Aurora officials detail four‑part data‑center ordinance as Champagne County task force weighs rules

Aurora officials told the Champaign County Data Center Activities Task Force that the city’s recent response to a surge of data‑center proposals combined a short moratorium with a four‑part regulatory package designed to protect neighbors while allowing conditioned development.

“Data centers were being treated as warehouses and there was no public notice required,” said John Lash, who introduced Aurora’s process and timeline. He described a moratorium followed by a public survey and an iterative drafting process that led the city council to adopt coordinated zoning, building, code and industrial standards this spring.

Aurora’s package requires a local definition of “data center” and treats all new facilities as conditional uses, meaning public hearings and City Council approval are required. The city also adopted public‑notice rules (online posting, newspaper publication, mailed notice to nearby residents) and required utilities support letters for proposed load sizes.

Lash and Allison Lindberg, Aurora’s director of sustainability, said the standards target four areas the community raised repeatedly: noise and vibration, water use, energy use and transparency. “We needed predictable rules to help protect our residents and provide clarity for developers,” Lindberg said.

Key provisions Aurora shared with the task force include: - Zoning and process: a clear data‑center definition and conditional‑use permitting so projects require public hearings and council approval. - Noise and vibration: daytime and nighttime decibel limits and vibration standards, with required pre‑construction and post‑occupancy engineering sound studies; the city will arrange a third‑party verification test before final occupancy and the cost will be reimbursed by the applicant. - Energy controls: a power‑usage‑effectiveness (PUE) limit set at 1.22 (Aurora staff said they selected that standard after surveying industry norms and sustainable targets) and on‑site resiliency requirements — 25% of peak load from on‑site renewables, or 50% of peak load in battery storage for 15 minutes — with alternative compliance where on‑site options are infeasible. - Water and cooling: a water‑use efficiency metric and an explicit prohibition on evaporative cooling systems, which staff said drive very high water consumption; Aurora favors closed‑loop and other non‑evaporative systems. - Operations and reporting: annual reporting of energy and water consumption and annual noise testing; continuous vibration monitoring at multiple perimeter points; ongoing certification that the facility complies with a local copy of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requirements. - Enforcement and remedies: staged compliance windows, fines and the city’s authority to withhold or revoke occupancy permits if an operator repeatedly fails to meet standards; Aurora’s council discussed fines in the thousands per day but set an initial administrative fine structure and reserved authority to strengthen penalties if needed.

Aurora staff emphasized limits imposed by state regulation — for example, octave‑band noise testing at the state level requires specialized equipment — and said local rules aim to provide enforceable, municipal‑scale standards and a public‑notice process that did not previously exist.

Task force members pressed Aurora staff on technical details: how the 1.22 PUE and about 0.2 water‑use efficiency were selected, how setbacks are measured (Aurora measures distance from the noise source such as generators and cooling fans), and how continuous monitoring and third‑party testing are implemented. Lindberg described a layered approach: developers submit pre‑construction engineering studies, the city requires post‑installation verification testing run by a third party (hired by the city, paid for by the applicant), and persistent noncompliance can trigger enforcement actions.

Members also asked how the city handled existing data centers. Lash said most performance limits apply only to new projects because retroactive performance requirements often face legal limits; Aurora instead requires transparent operational reporting of existing centers and uses development agreements and contractual terms to clarify decommissioning, equipment removal and other end‑of‑life responsibilities for future projects.

The presentation highlighted local outreach: Aurora hosted an open house, deployed surveys that drew hundreds of responses, and convened regional partners including a Metropolitan Mayors Caucus task force and legal experts (including privacy organizations) to vet language. Staff said the city coordinated a phased process — moratorium, research, draft language, committee review and council adoption — that led to the changes taking effect in March 2026.

Why it matters: Champaign County members told staff they want concrete, enforceable county rules that protect neighbors’ noise, water and electricity bills while allowing the county to require adaptivity for large buildings and concrete decommissioning commitments. Several members asked staff to draft initial ordinance text before the June 1 meeting so the panel can review technical provisions for water and wastewater and suggest edits.

Next steps: Task force members requested that county staff produce draft ordinance language (using Aurora’s ordinance as a reference where legally permissible) and identify Aurora provisions that the county cannot adopt because of home‑rule and statutory limits. The panel scheduled the next meeting for June 1, 2026, with a stated focus on water and wastewater.