Piqua, OH Says Meta Is Behind the 1,400-Megawatt Data Center. AES Ohio Will Power It — and Voters May Get a Say.

The reason is arithmetic. City staff told the August 11 public hearing that Piqua's system peaks at 66 megawatts. The project is requesting 1,400.

That gap is why, on August 18, 2026, the Piqua City Commission gave AES Ohio the right to sell power to one property inside the city. The property is 607.656 acres at Farrington Road and Washington Road. A company called J5 LLC plans to build a hyperscale data center there. The city said the same night that the company behind J5 is Meta.

This is unusual. Piqua owns and runs its own electric utility, and it sells power to homes and businesses inside the city. The franchise ordinance opens by claiming that comes with the right to serve those customers "to the exclusion of other electric utility providers" under Ohio Constitution Article XVIII, Section 4. That section lets a city own and run a utility. It says nothing about keeping others out, and the ordinance never tests the point. What is not in dispute is the size: the city cannot serve a customer more than twenty times larger than its whole system. So it let AES Ohio in — for this one site only.

Then, later that same night, the commission moved a very different question toward voters. A petition written by residents would change the city charter to ban any data center that uses more than 25 megawatts. Civic Capacity reported that the commission adopted the ordinance sending it to the November 3 ballot. The filing deadline for that election had already passed, and the Board of Elections has not yet certified the question to the ballot. If it passes, there may be nothing left for AES Ohio to serve.

The AES Ohio Deal, Line by Line

Ordinance O-7-26 is short, but the terms are specific. Here is what each side agreed to.

What AES Ohio can do

What AES Ohio cannot do

How long it lasts

What Piqua gets paid

What happens if AES Ohio breaks the rules

If AES Ohio misses a payment — or the city wants out

When it ends

One clause that runs the other way

If the customer buys land next to the site and uses it for data center work, "the City shall upon request by the Customer or AES Ohio approve that additional property to be served by AES Ohio." Not may — shall. And "next to" is defined loosely. Land still counts as touching the site even if a road, an easement, or a utility right-of-way sits in between.

Resident Jonathan Wessel flagged that word at the July 7 first reading. He raised it again on August 11 and asked the commission to strike the clause. His argument: if the city could never serve a load that size anyway, the promise gives away something for nothing.

Why Piqua Cannot Power It

The numbers come from RJ Monnier, who presented the staff report at the August 11 hearing.

Piqua's system peaks at 66 megawatts. The data center wants 1,400 megawatts to operate. That is about twenty-one times the size of the entire city system.

The city also has no transmission line at the voltage the project needs. Staff said various options were looked at and none worked.

The record does not agree on what that voltage is. Monnier said the project needs a 138-kilovolt connection. AES Ohio's Rob Beeler told the same hearing that Piqua gets transmission at 69 and the project needs 345. The minutes write both of Beeler's numbers as volts instead of kilovolts. Nobody in the minutes squares the two accounts.

Staff also explained the risk of trying anyway. If a 1,400-megawatt load sat behind Piqua's meter, it would count toward the city's share of the Dayton transmission peak and the PJM capacity peaks. Those peaks set a large part of the city's power bill. If that customer later left, the city could be stuck with stranded transmission and capacity costs — as much as $220 million, payable within a year. The low end of that range appears in the minutes as "$1585 million," which does not fit with the high end and looks like a typing error in the record.

Against all that, staff said the revenue Piqua gives up by not being the seller is about $500 a month. The real benefit of being the seller, they said, would have been the kilowatt-hour tax, not the power sales.

The Ballot Measure That Could Stop It

The same commission, the same night, took up Ordinance No. O-11-26. The August 18 agenda lists it as a first reading. But the ordinance text carries an emergency clause. Under Charter Section 12, that lets it pass right away if at least 75 percent of the commission votes yes. On a five-member body, that is four votes. Civic Capacity reported on August 22 that the commission did adopt it as an emergency. The stated goal was to get the question on the November ballot. The agenda listing omits the words "and declaring an emergency" that appear on the staff report and the ordinance itself, two pages later in the same packet.

Proposed Charter Section 138 would ban building a data center in Piqua. It defines a data center as one or more buildings, physical facilities, or infrastructure — on one parcel, or on parcels that are "contiguous, adjacent, or otherwise aggregated," which need not touch — that meet two tests at once:

The measure says it is "self-executing." That means it works on its own. The city would not have to pass anything else.

That phrase about energy sources matters. A 25-megawatt cap that counts power "however derived" does not care whose meter the power comes through. AES Ohio's meter, Piqua's meter, or a generator the company owns on site — it all counts. This is a cap on how much power a building may use, not a rule about who sells it.

