Peter Barbati

Data centers are becoming an area of contention for many communities. We have a number of issues to consider. We also have to differentiate between "large A.I. computational data centers and stand alone data centers used to amalgamate information. Each will use large volumes of electricity, but they use water differently. Here is a good link: https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-consumption

Many jurisdictions, rightly or wrongly, consider the creation of Data centers as "near existential importance", citing that loosing ground to China, which is quickly building out their data center infrastructure, may weaken the ability to counteract A.I. supported interests (industry, technology, military). This is more of an American-centric idea as it seems to be difficult to find information which is Canadian-centric. Unfortunately, the bandwagon will fill up quickly if other jurisdictions adapt such concerns. There is still much opacity regarding how A.I works.

In the Ohio model, municipal laws were essentially rewritten to favor data center construction. In the Ohio model, laws were written to encourage "public-private" partnerships, essentially allowing Data Centre corporations (the owners) to use public pension dollars to fund construction. The question: "If the data center looses money, will those public funds be returned to the pension fund?" has not been answered. I am not suggesting that a Canadian center would try to use similar financing models as American centers, but the move towards using public fund as "an investment pool" in data centers which will be controlled by a handful of corporations is concerning.

This is an excerpt "Public concern spiked globally and locally following statements from financial executives (including BlackRock's CEO) indicating that ordinary citizens' long-term retirement accounts and public pensions would serve as the foundational capital to build out the massive power infrastructure required for AI data centers. [1] (Citation-Yahoo finance)

The centers also use a considerable amount of water, raising concerns about rising water supply costs for the public, available, pollution. However, most systems are closed-loop so the concern over water usage is still questionable. Over the last decade (or more), there have been increasing concerns over the privatization of water supplies, with interested parties citing the "need to protect and conserve water supplies". The concern is that once water supplies are privatized and managed, public rights to water will deteriorate, as a corporation lawful obligation is to the shareholder. THIS IS AN OPINION, but you can research "Ohio data centers", "privatization of water supplies".

If the water usage is a critical issue, to mitigate water needs, it would be economical for data center interests to consider building water desalinization plants on each of the coasts (U.S. in this example). Much of the Middle east draws its water from desalinization plants. This is unlikely as corporate interests will always feed off of the closest and easiest to reach food source.

In short, no. I would consider a data center mostly beneficial due to the employment it will bring, but if we are already struggling with infrastructure costs and water supply, how would it even be possible?

I was not on council.

The delay increases costs. Delays may be beneficial if needed to mitigate a plan which does not meet growth expectations, environmental concerns, financial issues, but if so, alteration must be done to the plan to efficiently lessen the negative financial impacts, and impact to the community through non-decision.

I would like to re-examine the plan, questioning why 25 acres is needed for a high school and associated support features (fields, parking, etc.).

Additionally, the main historic component that should be protected is the Banting home, outbuildings and associated structures, along with a reasonable parcel of land.

Traffic will always be an issue, regardless of where the school is built due to the expected increase in the general population. Removing the high school from the core will increase vehicular traffic. Much of this can be mitigated with the implementation of walking/cycling corridors to the school area.

If the current structure cannot be reimagined/renewed, and all of this during the off season, which is essentially impossible, a new construction is the only reasonable consideration. Further delays will increase costs.

123

Too ambiguous a question, in light of ongoing economic uncertainty. Areas we need to focus on are:

-Careful expenditure of increasingly difficult to obtain tax revenue (difficult in that the rate payers are finding it hard to balance their household books, as are many area business interests).

-Balancing the creation of recreational activities and structures against the cost to ensure we are getting the best use-to-cost ratio possible. Many recreational facilities operate on a negative capital return, but the benefit to the community is high. This requires a careful balance. -New Tecumseth must also work harder to attract more industry to our area. These interests provide good-paying opportunities to our local workforce. Typically, retail and service providers in bedroom communities tend to suffer during economic slowdowns. which is why the infusion of new industry and commercial interests are a benefit. These will also provide opportunities for our youth to work and live in the community, reducing the need for long, and increasingly costly commutes.

There are other issues, but the ongoing flux in our economic fabric will make for a shifting target.

"Smart growth" essentially means NO uncontrolled sprawl, sprawl with poorly thought out transportation routes, or sprawl which does not balance the need for obtainable housing options, job-creating opportunities (manufacturing, services and professional services), recreational and tourism activities and attractions. Smart growth also balances the need for commercial services and retail frontage, but not endless strip malls which may be difficult to fill. Empty retail corridors are not beneficial. Smart growth also balances types of obtainable housing options, rather than focusing on the creation of a single option.