Two pages on one question: should you build here — and if so, on what terms? Read one before you buy one.
Whether to proceed and on what terms, on page one. Everything after it is evidence.
Each finding tells you what to have in hand before you ask for a vote — the fiscal package, the utility letter, the water plan.
How this particular board decides — a transactional negotiator, a gatekeeper, a rubber stamp — so you know which room you're walking into.
Moratorium, past projects, approval pathway, opposition capacity, fiscal need, shadow vetoes, water, power and more — the same twelve in every county.
Will the system let me build? Who will try to stop me? Does the math work? Answered in language you can lift into an IC memo.
Proceed, watch, or walk — and the specific documents to secure before spending another dollar.
Annotated excerpts from a real Flyover — anonymized, exactly as it reads on your desk.
Report Scope: Early-stage siting-risk screen for a data-center campus reported at approximately 1,180 acres and 1.4 GW of IT capacity near Oakridge in unincorporated Rivermark County. The Rivermark County Commission is the primary local authority; the local path centers on a public tax-abatement vote and possible subdivision review. Status: Site secured; Pre-Stage Gate.
In two recent incentive decisions, the Commission approved an 18-year abatement 4–1 after a motion to delay failed and approved, by the same margin, an abatement for redevelopment of a former college property after another delay effort. That record supports the 3.4 score: execution conditions, not an anti-development Commission, drive the risk. The county GIS review found no residences within 0.7 mile, but the final footprint still requires site-level confirmation for farmland, wetlands, noise, and utility service.
Two pages, not forty. The score, the one-sentence verdict, and why — on the first page. Every underlined phrase in the real report links to the public record it came from.
The county reported about $2.15 million more in FY2025-26 expenditures than revenue, so dependable project revenue matters. That makes the fiscal package a negotiating tool—not a substitute for complete terms. Before requesting a vote, disclose operator identity, investment, permanent jobs, tax treatment, payment dates, milestones, reporting, and remedies; tie every concession to a measurable commitment.
The county seat experienced multi-day outages, brown water, low pressure, aging pipes, and pump failures in 2024; the state later scrutinized $2.0 million in water and sewer payments. The site is outside town, and this record neither establishes the project's provider nor proves a capacity constraint. It does show the public-trust environment in which the project's water plan will be judged.
The county lists four electric providers, but the site's provider and service commitment are not established. The state utility commission is establishing a process for large-load data-center contracts under which those customers fund dedicated facilities and delivery upgrades. Treat power as confirmed only after the serving utility documents capacity, required upgrades, who pays, the rate structure, schedule, and approvals.
State law limits the county's zoning role, but parcel changes may still trigger subdivision review and Commission action. Disturbing two acres requires state construction-stormwater coverage; large-load agreements may require state utility approval; federal wetlands review applies only if the footprint places fill in jurisdictional waters. Confirm which requirements apply, how many hearings follow, and where appeals lie before promising a schedule.
Each headline tells you what to have in hand before you ask for agenda time. The green box names how this board decides — an archetype we score in every county, so you know which kind of room you're walking into.
No local moratorium found
No county DC; other deals advanced
Transactional/Fiscal Negotiator
One Commission vote; subdivision review possible
No local DC campaign found
Fiscal stress increases developer leverage
No county data-center framework
No informal outside blocker found
0 identified homes within 0.5 mi
Prime farmland; wetlands may require review
County-seat water failures raise trust risk
State review may shape large-load terms
Green, amber, red — the same twelve reads in every county, from moratoriums to shadow vetoes. That is what makes two Flyovers in two states comparable on one desk.
Treat the Commission vote as conditional, not automatic. Put the fiscal package, operator identity, and implementation terms in final form before requesting agenda time; build the schedule around a public vote and allow for a possible delay.
No county data-center opposition campaign is established. Do not treat that absence as consent; make the operator, local benefits, water case, and utility burden public before an opposition narrative forms. Water trust is a more credible trigger than organized opposition.
The county's budget gap creates leverage, not a blank check. Power cost includes the contract terms and approval path, not just the energy rate: model dedicated facilities, delivery upgrades, and minimum payment obligations before capacity and rates are confirmed.
Can I build, who fights me, does the math survive — then a recommendation that names the four documents to get before spending another dollar.
Anonymized from an actual Flyover. Place names, people, and organizations are fictional equivalents; findings are as delivered. The full two-page report is available on request.
Ten candidate sites, one week, the same twelve indicators — so the shortlist is ranked on political risk, not just grid and land.
Know whether the county can approve a complete deal — and what "complete" means here — before you put money at risk.
Sites that clear the screen move to the Due Diligence Report: the full file on stakeholders, opposition, precedent, and terms.
Every consequential claim links to the public record. Analysts review every finding; an independent editor reviews every report.