# Data center agreements: what communities actually signed Generated 2026-09-16 from https://futurepickleballcourt.com 24 agreements, scored against 10 terms. Every term below carries the document and section it came from. Verification levels: primary means a person read the executed document; press means every term traces to reporting; unverified means it came from a secondary summary and is waiting on a reader. **Nobody posts a teardown bond.** Not one of the 24 agreements requires a bond, escrow, or letter of credit to pay for demolition and site restoration if the operator walks away. If a campus goes dark, the land is the community's problem. **Community money, decided without the community.** 10 of the 24 deals set up money for the community. In none of them does a resident or community organization hold a seat on the body that decides how it is spent. **The one real protection was not negotiated locally.** 8 of the 24 deals carry a minimum electric bill (City of New Albany, City of Papillion and Sarpy County, City of Port Washington, Pima County, Richland Parish, St. Joseph County, Village of Los Lunas, Village of Mount Pleasant). 6 of those keep the operator paying after it stops drawing power, 1 expressly does not, and 1 is not public enough to tell. Every one of them comes from the utility's own rate structure, not from anything the city or county negotiated. **Secrecy is normal.** 8 of the 24 communities signed a nondisclosure agreement. Some barred officials from saying that talks were happening at all, and one required the city to destroy its own notes. **Present is not the same as binding.** 62 terms across these agreements exist but are softened by language like good faith, commercially reasonable, or sole discretion. A term with an escape hatch reads as a protection and functions as a preference. --- ## City of Bessemer, AL (QTS) - Project: Project Marvel hyperscale campus off Rock Mountain Lake Road - Operator: QTS (confirmed July 2026) - Developer: Logistics Land Investment LLC (TPA Group) - Agreement: rezoning, approved, approved 2025-11-18 - Scale: 1,200 MW, 1,600 acres, 4,500,000 sq ft, 14,500,000,000 USD - Two rezonings: about 670 to 700 acres in November 2025 (reports differ) plus 914 acres in April 2026, described by the Southern Environmental Law Center as 1,600 acres in total. Eighteen buildings of roughly 250,000 sq ft each; the April rezoning spread the same 18 buildings over more land. Cost and 1,200 MW are developer figures. - Verification: press - Documents: - [primary] Mutual nondisclosure agreement between the City and Logistics Land Investment LLC, February 5, 2025, with the February 2026 amendment (released June 18, 2026 after a legal demand): https://www.selc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Southern-Environmental-Law-Center-Ryan-Anderson.pdf - [press] Inside Climate News: council approves rezoning 5 to 2: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18112025/alabama-city-council-approves-rezoning-for-massive-data-center/ - [press] WBRC: QTS confirms plans, commits not to seek local property tax incentives: https://www.wbrc.com/2026/07/02/qts-confirms-plans-proposed-data-center-campus-bessemer/ - [press] WBHM: NDA required officials to destroy records: https://www.wbhm.org/local-news/2026-07-14/document-shows-bessemer-data-center-non-disclosure-agreement-required-officials-to-destroy-records - [press] Alabama Reflector: how the data center could affect Bessemer (water authority capacity): https://alabamareflector.com/2025/07/27/how-could-a-proposed-hyperscale-data-center-affect-bessemer/ ### Community fund: UNKNOWN Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No development, incentive, or community benefits agreement has been made public. The approvals are zoning ordinances only. A $14.5 billion project has been approved with no published terms. ### Clawbacks: UNKNOWN Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed None found; no agreement exists to hold one. ### Decommissioning: UNKNOWN Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The developer's law firm put full buildout at about 1,200 MW, roughly a 10 percent rise in Alabama Power's statewide demand. Alabama Power says only that it follows a disciplined process for large-load customers to ensure they pay the full cost to serve their needs; no agreement or tariff has been published, and no minimum-bill term is on the record. A councilwoman said Bessemer Utilities customers' power bills would not rise, which places any cost on Alabama Power customers elsewhere. Estimates based on comparable campuses put backup at 300 to 500 diesel generators. - https://www.wbrc.com/2025/11/18/bessemer-data-center-project-will-move-forward/ - https://www.alreporter.com/2025/08/05/bessemer-city-government-clashes-with-residents-over-proposed-hyperscale-data-center/ - https://alabamareflector.com/2025/07/27/how-could-a-proposed-hyperscale-data-center-affect-bessemer/ - https://www.wbrc.com/2025/10/08/bessemer-city-council-sets-public-hearing-proposed-data-center-location/ ### Water: UNKNOWN Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting The developer asked the Warrior River Water Authority for 2 million gallons a day; the authority, whose supply capacity is reported at around 6 million gallons a day, wrote that it could not provide that without significant upgrades to the distribution system. QTS later said its closed-loop cooling does not consume water for cooling once operational. A councilwoman said the city sells water but will not supply the data center. - https://alabamareflector.com/2025/07/27/how-could-a-proposed-hyperscale-data-center-affect-bessemer/ - https://www.wbrc.com/2026/07/02/qts-confirms-plans-proposed-data-center-campus-bessemer/ - https://www.wbrc.com/2025/10/08/bessemer-city-council-sets-public-hearing-proposed-data-center-location/ ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line The only known term is a 100-foot buffer between buildings and homes, described by the developer at the November 2025 council meeting. Whether it exceeds the zoning minimum is not established in the sources reviewed. No noise limit has been published. - https://abc3340.com/news/abc-3340-news-iteam/council-meeting-to-discuss-zoning-change-for-bessemer-data-center ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Every job figure is a developer claim. No agreement exists that could require any of them." 330 permanent jobs at an average salary reported as $112,550 by WBRC and as $115,000 by the Alabama Political Reporter, which quoted the developer's representative. WBRC put construction at 1,000 jobs over a seven to eight year build; the Alabama Political Reporter reported about 1,000 temporary jobs each year. All are developer claims with no agreement to enforce them. - https://www.wbrc.com/2025/11/19/bessemer-city-council-approves-149-billion-data-center-project-despite-transparency-concerns/ - https://www.alreporter.com/2025/11/20/bessemer-city-council-approves-data-center-construction-despite-public-concerns/ ### Local contracting: UNKNOWN Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule Mayor Kenneth Gulley, chief of staff Christopher Warren, and city attorney Aaron Killings signed a mutual NDA effective February 5, 2025, running two years, that bars disclosing even that discussions are underway, requires the city to destroy confidential material and its own notes on the developer's request, and carries a non-circumvention clause. A February 2026 amendment added the identity of the parties and of any prospective end user or operator to the confidential list and swapped Georgia governing law for Alabama. The city released it only on June 18, 2026, after a public-records request and a threatened suit. A councilman who voted against the rezonings said he was never asked to sign an NDA and was totally shocked that officials had, and that he had not seen planning documents answering residents' questions. There is no development or incentive agreement to publish. - Sections 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 13; First Amendment: "that discussions or negotiations may be or are underway between the Parties regarding the Confidential Information or the Purpose" https://www.selc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Southern-Environmental-Law-Center-Ryan-Anderson.pdf - https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13072026/alabama-data-center-non-disclosure-agreement/ - https://www.wbhm.org/local-news/2026-07-14/document-shows-bessemer-data-center-non-disclosure-agreement-required-officials-to-destroy-records - https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18112025/alabama-city-council-approves-rezoning-for-massive-data-center/ ### Tax incentives: UNKNOWN Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated Nothing has been adopted. A councilman said an abatement is just the norm when a business comes to your city and that the council would sit at the table on one. Alabama law allows a 30-year abatement aimed at large data centers that could amount to a tax cut of more than $500 million. In July 2026 the city attorney said QTS committed not to seek local property tax incentives from the City. The Birmingham Business Alliance analysis the city relied on does not include any tax abatements. - https://alabamareflector.com/2025/07/27/how-could-a-proposed-hyperscale-data-center-affect-bessemer/ - https://www.wbrc.com/2026/07/02/qts-confirms-plans-proposed-data-center-campus-bessemer/ - https://www.wbrc.com/2025/11/19/bessemer-city-council-approves-149-billion-data-center-project-despite-transparency-concerns/ ### Reported criticisms - A councilman who voted no called the approval a grave mistake and said somebody is going to front the bill. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18112025/alabama-city-council-approves-rezoning-for-massive-data-center/) - The county commission president told councilors the project is about money and that the developer will in all likelihood ask the city to abate the tax revenue it is counting on. (https://alabamareflector.com/2025/07/27/how-could-a-proposed-hyperscale-data-center-affect-bessemer/) - The NAACP asked the planning commission to halt approval, to produce complete copies of any nondisclosure agreement, and to revoke any NDA signed by council members. (https://naacp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Final%20NAACP%20Opposition%20Letter%20to%20Project%20Marvel.pdf) - Bessemer police confronted an 80-year-old resident outside City Hall and made him remove a sign asking the mayor to meet with him about the project. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18062025/bessemer-alabama-recommends-changing-zoning-laws-to-accommodate-proposed-data-center/) --- ## City of Goodyear, AZ (Microsoft) - Project: Microsoft PHX 10-11 campus (Project 10-11), 279 acres between Broadway Road and MC-85; Third Amendment to the Infrastructure Development Agreement for Project 10-11 (IDA recorded June 27, 2019, Maricopa County no. 2019-0486224), approved by Resolution No. 2023-2295 - Operator: Microsoft - Developer: Microsoft Corporation - Agreement: development agreement, approved, approved 2023-03-06 - Scale: 279 acres, 790,000 sq ft - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] City of Goodyear, March 6, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting agenda packet: Item 7 Council Action Report (pp. 41-46), Resolution No. 2023-2295 (pp. 47-50), Exhibit 1 Third Amendment to Infrastructure Development Agreement for Project 10-11, 24 pp. (packet pp. 51-74), exhibits (pp. 75-113): https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - [primary] City of Goodyear, March 6, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting minutes (Item 7 adopted, unanimous): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=46639&mt=ALL&get_month=3&get_year=2023&dsp=min&seq=1463 - [primary] Development Agreement for Project 10-11 (self-certification agreement), Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2019-1942, adopted February 25, 2019 (Legistar file 2019-6594): https://legistar.granicus.com/Goodyear/attachments/90a3cd1d-c351-4a3f-add0-c8c22bb6f04a.pdf - [primary] Infrastructure Development Agreement for Project 10-11, Exhibit 2 to Resolution No. 2019-1959, adopted June 24, 2019 (Legistar file 2019-6636, .docx): https://legistar.granicus.com/Goodyear/attachments/c8f78edc-0d76-4a80-ad3a-330c5960afb4.docx - [primary] First Amendment to the Infrastructure Development Agreement for PHX 10-11, Resolution No. 2020-2077, July 6, 2020 (Legistar file 2020-6994): https://legistar.granicus.com/Goodyear/attachments/c62e6e50-547f-4502-810e-189214e86da3.pdf - [government_page] Goodyear Code of Ordinances Sec. 11-1-8 Noise: https://goodyear.municipal.codes/Code/11-1-8 - [government_page] A.R.S. 41-1519, Computer data center tax relief: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/41/01519.htm - [press] Phoenix Business Journal via Arizona Technology Council: Microsoft agrees to make data centers air-cooled amid water infrastructure challenges (Audrey Jensen): https://www.aztechcouncil.org/microsoft-agrees-to-make-data-centers-air-cooled-amid-water-infrastructure-challenges-in-goodyear/ - [press] ABC15 (Phoenix Business Journal): Microsoft agrees to make data centers air-cooled: https://www.abc15.com/news/business/microsoft-agrees-to-make-data-centers-air-cooled-amid-water-infrastructure-challenges-in-goodyear - [press] AZBEX: Microsoft, Goodyear update development agreement: https://azbex.com/local-news/microsoft-goodyear-update-development-agreement/ - [press] The Atlantic: AI Is Taking Water From the Desert (Karen Hao): https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/ai-water-climate-microsoft/677602/ - [press] Futurism summarizing The Atlantic on water use and redaction: https://futurism.com/the-byte/microsoft-arizona-water-ai - [analysis] The Open Notebook: Karen Hao on how the Goodyear water figure was found: https://www.theopennotebook.com/2024/05/28/karen-hao-combats-company-stonewalling-about-ais-resource-demands/ - [press] ABC15: Goodyear City Council adopts resolution approving development agreement for Microsoft (Arizona Republic): https://www.abc15.com/news/region-west-valley/goodyear/goodyear-city-council-adopts-resolution-approving-development-agreement-for-microsoft - [press] West Valley View: Microsoft reveals Goodyear plans, purchases more land: https://www.westvalleyview.com/news/microsoft-reveals-goodyear-plans-purchases-more-land/article_461ce5a6-6b8d-11e9-8d40-fbe26d862a33.html - [press] Microsoft: Building world-class sustainable datacenters and investing in solar power in Arizona: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/07/30/building-world-class-sustainable-datacenters-and-investing-in-solar-power-in-arizona/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No community fund. Before the Phase Three (PHX 12) building permit, Microsoft deposits $800,000 with the City to pay a City-retained designated representative who coordinates Microsoft's PHX 10-11 and PHX-70 projects for two years; unused funds are returned and any excess cost is invoiced to Microsoft (Sec. 6.3.5 and new Sec. 33). - Third Amendment Sec. 6.3.5, p. 12 of 24 (packet p. 62): "Owner shall deposit with the City a cash deposit of $800,000 for the estimated costs the City will incur" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - https://azbex.com/local-news/microsoft-goodyear-update-development-agreement/ ### Clawbacks: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed No public incentive to claw back; the money flows from Microsoft to the City. The $36M in-lieu payment is trued up in both directions after the updated Carollo study (Sec. 6.3.3). Remedies for non-performance are permit and certificate-of-occupancy holds (Secs. 6.3.6-6.3.11, 16.2), $5,000 per day for discharges over 500,000 gpd and $10,000 per day for discharges through the old line after the deadline, plus water shut-off after five days of violation (Secs. 6.4.7-6.4.8), and a 30-business-day cure period before default (new Sec. 31). - Third Amendment Sec. 6.4.7-6.4.8, p. 16 of 24 (packet p. 66): "Owner shall pay the City the sum of $10,000 per day on which any Discharge Violation occurs" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - Third Amendment Sec. 6.3.3, pp. 10-11 of 24 (packet pp. 60-61): "the City agrees to reimburse Owner the difference between what was paid and what was owed" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No decommissioning, restoration, or end-of-life obligation in the Third Amendment; none found in the 2019 IDA or the 2019 self-certification agreement. Off-site infrastructure is dedicated to the City with a two-year warranty (Sec. 16.3). - Third Amendment Secs. 1-28 (packet pp. 51-74); no decommissioning clause: "Owner shall warrant the infrastructure improvements for two (2) years following the City's acceptance" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The agreement covers water and wastewater only; electricity is not addressed. Microsoft announced in 2019 that it contracted output from First Solar's 150 MW Sun Streams 2 plant for its Arizona campuses. Substation and transmission cost allocation with the utility is unknown. - https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/07/30/building-world-class-sustainable-datacenters-and-investing-in-solar-power-in-arizona/ ### Water: MEETS Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting The City's obligation to serve up to 5 MGD of potable water applies only to data center use (Sec. 5.1; original IDA planned five water-cooled buildings at no more than 1 MGD each). Only Phases One to Three (PHX 10, 11, 12; about 290,000, 250,000, and 250,000 sq ft) may use direct evaporative cooling; all later buildings must use air-cooled chillers (Recital E, Secs. 2.11, 5.1). Before the PHX 12 permit Microsoft pays a $36,000,000 in-lieu payment toward the City's programmed $90,000,000 expansion of the 157th Ave. wastewater plant (3,000,000 gpd added; Microsoft needs 1,200,000 gpd at full build-out), trued up after an updated engineering study; wastewater impact fees for the plant are waived and those already collected are refunded (Sec. 6.3.3). Microsoft deposits $5,000,000 as financial assurance for a dedicated discharge line (about 12,000 linear feet) and water lines, escrowed against an engineer's estimate (Sec. 6.3.4), and must finish the line by August 31, 2024 (Sec. 6.3.6). Until the plant expands, discharge is capped at 500,000 gpd with TDS temporarily raised to 2,853 mg/L; afterward TDS may not exceed the greater of 1,400 mg/L or double the incoming water (Secs. 6.4.3, 6.4.5). Microsoft installs flow meters and the City installs its own with real-time electronic access (Sec. 6.4.4). A Water Resources Fee applies if full build-out demand exceeds Microsoft's Type 1 grandfathered right, waived only if 50 percent of potable water is returned as treated discharge usable as raw water; the 2019 plan to treat discharge for the City's surface-water plant was abandoned (Recital I, Secs. 5.8, 6.3.12). Water is billed at the commercial large-user rate of $10.19 per thousand gallons, CPI-adjusted (Sec. 17.8.3). The Atlantic's Karen Hao found a pre-construction estimate of about 56 million gallons a year at full build-out in a publicly available document Microsoft supplied to the City, after the City's records response redacted water figures as proprietary. - Third Amendment Sec. 6.3.3, p. 10 of 24 (packet p. 60): "an in-lieu payment of thirty-six million dollars ($36,000,000), which represents an estimated cost on a per gallon basis" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - Third Amendment Sec. 5.1, p. 5 of 24 (packet p. 55): "all additional buildings developed on the Property will use air-cooled chillers (non-water cooled)" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - Third Amendment Sec. 6.3.4, p. 11 of 24 (packet p. 61): "a cash deposit of $5,000,000 for the estimated costs of the Dedicated Discharge Line and water lines" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - Third Amendment Sec. 6.4.4, p. 15 of 24 (packet p. 65): "provide the City real-time electronic access to the instantaneous and aggregate daily flows of discharge" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - IDA recitals and Sec. 2, Full Build-Out definition: "five (5) buildings, each of which would require no more than, 1 MGD (million gallons per day) of water" https://legistar.granicus.com/Goodyear/attachments/c8f78edc-0d76-4a80-ad3a-330c5960afb4.docx - https://www.aztechcouncil.org/microsoft-agrees-to-make-data-centers-air-cooled-amid-water-infrastructure-challenges-in-goodyear/ - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/ai-water-climate-microsoft/677602/ - https://www.theopennotebook.com/2024/05/28/karen-hao-combats-company-stonewalling-about-ais-resource-demands/ - https://futurism.com/the-byte/microsoft-arizona-water-ai ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No noise term. Goodyear's code section 11-1-8 uses an unreasonably-loud standard with no decibel limits. The amendment does extend the berming and landscaping mitigation on the east and west property lines 100 feet north of the northern boundary before PHX 12 occupancy (Sec. 6.3.13). - https://goodyear.municipal.codes/Code/11-1-8 - Third Amendment Sec. 6.3.13, p. 14 of 24 (packet p. 64): "the berming and landscaping mitigation on the east and west property lines of the Property" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections The agreement contains no jobs term. Microsoft's July 30, 2019 announcement projected more than 100 permanent and more than 1,000 construction jobs across its Goodyear and El Mirage campuses combined. Microsoft's counsel told council each building represents more than a $300 million investment. - https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/07/30/building-world-class-sustainable-datacenters-and-investing-in-solar-power-in-arizona/ - https://www.aztechcouncil.org/microsoft-agrees-to-make-data-centers-air-cooled-amid-water-infrastructure-challenges-in-goodyear/ ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local-contracting or haul-route term. Microsoft designs and builds all on-site and off-site water and wastewater infrastructure at its sole cost, acquires easements, and dedicates off-site work to the City (Secs. 5.3, 13.2, 16.3); the $36M in-lieu payment replaces wastewater impact fees rather than adding to them. - Third Amendment Sec. 5.3, pp. 6-7 of 24 (packet pp. 56-57): "Owner shall either design and construct, at Owner's sole cost, all Necessary Utility Infrastructure Improvements or make an in-lieu payment" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf ### Transparency: UNKNOWN Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The full Third Amendment (executed by Microsoft CVP Aditya Dalmia on February 27, 2023; City signature blank in the packet) is in the public March 6, 2023 agenda packet, and the 2019 agreements are on the City's Legistar. The City's own action report records that Microsoft had not built the TDS-treatment, storage, and discharge-control improvements that were conditions of PHX 11's certificate of occupancy, and that the amendment supplied a temporary fix. When The Atlantic requested water-use records in 2023-24 the City produced documents with the figures blacked out as proprietary to Microsoft; the 56 million gallon estimate came from a footnoted pre-construction document. The 2019 self-certification agreement let Microsoft start two buildings before re-platting or site plan approval. The City's recorded copy of the Third Amendment and its execution date were not located. - Council Action Report, Staff Analysis, packet p. 43: "Microsoft has not completed the construction of the improvements that would limit the level of TDS" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - https://www.theopennotebook.com/2024/05/28/karen-hao-combats-company-stonewalling-about-ais-resource-demands/ - https://futurism.com/the-byte/microsoft-arizona-water-ai - Recitals I-K and Sec. 10: "desirous of pursuing development through a self-certification type process" https://legistar.granicus.com/Goodyear/attachments/90a3cd1d-c351-4a3f-add0-c8c22bb6f04a.pdf ### Tax incentives: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated No city abatement or PILOT. The City stops charging the 157th Ave. plant's share of wastewater impact fees and refunds those collected, in exchange for the $36M in-lieu payment (Sec. 6.3.3); all other impact fees remain payable (Sec. 5.7). Arizona's Computer Data Center program (A.R.S. 41-1519) exempts certified data center equipment from state, county, and city transaction privilege and use tax for ten full calendar years after certification (twenty for a sustainable redevelopment project), with a $50M minimum investment in Maricopa County; whether Microsoft certified this campus is unknown. - Third Amendment Sec. 6.3.3, p. 11 of 24 (packet p. 61): "The City shall not charge the portion of wastewater development impact fees attributable to the 157th Ave. WWTP" https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf - https://www.azleg.gov/ars/41/01519.htm ### Reported criticisms - The Atlantic reported in March 2024 that the campus would use about 56 million gallons of drinking water a year at full build-out, a figure the City had redacted from public records as proprietary to Microsoft. (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/ai-water-climate-microsoft/677602/) - The City's March 6, 2023 action report states Microsoft sought a permanent certificate of occupancy for its second building without having built the TDS treatment, storage, and discharge-control improvements that were conditions of occupancy, and that the existing Broadway Road sewer was never intended to carry its industrial discharge. (https://public.destinyhosted.com/goodydocs/2023/CC/20230306_1463/AGENDApacket__03-06-23_0558_1463.pdf) - The February 25, 2019 development agreement (Resolution 2019-1942) let Microsoft build its first two buildings through a self-certification process before re-platting or site plan approval, with Microsoft bearing the risk of rework. (https://legistar.granicus.com/Goodyear/attachments/90a3cd1d-c351-4a3f-add0-c8c22bb6f04a.pdf) --- ## Pima County, AZ (Beale Infrastructure) - Project: Project Blue, Houghton data center campus at 11295 S. Harrison Road (the City of Tucson rejected annexation 7 to 0; the county sold the land and signed a memorandum of agreement instead) - Developer: Beale Infrastructure, through Humphrey's Peak Properties LLC and Bobcat B1 LLC - Agreement: land sale, signed, signed 2025-12-16 - Scale: 286 MW, 290.31 acres, 2,250,000 sq ft, 3,600,000,000 USD - Acreage and square footage from the purchase agreement, whose three construction phases total about 2,250,000 square feet. MW is the first-phase electric service agreement; the city FAQ put the primary project's full build at 400 to 600 MW. Cost is the county's June 10, 2025 economic analysis: $1.2 billion in hard construction costs plus $2.4 billion in equipment. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Pima County acquisition agreement CT2500000038 (scanned; land sale with jobs floor and reversion): https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/7477affb-e443-412c-b8db-1bc3bb3794f6 - [primary] Memorandum of agreement, Pima County and Beale, December 16, 2025 ($15 million commitment, renewable match): https://pima.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15028221&GUID=E5EA6EE3-DB51-4208-9E3D-3BB4A42A4B8E - [primary] County nondisclosure agreement with Amazon Web Services, March 1, 2023: https://azluminaria.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/PO_-_Non-Disclosure_Agreements_-_AMAZON_WEB_SERVICES_-_AWS_-__-_3-1-2023_-_3-1-2028_-_Project_Blue_-__-_Enabled_-_3-9-2023.pdf - [government_page] Board of Supervisors meeting summary, June 17, 2025 (3 to 2 votes): https://pima.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1235766&GUID=61220EC9-F31F-48E0-9520-70FAFB492606 - [government_page] City of Tucson draft development agreement, July 14, 2025 (never adopted; contained the water penalties): https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/government/city-manager-office/documents/2025-7-14-project-blue-da-final-draft-for-mc-review-clean.pdf - [government_page] County Project Blue document index: https://www.pima.gov/3552/Project-Blue-FAQ - [press] Tucson Sentinel: council votes 7 to 0 to end talks: https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/080625_project_blue/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Beale consults the county, but distributions of the $15 million are "at its sole discretion," and the memorandum bars both consequential damages and specific performance." A $15 million community donation over the life of the project, paid per phase after Beale obtains certificates of occupancy for that phase, with no payment for undeveloped portions: $5 million for STEM scholarships and trade schools in phase one, $10 million in later phases for community benefit initiatives that may include digital equity and fiber infrastructure. Beale consults the county but any decisions on distributions are at its sole discretion. Section 6(c) bars either party from seeking consequential, incidental, punitive or special damages or compelling specific performance, so the county's remedy if it is not paid is limited. The rejected city agreement had no cash fund; it had an oversized reclaimed-water pipeline and a recharge facility instead. - Section 4 and Section 6(c): "a total of $15 million community donation over the life of the Project, with payments occurring commensurate with each phase of the Project" https://pima.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15028221&GUID=E5EA6EE3-DB51-4208-9E3D-3BB4A42A4B8E - https://azluminaria.org/2025/12/16/pima-county-supervisors-approve-agreement-outlining-beales-commitments-on-project-blue/ ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed The purchase agreement sets a jobs floor of 75 full-time positions at an average base salary of at least $75,000 by month 84 after closing, maintained two years, with liquidated damages of $12,500 per missing position, capped at $250,000 per six-month period and per employment certificate and $1 million in aggregate over the reporting period, as the county's sole and exclusive remedy. If construction does not start within 24 months of closing the county has an option to buy the property back at $71,905.89 an acre or the per-acre amount from a final survey, whichever is less. Nothing is tied to the facility ceasing operation after it is built. - Sections 17.2, 17.6.1, 17.6.3, and 17.7: "multiplied by $12,500.00, with a maximum amount of $250,000.00 per 6-month period" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/7477affb-e443-412c-b8db-1bc3bb3794f6 ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks Nothing in the purchase agreement or memorandum. The neighboring Town of Marana, approving Beale's second campus in January 2026, added a condition requiring removal of all data center hardware and infrastructure and security protocols for the property if the use is discontinued, which is more than the county got. - full agreement: https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/7477affb-e443-412c-b8db-1bc3bb3794f6 - https://news.azpm.org/p/newsheadlines/2026/1/8/227908-marana-town-council-approves-rezoning-for-luckett-road-project-600-acre-hyperscale-data-center/ ### Grid costs: MEETS Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving Up to 286 MW on a ten-year term at the ACC-approved rate for the utility's largest customers with no discounts, minimum monthly bills, termination only on multi-year notice with a fee backed by financial security, and the customer funding all customer-specific interconnection costs. The utility said no new generation is required for the initial phase. The dissenting commissioner said contracts she had seen in other states ran closer to 14 or 17 years and did not want Arizona to have the worst contract; the Attorney General appealed in February 2026, arguing a provision lets the utility and developer set rate schedules between themselves. The 100 percent renewable match is met with certificates: Beale's own representative told commissioners the 286 MW would be served by the utility's existing generation mix, with the difference made up by renewable energy credits. - County memo of August 25, 2025, attaching Beale's letter summarizing the energy service agreement: "TEP is not undertaking any new investment in generation capacity to provide service under this agreement" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/6b2dfc39-d95c-4377-a177-b52d05985e5d - https://azluminaria.org/2025/12/03/arizona-corporation-commission-gives-green-light-to-project-blue-power-agreement/ - https://news.azpm.org/p/azpmnews/2025/12/10/227598-arizona-regulators-approve-tep-deal-to-power-controversial-pima-county-data-center - https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-appeals-arizona-corporation-commissions-approval-tucson ### Water: UNKNOWN Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting After the city refused water, the developer switched to closed-loop air cooling and two on-site wells that state regulators approved in May 2026 under three grandfathered groundwater rights totaling 96.5 acre-feet a year, about 31 million gallons; Beale estimates 15,000 to 20,000 gallons a day. No cap or reporting term sits in the county documents, though the wells must report use to the state annually. The rejected city agreement was the strongest water paper in this set: reclaimed allocations of 1,910 acre-feet a year across both projects, a water positivity requirement, penalty rates of 150 and 200 percent over the usage limit, and $500,000 in liquidated damages if a ten-year rolling average exceeded the allocations by 10 percent. In May 2026 the city revoked a construction meter after a contractor took about two acre-feet, roughly 652,000 gallons, of potable water out of the service area for use at the site. - Section 1: "The Project will utilize air cooling technology incorporating a closed-loop system." https://pima.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15028221&GUID=E5EA6EE3-DB51-4208-9E3D-3BB4A42A4B8E - https://news.azpm.org/p/environmentnews/2026/5/28/229919-arizona-water-officials-approve-wells-tied-to-project-blue-data-center/ - Section III.g, pp. 11 to 12; Exhibit E; Exhibit G, p. 35: "then Developer will pay the City "Liquidated Damages" of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00)" https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/government/city-manager-office/documents/2025-7-14-project-blue-da-final-draft-for-mc-review-clean.pdf - https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/050526_project_blue_water/ ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No noise term in the purchase agreement or memorandum. Conditions in the county specific plan were not retrieved. ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Local union labor is an emphasis in the developer's letters, not a requirement in the agreement." The binding floor is 75 full-time employees at the premises with an average base salary of at least $75,000 by month 84 after closing, certified in January and July for two years, with capped liquidated damages. The county's economic study projected 180 direct jobs by 2029 at a $64,000 average and 3,024 direct construction jobs over 2026 to 2028. Local union labor is an emphasis in the developer's letters, not a requirement. - Sections 17.6.1 and 17.6.3: "employ at least 75 FTE employees at the Premises with an average base salary of at least $75,000 (U.S.) per year" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/7477affb-e443-412c-b8db-1bc3bb3794f6 - County memo of June 10, 2025, economic impact analysis: "Estimated 3,024 direct construction jobs and 2,049 additional indirect jobs forecasted" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/c389f127-6e01-48fc-b258-68508aa1841a - Beale letter of September 17, 2025: "3,000 construction jobs extending for a multi-year period, with an emphasis on sourcing local skilled union and trade labor" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/2192e865-fe7e-48f4-8a0c-7c1c8b5cd32c ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Aspirational language only." Aspirational language only. By contrast, Marana's approval of Beale's second campus has the developer funding a $15 to $20 million electrical connection, a $20 million road, a $15 to $20 million water line, and 30 percent of the construction cost of a $66 million drainage channel plus about $2 million for its design. - Beale letter of September 17, 2025: "with an emphasis on sourcing local skilled union and trade labor and partnering with local workforce development programs" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/2192e865-fe7e-48f4-8a0c-7c1c8b5cd32c - https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/010726_marana_project_blue/ ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The county procurement director signed a nondisclosure agreement with Amazon Web Services in March 2023, running five years or until the counterparty deems the project complete, covering even the existence of the parties' relationship and requiring ten days' notice to the company before any public-records release. One supervisor said he was bound by an NDA he did not know existed; another called deciding under an NDA challenging and shocking. The purchase agreement and memorandum are posted. The annual independent third-party verification covers only the renewable-energy match, and that section is void if it jeopardizes utility approval. The county considered an NDA policy in September 2025 capping terms at two years and barring type of use, acreage, square footage and total water and power use from being treated as proprietary; the city adopted its own template in December 2025. - Sections 2, 6, 9, and 11: "the nature, content and existence of the parties' commercial relationship or discussions about a possible relationship or transaction" https://azluminaria.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/PO_-_Non-Disclosure_Agreements_-_AMAZON_WEB_SERVICES_-_AWS_-__-_3-1-2023_-_3-1-2028_-_Project_Blue_-__-_Enabled_-_3-9-2023.pdf - https://azluminaria.org/2025/08/04/project-blue-nda-policy-secrecy/ - Section 3: "Beale will engage an independent and qualified third-party verifier mutually agreeable to the Parties" https://pima.