The number is not local. It matches a proposed statewide constitutional amendment from the group Conserve Ohio, which would ban data centers with a peak load over 25 megawatts per month. The Ohio Capital Journal reported in June that the group had gathered about 70,000 of the 413,487 valid signatures it needed by July 1, did not submit, and is now aiming at the 2027 ballot.

How the petition got there. The clerk's office received it on July 24, 2026. On August 6 the city issued a Certificate of Insufficiency, because the sworn statements the charter requires were missing. That rule is Charter Section 27. The petitions came back certified on August 10 and went to the Miami County Board of Elections with 440 signatures. The Board verified 352.

How many signatures the charter actually requires is in dispute. At the July 21 meeting, resident Steve Yenney told the commission that Charter Section 135 "says you have to have 1250 signatures." He argued the Ohio Constitution's own process overrides the charter. And he said that with only 1,802 voters in the last election, "it's only going to take 181 qualified signatures." The petition form says it must "be signed by ten percent of the electors, based upon the total vote cast at the last preceding general municipal election." The 352 verified signatures land between the two numbers.

The ordinance sends the question to the next regular election falling between 60 and 120 days after passage. August 18 to November 3 is 77 days. It declares an emergency because the commission wants the November 3 ballot "and the deadline for that election has already passed." It does not say how the question gets on the ballot now that the deadline has gone by.

The Power Deal Piqua Kept

Piqua cannot sell the data center its operating power. It can sell the power to build it.

On July 7 the commission approved Resolution No. R-80-26, an Electric Services Agreement with J5 LLC d/b/a Shaytura LLC. Under it the city sells up to 10,000 kilowatts — 10 megawatts — for construction and start-up, delivered at about 69 kV. If the customer wants more, it has to ask in writing, and the city "may or may not authorize such increase for any reason."

The term starts the day the customer first takes construction power — not the day the deal is signed. It runs until the earlier of ten years from that date, or 60 days after the customer gives notice. The customer can also walk away for convenience on the same 60 days' notice.

The terms put nearly every cost and risk on the customer:

One note on the record. The July 7 minutes say the customer will transfer "the land and power plant" to the city for $1.00. The agreement transfers the transformer.

The Price Showed Up Late

The version of O-7-26 that passed on August 18 is not the version the commission first saw.

The first version ran 40 years. Section 6 — the part that says what the city gets — had no payment in it at all. The only thing AES Ohio promised was to move the 69 kV line at no cost. Even so, the opening paragraphs said "AES Ohio agrees to pay the City due and valid consideration, which are described more fully below."

Interim City Manager Rick Byron wrote the report that Charter Section 106 requires before a franchise can pass. He described the city's payoff the same vague way: "commitments related to infrastructure improvements and economic development objectives." The report gives no dollar amount, no number of years, and never names the customer. It recommends approval, saying the ordinance "represents a balanced approach that advances economic development objectives while preserving important municipal rights and protections."

The money arrived at the end. AES Ohio's Robert Beeler sent a letter on August 7 asking to amend the ordinance. Byron's August 10 memo lists what AES and J5 asked for. First, "an annual franchise fee payment to the City by the Customer in an amount of $1 million dollars each year." Second, a 60-day window to fix a late payment, with the right to end the deal if it is not fixed. Third, a cut in the term to 30 years. That was eleven days before the vote.

The final text routes the money differently than the memo describes. Section 6 makes AES Ohio the payer, "to be reimbursed by Customer."

Section 6 also holds a clause worth watching. Suppose the law changes, or the PUCO or PJM changes a rule, so that a city serving big industrial or data center load can earn money from it. AES Ohio then agrees to talk in good faith about changing the deal so the money reaches Piqua. The construction-power agreement has a narrower version at Section 5.6: the customer makes the same promise, but only if federal or state law changes. Neither clause requires anyone to agree to anything.

What the City Says It Gains

Economic development staff laid out the money at the August 11 hearing. All of it is an estimate.

Payments in place of property taxes. Where a building improvement receives a community reinvestment area tax break, the development agreement requires the company to pay the city, Piqua City Schools, and Upper Valley Career Center directly for as long as that break lasts. Staff estimated $1.8 million a year to the city, $300,000 to the schools, and $39,000 to the career center.

Tax increment financing. A TIF district on the property routes the new tax value into a fund. The first half goes to the city, the schools, and the career center, with the school districts getting all of the new money tied to the rise in land value. The second half goes back to the company to cover public infrastructure it builds at no cost to the city. Staff estimated $1.9 million a year to the city, $1.2 million to the schools, and over $170,000 to the career center.

