Colorado Springs · Project Taurus · 30 September 2026
What Colorado Springs actually said about Project Taurus
About 60 people spent four hours at the microphone over the data center planned for 1565 High Tech Way. Here is what they argued, for and against, in their own words.
On 17 September City Council met in a special session at the Pikes Peak Center to hear appeals of the city’s administrative approval of Project Taurus, a data center that Raeden plans to put in an existing industrial building at 1565 High Tech Way. Council heard supporters first, then opponents. Public comment ran from 1 hour 45 minutes into the hearing until just past the six-hour mark.
Opponents outnumbered supporters roughly three to one. They talked most about noise, then power, then how close the site is to homes and schools, then water. Supporters asked Council to follow the city code, pointed to jobs and tax revenue, and argued that a vacant industrial building was finally being put to use.
At the end of the day Council voted 7–2 to postpone the appeal to 13 April 2027 without ruling on it.
01What each side talked about
Share of speakers on each side who raised a topic at least once. Most raised several.
The same topics came up on both sides, argued in opposite directions. Supporters raised noise almost as often as opponents did, usually to say it had been engineered away. Process was the supporters’ ground: nearly two-thirds of them spoke about following the code and the rules. Health and diesel generators were almost entirely the opponents’ concerns.
Opponents also came with specifics. 27% cited a section of the city code, 46% used a specific figure (megawatts, decibels, gallons, chillers) and 38% referred to a study, report or the record, compared with 7%, 21% and 7% of supporters.
02The case against, in their words
“Around the clock”: noise, and the numbers behind it
The most common complaint, and often the most technical. Speakers questioned whether the noise modeling reflected the equipment that will actually run.
“The city’s consultant ran noise studies using 34 chillers at 75% capacity and zero backup generators.”An opponent
“Had you done a noise study that included [dBC] levels and infrasound, you would have undeniable scientific evidence of how this data center would be a risk to public health.”An opponent
“So which is it?” A 14-year-old on the power numbers
The Planning Commission capped the project at 50 megawatts. The most document-heavy challenge to that figure came from the youngest speaker of the day, who said they were 14, and who spent their two minutes on power.
“We’ve heard 50 megawatts over and over again, but an earlier Project [Taurus] concept package describes phase one as 72 megawatts [gross], with 50 megawatts going to computers and servers.”A 14-year-old speaker
“An internal Colorado Springs utility update says Project [Taurus] was planned in three phases with phase one alone estimated at $700 to $900 million.”The same speaker
“So which is it? 50, 72, 100, or 300. These numbers came from the records connected to this project.”The same speaker
“I shouldn’t have to spend my day reading dozens of city records and technical documents just to understand what’s going on in my community. I should be doing homework, hanging out with friends, and being a normal teen.”The same speaker
Schools, neighborhoods and Garden of the Gods
Speakers named the schools nearby and the city’s best-known landscape.
“So, do we want to experiment with the kids at Jackson Elementary School, at Coronado High School, and Holmes Middle School to see how they’ll do?”A longtime teacher who lives within three miles of the site
“For what is Garden of the Gods without these iconic formations and what is Colorado Springs without Garden of the Gods?”A District 3 resident, a mile and a half from the site
Heat, water and drought
“…the research out of Cambridge that I emailed all of you shows that data centers will create heat islands, increasing the temperature [by] several degrees up to six miles away.”An opponent
“However, that [closed]-loop system will need to also use additives like corrosion inhibitors, biocides, and anti-freeze to keep the cooling water from damaging servers.”An opponent
Trust in the developer and the process
Several speakers questioned Raeden’s record and the city’s review. These are claims made at the hearing; the Civic Desk has not verified them.
“The data submitted by [Raeden] is riddled with inconsistencies, with their peer reviewers calling out a lack of source data, figures that don’t match, conflicts of interest…”An opponent
“When the people advising City Hall are also being paid by the developer, residents don’t get a fair process.”An opponent
Taking it to the ballot
One speaker described four citizen-initiated ordinances now gathering signatures. As the speaker described them, one would bar a facility from producing a low hum that can be heard inside a home, one would stop the mayor from issuing permits that override the city’s noise law, and one would put any new facility using more than 200,000 gallons of water a day to a public vote.
“When we have the required signatures, these proposed ordinances will appear on a city ballot.”An opponent
03The case for, in their words
Follow the code
Supporters’ most consistent argument: the project meets the zoning, the approval followed the rules, and Council should say so.
