Open investigation · Urbana, Ohio

Open leads

Every gap we're chasing on this site, in the open. Each lead is unverified inference until a source corroborates it — and every one traces to the corpus-completeness audit or a working hypothesis. Pick one up, answer it, or bring the document that closes it.

Submit a lead

open leads

withheld / sealed

under review

closed recently

7 open leads · unverified

Signal Unanswered [open] Ordinance 4612-24 Exhibit A · data/documents/urbana/council/2024-11-19_regular_meeting_packet.pdf pp.182-188 · data/extracted/urbana/incentive-instruments.yaml

Urbana pre-committed to de-annex the data-center land on the developer's demand — and the executed agreement is not public

Ordinance 4612-24 (passed 5-0, 2024-12-17) authorised a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Urbana and Urbana0624C, LLC — the City's ONLY contract with the data-center developer, and an entity the corpus did not previously hold. Section 3(c) of the attached draft obliges the City to "execute a petition to detach the entire Property from its jurisdiction upon the request of Developer or Company" if the land is annexed but then not rezoned to the developer's satisfaction, if its appeals are exhausted, if a referendum rejects the rezoning, or if water and sewer capacity is not made available on the developer's schedule. Every trigger has arguably fired: Ord. 4635-26 repealed the M-1 data-center use 6-0 on 2026-06-16. OPEN — what is in corpus is the DRAFT attached as Exhibit A; the signed, dated counterpart and its Exhibits B and C legal descriptions have not been produced, and the federal complaint does not plead the clause. Request the executed agreement under R.C. 149.43 and establish whether detachment has been demanded.

#1354

Help confirm → URB-PREANNEX

Open question Unanswered [open] City of Urbana public notice + Ord. 4612-24 Exhibit A · data/extracted/urbana/incentive-instruments.yaml counterparty

Resolve Urbana0624C, LLC — the City calls it "Highland", but no corporate filing has been read

The City of Urbana's public notice states the pre-annexation agreement was "with Urbana0624C, LLC (which is Highland)", and Exhibit A gives the entity's mailing address as 720 E. Broad Street, Columbus — the same street address the OEPA §401 WQC preliminary-JD cover (eDoc 3938251) carries for "Highland Realty Development LLC / Urbana Owner I LLC". Two independent primary instruments therefore place the development vehicle at that address. OPEN — common control with the Thor SPE graph in land-assembly.yaml remains [inference]: a shared address is not corporate identity, and businesssearch.ohiosos.gov still returns HTTP 403 from this environment (the same block recorded in #1328). Pull the Ohio SoS filing for registered agent, members and formation date. Also unsourced: a reported September-2024 purchase agreement between the Champaign Economic Partnership / Board of County Commissioners and Urbana0624C.

#1354

Answer this → URB-0624C

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/urbana/cooling-water-account.md · data/reference/oepa/cooling-reconciliation.yaml (route_blind row) · data/reference/ohio-water-withdrawal/champaign.yaml · Ord. 4612-24 Exhibit A in data/documents/urbana/council/

The "office building" water claim is untestable by any state instrument — and the City holds the only record that could settle it

The disclosed closed-loop cooling claim — water use "comparable to a standard office building", stated at the February-2026 City meeting — is the sentence that took the Mad River buried-valley abstraction thesis off the table for this site, and the framing then propagated to Van Wert, Springfield, Troy-Piqua and Bowling Green. The B4 reconciliation (issue 1684) established that neither state instrument can test it, on the City's OWN record: Ord. 4612-24's Pre-Annexation Agreement obliges the City to "provide water and sewer", so the campus buys City water (and is absent from all 31 Champaign County withdrawal registrations) and discharges to the City WPCF sewer (no outfall, so no DMR). The outcome is route_blind, never "confirmed dry". The claim also states no figure at all, and its two readings are three orders of magnitude apart — against the City's entire reported 1.76 MGD municipal withdrawal (2024), an evaporative read of this campus at its own screening IT-load bracket implies 0.49-1.64 MGD, i.e. 28-93% of everything the City withdrew, while the office-building reading falls below the screen's own 0.01 MGD noise floor. OPEN — request from the City of Urbana, under R.C. 149.43, the metered water-service consumption for the campus, the industrial-user (IU) permit and sewer-use agreement under the City's OEPA-audited industrial pretreatment program, the water-service agreement or will-serve letter, and above all the water system's own capacity / supply-adequacy analysis for the campus — the draw the SUPPLIER planned for, which is the figure the developer's claim never states. Note the campus is not built — its site plan was denied as "incomplete", a 12-month moratorium is in force, and the zoning is in federal litigation — so what exists now is the service and capacity record, not a meter history.

