Exhibit A  ·  All 24 agreements
futurepickleballcourt.com  ·  2026-09-16

City of Cedar Rapids, IA

QTS

QTS Cedar Rapids campus at Big Cedar Industrial Center, 76th Avenue SW
development agreement, signed, signed 2025-02-05
Operator: QTS
Developer: QTS Cedar Rapids I, LLC
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: read from the signed document

How it scores

ShortCommunity fund ShortClawbacks ShortDecommissioning ShortGrid costs ShortWater ShortNoise MetJobs MetLocal contracting ShortTransparency ShortTax incentives

Documents

  1. QTS Project Development Agreement (effective January 28, 2025; QTS signed in January 2025, City execution notarized February 5, 2025) (primary)
  2. City Council agenda, December 2, 2025 (amended and restated agreement, item 6) (government page)
  3. City Council minutes, December 2, 2025 (Resolution 1409-12-25; no comments or objections heard or filed) (government page)
  4. City Council minutes, January 28, 2025 (Resolution 0072-01-25 approving the agreement; T. Olson abstained, Hoeger absent) (government page)
  5. The Gazette: city would rebate $529 million to data center (press)
  6. The Gazette: council OKs amended QTS agreement, up to seven phases, $1.75 billion anticipated (press)
  7. KCRG: mayor defends data center projects amid NDA questions (published July 23, 2026 CDT; URL dated July 24) (press)
  8. 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) (primary)

Term by term

ShortCommunity fund falls short

A strong version: A fund that scales with the project, with a community seat on the body that spends it

amount: $18,000,000 · cadence: annual · scales with project: yes · community seat: no

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.

  1. Section 6.10(a), PDF pp. 21 to 22 (printed pp. 18 to 19). https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “an amount equal to $300,000 annually for each Project Phase”
  2. Section 6.10(b), PDF p. 22. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “using 8% to determine the net present value of an annuity to establish the amount to be paid”
  3. Section 6.3(d), PDF p. 19. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “withhold the Community Betterment Fund payment up to the amount of the Economic Development Grant not paid by the City”

ShortClawbacks falls short

A strong version: Incentives come back if the facility stops operating, not only if a jobs number is missed

triggers: jobs · proportional: yes

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.

Softening languageA job shortfall is expressly not an event of default. The only consequence is skipping the next grant, and nothing already paid comes back.

  1. Section 5.2(b), PDF p. 15. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “shall not constitute an Event of Default under Section 10.1”
  2. Section 6.5(a), PDF p. 19. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “fewer than 15 Full Time Employees are maintained at a Project Phase”
  3. Section 6.9(a), PDF p. 21. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “no obligation to make the next Economic Development Rebate”
  4. Sections 10.1(b) and 10.2, PDF pp. 24 to 25. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “the giving of sixty (60) days' written notice by the City”

ShortDecommissioning falls short

A strong version: A bond, escrow, or letter of credit that pays for teardown and site restoration if the operator walks

Not addressed in the agreement.

instrument: none

No decommissioning term in the agreement.

  1. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf

ShortGrid costs falls short

A strong version: The operator pays for its own interconnection and carries a minimum bill that survives it leaving

Not addressed in the agreement.

interconnect paid by: unknown · governed by: Alliant Energy large-customer rate; terms not public

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.

  1. Section 1.1(jj), PDF p. 7. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “failure or refusal by the applicable utility company or other electrical service provider to enter into”
  2. https://www.alliantenergy.com/our-energy/data-centers
  3. https://www.kcrg.com/2026/04/24/us-energy-secretary-tours-qts-data-center-addresses-utility-water-concerns/

ShortWater falls short

A strong version: A stated cap or closed-loop cooling, plus public reporting

Not addressed in the agreement.

reporting: no · cooling: closed loop

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.

  1. Section 1.1(gg), PDF p. 7. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “water main and sanitary sewer improvements to the Development Property”
  2. Sections 4.2 and 4.3, PDF p. 13. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “constructed by the City at no additional cost to the Company”
  3. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Water-Conservation-in-Cedar-Rapids.pdf
  4. https://www.thegazette.com/local-government/cedar-rapids-city-council-approves-data-center-agreement-calling-it-an-investment-in-the-future/
  5. https://www.linncountyiowa.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/4085

ShortNoise falls short

A strong version: A numeric limit measured at the nearest residence or property line

Not addressed in the agreement.