Income taxes. An estimated average of $2.9 million a year to the city and over $200,000 to the schools, from wages, salaries, and business earnings.

On August 18, before the vote, the city named the customer for the first time. Meta was identified as the company behind J5 LLC. In a letter to commissioners and a city news release, Meta pledged $8 million to replace emergency services equipment and support more personnel, "among other economic commitments." Meta said it "sees a real opportunity in Piqua — and upon the project moving forward, we'd back the region with a $1 billion direct investment and a commitment to its long-term vitality." The city's release ties that figure to Meta's Future is for Everyone Fund. Meta announced that fund on August 10. It is $1 billion nationwide, for communities where the company owns and runs data centers. Neither Meta nor the city said how much of it Piqua would get. The data center itself has also been described publicly as a $1 billion build. All of these numbers come from the company and the city, not from any document in the packet.

How It Moved Through the Commission

The franchise took six weeks, four commission meetings, and one public hearing. The city charter kept getting in the way.

July 7 — first reading, no vote. Chris Schmiesing and RJ Monnier presented. AES staff were in the room. This was a regular meeting, not a hearing. The same night the commission approved the construction-power agreement, R-80-26. Vice Mayor Frank DeBrosse moved, Commissioner Rick Walker seconded, Mayor Jim Vetter voted yes, and Commissioner Paul Simmons voted no. Commissioner Philip Wead had been excused. Steve Yenney told the commission he had a referendum ready if the franchise passed that night. The meeting ended at 10:06 p.m. with eight items pushed to July 21.

July 21 — second reading. The staff report listed the budget impact as $0 and attached two documents: the service agreement exhibit and Byron's Section 106 report.

August 3 — tabled. DeBrosse read Charter Section 106 aloud. It says no franchise ordinance can pass until the city manager has given the commission a written report, until enough public hearings have been held, and until at least a week after the final version is published. He asked for a hearing on August 11 on this ordinance alone. Law Director Jessica Stiltner warned that any change coming out of that hearing would require yet another hearing before a vote. The motion carried.

August 11 — the public hearing. Everyone who spoke was sworn in. Mayor Vetter told the room "the City is keeping a record of tonight's public hearing given the City's Charter requirements for a Franchise." The minutes note the oath language comes from R.C. 2317.30 and Evidence Rule 603. Four groups spoke first: city staff, AES Ohio, J5's energy lawyer, and an outside data center expert. Then 22 residents spoke. Simmons put his own count in the record: 21 of them, or 95.4 percent, spoke against the project.

August 18 — third reading and adoption. WHIO reported that the commission approved the agreement with AES Ohio. WDTN reported the ordinance passed 3-1. Neither outlet published a roll call, and the minutes are not out yet.

Problems People Found in the Ordinance

Residents raised these objections across the four meetings and the August 11 hearing. Several hold up when you check them against the text.

Automatic renewal. Wessel read Charter Section 104 aloud: "No franchise shall be granted, amended or renewed except by ordinance." He argued a franchise that renews on its own conflicts with that. He also pointed out that Section 104 requires the ordinance to list the streets, alleys, and public ways it covers. O-7-26 has no such list, in either version.

A cure period that is not where the ordinance says it is. Section 4 makes the $50,000 penalty "subject to the cure provision set forth in Section 5." Wessel told the commission that if "you turn to section five, what you will find is that there is no cure provision." He is right. Section 5 covers ending the deal, and AES Ohio's promise not to fight that. It has no cure period. In the original ordinance there was no cure period anywhere in the document. The amendment added one at Section 4(B) — but only for missed payments. The cross-reference in Section 4(A) still points nowhere.

Who counts as "the City." The ordinance requires "the express written consent of the City" before AES Ohio can build generation in town, but never says who signs. Asked at the hearing, attorney Ryan Spitzer of Isaac Wiles — a different firm from the city's economic development lawyers — said that since this is an ordinance, consent would come from the commission. He offered to make whatever changes the commission wanted. The text was not changed.

The lawyers. Residents pressed repeatedly on Bricker Graydon, the city's economic development counsel. At the July 7 meeting Schmiesing said the city had been repaid $200,000 of $213,636.25 in legal costs. That money covered the development, water and sewer, and tax increment financing paperwork. He said the city expected to absorb about $13,000 of it. J5 agreed to cover all of the legal costs for the franchise and the construction-power agreement. Those go through Section 5.7 of the construction-power agreement, which makes the customer pay the city back for lawyers and consultants. Devon Parmount of Bricker Graydon told the commission the firm represents Piqua, not J5. The firm's contract, R-81-26, was tabled July 7 over a purchase-order signature problem, tabled again July 21, and approved August 3 after being amended to remove social media monitoring. Simmons voted no. Walker voted yes on the condition that the city look at another firm.

