News You Can Peruse - July 20th, 2025
Bike commission updates, sewer incentives, and a big new datacenter
Greetings, and welcome to a computationally intensive edition of News You Can Peruse from Strong Towns Batavia! This week’s edition covers the monthly BATAC meeting, special wastewater incentives for a laundry facility in town, and a discussion on a potential new datacenter moving in that’s so long that it might need a datacenter of its own!
Also, since this is our first time sending out the newsletter via Substack, if you have any issues, be sure to email us at stbatavia@gmail.com to get those resolved.
Batavia Active Transportation Advisory Commission (BATAC)
Agenda: https://www.bataviail.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07142025-2443
* The BATAC was asked whether the city should move one of their pedestrian counters over to the Rt. 31 crosswalk at Union, next to the Quarry. This crosswalk recently got a crossing guard for the summer, and the city wanted data on how much the crosswalk is being used. The BATAC was open to the idea, but also suggested having the crossing guard provide a count.
* The BATAC recently had a tent at one of the Wednesday night River Rhapsody concerts. During this, members of the Park District met with BATAC members there about wanting to coordinate further to help provide biking amenities throughout the park system and also host more biking events to promote safe riding.
* The BATAC reviewed the recent discussion by the City Council around E-bike and E-scooters. The crux of that conversation centered around improving bike safety education and mitigating conflicts. The BATAC representative who was present at the meeting also noted discussion they had with a local bike shop owner that offered to coordinate with the BATAC.
Based on this summary, the BATAC also considered additional follow-up options, including using part of their budget to produce and print educational materials that could be handed out. They also looked at working with the Forest Preserve District to help publish their rules on the planned flyers, and discussed trends in regional regulations as well.
* The BATAC has been looking at new member applications to fill two open seats on the Commission. The BATAC currently has three applications that have been submitted, and are considering how best to interview them.
* The city recently presented the first draft of the South River Street Zoning Study, which the BATAC discussed tonight. One member of the BATAC was concerned that the study didn’t emphasize the need for pedestrian access to the potential new developments, and also argued against the suggested floor limits given the potential of the area and local active transportation amenities.
* After having recently finished the re-application for Bike Friendly Community - Bronze Level status, the BATAC reviewed the application to try and determine what changes could be made to the city’s bike infrastructure and policies that could help achieve a higher ranking in future years.
Currently, the city meets Silver Level status in terms of education campaigns, city policy, and regular bike commission meetings. Some other low hanging fruit that are already close to meeting Silver level status include more engagement activities, as well.
* On that note, some brief planning was conducted for the BATAC’s Farmer’s Market booth happening on August 16th.
Committee of the Whole Meeting
Agenda: https://www.bataviail.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07152025-2442?html=true
Video:
* A member of the public spoke about concerns around traffic speeds on Rt. 31 after they had experienced a recent accident on the road. The resident suggested that this was partially related to the construction zone for the water main replacement that was done there recently, and expressed criticism of how the construction zone was set up. The resident also argued that the speed limit there should have been lowered during the construction period. In response, city staff noted that the speed limit is set by IDOT, and that while the city has been petitioning IDOT for a reduced speed, IDOT has chosen in the past not to reduce the speed limit there. That being said, now that the road diet is complete, IDOT appears to be re-studying the corridor to reconsider the speed limit there with the new road layout. A member of COW also suggested that the resident reach out to IDOT about their concerns as well in order to help push the issue.
* A major $500 million, 50MW datacenter is looking to move into town in the east-side industrial park, being developed by a company named Hut 8. As a part of this, the city will need to make $18 million worth of transmission line upgrades to support their power needs. In order to mitigate risks for the city on such a large infrastructure investment, the datacenter company has agreed to pay the upfront costs of the system, and will only be reimbursed by the city in following years as they buy electricity from the city utility. Furthermore, if the facility closes before this investment is paid back, the city would not be on the hook for reimbursing the rest.
