Packed meeting about data center goes late in Spanish Fork

News Clip3:29KSL News Utah·Spanish Fork, Utah County, UT·8/19/2026

A Spanish Fork city council meeting concerning a proposed data center by Volian drew a large crowd, with residents expressing significant environmental and quality-of-life concerns. Despite Volian's CEO Jeff Chavez detailing their self-contained power and water systems, residents demanded more data and opposed the project. The city council postponed a vote on a text amendment to clarify data center regulations.

zoningoppositionenvironmentalelectricitywatergovernment
Gov: Spanish Fork City Council

A crowded public hearing in Spanish Fork, Utah, extended late into the night as residents and city council members discussed a proposed data center project. The meeting's primary purpose was to consider a text amendment to a city ordinance that would establish rules and regulations for data centers in the city, rather than directly approving the project itself.

The proposed facility, backed by Provo-based company Volian, would be located off Highway 6, replacing an old warehouse. Volian CEO Jeff Chavez presented his company's plan, emphasizing that their facilities address common data center concerns. He stated that Volian centers generate their own power using natural gas fuel cells, thus not impacting the local power grid. Chavez also claimed their cooling systems are indoors to mitigate noise, and they utilize a closed-loop water system that is filled only once.

Despite Volian's presentation, many residents expressed skepticism and a desire for more concrete data to substantiate the company's claims. Attendees voiced concerns about air quality, noise, and heat impacts, with one resident stating, "the majority of us do not want the data center here." Some urged the city council to commission independent studies on these environmental impacts.

Valition itself recommended that the city council defer the vote, asking for more time for both the council and the public to understand their plans. At the time of the report, no vote had been taken on the ordinance amendment, and public comments were still ongoing, indicating the meeting would continue late.