Land and neighbors. At the July 7 meeting Richard Price told the commission that he and his neighbors had received eminent domain letters from AES. He said a neighbor's yard had been torn up months earlier and never repaired, and that a substation would sit close to his home.

Numbers That Changed

Two sets of project figures moved inside a single meeting.

At the July 7 meeting, Matt McQuade of the Piqua Land Company answered Commissioner Walker's question about jobs with a base salary of about $100,000 and roughly 300 employees. Later in the same item, DeBrosse asked him to explain the difference between that and other figures. McQuade then gave a different breakdown: 50 permanent full-time jobs as direct employees, with an estimated annual payroll of $6 million; subcontractors with an estimated annual payroll of $14 million; and 1,800 jobs at the peak of construction, with a payroll of $100 million.

McQuade also addressed water that night. No wells on site. Water comes from the city treatment plant. It is not dumped into the river. The system is dry-cooled, so most water use is ordinary domestic use, and the city meters it. Mike Settineri, J5's lawyer, said the project plans to use fewer than four backup generators.

Where the Record Disagrees With Itself

One conflict sits between two official documents. Resolution No. R-82-26, which hired Fishbeck for engineering work, passed on July 21 without the language that actually approves anything. Resolution No. R-100-26 re-does it and repeals the broken parts. But R-100-26 opens by saying the commission "unanimously approved" R-82-26 on July 21. The July 21 minutes, in the same packet, record Commissioner Walker moving approval and Commissioner Wead seconding, with Mayor Vetter and Vice Mayor DeBrosse voting yes and Commissioner Simmons voting no. It passed 4-1.

The other gaps are in the minutes, which matter because the minutes are what most residents read. The July 7 minutes describe the construction-power agreement as transferring "the land and power plant" for $1.00, where the agreement transfers the transformer. Richard Price put the distance from his home to the planned substation at 100 feet on July 7 and 10 feet on August 11, and the minutes carry both without comment. Mike Settineri appears as "Mike Sutinary" in the August 11 minutes.

Dating the underlying deals takes some care. The construction-power agreement points to "the Development Agreement dated January 23, 2026." The R-100-26 staff report calls it "the 11/3/25 Water and Sewer Agreement and Development Agreement," and identifies the water and sewer agreement as R-145-25. November 3, 2025 is the night residents keep returning to, because that is when the commission passed the data center legislation — R-114-25 and O-18-25 — as emergencies with the three-reading rule waived. The packet does date the water and sewer agreement to that night. It does not show the January 23, 2026 development agreement being authorized then.

Roads and Pipes Are Already Being Designed

Resolution No. R-100-26, also on the August 18 agenda, would add $2,678,000 to the city's engineering contract with Fishbeck for the I-75 Exit 78 Development Area. The staff report ties it straight to the project: Phase III design work supporting the infrastructure in the Piqua–J5 water and sewer agreement, with the money repaid to Piqua through escrow. At the July 21 meeting, Kevin Krejny — listed in the packet as Community Services director and addressed by Fishbeck as utilities superintendent — told the commission that $2,678,000 was already sitting in escrow from J5.

The amendment brings the total engineering fee from $4,671,200 to $7,349,200.

The design schedule runs well past the election. The Washington and Farrington roundabout hits 60% drawings on October 1, 2026, 90% on January 15, 2027, and final plans on March 15, 2027. Washington Road widening runs 60% on October 15, 2026, 90% on February 15, 2027, and final on May 1, 2027. Farrington Road widening runs later: 60% on August 1, 2027, 90% on December 1, 2027, final on March 1, 2028. The work also covers buying easements and right-of-way on five parcels along Washington Road for the power lines and six parcels at the Washington–Farrington corner for the roundabout.

What This Means for Developers and Site Selectors

A city-owned utility is a different deal. Where a private utility holds the territory, hooking up a big load is a utility process. Here it ran through the city's charter. Piqua had to pass an ordinance, produce a city manager's report, hold a hearing under a specific charter section, negotiate a price, and promise a PUCO filing to take the customer back later. Plan the schedule around that.

The load split drives the structure. Piqua could serve 10 MW of construction load but not 1,400 MW of operating load. That one fact created two agreements and two counterparties. The construction-power deal carries a deposit and post-term collateral. The franchise carries no security at all — if AES Ohio stops paying, the city's only move is to end it. Any project whose construction load fits the local utility and whose operating load does not should expect the same split.