Once completed, the facility will bring the following proceeds to the city, which will include at least $875,000 a year in electricity purchasing, $1.4 million in distribution charges, and $375k a year in franchise fees, although these will be reduced in the first few years by the aforementioned reimbursements. Additionally, these numbers could grow in the future if they expand their operations. There is also expected to be a good amount of new property taxes going to the city for the facility itself, as well. The facility is expected to be completed and operational around the end of 2026, and will host around 30 employees. It was also noted that the city would need to consider increasing its electrical capacity from Com-Ed (who owns the distribution lines that supply the town) in the near future, as the 50 MW used by the datacenter would put the city near its current capacity.
During the initial comment, one member of COW asked about whether the datacenter would use up the remaining power that we contract from the Prairie State Coal Plant. As a reminder, the city currently buys more power from PS than we use as a part of our existing contract, and thus pays for that excess power and then sells it back to the grid. In response to the question, staff suggested that the datacenter wouldn’t be using Prairie State as their power source (it will instead receive power from the regional power market, PJM, more on that below). That being said, it was noted that the city is now making money on the resale of the excess power from PS back to the grid, so the excess power is currently no longer a problem in terms of utility costs.
Another member of COW had concerns about the $18mil distribution upgrade that the city would need to make to service the datacenter. Staff re-highlighted the reimbursement eligibility requirement, noting that the company has to buy at least 20MW of power through the city utility in a given year to be eligible for the reimbursement. Based on providing revenue projections, this would mean that the city would still come out ahead revenue wise in almost all scenarios.
A third member of COW made the point that the new revenue from the datacenter would ultimately be equivalent to about 5% of the city’s current budget. They suggested that the city should be cautious with this new revenue stream, as becoming dependant on it for new operational capabilities could put the city in a tough situation in the future if the datacenter were to close, for which they also highlighted the somewhat uncertain economic dynamics of the datacenter industry, especially in regards to AI and cryptocurrency. Based on this concern, the COW member suggested that the city use the money judiciously, only using it in ways that don’t create future budget liabilities or even by putting it in a special fund, similar to the sovereign wealth fund used by some oil producing countries, in order to live off the interest from the revenue, and thus decouple ourselves from the potential loss of the revenue stream in the future.
This COW member also highlighted potential resiliency issues presented by the datacenter. They noted that based on conversations with the head of the electric utility, by using more of the city’s electric capacity margin, this eats into system redundancy that could lead to significant problems if there is a subsystem failure. In particular, the city currently has three major transformers that pull power from Com-Ed’s grid onto the city grid. While all three transformers are currently used, they aren’t used to their full capacity. Under current peak power usage (~75 MW during hot afternoons), the city could theoretically only need two of the three transformers should there be a transformer failure, since they have enough capacity to handle the full load. However, with the datacenter the full load would be closer to 125 MW (out of the city’s total 150 MW capability), meaning that all three transformers are needed. This is a problem because transformers are very expensive and can take years to acquire, which would put the city into a tough situation if one of the transformers failed. The COW member noted that Fermilab suffered a transformer failure last year and still hasn’t recovered, as an example of how this problem could manifest. Thus, they emphasized that the city should ensure that they start the process now of installing a 4th transformer to build back this redundancy, although it was noted that this will likely be a multi-year process and could cost up to $5 million on its own.
A fourth member of COW who has experience in the datacenter industry argued that we will likely get more datacenters in the future, and suggested that in their experience the industry is pretty stable overall. They also noted that the datacenter is located comfortably out of the way of the rest of town in the industrial park, and thus shouldn’t produce any problems for residents. It was also argued that datacenters are naturally incentivized to reduce power usage over time for economic efficiency purposes. These comments were echoed by another member of COW, who suggested that having one datacenter would likely draw others due to co-location effects, which they said could build more local jobs in the industry.
Finally, a more senior member of COW noted that the city has been thinking about datacenters for a while now, and thinks the city is well positioned for it but agreed on the need to make sure the electric utility has resilience.
