Civic transparency / Demo study
Explore the public money, resource demands, and local jobs behind this proposal. This demo uses illustrative assumptions, not verified project figures. Check the sources and evidence gaps before drawing conclusions.
Before cooling and facility overhead. Jobs, build time, and public costs remain separate assumptions.
Fiscal years start at construction. Full operations begin in year 6; no partial-build ramp is assumed. Tax rates and levies are held constant as a sensitivity, not a forecast. Local receipts include city, county, schools, and districts; state receipts are separate.
Plain-language briefing
The campus could bring 3,500 workers during construction, but settles at about 200 permanent jobs. Under this deal, modeled local-government receipts are worth $335.2M today, excluding state tax and before public costs; $0 is given up versus charging the full modeled tax.
Based on the model assumptions. Change any input to update this explanation.Modeled receipts — not net benefit
Costs require verification: roads, emergency services, administration, housing mitigation, opportunity cost, or possible utility cost shifts. Until those are quantified, this is a planning sensitivity, not a net public benefit finding.
Load at steady state
↳ Fiscal outputs are constant-rate sensitivities, not a tax forecast or net social benefit estimate.
↳ Water compliance is unverified; the modeled threshold is not a legal determination.
↳ System-wide drought supply is unverified; treatment capacity is not firm supply.
↳ Unemployment of 1.8% does not establish qualified-worker availability; outside-area hiring is an assumption-based estimate.
↳ Facility draw is 160% of the adjacent plant nameplate. This is a scale comparison, not a grid-capacity or interconnection finding.