The price can move very late. The ordinance had no franchise fee through two readings and the required city manager's report. AES asked for the $1 million a year, the cure period, and the shorter term on August 7. The commission adopted it on August 18. If you are on the city side, the number stays negotiable long after the paperwork looks settled.

Read the expansion clause first. "The City shall upon request… approve that additional property," with neighboring land defined to ignore roads and easements, is an option on future acreage buried in a utility franchise.

A megawatt cap is not a zoning rule. Proposed Section 138 bans a power number "however derived from any energy source." Building your own generation does not get you around it. In Ohio, where the same 25 MW figure is being pushed statewide, that is the number to plan against.

Naming the customer late has a cost. The city did not say publicly who the customer was until the day of the vote, and the announcement came with an $8 million pledge. More than nine months of local argument ran without that fact, going back to the November 3, 2025 emergency votes on the underlying agreements. The August 11 hearing is what that produced.

Risks and Obstacles

The clock is running on the franchise. AES Ohio has 60 days from passage to accept in writing, or the ordinance is void. The first $1 million is due 30 days after that.

A move to undo the franchise is being organized. WHIO reported after the August 18 vote that a leader of Save Piqua plans to start the process of overturning the city's deal with AES. WHIO spells her name "Lang." The group's own filings use Alisha Lange. That would be a separate question from the charter ban.

Getting on the ballot is not finished. The ordinance admits the filing deadline for November 3 has already passed, and does not say how the question gets placed now. As of August 25 the Miami County Board of Elections has not certified the question to the ballot. How many signatures Charter Section 135 requires is also disputed in the record.

Nobody has said whether the ban would reach this project. Section 138 bans "construction." It says nothing about a project that already holds a development agreement, a water and sewer deal, a franchise, a power agreement, and engineering contracts. The petition never mentions rights a builder may have already earned.

Letting AES in is easier than getting it out. To take the customer back at the end, the city has to file a PUCO abandonment case under R.C. 4905.20 and 4905.21, and it can only file once the agreement ends. AES Ohio's promise not to object binds AES Ohio. It does not bind the PUCO. Meanwhile AES Ohio keeps serving until the PUCO approves and the city can take over.

The paperwork has needed fixing. R-82-26 passed without the part that approves it, and the resolution fixing that gets the vote wrong. Minutes have been tabled over accuracy fights. A thin record is something a lawyer can work with, whatever you think of the project.

Interim leadership. The city went into the August 18 vote with an interim city manager and an interim finance director, after losing its city manager, finance director, and community services director earlier in the year. Residents raised it again and again. It is also a real execution risk for anyone on the other side of the table.

What to Watch

This article is factual background and is not legal, financial, or investment advice.

Piqua, Ohio runs its own electric utility. The city system peaks at 66 megawatts. The data center proposed there is asking for 1,400.

On August 18 the commission gave AES Ohio a 30-year franchise to serve that one site. The same night, it moved a resident-written charter amendment toward the November ballot that would ban the project outright. The city also said, for the first time, that Meta is the company behind J5 LLC.

The franchise terms, from the ordinance:

• 30 years, renewing a year at a time unless someone objects 180 days out.

• $1 million a year to the city. AES pays; the customer pays AES back.

• A 69 kV line moved about 5,000 feet at no cost to Piqua, freeing the land under it. No deadline set.

• $50,000 per violation. $1,000,000 for every customer inside city limits AES chases, and another $1,000,000 for every one it serves.

• If AES misses the annual payment, the city's only remedy is to end the deal. That is written in.

• If the customer buys land next door for data center use, the city "shall" approve AES serving that too.

Two things stood out reading the packets end to end.

First, the price showed up eleven days before the vote. Through two readings and the city manager's charter-required report, the ordinance ran 40 years with no franchise fee at all — the only thing AES promised was moving the line. The $1 million, the cure period, and the 30-year term came in an AES letter dated August 7.

Second, the ballot measure counts megawatts, not meters. Proposed Charter Section 138 bans any data center over 25 MW "however derived from any energy source." Building your own generation does not get you around it.

The first reading was July 7. The petition reached the clerk July 24. The ordinance was tabled August 3 on a charter provision, heard August 11, and adopted August 18. Every one of those is a public record that lands weeks before the headline — and weeks before an RFP, a bond, or a campaign engagement.

Obedio reads the agenda packets, the minutes, and the staff reports, and surfaces the signal while it is still a first reading.

Full write-up linked below.