Following this initial discussion, representatives of the datacenter company, HUT8, presented on their proposal.They highlighted the low risk nature of the agreement on the city side and noted that there will be a ramp up period when getting the facility ready, meaning that there wouldn’t be a full draw of power immediately. They also spoke more about their company, which owns power plants and builds large scale datacenters which focus on cloud computing, general computing, and cryptocurrency. They also stated that they are not planning to use this facility for cryptocurrency or AI, but instead focus it more towards cloud computing and other internet services, like credit card transactions. It was also noted that their business model involves hosting tenants in the building from other tech companies, rather than using the computer systems themselves. A mockup of the proposed facility was also shown, as well as a breakdown of their power usage, with 36MW being used for computing and 14MW for cooling. Their total investment will be $1 billion in equipment on top of the $500 million needed to build the facility.
One COW member expressed relief regarding the datacenter being used for regular computing rather than cryptocurrency or AI, and asked if they intend to try and emphasize the use of renewable energy sources. Staff noted the datacenter will be purchasing their power from PJM, which draws from a broad energy mix and thus doesn’t allow the purchaser to pick and choose their power source. HUT8’s representatives also noted that they could move towards green energy credits in the future if a higher renewable energy mix requirement is ever put in place by future state or federal legislation.
Another member of COW asked about HUT8’s prospects for filling in the tenant spaces, as well as what incentives the company has for using their full 50 MW (note that the city’s revenue projections improve as the datacenter uses more power). HUT8 suggested that having a strong electrical power base is key to drawing tenants, and that their business is self-motivated to get to 50MW for their own operations, and discussed recent growth in the regional datacenter industry. They also noted a desire for future expansion in the city, if the city is up for it. Another COW member also noted the potential draw for other datacenters that this project could bring.
One member of COW had a number of questions. The first question regarded water usage by the facility which could range from 1,000 gallons per day to 150k gallons per day on average, depending on the cooling method for the computers. HUT8 noted that the lower estimate covers water that would be used for employees (~100 gallons), as well as the fire suppression systems (up to 1250 gallons if possible). The rest would depend on the equipment cooling system used by the company’s tenants. If a closed loop system is used, wherein water is cycled between the computers and an external air conditioner chiller to remove heat, the there wouldn’t need to be a regular draw from the water utility, beyond just the initial draw to fill the system (roughly equivalent to an olympic sized swimming pool, which would only need to be recycled every few years). However, they noted that some tenants may want to do evaporative cooling, wherein water is vaporized in order to improve heat draw and then released into the air as a heated vapor cloud through a cooling tower. This has the advantage of using less electricity but also much more water, which would be drawn from the water utility and not returned. HUT8 noted that their facility will be built to provide both options.
The next question asked if there was any interest in on-site solar power generation. HUT8 argued that there’s not enough space on the site for that to be useful. That being said, they may pursue LEED certification and include small amounts of solar for non-computing operations.
Question three asked about the implication of whether the city will be stuck with a lot of extra power and water infrastructure if the business falls through, leading to long term liabilities not being paid back by a customer. Note that this included systems beyond the $18 million transmission line system already negotiated. Staff noted that the city will likely want to set aside some of the new revenues for long term maintenance of the infrastructure. They also suggested that the building could always attract new users, filling in that gap in the future.
Question four asked whether the city got an outside legal consultant to review the contract, given troubles that the city had regarding utility contracts in the past. Staff stated that the city hired the Philips Lytle Law Firm, who specializes in these sorts of agreements to look at the contract. Staff also suggested that datacenter contracts are generally more straightforward than other utility contracts that the city has been involved with in the past.
Finally, question five asked about impacts on existing utility customers from the new customer, especially in regards to effects regarding the Prairie State power contract. Staff noted that the datacenter’s impacts on the utility are largely unrelated to the Prairie State contract, but will instead mostly just provide new revenue to the broader utility. HUT8 also argued that being a new large user will help stabilize the utility fund. Another member of COW asked if the PPAF costs from Prairie State will be mitigated. Staff noted that the increased revenue could help with that, and also reiterated that the datacenter would effectively double the city’s power usage to emphasize the scale of new revenues being generated. One member of COW argued that this new revenue could be used to mitigate future Prairie State costs for decommissioning and help pay off the bonds, although staff noted that NIMPA is already setting aside money for decommissioning purposes.