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15028221&GUID=E5EA6EE3-DB51-4208-9E3D-3BB4A42A4B8E - https://azluminaria.org/2025/12/17/the-lasting-legacy-of-project-blue-tucson-approves-new-non-disclosure-agreement/ ### Tax incentives: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated No county property-tax incentive; the developer stated it was not asking for one. Arizona's Computer Data Center Program exempts qualifying equipment from transaction privilege and use tax for up to ten calendar years, or twenty for a sustainable redevelopment project; a question put to the city during its review pegged first-phase forgone revenue at about $62 million. The county paid a $626,250 transaction commission out of the $20,875,000 sale price and received $6,500,000 in additional consideration for relocating its trap and skeet facility, netting $27,255,849 at the December 24, 2025 closing. - County memo of December 29, 2025, and attached final settlement statement: "the sales price based on appraised value of $20,875,000, plus $6,500,000 for relocation of the Pima County Trap & Skeet Facility" https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/93418380-b75f-4118-a254-04d7511f4a74 - Q22: "we are forgoing approximately $62 million in revenue during Phase 1 alone due to Arizona's Computer Data Center Program" https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/government/city-manager-office/documents/project-blue_faq-responses_final.pdf ### Reported criticisms - A supervisor said deciding under an NDA was challenging and shocking; another said he was bound by an NDA he did not even know existed. (https://azluminaria.org/2025/08/04/project-blue-nda-policy-secrecy/) - A dissenting supervisor called the $15 million memorandum a press release with an exit door, saying it lacked enforceable commitments. (https://azluminaria.org/2025/12/16/pima-county-supervisors-approve-agreement-outlining-beales-commitments-on-project-blue/) - Supervisors said Beale's November 2025 pledges offered more publicity than protection, since only the land sale was legally binding. (https://www.calonews.com/arizona/pima-officials-demand-contracts-after-project-blue-developer-pledges-15m-in-local-investments/article_c2c9f1a0-f7dd-475a-9a17-4d46c8bd0832.html) - The Attorney General appealed the power contract, saying it lets a utility and a data center set their own rates outside public oversight. (https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-appeals-arizona-corporation-commissions-approval-tucson) - A University of Arizona researcher disputed the net water positive claim and estimated a 3 to 5 mile stretch of the Santa Cruz River would have dried up. (https://www.kjzz.org/fronteras-desk/2025-08-11/project-blue-would-have-used-millions-of-gallons-of-tucson-water-residents-city-leaders-said-no) --- ## City of Fort Meade, FL (Stonebridge) - Project: Fort Meade data center campus, Project Stonebridge (county filing: Project Cumulus), reclaimed phosphate land west of US 17/98 in the city's northwest quadrant; Development Agreement under F.S. 163.3220-163.3243 plus a Polk County ad valorem exemption - Developer: Fort Meade, LLC (Delaware), doing business as Fort Meade DC, LLC, c/o Stonebridge Associates, Inc., Bethesda MD; landowners Florida Ecopark LLC and Polk Industrial Park LLC (developer under contract to buy); Bohler Places LLC filed the 2025 rezoning - Agreement: development agreement, approved, approved 2026-04-14 - Scale: 1,200 MW, 1,163.67 acres, 4,400,000 sq ft, 2,840,000,000 USD - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] City of Fort Meade, April 14, 2026 (Newly) Amended Regular City Commission agenda packet: staff memorandum (pp. 5-8) and Development Agreement between Fort Meade, LLC d/b/a Fort Meade DC, LLC and the City (pp. 9-30), Exhibits A-C (pp. 31-59): https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - [primary] Polk County Ordinance No. 25-062, Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption for Fort Meade LLC (agenda copy, final 10-24-25, with Property Appraiser's report as Exhibit A), adopted November 4, 2025: https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/ac02059f-2c47-47c8-bede-7d33fab30048.pdf - [primary] Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Performance Agreement between Polk County and Fort Meade DC LLC (Project Cumulus), signed by Doug Firstenberg, Manager, October 21, 2025: https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/67224c75-3c9b-4320-87f2-683543813e80.pdf - [primary] Polk County resolution recognizing Ordinance No. 25-062 as the exemption for Fort Meade DC, LLC (name correction), adopted November 18, 2025: https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/5b6f6f06-d166-4f0c-801d-ec9e4dce1df7.pdf - [primary] Florida Secretary of Commerce J. Alex Kelly, letter to Mayor Jaret Landon Williams, April 15, 2026 (4 pp., hosted by WUSF/NPR): https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/c1/05/48b3f71a4de98d2aa86e5dede270/fort-meade-data-center-4-15-26.pdf - [primary] City of Fort Meade, June 10, 2025 Regular City Commission minutes (Ordinances 2025-08 and 2025-09 adopted 5-0): https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/June%2010%2C%202025%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20minutes.pdf - [government_page] Polk County Legistar record, file 25-1989 (Nov. 4, 2025 public hearing) via the Legistar web API: https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/polkcountyfl/matters/19889/attachments - [government_page] Florida Senate, CS/CS/SB 484 (2026) Data Centers, Chapter 2026-65: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/484 - [press] WUSF: Fort Meade one step closer to Florida's first hyperscale data center: https://www.wusf.org/environment/2026-04-08/fort-meade-is-one-step-closer-to-building-floridas-first-hysperscale-ai-data-center - [press] Bay News 9: approved despite residents' concerns: https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2026/04/15/fort-meade-data-center-approved-despite-residents-concerns - [press] The Ledger via AOL: Lawyer asks Fort Meade to revoke data center (Gary White): https://www.aol.com/articles/lawyer-asks-fort-meade-revoke-090423000.html - [press] LkldNow: Lakeland watching Fort Meade as water concerns grow (Cindy Glover): https://www.lkldnow.com/lakeland-watching-fort-meade-data-center-as-water-concerns-grow/ - [press] Propmodo: Florida data center plan advances amid local backlash: https://propmodo.com/florida-data-center-plan-advances-amid-local-backlash/ - [press] The Ledger via Yahoo: Fort Meade residents hurl skepticism at massive data center during forum (Gary White): https://www.yahoo.com/news/fort-meade-residents-hurl-skepticism-223635924.html - [press] DCD: 4.4 million sq ft data center campus gets zoning approval in Fort Meade (Dan Swinhoe): https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/44-million-sq-ft-data-center-campus-gets-zoning-approval-in-fort-meade-florida/ - [press] Daily Ridge: Polk County commissioners approve tax exemption (James Coulter): https://dailyridge.com/2025/11/07/polk-county-commissioners-approve-tax-exemption-to-new-business-to-build-data-center/ - [analysis] Citizen Portal summary of the Nov. 4, 2025 county hearing: https://citizenportal.ai/articles/6731770/florida/polk-county/polk-county-grants-10year-90-ad-valorem-tax-exemption-to-proposed-fort-meade-data-center - [analysis] FloridaDataCenters.org opposition tracker, Polk County page: https://floridadatacenters.org/polk-county ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No community fund. The agreement's $10,000,000 Developer Funding Advance (Sec. 3.d) pays for City Work (fire station, library, communications and asset-management systems, future water supplies, vertipad/vertiport facilities, planning, staff or consultants) in two $5M installments, and is repaid to the developer through credits against City ad valorem taxes (Sec. 4.d), so it is an advance on taxes, as the Commerce Secretary's April 15, 2026 letter states, not new revenue. Separately the developer covers up to $300,000 of PRWC or other water-rights charges (Sec. 3.b). Press reports of $10M for water-system upgrades describe one permitted use of the advance. - Development Agreement recitals and Sec. 3.d, packet pp. 11, 13-14: "advance funds in the total amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00 USD) towards the City Work" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - Sec. 3.b, packet p. 13: "In no event shall the DEVELOPER be required to pay more than $300,000.00 to the CITY" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - p. 3, Additional Considerations item 2: "is not new revenue—it is simply an advanced payment of property taxes as part of an agreement to provide tax credits" https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/c1/05/48b3f71a4de98d2aa86e5dede270/fort-meade-data-center-4-15-26.pdf - https://www.aol.com/articles/lawyer-asks-fort-meade-revoke-090423000.html ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed The county performance agreement conditions the exemption on investing at least $125,000,000 by the end of the second exemption year and creating at least 50 full-time jobs at an average wage of at least $106,498 by the end of the third (Sec. 2.a-b). On failure, after written notice and a cure period of at least 30 days, the County may revoke the exemption by ordinance and recover all taxes exempted for any year the company was not entitled (Sec. 5.a, 5.c); recovery is per year, not scaled to the shortfall. Affiliates may satisfy the obligations (Sec. 2.e). The City agreement has no clawback; its only protection is that if the project is not built before the agreement expires, the City keeps the $10M advance (Sec. 3.d). No source supports the earlier note that the mayor pledged legal action. - Sec. 5.a and 5.c, pp. 5-6: "the Company shall be subject to payment of all taxes exempted for such year(s)" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/67224c75-3c9b-4320-87f2-683543813e80.pdf - Sec. 2.a-b, pp. 2-3: "create, by the end of the third (3rd) year of the Exemption Period, at least fifty (50) new full-time jobs" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/67224c75-3c9b-4320-87f2-683543813e80.pdf - Article III, para. 3-4, pp. 3-4: "the Board may, in its discretion, revoke the Fort Meade LLC Exemption and recover any taxes exempted" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/ac02059f-2c47-47c8-bede-7d33fab30048.pdf - Sec. 3.d, packet p. 14: "the CITY shall have no obligation to repay, reimburse, or otherwise compensate the DEVELOPER for the Developer Funding Advance" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks Neither the City agreement nor the county ordinance or performance agreement contains a decommissioning, restoration, or end-of-life obligation. The only surety is a construction bond of 110 percent of the engineer's estimate for the water and wastewater improvements (Sec. 3.a). - Sec. 3.a, packet p. 12; no decommissioning clause in Secs. 1-35: "furnish a bond or other surety in a form acceptable to the CITY in the amount of one hundred ten (110%) percent" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The City agreement is silent on electricity. The site is in Duke Energy Florida's investor-owned territory, not the City's municipal electric system (Fort Meade is an FMPA member), which the Commerce Secretary's letter cites as a risk because no PSC-approved large-load rate structure existed. SB 484 requires utilities to ensure each large-load customer bears its full cost of service; Duke's pending petition proposes a 20-year minimum term, minimum monthly bills, and exit fees, so any minimum bill will come from that tariff. The developer told residents it will fund its own utility infrastructure. - p. 1, Energy Capacity: "within the territory of an Investor-Owned Utility that has not received approval from the Florida Public Service Commission on a rate structure" https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/c1/05/48b3f71a4de98d2aa86e5dede270/fort-meade-data-center-4-15-26.pdf - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/484 - https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues/2026-08-26/new-state-law-protect-consumers-data-center-costs-faces-first-test - https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2026/02/11/fort-meade-residents-data-center-concern - https://floridadatacenters.org/polk-county ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting The City reserves up to 50,000 GPD of potable water and 50,000 GPD of sewer capacity at full buildout (Sec. 3.a, 4.a.i) for 20 years, with no vested right to more (Sec. 4.a.iv) and no City obligation to expand or join the Polk Regional Water Cooperative (Sec. 4.a.ii); drought restrictions apply to the developer like other commercial customers. The developer designs, builds, bonds, and dedicates the water and wastewater lines within five years, reimbursed 100 percent through impact-fee credits (Sec. 8). The agreement does not specify cooling technology or require recycling; reclaimed water is optional (Sec. 10). The only reporting duty is copies of regulatory filings to the City within 10 days (Sec. 3.e). The whole agreement is contingent on SWFWMD approving a modification of the City's Water Use Permit No. 20000645.008, which also sets the Effective Date (Sec. 35); SWFWMD wrote the City on April 14, 2026 that the demand is not in the existing permit and needs governing-board approval at a noticed meeting. Closed-loop cooling and the reduction from an initial 140,000 to 150,000 GPD are developer statements reported by WUSF and FOX 13. The state called 50,000 GPD woefully underestimated. - Sec. 3.a, packet p. 12: "necessitates up to 50,000 gallons per day ("GPD") of potable water service at full buildout of the Property" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - Sec. 35, packet pp. 28-29: "this AGREEMENT is contingent on the City obtaining approval from SWFWMD" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - p. 2, Water Resources: "the projected demand for potable water appears woefully underestimated for a 4,400,000ft2 data center" https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/c1/05/48b3f71a4de98d2aa86e5dede270/fort-meade-data-center-4-15-26.pdf - https://www.wusf.org/environment/2026-04-08/fort-meade-is-one-step-closer-to-building-floridas-first-hysperscale-ai-data-center - https://www.wusf.org/environment/2026-04-15/fort-meade-ai-data-center-project-hits-roadblock-over-new-water-rules - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2026-04-20/floridas-commerce-secretary-comes-out-against-a-proposed-ai-data-center - https://www.fox13news.com/news/fort-meade-data-center-project-community-opposition ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line The agreement sets no noise limit; Sec. 14.a only requires compliance with laws on noise and emissions. Stonebridge told the planning board that generators would register 50 to 52 dB a half mile away, run about 40 hours in a typical year, and be permitted for no more than 100 hours a year (WUSF); at a January 2026 forum it said equipment produces about 85 dB and generators would run about an hour a week (The Ledger). - Sec. 14.a, packet p. 23: "relating to: environmental protection; water use and wastewater disposal; noise and emissions" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - https://www.wusf.org/environment/2026-04-08/fort-meade-is-one-step-closer-to-building-floridas-first-hysperscale-ai-data-center - https://www.yahoo.com/news/fort-meade-residents-hurl-skepticism-223635924.html ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Hiring Polk County residents is a "commercially reasonable efforts" obligation, not a quota." The only binding jobs number is in the county performance agreement: at least 50 new full-time jobs at an average wage of at least $106,498 (200 percent of the 2025 Polk County average) by the end of the third exemption year, with commercially reasonable efforts to hire Polk County residents, enforced by revocation and recovery of exempted taxes. The City agreement contains no jobs term. The developer's 450-plus figure (Propmodo; at least 456 by 2031 per The Ledger's forum coverage, with construction peaking at 3,960 in 2028) is a projection the Commerce Secretary called a severe over projection with no supporting data in the City staff report. - Sec. 2.b-c, p. 3: "paying an average annual wage equal to or in excess of $106,498, which is 200% of the 2025 average annual wage" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/67224c75-3c9b-4320-87f2-683543813e80.pdf - Article I, para. 4.b, p. 2: "The Company will create at least 50 new full-time jobs in Polk County" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/ac02059f-2c47-47c8-bede-7d33fab30048.pdf - p. 3, item 3: "projected creation of more than 450 jobs employed directly at the data center" https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/c1/05/48b3f71a4de98d2aa86e5dede270/fort-meade-data-center-4-15-26.pdf - https://propmodo.com/florida-data-center-plan-advances-amid-local-backlash/ - https://www.yahoo.com/news/fort-meade-residents-hurl-skepticism-223635924.html - https://dailyridge.com/2025/11/07/polk-county-commissioners-approve-tax-exemption-to-new-business-to-build-data-center/ ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Using local suppliers is "commercially reasonable efforts ... where practicable."" County performance agreement Sec. 2.c: commercially reasonable efforts to use local suppliers where practicable. The City agreement has no local-contracting term; the City Manager approves the developer's contractors for the water and wastewater work (Sec. 6.a). No haul-route repair obligation; a construction traffic plan is to be set at permitting (Sec. 6.g). The developer builds and dedicates public water, wastewater, and roadway improvements, but the utility work is repaid in full through impact-fee credits (Sec. 8.b), and the $10M advance is repaid through tax credits, so the only unreimbursed cash contribution is up to $300,000 toward water rights (Sec. 3.b). - Sec. 2.c, p. 3: "use local suppliers for its goods and services where practicable" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/67224c75-3c9b-4320-87f2-683543813e80.pdf - Sec. 8.b, packet pp. 20-21: "provide one hundred percent (100%) of the Reimbursement Amount in the form of Impact Fee Credits" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - Sec. 6.g, packet p. 20: "memorialize a construction access agreement or construction management plan, which among other items, shall detail a construction traffic plan" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The agreement text is public in the City's April 14, 2026 agenda packet; the county ordinance and signed performance agreement are on Polk County's Legistar. The City may audit the developer's payment records at its headquarters on five business days' notice for the term plus 10 years (Sec. 16); the county gets annual reports, DOR Form 418 filings, and an on-site inspection with 10 business days' notice (performance agreement Sec. 3). No NDA appears in either document, but the tenant is undisclosed (the state letter notes no operator has been named), interim city manager Alis Drumgo declined to name the company at the June 2025 rezoning (DCD), and the Ledger reported many residents were unaware of that 5-0 vote. The staff memo says the P&Z hearing was April 7, 2026; the agreement's recital says April 9. The executed and recorded agreement was not located; the Effective Date is to be set by a recorded document once SWFWMD acts (Sec. 35). - Sec. 16, packet p. 25: "for ten (10) years from the date of final payment under this AGREEMENT for audit or inspection by the CITY" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - Sec. 3.c(3), p. 4: "allow the Program Administrator to conduct an on-site inspection of the Facility" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/67224c75-3c9b-4320-87f2-683543813e80.pdf - p. 1: "especially given that a data center operator has not yet been disclosed" https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/c1/05/48b3f71a4de98d2aa86e5dede270/fort-meade-data-center-4-15-26.pdf - https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/44-million-sq-ft-data-center-campus-gets-zoning-approval-in-fort-meade-florida/ - https://www.yahoo.com/news/fort-meade-residents-hurl-skepticism-223635924.html - https://www.wusf.org/environment/2026-02-16/proposals-massive-data-centers-across-florida-are-local-governments-prepared ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated Polk County Ordinance 25-062 (adopted Nov. 4, 2025, unanimous; recognized for Fort Meade DC, LLC on Nov. 18) exempts 90 percent of the assessed value of qualifying new improvements and tangible personal property from countywide levies for tax years 2029 through 2038, expiring Dec. 31, 2038; it does not apply to municipal, school, MSTU, water-management-district, or voted-debt taxes, or to land. The Property Appraiser's report (Exhibit A) estimates $14,837,536 of county revenue lost in a full year on $918M of real improvements and $1,318,320,000 of equipment, with the school board still collecting about $13,159,501; the widely quoted $150M is that annual figure times ten (148,375,360), which is not in the ordinance and overstates the total because equipment depreciates. The ordinance makes no but-for finding. The City granted no exemption; instead it repays the $10M advance through credits against City ad valorem taxes, capped at 40 percent of the City levy on the property per year, carried forward, subject to annual appropriation, and running with the land (Sec. 4.d); the project is also grandfathered into the current impact-fee schedule and receives 100 percent impact-fee credits for the utility work. - Article III para. 1-2 and Article IV, pp. 3-4: "for a period of ten (10) tax years (the "Exemption Period") commencing with Tax Year 2029 through Tax Year 2038" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/ac02059f-2c47-47c8-bede-7d33fab30048.pdf - Article I para. 4.g.iii, p. 3, and Exhibit A totals: "if the exemption applied for was granted is $14,837,536" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/ac02059f-2c47-47c8-bede-7d33fab30048.pdf - recitals, p. 1: "adopted Ordinance No. 25-062 (the "Ordinance") establishing an exemption from certain ad valorem taxation" https://polkcountyfl.legistar1.com/polkcountyfl/attachments/5b6f6f06-d166-4f0c-801d-ec9e4dce1df7.pdf - Sec. 4.d.ii and 4.d.vi, packet pp. 15-16: "In no event shall the Tax Credits applied in any single tax year exceed forty percent (40%)" https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf - https://dailyridge.com/2025/11/07/polk-county-commissioners-approve-tax-exemption-to-new-business-to-build-data-center/ - https://propmodo.com/florida-data-center-plan-advances-amid-local-backlash/ ### Reported criticisms - Florida Commerce Secretary J. Alex Kelly's April 15, 2026 letter to the mayor called the project fundamentally flawed and far from approved, said the $10M is an advance on property taxes, called the 450-jobs projection a severe over projection, and said the 50,000 GPD water demand is woefully underestimated. (https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/c1/05/48b3f71a4de98d2aa86e5dede270/fort-meade-data-center-4-15-26.pdf) - The Southwest Florida Water Management District wrote the City on April 14, 2026 that the project's demand is not in the City's existing permit and needs governing-board approval at a noticed meeting; the agreement is contingent on that approval. (https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2026-04-20/floridas-commerce-secretary-comes-out-against-a-proposed-ai-data-center) - Two lawsuits filed May 14, 2026 by Lakeland attorney A. Brent Geohagan for five residents ask a judge to void the approval and block construction permits. (https://thecitrustea.com/2026/06/23/fort-meade-residents-file-two-lawsuits-to-block-stonebridge-data-center-as-watchdogs-launch-recall-push/) - The Fort Meade Recall Committee delivered petitions with more than 1,000 signatures to City Hall in mid-July 2026 seeking to remove Mayor Jaret Williams, Vice Mayor Petrina McCutchen, and Commissioner Matthew Taylor. (https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2026/07/17/fort-meade-recall-committee-submits-petitions-to-remove-city-leaders) - Forty of 41 public commenters opposed the deal at the April 14 vote, per the FloridaDataCenters.org tracker; the vice mayor defended the vote as taking a leap of faith. (https://www.aol.com/articles/lawyer-asks-fort-meade-revoke-090423000.html) - The Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the mayor and commissioners visit a comparable data center before approving the agreement; the commission approved it a week later without doing so. (https://www.cityoffortmeade.org/2026-04-14%20NEWLY%20AMENDED%20Agenda%20Regular%20City%20Commission%20meeting.pdf) --- ## Columbia County, GA (Google) - Project: Columbia County Data Center at White Oak Technology Park, Appling - Operator: Google LLC - Developer: Kinetic Infrastructure Solutions, an Alphabet subsidiary - Agreement: rezoning, approved, approved 2026-02-03 - Scale: 3,140 acres, 8,004,000 sq ft, 17,000,000,000 USD - 3,140 acres rezoned in February 2026, superseding an earlier approval over about 1,945 acres. The concept plan shows 29 buildings of roughly 276,000 square feet each plus an administration building and a 12 acre substation, and the county's own staff report calls that plan nonbinding. Capex is the figure in the development authority's announcement. No megawatt number exists: the staff report notes the utility will not run a power study until the land is zoned for data centers by right. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Columbia County Board of Commissioners agenda packet, December 2, 2025, containing the full text of Ordinance 25-07 creating the data center zoning district, including the noise, decommissioning, buffer and utility provisions: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - [primary] Board minutes, December 2, 2025, recording unanimous adoption of Ordinance 25-07 on second reading: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11281,plainText=false) - [primary] Board agenda packet, February 3, 2026, containing the staff report for the White Oak rezoning, the applicant narrative, the ambient sound study and citizen correspondence: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false) - [primary] Board minutes, February 3, 2026, recording the rezoning approval and the conditions attached to it: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11388,plainText=false) - [government_page] Columbia County news release, July 23, 2026, stating the operator will pay 100 percent of energy costs associated with the project: https://www.columbiacountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10095/Columbia-County-Google-and-Georgia-Power-Partner-to-Protect-Ratepayers-and-Make-Growth-Work-for-Residents - [primary] Georgia Public Service Commission news release on the large load rule adopted January 23, 2025 in Docket 55378: https://psc.ga.gov/site/assets/files/8617/media_advisory_data_centers_rule_1-23-2025.pdf - [primary] Georgia Public Service Commission data center fact sheet: https://psc.ga.gov/site/downloads/datacenterfactsheet.pdf - [government_page] Columbia County legislation portal, where the agenda packets and minutes are published: https://columbiacoga.portal.civicclerk.com/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No community fund in any document I can read. Local reporting describes $40 million a year to the county and $5 million a year to the development authority for seven years, first payment expected around the end of 2026, but those are payments to government, not a community controlled fund, and the memorandum of understanding that would contain them has never been published. Who disburses the money, on what criteria, and whether any resident sits anywhere near the decision, is unknown. - Ordinance 25-07, full text, which creates no community fund: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - Development authority agenda for the meeting approving the MOU, which does not list the MOU as an item: https://columbiacoga.portal.civicclerk.com/ ### Clawbacks: UNKNOWN Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed Unknown, and unknowable from the public record. The memorandum of understanding is not published, and no clawback appears in the ordinance or the rezoning conditions. Zoning conditions attach to the land, not to a performance promise, so they cannot do this work. - Ordinance 25-07 and the February 3, 2026 rezoning conditions, neither of which contains a clawback: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The board may extend the compliance timeline "at its sole discretion."" The most detailed decommissioning language in this benchmark, and not a dollar behind it. The ordinance defines permanent cessation as zero electrical load to the primary use for 90 consecutive days or 180 days in any 365, requires notice to the county within 30 days, and then requires that within twelve months all structures be demolished or removed to grade and the site restored to agricultural viability, with soil tests and replanting to federal guidelines. That is a genuinely good covenant. There is no bond, no escrow and no letter of credit, so if the operator is gone or insolvent the county is holding a promise and a demolition bill. This is the clause other places should copy and then attach money to. - Ordinance 25-07, Sec. 90-147(h)(6)q, cessation of operations: "all structures on the site shall be demolished or removed to grade and the site restored to agricultural viability" https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The commitment is stated in a county news release. The instrument that would bind it, the service contract, is not published." The strongest published statement on ratepayer protection in this benchmark, living in the weakest kind of document. The county's news release says the operator has committed to paying 100 percent of all energy costs associated with the project and that ratepayers are safeguarded from any additional infrastructure, transmission or capacity expense. That is a press release, not an instrument. The ordinance does add a real gate: before any land disturbance or building permit, a letter from the utility must verify the developer is in compliance with the provider's policies. Behind both sits the state rule adopted in January 2025, which applies to new customers above 100 megawatts, allows minimum billing, extends contracts from five to fifteen years, requires the customer to pay upstream generation, transmission and distribution costs, and requires every such contract to go to the commission before execution. The actual contract and its minimum bill are not public, so the specific number here is unknown. - County news release, July 23, 2026, p. 1: "Google has committed to paying 100 percent of all energy costs associated with this project." https://www.columbiacountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10095/Columbia-County-Google-and-Georgia-Power-Partner-to-Protect-Ratepayers-and-Make-Growth-Work-for-Residents - Ordinance 25-07, Sec. 90-147(h)(6)o, utility compliance letter: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - PSC news release on the large load rule adopted in Docket 55378: https://psc.ga.gov/site/assets/files/8617/media_advisory_data_centers_rule_1-23-2025.pdf - PSC data center fact sheet, minimum billing and contract term: https://psc.ga.gov/site/downloads/datacenterfactsheet.pdf ### Water: UNKNOWN Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: ""A water and sewer usage agreement and/or drought management plan may be required." May." Wells are banned outright, which is rare and worth naming: the development shall not use wells to provide water for any purpose. The rezoning conditions require the developer to fund all water and sewer upgrades and, before any building permit, to file a five year water and sewer projection updated at minimum annually. That is a real reporting obligation and better than most places manage. What is missing is the number. There is no gallons per day cap anywhere. The closed loop description comes from the applicant speaking at the planning commission about a neighbouring case, not from a covenant. And the drought protection is optional by its own words. - Ordinance 25-07, Sec. 90-147(h)(6)c: "The development shall not utilize wells to provide water for any purpose" https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - Board minutes, February 3, 2026, rezoning conditions, water and sewer: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11388,plainText=false) - Staff report and applicant narrative for the White Oak rezoning: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false) ### Noise: MEETS Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Buffers must remain undisturbed "to the maximum extent practicable," and a berm can cut the 500 foot residential buffer to 250 at the planning director's determination." The clearest noise standard in this benchmark and the only one with a number the public argued down. The ordinance sets 70 decibels at the exterior property line, requires an ambient sound study at rezoning and a compliance study before each building's certificate of occupancy. For this site the commission then attached a stricter condition: sound from the project shall not exceed 65 decibels at the property line. Measured baseline across five locations on the site ran 36.8 to 46.9 dBA, so 65 is still well above what neighbours hear today, and residents asked for 50. Buffers are 250 feet on exterior property lines and 500 feet against residential or agricultural land, though a planted berm can halve either figure at a staff director's determination. Generator testing is limited to weekdays, 9 to 5, two hours a day, once a month, not on federal holidays. - Board minutes, February 3, 2026, rezoning condition: "Sound from the project shall not exceed 65 decibels at the property line" https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11388,plainText=false) - Ordinance 25-07, Sec. 90-147(h)(6)c.a: "Facilities may not emit noise that exceeds 70 decibels (db) measured at the exterior property line" https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - Ordinance 25-07, Sec. 90-147(h)(6)f, buffers, and (h)(6)b, generator testing: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - Staff report, p. 3, measured ambient sound levels: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false) ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections No job number appears in any primary document and there is no binding commitment, no local hire and no wage floor. Residents raised the limited number of jobs at the planning commission hearing. Trade press estimates exist but are tied to no instrument, so I am not carrying a number. - Ordinance 25-07 and the rezoning conditions, neither of which contains a job commitment: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - Planning commission minutes in the February 3, 2026 packet, resident objections: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false) ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator Real road obligations, and a notable omission. The developer must design and construct every roadway improvement identified in the June 2025 traffic impact study, including dual northbound left turns, an additional through lane, and converting a single lane interstate roundabout to multilane. Any upgrade to county owned utilities is the applicant's sole responsibility. But haul route repair was not imposed here: a post construction haul route damage evaluation condition was drafted only for a different application, which the board denied, so the roads that carry the construction traffic to this site carry no such condition. No local subcontracting or local hire requirement. - Board minutes, February 3, 2026, rezoning conditions, transportation: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11388,plainText=false) - Ordinance 25-07, Sec. 90-147(h)(6)m, county utility upgrades: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) - Board minutes, February 3, 2026, showing the haul route condition attached only to the denied application: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11388,plainText=false) ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The staff report describes what was approved as "a nonbinding concept plan."" The zoning is exemplary and the deal is invisible. Anyone can read the ordinance, the staff reports, the sound study, the citizen correspondence and the recorded votes, and the hearings drew fifteen speakers in November and twenty five in January. The memorandum of understanding, which is the actual agreement, is not published, and the development authority agenda for the meeting that approved it does not list it as an item; the approval vote is not public either. Residents told the planning commission the project began in 2024 under non disclosure agreements, and a letter entered into the board's record says non disclosure agreements have concealed key details from residents for months. Whether the public body itself signed one is unknown. No audit, no dashboard, and the concept plan the county approved is expressly nonbinding. - Development authority agenda, August 26, 2026, which does not list the MOU: https://columbiacoga.portal.civicclerk.com/ - Citizen correspondence in the February 3, 2026 packet: "Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) have concealed key details from residents for months" https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false) - Staff report for the White Oak rezoning, p. 1: "a nonbinding concept plan" https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false) - Board minutes, February 3, 2026, recording the votes in open session: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11388,plainText=false) ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated A Georgia bond for title structure through the development authority, with the company rather than the county responsible for bonds that are non recourse to both. Beyond that the numbers are not public: no abatement percentage, no duration, no payment schedule, no forgone revenue estimate. Local reporting puts the payments at $40 million a year to the county plus $5 million to the authority for seven years. What is unusual here is the downstream plan: the county drafted state legislation, signed in May 2026, letting it set aside money for a homestead tax relief fund, subject to a November 2026 referendum, with the stated goal of eliminating the county's share of property tax. That is a real and specific way of returning the money to residents, and it is worth watching whether it survives the vote. No but for analysis appears in the authority's incentives committee minutes. - Development authority announcement of the bond for title structure and committee minutes containing no but-for analysis: https://columbiacoga.portal.civicclerk.com/ - Ordinance 25-07, which contains no tax provision, the abatement sitting instead in the unpublished MOU: https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11243,plainText=false) ### Reported criticisms - Fifteen residents spoke against the data center ordinance in November 2025 and twenty five against this rezoning in January 2026, raising noise, generator emissions, utility costs, well contamination, water use, limited jobs, traffic, and what happens if the AI buildout stalls. (https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false)) - A letter entered into the board's record objects that non-disclosure agreements concealed key details from residents for months and that the county published no verified impact assessments for water tables, streams or wastewater capacity. (https://columbiacoga.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=11363,plainText=false)) - A resident sued over the White Oak and neighbouring rezonings alleging procedural defects and conflict with the comprehensive plan. Both suits were dismissed with prejudice in March 2026 and appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals in April. (https://www.wrdw.com/2026/04/16/citizen-appeals-dismissals-columbia-county-data-center-rezoning-lawsuits/) - The memorandum of understanding, the actual agreement, is not published, and the agenda of the authority meeting that approved it does not list it. (https://columbiacoga.portal.civicclerk.com/) --- ## Newton County, GA (Meta) - Project: Morning Hornet and Baymare data center campuses at Stanton Springs, near Social Circle - Operator: Meta - Developer: Morning Hornet LLC and Baymare LLC, both Delaware limited liability companies - Agreement: development agreement, signed, signed 2018-02-27 - Scale: 416 acres, 2,000,000 sq ft - The 2018 development agreement covers about 416 acres and caps the project at up to 2,000,000 square feet of finished interior space, 40% impervious, 75 feet tall. A second campus, Baymare, added roughly 612 to 628 acres across three counties in 2021; the county's own documents give both figures. Megawatts and capital investment appear in no primary document. The Baymare development agreement itself has never been published, so what follows is the 2018 agreement, which is the one you can actually read. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Resolution R022718a and the executed Development Agreement between Newton County and Morning Hornet LLC, effective February 27, 2018, 53 pages including exhibits: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - [primary] Resolution R022718b and the Water and Sewer Capacity and Service Agreement among the water authority, Morning Hornet LLC and Newton County: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/339/R022718b-Approving-Authorization-PDF - [primary] Newton County Board of Commissioners minutes, March 2, 2021, recording the 4 to 0 vote on the Baymare development agreement with one abstention: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3769/March-2-2021 - [primary] Intergovernmental contract on revenue sharing for Stanton Springs, which governs how all payments in lieu of taxes are split among the four counties: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/431/R081616---IGC-re---Revenue-Sharing-Asgreement-for-Stanton-Springs-PDF - [primary] Joint Development Authority meeting packet, January 29, 2026, containing the bond draw approvals and the payment in lieu of taxes schedules: https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_1.29.2026.pdf - [primary] Joint Development Authority meeting packet, April 28, 2026, recording the $8,000,000 payment received and its distribution: https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_4.28.2026.pdf ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it None, and a commissioner said so on the record. There is no community fund, no annual contribution and no seat anywhere in either agreement. Meta runs a voluntary grants program that has given a reported $2.4 million in money and services across the four counties since 2020, but it is not a term of anything. When the second campus came to a vote in March 2021, Commissioner J.C. Henderson abstained and the minutes record that he was disappointed the companies do not give more back to the county. - Development Agreement, full text, which contains no community fund provision: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - Board minutes, March 2, 2021, Baymare development agreement: "he was disappointed the companies do not give more back to the county, i.e. recreation" https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3769/March-2-2021 ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed None, and the remedies section makes the asymmetry plain. On a default the non-defaulting party may seek damages or specific performance, but default does not entitle anyone to terminate the agreement. The company may terminate for convenience on thirty days notice. There is no jobs test, no investment test and no repayment trigger. The one obligation that survives non-performance runs toward the company's side of the ledger: a payment in lieu of taxes tied to a fifth building must be paid by April 2033 whether or not the building is ever built. For contrast, the same authority's agreement with a different manufacturer at the same park carries a minimum investment, a job count, a deadline, and clawbacks the authority itself calls more stringent than any earlier project. - Development Agreement, Section 6.4, remedies, and Section 6.1.3, termination for convenience: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - JDA minutes, January 29, 2026, PILOT schedule: "must be paid regardless of whether the building is actually constructed" https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_1.29.2026.