven, sustainable path forward. https://www.wri.orq/insights/us-data-center-growth-impacts https://www.eesi.orq/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-consumption https://envirodatagov.orq/blogs/communities-close-to-epa-regulated-data-centers-face-heightened- air-pollution/ https://www.iea.orq/reports/energy-and-ai https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2025/11/roadmap-shows-environmental-impact-ai-data-center-boom https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/with-ai-on-the-rise-what-will-be-the-environmental- impacts-of-data-centers- 180987379/?fbclid=lwY2xjawQ4uyVteHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmLkETF2ZmcwOFRpenV6b3RzUk5ac3J0YwZhc HBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHpWnahrylNu9hM1 OUCf0pYj1 CUBP- 5mBwf33jUCvCRPHcGTGwmdASXRFWdzU aem 3gNCJBWL9N8-cVcm acFBA https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/article/scientists-have-found-an-alarming- environmental-i mpact-of-vast-data- centres/?fbclid=lwY2xjawQ4u5BleHRuA2FtbQIxMABicmIkETF2ZmcwOFRpenV6b3RzUk5ac3JOYwZhcHB faWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHnr8TXs6x6uVzpP5awjKsD3Hx4pzWfKI2M2Xv8- xlImS35LH4OixdUjGajd9 aem h38b POOgA3tByWOAOMWHSA i Thank you for your time and I hope you will look at the science when making your decision as I could not find a single positive impact on local communities where data centers are allowed to operate. In kindness, Jennifer Vinella 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: URGENT Windsor Al data center DAR/0-ol From: Sheila Ostrom <sugarman.rph@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:21 AM To:Jason Maxey<imaxev@weld.gov>; Scott James<siames@weld.Qov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; kfrod@weld.Rov Subject: URGENT Windsor Al data center Hello, I am a resident of Windsor and am writing in concern about the potential Al center near my community. I am deeply concerned about the potential of this center and the impact it will have on our resources. As you likely know, Windsor has had an increase of water cost of 26% and the addition of an Al center will add to the rising costs and contribute to the dwindling supply of water in Colorado. Al has vast environmental impacts and the long-term effects will directly impact our beautiful state. I urge you to strongly support the opposition of building an Al center in Weld county and protect our county and state from potentially irreversible harm. Sincerely, Sheila Ostrom i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Windsor Data Center Concerns Rb7-402/0-01 From: Christina Grooms<hayliesmommy39@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 12:03 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov> Subject: Windsor Data Center Concerns Dear Commissioner, For all of the reasons detailed below, I respectfully request that Weld County: • require any proposed data center at the former Carestream site to proceed through Use by Special Review; • require full, public disclosure of projected water demand, cooling method, generator capacity, noise modeling, electric load, and transmission/substation needs; • weigh the site's higher-value alternative as an employment-generating industrial property rather than a low-employment, high-consumption data center use; and • ultimately deny the use because it does not adequately protect the health, safety, welfare, water resources, air quality, and residential character of the surrounding area. I am writing as a resident of Windsor to express serious concerns regarding the proposed data center use at the former Carestream site at 2000 W. Howard Smith Ave. in Windsor. The current Weld County proposal would allow data centers in the Light Industrial zone district through a Special Review Permit, and Weld County's own USR criteria require protection of neighborhood health, safety, and welfare, as well as proof of adequate water service and compliance with air quality regulations. My concern is not abstract. This is a large former employment site in a growing community, and the consequences of converting it to a data center would be long-lasting: very high electricity demand, potentially major water demand, backup-generator emissions in an ozone nonattainment area, constant industrial noise, and very limited permanent employment compared with other productive industrial users. The former Carestream facility employed 236 people. By contrast, current workforce benchmarking for data centers shows that highly automated hyperscale facilities often operate with only 0.15-0.20 employees per MW, or as few as 20-30 permanent staff per 100 MW once online. In other words, approving data center use here could foreclose future higher-employment industrial use at a site that has already supported hundreds of jobs. The health and quality-of-life concerns are serious, especially from noise. Data-center-specific long-term epidemiology is still emerging, but the public-health literature on chronic environmental and industrial noise is already strong.The World Health Organization states that excessive environmental noise is associated with sleep disturbance and that evidence is increasing for mental health problems.A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found that people who were highly annoyed by environmental or neighborhood noise had about 23% higher odds of depression and about 55% higher odds of anxiety.A longitudinal study of 11,905 adults in the Gutenberg Health Study found that noise annoyance predicted later depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbance, and concluded that regulatory measures are needed "to prevent mental health problems." In 2025, a peer-reviewed article on data center expansion and health specifically noted that"little is known about long-term health outcomes in data center host communities" and recommended siting new data centers away from populated areas. Property values and marketability also matter.The County should not dismiss these concerns.A hedonic pricing analysis of homes near industrial sites found a statistically significant negative effect on residential property values, especially at shorter distances, driven by noise,traffic, air pollution, and visual intrusion.A data center introduces those same conditions, plus substations,transmission infrastructure, cooling equipment, and backup power systems.These factors reduce buyer demand and can make nearby homes harder to market. Water demand is another major concern.Windsor itself has a Drought Management Plan and states that drought planning is crucial because the Town continues to grow and new water supplies become more competitive among municipalities.Windsor also maintains watering restrictions and a formal water-efficiency plan. More broadly, Northern Water notes that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project delivers just over 200,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually to more than 1.1 million residents and farmland across northeastern Colorado, underscoring how shared and finite regional supplies already are. Against that backdrop, data-center water use is substantial. EPRI reported in 2025 that U.S. data centers directly consumed 17.4 billion gallons of water in 2023 and that a single 150-MW hyperscale data center could consume about 340,000 gallons per day under one efficiency scenario—or, under more water-intensive cooling, about 2.7 million gallons per day. EPRI also emphasized that these figures do not include indirect water consumption from additional power generation. Ceres likewise found that indirect water use from electricity generation can exceed on-site water use and warned that data-center clusters are forming in already water-stressed regions. Electricity demand is equally troubling.The U.S. Department of Energy reported that data centers consumed about 4.4%of all U.S. electricity in 2 2023 and could rise to 6.7%to 12% by 2028. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found U.S. data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023,with estimates of 325 to 580 TWh by 2028.These are exactly the kinds of loads that can require major transmission, generation, and substation upgrades. That matters for residents' bills. Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative reviewed nearly 50 regulatory proceedings about data-center rates and concluded that utilities can shift data-center power costs onto other ratepayers through complex tariffs, contracts, and transmission cost allocation.The paper warns that current rate structures can force the public to pay for infrastructure built for a small number of very large corporate users.The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly warned that data-center growth puts ratepayers at risk of Large cost increases,with hundreds of billions in projected electricity costs tied to this expansion over time. Air quality is another reason for caution.Weld County states that all of Weld County is included in the Denver Metro/-North Front Range ozone nonattainment area, and CDPHE states that the area was reclassified to serious nonattainmentfor the 2015 ozone standard in July 2024. CDPHE also explains that NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors, and in Colorado's ozone nonattainment area businesses must report those pollutants at lower thresholds. Data centers commonly include large backup generator systems, and the proposed Weld definition expressly contemplates backup power systems and cooling-water infrastructure as part of a data center use. In an area already struggling to meet ozone standards, adding another major emissions source without rigorous scrutiny is concerning. Please put the long-term interests of Windsor and Weld County residents ahead of a land use that consumes enormous public resources while producing relatively few permanent local jobs. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Christina Grooms 206 Cattail Bay Windsor, CO 303-552-7856 3 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Big Data `s __F"' fri____ CR1=0600I4,-01 From: C S<millerschmuhl@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 3:57 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Big Data Dear Weld County Commissioners, I live just west of the current Kodak plant being considered for a Big Data Center. I normally do not write letters, or join in rallies, but I feel compelled to add my voice to the many citizens who are greatly concerned with this Trojan Horse that seems innocuous in appearance, but will cause untold and unforseen damage. Please let me say that if you go ahead with this plant, you are being GROSSLY IRRESPONSIBLE to the residents of this area. There are so many reasons why this should not be here. 1. We are in a SEVERE DROUGHT! Our snowpack is 23% of normal at this writing.The argument that these data centers use as much water as a residential home is a lie. This needs to be built where there's abundant water miles from any population. 2. Noise pollution. Inaudible but causes all kinds of health issues within several miles. There are many other issues as you are aware. I plead with you not to go forward with this Big Data plant. Please think long term of the damage it will cause. Thank you 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT � N Subject: FW: Proposed Ordinance 2026-01 for Al Datacenter a ' ,� oADZo2L—bg From: Dale BINDEL<Dalebindel@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 12:42 PM To: David Eisenbraun <deisenbraun@weld.gr >;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Proposed Ordinance 2026-01 for Al Datacenter Having lived in Weld County for over 50 years and worked in public health for over 20 years (retired nurse) I am very invested as a citizen, voter, and community neighbor to weigh in on upcoming development of Al Data centers in Weld County. I am for informed and transparent governance. I would greatly appreciate you all take my input into consideration and postpone/delay any binding decisions on what could be the best or worst Ordinance for future development of AI data centers in our county. I strongly urge every commissioner to be well educated and informed on short term and long-term impacts of Data centers and most importantly to hear from county residents and communicate to them such consequences (positive or negative) that are truthful and backed up by data and evidence. Voting must not be rushed. To help in your consideration, below are points and research I want you to know about: 1. City of Archibald (pop 7500), Lackawanna County, PA has an Al data center campus that is not fully built out yet. Data center site was not zoned for heavy industrial, and citizens have no vote or mechanism to regulate or control operations or future growth. The developer is planning 6 campuses, 51 buildings, and will cover 14% of the town. No recourse for citizens or mayor. Currently, increased power demands regularly outpace local utility source, so Data center forced regularly to go off grid to their back-up generators...they have 450 diesel back-up generators now and they aren't even fully built out yet. Citizens are experiencing awful noise, water, and air pollution. Levels are not monitored or regulated because of zoning. Advise from community leaders to others looking at data centers is to know exactly who is the developer, what is timeline-including final build out plans, how is it being cooled and powered, prohibit discharge into municipal water supply, have heavy industrial zoning in place before so locals can regulate, have transparency, and a voice. 2. Project Gravity in PA expected to pump 360,000 gallons/day from Lake Scranton. Project WildCat Ridge in PA expected to use 3.3 million gallons/day 3. 2025 brief from University of Michigan stated,"Data Centers do not bring high-paying tech jobs to local communities". Analysis by "Food and Water Watch", a nonprofit, found that in Virginia, the investment required to create a permanent data center job was nearly 100 times higher than what was required to create comparable jobs in other industries. Often times data center jobs are not permanent labor. 4. After a relatively small amount of personal research, questions I have thought of that need to be answered before Weld County makes any decisions are: a. How many and where would the high voltage transmission lines be to Data Center? What is the added risk to citizens? Is there an added risk due to colocation of oil/gas wells and pipelines? b. Would Data Centers receive tax incentives? If so, what? Would they receive utility rate cuts? If so, what would they be? c. With the current uncertainties between Windsor and Greeley regarding annexation of disputed land involving Data Center location, does anybody know where any tax revenue that's generated from future data center will go? Would it be Windsor or Greeley School districts? 1 Who actually will have input into decisions ...Greeley or Windsor? Or neither...its all in the hands of Commissioners? d. Has and can the developer state what final build out of campus will be? e. Who will monitor, regulate the amount of power and water Data center uses? IF their energy demand outpaces local grid, will they be supplying their own energy? Using diesel, oil, or renewable energy sources? Who will regulate and monitor? How will regulation and monitoring be paid for? f. How much water does the Data Center plan on using per day at start up?When fully built out? What water rates will they use?What is impact on local water treatment and supplies? Who will monitor if they have a closed system? g. Will there be any environmental studies for air,water, noise pollution for before, during and after Data Center operations? Dont we need a baseline to determine impact and regular monitoring since location is so close to Poudre River, Windsor Charter School, and business and homes? h. What is being coordinated and looked,at regarding State legislation for Al Data Centers? Shouldn't that play into decision for delay and postponement? 5. Ordinance as currently written is not adequate to address county residents' concerns. Need to include: a. Special Review or All facilities over 10MW. We need a public process. b. Heavy industrial zoning not light industrial zoning. Too many communities have documented lack of control, regulation,transparency without adequate zoning. c. Tiered definitions because size matters. I am truly worried about capacity for energy and water and that home owners and business owners are going to be on the hook for infrastructure. And so county always has oversight. Just ask Virginia and Pennsylvania d. Need real setback and envirnomental standards. Weld county is home to so much beauty and growth. Lets take some time to perserve it _ e. No surprise growth of data centers. See above Thank you for reading and taking the time to consider my input. Lynn Bindel 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: concern for Al data center in Windsor 9 0 o2ID2-Or From: Hannah Galloway Clark<hannahcgalloway@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 3:29 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Cc:Jordan <jpclark05@gmail.com> Subject: concern for Al data center in Windsor Hello, I am writing this email to voice concern for plan for a potential Al data center in Windsor, CO. I own a house in Windsor, on the weld county side, that would be very close to this proposed Al data center. I have many concerns including light pollution, noise pollution, environmental pollution, and water. As a rapidly growing area in Northern Colorado, we have no extra water. Our entire state has no water. Per NBC at the link below, Coloradoans are currently facing the earliest water restrictions EVER on record. If there is not enough water for us to water lawns, how are you all planning to support the water need for the data center? https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/colorado-earliest-water-restrictions-ever-snow- d rought-rc na265377 I cannot attend the meeting in person tomorrow, and I can't help but feel that it was planned on a weekday during working hours so that concerned employed people like myself can't attend. I look forward to hearing back from you. Hannah Galloway Clark, Au.D. Doctor of Audiology Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: No data centers in Weld County Please...sincerely a resident / a QI¢DLOZI,-O( From: Lizzy Hinshaw<hinshawlizzy@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,April 2, 2026 7:55:55 PM To: Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>;Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier <Ipeppier@weid.gov>; mfreeman@weld.gov<mfreeman@weld.gov>; David Eisenbraun<deisenbraun@weld.gov>; Maxwell Nader<mnader@weid.gov>;Wendi Inloes<winloes@weld.gov> Subject: No data centers in Weld County Please...sincerely a resident Hello, I do not support data centers in my county.This is regarding the 500-acre Windsor-Greeley site. April 6th vote:VOTE TO DELAY Personally, I think the Al bubble will pop but regardless,we are in a drought,we care about the future of our environment, and I think we all know that these corporations DO NOT have the Weld County Community in mind, they only care about the bottom line$. As the project applications come in and regulations are being built around these VERY NEW types of buildings. Please keep the community informed and heavily involved. The people of Weld have a right to be concerned because of the following: • Energy Costs:Surging demand can lead to higher electricity bills for residents to fund new transmission lines and grid upgrades. • Water Scarcity: Facilities can use millions of gallons of water daily for cooling,which can deplete local aquifers and dry up residential wells, particularly in drought-prone areas. • Grid Instability: Rapid energy demand can cause voltage spikes and "near-miss" incidents that threaten the stability of the local power grid. • Air Pollution: Massive backup diesel generators emit nitrogen oxides and fine particulates (PM2.5) linked to asthma, heart disease,and cancer. • Noise Pollution: Industrial cooling fans and generators create a constant, low-frequency hum (up to 96 decibels)that causes sleep disruption, anxiety, and hypertension. • Light Pollution: 24/7 security lighting disrupts human circadian rhythms and wildlife migration patterns. • Low Job Density:While construction creates temporary roles, permanent staffing is often very low— typically fewer than 150 employees even for massive campuses. • Tax Inequity: Large tech firms often receive significant tax breaks that may reduce the net revenue available for local schools and emergency services. • Transparency Issues:The use of non-disclosure agreements(NDAs) can prevent residents from knowing the true resource demands of a project until it is already approved. • E-Waste: Rapid hardware turnover creates massive amounts of toxic electronic waste that is often improperly managed. Weld county deserves answers that are clear and concise. People over corporations. Thanks 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al data center in Weld County a From:Joanne Hawley<hawleyjoanne81@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 2, 2026 8:31 PM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Al data center in Weld County Hello there, I'm writing as a concerned citizen about the upcoming AI data center in Weld County. Al has it's place. I use it at work, I use it to help me plan things like my garden. It has many revolutionary and life saving innovations for people with disabilities. However, I don't understand why we don't regulate Al data centers at all, not even like a public utility. Al data centers are show to use an enormous amount of water and power to run. They can also contaminate the area around them and ruin drinkable water sources. I am asking the Weld County consider the effect that this center will have on not only Weld County, but all of Northern Colorado. What happens in one place effects another. Please consider thoroughly researching and regulating these centers. Protect our resources and the quality of life here in NOCO. Thank you, Joanne Hawley www.linkedin.com/in/oannehawley Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center $ From: Meghan Ward <meglitward@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 2, 2026 8:40 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Dear Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for your willingness to hear from residents like me and for taking cautious, rational steps as you consider Ordinance 2026-01. I am writing today because I do not believe enough information is yet available for a final decision on this zoning ordinance. Because this ordinance could shape how data centers are allowed in unincorporated Weld County moving forward, I believe it deserves more time, more transparency, and more public understanding before this vote is taken. This issue matters to me because [share your story/reason here]. At this point, I would like to see more data, research, and public information on several important topics that many residents are still trying to better understand. • water and electricity use &impact on utility rates (rate payer protections & Capital cost recovery) • review of comparative studies on health, agriculture, and quality of life • alignment with local water, energy, & economic plans • impact on property value, residential development, & insurance rates Today, I am asking that this decision be delayed to allow more time for care, transparency, and enough information to make a responsible decision. A continuation would allow more time for questions to be addressed and for the public to better understand the potential long-term impacts of this ordinance. Thank you again for your time, your willingness to listen, and your thoughtful consideration. I respectfully ask that you vote to continue Ordinance 2026-01 until more information is available and the community has had a fuller opportunity to understand and weigh the impacts. Sincerely, Meghan i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Weld County Data Center Concerns from Severance Resident 3S OQDZoVe—0t From:Jennifer Roe<jroe0905@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,April 2, 2026 8:59 AM Cc:Jason Maxey<jmaxev@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject:Weld County Data Center Concerns from Severance Resident Dear Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for your willingness to hear from residents like me and for taking careful, thoughtful steps as you consider Ordinance 2026-01. I am writing because I do not believe there is yet enough information available to support a final decision on this zoning ordinance. Given that this measure will shape how data centers may operate in unincorporated Weld County for years to come, I believe it warrants additional time, greater transparency, and broader public understanding before a vote is taken. At this stage, I believe more data, research, and publicly accessible information are needed on several key topics that many residents are still trying to fully understand, including: • water and electricity use, and potential impacts on utility rates (ratepayer protections and capital cost recovery) • comparative studies related to health, agriculture, and quality of life • alignment with local water, energy, and economic plans • effects on property values, residential development, and insurance rates I respectfully request that the decision on Ordinance 2026-01 be delayed to allow more time for careful review, public questions, and a clearer understanding of the long-term implications. A continuation would give both the community and the Commission the opportunity to make a more informed and responsible decision. Thank you again for your time, your openness to public input, and your thoughtful consideration. I respectfully ask that you vote to continue Ordinance 2026-01 until more information is available and the community has had a fuller opportunity to evaluate its potential impacts. Sincerely, Jennifer Roe Severance, Colorado 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Delay Vote on Ordinance 2026-01 for More Information & Public Input EXHIBIT From: Philip Nordeck< ,hilin.nordeck@gmail.com> F ,1T Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 8:23 AM 11 Subject: Delay Vote on Ordinance 2026-01 for More Information & Public Input '—D) Dear County Commissioners, I am writing to respectfully request that you delay your decision on the proposed zoning ordinance. I have close friends who live in Weld County, and I care deeply about the community and its future. As I reflect on this issue, I think about my daughter. While she is not a resident of Weld County, I think about my family, my friends, and their children—those who will inherit the outcomes of decisions made in the present. The future you help shape will directly impact the environment in which these children grow up. This ordinance carries meaningful and lasting implications for the character, sustainability, and livability of the community. Taking additional time to evaluate its full impact would allow for more thoughtful consideration and ensure that decisions are made with a long-term perspective. Please pause before making a final decision. The future of our communities—and the generations who will live in them—deserves that level of care. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Philip Nordeck What you live is what you leave with, so Hold it close, it's the only thing that's yours 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Old Kodak Plant/AI Data Center FOND iz ORDZoZi.-0( From: Mary Ricker<mricker@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 9:43 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck <pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Old Kodak Plant/AI Data Center Dear Weld County Commissioners, I sat down to write out this email to voice my disagreement with allowing an Al Data Center, and tried to keep it short, but it's impossible.This is a huge topic,with many areas of concern.There have several thoughtful responses posted on Nextdoor and in the local papers, but I want to add my own thoughts as well, as someone in who works in the tech field, specifically, data management, data analysis and development that causes me to work closely with cloud computing. I've heard many alarming statements and responses to concerns that are not adequate or accurate, surrounding the conversation of the possible Global Al data center taking over the old Kodak property. Such as: • The new Al builds use less water, • Al data centers provide jobs, • The power consumption used by Al data centers is overblown, • Al is the wave of the future and we must jump on the bandwagon now to assure our stake in it, etc. I'm in the tech field and have been for over 20 years.We have had and continue to have constant talks and research concerning Al and where it fits in for our work. I've learned enough to know that all of the above responses are far from reality. • The fact that new Al builds use less water doesn't negate the fact that they STILL use an exorbitant amount of water.Yes, it's recycled water, as is most of the water we use. Some locales even use recycled water for drinking water. Being recycled water doesn't make it any less valuable and yes,they will likely use closed loop cooling, however,that's still not a one-and-done water need. It requires regular top-offs of water, uses more electricity to meet that need, and nothing prevents them from changing the system back to open- loop in 5 years when they decide it's too costly to maintain the closed loop system. The surrounding area, including the old Kodak plant, is a High Plains ecoregion. High Plains ecoregions are arid, dry. It's well known that we have more water-right allotments than the amount of water that is available, and it gets worse each year. This isn't something that is just going to affect how expensive it is to water a lawn of grass.This will affect farming& ranching in the area (which affects our food supply and food prices, as well as all the jobs that go along with farming& ranching), drinking water,water for basic needs. • Al Data Centers provide jobs,yes. A bunch while it's being built. 50 or under permanent jobs on average, after the build is done.That's not a boom. That's like saying one local mom &pop diner that only serves lunch and breakfast is going to be a boom for a local economy the size of the Windsor, Greeley,Johnstown. • Servers are my field.They are my expertise. I know how much power(computer) servers draw. One server in one office creates a very noticeable increase in electricity usage.Al data centers house TENS of THOUSANDS of servers, and they run 24/7,with no break. Even small to mid-size Al data centers that have 1 5000 servers or less use an unholy amount of electricity. So much electricity is used that we've changed the way we reference an Al data centers size,speaking in terms of their energy consumption rather than the number of servers they house(traditional data centers are characterized by the number of servers they house,which is how I've listed them here-to provide scale that is easy to visualize). • Servers generate an immense amount of heat,and cooling down those servers requires an immense amount of power&water.We already have an issue with meeting the electricity demands of the local population (as well as water, as mentioned above)and Xcel is constantly in the news because their product(electricity) is becoming unaffordable to the local population,and yet,their record profits increase each year. Data is coming out left and right that shows the detrimental effect Al data centers have on the local population,their energy costs,water costs and constraints placed on both water and energy due to high consumption from the Al data centers.We need to manage our local environment for the local population, not for large corporations or developers who have no stake in what happens here. • The Al field shows signs of a bust. Citizens/the Tech Industry/Experts/The Media/Governments,etc, have treated Al as a gigantic start-up,expecting the world,without setting realistic expectation for what it can do, how useful it can be,and ignoring the need for guardrails and slow growth.We are already seeing the negative effects of that. Profits are not being realized. Large companies who went all in with Al are now scaling back, as they wake up to the fact that it's not the wonder kid they thought it was.Al is not being abandoned and it won't be abandoned in our lifetimes, or even for many generations. It's here to stay for a long time. I am sure it will integrate into daily life at a much higher level than it is now, but the growth will stall out and shrinkage will occur.These huge data center numbers will be slashed, but the negative impacts they've had on the environment and the local populations that surround them will still be there. The leading Al companies are already sounding the alarm about tack of profits and seeing no way forward to gain them.That is not worth selling out the local population's well-being. I have not touched on the topics of infrasound noise pollution or the negative impacts on wildlife, because this has already become long, but those impacts are just as important as what I've written above. On a different topic. I am a Weld County resident. I am also a resident of East Windsor.This property affects me and my neighbors a lot more than it affects the residents of Greeley.To be clear, it affects all of us to some degree, but I do not want Windsor residents voices discounted by having this property annexed into Greeley,when it would be unfair to the immediate neighbors who are most deeply impacted by this possible Al Data Center. I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property.As a Weld County resident, I am disturbed that we are even considering this because our Commissioners could not have gotten this far in the process without already being aware of the above points.There is no question that it will be a detriment to the local population because of energy usage,emissions, and health impacts.We will not even see high monetary rewards from it, not enough to make up for the negatives. Sincerely, Mary Ricker 825 Durum St. Windsor, CO 80550 mricker@gmail.com 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners �_ Subject: FW: Delay the vote on Al data center ordinance 2026 dash 01 From: BARBARA EUDY<bareudy@aol.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 3:34 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Delay the vote on Al data center ordinance 2026 dash 01 I am a resident and voter in Weld County. I strongly urge the commissioners to delay the vote on ordinance 2026 dash 01. We need citizen input and transparency before any Al data center is approved. Sincerely, Barbara Eudy 243 Turnberry Dr Windsor, CO 80550 Sent from my iPhone Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners a Subject: FW: Data centers in Weld County From: Gail Craig<DGCRAIG1345@msn.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 4:30 PM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data centers in Weld County Dear Commissioners, I understand you will be meeting to discuss plans and policies for the possibility of a data center in Weld County. That is a sensible idea. When completed, I would like information on what you decide is best for the county and why. Is it possible that the county could have a vote on whether or not we want a data center? My concerns about data centers are based on what I have been reading and hearing in the news. My biggest concern is environmental issues due to extreme water and electricity usage. As we are currently having a drought, I doubt we can spare water for this purpose. Second, it's my understanding that infrastructure is required to produce the electricity needed with the cost being passed on to consumers. I have also heard there are problems with noise and light pollution. In addition, the demand forces utilities to keep coal and gas plants running, increasing greenhouse gases and pollution. Suffice it to say, these centers seem to cause more problems than they solve. I hope your plan for the future of Weld County carefully considers these potential problems. Thanks for your time. Gail Craig 410 10th Street Windsor, CO 80550 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners Ft_ Subject: FW: Proposed update to chapter 23 s OQbLOZ4.O( From:Jutta Seeger<juttamseeger@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 5:09 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Proposed update to chapter 23 Dear Commissioners, I am a Greeley resident since 30 years and I have enjoyed using each part of the Poudre bike trail as it developed. My friend from Fort Collins and I walk every week for 2 hours along the "Kodak" trail part from the archery trail head to the bridge that crosses the Poudre. Maintaining city-escapes like this is crucial for our life quality. For good reason this is listed as National Heritage Area. As we walk through the agricultural landscape with wild life viewing next to the river as a lifeline to all, we appreciate the history and ponder the potential future of this land. I understand that Global Al has purchased land along the Poudre river. Even though the ordinance 2026- 01 does not address this or any specific object I urge you to post pone voting on this at the time. The State government is working on legislation regarding these data centers, we can then implement the new laws and tighten them where we see fit. • Considering the high- intensity industrial character of new data centers, their insatiable appetite for water and power and possible negative impact on our environment, we as stewards of our land need to make sure, we don't give developments like that free range without keeping the oversight regarding the conditions under which we want them to operate. This means that that we need to require "use by special review" process which will give the community chances for input and the commissioners more say than just administrative review of the application. Please, do not allow "by right" or "site plan review" approval process in any zone for data centers! Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Jutta Seeger i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT b Subject: FW: data Center 2 O/2DZo - From: Otis Canard <onvcanard75@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 11:26:11 PM To: Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: data Center Dear Mr. Buck, I will not be able to attend the meeting this Monday, April 6th, to discuss the data center projected to be built in Windsor. I am thoroughly concerned and AGAINST this center being built. Our natural resources and infrastructure cannot handle such a massive project. Our water sources are being strained as it is with all the residential building already in progress. A data center requires excessive amount of water, up to 5 million gallons daily, which in turn will strain the already limited water supply we have. The lack of snow this year will further increase the stress on the demand. Water rates have been increased lately and this will require future increases on the people of our community. Electricity bills will also be increased due to the added strain on the electric grid. Noise pollution with the constant humming sound will disrupt quiet the neighbors enjoy in our small town. The disadvantages of bringing a data center far out weighs any/if any advantages. Please VOTE NO!! Please DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN TO OUR COMMUNITY!!!! Concerned Resident, Virginia Canard 109 Flat Iron St. Severance, CO 80550 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Center Vote Es2,1_ 9 0/2bZO eig-O From:vdeguerin@yahoo.com <vdeguerin@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2026 8:02 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Al Center Vote I want to express the need to DELAY the Vote on the Al Center for April 6th. This is wrong moving this so fast without the Weld county residents to learn about this and speak their Truth ! This Al company is trying to steamroll residents for their profit and greed. This is our land and community not theirs. We the people of Weld county need to be heard ! Thank you... Velda Mauro Esther Gesick From: Ask The Commissioners EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Proposed Ordinance on Data Centers i G — A U.Zc Lo.crlC From: Ashley Phillis<aphillis02@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2026 2:56 PM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Proposed Ordinance on Data Centers Good Morning, I am writing today about Ordnance 2026-01. I attended one of your informational meetings in March. I applaud the commissioners for taking the time to define data centers and putting in some regulations. However, I believe after hearing many residents' concerns, that data centers should be banned or only allowed with use by special review. Weld County and Colorado are already in drought conditions. As much as I appreciate the thought of a closed loop system, my concern is that we already don't have enough water. Where are they getting the water for the system?There were also plenty of voices speaking about the environmental impacts data centers can have. We all want clean air and electricity. With how most data centers function, it is hard to believe that we will still have those conditions when they are built. I request that the proposed ordinance is revised to allow for the public to have a say in building the data centers since this will affect us and our quality of life. By putting in a use by special review in the permitting process we can make sure that our community can have a voice and try to keep our air and water clean and useable for the people who live here. Please do what is best for the residents of Weld County by listening to our concerns and making changes to this ordnance before taking a vote. Thank you for your time, Ashley Phillis Windsor, CO 80550 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: NO to Ordinance 2026-01 G B orzeLOzb-O( From:Sandra D<somocurcio7@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday,April 4, 2026 9:38 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: NO to Ordinance 2026-01 As a Colorado resident, I am deeply concerned with the cumulative impact of Data Centers in our state. Large-scale data centers are industrial uses, but their massive power demand, generator emissions, and infrastructure impacts mean they operate much more like heavy industrial facilities and they must be regulated accordingly.Weld County must conduct a comprehensive cumulative impact review of public safety impacts, infrastructure strain, air quality and generator emissions, and noise pollution. Thank you, SANDRA DUGGAN 360.620.9423 //somocurcio7@gmail.com i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Data Center Citizen Input for April, 6, 2026 Meeting G C, QR.Ozorto-D, From: Nancy Sullivan<nmau@msn.com> Sent:Sunday,April 5, 2026 2:31 PM To:sjames@weld.com Cc: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject:Al Data Center Citizen Input for April, 6, 2026 Meeting As a concerned citizen of Weld County, I would like to see the decision to move forward with the data center postponed until further reviews are completed. I am concerned about water usage, electricity demand, noise, traffic, and the effects on nearby neighborhoods. I am particularly worried about pollutants being released into the Cache La Poudre River. We all worry about water, and its availability and cost already. I am also concerned about the long-term risk that taxpayers could be stuck with for unknown issues in the future. I absolutely cannot take another tax increase. Taking the time to be fully educated and to have full transparency is absolutely necessary for citizens. Please do postpone any further decisions until more information has been gathered and shared, and time has been given for residents to respond. Nancy Sullivan MA Special Education Greeley, CO 720-252-6211 nmau@msn.corn 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Al Data Center Citizen Input for April 6, 2026 Meeting 9 G IP 1) C9Qbz62I0-6I From: Michael Banowetz <michaelbanowetz@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 3:27 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject:Al Data Center Citizen Input for April 6, 2026 Meeting As a concerned citizen of Weld County, I would like to see the decision to move forward with the data center postponed until further reviews are completed. I am concerned about water usage, electricity demand, noise, traffic, pollution, and other effects on nearby neighborhoods. How much pollution will onsite energy production create? We all worry about water and electricity, and its availability and cost already. I am also concerned about the long-term risk that taxpayers could be stuck with issues in the future. Plus, how will this Al center help mitigate the resulting job losses across the country and here in Weld County?Taking the time to be fully educated and to have full transparency is absolutely necessary for citizens. Please postpone any further decisions until more information has been gathered and shared, and time has been given for residents to respond. Michael Banowetz Greeley, CO 720-270-4211 michaelbanowetz@gmail.com Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center Comments a G _ ORb2024-O From: Barbara Whinery<blwhi cast.net> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 5:28:00 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<siames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center Comments Subject: Ensure Strong Guardrails for Data Centers in Weld County Dear Board of Weld County Commissioners, I am writing regarding the proposed data center development and the upcoming vote by the Weld County BOCC to potentially approve a zoning change that would pave the way for large data center in our community. Data centers are large, heavy industrial facilities with significant electricity,water, infrastructure, and public safety impacts. Before any approvals are granted, I urge you to ensure that strong guardrails are in place to protect Weld County residents and our most cherished resource, our agricultural community. Specifically, I respectfully ask that the County: 1. Delay approval of the zoning change in Ordonnance 2026-01 and allow for more research, transparency for public input and information for a responsible decision. 2. For all proposed data centers,the new zoning law should require 'Use by Special Review'for all levels of proposed projects. Full transparency about any proposed data center should include energy demand,water use, emissions, noise impacts, and long-erm expansion plans. 3. Special attention should be given to the limits on noise suggested in the proposed zoning law. Additional research is needed to ensure the appropriate noise levels are set that do not harm residents, livestock and animals. 