Another COW member asked if the datacenter will be factored into the Brattle Group utility study currently being undertaken, with staff stating that it would be.
One COW member argued in favor of the datacenter, pointing out that HUT8 is putting forward a lot of investment, and that this datacenter would be one of the biggest developments in Batavia in a long time and also noted the suggestion that future datacenters may also want to come in. Staff noted that the city will have to get more power from ComEd before new datacenters can come in, but also noted that there will still be capacity for other smaller uses in the near term, if needed.
Finally, a COW member made comments approving of the location and potential new revenue source, but also expressed concern about potential environmental impacts of the datacenter. As a part of this, they requested a study looking at water supply issues. Staff said they already have done a study through Trotter and Associates to guarantee that the city has enough water that it can source. However, $1 million in improvements would need to be made in order to supply more water. The COW member also expressed concern about water contamination from the facility. HUT8 said they do pre-treatment of water before sending it to the cooling towers, in the case of evaporative cooling. They also stated that they intend to stay within the sewer discharge specifications. Another member of COW with experience regarding datacenters noted that datacenters are held to strict standards of water cleanliness by the tenants since contaminants can cause uptime problems for clients.
Following COW response, a resident spoke with concerns about the utility agreement with the datacenter being made before the Brattle Group utility study is done, suggesting that it should wait for the study to be completed. They also took issue with a statement in the staff memo (supplied in the agenda) about potential uncertainties that could crop up if the city ever needed to buy electricity off the open market, suggesting that the city shouldn’t be against doing so versus relying on Prairie State. They also argued that the new utility agreement won’t help get the city off of Prairie State, and expressed concern about datacenter industry transparency. They also suggested that the city shouldn’t reimburse the business for the infrastructure upgrade, and wanted to see comparisons to other datacenter agreements in other cities. A question was also asked about if there has been a water service agreement negotiated, given the potential water usage of the datacenter. Another question asked if backup energy systems used by the facility could affect the city. Finally, the citizen suggested that there’s no termination option on the city’s behalf, and that the city should require the datacenter to use more renewable power sources.
HUT8 responded suggesting that the datacenter would be unrelated to the Prairie State plant, since they’re getting their energy from the broader market. They also suggested that the city won’t need to wait until the study is complete since distribution rates aren’t set in the contract (although the EAC equation is set, however).
One COW member asked if the city could use its contract with PJM to specify renewable resources, with staff suggesting that the city would only do so if the state requires it to do so. The citizen who brought forward the original question argued that the city should still use its PJM contract to push for renewable sources. Specifically, they suggested that instead of buying power wholesale from PJM, the city should instead contract power from a specific renewable power provider, which could be a potential use of the Brattle study. HUT8 said their tenants will be the ones deciding who buys the power, and will likely prefer renewables through the use of renewable energy credits. Another COW member spoke more on this, and noted the importance of providing a baseload power for a datacenter to operate, maintain up-time. They also noted that PJM has a diversity of power sources on their grid. Staff also suggested that negotiating individual contracts for power instead of using wholesale power could introduce new risks given the scale of power expected to be drawn by the facility, which could leave the city on the hook for a lot of power purchasing. Following this, another member of COW suggested that drawing power from PJM will diversify our power sources and also suggested that income from the agreement can give the city utility the ability to move to other power sources in the future as well.
Since it keeps coming up, it’s probably worth explaining what PJM is. PJM is a regional transmission organization that covers much of the eastern US, as well as Chicago. It’s basically a large, heavily regulated energy market that maintains and operates the grid over a whole region while also coordinating between power providers and users. Read more about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJM_Interconnection
Another question was asked about what happens to the electricity purchase agreement account if the business leaves early. HUT8 said that the account would just terminate immediately and that the city won’t be on the hook for continuing to purchase power. Another COW member noted that the facility likely won’t be abandoned due to the investment made, and would likely just get sold to another company.
A COW member asked if the datacenter will raise electric costs for residents. Staff suggested that customer costs would likely stay the same or go down due to the increased revenues, although that’s difficult to predict due to broader market forces. HUT8 also argued that the amount of new city services they need are small compared to the amount of power they will be buying from the city, relative to other customers, and that they would thus improve the utility’s financial position long term and that worst case infrastructure upgrades could also be used for other things as well.