“I’m asking you to follow the unified development code, follow the process, follow the facts, not the emotion, and deny this appeal.”A supporter
“Please uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, deny these appeals, and send the clear message Colorado Springs honors process, and Colorado Springs is open for business.”A supporter
A vacant building put back to work
“This project represents a productive reuse of an existing industrial and technological asset and meets all zoning and code.”A supporter
“Or we can have one of the largest assets in the El Paso County region sitting vacant with no applicable use and it’s a stop sign to every other notable business investment in the community.”A supporter
The concerns have been handled
Several supporters granted that the worries were real, then argued they had been engineered around.
“Some of the concerns raised during this process were legitimate, particularly noise, utility[,] demand, and future expansion.”A supporter
“On noise, engineered acoustic enclosures can keep property lines sound down to the level of a quiet office 24 hours a day.”A supporter
“On water, it utilizes closed-loop technology delivering zero daily water consumption after its initial fill.”A supporter
Fear, and the view from the dais
“We cannot build a world-class city on fear and delay.”A supporter
“And we can argue about the water and the noise and the power and the goats, and I say goats on purpose.”A supporter
“…which means I sat where you sit and I sat with the utilities board. So I have a great deal of empathy for what you’re going through today.”A former city councilor
04The money, argued both ways
Both sides put numbers on the economics. They measured different things.
“If approved, [Taurus] generates new tax revenue equivalent to 7.5 new D-11 teachers and 15 new patrol officers every year for as long as [Taurus] operates.”
Colorado Springs Chamber & EDC
“1.2 billion in electric rate hikes versus less than half a billion from [Raeden] economic inputs over the next 10 years.”
An opponent
Others asked what else the money could do. One opponent argued that if Raeden is investing $1 billion, “a billion dollars could actually buy this city much more than a data center.” A supporter answered the budget question from the other direction: “Right now, the city is furloughing people and closing buildings.”
These are figures as stated at the hearing, not Civic Desk estimates.
05The water number that traveled the room
No figure was repeated more than “200,000 gallons of water.” It came from Raeden’s own presentation, and it changed a little each time it was passed along.
Raeden’s presenter describes the closed-loop cooling: “we need 200,000 gallons of water one time, and we don’t ever need any more.”
“It’s 200,000 gallons. That’s a third of an Olympic swimming pool.”
“…that’s 200,000 gallons of water that’s being drained off during a drought.”
“Mr. Green also stated the water usage would be 200,000 gallons one time. What about the water it takes to generate the power to this installation?”
Describes a proposed ballot measure triggered by 200,000 gallons a day: the same number, a different meaning.
06Where the two sides met
- Both argued from the city code. Opponents cited specific sections to argue the approval fell short; supporters invoked the same code to argue it was satisfied.
- Both took noise and water seriously. The disagreement was whether the enclosures, wall placement and closed-loop cooling were enough, not whether the issues mattered.
- Both talked about trust. Opponents doubted the developer’s numbers; supporters pointed to conditions and reporting requirements as the guarantee.
07What happens next
Council voted 7–2 to postpone the appeal hearing to its regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 April 2027; Councilmembers Gold and Henjum voted no. An amendment to take it up sooner, on 5 March 2027, failed 3–6.
The motion that passed did more than set a date. It requires five pieces of work before the April hearing, several of which answer concerns raised at the microphone:
- an independent land use compatibility analysis (City Planning);
- an additional independent noise analysis, focused on low-frequency noise (City Planning);
- a military coordination analysis (City Planning);
- a large-load electricity study or agreement (Colorado Springs Utilities);
- a framework for potential code requirements or standards for data center uses (City Planning).
The Planning Commission’s conditions stay attached to the approval in the meantime, including a 50-megawatt cap that can be raised only after a new Commission hearing, and ten years of utility-use reporting. Case file ↗
08How we did this
- Source: the City’s video of the 17 September 2026 special meeting (watch it), machine-transcribed with speaker separation: 69,797 words. Case file: APPL PROJ. TAURUS.
- For or against: by speaking order. Council heard supporters first and announced the last one; everyone after, until public comment closed, spoke in opposition.
- Counting speakers: by the clerk’s announcements and each speaker’s self-introduction, giving 48 opponents and 14 supporters. A few segments may merge two people, so totals are approximate.
- Topics: keyword groups counted once per speaker. They show what came up, not the merit of any argument.
- Quotes are verbatim from the machine transcript, and each was checked against the City’s audio by transcribing the same seconds again with a second, independent speech model. [Brackets] mark corrections to misheard names, words or stray punctuation. Members of the public are not named. Claims made by speakers are theirs, not verified findings.
- The outcome is from the City’s official action record for the case (Legistar), not from the transcript.