4. Examine new research on the impact of temperatures increases by data centers to produce a "heat dome" effect, depending on distance from the centers, it could raise temperatures, 3.6-16.4 degrees up to 6 miles surround the center. This heat effect could have a serious impact on communities and regional welfare in the future. (Rogelberg, Sasha, "Data centers are so hot their'heat island' effect is raising temperatures up to 6 miles away and impacting 343 million people worldwide, study finds." Fortune,April 1, 2026) Thank you for your time,your willingness to listen,your thoughtful consideration and your service to Weld County. Sincerely, Barbara L. 1Nhinery 235 N.49th Ave. Pl Greeley, Co 80634 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: URGENT Request to Pause Development- GlobalAl Data Center in Windsor, Colorado EXHIBIT G F From: Caron Leach <caronleach@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 7:35 PM b1.0*-0/ To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: URGENT Request to Pause Development-GlobalAl Data Center in Windsor, Colorado Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am writing to formally oppose the proposed GlobalAl data center planned for the former Kodak Plant site in Windsor, and to respectfully request an immediate pause on any further approvals or development activity until the full scope of impacts is transparently evaluated in accordance with Weld County's land use review standards. I know this land well, better than many in the local area. This is not an abstract development site, it is a working agricultural landscape and an established ecosystem that supports both local families and a delicate balance of wildlife. The scale and industrial nature of this project appear fundamentally incompatible with the existing and intended uses of the surrounding area. As you evaluate this proposal under Weld County's review criteria, I urge you to carefully consider whether this use meets the County's standards for compatibility with adjacent properties and protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The proximity of this facility to homes and active agricultural operations raises serious concerns regarding land use compatibility. Continuous industrial noise from cooling systems and backup generators is inconsistent with rural-residential and agricultural uses and may negatively impact both nearby residents and farming operations. This directly calls into question whether the proposed use can coexist without material adverse effects on neighboring properties. Equally concerning are the environmental and ecological impacts, which are central to the County's responsibility to protect natural resources. The surrounding land provides habitat for a wide range of wildlife, including wild turkeys, deer, and a family of eagles that feed on fish from the nearby river system that all depend on open space and minimal disruption. Increased industrial activity, light pollution, and infrastructure expansion will inevitably fragment and degrade this habitat. These impacts must be thoroughly evaluated through a formal environmental review process before any approvals are granted. There is also insufficient information available regarding potential impacts to public health and safety. Data centers of this scale may involve chemical cooling systems, fuel storage, and emissions from backup power generation. It remains unclear whether this facility will operate as a closed-loop system, and if so, how hazardous or toxic materials will be managed. Weld County's review process should require clear, enforceable plans for the handling, storage, and disposal of such materials to ensure there is no risk to surrounding land, water, or air quality. Water use is another critical factor that must be evaluated under the County's standards. Agricultural operations in this region depend on reliable water access, and large-scale industrial facilities can place significant strain on local resources Without detailed and verified disclosures, it cannot be determined whether this project is consistent with the long-term sustainability of the area. Given these unresolved issues, advancing this proposal at this stage would be inconsistent with the County's obligation to ensure that new development does not adversely affect neighboring properties, natural resources, or the broader community. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Weld County Commissioners pause any further consideration, rezoning actions, or approvals related to this project until the following conditions are met: •Completion of a comprehensive, independent environmental impact analysis consistent with County review standards •Detailed disclosure and review of water usage, energy demand, and infrastructure impacts •Submission of enforceable plans for hazardous material management, including any closed- loop or chemical systems •Demonstrated compliance with compatibility standards relative to adjacent agricultural and residential uses •Robust public engagement with directly affected landowners and community members Until these criteria are fully satisfied, it is not possible to determine whether this proposed use meets Weld County's requirements for approval This proposal, as currently presented, raises substantial concerns regarding compatibility, environmental stewardship, and long-term impacts to the community. I urge you to uphold the integrity of the County's review process by pausing this project until all impacts are clearly understood and addressed. If those concerns cannot be resolved, this facility should be relocated to an area appropriately zoned and planned for heavy industrial use. Thank you for your time, your service, and your careful consideration of this matter Sincerely, Caron Leach PO Box 1674 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone 970.420 3898 • 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Please delay approval of Ordinance 2026-01 and allow for more information and public input EXHIBIT G From: Natalie Vacha <nataliejvacha@gmail.com> QRD2074_01 Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:12 PM To: Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Please delay approval of Ordinance 2026-01 and allow for more information and public input Subject: Please delay approval of Ordinance 2026-01 and allow for more information and public input Dear Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for your willingness to hear from residents like me and for taking cautious, rational steps as you consider Ordinance 2026-01. I am writing today because I do not believe enough information is yet available for a final decision on this zoning ordinance. Because this ordinance could shape how data centers are allowed in unincorporated Weld County moving forward, I believe it deserves more time, more transparency, and more public understanding before this vote is taken. We are already learning hard lessons from other communities who are being financially and environmentally ravaged by these data centers. Do you want this as your legacy? https://www.abcl 5.com/news/business/rapid-data-center-expansion-could-strain-city-budgets-create- credit-risk At this point, I would like to see more data, research, and public information on several important topics that many residents are still trying to better understand. • water and electricity use & impact on utility rates (rate payer protections &Capital cost recovery) • review of comparative studies on health, agriculture, and quality of life • alignment with local water, energy, & economic plans • impact on property value, residential development, & insurance rates Today, I am asking that this decision be delayed to allow more time for care, transparency, and enough information to make a responsible decision. A continuation would allow more time for questions to be addressed and for the public to better understand the potential long-term impacts of this ordinance. Thank you again for your time, your willingness to listen, and your thoughtful consideration. I respectfully ask that you vote to continue Ordinance 2026-01 until more information is available and the community has had a fuller opportunity to understand and weigh the impacts. Sincerely, Natalie Vacha Windsor resident and registered voter jmaxey( weld.gov sjames@weld.gov 1peppler weld.gov krossaweld.gov pbuckaweld.gov 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Data centers in Weld County EXHIBIT H From: Christina Kauffman <christina_kauffman2@hotmail.com> ORA`L021e-Ol Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:13 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>; Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler <Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Data centers in Weld County Dear County Commissioners, I am unable to attend your meeting tomorrow due to work, but I must share that we must conduct thorough research to create a bullet-proof law or laws that protect our citizens from the harmful and negative results of building data centers here. There are already enough data centers in our country to have a good idea of the costs to citizens, property value, and the environment. Personally, I don't think we should go down that road no matter who sold what property to the data center corporation. The cost of electricity and water usage must be considered. Even though Weld County has water now, there is no reason to believe that growth and the change in the weather will not result in an enormous impact on water. Please tread lightly and intelligently regarding this matter. Sincerely, Christina Kauffman, Greeley Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners 1 UPSubject: FW: Ordinance 2026-01 s G 012bto26-OI From: Pauline M <permiglio@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 5:16 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 Passing Ordinance 2026-01 now would only fast-track approvals and limit the County's ability to require safeguards that protect the community. New information is coming to light, underscoring why the County must slow this process down and take the time to get it right. Colorado State legislators convened an Artificial Intelligence Policy Workgroup to evaluate the 2024 Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act and propose a path forward. Colorado lawmakers took a step that is becoming more common in emerging technology regulation. They slowed down. A subsequent legislative effort delayed the implementation of the Act to June 30, 2026. The delay did not resolve the underlying questions about scope or structure. It created space to revisit them. The close of Colorado's special legislative session was an acknowledgment that the law, as written, needed further refinement before it could be operationalized at scale. I urge the Commussioners to exercise the same level of due diligence, slow the pace to ensure adequate time for further study and meaningful public input with a final outcome that ensures strong, protective regulations for data centers that safeguard community wellbeing, agricultural lands, the environment, and ratepayers. Thank you for your service to Weld County. Pauline Migliore Johnstown, Colorado 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 5:16 AM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Pauline Last Name Migliore Passing Ordinance 2026-01 now would only fast-track approvals and limit the County's ability to require safeguards that protect the community. New information is coming to light, underscoring why the County must slow this process down and take the time to get it right. Colorado State legislators convened an Artificial Intelligence Question / Policy Workgroup to evaluate the 2024 Colorado Artificial Comment Intelligence Act and propose a path forward. Colorado lawmakers took a step that is becoming more common in emerging technology regulation. They slowed down. A subsequent legislative effort delayed the implementation of the Act to June 30, 2026. The delay did not resolve the underlying questions about scope or structure. It created space to revisit them. 1 The close of Colorado's special legislative session was an acknowledgment that the law, as written, needed further refinement before it could be operationalized at scale. I urge the Commussioners to exercise the same level of due diligence, slow the pace to ensure adequate time for further study and meaningful public input with a final outcome that ensures strong, protective regulations for data centers that safeguard community wellbeing, agricultural lands, the environment, and ratepayers community, and the environment, are fully protected. Thank you for your service to Weld County. Email permiglio@gmail.com Phone 2489107698 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners 2G .. 7 Subject: FW: Data center 01202 -0/ From: Elizabeth Ronan <Ronanbet9@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 5:52 AM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Data center Please do NOT approve this new data center at the old Kodak plant. I believe there are too many environmental issues AND the site is too close to homes, businesses and schools. Thank you, Elizabeth Ronan 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners133 G Subject: FW: Please vote to support a continuation on Data Centers From:Joe J3 <gregcalif@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 7:44 AM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Please vote to support a continuation on Data Centers As a resident of Greeley and Weld County, I ask that the board of county commissioners support a continuation regarding data centers. We, and the board, need more information regarding electricity use, water use, and pollution of data centers before proceeding. Thank you Joe Joyner Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Monday,April 6, 2026 7:45 AM To: Brittany Thompson <bthompson@weld.gov> Subject:Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Joe Last Name Joyner As a resident of Greeley and Weld County, I ask that the board of county commissioners support a continuation regarding data Question/ centers. We, and the board, need more information regarding Comment electricity use,water use, and pollution of data centers before proceeding. Thank you Joe Joyner Email gregcalif@hotmail.com Phone 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners ar Subject: FW: Ordinance 2026-01 Should Not Pass without Public Input j L OQ.b ZOZL'-CX From: Kyle Marshall <kylemarsh05@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 8:12 AM To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 Should Not Pass without Public Input I am writing to express my strong opposition to Ordinance 2026-01 and the manner in which it is being advanced. If passed, large-scale facilities like the GlobalAl project could move forward through an administrative approval process entirely shielded from public scrutiny. This is unacceptable. Land use decisions of this magnitude—decisions that affect traffic, water usage, energy infrastructure, noise, and the long-term character of our communities—demand genuine public participation. The administrative review process that would be established under this ordinance is not a substitute for public hearings. It is a mechanism to bypass them. Weld County residents deserve to be heard. We deserve the opportunity to ask questions, raise concerns, and engage in good-faith dialogue with our elected officials before decisions like this are made. Ramming through an ordinance of this scope without a transparent public process is a failure of representative government. I urge each of you to reject Ordinance 2026-01 in its current form and commit to a process that includes meaningful public hearings and community engagement before any such land use changes are adopted. Commissioners who choose to advance this ordinance without public input should understand that voters are paying close attention. Accountability at the ballot box is the final safeguard when the public process fails. Thank you for your time and your service to Weld County. I trust you will do the right thing. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 8:11 AM To: Brittany Thompson <bthompson@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Kyle Last Name Marshall I am writing to express my strong opposition to Ordinance 2026- 01 and the manner in which it is being advanced. If passed, large-scale facilities like the GlobalAl project could move forward through an administrative approval process entirely shielded from public scrutiny. This is unacceptable. Land use decisions of this magnitude—decisions that affect Question / traffic, water usage, energy infrastructure, noise, and the long- Comment term character of our communities—demand genuine public participation. The administrative review process that would be established under this ordinance is not a substitute for public hearings. It is a mechanism to bypass them. Weld County residents deserve to be heard. We deserve the opportunity to ask questions, raise concerns, and engage in good-faith dialogue with our elected officials before decisions like this are made. Ramming through an ordinance of this scope without a transparent public process is a failure of representative government. I urge each of you to reject Ordinance 2026-01 in its current form and commit to a process that includes meaningful public hearings and community engagement before any such land use changes are adopted. Commissioners who choose to advance this ordinance without public input should understand that voters are paying close attention.Accountability at the ballot box is the final safeguard when the public process fails. Thank you for your time and your service to Weld County. I trust you will do the right thing. Email kylemarsh05@gmail.com Phone 9703807924 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners G _ Subject: FW: Regarding Ordinance on Data Centers From:Amy Gooch <gooch.amy.i@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 3:05 PM To: Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Ask The Commissioners <AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Regarding Ordinance on Data Centers Greetings Commissioners! I would like to submit this e-mail as a part of the public record on the proposed Ordinance 2026-01- Data Centers. Thank You for hosting the informational sessions on March 23rd & 24th, where constituents were able to dialogue with commissioners and members of the Weld County Planning & Development Services Department. The final hearing for the proposed code is scheduled for tomorrow at 9:00am and I am writing to encourage the Commissioners to pause the approval process of the proposed ordinance in order to ensure that the impact of building an Al Data Center in Weld County is fully understood by elected officials and accountability mechanisms are in place to protect those most impacted and most vulnerable. I share many of the concerns that were raised by other Weld County Residents and will explain them now for the record. Energy Costs: As discussed during the Informational Session, I understand that if an Al Data Center were to be approved by the county, the land owners or developers of the Data Center would then shop around for available utility providers and secure what was called a "Will Serve" letter, indicating that that utility provider will meet the needs of the land owner/developer. I am concerned that because the county does not have jurisdiction over power, there is no incentive by a utility provider to concern themselves with the increase in rates that could burden community members in the future. (I read that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission will require a special tariff for high consumers, in this case Xcel, but this has not been formally approved or guaranteed.) Water Consumption: Similarly, because the county does not manage or control water usage, concerns have been raised that we don't fully understand how building an Al Data Center in Weld County would affect the surrounding farm land and community. This feels particularly relevant as the State Drought Task Force was activated by the Governor in mid-March and the entire state is experiencing drought at varying levels of intensity, including Weld. Noise Pollution: Although there are decibel range restrictions in place for specific types of zoning in county code, there are no existing restrictions on infrasound, which may have a negative impact on people, livestock, and farming operations on the surrounding area. Here is some additional information on Data Centers & Noise Pollution. I would suggest that as part of the proposed ordinance, developers, the utility &water providers, and the county should produce and make publicly available, an Energy, Water, & Environmental Impact Report. This report should directly address the environmental impacts of the prospective site on people, livestock, and farming, as well as what community members can expect in relation to increasing energy costs. This report should also be made available in Spanish, to ensure that the large Spanish-speaking population of Weld County is able to access this information. The information sessions made clear that although following the standard public notification protocol, ensuring adequate community voice will require additional outreach to ensure those most likely to be impacted have a meaningful voice in the process. As a resident of Weld County, I would love to see this area and all of the people that live here thrive, and I am not feeling confident that the quality of life for Weld County residents will be improved by an Al Data Center being built here. I understand that the county will not be able to control all aspects of the potential construction of an Al Data Center, but I perceive that proactive zoning guidelines and required impact reports are the county's best methods of accountability and transparency moving forward. I believe the County Commissioners and the Weld County Planning & Development Services Departmenthave a responsibility to the people of Weld County to proceed very'thoughtfully with any changes to Weld County Code that would invite proposals for the construction of an Al Data Center There is still so much that we don't know about the potential impacts that the construction of an Al Data Center could have on the community As Federal and State laws and regulations are still in development, it would be prudent to delay this decision until governing bodies formalize guidelines that address the aforementioned issues Based on existing Al Data Centers that have been constructed in other states under similar conditions, there is not a clear and straightforward benefit to residents, and we'want to ensure that corporate gain does not continue to be at the expense of members of the community Thank You, Amy Amy Gooch 304 Trailwood Drive Windsor, CO 80550 970-791-0970 2 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: April 6th Final Proposed Ordinance meeting on April 6th, 2026 at 9:00a.m. EXHIBIT From:Janet Tarantino<jatar909@gmail.com> s G M• I'J Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 8:11 PM 24p- To: Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> CaRD20dl Cc: lgina Gmail Email <gmarcro@gmail.com> Subject:April 6th Final Proposed Ordinance meeting on April 6th, 2026 at 9:00a.m. I am writing to urge Weld County to pause any approval of the proposed Al center near Windsor and Greeley for at least one year. Denver and Larimer Counties have already placed moratoriums on Al centers until further study can be completed, and Weld County should take the same cautious approach. This project is proposed far too close to Windsor's Water Va;;eu residents, with a mile or less separating the Kodac Center from nearby homes. Since Commissioner Eisenbraun said that Weld County has not even received an application from Global Al yet, there is no reason to rush. Data centers have drawn serious criticism for their massive electricity demands, heavy water use, and potential impacts on rates and local water supplies, especially during an ongoing historic drought. Question: If neighboring counties have already recognized the need for further study, and Weld County has not even received a formal application yet, why would we not wait 1 year to fully evaluate the risks to nearby residents, water resources, and electrical infrastructure before moving forward? Please cover this question in tomorrow's meeting, especially since the data center will not be employing many people. Think of your community's future and the potential health problems. I am planning on attending the meeting and am complying by emailing my concerns and questions. Janet Tarantino 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners Subject: FW:Ordinance 2026-01 Data Centers G..0 ORIN&D2le—OI From: Lisa Dobel<dobell757@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,April 5, 2026 10:07 PM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 Data Centers Comment for tomorrow's meeting I don't care who annexes this facility but before any approval is given for Al Data Center this New York company needs local community approval!They are the classic example of not in my backyard in New York.Therefore your rules need to include the following restrictions: They need to pay for and maintain any infrastructure required to operate it.They can be allowed to create ZERO noise pollution. They need to pay for construction and operation of 100%renewable power supply to accommodate their electric needs.