City council approves Master Services Agreement with Batavia DC Corp; approves MSA with separate water agreement to be negotiated

The City Council voted on July 21 to approve Resolution 2025‑082‑R, authorizing execution of a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Batavia DC Corp, the developer proposing a co‑location data center in the Batavia Business Park. The roll‑call vote passed 12–1 (Lehman voting no, Malone absent).

Council discussion over several hours focused on three central themes: water use, electric capacity and contractual protections.

Water: City staff and the developer told the council the project will use air‑cooled chillers rather than cooling towers and that the mechanical refrigeration loop is a closed loop filled with de‑ionized water. Company representatives said the loop requires a one‑time fill (about 450,000 gallons) and periodic refills roughly every 2,000 days for inspection; daily potable‑type use for staff and domestic functions was estimated at roughly 100 gallons per day. Company engineer Riley Trevall said the loop is sealed and “you could theoretically leave the water in there for 50 years,” but industry practice calls for inspection and occasional replacement; he added the changeouts would be managed under city discharge standards.

Electric capacity: Council members pressed staff about the site’s 50‑megawatt request and the city’s import limit at the local ComEd node (150 MW). Staff said the city will request a study from ComEd to determine costs and timing to increase import capability and that the electric utility would initially fund and then be reimbursed for the infrastructure paid to serve the site. The city’s finance and utility staff also said the developer’s reimbursement mechanism leaves the city with no direct price‑risk on wholesale power: the city’s electric utility would buy electrons and pass-through wholesale costs; the Economic Contribution Agreement (ECA) and distribution charges would flow to the city utility and general fund as revenue.

Contractual protections and operations: Council members asked for limits on backup generation, e‑waste, and tenant activities. City staff confirmed the MSA requires backup generation only for emergencies and testing and that backup gensets must meet applicable emissions and noise standards. Developers said tenants bring their own servers and handle e‑waste under their programs; the developer said the proposed Batavia facility is targeted to co‑location and commercial customers, not high‑intensity crypto mining or hyperscale AI operations (customers that typically require hundreds of megawatts). The developer said water‑consuming evaporative cooling would reduce sales prospects in a Midwestern, humid climate and that the air‑cooled design was selected both for operational reasons and in response to public concern.

Public comment: Dozens of residents attended and several spoke. Speakers urged caution and asked for stronger written guarantees on water, independent monitoring and protections to ensure the city would not shoulder upgrades for the substation or other infrastructure in the future. Susan Russo (resident) asked why the agreement does not include explicit penalties for early termination after the developer receives reimbursed infrastructure; city staff said the scale of infrastructure and construction cost creates strong disincentives to early termination and that the city had legal review and special counsel involvement in negotiation.

Outcome and next steps: The council approved the authorizing resolution 12–1 and the mayor and staff will execute the MSA. Council members and staff also said they will: (a) negotiate and finalize a separate water Master Services Agreement with the developer to codify the air‑cooled design and water handling commitments, (b) request a ComEd study to determine the scope and cost of additional import capability and (c) consider directing early project revenues toward the capital needed to secure additional import capacity if required. Staff said any design review, building permits or subsequent Planning Commission actions remain separate processes and will provide further opportunities for public input.