Watermark.
Lima BOSC
Switch site 35 sites · 10 basins2 states Group by
OH Ohio 34
BOSC BOSC Lima Ottawa River · Lima, OH Building Under construction #1261 URB Urbana Mad River · Great Miami Live Investigating #1263 DEF Defiance Maumee mainstem Queued Investigating #1264 FIN Findlay Blanchard River Queued Investigating #1265 TOL Toledo Lucas Co WRRF Queued Investigating #1266 VWT Van Wert Town Creek · Little Auglaize Queued Investigating #1267 BRY Bryan Prairie Creek · Tiffin River Queued Investigating #1268 OTW Ottawa Blanchard River (lower) Queued Investigating #1269 SPR Springfield Mad River · Great Miami Queued Investigating #1270 XEN Xenia Little Miami Queued Investigating #1271 WPA Dayton · WPAFB Mad River · Great Miami Queued Investigating #1272 HAM Hamilton · Middletown Great Miami (lower) Queued Investigating #1273 TRP Troy · Piqua Great Miami (upper) Queued Investigating #1274 SID Sidney Great Miami · headwaters Queued Investigating #1275 GRV Greenville · Darke Co Stillwater · basin divide Queued Investigating #1276 WIL Wilmington Todd Fork · Little Miami Queued Investigating #1277 WUN West Union · Adams Co Ohio Brush Creek · Ohio River Queued Investigating #1278 NAL New Albany · Licking Scioto ↔ Muskingum divide Tracking Investigating #1279 COL Columbus Scioto · Olentangy Tracking Investigating #1280 CSH Coshocton Tuscarawas + Walhonding Tracking Investigating #1281 PIK Piketon Scioto River · PORTS Tracking Investigating #1282 SAN Sandusky · Perkins Twp Sandusky Bay · Lake Erie Tracking Investigating #1283 NWK Newark Licking River Tracking Investigating #1284 ZAN Zanesville Muskingum mainstem Tracking Investigating #1285 FRE Fremont · Clyde Lower Sandusky Tracking Investigating #1286 TIF Tiffin Sandusky (mid) Tracking Investigating #1287 BUC Bucyrus Sandusky headwaters Tracking Investigating #1288 CLE Cleveland Lower Cuyahoga Tracking Investigating #1289 AKR Akron Upper Cuyahoga · CVNP Tracking Investigating #1290 LRD Lordstown · Warren Upper Mahoning Tracking Investigating #1291 YNG Youngstown Mahoning mainstem Tracking Investigating #1292 LAN Lancaster Upper Hocking Tracking Investigating #1293 ATH Athens Lower Hocking Tracking Investigating #1294 LOG Logan Hocking Hills Tracking Investigating #1295
MAU Maumee Basin 8 sites
2MI The Two Miamis 9 sites
SE Southeastern Basins 10 sites
NE Northeast Basins 8 sites
Each site is a section of the Watermark platform — pivoted by basinstate. Live & building sites open; queued and tracking sites route to their coming-soon / watch page.
Switch site 35 sites · 10 basins2 states 35 open Group by

Each site is one Watermark investigation. The page color says what opens; the campus line is the build on the ground — two different clocks.