(The air quality on the front range has gone from moderately dangerous to human health to serious already.Their power demand cannot increase air pollution on the front range by requiring increased fossil fuel to accommodate them.) Their water needs cannot exceed what is needed to operate with out millions of gallons for cooling purposes All needed infrastructure needss to be done by the company with zero reimbursement from local government bodies. Again there is zero benefit to the local community from this proposed deal. I live close to this facility,and we the people,will make sure they don't operate without all these requirements being met. Please add this comment to the request for input on Al Data Center rules.Weld County rules are making it easier to destroy our community with no local input.When Kodak and CareStream operated there we had zero noise pollution to the local community and lots of benefits.They also operated without wasting millions of gallons of water in a high desert location with limited water resources. Lisa Dobel 1301 Lake Circle Unit C Windsor,CO 80550. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Please Delay approval of ordinance 2026-01 and allow for more information and public input EXHIBIT ' G ? From:Jessica moody<spomoody@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 7:08 AM 0121)2024-6 To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Please Delay approval of ordinance 2026-01 and allow for more information and public input Dear Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for your willingness to hear from residents like me and for taking cautious, rational steps as you consider Ordinance 2026-01. I am writing today because I do not believe enough information is yet available for a final decision on this zoning ordinance. Because this ordinance could shape how data centers are allowed in unincorporated Weld County moving forward, I believe it deserves more time, more transparency, and more public understanding before this vote is taken. This issue matters to me is because I live very close to the proposed data center. I am concerned about potential health risks to local residents and wildlife. This area is already in a water crisis and I do not believe we have enough for a data center. I am concerned about how it would affect our local utilities which are already high. With my home being only a few miles from the land in question, I'm concerned about the value of my property in the future. At this point, I would like to see more data, research, and public information on several important topics that many residents are still trying to better understand. • water and electricity use & impact on utility rates (rate payer protections &Capital cost recovery) • review of comparative studies on health, agriculture, and quality of life • alignment with local water, energy, & economic plans • impact on property value, residential development, & insurance rates Today, I am asking that this decision be delayed to allow more time for care, transparency, and enough information to make a responsible decision. A continuation would allow more time for questions to be addressed and for the public to better understand the potential long-term impacts of this ordinance. Thank you again for your time, your willingness to listen, and your thoughtful consideration. I respectfully ask that you vote to continue Ordinance 2026-01 until more information is available and the community has had a fuller opportunity to understand and weigh the impacts. Sincerely, Jessica Moody 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: NO Data Center!!! G a _ Q d2.11ro2(Q-Qr From: Christin Meredith <christinboothe@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 6, 2026 8:14 AM To: BOCC<BOCCPweld.gov> Subject: NO Data Center!!! Christin Meredith 512 Palisade Mountain Dr., Windsor,CO Weld, County 9602191586 To whom it may concern, I am writing to you about the Data Center that could potentially be built on the old Kodak property. I am adamantly against the building of a data center in Weld county. We are severely lacking the infrastructure to support the population growth that is currently occurring in Greeley and Windsor. I believe strongly that the building of a Data Center is short sighted and not what we need to enrich the lives of the residents of weld county. Don't let big developers rape more of our valuable resources in Northern Colorado. Please save the little water we have for the few brave people who are still trying to support their families and feed ours through agriculture. Sincerely, Christin Meredith Colorado native i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT From: Ask The Commissioners bG./R. Subject: FW: Al Data Center CJY'2D20 Zip-D t From: Rod Frick<frickr23@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 8:24 AM To:Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject:Al Data Center Good morning, Writing this to ask you all to please not approve the data center at Kodak. I live in Water Valley and with the constant humming sound and health hazards that come with this data center, I am asking you to find a better location for this facility. Having it this close to residential areas is unacceptable. Thank you, Rod Frick Ph: 303-725-2155 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning G -s �QDZOt1,-D( From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:12 AM To: Molly Wright<mrwright@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Sheila Last Name GASTON Ordinance 2026-01 - Commissioners should enact a moratorium on data centers, or create a process for formal community engagement. There must be adequate time for further study and meaningful public input—with a final outcome that ensures strong, protective regulations for data Question / centers that safeguard community wellbeing, agricultural lands, Comment the environment, and ratepayers. Requiring a Use by Special Review for all data centers appears to be the most logical path forward, but additional options may emerge as the Commission takes the time to fully understand data centers and their impacts. Please consider the significant impacts these data centers will have on the residents of your County! Email sheilagaston@msn.com 1 Phone 3032430173 2 I Esther Gesick From: Ask The Commissioners Subject: FW. Ordinance 2026-01 From:Sheila Gaston<sheilagaston@msn.com> Sent: Monday,April 6, 2026 9:16 AM To:Ask,The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov> Subject: Ordinance 2026-01 Dear Commissioners, please enact a moratorium on data centers, or create a process for formal community engagement,there must be adequate time for further study and meaningful public input — with a final outcome that ensures strong, protective regulations for data centers that safeguard community wellbeing, agricultural lands,the environment, and ratepayers. Requiring a Use by Special Review for all data centers appears to be the most logical path forward, but additional options may emerge as the Commission takes the time to fully understand data centers and their impacts. The County and the State of Colorado are currently developing regulations for oversight of these facilities. A moratorium on data centers should be in place until the appropriate regulations can be written. Please take action to protect the residents of our county. Thank you. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Please delay approval of Ordinance 2026-01 and allow for more information and public input EXHIBIT 1 G ..T. From: Erin Hauser<enh1904@gmail.com> CQD Sent: Monday,April 6, 2026 9:23 AMZON0`0/ To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov> Subject: Please delay approval of Ordinance 2026-01 and allow for more information and public input Dear Weld County Commissioners, Thank you for your willingness to hear from residents like me and for taking cautious, rational steps as you consider Ordinance 2026-01. I am writing today because I do not believe enough information is yet available for a final decision on this zoning ordinance. Because this ordinance could shape how data centers are allowed in unincorporated Weld County moving forward, I believe it deserves more time, more transparency, and more public understanding before this vote is taken. This issue matters to me because I am a Weld County resident and am concerned by the noted noise, air, and water pollution data centers have been notably causing in other areas of the country. Our residents' health and safety should be the county's number one priority, and our leaders should show that this priority is something they will fight for. At this point, I would like to see more data, research, and public information on several important topics that many residents are still trying to better understand. • water and electricity use & impact on utility rates (rate payer protections &Capital cost recovery) • review of comparative studies on health, agriculture, and quality of life • alignment with local water, energy, & economic plans • impact on property value, residential development, & insurance rates Today, I am asking that this decision be delayed to allow more time for care, transparency, and enough information to make a responsible decision. A continuation would allow more time for questions to be addressed and for the public to better understand the potential long-term impacts of this ordinance. Thank you again for your time, your willingness to listen, and your thoughtful consideration. I respectfully ask that you vote to continue Ordinance 2026-01 until more information is available and the community has had a fuller opportunity to understand and weigh the impacts. Sincerely, Erin Hauser 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Urgent concerns about possible Al data center development in West Greeley EXHIBIT From: Amber Pleasant<amberpleasant210@gmail.com> G i Um. Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:24 AM To: Esther Gesick<egesick@weld.gov>; Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames . ZONO/ Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Cc: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Urgent concerns about possible Al data center development in West Greeley Greeley City Council and City Leadership City of Greeley 1000 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Urgent Concerns Regarding Al Data Center Development in West Greeley Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and City Leadership, I write to you as a longtime Greeley resident and community member who is deeply concerned about the proposed Al data center development in West Greeley. While I appreciate the potential for economic development and local jobs, I urge you to pause, ask harder questions, and demand enforceable protections before approving any expansion. The evidence emerging from communities across the country is not speculative— it is documented and accelerating. We are in a drought, and water is not an afterthought we can afford. The American West is experiencing historic water scarcity, yet Al data centers are among the most water-intensive facilities being built today. Older facilities already consume roughly 500,000 gallons of water per day, and newer permit applications suggest figures in the millions of gallons daily. Stanford University hydrologist Newsha Ajami has noted that for tech companies, "water is an afterthought"—they prioritize cheap energy, leaving communities to manage the consequences. In a region where water is already finite and contested, inviting that calculus into Greeley is a serious risk. Water contamination is not a hypothetical—it is a documented pattern. A New York Times investigation published in July 2025 detailed how residents in Newton County, Georgia living near a Meta data center watched their well water turn to gritty sludge beginning at the time of construction. One resident reported spending$5,000 on water problems she cannot afford to fully remediate. The mayor of Mansfield, the nearest town, called the situation "absolutely terrible" and noted water rates were set to surge 33 percent—far above typical annual increases. Meta denied responsibility. The community bore the cost. Greeley residents should not be placed in that same position. Heat island effects are real, measurable, and reach far beyond property lines. A recent University of Cambridge working paper, reported by Fortune on April 1, 2026, analyzed over 6,000 data centers worldwide using NASA land surface temperature data and found surrounding areas experienced an average temperature increase of approximately 2 degrees Celsius—with some areas rising as much as 9 degrees Celsius. These heat effects were detectable up to 6.2 miles from facilities, impacting an estimated 343 million people globally. West Greeley residents and neighboring communities deserve to know whether this facility's thermal footprint has been mapped and accounted for in the city's planning process. Utility costs will rise—and those least able to absorb them will feel it most. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that increased electricity demand from data centers has already contributed to a 7 percent rise in electric bills as of December 2025.Their economists specifically noted that the burden will fall hardest on lower-income households,for whom electricity represents a greater share of spending. Colorado's affordability challenges are well-documented. Greeley is home to many families already stretched by rising costs.Any development that accelerates utility rate increases demands a transparent, community-facing cost-benefit analysis before ground is broken. Federal Al regulation remains absent.There are currently no comprehensive federal standards governing Al infrastructure development, environmental impact, or community protections related to Al data centers.That regulatory vacuum means cities like Greeley are on their own to set the terms—or to absorb the consequences. I ask that our city not fill that vacuum by moving forward without enforceable local protections in place. I am not opposed to economic growth or to technology. I am asking that our city lead with the interests of the people who already live here. I respectfully request that the City Council take the following steps before any approvals move forward: commission an independent environmental impact study with specific attention to water use and groundwater risk; require full public disclosure of projected daily water consumption; conduct a utility rate impact analysis; and engage directly with community members in West Greeley who will live closest to this facility. Our neighbors deserve a seat at the table before the concrete is poured. Respectfully, Amber Pleasant Resident of Northridge Trails neighborhood Greeley, Colorado 2 EXHIBIT Esther Gesick � Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning pip _01 From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreplvPopenforms.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:32 AM To: Brittany Thompson <bthompson@ weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name James Last Name Stewart Since congress is debating placing a moratorium on data centers it shows that more studies need to be done before they Question/ should be built so close to where people live, shouldn't Weld Comment County take point and initiate their own moratorium first as we may not have time before they decide since a company wants to build one near our homes already. Email Jarkis138@gmail.com Phone 9703085623 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT D Subject: FW: Contact Planning and Zoning G 1.1\01 0/1A2021.-0 From: Weld County Planning and Zoning Department<noreply@openforms.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:36 AM To: Brittany Thompson <bthompson@weld.gov> Subject: Contact Planning and Zoning OpenForms Contact Planning and Zoning First Name Evan Last Name Weger Weld County Residents Deserve More Time for Input We need and deserve more information about: Water and electricity use and the impact on utility rates; Comparative information related to health, agriculture, and quality of life; Alignment with local water, energy, and economic plans; Impact on property value, residential development, and insurance rates; and Accountability measures to ensure that all of this information is available to community members. Question / Delay the vote to allow more time for care, transparency, and Comment enough information to make a responsible decision. Full Transparency Our community deserves complete transparency about any proposed data center. We need clear information about projected energy demand, water use, air emissions, noise levels, and long-term expansion plans. Phased development should not obscure the full buildout impacts. If the long-term goal is much larger, the public should know that now. Thorough Impact Review Large-scale data centers are industrial uses, but their massive power demand, generator emissions, and infrastructure impacts mean they operate much more like heavy industrial facilities—and they must be regulated accordingly. Weld County must conduct a comprehensive cumulative impact review of: Public safety impacts Infrastructure strain Air quality and generator emissions Noise pollution Decisions should be based on full impact assessments—not assumptions. Developers Must Pay—Not Families Existing ratepayers should not subsidize large industrial operations. Any necessary grid upgrades,transmission lines, substations, or infrastructure improvements must be paid for by the developer. Families and small businesses should not see higher electricity bills because of this project. Responsible Energy Planning Data centers should supply their own clean energy sources to power new infrastructure. Energy planning must prioritize clean, low-pollution power sources. Large new loads cannot undermine Colorado's long-term climate and energy goals. On-site methane gas turbines or other high-emission backup systems must meet strict air-quality standards. Growth should not reverse hard-won progress on clean energy. Responsible Water Planning Water in Weld County is a precious resource. Any project must clearly demonstrate that agricultural operations, residential users, and ecosystems will not be compromised. Long-term water use—especially during drought conditions— must be part of the review. 2 Water impacts should be fully disclosed before approval. Property Value Protections Industrial-scale operations can affect surrounding property values. The County should ensure that nearby homeowners and farmers are not financially harmed. Clear buffering, noise controls, and environmental safeguards are essential. Strong Public Engagement Community members must be meaningfully engaged before any annexation or approval. Public input should happen early and often- not after major decisions are already made. Clear communication builds trust; rushed approvals erode it. Prevent Pollution and Cost-Shifting This project must not shift environmental or financial costs onto local communities. Clean air, safe water, and affordable utilities are basic protections. If this project cannot meet strong health and fiscal standards, it should not move forward. Email evan.weger@yahoo.com Phone 9709709709 3 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW:Weld Co. Data Center 1.;), G ...x oR.Dzo -D) From: Malissa Suek<malsuek@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,January 15, 2026 3:15 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Re: Weld Co. Data Center Commissioner Maxey, Thank you for taking the time to read this email and for your concern over the voices of the residents of Weld County. As I'm sure you are aware, the proposed data center is a concern for local residents in the area. I won't waste time enumerating the issues raised such as resource cost, environmental impact, noise pollution, healthy hazards, etc., as those details are better explained by others more educated on them, and I know they have already been brought to your attention. I don't doubt that you are under pressure to make this happen. All over the country these centers are being built virtually overnight with little support from the local communities and with little support for the communities by those in power. I am asking to at least consider a relocation to an area that is not densely residential. It is past the point of irresponsible that a residential area would be considered in the first place. I live a few miles from the proposed location, and already suffer health problems. The last thing we need is an unnecessary blight on our health in our neighborhoods. Don't let us become another statistic for the sake of someone else's profit. Thank you, Malissa Suek Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! EXHIBIT From: Stacy Lambright<kwautomail@phone2action.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 4:30 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> ORD sof.1 'OI Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households- pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Stacy Lambright 1885 E 166th Ave Thornton, CO 80602 stacylambright@gmail.com (303) 981-0817 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! EXHIBIT From:John Oberle <kwautomail@phone2action.com> • Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 5:30 PM ORA2o To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Jason Maxey, Please insure that data center electric rates aren't subsidized by home owners. Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households- pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, John Oberle 5914 Sapling St Fort Collins, CO 80528 jfoberle@hotmail.com (931) 682-6701 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! EXHIBIT From:Johann Lindig<kwautomail@phone2action.com> d 14-A Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 9:46 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> 0121120210-131 Subject: Protect Weld County Residents and Hold Data Centers Accountable! Dear Jason Maxey, Please keep big businesses from exploiting the people's water!! Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am concerned about the large-scale Al data center that has been proposed for the former Kodak facility in unincorporated Weld County. Facilities of this scale require enormous amounts of electricity, new substations and transmission lines, backup generation, and significant volumes of water. Without strong safeguards, they can strain local infrastructure, increase noise and traffic, worsen air quality, and shift long-term costs onto residents. I urge you, before any code changes, annexation, permitting, or deals are made, the following should be required: 1) Full public transparency regarding energy and water use for data centers 2) Independent review of infrastructure, air quality, noise, and safety impacts 3) Requirements that data center developers- not households- pay for the needed infrastructure to ensure rate payers will not be negatively impacted 4) Responsible energy planning that prioritizes clean power 5) Responsible water planning that protects the local supply 6) Strong public engagement and clear communication with Weld County residents Weld County residents deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and protection of community health before industrial-scale development moves forward. Sincerely, Johann Lindig 2900 19th St Greeley, CO 80634 jlindiggmail.com (925) 413-5441 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at member.care@sierraclub.org or(415) 977-5673. 