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks None. Not a bond, not an escrow, not even a covenant. If the use changes from a data center, Section 6.1.2 says only that the parties shall meet and discuss to reasonably determine whether the agreement needs modifying. - Development Agreement, Section 6.1.2: "shall meet and discuss to reasonably determine if modifications to this Agreement are required" https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The county agreement does not address electricity at all beyond consenting to on-site solar, geothermal and wind. Power comes from an electric membership corporation and the transmission company built the substation and supply lines, with the development authority granting easements across the land it owns and Meta leases. Who paid for the interconnection, and whether any minimum bill exists, does not appear in any county or authority document I have read. - Development Agreement, Section 5.4.3, alternative energy sources: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - JDA minutes, April 28, 2026, transmission easement amendment: https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_4.28.2026.pdf ### Water: MEETS Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Development Agreement Section 5.4.4: "The Company may access groundwater, by drilling well(s) or otherwise, to establish an alternative or redundant water supply."" Real numbers, phased, with the strongest enforcement mechanism in this benchmark. Water is reserved at a maximum 450,000 gallons a day, phased 180,000 then 360,000 then 450,000, with peak flow of 2,500 gallons a minute for no more than 180 minutes a day. Sewer is capped at 125,000 gallons a day. The sewer system is sized for an evaporative cooling system, so this is not closed loop. A baseline monitoring report was filed and routine monitoring continues, though the customer was determined not to be a significant industrial user. What makes it unusual is the remedy: a violation lasting more than two consecutive days sends the parties to a mutually agreeable independent third party, after which the utility may cut off sewer service on thirty days notice, or ten days if the overage is 50% or more. Two things cut the other way. The development agreement separately lets the company drill its own wells for an alternative or redundant supply, which sits outside these caps entirely. And in a declared shortage the project gets top priority below only hospitals and essential public safety, its monthly allocation shall not be lowered, and the utility waives any right to cut service or impose a penalty. - Water and Sewer Agreement, Section 4.2, water capacity reservation: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/339/R022718b-Approving-Authorization-PDF - Water and Sewer Agreement, Section 4.1, sewer reservation and enforcement: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/339/R022718b-Approving-Authorization-PDF - Water and Sewer Agreement, Section 2.1(b), cooling: "generated by an evaporative cooling system anticipated to be installed at the Project" https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/339/R022718b-Approving-Authorization-PDF - Water and Sewer Agreement, Section 5.3(a) and Section 11.1, shortage priority: "the monthly allocation of water to the Customer shall not be lowered" https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/339/R022718b-Approving-Authorization-PDF - Development Agreement, Section 5.4.4, groundwater: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No numeric limit, no measurement point and no setback in any Newton County document. The only noise in the authority's record is two citizen complaints about truck traffic and a question about a highway sound barrier. - Development Agreement, full text, which contains no noise provision: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Recital C anticipates jobs. Section 3.3 removes any obligation to do anything: "The Company is not required to make any on-site or off-site improvements."" No number anywhere, and the agreement says so twice over. The only employment language is a recital anticipating that the project will create jobs. Section 3.3, headed No Required Improvements, states that the company is not required to make any on-site or off-site improvements or perform any work under the agreement. The head of the company's community development for North America told the authority in 2023 that it prefers to hire local workers it can train, which is a preference, not a term. Again the contrast within the same park is instructive: the authority's agreement with a vehicle manufacturer there binds a minimum investment and thousands of jobs by a date certain. - Development Agreement, Recital C and Section 3.3, no required improvements: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator The money mostly flows the other way. Article 4 waives, in their entirety, every county connection, permitting, plan inspection, land disturbance, building, electrical, plumbing, gas, mechanical, construction trailer and certificate of occupancy fee, and the county found the project worthy of a full exemption from impact fees. The only operator repair obligation is narrow: on a temporary closure of one parkway, restore any damaged road, curb, gutter or drainage to its previous condition. There is no haul route program. On the authority side the company contributed $1,500,000 of improvement funds, which the authority's own restated infrastructure agreement records as having been paid out of the bond issuance fee, plus up to $44,000 to reimburse repaving. The roads are owned and maintained by the authority as public rights of way. - Development Agreement, Sections 4.1, 4.1.2 and 4.2, fee and impact fee waivers: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - Development Agreement, Section 5.9, road restoration: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - JDA record of the amended and restated infrastructure agreement and improvement funds: https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_1.29.2026.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Section 8.4: the county "shall not make any public announcement... regarding the Parties entering into this Agreement" without the company's prior written consent." The agreement is public, and then does its best to make everything around it private. Section 8.1 acknowledges the agreement is a public record. Section 8.2 has the county covenant to hold confidential business information in strictest confidence, notify the company of any records request and give it two business days to respond before releasing anything. Section 8.4 goes further than any other deal here: the county shall not make a public announcement about entering into the agreement without the company's prior written consent, and on request must correct or disavow statements by people purporting to speak for the county. Section 9.3 provides no third party beneficiaries, so no resident can enforce a word of it, and Section 11.2 waives jury trial. There is no audit of any kind and no dashboard. At the authority, public comment is two minutes, must be signed up for in advance, must relate to an agenda item, and the minutes record that no response is required. - Development Agreement, Sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4, confidentiality and publicity: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - Development Agreement, Section 9.3, no third-party beneficiaries: "There are no third-party beneficiaries under this Agreement." https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - JDA minutes, January 29, 2026, public comment protocol: "This is not a question-and-answer session and no response from the JDA is required" https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_1.29.2026.pdf ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Section 3.1 states the conclusion instead of testing it: "The Parties agree that the Company would not develop the Project without such confirmation from the County."" A Georgia bond for title abatement, described more candidly in the authority's own minutes than in any other document in this benchmark. The company draws on issued bonds to transfer the improvements and equipment it bought that year into the authority's name and pays rent back in the exact same amount, so no funds actually move; the minutes state plainly that property held in the authority's name is not subject to taxation, which is why the transfer is necessary. Two bond authorizations of $42,000,000,000 each, 2018 and 2021. The 2025 draws alone totalled $1,642,731,620. Against that, a twenty year payment in lieu of taxes: $2 million a year rising to $5 million for the first campus through 2042, and $3 million a year starting in 2026 for the second through 2046. The county actually received its share of an $8,000,000 payment in April 2026, $1,137,000 to the county and $1,863,000 to the school board, and that is real money. What is missing is the arithmetic: the valuation and tax savings methodology sits in an intergovernmental agreement among the tax assessors that has never been published, no forgone revenue estimate exists, and the but for test is an assertion in Section 3.1 rather than an analysis. The consideration for the whole agreement was ten dollars. - JDA minutes, January 29, 2026, item 7: "Property held in the name of the JDA is not subject to taxation which is why this title transfer is necessary." https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_1.29.2026.pdf - JDA minutes, January 29, 2026, bond draws and PILOT schedules: https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_1.29.2026.pdf - JDA packet, April 28, 2026, the $8,000,000 payment and its distribution: https://www.i20jda.com/uploads/7/5/0/2/75024267/jda_meeting_packet_4.28.2026.pdf - Development Agreement, Sections 3.1 and 4.4, consideration and no new taxes: https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF - Revenue sharing intergovernmental contract, Sections 3(i) and 6(g): https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/431/R081616---IGC-re---Revenue-Sharing-Asgreement-for-Stanton-Springs-PDF ### Reported criticisms - A sitting commissioner abstained on the second campus, telling the board he was disappointed the companies do not give more back to the county. (https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3769/March-2-2021) - The valuation and tax savings methodology sits in an intergovernmental agreement among the tax assessors of three counties that has never been published, which is the single largest documentary gap in this deal. (https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3913/R030221) - Newton County adopted an emergency moratorium on data center applications in February 2026, finding that such development threatens its ability to provide adequate infrastructure, water and services, and extended it to October 2026. The 2018 agreement's own moratorium clause exempts this campus from it. (https://www.newtoncountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/344/R022718a---Resolution-Approving-and-Authorizing-Execution-of-a-Dvelopment-Agreement-between-NC-and-Morning-Hornet-LLC-PDF) --- ## City of Cedar Rapids, IA (Google) - Project: Google Cedar Rapids campus, 76th Avenue SW and Edgewood Road SW - Operator: Google - Developer: Heaviside LLC (Google development entity); Google LLC on the state contract - Agreement: development agreement, signed, signed 2024-02-29 - Scale: 419.69 acres, 576,000,000 USD - 419.69 acres per Exhibit 1.1 of the agreement. $576 million is the Minimum Investment in Section 1.1(r) and the IEDA contract. MW left null: The Gazette (April 2024) reported an ITC Midwest interconnection application for up to 300 MW of new load from facilities at or near Big Cedar, which Alliant called uncertain; no document states the project's own load. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Google Project Development Agreement (effective February 27, 2024; City execution notarized February 29, 2024): https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - [primary] Iowa Economic Development Authority assistance contract 24-HQJP-014 (scanned; award March 22, 2024; last signature July 29, 2024): https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-IEDA-Economic-Development-Assistance-Contract.pdf - [press] The Gazette: council signs off on unnamed company's $576 million data center: https://www.thegazette.com/local-government/cedar-rapids-city-council-signs-off-on-unnamed-companys-historic-576-million-data-center/ - [press] Business Record: IEDA approves $56M local tax break: https://www.businessrecord.com/ieda-approves-56m-local-tax-break-for-googles-576m-cedar-rapids-data-center/ - [press] The Gazette: Google data center would be among the city's largest water and energy users: https://www.thegazette.com/news/environment/google-data-center-would-be-among-cedar-rapids-largest-water-and-energy-users/article_70095b9e-c333-58c3-b664-b25ba3df016f.html ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it Community Betterment Fund: $400,000 a year per data center building from the January 1 after occupancy, for 15 years or $6M per building, whichever comes first, capped at $36M in total. KCRG reported $350,000 per building in July 2026; the executed agreement says $400,000, as The Gazette reported at approval. - Section 6.7(a) to (c), PDF pp. 15 to 16 (printed p. 12): "Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) per Data Center building constructed on the Development Property" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - https://www.thegazette.com/local-government/cedar-rapids-city-council-signs-off-on-unnamed-companys-historic-576-million-data-center/ - https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/25/cedar-rapids-mayor-explains-financial-benefits-data-center-projects/ ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed City agreement: the exemption ceases prospectively if a condition precedent lapses after a 60-day cure, and the franchise-fee rebate is skipped for any year of job noncompliance; meeting the $576M minimum investment is a condition precedent. State contract: IEDA may revoke or reduce incentives after a 30-day cure, with layoffs or Iowa closures among the default triggers, and Exhibit B-1 Section 4 requires repayment of tax incentives received in the same proportion as any job or investment shortfall, collected by the City. No trigger tied to the facility ceasing operation after the job-maintenance window closes March 31, 2033. - Sections 6.2(a) and 6.3(a), PDF p. 13: "shall cease with respect to the Project as of the January 1 following the expiration of the notice and cure period" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.6(a), PDF p. 15: "no obligation to make the next Economic Development Rebate for any Data Center" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Article 9.1(b) and (c) and 9.2, PDF p. 19 (printed p. 18); scanned, no text layer: "Revoke or reduce authorized Tax Incentives" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-IEDA-Economic-Development-Assistance-Contract.pdf - Exhibit B-1, Section 4.1, PDF pp. 29 to 30; scanned, no text layer: "the repayment amount shall be the same proportion as the amount of the shortfall in created jobs" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-IEDA-Economic-Development-Assistance-Contract.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No decommissioning term. - https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The agreement is silent on electric costs. In April 2024 The Gazette reported an ITC Midwest interconnection application for up to 300 MW of new load from facilities at or near Big Cedar, which Alliant said was uncertain; the project's own load is not stated in any document found. Alliant's data center page says data centers pay for their own equipment and power under a specific rate with long-term commitments, but that is a utility statement, not a deal term. - https://www.thegazette.com/news/environment/google-data-center-would-be-among-cedar-rapids-largest-water-and-energy-users/article_70095b9e-c333-58c3-b664-b25ba3df016f.html - https://www.alliantenergy.com/our-energy/data-centers ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting The City commits to reserve water and sewer capacity for the property per Exhibit 7.3, which is not in the posted PDF (only Exhibits 1.1, 3.1, 3.4, 5.5, and 11.3 are attached). A gray-water credit of $1.30 per hundred cubic feet, escalating 2.5 percent a year and capped at 57 percent of the sewer rate, applies to separately piped and metered cooling discharge between 0.1 and 1.5 million gallons a day, with monthly reporting only if the credit is claimed. In April 2024 the City's utilities engineering manager said capacity was being reserved in case all five potential buildings are built, and press estimates ranged from 200,000 to 7.8 million gallons a day. Google gave $1.3M toward a $12M to $14M aquifer storage well; the utilities director declined to share Google's estimated usage. - Section 6.8, PDF pp. 15 to 16: "$1.30 per ccf of Gray Wastewater Discharge produced by the Data Center that month" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.8(d), PDF p. 16: "flow at greater than 0.1 MGD and less than 1.5 MGD" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Sections 7.3 and 7.4, PDF p. 17: "The City commits to provide utility service to the Development Property up to the Development Property Capacity amounts" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - https://www.thegazette.com/news/environment/google-data-center-would-be-among-cedar-rapids-largest-water-and-energy-users/article_70095b9e-c333-58c3-b664-b25ba3df016f.html - https://www.kcrg.com/2026/06/09/cedar-rapids-drilling-new-storage-aquifer-stay-ahead-game-amidst-data-center-development/ ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No noise term. - https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections 31 full-time jobs by March 31, 2031, maintained through March 31, 2033, at a qualifying laborshed wage threshold of $31.44 an hour; Exhibit B-1 Section 3.2 requires at least 120 percent of that threshold by the completion date. Enforceable through the state contract's proportional repayment and the city exemption and rebate conditions. No local hire and no prevailing wage. - Exhibit D, PDF p. 8 (31 jobs, $31.44 threshold, maintenance to March 31, 2033); scanned, no text layer: "which shall be no later than March 31, 2031" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-IEDA-Economic-Development-Assistance-Contract.pdf - Exhibit B-1, Section 3.2, PDF p. 29; scanned, no text layer: "at least 120% of the Qualifying Wage Threshold by the Project Completion Date" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-IEDA-Economic-Development-Assistance-Contract.pdf - Section 5.2(b), PDF pp. 10 to 11 (printed pp. 7 to 8): "employ no less than the number of Full Time Equivalent Employees required under the HQJ Contract" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local contracting or road repair term. A 75 percent rebate of electric franchise fees for 20 years per data center runs the other direction. The company pays a pro rata share only if a later data center needs water or sewer capacity beyond what the City committed. - Section 6.4(a), PDF pp. 13 to 14: "75% of the electric franchise fee collected" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 7.5(b), PDF p. 18: "The Company shall pay its Pro Rata Share" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The City signed a nondisclosure agreement with Google early in the process, signed by the city manager and the utilities business manager; KCRG obtained it by records request in 2025 and reported on it in July 2026. The company was unnamed when the council approved the deal. The agreement has a confidentiality clause subject to open records law and requires the parties to record a memorandum of agreement. Council member David Maier said little had been shared on water, energy, or utility rate impacts. - https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/24/cedar-rapids-mayor-defends-data-center-projects-amid-kickback-claims-nda-questions/ - Section 11.17(b), PDF p. 24: "may disclose Confidential Information when required by applicable law" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 11.3, PDF pp. 22 to 23: "execute and record a Memorandum of Agreement" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - https://www.thegazette.com/local-government/cedar-rapids-city-council-signs-off-on-unnamed-companys-historic-576-million-data-center/ ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated 70 percent exemption on value added by the improvements for 20 years under Iowa's High Quality Jobs program, starting the January 1 after the first building completes, plus a 75 percent franchise-fee rebate. If IEDA had not approved, the City agreed to pursue a comparable 70 percent TIF rebate. The state contract estimates the local property tax exemption at $56,000,000 and awarded no state tax credits. No but-for analysis was found. - Section 6.1(b), PDF p. 12 (printed p. 9): "70% of the actual value added by the Improvements of the Project" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.4(a), PDF pp. 13 to 14: "twenty (20) annual payments to the Company" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 3.1, PDF pp. 6 to 7; the award table on p. 7 lists Property Tax Exemption, estimated amount $56,000,000; scanned, no text layer: "Total Award Amount. The IEDA Board has approved an Award" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-IEDA-Economic-Development-Assistance-Contract.pdf - Exhibit B-1, Section 2.3, PDF p. 28; scanned, no text layer: "(Per existing Development Agreement with Cedar Rapids for the Project)" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Google-IEDA-Economic-Development-Assistance-Contract.pdf ### Reported criticisms - The company was not named when the council voted; the agreement was with Heaviside LLC. (https://www.thegazette.com/local-government/cedar-rapids-city-council-signs-off-on-unnamed-companys-historic-576-million-data-center/) - The City had signed an NDA with Google before the project was public, disclosed through a records request. (https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/24/cedar-rapids-mayor-defends-data-center-projects-amid-kickback-claims-nda-questions/) - Water-use estimates ranged from 200,000 to 7.8 million gallons a day at the time of approval. (https://www.thegazette.com/news/environment/google-data-center-would-be-among-cedar-rapids-largest-water-and-energy-users/article_70095b9e-c333-58c3-b664-b25ba3df016f.html) --- ## City of Cedar Rapids, IA (QTS) - Project: QTS Cedar Rapids campus at Big Cedar Industrial Center, 76th Avenue SW - Operator: QTS - Developer: QTS Cedar Rapids I, LLC - Agreement: development agreement, signed, signed 2025-02-05 - Scale: 560 acres, 1,750,000,000 USD - 560 acres is the press figure (The Gazette, January 2025); Exhibit 1.1 of the executed agreement states 331.22 acres for the West Development Property and no acreage for the East. $1.75 billion is the anticipated total across up to seven phases per coverage of the December 2025 amended agreement; the January 2025 agreement requires a $250 million Minimum Investment per phase, and press at approval said $750 million. No MW figure in any document found. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] QTS Project Development Agreement (effective January 28, 2025; QTS signed in January 2025, City execution notarized February 5, 2025): https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - [government_page] City Council agenda, December 2, 2025 (amended and restated agreement, item 6): https://cms8.revize.com/revize/cedarrapids/Council_Meetings/2025/2025-12-02_Agenda.pdf - [government_page] City Council minutes, December 2, 2025 (Resolution 1409-12-25; no comments or objections heard or filed): https://cms8.revize.com/revize/cedarrapids/Council_Meetings/2025/2025-12-02_Minutes.pdf - [government_page] City Council minutes, January 28, 2025 (Resolution 0072-01-25 approving the agreement; T. Olson abstained, Hoeger absent): https://cms8.revize.com/revize/cedarrapids/Council_Meetings/2025/2025-01-28_Minutes.pdf - [press] The Gazette: city would rebate $529 million to data center: https://www.thegazette.com/news/local/government-notes-under-development-agreement-cedar-rapids-would-rebate-529-million-to-data-center/article_2f95ff70-c29c-511e-a85a-b1b72205205c.html - [press] The Gazette: council OKs amended QTS agreement, up to seven phases, $1.75 billion anticipated: https://www.thegazette.com/news/cedar-rapids-city-council-oks-amended-qts-development-agreement/article_37c979ab-0bdf-52bd-9e2d-9ee403f0ac36.html - [press] KCRG: mayor defends data center projects amid NDA questions (published July 23, 2026 CDT; URL dated July 24): https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/24/cedar-rapids-mayor-defends-data-center-projects-amid-kickback-claims-nda-questions/ - [primary] Linn County and QTS road use agreement, in the Board of Supervisors work session packet of October 27, 2025 (developer signed; the county signature page is blank in the published copy): https://linncoia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7860/files ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it Community Betterment Fund: $300,000 a year per phase for up to 20 years, starting the fiscal year the City first receives tax increment from that phase, capped at $6M per phase and $18M total. The developer may prepay using an 8 percent net present value discount, and may withhold payment up to the amount of any grant or rebate the City fails to appropriate. - Section 6.10(a), PDF pp. 21 to 22 (printed pp. 18 to 19): "an amount equal to $300,000 annually for each Project Phase" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.10(b), PDF p. 22: "using 8% to determine the net present value of an annuity to establish the amount to be paid" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.3(d), PDF p. 19: "withhold the Community Betterment Fund payment up to the amount of the Economic Development Grant not paid by the City" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "A job shortfall is expressly not an event of default. The only consequence is skipping the next grant, and nothing already paid comes back." Forward-looking only. If, on or after the first anniversary of a phase's completion, fewer than 15 full-time employees are maintained there, the City skips the next grant and the next franchise-fee rebate for that phase. A job shortfall is expressly not an event of default. No repayment of grants already paid, and no trigger tied to the facility ceasing operation. Failure to build the initial phases is an event of default allowing suspension, termination, or withholding of certificates after a 60-day cure. - Section 5.2(b), PDF p. 15: "shall not constitute an Event of Default under Section 10.1" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.5(a), PDF p. 19: "fewer than 15 Full Time Employees are maintained at a Project Phase" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.9(a), PDF p. 21: "no obligation to make the next Economic Development Rebate" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Sections 10.1(b) and 10.2, PDF pp. 24 to 25: "the giving of sixty (60) days' written notice by the City" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No decommissioning term in the agreement. - https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The agreement is silent on electric costs and references a separate electrical service agreement only as a permitted excuse for delay. Alliant's data center page says a specific data center rate ensures they pay for their own equipment and power with long-term financial commitments, and QTS signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge. None of that is in the city deal. - Section 1.1(jj), PDF p. 7: "failure or refusal by the applicable utility company or other electrical service provider to enter into" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - https://www.alliantenergy.com/our-energy/data-centers - https://www.kcrg.com/2026/04/24/us-energy-secretary-tours-qts-data-center-addresses-utility-water-concerns/ ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting The agreement has no cap and no reporting. QTS states it uses closed-loop air-cooled chillers and consumes no water for cooling once operational. The City builds water main and sewer to the property and paves 76th Avenue at no additional cost to the company beyond ordinary taxes and fees; press reported QTS pays about $13M in sewer and $3.8M in water connection costs. Linn County sought a $20,000 penalty from a dewatering subcontractor for up to 40 unpermitted dewatering wells at the site in 2025. - Section 1.1(gg), PDF p. 7: "water main and sanitary sewer improvements to the Development Property" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Sections 4.2 and 4.3, PDF p. 13: "constructed by the City at no additional cost to the Company" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Water-Conservation-in-Cedar-Rapids.pdf - https://www.thegazette.com/local-government/cedar-rapids-city-council-approves-data-center-agreement-calling-it-an-investment-in-the-future/ - https://www.linncountyiowa.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/4085 ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No noise term in the agreement. - https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections At least 15 full-time employees per completed phase, counting contractors, tenants, and affiliates, where full time means 30 hours a week or 1,560 hours a year at or above the IEDA laborshed wage. Certified annually each November 1 without names. The only consequence is a skipped grant or rebate. Construction job figures are projections: over 1,200 per the December 2025 amendment coverage, 500 or more per the January 2025 coverage. - Section 1.1(x), PDF p. 6: "work at least 30 hours per week or 1,560 hours per year" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 5.2(a), PDF p. 14: "employ no less than 15 Full Time Employees at the completed Project Phase" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 5.3, PDF p. 15: "shall not disclose names of employees, tenants or other personally identifiable information" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - https://www.thegazette.com/news/cedar-rapids-city-council-oks-amended-qts-development-agreement/article_37c979ab-0bdf-52bd-9e2d-9ee403f0ac36.html ### Local contracting: MEETS Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator A separate Linn County road use agreement, approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 27, 2025, carries the strongest haul-route terms in this benchmark: $117,099.90 for damage already attributed to the developer before the agreement, roughly 2.0 miles of Maple Grove Road and 0.6 miles of Linn-Johnson Road rebuilt at the developer's sole cost, and a $2,000,000 payment and performance bond naming the county as beneficiary, posted within ten business days and held until hauling ends and the roads pass inspection. The county may draw on the bond for non-visual damage at $3.86 per trip based on quarry load counts. The county keeps its ordinary maintenance duty. Still no local-subcontracting requirement. The 75 percent franchise fee rebate in the development agreement runs the other direction. - Road use agreement Section 3.A, Board of Supervisors packet October 27, 2025: "Developer shall pay one hundred and seventeen thousand, ninety-nine dollars and ninety cents ($117,099.90)" https://linncoia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7860/files - Road use agreement Section 3.C: "post and maintain a payment and performance bond ... in an amount equal to two million dollars ($2,000,000)" https://linncoia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7860/files - Road use agreement Section 3.B, Maple and Linn-Johnson improvements: "shall be undertaken by Developer at its sole cost and expense" https://linncoia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7860/files - Section 6.7, p. 20, franchise fee rebate: https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The City signed nondisclosure agreements with QTS and Google early in the process, before the projects were public, signed by the city manager and the utilities business manager. KCRG obtained them by records request in 2025 and reported on them in July 2026. The agreement has a confidentiality clause subject to Iowa open records law. The executed agreement is posted online. No dashboard and no audit; an annual employment certification and one annual meeting between City and developer. - https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/24/cedar-rapids-mayor-defends-data-center-projects-amid-kickback-claims-nda-questions/ - Section 5.4, PDF p. 15: "meet, virtually or in person, on an annual basis to mutually provide development updates" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 11.17(b), PDF pp. 28 to 29: "may disclose Confidential Information when required by applicable law" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated Up to twenty annual economic development grants per phase equal to 70 percent of the tax increment from that phase, paid from that phase's TIF only, subject to annual appropriation, and capped at $1 billion in aggregate. The owners may not seek other exemptions or convert to tax-exempt or centrally assessed status. City estimate: about $1B in total property tax, about $529M rebated. No but-for analysis was found. - Section 6.1(a)(i), PDF pp. 15 to 16: "equal in amount to 70% of the West Initial Project Tax Increments" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.1(c), PDF p. 17: "$1,000,000,000.00 ("Cumulative Maximum Amount of Grants")" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Section 6.3(a), PDF p. 18: "Each Economic Development Grant is subject to annual appropriation by the City Council" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - Sections 5.1(e) and 9.3, PDF pp. 14 and 24: "will not seek and shall not be eligible for any tax deferral, reimbursement, or exemption" https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf - https://www.thegazette.com/news/local/government-notes-under-development-agreement-cedar-rapids-would-rebate-529-million-to-data-center/article_2f95ff70-c29c-511e-a85a-b1b72205205c.html ### Reported criticisms - The City signed NDAs with both data center companies, disclosed only through a records request; the mayor denied kickback accusations. (https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/24/cedar-rapids-mayor-defends-data-center-projects-amid-kickback-claims-nda-questions/) - The amended agreement passed on December 2, 2025 with no comments or objections heard or filed at the public hearing. (https://cms8.revize.com/revize/cedarrapids/Council_Meetings/2025/2025-12-02_Minutes.pdf) - Energy advocates, including the Iowa Sierra Club's legal chair, raised unanswered questions on water and power impacts. (https://dailyiowan.com/2025/12/09/cedar-rapids-data-centers-ignite-concern-from-energy-advocates-excitement-from-officials/) --- ## City of Council Bluffs, IA (Google) - Project: Google Council Bluffs campus, 2022 expansion (state contract 23-HQJPTC-005) with earlier 2007, 2012, and 2015 awards - Operator: Google - Developer: Google LLC - Agreement: tax abatement, signed, approved 2022-10-21 - Scale: 3,000,000 sq ft, 600,000,000 USD - No reliable total acreage was confirmed. The Southlands property about four miles south of the original site is reported at 1,000 acres, bought in 2007 for expansion room; no sourced figure for the original site was found, so the 2,200-acre total previously recorded here is dropped. Square footage is Data Center Frontier's description of the existing facilities, roughly 3 million square feet across three buildings, not a figure in any agreement. Cost is the 2022 state contract amount ($600,000,000 total project cost and capital investment). Cumulative investment was reported at more than $5 billion as of 2024, plus a further $1 billion announced July 2, 2024 that appears in no state contract record. No MW figure has been published; power use has been confidential since 2007. - Verification: press - Documents: - [primary] Iowa Economic Development Authority 2025 annual report (contract 23-HQJPTC-005: $600 million, 31 jobs, $28.73 wage, $0 state tax benefit, completion 2029, maintenance 2031): https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/1600580.pdf - [primary] Iowa Administrative Code 261 chapter 68, High Quality Jobs rules (proportional repayment): https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/chapter/01-07-2026.261.68.pdf - [primary] IEDA, Tax Incentives for Data Center Businesses Under IEDA Programs, December 2014 (2007 and 2012 Google awards): https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/435115.pdf - [primary] Council Bluffs City Council record, April 20, 2015, Resolution 15-104 amending the Google master contract: https://www.councilbluffs-ia.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/323 - [press] Bisnow: Google planning $600M expansion (local tax break figure): https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/google-planning-600m-expansion-of-key-midwest-data-center-hub-116008 - [press] KMAland: council rejects moratorium, capacity and demolition-cost concerns: https://www.kmaland.com/news/council-bluffs-council-denies-proposed-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/article_57610dda-a991-41c5-99a5-d4bd772cd936.html ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "All community giving is voluntary, with no agreement obligating any of it." No community betterment payment, unlike Google's Cedar Rapids deal. Voluntary giving: more than $3 million to local schools and nonprofits since 2009, the BLink free Wi-Fi partnership with the city, $250,000 to Advance Southwest Iowa in 2023, and a $1.3 million grant to the Great Outdoors Foundation in 2024 for Missouri River basin grade stabilization at 47 locations. - https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/cloud/article/11427613/google-has-invested-5-billion-in-its-iowa-data-centers - https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/hyperscale/article/55093750/google-continues-to-invest-in-iowa-with-another-1-billion-planned-for-its-council-bluffs-campus - https://www.thegazette.com/energy/google-will-spend-another-1b-on-council-bluffs-data-center-1-3m-for-river-restoration/ ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed Iowa's High Quality Jobs rules require repayment in the same proportion as the job or capital shortfall, the greater of the two if both, and full repayment if the business fails to meet the benefit requirements or to maintain program eligibility. The 2022 contract carried no state tax benefit, so the state clawback has little to bite on; whether the city's abatement has its own clawback is unknown because the city agreement is not posted. - 261 IAC 68.6(9)(c)(3), Ch 68 p. 8: "the repayment amount or reduction of incentives shall be the same proportion as the greater of the two shortfalls" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/chapter/01-07-2026.261.68.pdf - 261 IAC 68.6(9)(c)(5), Ch 68 p. 8: "if a business fails to maintain eligibility for the program, the business shall repay all of the incentives received" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/chapter/01-07-2026.261.68.pdf - p. 38, Projects Under Contract, Performance Period: "Google, LLC (23-HQJPTC-005) - 10/21/2022 Council Bluffs (Pottawattamie County)" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/1600580.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks None found. In June 2026 Mayor Jill Shudak named the cost of demolishing a site if data centers leave as an issue the city has not addressed: if they leave and the city has to take on the cost to demolish it, that is an extremely large cost. - https://www.kmaland.com/news/council-bluffs-council-denies-proposed-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/article_57610dda-a991-41c5-99a5-d4bd772cd936.html ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving Served by MidAmerican Energy. In 2007 MidAmerican would not say how much electricity the data center would consume, citing a confidentiality agreement with Google. Google contracted 407 megawatts of MidAmerican wind energy for its Council Bluffs operations in 2014. Who pays for interconnection and whether any minimum bill applies is unknown. - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna19592197 - https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/sustainability/google-we-ve-bought-1-gigawatt-of-renewable-energy ### Water: UNKNOWN Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The only water reporting is Google's own voluntary corporate disclosure; no agreement requires it." Google's own 2025 environmental report lists Council Bluffs as the highest-withdrawal and highest-consumption site in its data center table: 1,410.3 million gallons withdrawn, 400.1 discharged and 1,010.2 consumed in 2024. That reporting is voluntary. The city's public works director said data center requests run about a million to two million gallons a day, that water and sewer are operating at very high capacity, and that expanding wastewater infrastructure could cost $200 million to $300 million. No cap or reporting requirement in a city agreement was found. - p. 110, water use by data center location, 2024: "Council Bluffs, IA Million gallons 1,410.3 400.1 1,010.2" https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2025-environmental-report.pdf - https://www.kmaland.com/news/council-bluffs-council-denies-proposed-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/article_57610dda-a991-41c5-99a5-d4bd772cd936.html ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections The 2022 state contract requires 31 created jobs at a qualifying wage of $28.73 an hour, with a project completion date of 10/31/2029 and a maintenance date of 10/31/2031, enforceable through the proportional clawback. Earlier awards required 60 jobs at $25.02 in 2007 and 35 jobs at $18.81 in 2012. Google has reported more than 900 people employed on site in full-time and supplier roles. - p. 38, contracted jobs, qualifying wage, completion and maintenance dates: "Google, LLC (23-HQJPTC-005) - 10/21/2022 Council Bluffs (Pottawattamie County)" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/1600580.pdf - p. 2, project data summary, 2007 award: "Google, Inc. Council Bluffs 11/15/2007 $300,000,000 $300,000,000 $1,406,250 $25.02 60" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/435115.pdf - p. 2, project data summary, 2012 award: "Google, Inc. Council Bluffs 04/20/2012 $700,000,000 $700,000,000 $16,800,000 $18.81 35" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/435115.pdf - https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/cloud/article/11427613/google-has-invested-5-billion-in-its-iowa-data-centers ### Local contracting: UNKNOWN Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule State awards and contract status are public in the IEDA annual report and the state's open project dataset. The city's own agreements were approved in open session but could not be located online; the April 20, 2015 record shows only that the council authorized the mayor to execute an amendment to Master Contract 12-TC-071. Power use has been confidential since the first agreement. - https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/1600580.pdf - Resolution 15-104, April 20, 2015, unanimous 5-0 vote: "authorizing the Mayor to execute an Amendment to the Master Contract Number 12-TC-071 by and between Google Inc., the City of Council Bluffs" https://www.councilbluffs-ia.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/323 - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna19592197 ### Tax incentives: UNKNOWN Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated The city granted a reported $16.6 million property-tax break for the 2022 expansion; its percentage and term are not published. State tax benefits: $1,406,250 awarded in 2007, $16,800,000 in 2012, and a $19.8 million sales and use tax refund approved in April 2015, which Data Center Knowledge described as bringing Google's Iowa state incentives to about $36.6 million (that $36.6 million counts the 2015 and 2012 awards only; adding 2007 brings it to about $38 million). The 2022 award carried no state tax benefit. Iowa also grants a sales and use tax exemption under Iowa Code 423.3(95) to data center businesses investing at least $200 million within their first six years. - https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center/google-planning-600m-expansion-of-key-midwest-data-center-hub-116008 - https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/hyperscalers/iowa-officials-approve-tax-breaks-for-google-data-center-expansion - p. 2, tax benefits awarded column: "Google, Inc. Council Bluffs 04/20/2012 $700,000,000 $700,000,000 $16,800,000 $18.81 35" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/435115.pdf - p. 38, max tax benefit $0 for 23-HQJPTC-005: "Google, LLC (23-HQJPTC-005) - 10/21/2022 Council Bluffs (Pottawattamie County)" https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/1600580.