A Spanish Fork in the Road: A Utah City OK’s data center rules after six-hour examination

Utah city sets limits on noise, water, emissions and enforcement as Volition seeks to repurpose an industrial building

It was a marathon.

In a sign of how local governments have begun fine-tooth-combing their review of data centers and corresponding local laws, the City Council of Spanish Fork, Utah, spent six hours on Monday considering how to move forward with a new legal framework.

Officials in the city of just under 50,000 people also spent several hours listening to residents state and explain their concerns, an exhaustive exercise in developing local infrastructure policy. 

The council voted 3-2 to approve additions to its land-use code with seven conditions for data centers.

“This is the biggest thing I think we’ll probably ever deal with while serving the city,” Councilman Landon Tooke said near the end of the meeting. He voted no, saying he supported the technology and the progress made on the ordinance but wanted more time to explain the changes to residents.

The meeting comes with a proposed data center knocking on the door.

Volition Industries, a data center developer based in Provo, Utah, proposes converting an existing industrial building near Spanish Fork Canyon into a data center powered by natural-gas fuel cells and cooled by a closed-loop system. Spanish Fork has approved rules for such facilities, but Volition still needs approval for its specific project.

The vote did not approve Volition’s proposed data center. Rather, it established the standards the company—or another applicant—would have to meet in a later site-plan process. 

The rules require baseline studies, predictive modeling, post-commissioning tests, annual independent verification and an enforcement path that can end in operating restrictions or loss of a business license. Council members also directed staff to explore a data center overlay zone.

Residents made the case on both sides as the hours dragged on. “Please protect us. We matter. You have to protect us. That’s why we’re here,” Teresa Wood told the council. 

Brady Redfern, who lives near the proposed site, supported Volition’s plan: “Not all data centers are the same. Not all engineering designs are the same.”

Mayor Mike Mendenhall cast the lengthy review as an exercise in local control: “I believe the government closest to people governs best.” He also pointed to a potential benefit of the proposed facility, saying “our local companies that we rely on are needing some space, running out of some space.” Mendenhall did not vote on the ordinance or explicitly say he supported it.

The council had already held a public hearing and twice delayed action while staff revised the text. Under the process described at the meeting, a developer would have to submit detailed engineering and a site plan, with city professionals checking the application against the new code.

A development agreement could add contractual remedies, although the city attorney cautioned that state law generally does not let a municipality force an applicant into such an agreement when the project already complies with existing standards. Council members said that made the ordinance itself—not assurances tied to one applicant—the critical protection.

The debate grew from a specific proposal by Volition to convert an existing industrial building near the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon into a data center powered on site. The company has described a system using natural gas-fueled, noncombustion fuel-cell technology and closed-loop cooling. The ordinance, however, was written to govern the use rather than simply endorse one developer’s design.

That approach drove much of the council’s scrutiny. Members repeatedly tested whether rules shaped around Volition would also protect the city if the project were sold, the equipment changed or a different operator arrived. City staff said the code would limit on-site generation to controlled-emission technology such as fuel cells or linear generators and bar ordinary combustion generation, with a narrow exception for a diesel-powered fire pump.

Noise occupied a long stretch of the review. Residents near the proposed site said sound carries through the canyon and asked the council to account for a facility that would run continuously, unlike intermittent traffic or industrial activity. 

The revised language calls for measurements using both A-weighted and C-weighted decibels, including low-frequency sound; 72-hour baseline monitoring; predictive analysis at anticipated and full nameplate load; and follow-up testing after operations begin and annually afterward.

Council members worked through whether a 60 dBC ceiling could conflict with existing ambient sound, how residential limits should apply at a boundary and when a resident complaint must trigger another evaluation. They changed “may” to “shall” in a provision on tonal and low-frequency sound, so the city must require additional evaluation and mitigation when testing shows excessive tonal or narrowband noise. They also directed staff to review the city’s broader noise code.

Air quality produced another extended exchange. Staff compared Volition’s draft state air permit with permits held by existing Spanish Fork businesses and explained Utah’s small-, minor- and major-source categories. Some council members were uneasy that the state’s minor-source range is broad. Others argued that the local restriction on generation technology and capacity provides another layer of control. The final conditions require staff to verify whether the Utah Division of Air Quality calls for site-specific modeling before retaining that reference in the ordinance.

The council also examined water limits, electrical isolation, heat, vibration, setbacks, screening, lighting, emergency response, successor owners and shutdown obligations. As described at the meeting, the ordinance caps water use at 600,000 gallons for the initial fill of the closed-loop system and 300,000 gallons a year thereafter. It narrowed decommissioning language so financial assurance would cover a Phase I environmental site assessment, a Phase II assessment if warranted and required remediation, rather than requiring the owner to post money to remove non-hazardous equipment from a building it still controls.

Enforcement was treated as a practical question, not a promise. City Attorney Vaughn Pickell said state law caps the civil penalty at $750 a day, the maximum fine for a class C misdemeanor. A council member said the amount was “not much” against what was described as a $4 billion investment. Pickell said the stronger remedies are operational: suspending equipment or a phase of the facility, suspending operations or revoking the business license after notice, a hearing and an opportunity to cure. The ordinance permits a shorter cure period when health, safety, property or the environment is at risk.

Residents would not have to wait for an annual report to raise a problem. The council discussed routing complaints to the zoning administrator, the evidence needed to investigate them and the city’s ability to hire its own expert to review an operator’s testing. The applicant would propose the professional who conducts required independent verification, and the city would retain approval over that selection.

The code also limits Spanish Fork to one active data center with on-site generation at a time. Council members said the cap should force another public debate if a second proposal arrives, not be read as a permanent ban. They said any future applicant would be expected to meet the same standard rather than reopen the code to seek weaker requirements.

Spanish Fork is a fast-growing, young community. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the city’s population reached 48,837 in 2025, up 14.6 percent from its 2020 estimate base. People under 18 account for 35.7 percent of residents, while 8.6 percent are 65 or older. The city averaged 3.59 people per household in the 2020–2024 period; its median household income was $104,844, and 80.4% of occupied homes were owner-occupied. Hispanic or Latino residents made up 14.4% of the population.

The questions Spanish Fork confronted are appearing in city halls and county offices nationwide. The National Association of Counties says local governments are being asked to weigh tax revenue and computing capacity against power demand, water use, utility costs, noise and land-use conflicts. Jurisdictions are responding with overlay districts, larger setbacks, special-use reviews, infrastructure studies and operating standards.

 The National League of Cities says older zoning codes often do not explicitly address data centers, and it cites local standards for cooling noise, generator testing, stormwater mitigation and architectural screening.

Public comment reflected that national argument in local terms. Some residents warned about emissions, constant noise, water, subsidies and reliance on one large taxpayer. Others said the project could strengthen the tax base and contribute to the country’s expanding computing infrastructure. Several skeptics, including one who said he did not want the data center at all, praised the council for refusing to vote earlier under pressure. 

The close vote left the project with a regulatory path, not a permit. Volition still must submit the engineering, studies and site plan needed to show that its proposal can meet the standards Spanish Fork spent the night constructing.