1 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Support for Moratorium on New Al Data Center Construction EXHIBIT From: Lbookm@everyactionadvocacy.com <Lbookm@everyactionadvocacy.com> I +I U. s Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 6:12 PM 02 8e,fl( To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Support for Moratorium on New Al Data Center Construction Dear Commissioner Chair Pro-Tern Jason Maxey, I am writing to ask that you support a moratorium on new Al data center construction in Weld county, including the proposed data center at the former Kodak site. These centers threaten to upend our personal lives, our children's lives, our health, our jobs, the environment and our future. Most concerning is that most of this technological change is being created without oversight by federal, state or local government. These centers also use extraordinary amounts of energy and water, raising costs for all residents. As someone who was born and raised in Weld county, the enormous amounts of water used by these data centers is of particular concern to me. Our region is already in the midst of a historic drought and the Colorado River is projected to face "deadpool" status later this year. Suddenly adding a data center will make our drought worse, as farmers, residents and wildlife try to compete for a dwindling supply of fresh water. Given the extraordinary speed at which Al is progressing and the potential impacts of data centers on our communities in Weld county, we need a moratorium on Al data center construction. This will ensure that this technology works for working people, not just the big tech billionaires. I ask that you support a moratorium now for our county. Sincerely, Leah Bookman 1207 15th Ave Greeley, CO 80631-3752 i Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Support for Moratorium on New Al Data Center Constructio EXHIBIT From: k.fredericklaw@everyactionadvocacy.com <k.fredericklaw@everyactionadvocacy.com> a • Cd Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 2:12 PM 012DtDZ/0-01 To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Support for Moratorium on New Al Data Center Construction Dear Commissioner Chair Pro-Tem Jason Maxey, I am writing to ask that you support a moratorium on new Al data center construction in our county. Artificial intelligence and robotics are creating the most sweeping technological revolution in the history of humanity. Data centers, the infrastructure powering the Al revolution, are popping up all across America. Big tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are investing heavily in this technology, not to make working people's lives better, but to make themselves even richer. Communities like ours are standing up and fighting back against the big tech oligarchs and the data centers they're investing in. Al will likely have a catastrophic impact on the lives of working-class Americans, eliminating tens of millions of blue- and white-collar jobs in every sector of our economy. We cannot sit back and allow a handful of Big Tech CEOs to make decisions that will reshape our economy, our democracy and the future of humanity without public debate and democratic oversight. Given the extraordinary speed at which Al is progressing and the potential impacts of data centers, we need a moratorium on Al data center construction to ensure that this technology works for working people, not just the big tech billionaires. I ask that you support a moratorium now for our county. Sincerely, Kim Frederick-Law 1416 12th Ave Greeley, CO 80631-4759 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Perspective on Al Data Centers and Their Value to Weld County Attachments: Al Data Centers - Facts vs Fiction.docx EXHIBIT N •� From:Jeff Darnell <jeff.a.darnell@gmail.com> OfLOW42-01 Sent:Thursday, March 12, 2026 5:57 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Fwd: Perspective on Al Data Centers and Their Value to Weld County Commissioner Maxey, As conversations continue about emerging technologies such as Al infrastructure and data centers, I thought it might be helpful to frame their roles with a few simple comparisons and a practical context. While the technology itself can sound complex, the role these facilities play in modern society is actually fairly straightforward. In many ways, Al data centers represent the next generation of critical infrastructure, supporting beyond the data center that enabled things like Cloud computing and Internet search solutions. We all recognize what that data center era meant to society, economic growth, and national security. Power Plants of the Digital Economy Just as power plants generate electricity that allows homes and businesses to operate, data centers generate the computing power that modern systems rely on every day. When someone sends a text message, uses GPS navigation, processes a credit card transaction, accesses medical records, or streams content, that information is processed in a data center. Without this infrastructure, the digital systems that businesses and residents rely on daily would not function. Now take all of that volume of data and finding a way to analyze, react, take action and respond in small increments of a second is what Al means. Railroads of the 21st Century In the late 1800s, communities competed to attract railroads because rail access brought economic growth, new industries, and long-term prosperity. Today, high-capacity computing infrastructure plays a similar role. Communities that host advanced computing infrastructure often attract technology investment, research activity, and innovative industries, and the norm has now progressed to having all of this capability housed and enabled in an Al Infrastructure. Factories of the Information Age Traditional factories produced steel, machinery, and automobiles. Al data centers produce computing power. That computing power now drives industries such as agriculture technology, healthcare diagnostics, manufacturing automation, financial systems, and logistics. In many ways, these facilities function as the modern industrial plants of the information economy. Supporting National Security and American Technology Leadership Artificial intelligence infrastructure is increasingly recognized as critical to national security and economic competitiveness.Al computing supports cybersecurity, satellite systems, intelligence analysis, defense logistics, and many other technologies important to homeland security. Maintaining a strong domestic computing infrastructure helps ensure the United States remains technologically competitive and secure. . Grid Investment That Benefits the Community Large and consistent energy users often drive investment in substations,transmission lines, and grid- upgrades.Those improvements strengthen the local electrical system and improve reliability for surrounding homes and businesses.The energy demands of AI data centers will, at first, outpace the traditional Grid; hence,there will be a need for energy self-generation investments by these private companies working hand in hand with utility companies. A useful way to think about this is similar to building a major highway interchange. Once the interchange is in place, it benefits everyone who travels through that corridor. In the same way, grid infrastructure built to support large energy users often increases capacity and reliability for the entire region. Strategically,we should assume the private energy sources will ensure the consumers do not see a change to their energy supply, and in the long run,the grid infrastructure advances in parallel. Large, stable power users can also help utilities operate the grid more efficiently by providing consistent demand.This stability allows utilities to plan infrastructure improvements more effectively and spread system costs across a larger customer base. Strong Tax Base with Minimal Public Impact From a county perspective,Al data centers function much like large industrial properties that generate tax revenue without creating significant strain on public services. Unlike residential development, they do not create additional demand for schools, large traffic increases, or extensive public infrastructure. Yet they contribute substantial property tax value and represent significant long-term private investment. Water Use Water use is often a question when people first hear about these facilities. Many modern Al data centers use closed-loop cooling systems.These systems require an initial fill of approximately 65,000 gallons, then recirculate the same water rather than continuously consume new water. To put that into perspective, 65,000 gallons is roughly equivalent to filling a residential backyard swimming pool one time.After the system is filled,the water continues to be reused within the cooling system. Facility Noise Data centers are sometimes imagined as loud industrial facilities, but in practice,they operate much differently. Most of the computing equipment is housed in enclosed buildings, and external cooling and power-generation equipment is designed to meet strict sound standards. A useful way to think about it is similar to a large commercial office building with mechanical equipment on the roof. Once the building is operating, most people nearby are unaware of it. Modern facilities also use sound barriers, building insulation, and equipment placement to minimize exterior noise. 2 In many communities, data centers are considered among the quietest forms of industrial infrastructure. Long-Term Infrastructure Investment and Industry Stability Al data centers represent large, long-term infrastructure investments. These facilities often involve hundreds of millions of dollars in private capital investment and operate for decades. Once constructed, the infrastructure involved —buildings, power connections, fiber networks, and cooling systems— makes relocation highly impractical. Because of this, data centers tend to remain long-term anchors in the communities where they are built. The computer equipment inside the building will become obsolete after a number of years, which will drive a complete refresh cycle, meaning the asset base is essentially refreshed every 4 to 5 years. A helpful analogy is similar to a major grain elevator or energy facility. Once the infrastructure is in place, it becomes a permanent part of the local economic landscape, supporting regional activity for many years while the internal compute units are refreshed on a more frequent cycle. In simple terms, Al data centers are becoming the power plants, railroads, and factories of the digital economy. Communities that host them become part of the infrastructure that powers modern industry, national security systems, and the next generation of economic growth. I thought these comparisons might be helpful as conversations continue around emerging technology and economic development opportunities for Weld County. I am also attaching a Facts vs. Fiction document for your review. Please let me know if it would be helpful to discuss further. As a citizen of Weld County, I write to you in support of the future of our County and of AI data centers. Jeff A. Darnell 8005 Skyview St. Greeley, CO 80634 cell- 303-908-6072 email-jeff.a.darnelOgmail.com 3 Al Data Centers Facts vs. Common Misconceptions Artificial intelligence and cloud computing are rapidly becoming core infrastructure for modern industry, healthcare, agriculture,finance, communications, and national security. Like many emerging technologies,Al data centers are sometimes misunderstood.The following provides clear context on several commonly discussed topics. Fiction Data centers frequently shut down or relocate. Fact Data centers are long-term infrastructure investments similar to power plants, grain elevators, or large manufacturing facilities. Once constructed,they typically operate for decades due to the significant investment in buildings, electrical infrastructure,fiber networks, and cooling systems. Because of this infrastructure, relocation is highly impractical. Fiction Data centers do not benefit the local community. Fact Data centers represent substantial private capital investment and contribute meaningful property tax value. From a county perspective,they function similarly to large industrial facilities that strengthen the tax base while creating relatively little demand for public services such as schools, roads, or emergency services. Fiction Data centers consume excessive amounts of water. Fact Many modern Al data centers use closed-loop cooling systems that reuse water rather than continuously consuming new water.These systems require an initial fill and then recirculate the same water repeatedly. For example, an initial fill of approximately 65,000 gallons is required to start the cooling system.This is roughly equivalent to filling a residential backyard swimming pool one time. After that initial fill,the water continues to be reused. Fiction Data centers are extremely loud industrial facilities. Fact Most computing equipment is housed inside enclosed buildings, and cooling systems are designed to meet strict sound standards. Modern facilities incorporate sound mitigation through insulated buildings, equipment placement, and barriers. In many cases, data centers operate more quietly than typical industrial operations and are comparable to large commercial office buildings. Fiction Large power users weaken the electrical grid. Fact Large and consistent energy users often drive private investment in substations, transmission lines, and other electrical infrastructure.These upgrades strengthen the local grid and increase reliability for surrounding homes and businesses. Stable and predictable energy demand also allows utilities to plan infrastructure investments more efficiently and spread system costs across a broader customer base. Fiction Al data centers are speculative or unstable businesses. Fact Demand for computing power is growing rapidly as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, healthcare analytics, advanced manufacturing, and cloud services continue to expand. Technology companies, cloud providers, and infrastructure investors are investing hundreds of billions of dollars globally to build the computing infrastructure required to support these systems. Fiction ' Data centers create little economic value. Fact Data centers generate multiple layers of economic impact, including large construction projects, skilled technical operations jobs, infrastructure investment, and stable long-term property tax contributions. In many communities,they are considered one of the most stable forms of long-term economic development. Esther Gesick Subject: FW:April 6th Ordinance Consideration—Data Center Zoning Framework From:Jeff Darnell<jeff.a.darnell@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 7:53 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject:April 6th Ordinance Consideration—Data Center Zoning Framework . Commissioner Maxey, Thank you for the time, effort, and transparency you have demonstrated throughout the recent informational sessions.The level of public engagement reflects how much residents care about Weld County, and that input is important. At the same time, it is critical to remain clear about what is actually.being decided. This ordinance is not an approval of a specific project. • It is the establishment of a framework. Today,Weld County has no defined standards for data centers.With-out this ordinance,there are no consistent rules for how these facilities are defined,where they are appropriate, or how they are evaluated. In the absence of a framework,the County is not exercising control. It is operating without it. Moving forward on April 6th is not premature.-it is'responsible governance. Establishing this framework ensures that: •Clear definitions exist within County code - •Zoning pathways are transparent and consistent •Noise standards, including both dB(A) and dB(C), are addressed ' •Site-specific reviews remain in place •Every future applicant, regardless of who they are, is held to the same standards Calls to delay this ordinance do not solve the concerns being raised.They do the opposite. Delaying action extends a period where no standards exist, no guardrails are defined; and no consistent process is in place. It creates uncertainty, invites speculation, and shifts decision-making away from structure and toward noise. That is not a more cautious approach. It is a less responsible one. While I respect the residents who have taken the time to attend recent meetings,it is important to recognize that those in attendance represent a very small fraction of Weld County's more than 360,000 residents. i Public input should inform the process, but it should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the County.You were elected to represent all residents of Weld County, including those not in the room, and to make decisions based on the long-term interests of the entire community. Property rights are also a foundational principle in Weld County. Private landowners have the right to use and develop their property Within clearly defined and consistently applied rules.The role of the County is not to arbitrarily restrict that use, but to establish fair,transparent standards that ensure compatibility with surrounding areas and protect the broader community. This ordinance does exactly that. It does not approve a specific project. It does not favor a developer. It does not pick winners or losers. It establishes the rules under which all property owners, current and future, can operate.Without those rules in place, decisions become less predictable, less consistent, and more subject to shifting pressures rather than established standards. You have also consistently stated that your role is not to choose winners or losers among developers, industries, or utility providers. Moving forward with this ordinance reinforces that principle by ensuring a level playing field. Additionally,you have emphasized that the best government decisions are those made closest to home. Weld County has a long-standing tradition of local control rooted in the needs and priorities of its residents. While outside perspectives may be part of the conversation, decisions of this scale should remain grounded in the interests of Weld County and its citizens. Maintaining that focus ensures that local governance remains local and that policy is shaped by the community you were elected to serve. Many of the concerns raised, including water, energy, air quality, and long-term impacts, are valid topics. They are also project-specific issues that can only be meaningfully evaluated with real designs, real data, and enforceable conditions. The ordinance before you is not where those issues are decided. It is where the framework is established to ensure those issues are addressed consistently and responsibly when a project is actually proposed. The ordinance already reflects responsiveness to public input, including the addition of dB(C) noise standards.This is a clear example that the process is working. No ordinance governing an evolving industry will be perfect on day one.What matters is putting a strong foundation in place and refining it as needed. Proceeding on April 6th provides clarity, structure, and accountability. 2 Delaying action at this stage introduces unnecessary uncertainty, prolongs the absence of standards, and risks opening the door to continued confusion and shifting narratives rather than grounded decision- making. Moving forward is not only appropriate. It is the most responsible, defensible, and consistent course of action available to the Board. Respectfully, Jeff Jeff A. Darnell 8005 Skyview St. Greeley, CO 80634 cell - 303-908-6072 email-jeff.a.darnell@gmail.com 3 Esther Gesick Subject: FW Ordinance 2026-01 —Support for Final Reading as Scheduled From:Jeff Darnell<jeff.a.darnell@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,April 5, 2026 8:49 AM To Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier <peppler@weld.gov>;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Re• Ordinance 2026-01—Support for Final Reading as Scheduled Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your continued leadership and thoughtful engagement throughout the evaluation of Ordinance 2026-01.The diligence demonstrated in this process reflects Weld County's commitment to responsible growth, sound governance, and long-term planning. As you approach the final reading scheduled for tomorrow,April 6, it is important to recognize that this decision is fundamentally about establishing a clear and consistent regulatory framework, not approving any specific project. Individual developments will continue to be evaluated through established processes, including site planning, utility coordination, and applicable state and federal requirements. The ordinance simply defines how those evaluations occur. The County has consistently emphasized that it is not its role to pick winners and losers among projects or developers. Proceeding with Ordinance 2026-01 as scheduled supports that principle by establishing a clear framework that applies equally to all.A delay,while well-intentioned, introduces uncertainty and may unintentionally favor or disadvantage certain projects based on timing rather than merit.Advancing the ordinance ensures that all future proposals are evaluated under the same transparent and predictable standards. Moving forward as scheduled also provides clarity for all stakeholders, including the County, property owners, infrastructure providers, and community members.A continuance does not resolve the concerns that have been raised; rather, it prolongs uncertainty without changing how individual projects are ultimately reviewed. It is also important to note that Weld County already maintains multiple layers of oversight that apply to any proposed development.These include utility availability, infrastructure capacity, environmental compliance, and detailed site-specific review.Adoption of Ordinance 2026-01 does not remove or diminish these safeguards. Instead, it ensures that each project is evaluated consistently within an established framework. Proceeding with the final reading at this stage reflects strong and proactive governance. It provides clear policy direction while preserving the County's full authority to evaluate each project independently on its own merits. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the Board to proceed with the final reading of Ordinance 2026-01 as scheduled on April 6. i Thank you for your leadership and service to Weld County. Sincerely, Jeff A. Darnell 8005 Skyview St. Greeley, CO 80634 cell- 303-908-6072 email-jeff.a.darnell@gmail.com 2 Esther Gesick From: Dean Brown <deanbrown93305@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 6:34 PM To: Dean Brown CAUTION:This email originated from outside of OmniTRAX or BROE. • 1 • w _ : .. ..�....-.-..........-., .. .«...+..raw...,,r-... --.�..., -� ..— ... a , • ♦ [#t.. jy� i 1 111 1111, I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1111 1 I I I I I 1111±11114. ' ak • • • • Sent from my iPhone 3 Esther Gesick g.4A0.:.:: rP.2':359-4} - Fv:+,�;.^o`..•Ccnter tour - Cheyenne Attachments: Broe Letter to BOCC - Ord 2026-01 - Final 4.3.26.pdf From: Dean Brown <dbrown@broerealestate.com> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:09 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov> Subject: 260405 - Easter Data Center tour-Cheyenne 11 \- ,.. . t J .T • �„ 4 A r . •• - •r .• „/ t a. "" "'c ---�� Che enne Business Parkwa !'4• )10 • ..fit` '' t.41 M\ - . �_ • ,' r.. ' North Ran•e Business Park '.,� t' • Or Wig„ . `- 1. ik [anTZiTiT1g'�27rIr�o f $ la • . - Che enne Lo•istics Hub 4 N. :3 . Bison Business Park Happy Easter- I apologize for the Easter email but given our short window between now and the Board meeting tomorrow morning I wanted to share what I learned about data centers in Wyoming today. My wife was pleased when I asked her to go on a data center tour with me today! We toured all the legacy(existing) Cheyenne sites as well as the new locations under construction or proposed (see snip above showing the locations). Here is what I learned: 1) All but one of the legacy data center locations appear to be co-locate facilities with low power usage. 2) Of those, one location ( Lunavi,which may have ties to Microsoft. 42,000—45,000 SF, 5 MW)was the only one in proximity to houses. I estimate houses were within 1000'to the northwest with a Class 1 rail line between the location and the homes. In addition, a large satellite dish installation or radar installation was positioned between the site and the homes. To the east and west was vacant land or Industrial. To the southeast was a Walmart and 180. Another Microsoft facility is planned for this 1 area. I am assuming it is farther east which puts significant separation between the homes and the data center. 