Bonner Mill manager says proposed AI data center would use hydro power and closed-loop cooling

A manager for the Bonner Mill complex told the Bonner‑Milltown Community Council that Universal Forest Products is leaving and that the property owner is negotiating with a prospective small AI/data center to occupy much of the vacant space.

The manager said the site currently has roughly 440,000 square feet of empty space within a total leased footprint of about 750,000 square feet and that the proposed operator would begin at about 9 megawatts. “We’re losing Universal Forest Products as a tenant,” the manager said, and added that the data center “is a small data AI center” that is negotiating a lease.

On energy and cooling, the manager said the prospective tenant would buy power from the Energy Keepers at Polson Dam and supplement that with renewable energy credits. He described the computing equipment as “NVIDIA systems” using a closed‑loop, liquid‑cooled design and said the only routine water loss would be evaporation from cooling towers, which he called “minimal.” The manager said zoning staff told him the site is appropriately zoned for a data center and that zoning requirements would have to be met before occupancy.

Council members asked how jobs would compare with the UFP operation. The manager estimated UFP had employed about 80 people earlier, declining toward 60 at the end, and said the data center could provide roughly 20–30 ongoing positions, with additional jobs during construction.

Speakers raised community concerns the manager said have been addressed in preliminary conversations with county planning staff: siting noise‑generating equipment in the rear of the building, eliminating external flashing lights and ensuring there is no external fan noise because the systems are liquid‑cooled. The manager also said the data center would market its low‑carbon energy mix as carbon‑free hydro plus new renewable resources.

The council did not take a legislative action on the proposal; members asked staff to continue checking zoning and environmental conditions and to share public‑hearing dates and planning materials when available.

The next procedural step referenced during the meeting was further review by county planning staff and any applicable permit or zoning compliance steps; no final approvals were recorded at the council meeting.