#1684

Answer this → URB-WATER-METER

Signal Unanswered [open] Ordinance 4631-25 + Exhibit B · data/documents/urbana/council/2025-11-04_regular_meeting_packet.pdf · data/extracted/urbana/incentive-instruments.md

No abatement exists — and most of the Thor assembly is outside the CRA it is associated with

Community Reinvestment Area #2 (Ord. 4631-25, passed 5-2 on 2025-11-04) grants nothing: it sets ceilings (15 yr / 100% for new construction; 30 yr only on a state-designated R.C. 122.17 megaproject) and requires a separate R.C. 3735.671 CRA Agreement with prior Council approval. None has ever come before Council through the 2026-08-04 agenda, and the City's own notice says "There are no Community Reinvestment Agreements with the developer." Two consequences the corpus previously had wrong: the 65 dB day / 55 dB night limits are an OFFER in a developer handout, not an enforceable condition; and the disclosed tax figure is "over $3,000,000" annually, not ~$5.8M (the schools' >$2.8M is drawn FROM that total, not added to it). Separately, Exhibit B's enacted parcel list covers only 97.09 of the assembly's 230.346 ac — the 133.256 ac bought first from Brand Investments are outside CRA #2 entirely. OPEN — the ODOD designation number that Ord. 4631-25 Section Eleven makes a precondition to any exemption, the R.C. 3735.672 annual reports, the Champaign County TIRC report, and the county effective millage are all unretrieved: development.ohio.gov returns 404 on every path and five Champaign County auditor hosts fail DNS.

#1354

Help confirm → URB-CRA-GAP

Signal Unanswered [open] Complaint, Thor Equities et al. v. City of Urbana, No. 3:26-cv-00196-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, 2026-06-19) · data/extracted/urbana/litigation-thor-v-urbana.yaml

Thor v. City of Urbana (S.D. Ohio 3:26-cv-00196) — federal suit over the data-center zoning reversal is live

Thor Equities and its four Urbana SPEs sued the City of Urbana, its City Council, and its Building & Zoning Appeals Board in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division) on 2026-06-19, docket 3:26-cv-00196-MJN-CHG. The complaint is ingested (data/documents/legal/thor-v-urbana/1.pdf) and read in data/extracted/urbana/litigation-thor-v-urbana.{yaml,md}. Eight counts: procedural + substantive due process (§1983), four declaratory-judgment counts invalidating the March-2026 emergency moratorium (Res. 2727-26) (Counts III–VI), the vested-rights count (VII), and the site-plan-denial count (VIII — the "incomplete" denial violated Zoning Ch. 1110). Thor claims a vested right to the data-center use that froze when it filed its 2026-02-13 site plan (Golf Vill. N. LLC v. City of Powell, 6th Cir.). Relief includes a Rule 65 injunction directing approval. This is the live legal spine of the Urbana story. OPEN — the outcome is pending; the nine complaint exhibits (the Apr-2025 ordinances, Res. 2727-26, Ord. 4635-26) and later docket entries are not yet in corpus.

#1329

Help confirm → THOR-FED

Open question Unanswered [open] Complaint ¶¶71–72 (3:26-cv-00196) · data/extracted/urbana/litigation-thor-v-urbana.yaml companion_case

Capture the Champaign County Common Pleas administrative appeal (the second Thor v. Urbana case)

The federal complaint (¶¶71–72) says Thor appealed the BZA's "incomplete" site-plan determination to BOTH the BZA and the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas (an R.C. Ch. 2506 administrative appeal), hand-delivering the BZA appeal on 2026-03-20. Only the federal case is in corpus. OPEN — the Common Pleas filing and its case number are not yet ingested; retrieve from the Champaign County Clerk of Courts and add to litigation-thor-v-urbana.yaml `companion_case`.

#1360

Answer this → THOR-CP

Open question Under review [inference] watermark-directory/the-watermark-directory#448

Pin Honda 'Champaign-area' data center to a parcel or filing, or downgrade to corridor context

## Context `data/entities/profiles/cloud-consumer-candidates.yaml` (lines 282–290) lists **Honda of America** as a tier-4 candidate with location **"Marysville / Clark / Champaign area"** and `confirmed_cloud_relationship: own Ohio data center (announced/investing)`. This is an **analytic candidate profile built for demand-fit screening** — not a deed, permit, or filing — and its location string spans three counties (Union/Clark/Champaign) without pinning to Urbana or Champaign County specifically. The findings classify it as **`[inference]/[open]`**: corridor context, not a documented Urbana project. The profile's manufacturing LQ of 4.14 and the Honda/Marysville corridor adjacency are consistent with the site's economic character, but treating an unanchored three-county candidate profile as a Urbana data-center instrument would be the inference-as-finding error the BOSC methodology explicitly prohibits. ## Acceptance Criteria - [ ] A primary instrument (announcement with a specific site address, county recorder filing, utility interconnection application, or OEPA/air permit) is identified that pins the Honda data-center investment to a specific parcel or jurisdiction. - [ ] If the instrument places it in Champaign County/Urbana: the candidate profile is upgraded to `[verified]` and a source document is ingested. - [ ] If the instrument places it outside Champaign County: the `cloud-consumer-candidates.yaml` entry is updated to reflect the correct jurisdiction and removed from Urbana's investigative register. - [ ] If no instrument is found after a documented search: the entry is downgraded to `corridor_context: true` in the YAML and excluded from Urbana promotion criteria. --- _Proposed by `bosc onboard urbana --research` (Phase 5; onboard-urbana-urbana-data-center-activity-recei-2026-06-21). Sub-issue of #441 / epic #440._

Downgraded 2026-06-28: no primary instrument found pinning Honda investment to Urbana/Champaign County. cloud-consumer-candidates.yaml updated with corridor_context: true. Excluded from Urbana promotion criteria. #448

Answer this → GH-448

Showing all 7 open leads. Closed leads move into the record →