3) Another Data Center(NACAR Supercomputer Data Center) is located at the North Range Business Park. This is a center that has been operational for many years. The location has nothing to the east, west or south besides open land , I80 or Industrial facilities. To the NW of the facility is a self- generation power facility and 1/z mile north of that are rural homes. It is apparent by the sound wall and sea container stacked 4 high that noise has been a problem for the neighbors located to the north (see attached email with photos). I was sitting 750 feet from the self-generation facility and could hear the generators clearly. It is situations like this we are trying to avoid. The sound wall is a masterful piece of work—done only like the resourceful in Wyoming can do(FYI, I am from Wyoming and understand the ingenuity employed!). The legacy(existing) Data Center model in Cheyenne compared to the model(Cheyenne is now implementing)for new centers clearly shows Cheyenne has learned. We should not re-create what Cheyenne did initially and not assume Cheyenne has the perfect model. Let's look at the new mode Cheyenne is implementing: 1) All new data centers rely on renewable energy(wind and solar)or self-generation (gas)and fuel cells. One project will construct a 900-acre solar farm to power their facility. Others have entered into power-purchase agreements with existing wind and solar farms. 2) The new projects are in the North Range Business Park,the Bison Range Business Park, and the High Plains Business Park(not shown on the map but located south'of the Bison Range Business Park on Hwy 85). All on new or existing transmission (new transmission most likely installed by the data center folks). And all are REMOTE. 3) All prospects are focused on the"Bring your own power model" assuring the community and state are not exposed to rate increases or power shortages caused by data centers. 4) Air emissions are not a consideration with the gas fired facility—That facility will emit more carbon annually than San Francisco does. And that facility will consume more power than the entire state of Wyoming currently does. 5) LOW job numbers—META estimating 250 jobs for a 1.8 OW facility(slated to grow to 10GW)— Conservatively that amount of power could support 45,000—65,000 manufacturing or warehouse jobs. Those are numbers can't be ignored.. 6) The devil is in the details—Wyoming is providing Tax incentives—See below: "In 2010, the Wyoming Legislature enacted a sales tax exemption for various computer equipment for data centers that have invested at least $5 million in the state. The exemption also applies to companies that invest at least $50 million on power supplies and cooling equipment, making the Cowboy State an attractive candidate for development." 7) And Colorado is looking to do the same but extend the incentives to 100% sales Tax and use tax for 20 years. This certainly points to the need for a fiscal impact analysis to really understand what the equation needs to look like for data centers to make sense. A pause in this process will allow that impact study to be performed. And the elephant in the room, why is this process being rushed? Based on the information included in the research done by our legal team that was included in the letter sent to you all on Friday(attached), the rush may be due to the project that we are being told does not exist. Even more reason to question the rush, that project has yet to prove they have the power nor have they proven a viable,reliable long 2 term water source (see letter sent on Friday). And they are going to have a tough time legitimately proving either are available. Thank you. Broe looks forward to working with Weld County to develop a data center strategy that guarantees success for the community, region, state, and data center operators! I am hopeful you will have an opportunity to read this email and take a careful look at the letter sent Friday. The information is compelling and makes the right path forward crystal clear! Dean A. Brown Broe Real Estate Group Senior Vice President Industrial 0:970-460-8754: C:661-703-8402 2005 Howard Smith Avenue East, Windsor,CO 80550 http://broerealestate.com dbrown@broerealestate.com 3 Esther Gesick Subject: FW:Weld County Data Center Noise Considerations and Resources Attachments: Meinke_&_Leasure_Noise Issue_Weld County Data Center.pdf EXHIBIT +4 From: Deanna Meinke <dkmeinke@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 12:54 PM O2DiPZZ0A( To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Cc: Kevin Ross <kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov>;joshua@coan.co Subject:Weld County Data Center Noise Considerations and Resources Dear Commissioner Maxey, As a resident of Weld County District 1, I am corresponding regarding noise issues relative to data centers in Weld County. My colleague, Joshua Leasure is a noise control engineer and has experience recommending and implementing noise control in data centers to prevent/alleviate noise complaints for those in the community. We feel that being proactive will benefit not only the county, but the residents of the communities near these data centers. Please let us know how we can serve as noise experts and best support you and your staff in these important health-related decisions. Deanna Deanna Meinke, Ph.D., CCC-A and Joshua Leasure, P.E. i March 19, 2026 Weld County Board of Commissioners C/O Karla Ford, BOCC Office Manager 1150 0 Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners, We appreciate the opportunity to offer our local expertise when considering the noise impact of data centers in Weld County. As an introduction, Deanna Meinke (1112 73rd Avenue, Greeley, CO) is currently an emeritus audiology faculty member at the University of Northern Colorado and a senior scientist at Stephenson &Stephenson Research and Consulting (www.sasrac.com) and Josh Leasure, P.E. lives in Fort Collins and is the owner and noise control engineer at Colorado Analytics (https://coloradoanalvtics.com/). Dr. Meinke has worked directly with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and is lead editor of the 6th Edition of The Noise Manual published by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. She has provided hearing conservation consulting services to large national and international corporations. She is also a founding member of the Safe-in-Sound Award that recognizes corporations for excellence in hearing loss prevention www.safeinsound.us. Mr. Leasure has provided noise control design and implementation for large corporations including data centers nationwide.We'd like to support your efforts in recognizing that noise is a very tangible, yet manageable issue if addressed early in the development, construction and installation phases of data centers. Noise is an invisible issue until it invades our lives. High levels of community and/or workplace noise will negatively impact individuals, families, businesses, schools, communities and wildlife. High levels of noise have both auditory and non-auditory effects. In community noise situations, the non-auditory effects include cardiovascular effects such as increased blood pressure, sleeplessness, annoyance, impaired cognition and performance including decreased academic performance for students located in nearby schools. The noise is 24 hours a day, day after day, year after year with no relief if not controlled. Noise control is known to successful and economically advantageous on the front end, if done right.These are our suggestions for your consideration; 1. A preliminary predictive noise study should be performed before the data center site is approved. This is common practice on many project types and is particularly appropriate for a data center, where noise is often a central public concern. A study prepared early in the process provides an objective basis for evaluating likely off-site sound levels and for identifying whether mitigation will be needed. Addressing noise in the design phase is generally much more effective than addressing it after construction or after operation begins. Equipment selection, equipment layout, enclosures, and barriers are easier and less expensive to incorporate when they are considered early and coordinated with the rest of the project design. Post-construction mitigation is often constrained by space, existing installations, and the need to modify or replace equipment which can be more costly. There is also a practical community consideration:once residents have been exposed to an intrusive sound, achieving a satisfactory outcome through later mitigation can become more difficult. In our experience, project teams do not always have an accurate understanding of how project noise will radiate and be perceived in nearby residential areas.That is not true in every case, but it occurs often enough that an objective predictive analysis is feasible and advisable.This is especially relevant in a sector where project schedules are compressed and major design decisions may be made before community noise effects have been fully evaluated. 2. We think it would be unwise to rely solely on the existing Weld County noise ordinance as the primary means of protecting nearby residents. Ordinances based mainly on broadband single-number limits, including dBA and dBC, do not capture all of the sound characteristics that drive annoyance.The spectral content of a sound is often more important than its overall level. A source can comply with numeric limits and still be plainly audible and intrusive, particularly if it contains tonal or low-frequency components. Oil and gas noise in particular, has a much more temporary impact and the nearby community may tolerate the noise inconvenience for the short-term, but not the long-term as in the case of data centers. This issue is directly relevant to data centers. Cooling equipment can include scroll compressors or other components that produce prominent tonal sound. We have worked on many projects where community complaints were driven by chiller noise that complied with the applicable numeric limits. If on-site power generation is required,the concern increases further. Reciprocating engines and temporary generators can produce substantial low frequency noise, which penetrates building envelopes more readily than higher frequency sound and can affect communities at considerable distance.These sources can often be mitigated effectively, but the mitigation is most practical when it is incorporated during design. A data center may have minimal off-site noise impact, or it may have substantial impact, depending on how cooling and power are configured. If power is imported from the grid and major mechanical equipment is not located outdoors, off-site effects could be minimal. If outdoor chillers, temporary generators, or reciprocating engines are used, the risk of adverse community impact becomes higher.A preliminary noise study would allow the Board to distinguish between these cases and to evaluate mitigation measures before they become difficult or expensive to implement. 3. If the County expects additional data center proposals in the future, requiring early noise analysis on this project would also help establish a useful framework for later applications. Clear expectations can be set regarding what a study should evaluate, how it should be conducted, and what forms of mitigation are likely to be effective. That would improve consistency in project review and provide a stronger technical basis for protecting nearby communities. We are available to meet with county commissioners, planners and others tasked with establishing noise limits/controls for data centers in order to share our understanding of the pervasive noise issues. We'd like to help inform how Weld County can establish a proactive noise regulation that will facilitate the prevention of health issues for those living and working nearby data centers, avoid noise complaints submitted to the County, and communicate practical noise control expectations clearly for this industry. We are highly motivated to help our local communities with this noise issue which has the potential to affect us directly in the future. Sincerely, Deavra Nark 0, D., ccca� �slua Leasure, P Winchester Distinguished Professor Emeritus Principal and Founder Audiology&Speech-Language Sciences Colorado Analytics University of Northern Colorado Ph. 970-673-4383 Deanna.Meinke@unco.edu ioshua@coan.co Personal Email: dkmeinke@outlook.com Ph: 970-396-6014 Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Noise Issues for Data Centers in Weld County From: Deanna Meinke<dkmeinke@outlook.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 11:38 AM To: Maxwell Nader<mnader@weld.gov>; Angela Snyder<asnyder@weld.gov> Cc:joshua@coan.co; Ken Brown<brown.kenmc@gmail.com>;Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Noise Issues for Data Centers in Weld County Hello Max, _ Thank you for yourtime on Monday night to review the proposed changes to Weld County Code C.R.S. Chapter 14, Health and Animals, Article IX, Noise in the context of data centers. I would like to request a meeting with myself,Joshua Leasure (noise control engineer) and Ken Brown to discuss the noise issue and review/discuss the proposed changes with you and any other Weld County representatives that would like to participate. The unique and variable nature of data centers requires thoughtful consideration of the noise issues to assure uniform application and future enforcement. As stated in our previous letter sent to the county commissioners, being proactive with a noise impact study in advance of data center site approval is critical. , Since,Josh was not able to attend Monday night, would you mind sharing your slide set that you used for the community discussion? Also;can you share other relevant information such as: - - 1. - details of what is required for a noise impact study 2. what decisions drive approval of a noise impact study 3. enforcement of noise standards in Weld County We are each motivated to help the county get the noise code revised in a manner that is both practical and protective. Please also let us know what would be most helpful/supportive to your efforts at this point in time, and we'll look forward to meeting with you. Thanks for your time and efforts, Deanna Deanna Meinke, Ph.D., CCC-A 1112 73rd Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 970-396-6014 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: PLEASE Vote AGAINST data centers d F 14 20Ve-O From: K Beacham <kcb111@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:28 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: PLEASE Vote AGAINST data centers I sent a message moments ago about the data centers and due to a typo suggested voting to change the law to favor data centers when in fact I meant to beg that you Do NOT change the law to favor these data centers. As a Weld county citizen I hope you will take the constituent views into account. Thank you, Kimberly Beacham 356 Boxwood Dr, Windsor Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Regarding the potential data center at Kodak G Cy2D2tJ2(Q-o1 From:Terry Fox<skavenfox@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:24 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Regarding the potential data center at Kodak Dear Commissioner Maxey, As a constituent of your district, resident of Windsor, and the eastern side of the northern Water Valley neighborhood, I urge you to delay the rezoning of the former Kodak property. In terms of emissions, energy usage, and negative health impacts to our community, this project will become a detriment. Please do all you can to change the zoning, this project has be have much more regulation. Personally, I'd like to see this project fall through. As I know it won't, there has to be a middle ground. Please establish the path for stringent and heavy regulation of the project. Thank you, Terry Fox 123 Rock Bridge Dr. Windsor, CO 80550 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Urgent Concern: Al Data Center Near Windsor o lot 9 From: Ligita Kraemer<ligitakraemer@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:08 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Ipepper@weld.gov; Kevin Ross <kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Urgent Concern: Al Data Center Near Windsor Dear Commissioners, I am writing as a concerned Colorado resident regarding the proposed Al data center development near Windsor. Let me be clear: this is not opposition to innovation. Colorado benefits from forward-thinking industries. However, innovation must be placed where it is sustainable. Colorado, by every environmental and infrastructure measure, is not an appropriate location for large-scale Al data centers. We are a high desert state with chronic water limitations. This is not a temporary drought. This is our baseline reality. Residents are already facing rising water costs, conservation mandates, and long- term uncertainty about supply. In that context, introducing infrastructure that directly or indirectly consumes massive amounts of water is not responsible planning. While it has been suggested that closed-loop cooling systems will minimize water usage, that explanation is incomplete. These systems require significantly more power, shifting the burden upstream to power generation. Power plants, particularly those supplying increased load demand, consume substantial amounts of water themselves. This does not eliminate the problem. It simply relocates it. Additionally, closed-loop systems are not without environmental risk. Over time, the water used in these systems becomes contaminated through repeated contact with machinery, oils, and industrial components. There is currently insufficient clarity and regulation around how this water is treated and ultimately disposed of. Without strict, locally enforced standards, this creates potential long-term environmental impact that our region is not equipped to absorb. Equally concerning is the current classification of these facilities as "light industrial." This designation minimizes oversight and reduces regulatory scrutiny for a development that carries heavy industrial- level impacts on water, energy, and infrastructure. This classification should be reconsidered immediately. It is also important to acknowledge that the County does, in fact, have the authority to act. Through zoning decisions and conditional approvals, you have the ability to require stricter environmental safeguards, demand transparency from developers and utilities, or prevent inappropriate siting altogether. Suggesting otherwise misrepresents the role of local governance in protecting the communities you serve. At this stage, there are more unanswered questions than clear, transparent answers That alone warrants a pause I respectfully request the following: • Delay any approval deadlines to allow for additional public input and fully informed decision-making • Require expanded town hall discussions with utility providers and environmental experts present • Reevaluate zoning classifications to reflect the true impact of these facilities • Establish strict, enforceable standards for water use, energy sourcing, and waste management before any approvals are granted Colorado's resources are not infinite. Once strained, they cannot be easily restored. Decisions made now will shape the long-term sustainability, affordability, and livability of our communities. This is not just a development decision. It is a resource decision. And it deserves the level of scrutiny that reality demands. Respectfully, Ligita Cunningham Fort Collins, CO 2 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data center D s O2b zo tlo-o1 From:Anne Keefe <annekeefe5@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 4:03 PM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov> Subject: Data center Please do not allow the proposed data center in our district. It will consume our precious resources without contributing to our community. Weld County is our HOME where we raise our families. We are challenged already living in high desert to have adequate water and power. Many of us installed solar panels and replaced grass with native plants. For what?To feed a data center which won't even bring sustainable wages to our community?We all want and need tax revenue, but we can't go buy water with that revenue. Thanks for listening. 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Data Center, Weld Conty g f&T. _ -D( From: Carole Ingalls<cingalls49@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 6, 2026 12:56 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Data Center, Weld Conty This is to voice our concern and request that the vote on this be DELAYED until the public receives more extensive information. Sincerely, Carole Ingalls i Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: FW: Stop Global Al Data Center in Weld County 9 2Uup►O From: Emily Beckwith <emilv.beckwith.5@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 11:49 AM To: Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov> Subject: Stop Global Al Data Center in Weld County Currently, Weld County is the fastest-growing county in our state. However, the creation of a Global Al data center in Windsor, Colorado, will be detrimental to this growth. As a born-and-raised Coloradian who has lived my entire life in Weld County, I am consistently disappointed by the leaders of this county. You have the opportunity to make the people of this county proud by making a point in STOPPING the planned Al data center in Windsor. Global Al has no business in Colorado. They chose Weld County because it offered the easiest access to land, water, and power. In return, some wealthy will gain money, but the people of Weld County will receive environmental and noise pollution that will have lasting effects. Colorado's 2025- 2026 winter was the driest and warmest ever on record. How dare we ask our residents to restrict water usage while allowing a corporate entity to steal billions of gallons of water from our land. Do what is logically, morally, and ethically right for Weld County's environment, health, safety, and longevity. Work to stop this data center for yourself, your future family, the farmers who keep us alive, the children and vulnerable people in our area, our infrastructure, and our landscape that makes Weld County the special place that it is. Best, Emily Beckwith 80520 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT 1 Subject: FW: NO on data center in Windsor ti L.0 I ZD24—O( From: Kayla Amato <kaylaamato15@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 11:00 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James<sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppier<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: NO on data center in Windsor Hello, My name is Kayla and my family and I a residents in Windsor, CO. We have lived here for about 6 years now and we are NOT in favor of the big data center that might happen in the Windsor area. I know today, April 6th is the deciding factor of having this center built in our community. However, we are wanting to vote NO on this additional. I believe this would be a complete detriment to families near this facility. Please let me know if there is anything else we can do to make sure that this facility does not go up in our area. Thank you, Kayla 1 Esther Gesick EXHIBIT d D _HAW_ From: Ask The Commissioners Subject: FW: Al DATA CENTER ORO& Attachments: Al-Water-Fact-Sheet-8.14.25.pdf; Drained by Data - impact report 9-2025.pdf From: dani pritchard <dani_pritchard@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 11:43 AM To:Jason Maxey<jmaxey@weld.gov>; Scott James <sjames@weld.gov>; Lynette Peppler<Ipeppler@weld.gov>; Kevin Ross<kross@weld.gov>; Perry Buck<pbuck@weld.gov>; Ask The Commissioners<AskTheCommissioners@weld.gov>; David Eisenbraun <deisenbraun@weld.gov> Subject: Al DATA CENTER Good morning, I have read that there are plans to build an Al data center at the Kodak location in Windsor, and have several questions/concerns: Energy Consumption -who is going to pay for the increased energy consumption? Historically, the utility companies increase the residents energy bills to pay for this sort of thing. If Al Global chooses to Greeley for incorporation will their citizens be responsible for the increased energy consumption? https://www.eesi.orq/articles/view/data-center-power-demands-are-contributing-to-higher-energy-bills Water-Al data centers use water for cooling and pollute surrounding water supplies in their communities. We are having the driest year since 1895. Does wasting water on internet buildings honestly seem like a good use of our limited water supply? I also notice that this location is suspiciously close to the Poudre River. What are your plans to ensure that our beautiful river isn't polluted by out of country owners? Again, is Greeley or Windsor responsible for the increased water usage cost or does it depend on which city the data center is incorporated in? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135426005488 https://www.drought.gov/states/colorado Heat islands -there is research that is showing data centers increase the heat two degrees, up to six miles away. This location would include many neighborhoods in Windsor and Severance, as well as farmland. https://fortune.com/2026/04/01/ai-data-centers-heat-island-hyperscalers/ Growth -what sort of growth can we expect in the job market? How many PERMANENT jobs would be added to the community? 50-100? Al data centers add lots of temporary construction jobs, but do not provide meaningful permanent jobs once construction is complete. https://www.businessinsider.com/data-center-job-boom-in-construction-not-biq-tech-2025-3 Noise pollution - noise produced by data centers can be heard for hundreds of feet. What is the plan to ensure the community doesn't have to hear the data center from their homes? https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/communities-are-r wising-nurse-pollution-concernsabout-data-centers Community -where will this data center be incorporated? It seems they have the choice between Windsor, Severance, or Greeley. Any map shows that the location is not in Greeley but, if Global Al chose Greeley as the city of incorporation wouldn't that mean that Greeley gets the property tax dollars, but none of the negatives that come with a data center actually being in their neighborhood? 1 I urge you to rethink building of a data center this close to your community. The independent research shows that there is little benefit to the community, so I find myself wondering who would benefit from this data center? It hasn't escaped notice that Martin Lind is the developer, who historically has only himself in mind. Unsurprisingly, a very very small amount of research regarding the CEO of Global AI, Darko Horvat, reveals that this is not someone I would do business with at all, and especially not something of this magnitude and importance which could be extremely detrimental to our community at no loss to him. https://www.occrp.orq/en/proiect/the-fincen-files/as-a-slovenian-tycoons-empire-crumbled-his-bank-accounts-swelled Best Regards, Daniela Ray Severance, CO 2 (11111 Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance Al Could Be Draining Our Future As an increasing number of tech companies begin to release their own Al assistants and expand their data processing technology, new data centers are popping up across the country. With nearly 4,000 data centers in the US, and hundreds more anticipated, surrounding environments are becoming increasingly stressed, as they face increased risks of drought, energy grid strain, and pollution from new fossil fuel projects needed to power these data centers. The very technology that is intended to alleviate humanity's problems now threatens our environment through its high intensity energy needs. One Google search utilizing an Al tool is reported to use 30 times the amount of energy as a normal search. The artificial intelligence programs being utilized in these data centers require an immense amount of water to cool hot servers as well as additional water, indirectly, through the electricity required to power these facilities. Water is evaporated in data center cooling towers, leaving behind salty wastewater referred to as blowdown that must be treated by local authorities before being released. Reusing any leftover water sounds like a promising option, but reuse is limited and creates even saltier waste that must be disposed of properly, creating a new problem. According to scientists at the University of California, Riverside, each 100-word Al prompt is estimated to use roughly one bottle of water (or 519 milliliters). Imagine this as every time you use ChatGPT to write an email — pouring out a water bottle. Generating an image uses substantially more water than text, and a video uses dramatically more than an image. Companies are aware of these issues and have pledged to restore the water that they use by 2030. "Minimizing our water use, being transparent with our water data, and restoring water in high water stress regions are key pillars of our water stewardship program," Meta said in a statement. However, these optimization processes are slow- moving and waiting 5 years to lessen their environmental impact is just too long. Data center water usage is already harming communities, especially those in high water stress areas. A short video showing a Georgia community living next to a Meta data center highlights this fact. Their taps drizzle when fully turned on, leaving sediment pollution in their supply. Wells are failing or are being polluted by the extensive construction needed to build these unprecedented types of building. There is also evidence that these data centers could drive up electricity costs for residents. One study found that in the U.S., roughly 80 percent to 90 percent of the water consumption for data centers is coming from public water sources. These centers utilize public resources to gain private profits, with little concern for the effects of their consumption. Rising temperatures are already increasing evaporation and drought. Trendy Al tools will only compound this issue, directly manufacturing water scarcity. GE Greater Edwards 11\ jr4 Aquifer Alliance Not-so-fun Facts: • There are no legislative restrictions, both in Texas and federally, on how much water a data center can use. Texas law actually prevents local authorities from regulating or even tracking water usage by these facilities. • Texas currently has 378 data centers, with many of these being fitted for Al processing power. • A single data center can use 1 to 5 million gallons of water per day, as much as a small to medium size city. • A data center requires about a 500-milliliter bottle of water to generate 10 to 50 medium-length GPT-3 responses. • Elon Musk's planned supercomputer data center in Memphis is estimated to use 1 million gallons of water every day when operating at full capacity. o A family of four uses about 400 gallons of water every day. • Approximately 80% of the water (typically freshwater) withdrawn by data centers evaporates, with the remaining water discharged to municipal wastewater facilities. • Wastewater left over from cooling is salty and has to be treated by local utilities before being returned to any kind of reservoir. • About 20% of data centers in the United States already rely on watersheds that are under moderate to high stress from drought and other factors. • By 2030, Texas data center water consumption could total nearly 400 billion gallons annually, or 6.6% of Texas' total water use. Ideas to Explore: • Require new data centers to develop their own water resources using recycled water or, perhaps, Atmospheric Water Generation. • Look into siting new Al data centers at mined out quarries or other areas where they might be built underground to save on energy use and water used for cooling. • Pass legislation requiring restrictions on data center water use and requiring reporting on data center water use. • Encourage companies to switch energy intensive large language models for smaller language models that use less energy. GE Greater Edwards AquiferAA A H i a n c e RESOURCES: Data Center Map: https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/ https://www.bloomberq.com/graphics/2025-ai-impacts-data-centers-water- data/?srnd=undefined&sref=6VNEsPl5 News articles: I Live 400 Yards From Mark Zuckerberg's Massive Data Center https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGjj7wDYail San Antonio data centers guzzled 463 million gallons of water as area faced drought https://www.sacurrent.com/news/san-antonio-data-centers-puzzled-463-million-qallons-of-water- a s-a rea-faced-drought-38116670 Texas Al centers guzzle 463 million gallons, now residents are asked to cut back on showers https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/texas-ai-data-centers-water-usage- texas-ai-centers-quzzle-463-million-gallons-now-residents-are-asked-to-cut-back-on-showers- ai- news/articleshow/122983253.cros?utm source=contentofinterest&utm medium=text&utm cam paiqn=cppst Algorithmically Embodied Emissions: By reinforcing high-carbon practices, algorithmic information systems contribute to climate change. https://medium.com/datasociety-points/algorithmically-embodied-emissions-algorithmic-harm- and-climate-chanqe-e2617eb4770d Concern UK's Al ambitions could lead to water shortages https://www.puiij.com/index.php/research/article/view/39 Data Centers and Water Consumption https://www.eesi.orq/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-consumption Data centers, backbone of the digital economy, face water scarcity and climate risk https://www.npr.orq/2022/08/30/1119938708/data-centers-backbone-of-the-digital-economy- face-water-scarcity-and-climate-ris Data centers and water use: What to consider https://freshwater.orq/wp- content/uploads/2025/06/Data-Centers-and-Water-Use Freshwater.pdf Al Is Everywhere Now—and It's Sucking Up a Lot of Water https://insideclimatenews.orq/news/28092024/ai-water-usage/ A million gallons a day?— Elon Musk's supercomputer plans raise questions about local water supply GE Greater Edwards )1\ Ar4 Aquifer Alliance https://www.actionnews5.com/2024/06/06/million-gallons-day-elon-musks-supercomputer-plans- raise-questions-about-local-water-supply/ Scientific Papers: Making Al Less 'Thirsty': Uncovering and addressing the secret water footprint of Al models https://dl.acm.orq/doi/full/10.1145/3724499 Data Centers Around the World: A Quick Look https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive briefinqs/ebot data centers around the worl d.pdf Artificial intelligence in the water domain: Opportunities for responsible use https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720360903 The Environmental Impact of Al: A Case Study of Water Consumption by Chat GPT https://www.puiij.com/index.php/research/article/view/39 The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1 Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an Al Assistant for Essay Writing Task https://arxiv.orq/pdf/2506.08872v 1 Al and Climate Justice: The US must balance climate justice challenges in the era of artificial intelligence https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-us-must-balance-climate-justice-challenges-in-the-era-of- artificial-intelligence/ America's Digital Demand Threatens Black Communities with More Pollution https://capitalbnews.org/ai-data-centers-south-carolina-black-communities/ Contact: Annalisa Peace, Executive Director: annalisa@aquiferalliance.org Rachel Hanes, Policy Director: rachel@aquiferalliance.org August 2025 https://aquiferalliance.org ..IIIIIIIIr ... • . . \ I i 70 zoit, ,,,I.,:,,, . .• ••• • ,..• ...7 204 mf ,i,...1.,:,, • .,, • . , . . • • • • 1 • • , : • • . • . , ,,,, ,.,. .„, ,4,:„.,.• • • • • cn n —I 0 • ,110,, ,,,i1 t i 0,„,,, CD„ . •M. = -0 VIllif!1'iii ill ,i,"4:.. rt = I el .. . . . / •irI • / 0 I •2•• • ••3 c i . , : • ,D ,,.;,,,.,,,„,, ,,,,.„..,,..,,,, „•,,• . . . i ....... , _ , , ,..., . , = / 0 ..,, . ND -ow 7iii fi.23 , (si (to .• _ i r / . • ...• 0 . •. . S.41!•' . • .• .• ••* • . . I /, , . . . ,••• 41. , a = 3 . . •• •• •, • • „ •• ••• ,, , , , -0 I ... ••• .• - . I ,....... .... .... , ...... _ ..... __ _, . . . . •• . • • mit . . --- 4!"....... .".'1.!'"0...!'"I•4e!"•q.... *. ...... V; ar-' ..!=111r- : •• ••• 1 ' •• • ••• ••• • •• .• ,,::' ,..._,...,.•cfti—4•••.V.,...-4,..i_V=.4.1..-...-443;02—••.1.1=4:4),....1•16.1—.4.0=.4.1= 1—, 1 ; _ _ _ _. \ ,•• . ... . .. . A/ , • '/T.1 - fr' . . . 1, I �� About Ceres N Ceres is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to q accelerate the transition to a cleaner,more just,and a sustainable world.United under a shared vision,our -., powerful networks of investors and companies are proving - X sustainability is the bottom line—changing markets and sectors from the inside out.For more information,visit $ - ceres.org. '� - �''�n ._, Acknowledgments eaaIiiOOdi. �, Lead Authors ~`' m 0666a Kirsten James,Senior Water Program Director ►al In n a w d e a s -�: Shama Perveen,Director,Water,Research ttiA ti Benjamin Jacobson,Manager,Water and Agriculture i k' Research and analysis from Tianyi Luo and Paul Reig — -------- r at Bluerisk. i +l_jiiiuia*iasa, I Thanks also to the colleagues at Ceres who provided invaluable editorial review and design support with this ®Q ©©® ao°: project,including Luke Angus,Courtney Bednaz,Maura Fa .®e a e e i IIIi r to s Conron,Emmie Reilly,Adam Vaccaro,and Jcelle Young. This publication was made possible by Cathay Financial Holding Co.,along with contributions from the Walton - Family Foundation,Pictet Group Foundation,the Sobecki Family Foundation,the Park Foundation,and The Ida and o Robert Gordon Family Foundation. i% I The views or opinions expressed in the report do not mGO.-- f necessarily reflect those of the individuals,companies, ®®v f a e`0 iv k! or organizations listed above. t, li 40 * ),... s ®m° 1' Bluerisk #r ©'•�'" f , Cathay Financial Holchngs Executive Summary • Water use associated with data center cooling operations is expected to increase by 870%as more The explosion of data centers across the U.S.is one of the facilities come online,from 385 million gallons a year economic hallmarks of the zozos,as the growth of artificial to more than 3.7 billion gallons-enough to supply a intelligence,cloud computing,and other high technology city the size of Flagstaff,Ariz.(population 77,000)for has spurred the buildout of facilities to house the necessary 1.75 years. digital infrastructure.And with data in demand,so too is • Data center growth could increase water stress in the demand for water these centers need to operate. already strained basins by up to 17%annually—with While data centers'direct on-site water use is significant even higher spikes in peak seasons. 4 and has been subject to increasing attention,this analysis Alongside key takeaways and unique data,this analysis finds that data centers'indirect water use—primarily offers highly relevant recommendations for companies, from power generation to meet their massive energy needs investors,water managers,and policymakers alike.While —has an even greater impact. grounded in the Phoenix region,its findings apply across Because data centers tend to cluster near one another the many jurisdictions dealing with water stress amid the in geographic areas,the cumulative impacts of multiple global data center boom. facilities on local and regional water supplies are substantial but,until now,little understood.In many cases, \\� data center clusters are forming in already water-stressed Background areas,where future growth will only exacerbate the issue. Al Demand Surge j'% These dynamics present financial,operational, Data centers are physical facilities that contain Oilreputational,legal,and regulatory risks for data center Information Technology(IT)infrastructure such as operators and high-tech businesses. servers,storage devices,and networking equipment This analysis uses Phoenix,Ariz.—a water-stressed that support vast volumes of data.They are critical in region,fast-growing metropolis,and booming data center supporting a wide range of digital services,including hub—as an illustrative example to highlight the impacts artificial intelligence(AI)and cloud computing.Within } \ of data center water use on regional water stress.It the tech sector value chain,data centers occupy a central .1 uncovers important insights,such as: position,sitting downstream of mining of critical minerals, semiconductor manufacturing,and production of other • In the coming years,annual water use associated components,and upstream of cloud platforms,digital with data center electricity consumption is expected services,and software provided by high-tech companies. to increase by 400%,from an estimated 2.9 billion gallons to over 14.5 billion gallons—enough to supply In recent years,data center development has surged due the entire city of Scottsdale,Ariz.(population z44,000) in large part to increased computing demands from data for over 2 years. intensive applications.The rapid growth is projected to continue,especially as Al expands,and high-tech 3 I Drained by Data ceres.org companies are placing substantial investments into Additionally,substantial indirect water use occurs expanded and new facilities.U.S.-targeted investments in upstream manufacturing processes,such as the in the next four years amount to approximately$45o fabrication of semiconductors and chips that form the core billion in planned spending on data centers and related hardware infrastructure of data centers.An average chip technology,making the U.S.one of the largest data center manufacturing facility today can use to million gallons of 0 markets globally. ultrapure water per day—matching the water use of about 33,00o U.S.households. Direct and Indirect Water Use \ ! Data centers require large volumes of water to operate, Clustering of Data Centers and water use is mostly characterized as either"direct"or Data centers are often clustered geographically,with "indirect." many companies building facilities in the same regions to reap the benefits of tax incentives,infrastructure access, Direct water use refers to the water consumed on-site. and network connectivity.These clusters of data centers Cooling systems account for the majority of a data can collectively place significant strain on local water • center's operational water withdrawals.Depending on supplies,ecosystems,and power grids,especially if they are size,a data center uses anywhere from 18,000 gallons in regions already struggling with water availability.In fact, (68,000 liters)to SS0,000 gallons(2.t million liters)— two-thirds of new U.S.data centers built or in development - equivalent to the daily water use of approximately 6o to since 2022 are located in areas already experiencing high 1,833 U.S.households.Commensurate with the growth in levels of water stress,and a recent study found that 32% ' , data centers,water consumed in data center operations in o\ of data centers in the U.S.are in areas of high or extremely ��' the U.S.grew from just over 5.5 billion gallons(21 billion high water stress.Five states(Arizona,California, SO liters)in 2014 to almost 17.5 billion gallons(66 billion Texas,Virginia,and Illinois)account for 72%of the new liters)in 2023. data centers in high-stress regions.Seasonal variation, Indirect water use refers to the volume of water consumed particularly in and or drought-prone regions,further within the data center value chain,including in the exacerbates these pressures as increased cooling and generation of electricity to power the data centers.The power demands during the summer season elevate data water use embedded in purchased electricity depends on centers'water consumption. 1. it the mix of energy sources supplying the electricity grid. For example,renewable energy sources relying on wind and solar have a lower indirect water footprint compared Emerging Risks to natural gas and nuclear power generation.'The total Data center water demands present their owners and indirect water consumed through electricity use by data operators with financial risk because of the potential 11 centers in the U.S.was estimated to be 211 billion gallons for water scarcity to cause higher operational costs and 0 (80o billion liters)in 2023. disrupt operations.Companies can also face financial t It la po..ible that new nudes purer plant deeps may be capable of operating with lest water ue. 4 I Drained by Data ceres.org 1 risk from the potential of future regulations or permit through replenishment strategies.However,this narrow restrictions as policymakers begin to tackle the impact of focus neglects two important drivers of water risk:the data centers on water.Litigation risk and reputational risk indirect water use associated with electricity generation are also of concern,especially if local communities are that powers the facilities and the cumulative water ` adversely affected and revoke the company's social license impacts of many data centers on local water supplies. �y+' to operate. This shortcoming exposes high-tech companies,data center owners and operators,energy providers,water �, These risks are playing out in real time.For instance,a utilities,and their investors to greater risks than are 'l},f planned data center in Chesterton,Ind.,was blocked after currently acknowledged. residents expressed concern with impacts to local water resources.In Newton County,Ga.,future data center This analysis aims to shed light on the full suite of potential Ili* L development is under additional scrutiny after residential water risks associated with data centers,using the Phoenix, water wells were plagued with sediment tied to the Ariz.region(Figure i-see map next page)as an illustrative construction of a nearby data center. example. Some companies have responded to these challenges with The Phoenix region was chosen for this analysis to new approaches and technologies to decrease water use. illustrate the intersection of data center growth and However,some of these strategies involve tradeoffs that regional water risk.The region is experiencing rapid lower water use but increase energy demand,which can growth in new and planned data centers,is one of the result in higher greenhouse gas emissions,greater demand fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the U.S,and faces on the electric grid,and negative impacts on local air increasing water stress due to prolonged drought,climate quality.For instance,because they require more energy conditions,over-allocation of limited water supplies from to run,air-cooling systems are generally less efficient at the Colorado River,and dwindling groundwater supplies. cooling data centers than water-cooling systems,resulting Further,the region provides enough data to allow for in higher energy use,more indirect water use,and sufficient analysis. s� f increased electricity costs. However,the findings and recommendations of this analysis are applicable across many jurisdictions facing srData Center Water Risk Analysis: similar challenges. The Phoenix Example The cumulative impact of data centers on local water availability can be significant but maybe overlooked without a holistic,place-based,sector-wide assessment. ilL At the time this analysis was written,corporate water stewardship strategies adopted by data center owners and operators primarily focused on addressing water use at their direct operations and offsetting their own water use 5 I Drained by Data ceres.org Figure 1.Locations of current and planned data centers(green squares)in and around Phoenix,Ariz.,as of May 2025 • Wittmann Sonoran Preserve Desert Vista VI Trailhead Rio Verde I { L • r , •Surprise Fort McDowell White Tank Sun City ..-. I l ` ■ 10'' t'� Fountain Hills Mountains Regional Park • • Citrus Park Glendale : 5 Paradise Valley • • Lichfield Park • -] Scottsdale ■1 Tolleson• Phoenix L. '' Goodyear • .. -�'• L. Tempe ..:� .. • ■ P. Mesa i • ■■ _ Liberty y Buckeye Pato Verde Maricopa Colony • . .v • GilbertIIOM South Mountain Estrella Mountain Park and Preserve • • ...