Another COW member asked about next steps. Once agreed, the building permit approval process will start, including environmental and site impacts, design review, and other building code needs. They also asked for thoughts from the head of the electric utility. The utility director emphasized the potential bottleneck of the city's connection to the outside world (150MW) and stated that he will be contacting ComEd about increasing the city’s load. He also noted hard limits of the existing infrastructure and thus the need to upgrade them, which comes with a four year lead time and potential $5-6 million in new costs for an additional transformer. That being said, he also noted that the city is well situated to add new power capabilities due to proximity to the broader grid. More details will be provided in August.
One last comment from COW suggested that staff put out a summary of the project for the public to know more.
A member of the public asked for more details about the PJM agreement, and whether the city could stipulate renewable requirements. A member of COW re-emphasized that the tenants would dictate that but otherwise the power would likely be bought wholesale.
Finally, a member of the public asked if the facility would have backup generators. One COW member with knowledge of these kinds of facilities suggested they would use battery backups with natural gas as backup, especially given the footprint of the site. The citizen was also worried about environmental impacts, and referenced a story about an xAI facility in Tennessee that produced a lot of local pollution. Staff noted that other datacenters in the area haven’t had local environmental impacts, but recognized their concern. Another member of COW also noted that a Politico article on the xAI facility stated that it relied on onsite generation with 35 gas turbines, which wouldn’t be the case for the datacenter proposed here.
Once discussion ended, the proposal received unanimous recommendation by COW.
* A presentation was given by the project contractor debriefing the recent water main replacement project on Bernadette Lane in order to give the COW a review of the project’s successes and setbacks. The project was set to replace the aging water main infrastructure in the area while increasing the capacity. The project also added a water quality sampling station, and replaced the service lines going to adjacent homes. A major challenge of the project was that part of it covered Rt. 31, which required IDOT approval to conduct the project and set up adequate traffic control during construction, for which speed limits couldn’t be changed.
The project took about 4 months, and is currently being closed out, with most of the final work just being sod installation for excavated areas, which was delayed due to the recent hot weather. The contractor also noted some construction challenges that they ran into, including working around the existing utilities, traffic control considerations, having to do boring under Rt. 31 due to IDOT not allowing open-cut construction on their roads, and coordination with residents. The contractor also noted the ease of communication options that the city provides to contact residents, such as the city’s text message outreach system, as well as work they were able to do with the school district for coordination. One member of COW who represents that area noted a complete lack of complaints on the project (baring the resident who spoke at the beginning of this meeting) and also spoke well of the communications they received from the contractor as a resident during the work. Staff also noted the necessity of the work for maintaining the water utility, as well as how well the project went with residents, including during the microburst storm event that happened in that area during the project.
* A similar briefing was given on the progress of the lead service water line replacement program that the city is currently undergoing. The city is currently in year two of the three year program, and plans to have all lead pipes removed by the end of the project in 2026, well ahead of the regulatory requirement. The project contractor spoke summarizing the project. As a reminder, this project seeks to replace the water service lines between the water mains and people’s homes that have lead or are downstream of lead pipes. The IEPA required cities to start identifying their pipes back in 2023 and to start removing them in 2027, meaning Batavia is well ahead of schedule (which helped us get state funding and interest-free loans for much of the work).
A typical lead line removal for a given property included a brief meeting with the resident a few days before the project, followed by implementation of traffic control measures, construction work, and then site repair (including sod replacement). During this process, water would usually only be off for about 4 hours on average. The contractor also used GIS (a Graphical Information System, which is a map of the city that has data overlaid on it) to track all the different replacements. In the first year 281 replacements were completed using $4 million in forgivable loans, while 400 will be completed as a part of year two (340 done so far), which was funded by a $4.5 million interest free loan. During year three, 500-550 lines will be replaced using a $5.4 million interest free loan from the IEPA. Overall, over 5 miles of service line have been replaced so far. The contractor also thanked city staff and the Council for their support during the project. It was also noted that Batavia will be one of the first cities in the state that has a substantial number of lead lines to have replaced them all.