OH Ohio 34
BOSC BOSC Lima Ottawa River · Lima, OH Draft Under construction #1261 URB Urbana Mad River · Great Miami Open Investigating #1263 DEF Defiance Maumee mainstem Queued Investigating #1264 FIN Findlay Blanchard River Queued Investigating #1265 TOL Toledo Lucas Co WRRF Queued Investigating #1266 VWT Van Wert Town Creek · Little Auglaize Queued Investigating #1267 BRY Bryan Prairie Creek · Tiffin River Queued Investigating #1268 OTW Ottawa Blanchard River (lower) Queued Investigating #1269 SPR Springfield Mad River · Great Miami Queued Investigating #1270 XEN Xenia Little Miami Queued Investigating #1271 WPA Dayton · WPAFB Mad River · Great Miami Queued Investigating #1272 HAM Hamilton · Middletown Great Miami (lower) Queued Investigating #1273 TRP Troy · Piqua Great Miami (upper) Queued Investigating #1274 SID Sidney Great Miami · headwaters Queued Investigating #1275 GRV Greenville · Darke Co Stillwater · basin divide Queued Investigating #1276 WIL Wilmington Todd Fork · Little Miami Queued Investigating #1277 WUN West Union · Adams Co Ohio Brush Creek · Ohio River Queued Investigating #1278 NAL New Albany · Licking Scioto ↔ Muskingum divide Watching Investigating #1279 COL Columbus Scioto · Olentangy Watching Investigating #1280 CSH Coshocton Tuscarawas + Walhonding Watching Investigating #1281 PIK Piketon Scioto River · PORTS Watching Investigating #1282 SAN Sandusky · Perkins Twp Sandusky Bay · Lake Erie Watching Investigating #1283 NWK Newark Licking River Watching Investigating #1284 ZAN Zanesville Muskingum mainstem Watching Investigating #1285 FRE Fremont · Clyde Lower Sandusky Watching Investigating #1286 TIF Tiffin Sandusky (mid) Watching Investigating #1287 BUC Bucyrus Sandusky headwaters Watching Investigating #1288 CLE Cleveland Lower Cuyahoga Watching Investigating #1289 AKR Akron Upper Cuyahoga · CVNP Watching Investigating #1290 LRD Lordstown · Warren Upper Mahoning Watching Investigating #1291 YNG Youngstown Mahoning mainstem Watching Investigating #1292 LAN Lancaster Upper Hocking Watching Investigating #1293 ATH Athens Lower Hocking Watching Investigating #1294 LOG Logan Hocking Hills Watching Investigating #1295
MAU Maumee Basin 8 sites
2MI The Two Miamis 9 sites
SE Southeastern Basins 10 sites
NE Northeast Basins 8 sites
The page — what opens on Watermark Open · Draftfull record Queued · Watchingpreview page Restrictedrequest access
The campus — the build on the ground Investigating Confirmed Under construction Operational
Building
Chapter 5 of 6 · the story

What it costs the public

The public’s share of this project arrives as roads — four roundabouts and two corridor rebuilds, dedicated to the county to maintain in perpetuity, and booked in the agreement that authorizes them as a private contribution from the developer. The estimate that sets the price is a Tetra Tech Opinion of Probable Cost. Read it the way an engineer would: start from the total, then ask what the total leaves out.

Record Teardown

Opinion of Probable Cost

Tetra Tech · BOSC Roadwork · filed 2025-07-11
● in the published bundle
Scanned PDF · degraded OCR
① The source
PRR-01-bundle.pdf
SCAN
Tetra Tech Opinion of Probable Project Cost — summary sheet: six corridor roundabout line items with a CONSTRUCTION TOTAL of $14,223,081.
pp. 317–328 · Public Records Request 01 · summary sheet · sheet 1 of 11
The summary sheet is shown as a committed crop of the source scan (regenerated by scripts/render_walk_crops.py); the full 11-sheet exhibit is available on request.
② What we read from it
Program total
$14,223,081
Sub-estimates
6 corridors
Contingency
25%
Largest — Cole St
$3,899,800
Drainage line
$1,068,530 · 7.5%
Design-storm basis
~ not cited
Detention shown
~ none
● figures read live from the published record · ~ markers preserved as approximate
③ What it reveals

The public's road package is priced to the dollar — $14,223,081 — yet drainage is just 7.5% of it, the only one of six items detailed, with no design-storm basis and no detention shown. A number that precise on a scope that thin is the tell.

and then — that $14.2M estimate becomes a “private” contribution in the deal itself, where the clauses decide who really pays.

Record Teardown

Roadwork Development Agreement

American Township ↔ Bistrozzi · effective 2025-09-15
● in the published bundle
Executed contract · text-native
① The source
RDA_executed_2025-09-15.pdf
CONTRACT
⤓ View source on request
§5.5 · §9.13 · §9.17 · Legal · agreements
Clause text is committed in the bundle; the signed PDF is available on request.
② What we read from it
“Company Contribution”
$14,500,000
§5.5 grant-refund
developer refundable
§9.13 records-notice
5-day pre-release
§9.17 procurement
competitive bid waived
Abatement (CRA #548-25)
15 yr · 75%
Public return
~50 jobs
● figures read live from the published record · ~ markers preserved as approximate
③ What it reveals

A public roundabout package is booked as a private gift of $14,500,000 — but §5.5 lets public grants refund the developer, §9.13 demands notice before any record is released, and §9.17 waives competitive bidding. The label says “private”; the clauses say otherwise.

④ How to check it
[verified]executed text

Read together, the two records say the same thing twice: a public-works number precise to the dollar sitting on a scope thin enough to hide a floodplain, wrapped in a contract whose quiet clauses decide who actually carries the cost.

Follow the money

The roadwork money, traced. The OPC line items are the records feed’s own (no fork); the §5.5 refund consequence is [inference] — it turns on grant awards not in the document.