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Mayor Jill Shudak proposed a one-year moratorium in June 2026 over water and sewer capacity, the chance to look at a community benefits agreement, and unaddressed demolition costs; the council rejected it unanimously (no tally was reported). (https://www.kmaland.com/news/council-bluffs-council-denies-proposed-moratorium-on-new-data-centers/article_57610dda-a991-41c5-99a5-d4bd772cd936.html) - Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rob Sand's 2026 plan would end state data center tax breaks, prohibit NDAs on future deals, require developers to pay 100 percent of utility upgrade costs, and mandate public disclosure of water and energy use, size, acreage, and jobs. (https://www.thegazette.com/news/elections/sand-unveils-plan-to-end-iowa-data-center-tax-breaks/article_8eb1a97a-db27-4dad-9b17-50a9a9de6c9c.html) --- ## St. Joseph County, IN (Amazon) - Project: Amazon data center campus at the Indiana Enterprise Center, New Carlisle, Olive Township - Operator: Amazon Web Services - Developer: Amazon Data Services, Inc. - Agreement: development agreement, signed, signed 2024-08-13 - Scale: 11,000,000,000 USD - About $11 billion of potential total project investment across three sites, with roughly 400 permanent positions described in an attachment. Acreage and megawatts appear in no county document; press puts the site at about 870 acres. On the utility side the regulator's record shows the serving utility's Indiana peak going from about 2,800 megawatts to more than 7,000, driven by loads of this kind. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Board of Commissioners agenda packet, August 13, 2024, containing the executed Economic Development Agreement at pages 33 to 61 and the Community Enhancement Agreement at pages 62 to 72: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - [primary] County Council agenda packet, August 13, 2024, containing the four adopted resolutions, the tax abatement memorandum of agreement and the amended Form SB-1: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2021 - [primary] Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission final order in Cause No. 46097, approving the large load settlement among the utility, consumer advocates and the data center companies including Amazon: https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/ord_46097_021925.pdf ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The agreement terminates on its fifth anniversary regardless of a 35 year exemption, and most line items are one time payments per building rather than recurring." A community enhancement agreement that runs to the redevelopment commission rather than to any community body, and it is much smaller than the number in circulation. The itemised commitments are a fire services fee, a student success fee and a park fee at ten cents per square foot each, $25,000 for pollinator landscaping, $450,000 for professional services, $50 an acre for water quality, and $120,000 for the sheriff, each due once within 90 days of a certificate of occupancy. The only guaranteed floor in the whole document is $1,425,600 across the three per square foot fees, payable as a shortfall if the total falls under that by the termination date, and the agreement terminates on its fifth anniversary. A contingent $7 million for a highway interchange applies only if an interchange is built. The widely reported $143 million figure appears nowhere in the agreement, and I could not reconcile it to any document. Once paid, the company has no further responsibility for how the money is used, and no resident holds a seat. - Community Enhancement Agreement, Exhibit A, itemised contributions: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Community Enhancement Agreement, Section 1, the $1,425,600 floor, and Section 4, five year termination: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Community Enhancement Agreement, Section 5.B, no further responsibility for the funds: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed SOFTENING LANGUAGE: ""Failure to meet County expectations as to milestones, capital expenditures, jobs created, or salaries, will not constitute a failure to substantially comply."" Present in form and firewalled in substance. Section 7 of the development agreement makes denial of the abatement the county's sole remedy for failing to substantially comply with the statement of benefits, and it is prospective only: nothing already abated comes back. The qualifiers do most of the work. Failure to meet county expectations on milestones, capital expenditure, jobs or salaries does not count as non-compliance if the figures fall reasonably near the stated parameters, or if a force majeure event caused the shortfall, and force majeure is defined to include inability to secure materials or labour through ordinary sources, any change in law, permit delays and insufficient utilities. Section 2(C) states plainly that the county has no right to compel construction, investment or job creation, and liability for breach is capped at the lesser of one year of incentives or $1,000,000. The sharpest term is elsewhere: breaching the community enhancement agreement expressly cannot be treated as a default under any other agreement, so failing to pay the community money cannot cost the company its tax abatement. The two instruments are deliberately insulated from each other, and that is the single most transferable lesson in this record. - Economic Development Agreement, Section 7, sole remedy and qualifiers: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Economic Development Agreement, Section 2(C): "the County has no right to compel the Company to commence or complete construction of the Project, make investments, or create jobs" https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Community Enhancement Agreement, Section 1 and Section 5.A, firewall from other agreements: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No bond, escrow, letter of credit or covenant in either agreement or any of the four resolutions. The nearest analogue is environmental rather than structural, and it is genuinely good: the company must install at least two upgradient and two downgradient groundwater monitoring wells at each of the three sites, sample twice a year for at least five years from the start of production, pay all costs, and report depth quarterly and quality twice a year to the commissioners, the redevelopment commission and the town. After five years the cost shifts to the public bodies if they want it continued. - Community Enhancement Agreement, Exhibit A, paragraph J, groundwater monitoring: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The strongest grid terms in this benchmark, and none of them were written by the county, whose agreement is silent on electricity entirely. The regulator approved a settlement among the utility, the state consumer counselor, a consumer advocacy group and the data center companies including this one. A minimum twelve year contract term after a ramp of up to five years. An eighty percent minimum monthly billing demand, which the consumer advocate's witness computed as an aggregate floor of $35.034 per kilowatt, roughly $492 million a year for a thousand megawatt customer against about $173 million under the old sixty percent floor. Collateral equal to twenty four months of the maximum expected non-fuel bill, recomputed annually. An exit fee equal to the remaining minimum charge, which the same witness testified would exceed $1 billion for a thousand megawatt customer leaving five or more years early, and forty two months' written notice to reduce or terminate, with any reduction beyond twenty percent having to come back to the commission for approval. That is what a minimum bill looks like when it is designed to survive departure. The unresolved piece is who pays for the wires: the consumer advocate's witness testified it is unlikely large load customers will be directly assigned direct connect facility costs, which could shift hundreds of millions of dollars, so I am leaving interconnection unknown rather than crediting it. - Final order, Cause No. 46097, settlement terms on contract term and minimum billing demand: https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/ord_46097_021925.pdf - Final order, Cause No. 46097, exit fee, collateral and 42 month notice: https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/ord_46097_021925.pdf - Final order, Cause No. 46097, testimony on direct connect facility cost assignment: https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/ord_46097_021925.pdf - Economic Development Agreement, full text, which contains no electricity provision: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 ### Water: UNKNOWN Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The reporting obligation is real but covers groundwater conditions, not the company's own consumption, which no document requires it to disclose." Real public reporting and no cap. There is no gallons per day limit, no recycling requirement and no cooling type in any county document. What exists is the groundwater monitoring programme: quarterly depth reporting and twice yearly quality reporting to three public bodies for at least five years, paid by the company, plus a one time fifty dollars an acre water quality fee. That is more public water data than most deals in this benchmark produce. The governing document for supply is missing: the community enhancement agreement recites a separate water and sewer infrastructure agreement with the redevelopment commission which is not attached to any retrievable packet, so the actual volumes and terms are unknown. - Community Enhancement Agreement, Exhibit A, paragraph J, monitoring and reporting cadence: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Community Enhancement Agreement, Exhibit A, paragraphs F and H, water quality fee and the unattached water and sewer agreement: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line Nothing in either agreement. No limit, no measurement point, no setback. Worth noting that at the same August 13, 2024 meeting the council adopted a separate bill revising development standards for large scale solar energy systems, so it was actively writing performance standards for another land use on the same night without writing any for this one. - Economic Development Agreement and Community Enhancement Agreement, neither of which contains a noise provision: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Section 2(C) calls the assumptions and estimates "good faith estimates," and Section 7 separately excuses figures that fall reasonably near them." A binding wage floor and no binding headcount, which is an unusual split and worth being precise about. Section 2(F) is a genuine covenant: the average wage of the company's employees engaged in operating the project will be at least 125% of the county average wage for as long as any qualified property holds an exemption. That is enforceable and the consequence is the exemption itself. The 400 jobs figure is not. It appears in a narrative attachment, while Section 3 of the binding statement of benefits form, headed Estimate of Employees and Salaries as Result of Proposed Project, is filled in as not applicable and zero. So the form that carries legal weight carries no number. There is no local hire requirement, no prevailing wage, and no construction job count anywhere. - Economic Development Agreement, Section 2(F), the 125% wage covenant: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Amended Form SB-1, Section 3, employees and salaries entered as not applicable and zero: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2021 - Attachment to the amended Form SB-1, the 400 position narrative: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2021 ### Local contracting: UNKNOWN Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The road commitment is "as set forth and agreed upon in a separate Road Improvement Agreement to be executed," which is an agreement to agree." No local subcontracting requirement. Road repair is promised but deferred to a document that does not exist in the record: the community enhancement agreement says the company will pay for pavement restoration and associated road improvements and donate easements as set forth in a separate road improvement agreement to be executed. That agreement is referenced, not attached, and I could not retrieve it, so I am scoring road repair as unknown rather than crediting an agreement to agree. The contingent $7 million for a highway interchange applies only if one is built. The company does agree to run annual fire department training with regional departments at its own expense. - Community Enhancement Agreement, Exhibit A, paragraphs G, I and K: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The county keeps the last word but only after the company has been consulted: "the final determination of whether a particular record is an exception to disclosure under APRA shall be in County's sole discretion."" Both agreements are public and were published in agenda packets, and no non-disclosure agreement by a public body appears anywhere. Section 2(E) then builds a notification and consultation gate into the state public records act: the county must notify the company of any request relating to the project as far in advance as practicable, must consult with it on the extent to which records may be withheld, and to the extent disclosure is made will disclose only what the act requires. Reporting is the statutory annual compliance form plus an annual report to the redevelopment commission, both self certified by the company and neither independently audited. No dashboard. At the regulator, the executed electric service agreements and transmission letters are produced only on the commission's request and under confidential treatment the settling parties jointly asked for. - Economic Development Agreement, Section 2(E), public records notification and consultation: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Economic Development Agreement, Section 2(E) and Exhibit E, annual compliance filing: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Final order, Cause No. 46097, confidential treatment of service agreements: https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/ord_46097_021925.pdf ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated Two stacked abatements and no substitute revenue at all. Real property gets a flat 50% deduction for ten years, inside an economic revitalisation area designated for fifty, with no dollar cap on the deduction. Personal property, which is where the money is in a data center, gets an 85% exemption for thirty five years, and each building starts its own thirty five year clock, so the agreement's own worked example runs a 2027 assessment out to 2062. The company may elect to delay the start of either clock on any building by giving notice within thirty days, without forfeiting a year, and transferees inherit the exemption. There is no payment in lieu of taxes and no fee in lieu of any kind, which is exactly why the community enhancement agreement exists and exactly why it is so small next to the abatement. No forgone revenue estimate appears in any document I read. The but for test is a finding that the benefits are sufficient to justify the deduction, which is not the same question, and the council separately waived, retroactively, non-compliance arising because redevelopment began before the statement of benefits was filed. - Resolution R11-24, economic revitalisation area, 50 year designation and no dollar cap: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2021 - Economic Development Agreement, Section 2(F) and Section 3, 35 year personal property exemption and election to delay: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2022 - Resolution R11-24, Section 2.g, benefits sufficient to justify, and Section 2.f, retroactive waiver: https://www.sjcindiana.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08132024-2021 ### Reported criticisms - Two of nine council members voted against the package. A taxpayer told the council that residents had seen their taxes double and triple while the largest corporation in America received a multibillion dollar tax cut. (https://wsbt.com/news/local/amazon-data-center-final-vote-approve-buildings-jobs-construction-economy-revenue-funds-community-enhancement-agreement-redevelopment-commission-council-new-carlisle-st-joseph-county-indiana) - In March 2026 four council members who had voted for the abatement asked the company to renegotiate it, citing another operator reopening its deal with a neighbouring county. The company declined to discuss it publicly. (https://www.wvpe.org/wvpe-news/2026-03-31/amazon-declines-publicly-discussing-renegotiating-tax-break) - In June 2026 the same members asked for a voluntary payment toward homeowner property tax relief after nearly $38 million was abated in the first half of that year alone. (https://www.wvpe.org/wvpe-news/2026-06-24/council-members-asking-amazon-to-pay-despite-tax-abatement) - In the utility proceeding, consumer advocates argued the originally proposed minimum billing demand and termination fee did not correspond to actual costs, and that load above 150 megawatts should be firewalled from existing ratepayers in cost allocation. (https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/ord_46097_021925.pdf) --- ## Richland Parish, LA (Meta) - Project: Meta Hyperion data center, Franklin Farm megasite near Holly Ridge - Operator: Meta - Developer: Laidley LLC (Meta subsidiary; since October 2025 owned by Beignet Investor LLC, a Blue Owl and Meta joint venture in which Blue Owl holds 80 percent and Meta 20 percent) - Agreement: pilot, signed, approved 2025-08-20 - Scale: 2,000 MW, 2,250 acres, 4,000,000 sq ft, 10,000,000,000 USD - Figures as announced in December 2024. The governor's announcement states 2,250 acres, 4 million square feet and $10 billion; it does not state a megawatt figure, and the 2 GW number comes from trade press coverage of the same announcement. The project was expanded to $27 billion in October 2025 and to more than $50 billion, about 5 GW, and 3,200-plus acres in July 2026. Entergy's certified generation for the site totals 2,262 MW across three combined cycle plants, two in Richland Parish and one at Killona. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Louisiana Public Service Commission Order U-37425 with the stipulated settlement term sheet (Entergy generation and transmission for the Meta site): https://lpscpubvalence.lpsc.louisiana.gov/portal/PSC/ViewFile?fileId=nDWn/juc2+A%3D - [primary] Joint motion for approval of settlement, public redacted version: https://www.all4energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-08-07-ELL-Joint-Mtn-for-Rule-57-Approval.pdf - [primary] LPSC business and executive session transcript, August 20, 2025: https://www.lpsc.louisiana.gov/docs/transcripts/August-20-2025-BE.pdf - [press] Shreveport-Bossier Advocate: a first look at lease terms and tax benefits (from records-request copies of the state lease and PILOT, which are not posted): https://www.shreveportbossieradvocate.com/business/a-first-look-at-lease-terms-tax-benefits-for-richland-meta-ai-data-center/article_037b70ea-c6dc-11ef-b454-1331871da095.html - [analysis] Alliance for Affordable Energy and Union of Concerned Scientists motion for investigation: https://www.all4energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-01-14-U-37425-AAE-UCS-Mtn-for-Investigation.pdf - [government_page] Governor's announcement, December 4, 2024: https://gov.louisiana.gov/news/4697 ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No community fund under parish control. Meta-directed giving includes more than $1 million in community grants through its Future is for Everyone Fund, $300,000 to the Richland Revitalization Board, $5 million to Louisiana Delta Community College, and full scholarships for graduates of Richland Parish's high schools beginning with the class of 2026. At the August 2025 session Entergy committed $1 million a year to its Power to Care bill-assistance program over the 15-year term, matched by Meta, about $30 million in total. A March 2026 agreement expanded this to $120 million for Power to Care including matching funds, $140 million for energy efficiency for vulnerable customers, and $2 billion in projected customer savings over 20 years. - https://datacenters.atmeta.com/asset/richland-parish-data-center-info-sheet/ - p. 26, Power to Care commitment: "over the 15-year term, we will contribute an additional $1 million to the Power to Care that will be matched by Meta" https://www.lpsc.louisiana.gov/docs/transcripts/August-20-2025-BE.pdf - https://www.entergy.com/news/entergy-louisiana-announces-a-new-agreement-with-meta-that-will-deliver-an-additional-2b-in-customer-savings ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed Under the state ground lease the base purchase price for the site rises if the project fails to meet the capital and employment goals, and the state may redeem ownership if the lessee falls below 75 percent of both the capital requirement and the employment requirement by December 3, 2028. PILOT payments step through four levels tied to investment and jobs. On the utility side an early-termination fee is backed by a Meta Platforms parent guaranty; after the October 2025 ownership change advocates argue the guaranty no longer reaches an entity with assets, because Laidley's new parent Beignet has not signed one and holds no assets beyond the data center. No trigger is tied simply to the facility ceasing operation. - https://www.shreveportbossieradvocate.com/business/a-first-look-at-lease-terms-tax-benefits-for-richland-meta-ai-data-center/article_037b70ea-c6dc-11ef-b454-1331871da095.html - Term Sheet IV.B.3 and IV.C, parent guaranty and early termination fee: "ELL will ensure that all Parent Guaranty agreements are obtained and fully executed timely" https://lpscpubvalence.lpsc.louisiana.gov/portal/PSC/ViewFile?fileId=nDWn/juc2+A%3D - pp. 4 to 5 and 10 to 12, Beignet ownership and parent guaranty: "Beignet now owns an 80% stake in the data center, while Meta retains only a 20% stake" https://www.all4energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-01-14-U-37425-AAE-UCS-Mtn-for-Investigation.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No bond, escrow, or letter of credit. The only fallback is the state's right to redeem the leased land if investment and jobs fall short. - https://www.shreveportbossieradvocate.com/business/a-first-look-at-lease-terms-tax-benefits-for-richland-meta-ai-data-center/article_037b70ea-c6dc-11ef-b454-1331871da095.html ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving Meta pays directly, through contributions in aid of construction, for interim transmission, the customer-paid substations including six customer substations, the point-of-delivery lines, and the Smalling to Car Gas 500 kV line, and the order books those at a zero plant-in-service balance so they carry no rate base. The three new combined cycle plants (2,262 MW) go into all customers' rates through Entergy's formula rate plan, and Staff told the commission Meta's minimum monthly charges are sized to cover 100 percent of their cost including overruns over the 15-year initial ESA term. Intervenor testimony puts the generators' depreciable life at 30 years, twice that term. The Mount Olive to Sarepta 500 kV line and the Sterlington upgrades are recovered from all ratepayers after a prudence review; Entergy listed that line at approximately $358 million as of March 2026. Collateral is a Meta Platforms parent guaranty plus credit insurance. - Term Sheet I.A.2 to I.A.5, I.B.4 to I.B.8, III.A, IV.B: "offset the full amount of transmission capital additions for the Interim Transmission Facilities, the Customer-Paid Substations, Point-of-delivery Transmission Facilities" https://lpscpubvalence.lpsc.louisiana.gov/portal/PSC/ViewFile?fileId=nDWn/juc2+A%3D - pp. 16 to 17 and 43 to 44, minimum bill and 15-year term: "Meta's minimum bill will cover 100% of the cost of the three new generators and that includes any cost overruns" https://www.lpsc.louisiana.gov/docs/transcripts/August-20-2025-BE.pdf - p. 10, ESA term against depreciable life: "the initial term of the ESA (15 years) is significantly shorter than the depreciable life of the Planned Generators (30 years)" https://www.all4energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-01-14-U-37425-AAE-UCS-Mtn-for-Investigation.pdf - https://www.entergylouisiana.com/transmission - https://blog.ucs.org/paul-arbaje/whats-next-after-louisianas-gas-plant-approval-for-meta-data-center/ ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Annual water-use reporting is voluntary, offered for the first five years, and no state body monitors usage or aquifer condition." No enforceable cap. The state registered six wells for the site at a combined rate of about 23 million gallons a day; Meta projects 500 to 600 million gallons a year once running. Meta has agreed to voluntarily submit annual water-use reports to the state for its first five years of operation; no state body monitors usage or aquifer condition. Cooling is a closed-loop glycol system that Meta says needs no water for a majority of the year. Two of the Entergy plants will draw water from Delhi. - https://www.therichlandbeaconnews.com/article/1024,how-much-water-will-data-center-use - https://datacenters.atmeta.com/asset/richland-parish-data-center-info-sheet/ - https://www.wwno.org/public-health/2026-04-13/were-monitoring-the-air-and-water-around-metas-data-center-in-louisiana-heres-why ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections The state lease and PILOT step up required full-time jobs alongside capital: at least 100 by December 31, 2028 with $5 billion invested, then 300, then $8 billion and 450, then $9.5 billion and 475, then $10 billion and 500 by December 31, 2032. The Advocate's account of the middle steps carries inconsistent year labels, so only the first and last rungs are firm. The PILOT requires an average wage of at least 150 percent of the statewide annual average, which against the Louisiana Workforce Commission's $58,614.92 is roughly $88,000; the separate $82,000 figure is the average salary stated in Entergy's application and repeated in the LPSC order. Missing the targets raises the purchase price or lets the state redeem the land, so the numbers are binding. Meta now claims 1,000 operational and 7,500-plus peak construction jobs. Actual job counts became confidential after the commission voted in August 2026 to quash subpoenas seeking them. - https://www.shreveportbossieradvocate.com/business/a-first-look-at-lease-terms-tax-benefits-for-richland-meta-ai-data-center/article_037b70ea-c6dc-11ef-b454-1331871da095.html - p. 1, project description: "expected to employ more than 500 permanent employees with an average salary of $82,000" https://lpscpubvalence.lpsc.louisiana.gov/portal/PSC/ViewFile?fileId=nDWn/juc2+A%3D - https://datacenters.atmeta.com/asset/richland-parish-data-center-info-sheet/ - https://thelensnola.org/2026/08/31/metas-data-center-will-be-the-biggest-in-the-u-s-but-no-one-knows-who-theyre-hiring/ ### Local contracting: UNKNOWN Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local-contracting requirement. Meta claims more than $1.6 billion in contracts to Louisiana businesses and an infrastructure pledge that grew from more than $200 million at the December 2024 announcement to more than $1 billion, including Delhi utility upgrades and a new industrial wastewater plant. Meta balked at the standard 1 percent of construction cost and paid the parish a flat $10 million permit fee instead of about $100 million. Pledges are not contract terms and are not counted here. - https://datacenters.atmeta.com/asset/richland-parish-data-center-info-sheet/ - https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/louisiana-town-transformed-by-meta-data-center-interest - https://gov.louisiana.gov/news/4697 ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The governor personally signed a mutual nondisclosure agreement with Laidley LLC on April 23, 2024, and records obtained from Louisiana Economic Development show at least 50 public officials signed NDAs since he took office. The electric service agreement, contributions in aid of construction, and parent guaranty were filed under seal, and the settlement itself is posted only as a public redacted version. The lease and PILOT were obtained by reporters through records requests, not posted. Entergy files quarterly monitoring reports to Commission Staff in the form of Attachment 1; annual reporting of customer usage, demand and billing is confidential under the order. On August 12, 2026 the commission voted 3 to 1 to quash subpoenas that would have required Meta to substantiate its job, economic, and load claims. Reporters later found that Entergy's vice president for regulatory and public affairs drafted a commission motion supporting the project. - https://www.wwno.org/politics/2026-07-24/gov-jeff-landry-personally-signed-an-nda-with-meta-heres-what-it-says - https://www.mpbonline.org/blogs/news/a-muzzle-on-elected-officials-ndas-cloak-louisianas-biggest-business-developments/ - Term Sheet IV.D.2 and Attachment 1, monitoring procedures: "annual reporting of Customer usage, demand and billing. All such information shall remain confidential" https://lpscpubvalence.lpsc.louisiana.gov/portal/PSC/ViewFile?fileId=nDWn/juc2+A%3D - https://www.wwno.org/politics/2026-08-12/louisiana-psc-kills-ruling-that-would-force-meta-to-turn-over-key-data-center-information - https://www.wwno.org/local-regional-news/2026-08-11/tracked-changes-an-entergy-exec-ghostwrote-louisiana-psc-motions-supporting-meta-hyundai ### Tax incentives: UNKNOWN Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated A 30-year PILOT under which Meta pays 20 to 40 percent of what ad valorem taxes would otherwise be, depending on investment and job levels, pegging at 20 percent once PILOT Level 4 of $10 billion invested and 500 jobs is reached. Paying 20 to 40 percent means abating 60 to 80 percent, so 70 is the midpoint of the abatement range; the long-run rate at full performance is 80 percent. Payments split 53 percent to the school board, 35 percent to the police jury, 12 percent to the parish law enforcement district. The PILOT also collects 1 percent on construction materials, furniture and fixtures. Separately, Louisiana exempts the site's data center equipment, including GPUs, from state and local sales and use tax for 20 years; Sherwood News estimated the break on GPU purchases alone at more than $3.3 billion, which a Good Jobs First analyst called conservative, and that is the forgone figure used here. State lease rent is $732,000 a year for the 30-year primary term, dropping to $120 a year in a 69-year renewal term with a $12 million purchase option. The parish sales and use tax office received a single sales tax payment of $22,406,676.75; the PILOT itself starts at the initial certificate of occupancy and had not begun. - https://www.shreveportbossieradvocate.com/business/a-first-look-at-lease-terms-tax-benefits-for-richland-meta-ai-data-center/article_037b70ea-c6dc-11ef-b454-1331871da095.html - https://www.shreveportbossieradvocate.com/business/meta-data-center-in-richland-parish-sends-a-big-sales-tax-check/article_e7dede0f-fc21-4c5b-b341-207b1ca7c238.html - https://sherwood.news/tech/hyperion/ - https://fortune.com/2026/05/14/meta-data-center-tax-break-hyperion-louisiana/ ### Reported criticisms - Advocates argue the parent guaranty no longer reaches an entity with assets after ownership moved to a Blue Owl joint venture, and that ratepayers carry the stranded-cost risk when the 15-year term ends on generators with a 30-year depreciable life. (https://www.all4energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-01-14-U-37425-AAE-UCS-Mtn-for-Investigation.pdf) - The dissenting commissioner said there was a lot he could not verify; the commission later killed subpoenas that would have tested the job and load claims. (https://www.wwno.org/politics/2026-08-12/louisiana-psc-kills-ruling-that-would-force-meta-to-turn-over-key-data-center-information) - Researchers warn maximum pumping could affect shallow domestic wells; residents have reported discolored tap water and LSU researchers are analyzing community air and water samples. (https://www.wwno.org/public-health/2026-04-13/were-monitoring-the-air-and-water-around-metas-data-center-in-louisiana-heres-why) --- ## City of St. Louis, MO (Contour) - Project: Armory Innovation Data Center, 3728 Market Street (former Famous-Barr/Macy's warehouse) - Developer: Contour, TeraWatt, THO Investments, Steadfast City, ARCO (Armory Innovation District team; David Lambiaso is the permit holder) - Agreement: other, approved, approved 2026-04-21 - Scale: 120 MW, 525,000 sq ft, 3,000,000,000 USD - 120 MW and $3 billion are press and City figures (STLPR, City news release). 525,000 sq ft is implied by the CBA term sheet's $30 per square foot and $15,750,000 estimate and was reported by the Post-Dispatch; the developer-aligned missouridatacenters.org page says about 500,000. No acreage stated in any document. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Community Benefits Agreement term sheet (City summary of CBA provisions). No executed or recorded CBA with the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority had been posted as of September 7, 2026.: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf - [primary] Conditional use permit provisions (City summary of the nine conditions): https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Conditional-Use-provisions.pdf - [government_page] City detail sheet: project conditions, components, and benefits (revenue and jobs projections): https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Details-on-Project-Conditions-Components-and-Benefits.pdf - [government_page] City page: Armory data center conditional use: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/armory-data-center-conditional-use.cfm - [government_page] City news release: permit approved, conditions and community benefit framework: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/news/data-center-permit-approved.cfm - [government_page] LCRA Revitalization Corporation special meeting materials, August 28, 2026 (agenda item: Discussion of Community Benefits Agreement): https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/sldc/boards/documents/august-28-2026-lcra-revitalization-corporation-special-board-meeting-materials.cfm - [press] STLPR: Board of Adjustment allows data center to move forward with new rules after 11-hour hearing: https://www.stlpr.org/health-science-environment/2026-07-30/st-louis-board-allows-data-center-near-armory-to-move-forward-with-new-rules - [press] First Alert 4: project approved after 11-hour appeals hearing (lists the Board of Adjustment amendments): https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/07/31/midtown-armory-data-center-project-approved-after-11-hour-appeals-hearing/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it $30 per square foot of approved data center development, estimated at $15,750,000 (implying about 525,000 square feet). Timing of payment is not stated. This is a term sheet commitment; the recorded CBA that would make it binding had not been posted as executed as of September 7, 2026. - p. 2, Other Community Benefits (Financial): "$30 per square foot of approved data center development, an estimated $15,750,000, to a Fund" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed Liquidated damages rather than incentive repayment, since no incentives were given. Revenue: $15,000 per $100,000 shortfall against projected annual tax revenue if not met by 2029. Jobs: $2,000 per job short of 25 in year one, 50 in year two, then 100, for 20 years. No trigger tied to the facility ceasing operation. All of this is term sheet language pending the recorded CBA. - p. 1, Tax Revenue & Job Requirements: "pay $15,000 in liquidated damages for every $100,000 below the projected annual tax revenues if not met by 2029" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf - p. 1, Tax Revenue & Job Requirements: "pay $2,000 in liquidated damages for each job short of the required total" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks A decommissioning plan to remove and recycle e-waste must be filed if the facility is vacant for more than a year. No bond, escrow, or letter of credit. - p. 3, Miscellaneous Restrictions: "file a decommissioning plan to safely remove and recycle electronic waste if the data center is vacant for over a year" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Reaching 50 percent renewable within five years is a "reasonable efforts" obligation with certificates as the fallback." The permit requires the petitioner to fund any project-specific additional electrical infrastructure. Any minimum bill comes from the Ameren tariff, not the city deal. Reasonable efforts to reach 50 percent renewable within five years with localized RECs as fallback; PUE of 1.25 or better (1.35 if reusing an existing building) with annual reporting; generators Tier 4 and never a general operating power source; no generator testing on bad air quality days is already among the April 21, 2026 conditions. Press reports that the Board of Adjustment, after an 11-hour hearing that began July 29, 2026, added a requirement for at least 2.4 MW of on-site solar or wind generation. - p. 2, Energy, Efficiency & Infrastructure Standards: "Petitioner must fund any project-specific additional electrical infrastructure" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Conditional-Use-provisions.pdf - p. 2, Backup Generators: "No testing of backup generators on bad air quality days" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Conditional-Use-provisions.pdf - https://www.stlpr.org/health-science-environment/2025-11-24/missouri-utility-regulators-approve-ameren-rates-data-centers - https://www.stlpr.org/health-science-environment/2026-07-30/st-louis-board-allows-data-center-near-armory-to-move-forward-with-new-rules - https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/07/31/midtown-armory-data-center-project-approved-after-11-hour-appeals-hearing/ ### Water: MEETS Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting Closed-loop system with air-cooled chillers required. Before a building permit, a written agreement with the Water Division to fund all required fees, system impact fees, a hydraulic model study, and the cost of rectifying any detrimental impact on existing customers. Annual water-usage reporting under the CBA term sheet, which may be made public. No volume cap. - p. 2, Water Responsibility: "Must use a closed loop system and air-cooled chillers to minimize water consumption" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Conditional-Use-provisions.pdf - p. 2, Utilities and Environment: "annually report electricity usage, waste heat, and water usage, which may be made public" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line Noise-emitting equipment must be fully enclosed in acoustically treated structures placed away from frontages. Generator testing only on weekdays from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM. At the appeal hearing, a Saint Louis University biology professor who studies sound testified that low-frequency noise bends around and passes through solid objects and would need about 14 feet of absorptive material to absorb a 20 Hz tone. - p. 1, Noise and Vibration Controls, Reporting: "annual third-party report of noise emissions taken at all adjoining parcel lines" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Conditional-Use-provisions.pdf - p. 2, Backup Generators: "Testing is strictly limited to weekdays between 10:00 AM–12:00 PM and 2:00 PM–5:00 PM" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Conditional-Use-provisions.pdf - https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/st-louis-board-upholds-armory-202506410.html ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections Enforceable minimums of 25 median-wage jobs in year one, 50 in year two, and 100 thereafter, for 20 years, backed by $2,000 per job in liquidated damages. The City projects about 200 permanent on-site positions (50 at the data center, 150 in the Armory office). First-Source hiring for entry-level jobs applies to the developer and large tenants. Prevailing wage and M/WBE compliance for the developer and contractors. Construction under a project labor agreement; the City's detail sheet says with the AFL-CIO, and its news release names the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council and Missouri AFL-CIO. Enforceability depends on the recorded CBA being executed. - p. 1, Tax Revenue & Job Requirements: "starting at 25 in year 1, 50 in year 2, and 100 thereafter" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf - p. 2, Equal Opportunity & Non-Discrimination: "minority-owned and women-owned business (M/WBE) participation, workforce development, and prevailing wage compliance" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf - p. 3, Projected Jobs Detail: "Jobs: 1,050 construction jobs" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Details-on-Project-Conditions-Components-and-Benefits.pdf - https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/news/data-center-permit-approved.cfm ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator M/WBE participation, prevailing wage, and a project labor agreement. The developer must install and maintain Market Street sidewalks and a pedestrian pathway to the Grand MetroLink station. No haul-route repair term. - p. 3, Project Construction & Design: "install and maintain sidewalks adjacent to Market Street and a pedestrian pathway to the Grand Metrolink station" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf ### Transparency: MEETS Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule Tenants must be publicly disclosed unless commercially unreasonable due to national security. Annual reports on electricity, waste heat, and water (CBA term sheet) and on noise, PUE, waste heat, and e-waste disposal (permit conditions). The noise report is by a third party. No NDA found. The process drew criticism: an alderwoman said she was notified the morning of the virtual Board of Public Service vote, 13 appeals followed, and opponents sued in circuit court on August 28, 2026. - p. 3, Miscellaneous Restrictions: "Public disclosure of tenants must be provided unless commercially unreasonable due to national security interests" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf - pp. 1 to 2: "Maintain a Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of 1.25 or better (1.35 if repurposing existing building), with an annual report" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Conditional-Use-provisions.pdf - https://www.stlpr.org/news-briefs/2026-04-24/board-approved-st-louis-data-center-project - https://www.stlpr.org/news-briefs/2026-07-09/midtown-st-louis-data-center-late-july-appeal-armory ### Tax incentives: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated The developer committed not to seek local tax abatement or other financial incentives for the data center or Armory buildings and to cooperate in terminating the existing Armory TIF. The City projects over $432 million ($432.3 million in its news release) in taxes and fees over ten years; STLPR reported $423 million. - p. 1, No Local Incentives: "will not seek local tax abatement or other financial incentives for the data center or Armory buildings" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf - pp. 2 to 3, Projected Revenue Benefits Detail: "total projected tax revenues and fees reaching over $432 million over the first ten years" https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/Details-on-Project-Conditions-Components-and-Benefits.pdf ### Reported criticisms - The community benefits agreement is still a term sheet describing commitments to be made to the LCRA in a future CBA. Until it is executed and recorded, the liquidated damages and job minimums are promises, not obligations. (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/documents/upload/CBA-provisions.pdf) - An alderwoman said she was notified of the Board of Public Service vote only that morning; the board met by Zoom and voted 5-0. (https://www.stlpr.org/news-briefs/2026-04-24/board-approved-st-louis-data-center-project) - Thirteen appeals were filed after the April approval; the Board of Adjustment rejected them unanimously after an 11-hour hearing that began July 29, 2026. (https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/07/31/midtown-armory-redevelopment-data-center-move-forward-after-11-hour-appeal-hearing/) - Residents, the Missouri Workers' Center, and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment sued the City, the Board of Adjustment, and the developer in circuit court on August 28, 2026. (https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/08/29/residents-organizations-file-lawsuit-against-proposed-midtown-data-center/) - A witness at the appeal hearing objected that a new children's hospital wing is going up about a quarter mile from the site. (https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/07/31/midtown-armory-redevelopment-data-center-move-forward-after-11-hour-appeal-hearing/) - A Saint Louis University sound researcher testified that low-frequency noise cannot be blocked by absorption at feasible thicknesses. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/st-louis-board-upholds-armory-202506410.html) --- ## City of Papillion and Sarpy County, NE (Meta) - Project: Sarpy County Power Park West and East, the Meta Sarpy data center campus - Operator: Meta Platforms, Inc. - Developer: Raven Northbrook LLC, a Delaware limited liability company - Agreement: development agreement, signed, signed 2016-12-20 - Scale: 290 acres, 200,000,000 USD - 290 acres across the two legal descriptions in the mixed use agreements, roughly 900 acres acquired in total with later additions. Capex is the planned investment in the state incentive agreement, not a local commitment; the company's own materials claim more than $2.5 billion. Megawatts appear in no primary document; the only figure anywhere is the 20 megawatt floor in the utility rate schedule. About four million square feet across nine buildings is reported in news coverage and appears in no agreement. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Sarpy County Power Park West mixed use development agreement, executed December 20, 2016, including the Exhibit C noise standards: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 - [primary] Sarpy County Power Park East mixed use development agreement, executed December 20, 2016: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/586 - [primary] Sarpy County Power Park West subdivision agreement: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/591 - [primary] City staff report and redlined exhibit for the 2022 amendment that changed the east campus noise ceiling to the greater of 70 decibels or whatever the code allows: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/10549/SCPPE-MU-Amendment-Staff-Report - [primary] Sewer connection and wastewater service agreement with the Sarpy County and Cities Wastewater Agency, resolution 2021-004: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF - [primary] First amendment to the sewer agreement, resolution 2024-039, setting the industrial sewer capital cost at $13.2 million: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7266/2024-039-Approving-First-Amendment-to-Raven-Northbrook-Connection-Agreement-FINALpdf - [primary] Omaha Public Power District service regulations and rate schedules, containing Rate Schedule 261M for large high-voltage market-energy customers: https://oppd.com/media/172612/oppd-rate-manual.pdf - [primary] Nebraska tax incentives annual report 2024, which names Raven Northbrook and the credits and refunds approved: https://revenue.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/doc/incentives/annual_report/2024_Incentives_Annual_Report.pdf ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it None in any of the five local instruments. The company's own materials claim more than $5.7 million to area schools and nonprofits and 250 plus grants since 2019, all distributed through a program the company controls, with no public body choosing recipients and nothing obliging it to continue. The only agreement-based payment resembling a community contribution is $50,000 for a temporary street closure, which the city characterised partly as a device to discourage keeping the street closed. - Mixed use development agreement, full text, which contains no community fund: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Section 12(I): "Developer may, at Developer's sole discretion, elect not to develop the Property or, if developed, cease the operation of its business on the Property."" None, and the agreement goes further than silence. Section 12(I), headed No Obligation to Construct or Operate, says nothing creates a covenant to begin construction, begin a business, or keep operating, and then states that the developer may at its sole discretion elect not to develop the property or, if developed, cease operating. That sits beside vested development rights and a clause preventing later city zoning from superseding the agreement. Recapture exists at the state level under the incentive act, but no local trigger appears anywhere. - Mixed use development agreement, Section 12(I), no obligation to construct or operate: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 - Mixed use development agreement, Sections 6(A) and 6(B), vested rights and moratorium shield: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks None for the data center, and the omission is thrown into relief by what is covered. Exhibit F gives the owner six months to decommission a rooftop solar array or a wind turbine if it generates no electricity for twelve continuous months, with turbines to be removed to thirty six inches below grade. A hypothetical solar panel carries a removal covenant. Four million square feet of data center does not. The closest equivalent is a sewer clause requiring the customer to disconnect its lateral at its own expense if use ceases, which covers a pipe. - Mixed use development agreement, Exhibit F, Sections II(A)(4) and II(B)(6), accessory solar and wind: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 - Sewer agreement, Section 15, disconnection on cessation of use: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The tariff frames the duty as applying "during the operation of the Customer's facilities," which is the difference between a minimum bill and a commitment." A genuine minimum bill, set by a board rather than a regulator, with no obligation that survives departure. Rate Schedule 261M was approved unanimously in January 2017 and designed with the customer. It applies where the customer owns its own substation, requires at least 20 megawatts at 161 kilovolts, charges a $10,000 monthly service charge and $23.91 per kilowatt of demand, passes through hourly market energy, and carries a minimum monthly bill of $488,200 at 161 kilovolts with energy on top. A 5 percent gross revenue charge goes to the local government in lieu of taxes. Two caveats matter. Nebraska has no public utility commission reviewing these retail rates, so this tariff was never adversarially tested. And the obligation is framed as running during the operation of the customer's facilities: there is no term, no take or pay surviving exit and no stranded cost provision, so the minimum bill protects ratepayers while the campus runs and not after it stops. Any individual service contract, which the regulations permit, is not public. Separately the customer prepaid $13.2 million for the industrial sewer system and is contractually shielded from ever being charged its debt service. - Rate Schedule 261M, minimum monthly bill and substation ownership: https://oppd.com/media/172612/oppd-rate-manual.pdf - Service regulations, individual service contracts at the utility's discretion: https://oppd.com/media/172612/oppd-rate-manual.pdf - First amendment to the sewer agreement, $13,200,000 capital cost: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7266/2024-039-Approving-First-Amendment-to-Raven-Northbrook-Connection-Agreement-FINALpdf - Sewer agreement, Section 13.3, no debt service charged to the customer: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Capacity changes require consent "which may be granted or withheld in Customer's sole discretion," so the reservation cannot be trimmed without the company's agreement." No cap in gallons per day, no reporting duty to any public body, and the potable water provider is not even a party to these agreements: a separate utility district supplies the water and its service agreement is not published. Every hard number in the record is on the discharge side. The sewer agreement sizes a temporary evaporation pond for up to 22,250,000 gallons a year at a 1,250 gallon per minute peak, and reserves 2,500 gallons per minute of peak hour industrial sewer capacity out of 4,150 total. Quality reporting exists, with a constituent limits table and a right for the agency to inspect and sample. Quantity reporting does not. Actual withdrawals, disclosed by the company to a nonprofit newsroom rather than to a regulator, ran 26.7 to 37.5 million gallons a year from 2020 through 2024. - Sewer agreement, Section 4, temporary evaporation pond sizing: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF - Sewer agreement, Sections 10.1 and 10.2, capacity reservations: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF - Sewer agreement, Section 5.1(d), discharge table and sampling: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF - Subdivision agreement, Section 1(I)(6), water distribution system built by the utility district: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/591 ### Noise: MEETS Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The east campus limit is now "the greater of" a fixed number or the code, which converts a ceiling into a floor that can only rise." The best documented noise term in this benchmark, and a lesson in how a good one erodes. The west campus agreement has held since 2016 at a maximum one hour average of 65 decibels from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 55 decibels overnight, measured at the property line with a specified meter class. The east campus started identical. In 2022 the company applied to change the east daytime ceiling to the greater of 70 decibels or whatever the code allows, and the nighttime ceiling likewise. The city's own senior planner wrote the consequence into the staff report: a greater of approach will entitle the campus to any future sound level increase. Staff recommended approval for consistency with the existing agreement. The city had already raised its code ceiling from 65 to 70 in 2017, so the code moved first and the agreement was then amended to track it upward permanently. Emergency operations are exempt from any limit; routine generator testing is not. - Mixed use development agreement, Exhibit C, Section 5(G), noise limits: "All measurements shall be taken at the property line" https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 - 2022 amendment staff report: "Using a 'greater of' approach will entitle Sarpy County Power Park East to any future sound level increase." https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/10549/SCPPE-MU-Amendment-Staff-Report ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections Nothing binding locally. No employment obligation, local hire or prevailing wage appears in any of the five local agreements. The only numbers are benefit thresholds in the state incentive agreements: two 2017 agreements for this entity list $200 million of planned investment against 30 planned full time employees, and $34 million against zero. The second carries no employment requirement at all. The company claims more than 300 operational jobs supported, which is neither a headcount nor enforceable. - Mixed use development agreement, full text, which contains no employment provision: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 - Nebraska tax incentives annual report 2024, agreements in effect table: https://revenue.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/doc/incentives/annual_report/2024_Incentives_Annual_Report.pdf ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local subcontracting or hiring requirement anywhere. The developer is solely responsible for privately financing the entire cost of all private and public improvements, and pays a 1 percent review fee on dedicated infrastructure, a per acre fee the city agreed to remit entirely to road improvements, watershed and connection fees, and the $13.2 million industrial sewer capital cost. On road repair the only covenant found is narrow, tied to one temporary street closure, covering dust control, repairs and snow removal in the closure area with a $5 million cap on indemnity. The broader county road agreement is a defined term in both subdivision agreements but its text is not retrievable, so haul route obligations there are unknown. - Subdivision agreement, Section 4(A), developer financing, and Section 5, fees: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/591 - First amendment to the sewer agreement, capital cost: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7266/2024-039-Approving-First-Amendment-to-Raven-Northbrook-Connection-Agreement-FINALpdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The agency must redact "to the extent permitted by Applicable Law," which is the clause holding the state records act open." The most quotable adverse transparency clause in this benchmark. Sewer agreement Section 21.15 lets the company designate trade secrets, then deems water usage confidential by default: data on actual or projected consumption of the reserved capacity is confidential business information with no designation needed. The agency must redact it, and on any records request must notify the company and hold the records for ten business days while the company decides whether to sue to block release, at the company's cost. A separate clause bars the agency from sharing discharge permit information with anyone but the permitting authority without written consent. State records law is acknowledged as overriding, so this is delay and redact rather than an absolute bar, but a public body contracted away its default posture on how much water a private company uses. On the other side: no non-disclosure agreement by a public body appears in anything I read, the full agreement texts are posted, and the county's bond disclosures name the entity. There is no audit and no dashboard, and Section 12(H) means no resident can enforce the noise limit or anything else. - Sewer agreement, Section 21.15, confidential information and the ten business day hold: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF - Sewer agreement, Section 5.1(b), discharge permit information: https://www.sarpy.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2515/2021-004-Approval-of-Raven-Northbrook-LLC-Sewer-Agreement-PDF - Mixed use development agreement, Section 12(H), no third party beneficiaries: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 ### Tax incentives: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated Marked not applicable because there is genuinely no local tax break to score. No increment financing, no abatement, no payment in lieu of taxes appears in any of the five local agreements, and the city's only blighted area is downtown, miles away. The company pays full property tax and is the county's single largest taxpayer at $5,629,489 in 2023. That is what a data center looks like when the locality does not give the tax away. The money moved at the state level instead: the 2024 state incentives report lists $118,544,281 of credits used and refunds approved for this entity over two years, roughly five times the next largest line, and the state does not publish the value of the personal property exemption at all. In April 2026 the legislature repealed the standalone data center sales tax exemption, though not the incentive act tier this campus sits under. - Mixed use development agreement and subdivision agreement, neither of which contains an abatement, increment or PILOT: https://www.papillion.org/DocumentCenter/View/589 - Nebraska tax incentives annual report 2024, project-specific disclosure: "Raven Northbrook, LLC — $118,544,281 — Papillion and Springfield" https://revenue.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/doc/incentives/annual_report/2024_Incentives_Annual_Report.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Data centers were 1 percent of the public utility's electricity sold in 2018 and 21 percent in 2024, projected to reach 41 percent by 2035, while the industrial customer count fell. (https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/nebraskans-cope-with-rising-demand-prices-for-electricity/) - The utility board voted 6 to 2 in December 2025 to extend coal operations at the North Omaha station. A speaker told the board it seemed to be putting data centers ahead of the health of the community, and later board minutes record eight public comments tying data centers to that plant and to environmental justice. (https://www.wowt.com/2025/12/19/oppd-delays-closure-north-omaha-coal-plant-despite-community-opposition/) - The utility approved 6.3 percent average rate increases for both 2025 and 2026, and concedes in its own materials that rapid load growth including from large users makes its required planning reserve margin bigger. (https://www.oppdcommunityconnect.com/corporate-operating-plan-2026/widgets/108375/faqs) - Nonprofit reporting found this campus withdrew 26.7 to 37.5 million gallons a year from 2020 through 2024, a figure that exists only because the company volunteered it, since its water use is contractually confidential. (https://flatwaterfreepress.org/data-centers-can-guzzle-serious-water-as-some-nebraskans-worry-tech-giants-seek-solutions/) --- ## Dona Ana County, NM (Oracle and OpenAI) - Project: Project Jupiter, about 819 acres of private land near Santa Teresa - Operator: Oracle, running OpenAI workloads - Developer: Yucca Growth Infrastructure LLC (microgrid), Red Chiles A through D LLC (data centers), and Green Chile Ventures LLC (equipment), all Delaware entities - Agreement: community benefits agreement, signed, signed 2025-11-12 - Scale: 819 acres, 50,000,000,000 USD - The community benefits agreement recites approximately 819 acres of private land; the memorandum says about 1,400 acres including easements, which is the figure usually reported. Capex is the floor the participation agreement commits to within five years. The bond ordinance authorizes up to $165 billion across three series over thirty years. No megawatt figure appears in any document; the campus runs behind the meter on its own gas and battery microgrid. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Ordinance 367-2025, authorizing up to $165 billion in industrial revenue bonds, adopted September 19, 2025 by a 4 to 1 vote, executed and recorded: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/Ordinance%20No.%20367-2025%20IRB%20Adoption_Executed&Recorded.pdf - [primary] Executed memorandum of understanding between Dona Ana County and Project Jupiter: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/Executed%20Memorandum%20of%20Understanding%20(MOU).pdf - [primary] LEDA Project Participation Agreement (gross receipts tax share), County, New Mexico Economic Development Department and the companies: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/LEDA%20PPA%20GRT%20Share_Executed.pdf - [primary] IRB Series 2025B, executed and recorded, containing the four Red Chiles lease agreements and, inside it, the Project Jupiter Community Benefits Agreement signed November 12, 2025: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - [primary] IRB Series 2025A, executed and recorded, the Yucca Growth Infrastructure microgrid lease: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025A%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - [primary] IRB Series 2025C, executed and recorded, the $125 billion equipment tranche purchased by Oracle America, Inc., containing the Green Chile Ventures guaranty: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025C%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - [government_page] Dona Ana County economic development projects page, which publishes most but not all of the Project Jupiter documents: https://www.donaana.gov/about_us/economic_development_projects.php - [analysis] New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee, Policy Spotlight on Industrial Revenue Bonds: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Entity/LFC/Documents/Program_Evaluation_Reports/Policy%20Spotlight%20Industrial%20Revenue%20Bonds%20July%202026.pdf ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The community benefits agreement's remedy clause is the whole story: "the County shall have no separate claim for damages or specific performance under this CBA."" Real money with real deadlines, and no community hand on the tap. The community benefits agreement lists $11.4 million: $4 million for workforce development including a career and technical education facility, $1.5 million toward community facilities, $1 million for habitat restoration, $250,000 for desalination research, $150,000 for community college connectivity, and $4.5 million of county project funds standing in for waived building permit fees. A separate guaranty caps the guarantor's exposure at exactly $11,400,000. Layered on top, the participation agreement dedicates the first $50 million of the companies' gross receipts tax share back to the County for water and wastewater work in the south county, of which $10 million goes out as grants and the County has sole discretion over the rest. A citizen monitoring committee was created nine months after closing, in August 2026, with eleven members and the power to hold information forums. It does not audit, inspect, or enforce, and the resolution creating it asks the companies for cooperation rather than requiring it. - Community Benefits Agreement, Exhibit B, financial commitments table: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Green Chile Ventures guaranty, Section 5.5, cap on guarantor liability: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025C%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - LEDA Project Participation Agreement, Section 4.a, first $50 million of GRT share: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/LEDA%20PPA%20GRT%20Share_Executed.pdf - Community Benefits Agreement, Section III, sole and exclusive remedy: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf ### Clawbacks: MEETS Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed SOFTENING LANGUAGE: ""Continuously" is defined so that the company keeps operating unless it loses 75% or more of its non-construction jobs in a 90 day period. Losing 74% is not a trigger." Better than most on paper and time limited in a way that matters. Lease Section 4.16 repays abated property tax on a sliding scale if the project permanently ceases on or before November 1, 2030: 100% in the first three years, 70% in year four, 40% in year five, and zero from year six onward. So for the last twenty five years of a thirty year abatement there is no closure clawback at all. The other two triggers measure only the single year in which the failure occurs. All clawbacks are capped at cumulative abated tax less PILOT paid, and may only be assessed annually. On the gross receipts side the participation agreement threatens 100% repayment if construction investment misses $350 million by 2035, but Section 5.b waives every gross receipts clawback once investment passes $400 million after 2027, which on a project of this size happens almost immediately. - Lease Agreement, Section 4.16.D, permanent cessation sliding scale: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Lease Agreement, Section 4.20(B), cap on clawbacks: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - LEDA Project Participation Agreement, Section 5.b: "the State and County will waive any and all Clawback penalties related to the GRT Share Distribution" https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/LEDA%20PPA%20GRT%20Share_Executed.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks None. The words decommission, letter of credit, surety and escrow appear nowhere in the nine executed leases, the ordinances, the community benefits agreement, or the participation agreement. The only removal promise in the record is a fuel cell vendor's slide, which the County cannot enforce. - Lease agreements, full text, which contain no decommissioning provision: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The cleanest answer to the cost-shift question in this benchmark, and it comes from the design rather than a negotiation. The memorandum says the project powers itself with an on-site microgrid of natural gas generation and large-scale battery storage, that the project pays for the microgrid and the energy it uses, and that the campus will not affect existing customers' reliability or costs. Since approval the developers replaced gas turbines with natural-gas fuel cells. What is not resolved: whether the microgrid is fully islanded or keeps a utility connection, which is what would determine if any stranded cost could still land on other ratepayers. - Community benefits agreement, Section 8.4, onsite microgrid: https://cms2.revize.com/revize/donaanacounty/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/Community%20Benefits%20Agreement%20(CBA)%20Executed.pdf - https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/project-jupiter-developers-overhaul-data-centers-power-plan/article_d7bb0388-8382-4993-b1db-073d148379ac.html ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The cap covers potable water for the data center. The gas power blocks are a separate matter, and the county's own April 2026 resolution says it could not confirm the cooling premise still held." The tightest water number in this benchmark, sitting in the one document that cannot be enforced for damages. Section 8.1 of the community benefits agreement specifies closed loop cooling and caps potable use at an average of 20,000 gallons a day with a peak of 60,000. But the word gallons appears in no operative covenant of any of the nine leases, there is no meter, no reporting cadence, and no consequence for exceeding it. Exhibit A is prefaced as subject to change so long as the change is not a material deviation. The cap has already been tested: on April 14, 2026 the commission adopted a resolution noting press comments suggesting a tenant did not intend to use closed loop cooling for the power plants, and recording that the County had received no information from any developer or tenant about it. The County's stated leverage was the building permit process. - Community Benefits Agreement, Section 8.1, potable water: "an average of 20,000 gallons per day with a maximum peak use capped at 60,000 gallons per day" https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Community Benefits Agreement, Exhibit A, paragraph 7: "subject to change as the Project advances so long as any change does not represent a material deviation" https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Lease agreements, full text, in which no gallons figure appears as a covenant: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Lease Section 4.8 defines compliance by reference to a local ordinance rather than by a number, so the clause is only as strong as whatever the county adopts later." No numeric limit in any agreement. Lease Section 4.8 instead deems compliance: keeping noise consistent with whatever local limits happen to be in place during the term counts as satisfying the clause. The developer's own slides cite about 35 dBA at the nearest home, which is a claim rather than a commitment. - Lease Agreement, Section 4.8, nuisance not permitted: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Lease Section 4.18: the company "agrees to use its best efforts" to offer positions to qualified county applicants. Shortfalls can also be deferred for an "Adverse Economic Event," and the county agrees such a request "will not unreasonably be denied."" The widest gap in this benchmark between the number everyone repeats and the number anyone can enforce. The community benefits agreement and the memorandum both speak of 750 full time jobs plus 50 part time at $75,000 to $100,000, and the participation agreement softens that to approximately 750 anticipated by the end of 2031. The executed leases carry the actual job targets, and they are campus wide: 37.5 by the end of 2029, 87.5 by 2030, and 175 by 2031. The consequence for missing them is not a clawback but a PILOT increase on a capped sliding scale, topping out at 60% for hiring under 30% of target, and only for the year after the cure period. Hiring nobody at all would cost roughly $7 million on a $12 million annual PILOT. There is no prevailing wage clause anywhere and local hiring is best efforts. - Lease Agreement, Section 4.20, job targets and PILOT increase schedule: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - LEDA Project Participation Agreement, Section 2.c: "Approximately seven hundred fifty (750) total full-time employees... are anticipated as being employed" https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/LEDA%20PPA%20GRT%20Share_Executed.pdf - Community Benefits Agreement, Exhibit A, paragraphs 3, 5 and 6: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator SOFTENING LANGUAGE: ""to encourage participation by vendors based within Dona Ana County" is the whole of the obligation." A publicity requirement rather than a procurement requirement. Lease Section 4.19 asks the company to coordinate with the County to publicize its needs so as to encourage participation by county vendors. No percentage, no reporting, no consequence. The companies do fund a roadway extension at the Highway 136 and Highway 9 intersection under the community benefits agreement, but no road repair or haul route agreement exists in the county's published record. - Lease Agreement, Section 4.19, local purchasing: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Community Benefits Agreement, Section 8.3, roadway extension: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Lease Section 4.24: "Only the minimum portion of information that is legally required to be disclosed shall be produced, and all legally permissible redactions shall be applied."" The county owns the property and signed confidentiality obligations to its own tenant. Lease Section 4.14 conditions county access and inspection on the company's security policies including the execution of non disclosure agreements by the County itself, with two weeks notice. Section 4.24 requires the County, on a public records request, to cooperate at the company's expense in asserting exemptions and to produce only the minimum legally required. Section 4.23 bars the County from providing covered data to any third party including a governmental entity, and from talking to the media about a security incident without the company's written consent. The annual performance review is done by county or state staff rather than an independent auditor, and the companies need not divulge what they consider proprietary. Most of the documents are published, which is genuinely better than average, but the community benefits agreement is not among them: it is findable only inside the recorded Series 2025B bond PDF. - Lease Agreement, Section 4.14, access and inspection: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Lease Agreement, Section 4.24(A)(iv), confidential information: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Lease Agreement, Section 4.23(A), data protection: "Under no circumstances may Issuer access and/or provide such Leased Property or Covered Data to any third party" https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - LEDA Project Participation Agreement, Section 9, annual performance review: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/LEDA%20PPA%20GRT%20Share_Executed.pdf ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated A hundred percent abatement of real and personal property tax for thirty years, delivered by county title ownership under the industrial revenue bond act, with leases running to November 1, 2055. The payment in lieu of taxes is $12 million a year for thirty years, $360 million total, split among the county, three school districts and a flood district. The detail that matters: the Series 2025C tranche, the $125 billion of equipment purchased by Oracle America, carries no separate PILOT. Its lease says the combined obligation will not exceed the Series 2025B schedule, so the servers generate no incremental payment. The county's own staff report summarized the financial impact in a single sentence saying the abatement is recovered in part by the PILOT, with no forgone revenue estimate and no alternative site analysis. The state's Legislative Finance Committee produced the only number, ten months later: up to $3.3 billion in tax benefits against $360 million of PILOT, roughly nine to one. - Memorandum of understanding, Section 4.2: "a full (100%) abatement of real and personal property taxes associated with the Project for a term of 30 years" https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/Executed%20Memorandum%20of%20Understanding%20(MOU).pdf - Lease Agreement, Exhibit C, PILOT schedule through September 30, 2055: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - Series 2025C Lease, Section 5.10, no incremental PILOT on the equipment tranche: https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025C%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf - LFC Policy Spotlight, p. 10, Dona Ana County estimate: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Entity/LFC/Documents/Program_Evaluation_Reports/Policy%20Spotlight%20Industrial%20Revenue%20Bonds%20July%202026.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Two suits seek to invalidate the bond ordinance, disclosed in an exhibit to every bond purchase agreement. The buyers acknowledged them and closed anyway. (https://www.donaana.gov/Documents/About%20Us/Economic%20Development%20Projects/IRB%20Series%202025B%20-%20Executed%20&%20Recorded.pdf) - The commission itself adopted a resolution in April 2026 noting press reports that a tenant did not intend to use closed loop cooling, and recording that no developer or tenant had told the county anything about it. (https://www.donaana.gov/about_us/economic_development_projects.php) - The state Legislative Finance Committee estimates up to $3.3 billion in tax benefits for this project, and found that no state entity keeps a list of active industrial revenue bond projects. (https://www.nmlegis.gov/Entity/LFC/Documents/Program_Evaluation_Reports/Policy%20Spotlight%20Industrial%20Revenue%20Bonds%20July%202026.pdf) - Local groups have objected on water quality grounds, citing a 2024 state finding that the local utility bypassed arsenic treatment for over a year, and called a commissioner's posting of opponents' names on social media an act of intimidation. (https://www.hcn.org/articles/resistance-to-data-centers-rises-on-the-border/) --- ## Village of Los Lunas, NM (Meta) - Project: Greater Kudu LLC 2025 Expansion Project, 4250 Messenger Loop NW, Los Lunas - Operator: Meta Platforms, Inc. - Developer: Greater Kudu LLC, a Meta affiliate - Agreement: tax abatement, approved, approved 2025-02-13 - Scale: 346 MW, 738 acres, 350,000,000 USD - Acreage is the merged 738.149 acre site in the lease exhibit. The megawatt figure is the estimated peak load after this expansion, from PNM testimony, not a contract term. Capex is the binding minimum in the 2026 state and local participation agreement; Meta says it has invested far more statewide. This is the third industrial revenue bond ordinance for the same campus, after 2016 and 2021. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Village of Los Lunas council packet, February 13, 2025, containing adopted Ordinance 480, the Lease Agreement with the PILOT and clawback schedules, and the First Amended and Restated Water and Wastewater Service Agreement: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - [primary] Council packet containing the February 13, 2025 minutes, which record the 4 to 0 votes: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02272025-1228 - [primary] Council packet, March 12, 2026, containing Ordinance 486 and the LEDA Project Participation Agreement: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03122026-1292 - [primary] Council packet, December 5, 2024, containing inducement Resolution 24-27: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12052024-1219 - [analysis] New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee, Policy Spotlight on Industrial Revenue Bonds, which estimates the forgone revenue and finds no state oversight of taxable IRBs: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Entity/LFC/Documents/Program_Evaluation_Reports/Policy%20Spotlight%20Industrial%20Revenue%20Bonds%20July%202026.pdf - [primary] PNM 7th Revised Rate No. 36B, the special service rate under which this customer takes power: https://www.pnm.com/documents/d/pnm.com/7th-revised-rate-no-36b - [primary] Direct testimony of Julio C. Aguirre, NMPRC Case 25-00048-UT, attaching the Third Amended and Restated Special Service Contract: https://www.pnm.com/documents/d/pnm.com/6-direct-testimony-of-julio-c-aguirre - [primary] Direct testimony of Stephen Jenkins, NMPRC Case 25-00048-UT, on how network upgrade costs are recovered: https://www.pnm.com/documents/d/pnm.com/9-direct-testimony-of-stephen-jenkins ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it Nothing contractual. Meta funds a community grants program and reports several million dollars given to Valencia County schools and nonprofits since 2019, but that program lives outside every instrument. The Village cannot enforce it, cannot compel it to continue, and gets no say in who receives it. A voluntary program is a good thing to have and a bad thing to count on. - Lease Agreement and Ordinance 480, neither of which contains a community fund provision: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 ### Clawbacks: MEETS Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Carve-outs excuse closure for holidays, maintenance and retooling, casualty, labor dispute, and "short-term slack demand or similar" not exceeding 120 days. A cured jobs shortfall is rebated." The best clawback in this benchmark, and the first one here that actually fires if the facility stops running rather than only if a jobs number is missed. Lease Section 5.9.B is a project closure clawback: if the company ceases operation within ten years of closing it repays the abated property, gross receipts and compensating taxes on a sliding scale, 100% before March 2030 stepping down to zero after March 2035, less PILOT already paid, due in 60 days. Section 5.9.C adds a jobs clawback measured every December 31 through 2055 against a 30 full time employee target. Two real caveats. The jobs scale is oddly shaped: missing the target by 21% costs 20% while missing by 31% costs 100%, so there is a cliff rather than a slope. And Section 5.9.D caps everything at the taxes actually abated, so the public can never come out ahead, only whole. What makes it credible is enforcement: the Village keeps Section 5.9 as a reserved right rather than assigning it to the bond purchaser, which is a Meta affiliate, and can terminate the lease and put the property back on the tax rolls. - Lease Agreement, Section 5.9.B, project closure clawback: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Lease Agreement, Section 5.9.C, performance clawback and cure: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Lease Agreement, Section 5.9.D and Section 7.4, cap and reserved rights: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks None, and the ending is written the other way. At the end of the term the company buys the property back from the Village for one dollar under Lease Section 9.1. Nothing in any instrument addresses removal, site restoration, or abandonment. The environmental section only requires obeying laws that already exist. - Lease Agreement, Section 9.1, purchase option: "$1.00" https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Lease Agreement, Section 5.8, environmental matters: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The No Net Adverse Impact covenant sounds absolute but is tested only during a general rate case, and against a revenue requirement reduced by a production cost offset subsidy." The most instructive grid arrangement in the benchmark, because it is the one place where you can see both halves of the bargain. In Meta's favour, and the public's: there is a real minimum bill, 10,000 kW of on-peak billable demand every month plus a 60% annual load factor floor, and a genuine early termination payment at Section 9.6 equal to the present value of every remaining year of the resources procured for this customer. That is what a take or pay looks like when someone writes one. On the customer's side of the ledger, the load-side connection is on the customer under Rate 36B, but the generator-side network upgrades for the solar and battery plants built for this customer are recovered in PNM's base rates, which every other ratepayer pays. So the honest answer to who pays for the grid is: both, and the split is only visible if you read the testimony. Worth noting separately that the renewable energy certificates go solely to the customer and are barred from counting toward New Mexico's renewable portfolio standard. - Rate No. 36B, determination of monthly on-peak billable demand: "in no event shall it be less than" https://www.pnm.com/documents/d/pnm.com/7th-revised-rate-no-36b - Rate No. 36B, substation equipment: "shall be installed, paid for, owned, operated, and maintained by the customer" https://www.pnm.com/documents/d/pnm.com/7th-revised-rate-no-36b - Third Amended and Restated Special Service Contract, Section 9.6 and Exhibit E, early termination payment: https://www.pnm.com/documents/d/pnm.com/6-direct-testimony-of-julio-c-aguirre - Direct testimony of Stephen Jenkins, Section III, p. 9: "The cost of the Network Upgrades, including station network upgrades, are recovered in base rates." https://www.pnm.com/documents/d/pnm.com/9-direct-testimony-of-stephen-jenkins ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Consumption data is contractually deemed confidential business information, so the Village must notify the company of any records request, give it three days to object, and redact what it designates." Large numbers and a confidentiality clause that makes them hard to check. The amended water agreement allocates up to 500 acre feet a year of consumptive use, caps diversion at 1,000 acre feet a year, and guarantees up to 3,000,000 gallons a day, reduced from 4,500,000. For scale, the Village's own permit allows about 5.6 million gallons a day for the entire Village, so the guarantee is roughly half of everything Los Lunas may divert. Above 1.5 million gallons a day the guarantee holds for no more than five days a month, after which the Village owes only best efforts. Water shortages are excluded from force majeure and Stage 3 restrictions apply, which are real protections. Recycled effluent use is only a reasonable effort, not a volume. The company may terminate on 30 days notice; the Village has no matching right. - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement, Section 4.1, water capacity guarantee: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement, Sections 2.1(c) and Recital T, allocation and diversion limit: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement, Section 11.14, confidentiality of consumption data: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Water and Wastewater Service Agreement, Section 8, termination on 30 days notice: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line SOFTENING LANGUAGE: ""Data center use will not be a nuisance." A conclusion written into the contract in place of a limit." No number, and the lease closes the question before anyone can ask it. Section 4.7 is headed Nuisance Not Permitted and then states that data center use will not be a nuisance, and that keeping noise consistent with local limits in place as of the lease date counts as compliance. That freezes the standard at March 2025 and forecloses a future council from tightening it for this site. - Lease Agreement, Section 4.7, nuisance not permitted: "Data center use will not be a nuisance." https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections Small but real, which is unusual. The lease binds 30 full time employees attributable to this expansion, measured every December 31 from 2030 through 2055, with the performance clawback as the consequence. Counting the 2021 project the total contractual commitment across both is 60. Meta separately reports supporting several hundred operational roles, but only the 30 is enforceable. No local hire requirement. Whether the state prevailing wage rule for industrial revenue bond projects reaches this project is unresolved and I have not read the rule, so I am leaving it null rather than guessing. - Lease Agreement, Section 5.9.C and Exhibit D, employment target and annual performance report: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - LEDA Project Participation Agreement, Sections 5 and 6, which set an investment minimum but no job number: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03122026-1292 ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The infrastructure exhibit carries the bracketed note "[TO BE UPDATED; NEED TO DISCUSS PRIORITY]" and the parties' cost obligation is "expressly subject to appropriation."" Infrastructure money exists but it is public money, not the company's. Under the 2026 arrangement the Village, the county and the state each dedicate half of their gross receipts tax increment from construction for ten years to public infrastructure, which village staff estimated at $14 million to $33 million. The improvement list is real, covering highway intersections and loop roads, but the version in the packet is marked as still to be updated with priorities to discuss, and the proportionate shares are blank. The Village and county, not the company, contract for the work, and their obligation is expressly subject to appropriation. No local subcontracting requirement and no haul route repair covenant anywhere. - Ordinance 486 staff report, budget impact: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03122026-1292 - LEDA Project Participation Agreement, Exhibit A and Section 4.E: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03122026-1292 ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The oversight right exists but is gated: access is subject to the company's requirements "including, but not limited to, the execution of non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements by the Issuer."" Genuinely good on the front end and quietly closed on the back end. Every instrument was published in the council packet, the hearings were open, and the minutes record each vote, which is more than most places manage. But the Village's own right to inspect is conditioned on signing non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements under Lease Section 4.13; water consumption data is contractually confidential; the only audit is an annual self-certified letter from the company reporting its own headcount, with no independent verification and no dashboard; the bond documents confer no rights on any third party, so no resident can enforce anything; and the bond purchase agreement refers to side letter agreements that were never published. - Lease Agreement, Section 4.13, access and inspection: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Lease Agreement, Section 5.9.C and Exhibit D, annual performance report: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Bond Purchase Agreement, Section 8, referring to unpublished side letters: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Council minutes, February 13, 2025, recording the 4 to 0 votes with no public comment: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02272025-1228 ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated An industrial revenue bond sale leaseback: the Village takes title, which takes the property off the tax rolls, and the company acts as the Village's agent to buy equipment free of gross receipts tax. Effectively 100% property tax abatement to March 2055. The payment in lieu of taxes is $500,000 a year until the first certificate of occupancy, then $1,500,000 escalating 2.5% every five years, roughly $45 million nominal across the term. The state's own Legislative Finance Committee estimates this expansion could receive up to $480 million in benefits. That is about 5.5 to 1 against the public, and there is no but for test anywhere in the record. The LFC found the same statewide: no mandatory reporting and no state oversight for taxable IRBs. - Ordinance 480, Section 6, and Lease Agreement Sections 4.4 and 4.5: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - Lease Agreement, Section 5.9.A and Exhibit C, PILOT schedule: https://www.loslunasnm.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02132025-1226 - LFC Policy Spotlight, p. 10, estimate for the Los Lunas expansion: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Entity/LFC/Documents/Program_Evaluation_Reports/Policy%20Spotlight%20Industrial%20Revenue%20Bonds%20July%202026.pdf - LFC Policy Spotlight, p. 18: "there are no mandatory state reporting requirements or state oversight for IRBs" https://www.nmlegis.gov/Entity/LFC/Documents/Program_Evaluation_Reports/Policy%20Spotlight%20Industrial%20Revenue%20Bonds%20July%202026.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Valencia County farmers and residents caravanned to the village offices over water and energy use, saying the company's efficiency claims had never been confirmed. (https://cloud.sustainability.watch/explore-issues/example-a-new-mexico-community-opposes-a-data-center/) - Residents have questioned the expansion and the transparency of the water figures behind it. (https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/los-lunas-locals-question-facebooks-data-center-expansion-worry-about-water-use/) - The state Legislative Finance Committee found industrial revenue bonds have cost state and local government $5.3 billion since 2000 with no mandatory reporting or oversight, and function as a general purpose giveaway rather than a targeted tool. (https://www.nmlegis.gov/Entity/LFC/Documents/Program_Evaluation_Reports/Policy%20Spotlight%20Industrial%20Revenue%20Bonds%20July%202026.pdf) - A statewide moratorium on new data center construction is expected to come up in the 2027 legislative session. (https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/proposed-moratorium-on-data-centers-to-come-up-in-2027-legislative-session/) --- ## City of New Albany, OH (Meta) - Project: Sidecat data center expansion, New Albany International Business Park (Licking County portion) - Operator: Meta - Developer: Sidecat LLC - Agreement: tax abatement, approved, approved 2025-12-16 - Scale: 488 acres, 900,000 sq ft, 1,500,000,000 USD - Two 2025 restatements combined: 373.356 acres with about 450,000 sq ft and $750 million approved in September, plus 114.7 acres with about 450,000 sq ft and $750 million approved in December. Construction runs to December 2030. No megawatt figure appears in the public record. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Resolution R-30-2025 in the September 2, 2025 council legislation packet, pp. 44 to 46 (third amended and restated CRA agreement): https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Proposed-Legislation-9-2-25.pdf - [primary] Resolution R-46-2025 in the December 16, 2025 council legislation packet, pp. 76 to 78 (fourth amended and restated CRA agreement): https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Proposed-Legislation-12-16-25-rev-O-45.pdf - [primary] Council minutes, December 16, 2025, pp. 9 to 10 (adopted 6 to 0, minimum service payment discussion): https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Council-Minutes-12-16-25.pdf - [primary] Council minutes, September 2, 2025, pp. 6 to 8 (payment in lieu cures for prior shortfalls): https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Council-Minutes-9-2-25.pdf - [primary] AEP Ohio Schedule DCT data center tariff, compliance filing (PUCO case 24-508-EL-ATA): https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/modified-tariff-data-centers.pdf - [primary] Franklin County Tax Incentive Review Council 2025 report (forgone value across New Albany CRAs): https://gis.franklincountyohio.gov/Assets/Documents/TIRCreports/2025-TIRC-Report.pdf - [government_page] City data center transparency site (community participation, finances): https://datacenters.newalbanyohio.org/city-finances/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No community fund in this agreement. The city runs a separate city-wide mechanism: community development charges collected through a New Community Authority, which the city reports produced about $10 million from data centers in tax year 2024. Agreements also require an annual community participation statement and chamber membership. None of that is a fund with community control. - R-46-2025, pp. 76 to 78: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Proposed-Legislation-12-16-25-rev-O-45.pdf - https://datacenters.newalbanyohio.org/city-finances/ - https://datacenters.newalbanyohio.org/our-community/ ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed An unusual and worth-copying structure: instead of a jobs floor, the city sets a minimum annual service payment, and if the four revenue streams it tracks (increment financing, community authority charges, a 2 percent income tax withholding, and payments in lieu) fall short, the company must cure the gap with a payment in lieu or the tax incentive review council can recommend terminating the exemption. The cure is dollar for dollar, so it is proportional. Real examples from 2024: one company paid $134,568 to cure a $6.7 million payroll shortfall and another paid $48,166. For this agreement the minimum payment on additional advanced fabric structures rises from $1.11 to $2.50 per square foot. Nothing is tied to the facility ceasing operation. - pp. 9 to 10, minimum payment per square foot: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Council-Minutes-12-16-25.pdf - pp. 6 to 8, payment in lieu cures: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Council-Minutes-9-2-25.pdf ### Decommissioning: UNKNOWN Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks Nothing in the resolutions. The agreement text itself is on file with the clerk of council and is not published, so this cannot be ruled out. ### Grid costs: MEETS Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The protection here comes from the state, not the city, and it is the strongest minimum bill in this benchmark. New loads above 25 megawatts ramp at no less than 50, 65, 80 and 90 percent of contract capacity, then pay a billing demand of at least 85 percent of the highest demand in the prior eleven months. The initial term is the ramp plus eight years, so twelve years on a four-year ramp. Exit after year five costs 36 months of minimum charges. Collateral is 50 percent of total minimum charges unless the customer is rated A-minus or better. Interconnection is customer-specific through a letter of agreement or a contribution in aid of construction. Meta's contract capacity is not public. The tariff is under appeal at the Ohio Supreme Court. - Schedule DCT, sheets 223-1 to 223-7: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/modified-tariff-data-centers.pdf - https://puco.ohio.gov/news/puco-orders-aep-ohio-to-create-data-center-specific-tariff - https://www.occ.ohio.gov/content/data-center-costs-24-0508-el-ata ### Water: UNKNOWN Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting Both resolutions authorize a water and sewer memorandum of understanding with the city, but its terms are not in the packet and no volumes are published. - R-46-2025, Section 2, water and sewer memorandum: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Proposed-Legislation-12-16-25-rev-O-45.pdf ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No noise term in the agreement. The city falls back on a codified ordinance that compares facility noise to street traffic levels in the nearest residential district, which is not a number. Residents complained in July 2026 after a temporary sound wall came down, and a separate operator's cooling fans drew complaints in September 2025 with a permanent fix promised for December 2026. - R-46-2025, full text: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Proposed-Legislation-12-16-25-rev-O-45.pdf - https://datacenters.newalbanyohio.org/ ### Jobs: UNKNOWN Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections No jobs figure appears in the resolutions or minutes for this expansion. The city's framework measures payroll through income tax withholding rather than headcount, and reports that one hyperscaler's payments equaled a $178 million payroll equivalent in tax year 2024. - https://datacenters.newalbanyohio.org/city-finances/ ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local contracting term. - R-46-2025, full text: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Proposed-Legislation-12-16-25-rev-O-45.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule Split verdict. The resolutions, minutes and votes are public, and the city runs a genuine public data center site with its own finance figures, which almost nobody else in this benchmark does. But the CRA agreement itself is only on file with the clerk of council and is not posted, so the operative terms are not readable online. The annual review is by a tax incentive review council that statutorily includes the county auditor and school district officials, which makes it independent of the city. In July 2026 council noted a new state law making some economic development submissions confidential. - pp. 6 to 8, tax incentive review council report: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Council-Minutes-9-2-25.pdf - https://datacenters.newalbanyohio.org/city-finances/ - confidentiality of economic development submissions: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Council-Minutes-7-7-26.pdf ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated A complete exemption from real property tax on the new buildings for fifteen years, with the land staying taxable and a payment in lieu owed only if the minimum service payment is missed. Both school districts, Johnstown-Monroe and the county career center, waived their statutory right to notice and to approve the agreement, and no compensation payment to the schools appears in the resolutions. The only finding the city had to make is that the company is qualified by financial responsibility and business experience, which is not a but-for test. Forgone revenue for this agreement is not published; the county review council put all twenty New Albany agreements at $6.2 million forgone in tax year 2024 on $225 million of abated value. - R-46-2025, exemption term and school district waiver recitals: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Proposed-Legislation-12-16-25-rev-O-45.pdf - R-30-2025, pp. 44 to 46: https://newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Proposed-Legislation-9-2-25.pdf - New Albany CRA totals, tax year 2024: https://gis.franklincountyohio.gov/Assets/Documents/TIRCreports/2025-TIRC-Report.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Reporting found the city gave up millions at one Meta data center, with fifteen-year exemptions for multiple hyperscalers, against a statewide tally of $282 million in data center tax breaks. (https://prospect.org/2026/03/05/ohio-tech-ai-data-centers-meta-amazon-google-energy/) - One operator's state sales tax exemption in New Albany was valued at $72.5 million over fifteen years against a twenty-job commitment. (https://signalohio.org/ohio-data-centers-tax-breaks/) --- ## Morrow County, OR (Amazon) - Project: Amazon data center campus near Boardman, under the Oregon Strategic Investment Program - Operator: Amazon Web Services - Developer: Amazon Data Services, Inc. - Agreement: tax abatement, signed, signed 2023-04-05 - Scale: 230,000 sq ft, 2,370,000,000 USD - $2.37 billion of investment, of which $1.95 billion is servers and personal property and $320 million is construction and heavy equipment. About 230,000 square feet per main building. Acreage and megawatts appear in no document I read, which is itself worth noting for a project of this size. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Oregon Strategic Investment Program Agreement between Morrow County and Amazon Data Services, Inc., April 5, 2023, at pages 219 to 229 of the county commissioners' agenda packet, with Resolution R-2023-4 at pages 234 to 235: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - [primary] Board of Commissioners minutes, April 5, 2023, recording the 2 to 0 vote with one commissioner abstaining and no public testimony: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/16576/4-5-23_board_minutes_9-00_am.pdf - [primary] Business Oregon Commission agenda item and Resolution SIP-23-01, containing the state's own estimate of taxes forgone and net benefit: https://www.oregon.gov/biz/Publications/Boards/Business%20Oregon%20Commission/2023/AmazonSIPAgendaItem.pdf - [primary] Columbia River Enterprise Zone III board packet, August 31, 2023, containing the county assessor's distribution worksheet for the $5,000,000 payment: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16706/8-31-23_crez_iii_meeting_agenda_packet.pdf - [primary] Oregon HB 3546 (2025), directing the utility commission to create a separate service classification for large energy use facilities: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB3546 ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The $5 million is "intended to assist with costs of capital improvement projects," and the same section then disclaims any obligation on the company to fund them or on the county to spend it that way." Three streams and the largest community money in this benchmark, all of it decided by the county. A community services fee of 25% of the taxes that would otherwise be due, capped at $2.5 million a year; an annual contribution of $850,000 for every year of the exemption; and a one time $5,000,000 community development contribution due within 60 days of the state determination. Section 6.3 puts the county solely in charge of allocation and disposition, and says the payments create no third party beneficiary rights. There is no committee, no advisory body and no resident seat. When the assessor laid out how a $5,000,000 payment would be split, the three government sponsors took $1,000,000 each, three fifths of it, before anything reached the remaining districts. - SIP Agreement, Sections 5.1(b), 5.1(c) and 5.1(d): https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - SIP Agreement, Section 6.3: "The County is solely responsible for the allocation, budgeting, division, and disposition of any payment" https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - Morrow County Assessor distribution worksheet, August 22, 2023: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16706/8-31-23_crez_iii_meeting_agenda_packet.pdf ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Section 9.1 lets the company "elect to terminate this Agreement for any reason or no reason."" None that reach performance. There is no jobs clawback, no investment clawback and no trigger if the facility stops running. The only enforcement is for not paying the fees: the county must give notice and 60 days to cure, the exemption is then lost prospectively, paying late restores it the following year, and only after two consecutive years of nonpayment may the county terminate. Nothing already received comes back. The asymmetry is the striking part: the company may terminate the agreement for any reason or no reason on written notice, and its total liability is capped at the lesser of the benefit realised or $3,000,000, with forgone tax revenue expressly excluded from recoverable damages. On a deal the state scores as $113 million of net benefit, the county's maximum recovery is three million dollars. - SIP Agreement, Section 9.2, nonpayment and revocation: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - SIP Agreement, Section 9.1, termination for any reason or no reason: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - SIP Agreement, Sections 11.7 and 11.13, liability and fee caps: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks None. No bond, escrow, letter of credit or covenant appears in the agreement, the county resolution, or the state resolution. This is a confirmed absence, read against the full text. - SIP Agreement, full text, which contains no decommissioning provision: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The agreement says nothing about electricity at all: no interconnection, no substation, no minimum bill, no take or pay, and it names no utility and no tariff. That is a remarkable silence for a $2.37 billion load. Oregon's answer arrived two years later, in 2025 legislation directing the utility commission to create a separate service classification for large energy users and to allocate costs so as to mitigate risks to other customers. Whether that reaches a load served by a consumer owned cooperative, which is largely outside commission rate regulation, is not something I could establish from a primary document. - SIP Agreement, full text, which contains no electricity provision: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - Oregon HB 3546 (2025), large energy use facilities: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB3546 ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting No cap, no reporting requirement, no recycling requirement and no cooling type. The only water reference in the entire agreement is descriptive: the project scope includes an industrial water building. - SIP Agreement, Section 1.1, project description: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line Nothing in the agreement. No limit, no measurement point, no setback. Whether county zoning imposes one is a gap I have not closed. - SIP Agreement, full text, which contains no noise provision: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The headcount lives in a recital, which says the project "is expected to include" the jobs rather than committing to them." One real hook and no number behind it. The 80 permanent jobs everyone cites is a recital, not a covenant, and the state program has no employment criteria at all, which Business Oregon says in its own memo. What is enforceable is narrower and more interesting: Section 5.3 requires the company to enter a first source hiring agreement with third parties acceptable to the county, and the county is to be designated a third party beneficiary entitled to enforce its terms. That is a genuine lever over how hiring happens. It says nothing about how many people get hired, and there is no consequence for missing 80. - SIP Agreement, Section 5.3, first source hiring agreement: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - SIP Agreement, recitals, the 80 jobs expectation: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - Business Oregon memo, p. 2: "No employment criteria" https://www.oregon.gov/biz/Publications/Boards/Business%20Oregon%20Commission/2023/AmazonSIPAgendaItem.pdf ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local subcontracting requirement and no haul route or road repair obligation. The infrastructure contribution is the $5,000,000 community development payment, which the agreement says is intended for capital improvements while disclaiming any obligation to fund bonded debt or any requirement that the county spend it that way. The company does agree to pay standard permit fees and, where it has a choice, to pull permits locally rather than from the state, and to pay 100% of what it would have owed on voter approved bonds passed after the agreement date. - SIP Agreement, Sections 5.1(d), 5.1(f) and 5.1(h): https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Section 10.1 commits county staff to "exercise the utmost discretion in oral and written communications."" No non-disclosure agreement, and the agreement itself is published in a public packet. Section 10 then builds most of the same effect into the public records process. County staff commit to exercise the utmost discretion in oral and written communications. On any records request touching the company, the county must notify it within three business days, the company has nine business days to decide whether to fight release, and only if it does not respond may the county release. The company indemnifies the county's costs of fighting the request, including its attorney fees, which quietly removes the main practical reason a county would rather just disclose. Reporting is statutory only and self certified; there is no independent audit and no dashboard. The public hearing that preceded a fifteen year, nine figure exemption drew no testimony at all, for or against, in person or online. - SIP Agreement, Section 10, confidentiality and public records: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - SIP Agreement, Sections 5.4 and 6.1, statutory annual report and invoice: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf - Board minutes, April 5, 2023, p. 6, public hearing with no testimony: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/16576/4-5-23_board_minutes_9-00_am.pdf ### Tax incentives: FALLS SHORT Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated Fifteen years of partial property tax exemption with a fee in lieu, and the state published the arithmetic, which almost nobody does. Business Oregon's own memo: about $195 million of property tax otherwise due, about $31 million paid on the non exempt portion, about $33 million in community service fees, and nearly $18 million in negotiated payments, leaving the company a net benefit of about $113 million. The taxable floor is $100 million of assessed value for a rural project over a billion dollars, escalating 3% a year. There is no but for test in the statute or the agreement. The state's findings are eligibility findings, that the project is traded sector, rural and over $25 million, which is a different question from whether the exemption changed the outcome. - Business Oregon memo, p. 3, taxes otherwise due and net benefit: https://www.oregon.gov/biz/Publications/Boards/Business%20Oregon%20Commission/2023/AmazonSIPAgendaItem.pdf - SIP Agreement, Sections 3 and 5.1, exemption period and fee structure: https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/packets/16576/4-5-23_agenda_packet_redacted.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Three former officials, a county commissioner and two port commissioners, owned a fiber company that sold services to the Amazon data centers while they voted on Amazon's incentives and land. State ethics staff recommended penalties against all three. (https://www.governing.com/politics/oregon-county-officials-benefited-personally-from-amazon-deal) - A sitting commissioner abstained on this very agreement, stating on the record that it could affect a business he was associated with and that he would not participate until an ethics complaint was resolved. (https://www.morrowcountyor.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/board_of_commissioners/meeting/16576/4-5-23_board_minutes_9-00_am.pdf) - County commissioners hired outside counsel in 2022 specifically to get a better deal, on the view that the existing agreements returned too little. (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/23/morrow-county-seeks-better-data-center-tax-deal-with-amazon/) - Asked how many permanent jobs six new data centers would create, the county chair said the company had not said yet and that he did not have the figure. (https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/19/amazon-data-center-oregon-morrow-county/) --- ## City of Lancaster, PA (CoreWeave) - Project: Lancaster AI Hub (216 Greenfield Road and 1375 Harrisburg Pike) - Operator: CoreWeave (initial tenant, Building 1) - Developer: Chirisa Technology Parks affiliates (LPE 01 PROPCO LLC, Greenfield Road Owner LLC, Harrisburg Place Owner LLC) with Machine Investment Group; financed by Blue Owl Capital - Agreement: community benefits agreement, approved, approved 2025-11-20 - Scale: 300 MW, 150 acres, 2,050,000 sq ft, 10,000,000,000 USD - Acres and square footage are derived from the agreement (two campuses of about 75 acres; buildings of about 400,000, 650,000, and 1,000,000 sq ft). MW and cost are press figures: CoreWeave described an initial 100 MW with potential to expand to 300 MW, and LancasterOnline and WITF reported about $10 billion combined. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Community Benefits Agreement (posted by the City as a draft; signature pages and effective date blank): https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - [government_page] City of Lancaster CBA summary: https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Community-Benefits-Agreement-Summary-1-1.pdf - [government_page] City of Lancaster data center FAQ: https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/data-center/frequently-asked-questions/ - [press] LancasterOnline: council approves agreement 6-1: https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-city-council-votes-to-approve-data-center-benefits-agreement/article_b05cb1fd-a585-4c4f-8945-c96ada3172ad.html - [analysis] Sabin Center: Community Benefits Agreements and Data Center Development: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2026/05/28/community-benefits-agreements-and-data-center-development/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it $10M to the Lancaster County Community Foundation and $10M to the City's Sustainable Development and Clean Energy Fund, paid in $2.5M installments at construction financing and within 30 days of operations start for each of the two East campus units. Secured by a $20M letter of credit or a corporate guarantee from an entity with $100M net worth (8.3). The $250,000 strategic-plan payment is credited against the $10M foundation contribution, so the total is $20M, not $20.25M as the Sabin Center summary says. No payment is written for the Harrisburg Pike (West) building. Under Section 10.2.1 no obligation attaches to a campus until its owner has all approvals and closes a construction loan; only the $250,000 is due automatically. The Community Foundation told LancasterOnline the committee's meetings will not be public. - Sections 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.1, 8.2.2: "a contribution of $2,500,000.00 to the Lancaster County Community Foundation" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 8.1.3(b): "shall be credited against any amount required by 8.1.1 above" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 8.1.3(a), committee composition: "A committee consisting of the City’s Director of the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 8.3: "a Letter of Credit for $20,000,000 securing their obligations under this Article 8" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 10.2.1 and 10.2.2: "the provisions of Section 8.1.3(b) above shall be effective automatically as of the Effective Date" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - article of 2026-02-13: "The committee's meetings won't be public because the fund is managed by the Community Foundation" https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/heres-when-lancaster-city-will-see-payments-from-data-center-agreement/article_49eb8780-5784-442a-afa4-778f5f73bd80.html - https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2026/05/28/community-benefits-agreements-and-data-center-development/ ### Clawbacks: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed The City gave no tax incentives, so there is nothing to claw back. The closest instrument is the $10M Contingent Clean Energy Fund letter of credit: a building whose ten-year power contract is only 80 percent clean pays $2.5M (East) or $5M (West); at 60 percent it pays $5M (East) or $10M (West). Without at least a 60 percent contract the owner must run on 100 percent clean energy or face Article 9 enforcement, which is injunctive relief and specific performance. The phrase 'discontinuance of operations' appears only in the City's summary, not in the agreement. - Sections 3.3.3 to 3.3.6 and 9.4: "a Letter of Credit for $10,000,000 (the “Contingent Clean Energy Fund”)" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Enforcement & Accountability: "including discontinuance of operations (this is the strongest remedy available)" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Community-Benefits-Agreement-Summary-1-1.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks An E-Waste Management Plan is required and tenant-installed equipment must be promptly removed when a building is decommissioned, but there is no bond, escrow, or site-restoration fund. - Section 5.3: "all tenant installed data center equipment shall be promptly removed from the Property" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - https://pastandsup.org/lancaster/2025/10/28/lancaster-stands-up-data-center-community-conversation/ ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The agreement is silent on transmission, substation, and interconnection cost. Press reports the developer partners intend to fund about $200M of PPL Electric grid improvements, including a new substation and switchyard near Pitney Road. That commitment lives outside the CBA. - press release of 2025-08-25: "intend to fund approximately $200 million for local power grid infrastructure improvements in partnership with PPL Electric Utilities" https://chirisatechnologyparks.com/blue-owl-and-chirisa-technology-parks-close-4-billion-joint-venture-partnership-including-machine-investment-group-for-lancaster-campus/ - article of 2025-10-19: "A new PPL substation and switchyard are proposed west of the buildings, near Pitney Road" https://www.witf.org/2025/10/19/data-centers-second-phase-expected-to-cost-up-to-2-5-billion-in-lancaster-county/ ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting Hard cap of 20,000 gallons per day of municipal water at either campus, closed-loop cooling with minimal municipal water and no added chemicals. Rainwater and gray water capture for irrigation is only 'reasonably maximize' (4.6.1). The City's summary says the prior printing plant used 100,000 to 125,000 gallons per day. The annual report to Council covers clean energy only; water use is not reported. - Section 3.4: "shall not exceed twenty thousand (20,000) gallons per day at either of the Campuses" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 4.5.1: "closed-loop cooling system which will be used to the maximum extent possible" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 7.1, report contents (clean energy only): "percentage usage of Clean Energy for the preceding year" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Water & Wastewater: "the previous user consumed on average 100,000-125,000 gallons per day" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Community-Benefits-Agreement-Summary-1-1.pdf ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line Magnetic levitation chillers and sound-attenuated generator enclosures required. Generator testing daytime only, never Sundays or federal holidays. A noise mitigation plan certified by a professional acoustic engineer is due within 60 days of the Effective Date for the East campus and within 60 days of a tenant lease for the West campus (11.1); post-construction testing required (5.2.2). The City may demand a compliance re-check on complaint only once every two years (5.2.1). The 100-foot figure is a landscaped buffer yard along streets and residential or park edges, 50 feet elsewhere (4.1.2), not a building setback. - Section 3.1.1: "exceeding the ambient noise levels at those receiving properties measured at pre-construction of the Project" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Sections 3.1.3, 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 11.1.1: "the City may only make one such request every two (2) years" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 4.1.2: "a minimum one hundred (100) foot wide buffer yard" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 4.5.2: "will only run at short intervals for monthly testing and maintenance" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The owners "expect" approximately 150 people at each campus, and local hiring is a "good faith" effort with percentage goals to be set later in a plan that had not been released." The agreement says the owners expect approximately 150 people at each campus (300 total); it is an expectation, not a commitment. Local hiring is a good-faith effort with percentage goals to be set in a Local Hiring Plan; as of April 2026 the City had a draft but had not released it. No prevailing wage; only a worker-misclassification clause. Press figures range from 70 full-time at launch (CoreWeave, July 2025) to 350 permanent (LancasterOnline and the City FAQ); construction estimates range from 600 to 2,000. - Background G: "employ approximately one hundred fifty (150) people at each Campus" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3: "use good faith efforts to hire local residents for both construction and permanent positions" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 6.3: "shall avoid misclassifying employees as independent contractors" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - article of 2026-04-04: "2,000 construction and 350 permanent jobs" https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-data-center-agreement-s-benefit-to-community-questioned/article_b2654db6-c6e3-4719-8a0e-1f839c1e325e.html - press release of 2025-07-15: "approximately 70 full-time technical and operational roles at launch" https://investors.coreweave.com/news/news-details/2025/CoreWeave-Announces-Multi-Billion-Dollar-Commitment-to-AI-Infrastructure-in-Pennsylvania/default.aspx ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local subcontracting requirement and no haul-route or road-damage term; Section 4.6.3 only requires restoring pavements, curbs, sidewalks and other features disturbed by construction. Owners reimburse City emergency-response costs above $25,000 per response. Press reports $149M in contracts awarded with over half to local firms, which is practice, not obligation. - Section 5.1.3: "in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00)" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 4.6.3: "restore all areas, pavements, curbs, driveways, sidewalks" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - article of 2026-04-04: "Over half of the $149 million in contracts awarded for the project so far have gone to local firms" https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-data-center-agreement-s-benefit-to-community-questioned/article_b2654db6-c6e3-4719-8a0e-1f839c1e325e.html ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The agreement is a public record under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law with carve-outs for proprietary and security submissions. Owners must keep a public website and complaint portal and present a report to Council each April on clean-energy percentage and sourcing; that self-report is the only recurring accountability, and it is not audited. The only audit right written runs the other way: the owners may audit both funds annually. Residents are not third-party beneficiaries and cannot enforce the agreement. The Community Foundation told LancasterOnline the fund committee's meetings will not be public. No source addresses whether the City signed a nondisclosure agreement at any stage. - Section 13.17: "shall be deemed public records of the City of Lancaster and disclosable to the public" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 6.1: "the Owners shall maintain a publicly accessible website(s)" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 7.1: "present to City Council at its first regularly scheduled meeting in the month of April" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Sections 8.1.3(c) and 8.2.3(b): "shall each have a right to audit the distribution, usage and effectiveness of contributions" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - Section 13.3: "shall not be deemed for the benefit or enforcement by any third party" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Lancaster-CBA-Draft.pdf - https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/heres-when-lancaster-city-will-see-payments-from-data-center-agreement/article_49eb8780-5784-442a-afa4-778f5f73bd80.html ### Tax incentives: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated No tax breaks: the City says no incentives are offered and the project is not eligible for LERTA or CRIZ; the CBA itself is silent on taxes. No PILOT. The City received about $7.8M in building permit fees for the first building and $327,345 in realty transfer tax on the purchase. - Other: "not receiving any tax breaks from the City of Lancaster, including Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA)" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Community-Benefits-Agreement-Summary-1-1.pdf - FAQ: "the City received $327,345 from the real estate transfer tax" https://www.cityoflancasterpa.gov/data-center/frequently-asked-questions/ - article of 2026-02-13: "the city received $7.8 million in building permit fees from the developer" https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/heres-when-lancaster-city-will-see-payments-from-data-center-agreement/article_49eb8780-5784-442a-afa4-778f5f73bd80.html ### Reported criticisms - Lancaster Stands Up reported it received a version of the agreement only two days before the council vote, and the fund committee has no direct community representative. (https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2026/05/28/community-benefits-agreements-and-data-center-development/) - Council was told the agreement was the final offer negotiated by city staff and Chirisa Technology Parks and could not be amended. (https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-city-council-votes-to-approve-data-center-benefits-agreement/article_b05cb1fd-a585-4c4f-8945-c96ada3172ad.html) - Only the City can enforce the agreement. Residents affected by noise cannot sue under it. (https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-data-center-agreement-s-benefit-to-community-questioned/article_b2654db6-c6e3-4719-8a0e-1f839c1e325e.html) - Negotiation came after the February 2025 zoning opinions and the June 2025 demolition permit (recited in Section 12.1), so the City's leverage was limited. (https://fas.org/publication/community-benefit-agreements-data-center-development/) - The clean-energy penalty structure was described by resident Darrell Lagace as pay to pollute. (https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-city-council-votes-to-approve-data-center-benefits-agreement/article_b05cb1fd-a585-4c4f-8945-c96ada3172ad.html) --- ## City of Memphis, TN (xAI) - Project: Colossus, 3231 Paul R. Lowry Road, with Colossus 2 and a paused water recycling plant - Operator: xAI - Developer: CTC Property LLC, an xAI subsidiary - Agreement: other, approved, approved 2025-08-19 - Scale: 300 MW, 5,000,000,000 USD - 300 MW of grid supply approved by the TVA board in two 150 MW steps, November 7, 2024 and February 11, 2026, plus on-site gas turbines permitted separately. Capex is the figure reported around the project; no capital figure appears in the city ordinance. Campus acreage and square footage are not stated in the documents I have. The ordinance identifies the site by metes and bounds in Exhibit A rather than by area. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Memphis City Ordinance No. 5953, allocating a portion of city property tax revenue collected on artificial intelligence property to public purposes in the surrounding area: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf - [primary] Memphis City Council minutes, August 19, 2025, recording the third and final reading vote on Ordinance 5953: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Minutes-08-19-2025.pdf - [primary] MLGW xAI Update, May 5, 2025, the utility's own account of what xAI pays for and what was built at whose expense: https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/new/5-5-25%20xAI%20Update.pdf - [primary] MLGW xAI Project Quick Facts (2024): https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/2024xAI%20and%20MLGW%20Quick%20Facts%201.pdf - [government_page] MLGW xAI page, which publishes the utility's xAI documents: https://www.mlgw.com/xai - [primary] TVA board minutes, November 7, 2024, approving 150 MW of firm power for CTC Property LLC through MLGW: https://tva-azr-eastus-cdn-ep-tvawcm-prd.azureedge.net/cdn-tvawcma/docs/default-source/about-tva/board-of-directors/november--7-2024/2024-11072024-board-meeting-minutes-signed.pdf?sfvrsn=fde0917c_1 - [primary] TVA board resolution and memorandum, November 7, 2024, greater than 100 MW firm power arrangement with CTC Property LLC (xAI): https://tva-azr-eastus-cdn-ep-tvawcm-prd.azureedge.net/cdn-tvawcma/docs/default-source/about-tva/board-of-directors/november--7-2024/resolutions/reading-room-11072024g-grtr-100mw-ctc-xai-reso-memo.pdf?sfvrsn=55653613_1 - [primary] TVA board minutes, February 11, 2026, approving a second 150 MW on a confidential memorandum: https://tva-azr-eastus-cdn-ep-tvawcm-prd.azureedge.net/cdn-tvawcma/docs/default-source/about-tva/board-of-directors/february--11-2026/february-11-2026-board-meeting-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=1658d52d_1 ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Section 2(a): "Subject to annual budgeting and appropriation by Council." The preamble adds that the Council intends to appropriate "so much of the Public Purpose Amount as it deems necessary and appropriate," "as the Council may in its discretion approve."" The most interesting community fund in this benchmark, and the one that shows how much work the word "allocate" can do. Ordinance 5953 sets a "Public Purpose Amount" equal to 25% of the city property tax revenue collected on the AI property, to be spent in a five mile radius on public projects, programs, and grants to nonprofits including affordable housing. It states an intent that $100 million be allocated in the aggregate, and once that is reached the Council is directed to review whether to keep going. Three things cut against it. The money is subject to annual budgeting and appropriation, so no year's payment is owed. The amount decreases by whatever other public entities allocate to the same area that year, so a county or state contribution reduces the city's rather than adding to it. And the $100 million target is inclusive of those other entities' money, so the city's own obligation is smaller than the headline. There is no community seat, no advisory board, and no reporting or audit requirement anywhere in the ordinance. - Ordinance 5953, Section 2(b): "lawfully available funds of the City equal in amount to 25% of the real and personal property tax revenues collected by the City on the AI Property" https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf - Ordinance 5953, Section 2(b), the offset sentence: "the Public Purpose Amount, as calculated above, to be allocated by the City to Public Purposes in any year shall decrease by that amount of money allocated by other public entities during such year" https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf - Ordinance 5953, Section 2(c): "It is the intent of the City that there be $100 million allocated in the aggregate, inclusive of the Public Purpose Amount allocated by the City and monies allocated by other public entities" https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf - Ordinance 5953, Section 1(f), defining the Surrounding Area: "those parcels of land in the City, or portions thereof, that are located within a five (5) mile radius of the AI Property" https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf - Council minutes, August 19, 2025, item 20, third and final reading: "APPROVED, on Third and Final Reading, as amended" https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Minutes-08-19-2025.pdf ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed Nothing to claw back and nothing that triggers. Ordinance 5953 is the city allocating its own funds, not a subsidy to xAI, so it carries no performance conditions on the company at all. If the facility closes, the AI property simply stops being AI property under Section 1(h) and the allocation stops, which protects the city's money but returns nothing to the public for what has already been spent on the company's behalf. I have not located a payment in lieu of taxes agreement or an incentive agreement between xAI and EDGE in primary form, so I cannot say whether a clawback lives in a document I have not read. - Ordinance 5953, Section 1(h): "such parcels shall no longer constitute AI Real Property" https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No bond, escrow, letter of credit, or removal covenant appears in the ordinance or in the utility and TVA records. - Ordinance 5953, full text: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf ### Grid costs: UNKNOWN Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "TVA's own resolution language is conditional: firm power was approved "contingent on the new customer's agreement to certain demand response terms," with the terms themselves never described in public." On the part that is public, this is the strongest cost allocation in the benchmark: MLGW says in its own document that the transmission upgrades and both substations were built at xAI expense, and that xAI pays the prevailing industrial rate. What is not public is the contract. TVA approved the first 150 MW on a resolution contingent on the company agreeing to "certain demand response terms offered for similar customer loads," and approved the second 150 MW on February 11, 2026 on a confidential memorandum, delegating approval of the contractual, financial, and operational requirements to a single executive. So I can tell you who paid for the poles, and I cannot tell you whether there is a minimum bill, a term, or an exit charge if the load leaves. - MLGW xAI Update, May 5, 2025, electricity: "transmission system upgrades have been completed (at xAI expense), a substation to provide this power was constructed (at xAI expense)" https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/new/5-5-25%20xAI%20Update.pdf - MLGW xAI Update, May 5, 2025, electricity: "xAI is paying the prevailing industrial rate for electricity at this facility." https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/new/5-5-25%20xAI%20Update.pdf - MLGW xAI Update, May 5, 2025, electricity: "TVA/xAI/MLGW have a signed agreement requiring xAI to curtail their consumption of electricity from the grid when demand is high." https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/new/5-5-25%20xAI%20Update.pdf - TVA board resolution, November 7, 2024: "contingent on the new customer's agreement to certain demand response terms offered for similar customer loads" https://tva-azr-eastus-cdn-ep-tvawcm-prd.azureedge.net/cdn-tvawcma/docs/default-source/about-tva/board-of-directors/november--7-2024/resolutions/reading-room-11072024g-grtr-100mw-ctc-xai-reso-memo.pdf?sfvrsn=55653613_1 - TVA board minutes, February 11, 2026: "delegates authority to the Executive Vice President & Chief Business Officer to approve the contractual, financial, and operational requirements" https://tva-azr-eastus-cdn-ep-tvawcm-prd.azureedge.net/cdn-tvawcma/docs/default-source/about-tva/board-of-directors/february--11-2026/february-11-2026-board-meeting-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=1658d52d_1 ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Every water number in the public record is framed as capacity available or volume expected, never as a limit the operator agreed not to exceed." A number that is a capacity, not a cap. MLGW's quick facts say the site draws up to 1 million gallons a day from an existing 20 inch main and pays the prevailing commercial rate. No document I have found sets an enforceable ceiling, requires reporting, or publishes actual consumption. The recycled water plant, which would produce 13 million gallons a day for xAI, TVA, Nucor and others, was offered and to be built at xAI expense rather than required by any agreement, and it has since been paused. As late as April 29, 2026 a coalition letter to the mayors was still asking, as an open question, how much aquifer water the facility uses per day. Figures circulating between 700,000 gallons and 5 million gallons a day come from advocacy estimates and from journalists reading billing records, not from a permit or a published meter. - MLGW xAI Project Quick Facts, water: "Water - Up to 1 MGD from an existing 20" water main serving the area." https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/2024xAI%20and%20MLGW%20Quick%20Facts%201.pdf - MLGW xAI Update, May 5, 2025, water: "xAI pays the prevailing commercial rate for consumption." https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/new/5-5-25%20xAI%20Update.pdf - MLGW xAI Update, May 5, 2025, recycled wastewater plant: "xAI offered to build a facility (at xAI expense) that uses discharged, treated wastewater from the Maxson Wastewater plant, to produce 13M gallons per day of recycled water" https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/new/5-5-25%20xAI%20Update.pdf - https://www.mlgw.com/xai ### Noise: FALLS SHORT Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No noise limit, measurement point, or setback appears in the ordinance or the utility records. The contested environmental terms here are air emissions from the on-site turbines, litigated separately, not noise. - Ordinance 5953, full text: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "MLGW's own phrasing is a forecast: "The project is forecast to create ~300+ new, high paying jobs."" No job commitment exists in any document I have. MLGW's quick facts forecast "~300+ new, high paying jobs," which is a utility's projection of the project's effect, not a promise by the company and not enforceable by anyone. The ordinance says nothing about employment. Worth noting for context that the building itself was constructed with a 2010 state grant and a local abatement tied to an earlier tenant's job commitments, not xAI's. - MLGW xAI Project Quick Facts, value for MLGW customers: "The project is forecast to create ~300+ new, high paying jobs." https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/2024xAI%20and%20MLGW%20Quick%20Facts%201.pdf - Ordinance 5953, full text: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local hiring or subcontracting preference and no road commitment. The one adjacent fact is that xAI paid for its own utility infrastructure, including a $1.7 million improvement to a 161 kV transmission line identified in MLGW's system impact study, which spares ratepayers but is not a contribution to the community. - MLGW xAI Project Quick Facts, conditions on the additional 100 MW: "$1.7M of improvements to a 161kV transmission line (per the MLGW electric system impact study)" https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/2024xAI%20and%20MLGW%20Quick%20Facts%201.pdf - Ordinance 5953, full text: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "TVA's minutes describe the governing memorandum as containing "information that the customer considers confidential and business sensitive."" Split down the middle, and the public half is the half that matters least. The ordinance is public, readable, and was voted on in open session with residents speaking from the audience. The power arrangement, which is where the real money and the real risk sit, is not: TVA approved the second 150 MW on a confidential memorandum and delegated the terms to an executive, and the curtailment agreement among TVA, xAI and MLGW is described in public but never published. The ordinance itself sets no reporting, no audit, and no dashboard for the Public Purpose Amount, so there is no mechanism by which a resident can check whether the 25% was calculated correctly or spent nearby. - TVA board minutes, February 11, 2026: "a memorandum, which contains information that the customer considers confidential and business sensitive" https://tva-azr-eastus-cdn-ep-tvawcm-prd.azureedge.net/cdn-tvawcma/docs/default-source/about-tva/board-of-directors/february--11-2026/february-11-2026-board-meeting-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn=1658d52d_1 - Ordinance 5953, Sections 2 through 5, which contain no reporting or audit provision: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf - Council minutes, August 19, 2025, item 20, speakers recognized from the audience: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Minutes-08-19-2025.pdf ### Tax incentives: UNKNOWN Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated Unresolved, and I would rather say so than guess. Ordinance 5953 assumes the city collects property tax on the AI property, since it allocates a share of that revenue, which implies the property is at least partly taxable. Separately, MLGW's own background says the building was constructed under a 2010 state grant and a 15 year local property tax abatement of 75%, but that abatement was granted to the earlier manufacturing tenant and I have not found a primary document establishing what xAI holds today. I have not located a payment in lieu of taxes agreement between xAI and EDGE. Until I read one, this clause stays unknown rather than being scored from a news summary. - MLGW xAI Update, background: "a 15-year local property tax abatement of 75%" https://www.mlgw.com/images/content/files/pdf/new/5-5-25%20xAI%20Update.pdf - Ordinance 5953, Section 2(b), which presumes property tax revenue is collected on the AI Property: https://memphistn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/xAI-Allocation-Ordinance47043091-1.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Turbines ran without a permit from June 2024, at one point 35 units exceeding 420 MW, according to the NAACP appeal. (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/NAACP-and-YGGs-xAI-Air-Permit-Appeal-7-15-2025.pdf) - The permit allows 87 tons of nitrogen oxides a year in an area with ozone problems, in a historically Black neighborhood already carrying industrial pollution. (https://cleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/SACE-SCHD-xAI-Comments-2025-04-30.pdf) - The Justice Department moved to dismiss the NAACP Clean Air Act suit on national security grounds in June 2026, without disputing that the turbines lack permits. (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doj-intervenes-xai-data-center-gas-turbine-lawsuit/823267/) - Boxtown residents say the tax reinvestment fund does not reach them and report fumes. (https://ncrc.org/south-memphis-residents-skeptical-of-musks-xai-economic-growth-claims-as-pollution-concerns-grow/) --- ## City of Abilene, TX (Oracle and OpenAI) - Project: Lancium Clean Campus, Stargate Site 1 - Operator: Oracle and OpenAI (Stargate); Crusoe builds and operates the campus - Developer: Lancium LLC (landowner) with Abilene DC 1 through 8 LLC (Crusoe entities) as lessees - Agreement: tax abatement, signed, signed 2025-03-17 - Scale: 1,200 MW, 941 acres, 4,000,000 sq ft, 3,400,000,000 USD - Acreage is the reinvestment zone: the nine tracts in Exhibit A total about 941 acres, matching the recital. The campus itself is reported at 1,100 acres. Eight buildings of about 4 million sq ft and 1.2 GW per Crusoe. The agreement floor is $350 million of capital investment per Facility across seven leased parcels, with a stated target of as much as $500 million each; the Development Corporation of Abilene cited an initial $3.4 billion investment. Taylor County has a parallel agreement reported at 80 percent; the county resolution approving it was read, the county agreements themselves were not. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Second Amended and Restated Tax Abatement Agreement, City of Abilene, Lancium LLC, and Abilene DC 1 through 8 LLC (effective March 17, 2025): https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - [primary] Second Amended and Restated Second Tax Abatement Agreement (later-added improvements and equipment): https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39455 - [primary] City Resolution 171-2025 approving per-phase agreements for Phases 5 through 8 and Amendment No. 1 to both Second Amended and Restated agreements: https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39459 - [primary] City Resolution 249-2025 approving Phase 9, Phase 10, and Electricity Generation Plant tax abatement agreements in Reinvestment Zone RZ25-1: https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39460 - [primary] Taylor County Resolution 22-25: https://www.taylorcounty.texas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4818/Resolution-22-25-Lancium - [government_page] City of Abilene tax abatements index: https://abilenetx.gov/2476/Tax-Abatements - [press] Texas Tribune: on-site gas turbines and permits: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/09/texas-data-centers-ai-power-plants-pollution-state-permits/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The community spending the developer cites is voluntary and unquantified in the documents." No community fund in either agreement. Crusoe says its investments have funded new fire trucks, school expansions, and road improvements; those are voluntary and appear nowhere in the documents. - full agreement, no fund provision: https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/09/texas-data-centers-ai-power-plants-pollution-state-permits/ ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed Default includes failure to commence or complete construction, delinquent ad valorem taxes, bankruptcy or insolvency, or breach of any term, with a 30-day cure that extends while the party diligently pursues a fix. On termination the city recaptures all taxes that would have been paid without the abatement, plus interest at the statutory delinquent-tax rate, as liquidated damages secured by a tax lien and due within 30 days. Recapture is all-or-nothing for the defaulting parcel and the agreement states there are no cross-defaults between parties or phases. A jobs shortfall ends that facility's abatement rather than triggering recapture, and a force majeure shortfall against the $350 million floor is not a default. Nothing is tied to the facility ceasing operation after completion. - Section 6(a) to 6(e), pp. 11 to 13: "pay to the City all taxes which would otherwise been paid by the Defaulting Party to City without the benefit of a tax abatement" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - Section 6(b), p. 12, no cross-defaults: "it is the intent of the Parties that there be no cross-defaults between Parties or phases of development" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - Section 3.8(d), pp. 8 to 9, jobs shortfall: "the Facility (and applicable Lessee) will no longer be eligible to receive the abatement, but such failure shall not affect the abatements" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No decommissioning term of any kind. A full-text search of both agreements returns no occurrence of decommission. - full agreement: https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The agreements are silent on grid cost, and a full-text search of both returns no occurrence of interconnect. Lancium builds the substation and other electrical infrastructure on its own land, which the agreement defines as the Improvements. The campus also runs a 360 MW on-site gas plant and 62 diesel generators, with 41 more turbines and 18 more generators proposed, and the generation plant itself is abated under a December 2025 agreement approved by Resolution 249-2025. - Section 2, definition of Improvements, p. 5: "a substation and other electrical infrastructure improvements to be constructed by Developer on Developer Land" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - Part 1, items 5 and 6: "Tax Abatement Agreement (Electricity Generation Plant); and Second Tax Abatement Agreement (Electricity Generation Plant)" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39460 - https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/09/texas-data-centers-ai-power-plants-pollution-state-permits/ ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting No water terms in either abatement agreement. A full-text search returns water only inside the force majeure list and in an exhibit listing water and sewer tap fees as capital-investment categories. The mayor has said the facilities will use less than 1 percent of Abilene's daily water consumption. Crusoe describes direct-to-chip liquid cooling with a zero-water evaporation system that recirculates through a closed loop. No separate water agreement was located. - full agreement: https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - https://ktxs.com/news/local/abilene-city-council-discusses-multiple-largely-talked-about-items-in-meeting - https://www.crusoe.ai/resources/newsroom/crusoe-expands-ai-data-center-campus-in-abilene-to-1-2-gigawatts ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line No noise term. A full-text search of both agreements returns no occurrence of noise or sound. Some homes and buildings sit within half a mile of the turbines. - full agreement, no noise or sound provision: https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - https://www.texasobserver.org/abilene-texas-stargate-natural-gas-plant-harms/ ### Jobs: MEETS Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "City policy asks only for "reasonable efforts" to hire residents, and the required jobs may be filled by contractors, tenants, or subtenants rather than the operator." 57 full-time equivalent positions at Leased Parcel 1/2 by December 31, 2026 and 50 at each of the six remaining leased parcels, 357 in total, which may be filled by the lessee's contractors, tenants, or subtenants. The average wage across those positions must be at least $57,600 a year excluding benefits, or at least $72,000 a year including benefits. Compliance is self-certified each February 1 with quarterly IRS 941 returns or Texas Workforce Commission employer quarterly reports. Missing the number ends that facility's abatement only. City abatement policy asks only for reasonable efforts to hire city residents. The 9,000 figure is the press-reported count of craft workers on site each day, not a contractual commitment. - Section 2 definitions, pp. 4 to 5: "the average wage (excluding benefits) of all Full-Time Equivalent Employment Positions shall be at least $57,600.00 per year" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - Section 3.8(d), pp. 8 to 9: "a minimum of Fifty-Seven (57) Full-Time Equivalent Employment Positions working at Leased Parcel 1/2" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - https://ktxs.com/news/local/lancium-crusoe-executives-brief-abilene-leaders-on-major-northside-investment ### Local contracting: UNKNOWN Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator Contracts must be separated so that incorporated materials carry city sales tax, which is a revenue term rather than a local-hire term. The city waives applicable building permit fees and agrees to act on permit requests within 45 days. No road repair or local subcontracting requirement. - Section 3.8(e), p. 9: "enter into Separated Contracts with their respective prime construction contractors for the purchase of materials and equipment" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - Section 10(o), p. 18: "the City agrees to waive applicable building permit fees related to the Facilities and Improvements" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule All agreements, resolutions, and ordinances are posted on the city website. Compliance is self-certified in filings each May 1 and February 1, with a city right of access for inspection and no independent audit. No NDA was found; none is confirmed either way. - https://abilenetx.gov/2476/Tax-Abatements - Section 3.5, p. 7: "certify in writing to the City that the respective Party is in compliance with each term of the Agreement" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - Section 7, p. 13: "shall have reasonable right to access to the Land, the Improvements, each Leased Parcel, each Facility" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 ### Tax incentives: UNKNOWN Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated City abates 85 percent of taxable value above the 2024 base year for ten consecutive years per facility, and a companion agreement gives the same 85 percent on later-added improvements and equipment while excluding anything already abated, so no property is abated more than ten years in total. Taylor County's parallel agreement is reported at 80 percent for ten years. Abilene ISD abates nothing and receives 100 percent of taxable value. The county expects about $18 million a year once all eight buildings are occupied. Oracle protested Taylor County's roughly $200 million 2025 appraisal of the site after receiving the abatement. No formal but-for analysis was located. - Sections 4.2 to 4.5, pp. 10 to 11: "an abatement of eighty five percent (85%) of the Taxable Value of the Land, Improvements, and any Tangible Personal Property owned by Developer" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39456 - Sections 4.2 to 4.4, p. 9: "an abatement of eighty five percent (85%) of the Taxable Value of new improvements and additions constructed on such Lessee's Leased Parcel" https://abilenetx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39455 - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/taylor-county-estimated-see-18-222915156.html - https://www.aol.com/oracle-got-big-tax-breaks-090001667.html ### Reported criticisms - Rents doubled and tripled across the area during construction, with residents reporting displacement. (https://www.kacu.org/local-news/2026-09-02/panel-tackles-persistent-concerns-around-abilenes-ai-boom) - The on-site turbines and diesel generators are permitted for more than 1.6 million tons of greenhouse gases a year and roughly 1,000 tons of other pollutants, with an expansion sought. (https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/09/texas-data-centers-ai-power-plants-pollution-state-permits/) - Oracle protested its property appraisal after receiving an 85 percent abatement, with an estimated $3 million a year at stake for the county. (https://www.aol.com/oracle-got-big-tax-breaks-090001667.html) --- ## Loudoun County, VA (Cross Mill) - Project: Cross Mill Center (ZMAP-2023-0002 and SPEX-2023-0007), Leesburg district - Developer: Sycolin Rd Assemblage LLC - Agreement: proffer, approved, signed 2025-05-06 - Scale: 300 MW, 22.73 acres, 556,746 sq ft - The 300 MW figure is not a project size, it is a proffered ceiling on grid draw during peak periods for the first five years. Square footage is the maximum data center use allowed; the same approval permits smaller warehouse or flex alternatives. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Staff report with proffer statement (Attachment 1) and conditions of approval (Attachment 2): https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 - [primary] Board of Supervisors action report, July 15, 2025 (item 9, approved 5 to 4): https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266940 - [government_page] Loudoun County FY2027 adopted budget (data center tax rates and revenue share, stabilization fund): https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/221475/FY-2027-Adopted-Budget-Document - [government_page] County data center program page (233 buildings, 56.5 million sq ft, application pipeline): https://www.loudoun.gov/6408/Data-Centers-The-Loudoun-Story - [press] LoudounNow: supervisors narrowly approve data center near Leesburg: https://www.loudounnow.com/news/supervisors-narrowly-approve-data-center-near-leesburg/article_3e355c29-4dbc-42df-bdb9-37d86f3013ad.html ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it Loudoun does not do community funds, because it does not need to trade for revenue. The only cash proffers here are a $10,000 historic preservation contribution and a fire and rescue contribution of $0.28 per gross square foot per zoning permit, adjusted for inflation from 2024. The fire and rescue amount scales with the building, which is why this is marked as scaling. - Proffer VII.A, fire and rescue contribution: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 - Lower Sycolin historic preservation proffer: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 ### Clawbacks: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed No incentive was given, so there is nothing to claw back. Virginia proffers are enforced by withholding zoning permits and certificates of occupancy rather than by repayment. - full proffer statement: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No decommissioning term. The county with the largest concentration of data centers in the world has no teardown security in this approval. - full proffer statement and conditions: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving Cost allocation is a state matter and is not addressed. What the county did get is unusual and worth copying: a proffered ceiling of 300 MW of grid draw during peak grid periods for five years, with quarter-hour metering of withdrawals reported annually to the zoning administrator for three years. That is a load-management term, not a cost term. - Proffer V.A.f and V.A.g, full power cap and metering: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting The proffer requires low water usage or liquid cooling systems, meaning air-cooled or adiabatic chillers or closed-loop liquid-to-chip, plus low-flow fixtures. No treated discharge may reach Sycolin Creek without treatment and the stream buffer is preserved. There is no volume cap and no reporting requirement. - Proffer V.A.a, cooling systems; Proffer V.C, Sycolin Creek: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 ### Noise: MEETS Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line The strongest noise term in this set. A 55 dBA cap at the residential lot line, a noise study before the first site plan, another within six months of every certificate of occupancy, mitigation within 60 days of any exceedance and a follow-up study, all certified by an acoustical consultant or professional engineer. Generators must be EPA Tier 4, or Tier 2 with selective catalytic reduction, placed at ground level only with opaque screening. Compare the Zebra East approval four months earlier in the same county, which allowed 70 dBA at the property line. - Proffer II.E, noise; Proffer III.C.b, generators; staff report p. 2 item 6, setback: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 - Zebra East Proffer II.B, 70 dBA comparison: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7909&meta_id=260500 ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections Jobs are not a proffer subject in Virginia land-use approvals. No number was promised and none can be enforced. - full proffer statement: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local contracting or road repair term in this approval. Other Loudoun approvals do carry road cash: the Zebra East approval included $63,000 for a median and $142,000 for pedestrian improvements. - full proffer statement: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 - Zebra East cash proffers: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7909&meta_id=260500 ### Transparency: MEETS Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The application, staff report, proffers and the recorded vote are all public. No nondisclosure agreement appears anywhere in the record, which is the norm for a Virginia legislative land-use case and the opposite of how these deals are done in most states. Compliance is verified by outside professionals: noise studies certified by an acoustical consultant or engineer, and annual reporting of metered grid withdrawals to the zoning administrator for three years. - Proffer II.E noise studies; Proffer V.A.g annual metering reports: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266768 - action report, recorded vote: https://loudoun.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=89&clip_id=7984&meta_id=266940 ### Tax incentives: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated No abatement and no payment in lieu. This is the point of Loudoun. Data centers pay full real property tax and a computer equipment tax of $4.15 per $100 of assessed value, a rate the county has held while cutting the vehicle rate. Data center computer equipment alone is budgeted at $879 million in FY2027, and data center real plus personal property tax is about $1.3 billion of roughly $2.9 billion in local tax funding. The county banks against the concentration risk through a revenue stabilization fund targeted at 10 percent of budgeted data center tax revenue, holding about $119.7 million. Every other community in this benchmark is negotiating for a fraction of what Loudoun simply charges. - pp. 34 to 35, tax rates and computer equipment revenue; p. 363, stabilization fund: https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/221475/FY-2027-Adopted-Budget-Document - computer equipment depreciation schedule: https://www.loudoun.gov/6301/Business-Personal-Property-Tax-Assessmen - https://www.loudoun.gov/6408/Data-Centers-The-Loudoun-Story ### Reported criticisms - Approved 5 to 4. Distribution lines will be buried but transmission lines stay overhead. (https://www.loudounnow.com/news/supervisors-narrowly-approve-data-center-near-leesburg/article_3e355c29-4dbc-42df-bdb9-37d86f3013ad.html) - Loudoun ended by-right data centers in March 2025 but grandfathered 22 pending applications, and supervisors moved in 2026 to revoke that grandfathering and to draft a temporary moratorium. (https://virginiabusiness.com/loudoun-supervisors-propose-terminating-data-centers-grandfather-provisions/) - Sterling residents report 70 to 80 decibels from an off-grid campus running gas turbines against a 55 decibel rule, and the county has never issued a noise violation against the operator. (https://virginiamercury.com/2026/08/25/the-thousand-dollar-line/) --- ## Prince William County, VA (QTS) - Project: PW Digital Gateway (REZ2022-00032 North and REZ2022-00033 South) - Operator: QTS - Developer: GW Acquisition Co., LLC and GW Acquisition I, LLC, QTS affiliates (the North statement names both, the South statement names GW Acquisition Co., LLC); H&H Capital Acquisitions, LLC with Compass Datacenters on the adjacent application REZ2022-00036 - Agreement: proffer, terminated, signed 2023-12-10 - Scale: 876 acres, 10,700,000 sq ft - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] QTS Digital Gateway North proffer statement (REZ2022-00032): https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - [primary] QTS Digital Gateway South proffer statement (REZ2022-00033): https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00033%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - [government_page] County PW Digital Gateway page: https://www.pwcva.gov/department/planning-office/pw-digital-gateway - [primary] Court of Appeals of Virginia opinion holding the three rezonings void ab initio (Record Nos. 1584-25-4, 1590-25-4, 1592-25-4): https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/1584254.pdf - [press] Virginia Lawyers Weekly: rezoning void for defective notice: https://valawyersweekly.com/2026/04/22/prince-william-county-data-center-rezoning-void/ - [press] Potomac Local: QTS withdraws Supreme Court of Virginia appeal, ending the project: https://www.potomaclocal.com/2026/07/03/qts-withdraws-supreme-court-appeal-ending-proposed-digital-gateway-data-center-project/ ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No general community fund. Monetary proffers in both North and South: $0.61 per square foot of nonresidential GFA for fire and rescue facilities, $10,000 per data center building as seed money for trail maintenance, and $75 per acre for water-quality monitoring, stream restoration, or offsite drainage. South only: $10,000 per data center building to the state forest mitigation fund, if the Department of Forestry can accept it. Amounts escalate with CPI-U if paid more than 18 months after approval, capped at 6 percent a year. Land: a roughly five-acre Unfinished Railroad park conveyed to the county (South 44(c)) and roughly nine acres inside the Manassas National Battlefield Park legislative boundary offered to the Department of the Interior (South 22). The applicant's cover letter counts 9-plus miles of trails across both QTS and Compass, not QTS alone. - Proffer 45: "$0.61 per square foot of nonresidential GFA constructed on the Property to be used for fire and rescue facilities" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 41(c): "$10,000 for each data center building constructed on the Property to be used as seed money" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 54: "$75.00 per acre for County water quality monitoring, stream restoration projects, or offsite drainage improvements" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 62: "subject to a cap of six percent (6%) per year, non-compounded" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 60: "State Forest Mitigation and Acquisition Fund (SFMAF) in an amount of $10,000 for each data center building" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00033%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 44(c): "dedicate and convey the Interpretive Site and its associated approximately five-acre park in fee simple" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00033%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 22: "if the Department of Interior declines to accept the approximately nine (9) acres of land" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00033%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffers 44(d), 48, and 56 repeat the trail, fire and rescue, and water-quality contributions: https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00033%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Applicant cover letter dated December 11, 2023, p. 20 of 21: "9+ miles of pedestrian & equation trails will be constructed by the two applicants" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Clawbacks: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed Proffers are land-use conditions, not incentives. No county incentive package was identified, so there is nothing to claw back. - https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks No decommissioning term. Financial security in the proffers is limited to a reforestation bond sized to the reforestation plan (Proffer 33(b)) and a letter of credit or cash deposit if the county condemns off-site right of way for the applicant (Proffer 56(a)(5)). Existing wells and drainfields must be abandoned before the first occupancy permit in each land bay (Proffer 52). - Proffer 33(b): "in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of implementing the Reforestation Plan" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 56(a)(5): "A letter of credit acceptable to the County, cash or equivalent" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 52: "any existing wells and drainfields located on the Property within each Land Bay must be abandoned prior to approval of the first occupancy permit" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving Dominion told the Prince William Times in 2022 that new substations and transmission lines would be needed but that size, location, and timing were unknown. Proffer 44 makes NOVEC substations a permitted use in the Electric Infrastructure Areas on the MZP, with poles capped at 75 feet