No noise term in the agreement.

  1. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf

MetJobs meets the bar

A strong version: Binding job commitments with a consequence, not projections

permanent: 15 · construction: 1200 · local hire: no · prevailing wage: no · enforceable: yes

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.

  1. Section 1.1(x), PDF p. 6. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “work at least 30 hours per week or 1,560 hours per year”
  2. Section 5.2(a), PDF p. 14. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “employ no less than 15 Full Time Employees at the completed Project Phase”
  3. Section 5.3, PDF p. 15. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “shall not disclose names of employees, tenants or other personally identifiable information”
  4. https://www.thegazette.com/news/cedar-rapids-city-council-oks-amended-qts-development-agreement/article_37c979ab-0bdf-52bd-9e2d-9ee403f0ac36.html

MetLocal contracting meets the bar

A strong version: Local subcontracting goals and haul-route road repair paid by the operator

local subcontracting: no · road repair: yes · infrastructure: $117,099.9

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.

  1. Road use agreement Section 3.A, Board of Supervisors packet October 27, 2025. https://linncoia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7860/files “Developer shall pay one hundred and seventeen thousand, ninety-nine dollars and ninety cents ($117,099.90)”
  2. Road use agreement Section 3.C. https://linncoia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7860/files “post and maintain a payment and performance bond ... in an amount equal to two million dollars ($2,000,000)”
  3. Road use agreement Section 3.B, Maple and Linn-Johnson improvements. https://linncoia.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7860/files “shall be undertaken by Developer at its sole cost and expense”
  4. Section 6.7, p. 20, franchise fee rebate. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf

ShortTransparency falls short

A strong version: No NDA, the agreement is public, and an independent audit on a schedule

NDA: yes · agreement public: yes · dashboard: no · audit: none · independent: no

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.

  1. https://www.kcrg.com/2026/07/24/cedar-rapids-mayor-defends-data-center-projects-amid-kickback-claims-nda-questions/
  2. Section 5.4, PDF p. 15. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “meet, virtually or in person, on an annual basis to mutually provide development updates”
  3. Section 11.17(b), PDF pp. 28 to 29. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “may disclose Confidential Information when required by applicable law”

ShortTax incentives falls short

A strong version: A but-for test before any abatement, with the forgone revenue stated

abatement: 70% · years: 20 · PILOT: no · forgone: $529,000,000 · but-for test: no

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.

  1. Section 6.1(a)(i), PDF pp. 15 to 16. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “equal in amount to 70% of the West Initial Project Tax Increments”
  2. Section 6.1(c), PDF p. 17. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “$1,000,000,000.00 ("Cumulative Maximum Amount of Grants")”
  3. Section 6.3(a), PDF p. 18. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “Each Economic Development Grant is subject to annual appropriation by the City Council”
  4. Sections 5.1(e) and 9.3, PDF pp. 14 and 24. https://www.economicdevelopmentcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/QTS-Project-Development-Agreement.pdf “will not seek and shall not be eligible for any tax deferral, reimbursement, or exemption”
  5. 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. source

The amended agreement passed on December 2, 2025 with no comments or objections heard or filed at the public hearing. source

Energy advocates, including the Iowa Sierra Club's legal chair, raised unanswered questions on water and power impacts. source

The other agreements

City of Bessemer, AL  ·  City of Goodyear, AZ  ·  Pima County, AZ  ·  City of Fort Meade, FL  ·  Columbia County, GA  ·  Newton County, GA  ·  City of Cedar Rapids, IA  ·  City of Council Bluffs, IA  ·  St. Joseph County, IN  ·  Richland Parish, LA  ·  City of St. Louis, MO  ·  City of Papillion and Sarpy County, NE  ·  Dona Ana County, NM  ·  Village of Los Lunas, NM  ·  City of New Albany, OH  ·  Morrow County, OR  ·  City of Lancaster, PA  ·  City of Memphis, TN  ·  City of Abilene, TX  ·  Loudoun County, VA  ·  Prince William County, VA  ·  Village of Mount Pleasant, WI  ·  City of Port Washington, WI