�• Regional Park St.Johns Chandler Gila Crossing • Queen Creek Santa Cruz Sun Lakes Chandler Heights Sacate Gila River Indian Reservation 6 I Drained by Data ceres.org Data Analysis Key Findings Using publicly available data from Data Center Map, • Embedded water use in purchased electricity is the data center company websites,U.S.Energy Information largest driver of data center water use.Indirect water Administration(EIA)forms 86o and 923,Arizona Public use attributed to embedded water in the electricity Service and Salt River Project websites,and company- consumed by the data centers is the main driver of specific disclosures,the analysis characterized 124 data water withdrawals from data centers in the Phoenix centers'by operational status("current"or"planned"), region,with a large increase anticipated due to planned - facility size,cooling technology,and operational metrics data center expansion.45 If all planned data centers in '-`°:' t.i.!. like Power Usage Efficiency(PUE)and Water Use the region come online over the next six years,which is "._ Efficiency(WUE)3 Missing data were imputed based on the typical length of construction for larger and more —• r r facility size,cooling type,and industry averages for PUE complex facilities,indirect water use will increase by l.-- T and WUE, almost 400%from an estimated 2.9 billion gallons to e,,, nearly 14.5 billion gallons,as illustrated in Figure 2.To The analysis also mapped the data centers to their Y PP put this in perspective,14.5 billion gallons is enough respective balancing authority—the Arizona Public to supply the entire city of Scottsdale,Ariz.,with a Service or Salt River Project—to understand their power population of more than z44,000,for over z years. mix and power-generation water withdrawal intensities. : _3yk_ , , Direct on-site cooling demands and indirect electricity- - related water withdrawals were combined to develop an Figure 2.Current and future indirect data center water use in the Phoenix ,4,,,� .... estimate for total water use by the data centers.These region,based on existing facilities and addition of planned facilities , :. values were then compared against the water stress (million gallons) • ' `"k .rats. � " indicators from WRI's Aqueduct tool to evaluate current 'r and potential future stress conditions from data center 16,000 "'" tda growth.For simplicity,the analysis assumes constant water 14,000 use and demands from other sectors in the region to isolate 1 y �g..:1,--- the impact of the data center's growth.For additional 12,000 <spr= details on the methodology,- _ r l-- hdl gy,see the Appendix. 10,000 t 1 .c Jr 8,000 . --sr, 14,455 6,000 OFr Y'" Aisf.,.., �% '- dammed foam Daracmennap..nm by Mar Jl,soa, "3 ;Any data een.er dasaMed as Tommisno,ed or'WM our.mm ap data sec or the Me owner.wehane 4,000 wassegoud...Operational'for thepurposes of I his anatvsnsFacilities ous stages of planning such as announced ir 0r scheduled b Id those under - grouped together under`Planned Based on industry averages.data .' cemer decelopment span ,from plannirwo uomrms5non rypinlIn take,n5 n.65..dependngn Mahn ow and r2 Oo0 ...Irk 2,904 aThe boundary ofhe indirect water UM covered tn thnanalysts ts electrum,ge Ifand excludm the water used . - in en ram um processing and marnporting coal and gas Due to misting gas transmission pmeltne infrastrurnare,much or -_... the gas cnnsumed In elemnom generation originates in the Penman Bann On Tout andN Wimp) coal bunted in i - Current Future Anaure ongmates from W !Amo co ico and Montana These have then-ownr scarcity and quality sues '��'�'^'•Y�' �- 5 IT pow load u will manse stgnihntly with planned data centers coca rg online l a mia Pno regmn.lr power npnry a projemad m stow byyy%,from t,l9,MW ma,to5p5,MWaa plannS lose ttmenare built. F' 7 I Drained by Data ceres.org y/";, • Direct water use attributed to data center cooling • Data centers may contribute up to a 32%increase in systems is significant.Direct water use for cooling annual water stress.The cumulative impact on water systems at data centers in the Phoenix region is availability from the proliferation of data centers estimated to be 385 million gallons a year.That number in the Phoenix region will create additional water is expected to increase by 87o%to more than 3.7 billion management challenges in an already severely water- gallons as planned data centers come online(Figure stressed region.The Centennial Wash and Hassayampa 3).For comparison,that is enough water to supply a water basins located west of the City of Phoenix will be city the size of Flagstaff,Ariz.,with a population of particularly hard hit,with estimated increases in their approximately 77,000 residents,for 1.75 years. annual water stress levels of z%and 17%respectively -4?4• f:?_ if all planned data centers in the region come online. While the Chaco water basin north of Phoenix may rtF j Figure 3.Current and future direct data center water use in the Phoenix see an increase in annual water stress of up to 32% region,based on existing facilities and addition of planned facilities due to increased data center cooling demand from the •1' •- t (million gallons) APS Four Corners coal-fired power plant located near Fruitland,N.M.,the basin is not currently categorized 4,000 as water-stressed(Figure 4-see map next page). 3- ;r- 3,500 • 3,000 Ili2,500 . t 4 2,0003 730 .� S ' i:77r::::nii4ii::::iki;::L; "'".,..7J_-R7:'. �(W1,000 -?" a=s r'�� Current Future ,` ; __`' tel: - i 8 I Drained by Data ceres.org Figure 4.Growing water stress in the Phoenix region fitir III . Las Vegas Grand Canyon National Park Hen Navajo Nat tip increase by °/u•• 1uaP;indian FlagstaffNational _- Preserve • Zuni Reservation ona A • A ♦� • ♦♦ • • St.Johns OPS-I9 .rti we Hassayampa Basin Annual water stress increase by 17%; < August water stress increase by 22% • Centennial Wash Basin A 4!l Reservation i Gila National A Annual water stress increase Wr • •• a ! Forest by 2%;December and January • water stress increase by 9% VOW A • � • • • The WRI Aqueduct baseline water stress map shows that much of the Phoenix region is under extremely high stress(>80%,red), •• _ where water demand far exceeds renewable supplies.Other areas face medium-high stress(20-40%,orange)or low-medium San Luis Ri. (10-20%,yellow).Baseline water stress reflects the ratio of total Colorado demand across domestic,industrial,irrigation,and livestock uses to Tucson- renewable surface and groundwater supplies,accounting for upstream Tohon. .. consumption and dams.Higher ratios signal more intense competition _ Nation among users. - Reservation --. ■Data centers A Power plants 9 I Drained by Data ceres.org • Data centers will drive increased water stress during the summer,up 22%from the baseline.The summer period,already the most water-stressed period in the region,will result in even higher water stress levels due to increased power demands and cooling requirements , at data centers.For example,the Hassayampa water basin will see a 22%increase from the baseline in its water stress level during the month of August • compared to the annual average increase of 1796.While summer remains the most critical period in terms of iGw('� ^--' + water stress,elevated stress is also estimated in the FPf.°Nq�r" - I ' months of December and January.This is likely because I -T more water-intensive power plants in the region have a higher share of power generation of the grid during these months,according to EIA's 2023 monthly power generation records(Figure 5).6 -- s, ., `. Figure 5.Seasonal variability of total data center water use for Phoenix #; region(2023;unit:million gallons) Current Future 50 100 iso 200 250 300 350 400 500 1,000 1,500 2.000 January® ails January 230 1,833 3 :" • F 1% .. =1 February© AMMON February 2o3 485 March Es 2 March ® a82 =-tiL-- _ April® 172 —VI April Ez 78s = y - MayEll 238 May n2 133 MEM ` _ if, "*,,e + . -, - ; y June lign 2a1 June 4s0 111111111111111111111 t-._wrr� July MO ms- July 424 1,725 _. 'f-Teap4•,l,:.,'';-'-W':-7,-.,- .- `- August 40 285 August 388 1,488 = 04 ,c September© 22s September ® 1,438 • ' f.�-} October 120 October 2eo 657 bow""• ilatP,Nap' ; November© 218 MIMI November ® 872 '-' $'{ December a__Am_ 22a� December 28. 1,y64 4111. 111 Direct R Indirect to Direct •Indirect Sji:, ,-..� - • 6 Results..e cooling-water dare downloaded nom their rite.Ofnote,ear An for Februaryroo3 show,a sharp r• r_ �' drop ie water withdnwal at Four Corners(1,nos 4 and 3)from January aoa3,while in genentbn Ina. • _ yq. 10 I Drained by Data ceres.org • Other regions will see a 10x increase In water use due • The annual total water withdrawal from data centers to Phoenix region data centers.Impacts from the is substantial.To put this volume in perspective, proliferation of data centers in the Phoenix region current water demand from regional data centers is extend beyond it,touching multiple geographies and almost 3.3 billion gallons per year.For comparison, jurisdictions.Although the data centers are concentrated that is equivalent to about 34%of the City of in the Phoenix region,the power plants supplying their Phoenix's annual water use based on zot9 estimates electricity demand have a broader geographical footprint. (98 billion gallons).As planned data centers are For example,the County of San Juan in New Mexico brought online,demand is expected to increase to a will see an approximately to-fold increase in water little over 18.1 billion gallons,or equivalent to 18%of _ use related to data center development in the Phoenix the City's annual water budget.7 region,due to rising electricity demand from the Arizona -' �- Public Service. • The cumulative water impacts from data centers .11E107-11[1. _ - sX-+-= can conflict with ongoing planning efforts.In the Phoenix region,annual total data center water use is in potential conflict with the goals of the City of Phoenix's -:. •-�- - � water resource plan.Water use reduction has been one of the key objectives in the City of Phoenix water -V resource plan.While the city's water demand has been slowly but steadily decreasing since the early z0oos— from roughly it4 billion gallons(35o,000 acre-feet)in • 2002 to close to 98 billion gallons(300,000 acre-feet)in 2019-this trend will very likely be reversed due to the boom in regional data centers.Yet data centers are not discussed in the city's zozi water resource plan. r ` ynr® m m op.m �to e city or Phoenix's voter use s for'Iwnrene purym m es only.a,the used to supply rat. then dna center needs would come from multiple"mom ,,..='ya®1 11 I Drained by Data ceres.org Recommendations Adopt Water Management Best Practices Companies should continue to evaluate water and energy For Data Center Operators efficiency gains that can be achieved through smarter site Enhance Disclosures selection,infrastructure design,workload placement,and Corporate disclosures should be enhanced to better hardware choices.To do so,they must continue to expand articulate water risks associated with data centers,provide collaboration across internal silos to evaluate cost benefits relevant context about water stress conditions for the and tradeoffs and to identify optimized solutions that watershed in which operations take place,and explain how reduce value at risk—both today and in the future. these risks inform actions and feed into broader water Importantly,companies must expand collaboration with goals such as net-positive water and replenishment targets. peers in a precompetitive space to mitigate sector-wide risks.Collaboration can support shared learning,industry Specifically,in line with the recommendations put forward by the investor Corporate Expectations for Valuing Water, specific data collection,standard setting,and best practice ' '"`•"' companies should assess and disclose the full suite of water sharing.This will help companies collectively address risks associated with data centers in their value chain.This shared water risks,improve transparency,and align around includes emerging considerations for data centers that solutions.The collaboration should also extend beyond some companies are already moving to provide,such as industry peers to include regional water managers and distinguishing between on-site and indirect water use and energy providers to identify integrated solutions. '' - explaining how shifting to renewable energy and different Examples of current best practice include: cooling strategies can help reduce water use.Disclosures } "' = should include water withdrawal and consumption data • Optimizing data center design to reduce for both direct operations and supply chains,along with environmental impacts,such as by improving water '- a information around local contextual challenges and details efficiency measures and utilizing reclaimed water and ^4 other alternative water sources. Y ---ns;4. '' on how the company engages with local policymakers, • Implementing advanced cooling technologies,such A 'rr allfr municipalities,and stakeholders to address basin-level as water-free cooling,chi level cooling,and liquid water issues.In addition,companies should disclose WUE g' P g' 9 immersion cooling. --'_ and PUE data.This information will ensure companies and • Contributing towards improved watershed health and - their investors have a complete picture of the potential resilience to help restore and conserve water in high- financial value at risk and can adapt or mitigate risk stress basins. .. x accordingly. gigy,such as by • Leveraging AlAI to maximize water efficiency, optimizing cooling systems,predicting demands,and :_ - detecting leaks. • Sourcing renewable energy to reduce indirect water - use by decreasing reliance on grid electricity. r.. • Partnering with other companies,utility providers, and local governments to innovate and address shared challenges in a basin. 41 `R..'. 12 I Drained by Data ceres.org i0.t For investor For Water Managers and Energy Providers Assess and Evaluate Water Risk and Mitigation Understand Regional Water Risks and Pinpoint Efforts Solutions Investors should engage with high-tech and data center Water managers from across jurisdictions should continue companies to understand whether the companies are to collaborate to understand the potential cumulative appropriately mitigating water risks,including those data center impacts on shared water resources,alongside resulting from water use and the cumulative impacts of other industrial demands and challenges in a given basin. data centers on water availability in regions where they Equipped with a shared understanding of these overlapping operate or plan to operate. pressures,water managers can continue to expand right-sized solutions from their respective toolboxes Investors should support companies in efforts to disclose —including full cost recovery water pricing models, the full suite of water risks related to data centers. incentives for alternative water sources such as recycled Improved disclosures should provide insights into the water,innovative permitting reforms,and regulations. measures being taken to mitigate the risks and how risks are factored into business planning decisions. Crucially,these efforts should be coordinated across stakeholders to ensure collaborative basin solutions. The Ceres Valuing Water Initiative offers a platform and In Arizona specifically,this would include statewide tools to support investors as they engage with high-tech water managers such as the Arizona Department of and data center companies on water risk issues. Water Resources and local water managers such as the �• Investors should also explore new ways to assess City of Phoenix water services department.Neighboring - - k _ companies'water-related disclosures and mitigation municipalities also have their own water utilities,whose r strategies as part of their investment processes, coordination will be essential given that this analysis of -, sustainability integration frameworks,and engagement Phoenix shows that jurisdictions across water basins and in other states are impacted as data centers come online. -�' priorities.Notable thought leadership has already been P developed in this area.For instance,investors have = w Energy providers(such as the Arizona Public Service developed toolkits for how to address Al's growing water or Salt River Project for the Phoenix region)should • 4 demand and thought leadership on how to evaluate related be included as well.Transitioning to a higher share of - investment risks and opportunities. renewable energy will significantly reduce water use associated with power generation and thus impacts to r 1 water resources.Together,water and energy managers can play a critical role in ensuring data transparency and supporting infrastructure planning efforts that consider cumulative water risk,enabling systemic solutions that extend beyond individual company actions. OPP- 13 I Drained by Data ceres.org For Policymakers Even if companies implement measures to mitigate risk in data center operations,significant risk remains,including Consider Cumulative Impacts risks to companies'reputations as well as regulatory and Policymakers play a vital role in prioritizing the litigation risks.Without further action,communities will consideration of near-term and long-term resource continue to accuse the sector of broadly impacting regional challenges and the potential impacts of data center water resources without distinguishing between perceived planning and regulation.This analysis highlights the need good actors and bad actors. for policy leadership in managing the cumulative water and energy impacts of data center development. While outside the scope of this analysis,other industries can be considered similarly.In other words,the cumulative Public policy should support a wide spectrum of relevant impacts to water resources from the concentration of practices,from helping to drive the uptake of water- all water users must become more prominent in water efficient practices to improving corporate disclosures stewardship discussions.For example,the Phoenix around data centers'water use.There are many policy- region has seen significant growth in semiconductor related efforts underwayrelated to the management of � manufacturing that requires large amounts of ultrapure the Colorado River Basin,for instance,where data center water. cumulative impacts should be considered.Additionally, policymakers should consider environmental justice and The methodology developed for this analysis(see y _ community impacts of siting decisions,particularly if it Appendix)can be replicated for other geographies to better disproportionately affects water access for vulnerable understand the full suite of water risks associated with - • populations. data centers in a certain region.Stakeholders can get ahead ,;— — '""'- of these potential impacts,but they need to act quickly. Investments will need to be made,collaborations will , _'' --- Conclusion need to be formed,and public policy will need to ensure ftf,." —4'. measures are in place so that the current and future water This analysis shows that the concentration of data centers needs in the basin are met. in high water-stressed regions could put financial value at . _ - risk for companies and their investors if not fully assessed and addressed,as water use and cumulative impacts can significantly impact water availability.The potential .F`�` risk compounds as the cumulative water impacts from data centers can conflict with ongoing planning efforts _y - to ensure sustainable water supplies,as observed in '-M=," the City of Phoenix's water resources plan not directly - contemplating data center water use.While the Phoenix _ _ • #~ -_ - region vividly illustrates these challenges,they will be felt Y . across geographies as data centers and the industries that illiglirL demand them continue to grow globally. 14 I Drained by Data ceres.org e Appendix colocations,and o.49 and o.5i for hyperscale. %\ Data Sources and Methodology Additionally,each data center was mapped to its respective balancingauthority,either Arizona Public Service APS e, This analysis evaluates the cumulative direct and indirectIfi (APS) i water impacts of data centers using the Phoenix region or Salt River Project(SRP),to understand their electricity as an illustrative example,encompassing both existing and water demands.Data from EIA forms 86o and 923 for \ and planned data center facilities.Using publicly available the year 2023 were used to determine at a monthly scale %ta , 1 data from Data Center Map,124 existing and planned data the power mix and power-generation water withdrawal ' , , $%s g B ti centers in the Phoenix market were categorized by facility intensities for APS and SRP,which were considered size,IT capacity,power usage effectiveness(PUE),and unchanged for the future.For indirect water use water usage effectiveness(WUE).Where information calculations,the analysis relies on primary data from the mm®da666 was not publicly available on the Data Center Map website, not EIA p fuel-specifichenever tla e.n limited cases, data,where nt inA tensity a — company-specific disclosures and media releases were providety a e® reviewed to supplement the data,and imputations were factors from Reig et al.,zozo were used in the calculation 7 applied for any remaining gaps. of grid-level water intensities. Cooling technology categories from the Data Center To estimate the total water withdrawal,the following _ Map website were first standardized and recategorized. formula was applied.The resulting calculation quantifies l�` 1 �'"` Category-average WUEs were calculated with reported both direct water used on-site for cooling and indirect '� • WUE either from Data Center Map or site-specific company water consumption associated with electricity generation, _i disclosures.For data centers with WUEs missing,but where LF is the load factor,WUE is water usage ®�©o ®��—�' cooling type information available,WUEs were assigned effectiveness,and WI is power plant specific water P, :e e e e e""- using the category-specific averages.For data centers intensity. II A i e without cooling type specified,average WUEs were Water use=IT capacity x 365 x zi.x LF x WUE„„site assigned based on the data center type—i.e.,hyperscale v va©o° IT capacity x 365x x LF x Generation share.x W. and colocation.Missing PUE data were imputed following +� Pa tY z4 , , 40. aSo1 ;� : ; 0• 1 a similar approach. -'`�•�' Al To better understand seasonal water demands associated Finally,the analysis assesses cumulative water demands with data centers,annual PUEs and WUEs were then from existing and planned data centers in the Phoenix 0`�� disaggregated into monthly values using the temporal region and compares that finding with regional water stress �/ / metrics(see FigureAnnual and monthlybaseline water � trends identified for air-cooled and water-cooled data � 4). ®j - 0`� `� centers in the Phoenix region by Karimi et al.,zozz. stress data were retrieved from Aqueduct 4.0,developed # by the World Resources Institute.The dataset was used Current and planned data center type-specific load factors to evaluate the current levels of water stress at data d 0 • ®' (or server operational/utilization time)were retrieved center sites in the Phoenix region,offering a baseline for /y and derived based on data from the zozo US Data Center assessing potential water stress and vulnerabilities from w , 70, Energy Usage Report,ranging between o.33 and o.38 for the concentration of data centers in the region. 0 15 I Drained by Data ceres.org t 0 \ To analyze the potential increase of water stress conditions in local watersheds due to planned/announced data centers in the region,we use the Monthly Baseline Water e Stress data from Aqueduct 4.o as the baseline condition. We assume current data centers in operation are already contributing to that baseline,and for the future condition, we include both current and planned/announced data - a. centers in analysis.For purpses of an vs city Eti clarity we assume onstantr demand frolm other sectors and no change in water supply due to factors such 111110 e m as climate change,which helps us isolate and focus on this m"m. specific driver of increased water demand from added data cenrs. erefre,it is likely to be an underestimation `1 F ys la pi e u u i■E: of stress increases in the Phoenix region.Monthly water t• withdrawal and supply data of Aqueduct basins are from the Aqueduct 4.o Pro databases.Monthly data center direct - and indirect water withdrawals were modeled for each data ki4 i i, >; i ``� center and power plant.They were then aggregated up to the watershed level for estimating the potential increase in watershed water withdrawals and thus water stress ®®10 01 ' conditions. 1 �ee�ee/eais voQv. • 010 °°% Or k /fir. 's 0 16 I Drained by Data ceres.org Hello