Read one before you buy one
Page one of a real Flyover — anonymized, exactly as it reads on your desk.
Flyover Sample ReportRivermark County, GARivermark County, Georgia
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.
Rivermark County can approve a complete deal—but power, water, and the county's first data-center approval sequence must be settled before capital is committed.
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.
Key risk findings
Bring a vote-ready fiscal package: Rivermark County expects complete terms
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.
County-seat water failures make provider credibility a first-order issue
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.
Price the power contract—not just the megawatts
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.
No countywide zoning does not mean no approval path
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.
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.