* A number of variances have been requested for the renovation of a home on S. Harrison St. that was damaged last year by a fire. When staff had reviewed the renovation plans, it was found that the existing structure, which was built in the 1940s, violated a number of setback limits (which are requirements that a structure be a certain distance away from the property line). These variances would allow the work to be approved despite the rebuilt structure not conforming to the zoning code. Additionally, a second residential structure on the property that wasn’t damaged will be getting a setback variance as well in order to prevent a need to pursue one in the future, since that structure also violates the zoning code. The variances received unanimous recommendation by the COW.
* The Fire Department made a request to purchase two new pickup trucks to replace two existing trucks approaching the end of their life. These new trucks will be a 2024 Ford F150 at a cost of $58,789 and a 2024 F350 at a cost of $77,9888. One member of Council asked why a vehicle the size of an F350 was needed, considering it’s replacing an F250. The fire chief argued that the old vehicle had not been able to meet their towing capacity needs in the past, and so an upgrade was warranted. The motion received unanimous recommendation by COW.
* A local business, Superior Health Linens, which has been in the city since 1990 and employs 149 people, is considering leaving town once their lease expires soon. However, after talking with the city, they have agreed to stay if they can get reduced sewerage costs from the water utility going forward. Superior is arguing that they only discharge 70% of the water that they bring in, while our utility billing generally assumes an equal amount in and out for each customer, and thus charges based on that. Under this potential new system, Superior would install a meter on their discharge to the sewer system and be charged based on that instead.
Furthermore, as an added incentive, Superior is requesting that they get a water bill rebate to cover the sewerage difference that they would have received over the last 4 years under such a system. This rebated amount will be based on their average metered sewage discharge amounts measured by the new system put in place for the first three months of operation, with the assumption that this would trend with their discharge rate in previous years. They would then receive a monthly rebate based on this for the next 4 years to make up the difference, assuming that they choose to stay and renew the lease in the current facility.
One member of COW asked why they only return 70% of the water that they take in. Staff stated that it is mostly lost through evaporation and the drying process.
Another member of COW stated that they approve of the incentive, but suggested that the option might also be extended to other similar users. Another COW member asked if the datacenter mentioned above might also want to take advantage of such a service, which staff suggested they might. This COW member also asked if the water utility could afford to provide this option, and staff suggested it would. Another COW member also suggested that between this facility and the proposed datacenter, the city should analyze the water and sewer systems in the industrial park to ensure proper capacity. Staff stated that an initial review has already been completed.
Following this discussion, the motion received unanimous recommendation.
* Project Status:
- The Batavia Environmental Commission will be presenting their quarterly update at the next city council meeting on July 21st, where they will also weigh in on the Clark Island gravel bar vegetation treatment discussion.
- A new boat launch will be installed in the next few weeks next to the Skate and Pump Track along the river trail as a part of the regional Fabulous Fox River project, which is installing boat launches up and down the river in a number of cities.
- The lead service water pipe replacement team will be working on S. River St. and N. Washington this week.
- The police department hosted their Cones with a Cop event on July 17th at Batavia Creamery.
* Mayor’s Report: The mayor noted that the mayor of Highland Park visited Batavia recently for a metropolitan mayor’s meeting and was very impressed with the town. The mayor gave her a tour of the downtown, including the river walk and Flag Day Monument, as well as the new wastewater treatment plant and Quarry Pond and other parts of town. She also complimented the efforts of the City Council and asked if their city council could attend a future meeting.
Upcoming Meetings:
* City Council Meeting - July 20th, 7PM - City Hall
Agenda: https://bataviail.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07212025-2445?html=true
Topics: Wastewater Treatment Plant updates, Environmental Commission updates, Batavia Mainstreet updates, discussion on Clark Island gravel bar vegetation management, approval of the datacenter electric utility agreement
* Special Committee of the Whole - July 20th (after City Council meeting), - City Hall
Agenda: https://www.bataviail.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07212025-2446?html=true
Topics: City energy policy, council committee discussion