and, where visible from the battlefield park, homes, or roads, a 12-foot solid screen and 15-foot landscape buffer. The applicant's cover letter says Dominion was still engineering its infrastructure and commits only to work with Dominion to keep lines within the limits of disturbance where possible. No cost allocation, minimum bill, or take-or-pay term. - Proffer 44: "An electric substation shall be deemed a permitted use in the locations identified as Electric Infrastructure Areas on the MZP" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Applicant cover letter dated December 11, 2023, p. 6 of 21: "While Dominion is still engineering its infrastructure, we have included a series of unique proffers." https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Dominion spokesperson statement by email, July 31, 2022; article dated August 2, 2022: https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/dominion-new-transmission-lines-needed-for-proposed-pw-digital-gateway/article_75cb1d9a-1288-11ed-926e-77decf3571c7.html ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting Air or closed-loop cooling, or 'other new, innovative technology', with no groundwater or surface-water withdrawals and no surface discharges for cooling. Existing wells and drainfields must be abandoned before the first occupancy permit in each land bay unless the Health Department agrees otherwise; wells may be kept only as groundwater monitoring wells. No volume cap and no consumption reporting. Same terms in South Proffers 42 and 54. - Proffer 39: "shall not use groundwater, surface water withdrawals, or surface water discharges for cooling purposes" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 39: "air or closed-loop cooling systems for all data center buildings on the Property or other new, innovative technology" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 52: "maintain one (1) or more existing wells in lieu of abandonment solely for the use of ongoing groundwater monitoring" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Noise: MEETS Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line The Cultural Resource Historical Site receiver is defined differently by day (the contiguous Manassas National Battlefield Park) and night (the Thornton School site and Mt. Calvary Baptist Church). A sound study by a licensed acoustical consultant is due before the building permit release letter for each building and again one month after each occupancy permit, with enclosures or walls around generators and mechanical equipment if limits are exceeded; studies go to the county. No noise setback is proffered; the 50-foot buffers along Pageland Lane are a roadway landscape buffer under Proffer 49(a)(4). - Proffer 43(a): "60 dBA when measured at the Property boundary of any land planned, zoned and/or used for Cultural Resource Historical Site" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 43(a): "55 dBA when measured at the property boundary of any land planned, zoned and/or used for Cultural Resource Historical Site" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 43(b): "conduct subsequent Sound Studies one (1) month after issuance of each occupancy permit" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 43(c): "Emergency operations shall not be subject to the limitations outlined in Proffer 43 above." https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 49(a)(4): "buffer along each side of the Pageland Lane along the Property" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections No job numbers in the proffers, so there is no jobs commitment to enforce. Proffer 61 requires the general contractor to meet with the county Department of Economic Development and invited workforce and apprenticeship groups before construction starts in each land bay; preferred strategies are contractor payroll certification, jobsite personnel tracking, and anti-assignment provisions against wage theft and worker misclassification, with evidence to Development Services before each certificate of occupancy. Press job figures vary widely and none appears in the proffers. No job number exists in the proffers, so there is nothing binding to enforce. - Proffer 61, Workforce Strategies: "requirements for contractor payroll certification, jobsite personnel tracking, and anti-assignment provisions to prevent instances of wage theft" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Local contracting: FALLS SHORT Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator No local subcontracting requirement; Proffer 61 lists increasing opportunities for women, minority, and veteran-owned businesses only as a discussion topic. Road work is in kind and substantial: Pageland Lane rebuilt as a four-lane divided road for roughly 3.5 miles with roundabouts, 10-foot shared-use paths, and 50-foot buffers, plus Route 29 and Sudley Road improvements, phased against cumulative data center floor area across the whole 2,139-acre CPA area, with on-site right of way dedicated at no cost. No dollar figure is proffered; the $180 million to $200 million figure appears only in applicant counsel's December 11, 2023 cover letter as an estimate of privately funded transportation improvements. No haul-route repair term; Proffer 9(c) requires only a construction truck routing plan. - Proffer 46(a): "Pageland Lane (between Route 29 to the south and Sudley Road to the north, approximately 3.5+ miles)" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 46(d)(2): "Reconstruction of Pageland Lane as a four-lane divided section between Route 29 in the south and Artemus Road in the north" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 49(b): "shall dedicate in fee simple, at no cost to the County, sufficient" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 9(c): "The Applicant shall prepare a plan for the routing of construction trucks, in accordance with applicable law." https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Proffer 61: "increase opportunities for women, minority, and veteran-owned businesses" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf - Applicant cover letter dated December 11, 2023, p. 18 of 21 (not a proffer): "$180-$200 million in major transportation improvements" https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule The signed proffer statements are posted on the county site. The Prince William Circuit Court held the rezonings void ab initio in a letter opinion on August 7, 2025 (final order effective September 15, 2025) because the hearing advertisement did not meet Va. Code 15.2-2204(A) and the county ordinance; the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed on March 31, 2026, and its July 29, 2026 order lifted the stay, after which the county reverted the zoning maps. Compass declined to appeal further in April 2026 and QTS withdrew its Supreme Court of Virginia petition on July 2, 2026, announcing termination of the project. Sound studies and workforce evidence go to county staff, not the public. - Update: August 5, 2026: "the zoning of the properties reverts back to the original zoning district immediately prior to the Board of County Supervisors approval of the rezonings" https://www.pwcva.gov/department/planning-office/pw-digital-gateway - Opinion dated March 31, 2026, p. 14: "all three rezoning ordinances were void ab initio because the Board violated the advertising requirements of both the statute and the ordinance" https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/1584254.pdf - August 11, 2025 report of the August 7 ruling: https://northernvirginiamag.com/news/2025/08/11/judge-blocks-prince-william-digital-gateway-data-center-project/ - April 22, 2026 case summary: https://valawyersweekly.com/2026/04/22/prince-william-county-data-center-rezoning-void/ - April 29, 2026: Compass will not contest the March 31 ruling: https://wtop.com/prince-william-county/2026/04/developers-drop-appeal-of-zoning-decision-on-digital-gateway-project/ - July 3, 2026 report of the July 2 withdrawal: https://www.potomaclocal.com/2026/07/03/qts-withdraws-supreme-court-appeal-ending-proposed-digital-gateway-data-center-project/ - Proffer 43(b) and Proffer 61: "The Sound Study shall be provided to the County." https://www.pwcva.gov/assets/2023-12/REZ2022-00032%20Proffers%20Packet%2020231210.pdf ### Tax incentives: NOT APPLICABLE Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated No abatement or PILOT. County finance officials estimated $24.7 billion of investment and $400.5 million in annual tax revenue for the project as approved. After the July 29, 2026 order the county reverted the zoning maps and said it would reassess each property and update tax bills. - County finance estimate paragraph, December 13, 2023: https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/site-selection/article/33016383/rezoning-for-pw-digital-gateway-data-centers-approved-by-virginias-prince-william-county-supervisors - Update: August 5, 2026: "Real Estate Assessments will now work to reassess all the individual properties and update the tax bills." https://www.pwcva.gov/department/planning-office/pw-digital-gateway ### Reported criticisms - County planning staff recommended denial and the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial; the board approved 4-3 with one abstention after a meeting of more than 27 hours. (https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/site-selection/article/33016383/rezoning-for-pw-digital-gateway-data-centers-approved-by-virginias-prince-william-county-supervisors) - Parks shown in the comprehensive plan amendment were missing from the rezoning applications, and natural open space in QTS North and South was 15.9 and 21.8 percent against a 30 percent target. (https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/digital-gateway-plan-lacks-key-environmental-details-promised-parks-open-space/article_3dc57306-7e74-11ee-bdd6-57d98acf03ff.html) - The approval was voided for defective public notice; the county spent $1.72 million defending it, then voted unanimously to withdraw from the appeals in April 2026. (https://wtop.com/virginia/2026/04/prince-william-co-withdraws-from-digital-gateway-lawsuit-reversing-course-from-2023/) --- ## Village of Mount Pleasant, WI (Microsoft) - Project: Microsoft Fairwater campus on the former Foxconn land, Tax Increment District 5 - Operator: Microsoft - Developer: Microsoft Corporation - Agreement: development agreement, signed, approved 2023-03-30 - Scale: 1,345 acres, 7,300,000,000 USD - Acreage is the total Microsoft would own after the November 2023 expansion package per WisBusiness; WPR reported 1,346 for the same package, and the county development corporation now lists 1,575 acres after a later purchase. The $7.3 billion figure is the county development corporation's stated planned investment and matches the $3.3 billion first building plus the $4 billion second building recorded in the TID 5 Joint Review Board report. A further $13.3 billion, 15 data centers and about 8.7 million sq ft (5.2 million on Durand Avenue, 3.5 million on International Drive) received site-plan approval on January 26, 2026. No megawatt figure appears in the agreements; WPR reported Microsoft told the January 2026 meeting the campuses would use roughly 2 gigawatts when fully developed, and WEC Energy Group has told investors it expects 2.6 gigawatts of new demand from Microsoft's I-94 corridor buildout. - Verification: press - Documents: - [government_page] Village of Mount Pleasant and Racine County announcement of the Microsoft land purchase agreement: https://www.mtpleasantwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3131/03282023---Microsoft-Press-Release - [primary] TID 5 Joint Review Board annual report, November 10, 2025 (value guarantee, land sales, make-up payments, projected developer incentives): https://www.mtpleasantwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4878/Mount-Pleasant-TID-No-5-JRB-Supplemental-Report_FINAL_2025-11-10 - [primary] Wisconsin PSC final decision, docket 6630-TE-113, We Energies very large customer and bespoke resources tariffs: https://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFview/viewdoc.aspx?docid=591873 - [primary] PSC of Wisconsin comments to FERC in docket ER26-3265 on ATC zonal cost allocation: https://www.wpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260814-5240_PSCW-Comment-and-Attachments-ER26-3265.pdf - [press] Racine County Eye: village approves Microsoft agreements (repurchase rights, 42 percent rebate): https://racinecountyeye.com/2023/03/30/microsoft-data-center-mt-pleasant/ - [press] WPR: expansion deal includes no public financial incentives: https://www.wpr.org/economy/mount-pleasant-deal-microsoft-will-include-no-public-financial-incentives-under-agreement - [press] WPR: records show up to 8.4 million gallons a year of water: https://www.wpr.org/news/microsoft-data-centers-8-million-gallons-water-each-year ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No standing community fund. The November 2023 package included $4,200,000 to restore approximately 1.5 miles of Lamparek Creek, $100,000 for water restoration projects throughout Racine County, and $200,000 in support for the United Way of Racine County, which used part of it to seed an Equity Through Technology Fund making $140,000 available to nonprofits. Whether these sit in the executed agreement or alongside it is not confirmed; the agreements are not posted. - https://www.wisbusiness.com/2023/village-of-mount-pleasant-racine-county-to-consider-expansion-of-microsoft-datacenter-footprint/ - https://biztimes.com/united-way-of-racine-county-to-partner-with-microsoft-on-new-technology-fund/ ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed The village and county may repurchase the land at Microsoft's original per-acre price if Microsoft fails to commence construction by the stated deadlines, reported as not later than July 1, 2026 for phase 1 and July 1, 2033 for phase 2. Under the November 2023 expansion Microsoft must build a minimum of four buildings or repurchase rights activate, and guaranteed a minimum assessed value of $1.4 billion on its Areas II and III investments by January 1, 2028 (the Joint Review Board report states the guarantee as $1.4 billion by 2028). A village spokesperson said in 2026 that the value had already been surpassed. The make-up payment column in the TID cash flow belongs to the Area I (Foxconn) guarantee, not to Microsoft. Nothing is tied to the facility ceasing operation. - https://racinecountyeye.com/2023/03/30/microsoft-data-center-mt-pleasant/ - https://www.wpr.org/economy/mount-pleasant-deal-microsoft-will-include-no-public-financial-incentives-under-agreement - PDF p. 3 (report page 2), value guarantee: "Under these agreements, Microsoft guarantees additional property valuation of $1.4 billion by 2028." https://www.mtpleasantwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4878/Mount-Pleasant-TID-No-5-JRB-Supplemental-Report_FINAL_2025-11-10 - PDF p. 7 (report page 6), cash flow note 1, make-up payments: "Make-up payments will terminate once incremental value of Areas I, II and III is $2 billion or greater." https://www.mtpleasantwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4878/Mount-Pleasant-TID-No-5-JRB-Supplemental-Report_FINAL_2025-11-10 ### Decommissioning: UNKNOWN Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks Nothing found in any source. The executed agreements are not posted. ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving The strongest tariff in this set, and it came from the regulator, not the village. The tariff is mandatory for customers with an aggregate load forecast of 100 MW or more and carries an initial term of 15 years. Customers must subscribe to bespoke resources; the commission refused to approve the proposed capacity-only option, under which non-participating customers would have covered 25 percent of facility costs and all fuel, leaving full-benefits resources (all costs, all attributes) as the only option. A minimum billing demand equals 100 percent of initially forecasted load or actual demand during the billing period, whichever is higher. Terminating after commercial operation means reimbursing the net book value of resources that cannot be repurposed. Financial security is required unless the customer holds ratings of at least A-minus from S&P and A3 from Moody's and meets a tangible net worth or liquidity test. What is still open: how network upgrade costs on the regional transmission system are allocated, which the commission told federal regulators in August 2026 still shifts large-load costs onto other wholesale customers. - p. 4 finding 2 and p. 53 ordering paragraphs 3 to 5, term and threshold: "It is reasonable to require the applicant to modify the VLC tariff to include an initial term length of 15 years." https://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFview/viewdoc.aspx?docid=591873 - p. 33 full-benefits and capacity-only definitions; p. 37 capacity-only rejected: "reasonable to not approve the inclusion of capacity-only resources in the Bespoke Resources tariff and to only authorize full-benefits resources" https://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFview/viewdoc.aspx?docid=591873 - pp. 25 to 26 discussion; p. 54 ordering paragraph 16, minimum billing demand: "a minimum billing demand equal to 100 percent of the customer's initially forecasted load or actual demand during billing period, whichever is higher" https://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFview/viewdoc.aspx?docid=591873 - p. 41, termination after commercial operation: "responsible for reimbursing the applicant for the net-book value of the Bespoke Resource, to the extent that the resource cannot be repurposed" https://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFview/viewdoc.aspx?docid=591873 - pp. 43 to 44, financial security exemption: "credit ratings with respect to customer's long-term, senior, unsecured, non-credit enhanced indebtedness of not lower than "A-" from Standard & Poor's" https://apps.psc.wi.gov/ERF/ERFview/viewdoc.aspx?docid=591873 - https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/PressReleases/04.24.2026PressRelease.PDF - p. 1, heading I: "ATC's Existing Zonal Cost Allocation Method Shifts Large Load Interconnection Costs to Other Wholesale Customers." https://www.wpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260814-5240_PSCW-Comment-and-Attachments-ER26-3265.pdf ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting Water comes from the Racine utility, drawn from Lake Michigan under a 2018 diversion approval of up to 7 million gallons a day. Records released only after a public-records lawsuit show a first-phase peak of 234,000 gallons a day or 2.8 million gallons a year, rising to a peak of 702,000 gallons a day or 8.4 million gallons annually with later phases; Microsoft repeated the 8.4 million gallon annual figure at the January 2026 site-plan meeting. Microsoft says more than 90 percent of the Mount Pleasant facility will use a closed-loop liquid cooling system that consumes no water for cooling. No cap or reporting requirement was found; advocates said the city took 210 days to fill their records request. - https://www.wpr.org/news/microsoft-data-centers-8-million-gallons-water-each-year - https://www.wpr.org/news/mount-pleasant-approves-site-plans-microsoft-data-center-expansion - https://midwestadvocates.org/our-work/legal-action/demanding-transparency-about-the-environmental-impacts-of-data-centers/ - https://local.microsoft.com/blog/understanding-microsoft-datacenters-in-racine-county/ ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line Governed by village ordinance rather than the deal; the ordinance text was not retrieved. Residents reported noise from cooling fans in spring 2026. Microsoft says it set mechanical operating limits to keep fan speeds in range and is installing additional sound reduction components on the cooling equipment. On July 1, 2026 three Sturtevant residents filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that much of the low hum is low-frequency infrasound not captured by dBA measurements. The January 2026 site-plan approvals attached conditions on traffic studies, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and compliance with water rules; no sound-wall condition was confirmed. - https://www.wpr.org/news/microsoft-sued-noise-complaints-at-new-mount-pleasant-data-center - https://local.microsoft.com/blog/testing-underway-to-understand-noise-at-our-mount-pleasant-datacenter/ - https://www.wpr.org/news/mount-pleasant-approves-site-plans-microsoft-data-center-expansion ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections The agreements do not state how many people Microsoft will employ; the binding metric is assessed value, not jobs. Microsoft said in May 2026 it had hired around 375 people, and at the first building's completion in June 2026 reported nearly 550 full-time employees on site, growing to around 800 once the second building is fully operational. Microsoft said nearly 10,000 construction workers contributed over two years; no separate peak headcount was confirmed. - https://racinecountyeye.com/2023/03/30/microsoft-data-center-mt-pleasant/ - https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2026/05/12/microsoft-says-375-workers-hired-for-mount-pleasant-data-center/ - https://news.microsoft.com/source/2026/06/23/microsoft-completes-construction-on-first-datacenter-facility-in-mount-pleasant-wisconsin/ ### Local contracting: UNKNOWN Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator Microsoft's land payments retired Foxconn-era public debt: the county refunding bonds tied to Areas II and III were defeased in 2023 with land sale revenue paid by Microsoft, and WPR reported the expansion required no additional borrowing by the village or the county. Proceeds of the original 2023 sale went to Foxconn as partial reimbursement of the funds it advanced in 2017 to acquire the land. No local-subcontracting or road-repair obligation was found. - PDF p. 7 (report page 6), cash flow note 2: "Bonds associated with Area II and III were defeased in 2023 with land sale revenue paid by Microsoft." https://www.mtpleasantwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4878/Mount-Pleasant-TID-No-5-JRB-Supplemental-Report_FINAL_2025-11-10 - https://www.wpr.org/economy/mount-pleasant-deal-microsoft-will-include-no-public-financial-incentives-under-agreement - https://racinecountyeye.com/2023/03/30/microsoft-data-center-mt-pleasant/ ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule Mount Pleasant told Wisconsin Watch in response to a records request that it had not signed NDAs for its data centers. The agreements were approved in open meetings but are not posted online; the TID's annual reports are. Water projections were withheld until a lawsuit. The state regulator ordered We Energies to keep it apprised of transmission cost allocation developments and to report on the impact large-load network upgrades have on the transmission company's revenue requirement. - https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/01/wisconsin-data-center-secrecy-deals-nda-nondisclosure-agreement/ - https://midwestadvocates.org/our-work/legal-action/demanding-transparency-about-the-environmental-impacts-of-data-centers/ - p. 10, PSCW description of its own order condition: "ordered additional reporting on the impact large load network upgrades have on ATC's revenue requirement" https://www.wpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260814-5240_PSCW-Comment-and-Attachments-ER26-3265.pdf ### Tax incentives: UNKNOWN Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated No exemption from the tax roll, but a rebate of it. The March 2023 agreement lets Microsoft recoup 42 percent of the annual incremental property taxes on its improvements, not to exceed $5 million a year for the duration of the agreement and the district, and contingent on the village first meeting all other TID obligations. The November 2023 expansion was described as requiring no additional financial incentives, but the rebate was not withdrawn: the TID 5 cash flow projects developer incentives to Microsoft of $5,000,000 a year from 2027 through 2038 plus $55,000,000 in 2039, $115,000,000 in total. The only developer grant actually paid as of the 2024 state filing was $370,433 to Foxconn. Microsoft has said Wisconsin's sales and use tax exemption for data centers was one factor in choosing the site. - https://racinecountyeye.com/2023/03/30/microsoft-data-center-mt-pleasant/ - https://www.wpr.org/economy/mount-pleasant-deal-microsoft-will-include-no-public-financial-incentives-under-agreement - PDF p. 7 (report page 6), cash flow column Develop. Incentives Microsoft: "Develop. Incentives Microsoft" https://www.mtpleasantwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4878/Mount-Pleasant-TID-No-5-JRB-Supplemental-Report_FINAL_2025-11-10 - PDF p. 9 (report page 8), DOR Form PE-300 for 2024, developer grants: "Developer grants Developer name FOXCONN $370,433" https://www.mtpleasantwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4878/Mount-Pleasant-TID-No-5-JRB-Supplemental-Report_FINAL_2025-11-10 ### Reported criticisms - Three Sturtevant residents filed a federal class action in July 2026 over low-frequency noise from the first building. (https://www.wpr.org/news/microsoft-sued-noise-complaints-at-new-mount-pleasant-data-center) - Water projections were released only after environmental groups sued for the records, 210 days after the request. (https://midwestadvocates.org/our-work/legal-action/demanding-transparency-about-the-environmental-impacts-of-data-centers/) - Residents at the January 2026 site-plan hearing raised transparency, energy use, water consumption, electronic waste, and long-term employment concerns. (https://racinecountyeye.com/2026/01/27/microsoft-site-plans-approved-data/) - Statewide opposition has grown: a Marquette Law School poll found 70 percent of Wisconsin voters thought data center costs outweigh benefits in February 2026, rising to 78 percent in August 2026. (https://www.wispolitics.com/2026/marquette-poll-shows-further-drop-in-voters-data-center-views/) --- ## City of Port Washington, WI (Vantage) - Project: Port Washington data center campus, Stargate Wisconsin, in Tax Incremental District No. 5 - Operator: Vantage Data Centers, with Oracle and OpenAI announced as tenants - Developer: Vantage Data Centers Management Company, LLC, successor to Red Granite DevCo LLC - Agreement: development agreement, signed, signed 2025-08-19 - Scale: 1,300 MW, 672 acres, 2,558,000 sq ft, 8,000,000,000 USD - 672 acres in the south phase of a roughly 1,900 acre site, four buildings totalling about 2.56 million square feet plus a visitor centre and warehouse. The city puts total power capacity at 1.3 gigawatts. Capex is the only figure the agreement itself binds, not less than eight billion dollars of development costs; the company has since announced more than fifteen billion. - Verification: primary - Documents: - [primary] Executed Development Agreement between the City of Port Washington and Vantage Data Centers Management Company, LLC, August 19, 2025, 31 pages: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - [primary] Tax Incremental District No. 5 project plan, prepared by Ehlers, containing the project cost table and the calculation of revenue diverted from overlying jurisdictions: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6274/638962047469930000 - [primary] We Energies presentation to the Common Council on the electric rate structure for this customer: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6424/638979313162970000 - [government_page] City frequently asked questions, January 21, 2025, including the statement that no one affiliated with the city signed a non-disclosure agreement: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5201/638730468892070000 - [primary] We Energies Volume 19 electric rates, containing Rate Schedule VLC for very large customers and the bespoke resources tariff: https://www.we-energies.com/pdfs/etariffs/wisconsin/elecrateswi.pdf - [primary] Wisconsin Public Service Commission news release on the large load tariff decided in docket 6630-TE-113: https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/PressReleases/04.24.2026PressRelease.PDF - [primary] Wisconsin Department of Revenue fact sheet on the qualified data center sales and use tax exemption: https://www.revenue.wi.gov/DOR%20Publications/2114QualifiedDataCenter.pdf ### Community fund: FALLS SHORT Floor: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it No community fund, no cadence, no seat. The one recurring payment that looks like one is not: the developer pays the city $150,000 a year for five years so the city can meet an obligation it already owed the neighbouring town under a 2004 agreement, and that $750,000 is itself listed as a reimbursable project cost, so the developer gets it back out of the tax increment. Corporate giving announced afterwards, including $225,000 to the schools foundation and $3 million to a natural resource partnership, sits outside the agreement. - Development Agreement, Article II.E, and Exhibit C item 3, which makes the payment reimbursable: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - TID No. 5 project plan, finding 9: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6274/638962047469930000 ### Clawbacks: FALLS SHORT Floor: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Article II.A: the agreement "creates no obligation for Developer or its successors or assigns to construct, open or operate a data center campus."" None, and the agreement says the quiet part in Article II.A: it creates no obligation to construct, open or operate a data center campus on the north phase. No jobs trigger, no investment trigger, no cessation trigger. Three partial substitutes exist. If construction on the north phase has not begun by 2038 the city may elect after 2039 to buy that land back at what the developer paid plus inflation, once, and the option dies on any city misstep. On default the city may suspend reimbursement payments, but they are paid in full on cure. And structurally the district is pay as you go, so the city fronts no cash. That last point is the real protection here, and it is worth more than most clawbacks in this benchmark. - Development Agreement, Article II.A, no obligation to operate: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - Development Agreement, Article II.C.1, repurchase option, and Article VII.C, payment suspension: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - Development Agreement, Article III.C, reimbursement solely from tax increment and subject to annual appropriation: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 ### Decommissioning: FALLS SHORT Floor: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks None. The nearest provision runs the other way: Article II.I requires the developer to rebuild after a casualty to at least the prior equalized value, starting within 180 days, because the city's repayment depends on the assessed value staying up. There is a property use covenant barring uses that would make the land tax exempt. Insurance is required but may be self-insured at the developer's option. Nothing addresses removal or restoration at end of life. - Development Agreement, Articles II.H, II.I and VIII.B: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 ### Grid costs: FALLS SHORT Floor: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The minimum billed demand is measured against the customer's own forecast, and overshooting in one month earns no credit against undershooting in another." A strong state tariff sitting on top of a local deal that undoes part of it. The tariff is the good news and it is unusually good: mandatory for any eligible customer at 100 megawatts or more, a fifteen year minimum term, a minimum billed demand charge invoiced whenever actual load falls below the customer's own forecast, dedicated distribution and substation equipment directly assigned to the customer, financial security equal to net book value plus 1.3 times two years of charges, and reimbursement of net book value on early termination. The commission lowered the threshold from the utility's proposed 500 megawatts and ordered revisions to address transmission cost shifting. The local news is worse: the $91 million substation is a reimbursable project cost in the district, repaid out of tax increment with 7% annual interest, so the developer fronts it and the increment pays it back. And a separate 345 kilovolt transmission project, whose stated need is this load, is before the commission at $1.4 to $1.64 billion, which is not on this deal's ledger at all. - Rate Schedule VLC, availability and minimum billed demand charge: https://www.we-energies.com/pdfs/etariffs/wisconsin/elecrateswi.pdf - Rate Schedule VLC, term: "a minimum term of fifteen (15) years with a one-year written cancellation notice" https://www.we-energies.com/pdfs/etariffs/wisconsin/elecrateswi.pdf - Development Agreement, Exhibit C item 4, substation and transmission as reimbursable costs: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - TID No. 5 project plan, p. 20, $91,000,000 substation line: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6274/638962047469930000 - PSC news release on docket 6630-TE-113 and transmission cost shifting: https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/PressReleases/04.24.2026PressRelease.PDF ### Water: FALLS SHORT Floor: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Every water figure for this project lives in a fact sheet. The agreement's only water language is the city's obligation to build capacity." No cap, no reporting duty and no recycling requirement anywhere in the agreement. What the agreement does contain is the city promising to build water and wastewater improvements of sufficient quality and quantity to serve the project, with the district budgeting roughly $166 million of water and sewer work. The cooling description, a closed loop chiller with dry coolers using about 22,000 gallons on a peak day, comes from city and company fact sheets rather than from any binding instrument. That number may well be right. It is simply not a promise anyone can enforce. - Development Agreement, Article III.E, public improvements, and Article II.K, stormwater: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - TID No. 5 project plan, water and wastewater cost lines: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6274/638962047469930000 - City fact sheet describing the cooling design and daily water use: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5201/638730468892070000 ### Noise: UNKNOWN Floor: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line Unresolved rather than absent. The development agreement contains no decibel figure; the standard sits in the I-3 technology campus zoning district adopted in May 2025, whose text I could not retrieve because the code host blocks automated access. Press reports and the mayor describe 70 decibels, but I will not publish a number I have not read in the source. What is documented: in March 2026 the plan commission voted unanimously to cut outdoor construction from 24 hours on weekdays to 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday after resident pressure, and the site design uses 8 foot berms, setbacks over 300 feet and 2,345 native trees. If you have the ordinance text, that is a correction worth sending. - Development Agreement, full text, which contains no noise limit: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - City materials on the site design and construction hours: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5201/638730468892070000 ### Jobs: FALLS SHORT Floor: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections The agreement never mentions jobs, local hire, apprenticeship or prevailing wage. The figures in circulation, more than 4,000 construction jobs and more than 1,000 long term jobs, come from the companies' own announcement. The district's project plan says only that the project will generate economic activity and employment, with no number and no consequence. - Development Agreement, full text, which contains no employment provision: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - TID No. 5 project plan, finding 2: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6274/638962047469930000 ### Local contracting: MEETS Floor: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The repair duty is triggered only "if, in the City's reasonable discretion, such damage was caused by Developer's construction activities."" Road repair is a real, written obligation, which is rarer than it should be. On completion of each phase the developer at its cost must repair damage to any city, town or county road caused by its construction activities, and during construction must fix anything that renders those roads impassable. The developer also pays all fees, all city third party consultant costs, all land and easement acquisition for public improvements, dedicates the improvements at no cost with a two year defect warranty, and funds a sewer and water extension to a neighbouring community. There is no local subcontracting or local purchasing requirement of any kind. - Development Agreement, Article II.C.2(e), road repair: "such damage was caused by Developer's construction activities" https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - Development Agreement, Articles II.D, II.F, II.G and Exhibit D: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 ### Transparency: FALLS SHORT Floor: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "Article VIII.H requires "reasonable advance written notice to the Developer prior to releasing" records, and the developer "shall have the right to take legal action to prohibit the release."" The only deal in this benchmark where a city says plainly that it signed no non-disclosure agreement, and adds that the developer never asked for one. The draft agreement was posted eleven days before the vote and the executed agreement, the district plan, the utility presentation and a long run of fact sheets are all online. That is real and it deserves credit. But Article VIII.H then binds the city to a confidentiality regime anyway: it sweeps in all nonpublic information about the project, the developer, its tenants, customers, employees and finances, requires reasonable advance written notice before releasing anything, and gives the developer the right to sue to block a release with the city obliged to cooperate. No audit of any kind, no dashboard, no third party beneficiaries. Article III.F also bars the city for the whole term from supporting any new tax or fee that would apply solely to this project or to the data center industry. - City FAQ, January 21, 2025: "No one affiliated with the City has signed an NDA related to the proposed data center project" https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5201/638730468892070000 - Development Agreement, Article VIII.H, confidential information: "reasonable advance written notice to the Developer prior to releasing" https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - Development Agreement, Article VIII.R: "There are no third-party beneficiaries under this Agreement" https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - Development Agreement, Article III.F, no project-specific taxes: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 ### Tax incentives: MEETS Floor: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated SOFTENING LANGUAGE: "The but-for finding leans partly on the existence of another subsidy, reasoning that state support is itself evidence of the need for local support." No abatement at all, which is unusual here, and the arithmetic is published, which is rarer still. This is a pay as you go tax incremental district: the developer builds the infrastructure and is repaid solely from the increment its own buildings generate, so the city fronts nothing. The catch is the interest. Reimbursable costs carry 7% a year, budgeted at $187,515,144 over the district's life, on total project costs of $458,565,144 against about $175 million of actual infrastructure. And the district plan does the calculation most places never publish: $541,517,664 of revenue diverted from overlying jurisdictions between 2028 and 2047, of which $262,079,692 would otherwise have gone to the school district. A but for finding was made twice, in the agreement's recitals and in the plan, reasoning from infrastructure cost, from the developer considering other sites, and, circularly, from the fact that the state is already granting a sales tax exemption. On top of the district sits the state exemption under 2023 Wisconsin Act 19, covering servers, networking, substations, backup generation, cooling and electricity with no dollar cap, certified here to an Oracle entity in October 2025. Its value is not published per project. - TID No. 5 project plan, Section 17, revenue diverted from overlying jurisdictions: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6274/638962047469930000 - TID No. 5 project plan, detailed list of estimated project costs: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6274/638962047469930000 - Development Agreement, Recital F and Article III.C, but-for finding and 7% interest: https://www.portwashingtonwi.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6088/638972377962100000 - Wisconsin DOR fact sheet 2114, qualified data center exemption: https://www.revenue.wi.gov/DOR%20Publications/2114QualifiedDataCenter.pdf ### Reported criticisms - Sierra Club Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates sued the state natural resources department in July 2026 after it dropped a required environmental impact statement. Emails showed a department attorney said an EIS would be required, then the agency reversed after the company said an EIS would kill the project. (https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/07/sierra-club-wisconsin-and-mea-file-lawsuit-after-state-regulators-abandon) - Neighbours filed an open meetings complaint with the district attorney alleging the council deliberated the agreements in closed session. The city published a point by point rebuttal calling the claims false. (https://www.wisn.com/article/port-washington-neighbors-file-complaint-over-data-center-approval-process/70424962) - In April 2026 more than 66 percent of Port Washington voters approved a requirement that future tax incremental districts of $10 million or more go to referendum. It does not apply to this district, and business groups have challenged it. (https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/04/port-washington-data-center-project-voters-referendum-tif-district-wisconsin/) - A $1.4 billion transmission project whose stated need is this load is before the state commission, and the state utility ratepayer advocate says eastern Wisconsin customers would eventually pay for it. (https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2025/10/18/port-washington-data-center-requires-1-4-billion-transmission-line-project/) ---