Mark Cuban asked towns to publish their data-center contracts.
“Maybe,” he wrote, “we can combine crowd sourcing and AI to create a contract that is optimal for the community, at the expense of the company building the datacenter.”
That was September 7, in a post carried by Benzinga. A second post that day, reported by Moneywise, offered a 10-point checklist: “A town’s first data center: what to require before saying yes.”
By the week of this September 11 report, an independent project had assembled something useful: a library of 38 public agreements between developers and the communities hosting them.
I want the valley to read them.
This isn’t an argument for data centers or against them. It’s about understanding what you’re saying yes or no to.
A library, not a ready-made contract
The site, datacenters.policyframeworks.org, calls itself the Open Community Benefits Agreement for Data Centers.
The name needs explaining. There is no published template. Its framework page says, “No draft has been published.”
What exists is a collection of agreements, each summarized and linked to its original document. There’s a gallery of clauses organized by topic, a comparison of Cuban’s checklist with five deals, and a form for submitting more documents or clauses for editorial review.
The project says it was built in response to Cuban’s call but is not affiliated with him.
Its creator is Ben Newman, founder of Shaper Collective, which describes itself as an AI-native public relations firm in Washington, DC. Its stated business includes helping clients “win attention inside algorithmic feeds.”
That matters. I wouldn’t treat the site as an authority. I would use it to find documents.
What other communities put in writing
Three agreements in the library come from Arizona. We read the public documents behind those entries.
Chandler’s 2024 agreement for a data-center expansion says the project “may not incorporate or use any Water-Based Cooling Systems.”
It requires the old cooling towers to be replaced with mechanical systems before a certificate of occupancy is issued. It also makes a violation of the city’s data-center sound requirements a violation of the agreement.
Goodyear’s 2023 amendment with Microsoft ties the campus to a water right of 362.60 acre-feet a year. Evaporative cooling is permitted in no more than three of 10 buildings.
It also requires a $5 million escrow deposit covering at least 110% of the improvement costs.
Pima County’s December 2025 memorandum for Project Blue commits the developer to air cooling incorporating a closed-loop system.
The renewable-energy commitment is qualified: “commercially reasonable efforts” to match all energy use with renewables. The agreement also provides for $15 million in community donations, paid in phases and only for the portions actually built.
Those qualifications matter as much as the headline numbers.
Water, power and public benefits were the concerns Coachella residents brought to a packed town hall in May, according to NBC Palm Springs. Two desert cities and a desert county had already written answers into contracts.
We don’t have to invent every question from scratch.
What the valley was deciding
I wrote in June that a moratorium is worth exactly what it produces before it lifts.
As of September 11, four valley cities had acted.
Coachella adopted its ban on August 26. Indio extended its moratorium in July and was drafting a permanent ban. Desert Hot Springs voted July 7 to extend its pause to two years.
Palm Springs approved a 45-day pause on August 26, running through October 10. The Palm Springs Post reported that it could be extended for up to two years while staff examined water, power, city services and the mix of local employers.
“It’s really important that we are cautious and thoughtful in our planning for all of these,” Councilmember Grace Garner said.
Every one of those decisions concerns what a community will require. Even a ban sets terms.
Yet none of the library’s 38 agreements came from California.
KVCR reported that Coachella was California’s second city to ban data centers, after Monterey Park voters approved a ban in June. It also reported that Coachella terminated its Stronghold Power Systems utility agreement at the June meeting where it adopted its first moratorium.
Those documents matter to the next city facing a proposal, whether the previous city approved the project or rejected it.
Start with the original document
For councilmembers and planning staff, the library offers rules other communities have already negotiated. I estimated that reading the three Arizona documents would take a day.
For reporters, it gives substance to the six questions we published September 10.
A developer promises to pay for infrastructure? Ask whether it will provide an escrow covering at least 110% of the cost. Goodyear got that.
A developer promises to be a good neighbor? Ask whether violating the city’s sound requirements also violates the agreement. Chandler got that.
Then read the document before printing the clause. We examined three agreements directly. The summaries of the other 35 are starting points, not substitutes for sources.
For residents, the documents make a concern specific. You can ask about closed-loop cooling, as in Pima County, or a prohibition on water-based cooling, as in Chandler.
For businesses, the question is who pays. Goodyear’s amendment directs Microsoft’s deposit toward the pump station and water lines its campus needs. A hotel, farm or clinic has reason to ask whether its own bill could rise to support someone else’s infrastructure.
The library’s editors are not named. Its FAQ also warns that a signed agreement doesn’t necessarily mean every resident supports a project.
Read it with those limits in mind. The value is in the underlying documents.
What I want our cities to do
When I wrote this in September, I wanted every Palm Springs councilmember to read the three Arizona documents before the October 10 deadline. Chandler, Goodyear and Pima County were the closest comparisons in that library to us.
I wanted Indio’s draft ordinance to cite at least one agreement by name. And I wanted Coachella to submit the utility agreement it terminated, so the next California city could start with a document instead of nothing.
The larger request still stands.
If you live in the Coachella Valley or Inland Empire, take these documents to your council. Share them with your friends and neighbors.
Not to win an argument. So that when the vote comes, people understand what is being decided.
Update, October 15: Shortened the headline and edited for readability with Sat’s approval. The sources, archive links and reporting limitations are unchanged. The library count and local status remain a September 11 snapshot, not a new check of agreements or city decisions.
As of September 11, the library had no California agreements.
Which of our cities puts its experience on the record for the next one?