02 of 06 What Council hasn't been told
Costs: What do we really get?
We were told this data center would bring in big money. Here's where that number came from, who paid for it, and what Georgia's own auditor says about deals like this.
The short version
- The money study was paid for by the developer, using the developer's numbers. It was published as the Development Authority's own work.
- Almost all of the promised money comes from one thing: property taxes.
- Georgia's state auditor found the numbers used to sell data center tax breaks were puffed up, and most of these projects would have come anyway.
The big promise
Burkhalter is pitched as up to $1.2 billion in investment, with about 12 permanent jobs.
A money study (called a "LOCI" fiscal impact analysis) says the project would bring about $76.6 million to the City, the County and the schools over 10 years. Nearly all of that is property tax. Sales tax, business fees and everything else barely show up.
Who paid for the study?
The study says it was done "at the request of the Development Authority of Bulloch County," about a "hypothetical data center." It never names the developer. But the Authority's own records, which we got through an open records request, tell a different story:
- April 9, 2026: the Authority told the economist, "the developer has agreed to cover the costs of the work."
- April 13: the economist asked to bill the Authority instead of the developer: "That way, I am technically working for you and not the developer. Numbers from a developer's 'hired gun' sometimes aren't treated quite the same as those done for the development authority."
- May 13: the Authority told him where the numbers came from: "We received this data from the developer."
- June 25: the Authority paid the economist $11,500.
- July 8: the developer paid the Authority back $11,500, with "LOCI Study" written on the check.
Developer-paid studies are common, and nothing here shows anything illegal. But the public was shown this as the Authority's own study about a "hypothetical" project. It was about this project, with this developer's numbers, paid for with this developer's money.
The numbers moved
The developer's first data sheet said the building alone would cost $855 million, with no computer servers until year five. The economist wrote back: "it is the craziest data center I have ever seen."
After a phone call that same day, the developer sent new numbers: a $524.9 million building, plus $325 million of servers in the first year, replaced every five years. Same project, very different math.
The Authority also wrote: "We're not planning to offer any incentives for this project." That's good to know. Council should get that in writing before any vote.
Same economist, very different math
The same firm, Economic Impact Group, also ran the numbers for a "100MW" data center in Candler County, next door, in February 2026. Burkhalter asked for 99 megawatts. Almost the same size. Look at the difference:
- Burkhalter (99 MW): $1.2 billion invested, 12 jobs, about $76.6 million over 10 years for the City, County and schools.
- Candler (100 MW): $31.6 billion invested over 20 years (with the servers replaced every four years), 40 jobs, and "just over $1 billion over 20 years."
Per year, Candler's study promises about 7 times as much money. Why? Both studies run on numbers the customer hands over: "per the information provided by the client." The model only knows what it's told.
A money study is only as good as the numbers someone feeds it.
Read the Burkhalter one-page summaries: City, County, Schools. And the Candler study.
The tax break
Georgia gives data centers a break on sales tax for the computers and equipment they buy. (It's not a property tax break.)
Georgia's state auditor checked this tax break. It found the numbers used to sell it to the public were puffed up by about two-thirds, and that about 70% of data center projects would have come to Georgia anyway, tax break or not. A University of Georgia study called the tax break a net loss for the state overall, even when the local town gets a property tax bump.
Statewide, this tax break is now expected to cost Georgia about $2.5 billion a year. Local governments alone are expected to lose $1.1 billion in 2026 and $1.4 billion in 2027.
Will the money last?
What if the company leaves early? PSC Commissioner Peter Hubbard has said even the biggest power contracts have a loophole: "with four years of payments, you can get out of paying the full 15" (Statesboro Herald, April 22, 2026). Then "someone has to pay for the infrastructure that was built."
A brief filed with the PSC says the same: on a 15-year contract, "more than a decade's worth of bills could go unpaid." (PSC Dockets 56298 and 56310, December 16, 2025.)
Whether this deal covers that is in a private contract nobody here can check.
See the four-year loophole and what Council should require.
Computer equipment loses value fast. Research from Utah found that any property tax relief homeowners see at first can shrink within a few years, and the tax load can shift back onto them. That's a Utah finding, not something proven in Statesboro. But it's a real risk to weigh before assuming the money is permanent.
Statesboro's ordinance says the builder must "demonstrate positive economic impacts to the City of Statesboro." Right now, the only proof is a study the developer paid for, using the developer's numbers.
Will this project ask for tax breaks, abatements, bonds, a PILOT deal or any other public money? Will the Development Authority put "no incentives" in writing? Will the City get an independent money study, not one paid for by the developer? What are the real costs to the City: roads, water lines, fire and police? Has Council read the state auditor's findings? And will the promised money be checked years from now, with a payback if it falls short?