StageAmountSource
Collected · “Company Contribution”$14,500,000RDA §3.2(a) — one-time Company Contribution, due within 30 business days
— Cole Street / Diller Road Roundabout$1,535,218OPC line item (records feed)
— Cole Street / Bluelick Road Roundabout$1,704,502OPC line item (records feed)
— Primary Access Entrance to Project Site (Roundabout)$2,663,045OPC line item (records feed)
— Cole Street / West Street (SR 115) Roundabout$2,249,609OPC line item (records feed)
— Cole Street Corridor$3,899,800OPC line item (records feed)
— Bluelick Road Corridor$2,180,907OPC line item (records feed)
Tetra Tech OPC estimate · total$14,223,081aedg/roundabouts.summary.opc.yaml (records feed)
First actual award · Eagle Bridge (N. Cole)~$3,520,000PAAC board minutes 2026-04-23 (p.78) — ~$3.52M; the rest of the program is still being awarded
§5.5 grant-refund [inference]surplus → developerRDA §5.5 Overpayment Amount · turns on grant awards not in the document

The parallel strand — the abatement

A 75% real-property abatement for 15 years on a ~$500M build, pulled from the Elida Local School District tax base — and the land was CAUV farmland, so converting it triggers tax recoupment. The public return: ~50 jobs / ~$4M payroll by 2030, from near-zero today.

What the abatement costs per job is the deciding number, and the record that would pin it — the School District Compensation Agreement — is non-public. So we don’t leave the blank, and we don’t invent a figure: we model it, and carry the answer as [open] until the record arrives. Across a few facility profiles the value lands between $0.6M and $2.1M per job — about $0.9M if you take the application’s own ~50 jobs at face value. Every one of those dwarfs the ~$80,000 a job pays in a year.

The abated base (how much of the ~$500M is taxable building, not exempt equipment) and the job count are the two unknowns; each profile is a credible reading of them. The defense-hardened row is a modeling what-if, not a finding — the defense question itself stays [open] (#233).

ProfileBuilding shareJobsPer job
Take the application at its wordthe CRA's own ~50 jobs; a mid building-shell share of the $500M35%50$0.9M
AI / GPU-dense (equipment-heavy)most value is servers + electrical — personal property, not abated — so the abated base shrinks25%50$0.6M
Hyperscale-realistic (lean ops)data centers staff lean at steady state; the CRA warns actuals 'may differ significantly'35%30$1.4M
GovCloud / defense-hardenedhardened construction lifts the real-property share, cleared ops run lean — a what-if profile, not a finding (#233)50%30$2.1M

How it’s modeled. 75% × 15-yr abatement [verified] (Res #548-25) on the building share of the ~$500M build [verified] (CRA §2, a non-binding estimate), taxed at Ohio’s 35% assessment [verified] × ~63 effective mills [assumption] (the exact Elida rate isn’t in the corpus). The result is a screening band, [open] — the real number is owed to the non-public School District Compensation Agreement.

The roads are the part you can see

The roundabouts are the visible public cost. Two larger ones sit just outside the frame. The first is the pipe the water chapter handed off: to carry the campus’s cooling blowdown and sewage, the county is building a BOSC pump station and dual forcemains, and that construction estimate rose from $20,250,000 to $29,834,256 in eight months — a ~47% jump between the June 2025 engineering advertisement (Res #469-25) and the February 2026 construction-manager RFQ (Res #137-26). [verified], from the produced resolutions. The roads are dedicated to the county “in perpetuity”; the sewer is sized to a single customer.

The second is a subsidy the abatement above doesn’t count. The CRA this chapter models abates real property — land and buildings — only. But Ohio’s signature data-center incentive is a different instrument: the Data Center Tax Exemption (DCTE, from HB 59), which waives the sales-and-use tax on the equipment — the servers and the cooling plant, the tangible bulk of a $500M-plus build, and the part that gets replaced every three to five years. Whether this campus holds a DCTE isn’t in the record, so we carry it [open] — but it is the standard companion to a real-property abatement, and if it’s here, the public’s contribution isn’t the roads plus the sewer plus the abatement. It’s all of that, plus the larger number nobody has had to publish.

One document would total it. Across Ohio’s thirteen data-center deals approved through September 2024 — about $5.1 billion in investment — the state booked 356 jobs and $31.6M in payroll against an estimated $281.9M in forgone revenue: closer to $1 million of public cost per job ([reference], Policy Matters Ohio / state development figures). The analysis that would run that arithmetic for this deal — the county’s own cost-benefit study, item 4 of the records request — is the one document the production withheld. In a sense the chapter you’re reading is the cost-benefit analysis the public was refused.

Explore this in the library