Open investigation · Findlay, 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

44 open leads · unverified

Signal Unanswered [open] wfin.com "Bids Received For Flood Mitigation Projects" (2026-06-30, 403 on direct fetch; search-rendered) · data/extracted/findlay/flood-mitigation.md

MWCD board award votes + Norfolk Southern bid opening fall on 2026-07-14 — capture the outcomes

The two cornerstone flood contracts bid 2026-06-30 with apparent low bidders only — Miller Brothers Construction at $32,075,000 for the Eagle Creek Dry Storage Basin (est. $42,376,000) and Helms & Sons at $3,699,040 for the Phase 2 downtown benching / Additional Hydraulic Improvements (est. $6,170,000). The Maumee Watershed Conservancy District Board of Directors was to consider award recommendations at its 9:00 a.m. 2026-07-14 meeting in Defiance; the Norfolk Southern bridge bid opening was extended to 2026-07-14 at NS headquarters in Atlanta. As of ingest neither outcome was published. OPEN — do not upgrade "apparent low" to "awarded" without the board minutes; pull the 07-14 results and the NS bid tabulation and add award rows.

time-sensitive — both votes/openings were scheduled for 2026-07-14 (ingest day) #1465

Help confirm → AWARD-2026-07-14

Open question Unanswered [inference] landownerattorneys.com/flood-control-leads-eminent-domain-action-ohio (read direct) · thecourier.com/news/279662 · data/extracted/findlay/flood-mitigation.md

Locate the Eagle Creek appropriation dockets — landowner names, court, case number, status

An eminent-domain-firm writeup (Sever Walker Padgitt) describes "two private property owners" contesting a taking for the flood-control basins on grounds that MWCD "did not have the right to take the land and did not follow eminent domain procedures according to Ohio state law," with the "district court case … not yet … resolved." The Courier frames it as "whether the Maumee Watershed Conservancy District has the authority to proceed with the project without further approval of the court." OPEN — landowner names, the court (Hancock County Common Pleas?), case number, and filing date are all unpublished, and the writeup references an older three-basin plan and never names Eagle Creek, so even the identification with the Eagle Creek appropriation is [inference]. Retrieve from the Hancock County Clerk of Courts. (An Ohio Supreme Court matter styled Maumee WCD, 2018-0175, exists but was NOT confirmed to be this case — do not assume identity.)

#1465

Answer this → EMINENT-DOMAIN-DOCKETS

Open question Unanswered [open] hancockcountyflooding.com/faq (read direct) · data/extracted/findlay/flood-mitigation.md

Resolve whether MWCD levies a Blanchard-subdistrict assessment for basin O&M (method not finalized)

The program FAQ states the O&M funding method verbatim: "The annual operation and maintenance expenses are estimated at $100,000. The method for covering this expense has yet to be finalized but may include funding through grants, the City of Findlay, the County, or assessments." So an assessment is one of four listed possibilities, not an enacted instrument; no source confirms a Blanchard-subdistrict assessment has been levied. OPEN — watch for a conservancy-court assessment order. DISAMBIGUATION: the Hancock County "Proposed Assessments — Revised 11-4-24" is the Howard Run petition ditch (ORC 6131, County Commissioners, approved 2025-01-16), NOT the MWCD flood assessment — do not conflate.

#1465

Answer this → ASSESSMENT-OM-METHOD

Open question Unanswered [open] WebSearch corroboration (WTOL "Eagle Creek flood basin project tabled by conservancy court", May 2021) · data/extracted/findlay/flood-mitigation.md

Pull the July-2021 conservancy-court plan amendment adding Eagle Creek to the District plan

In July 2021 the MWCD Conservancy Court (the Common Pleas judges of the 15 member counties) voted to add the Eagle Creek Floodwater Storage Basin to the District's official plan, after a May 2021 meeting at which the panel tabled it. OPEN — the exact July 2021 date and wording are secondary/ search-corroborated only (WTOL timed out, WFIN 403, The Courier paywalled), and no case/record number surfaced. Retrieve the conservancy-court record (district office, Defiance) and file it as a plan-amendment record row.

#1465

Answer this → CONSERVANCY-COURT-2021

Open question Unanswered [open] hancockcountyflooding.com/about-us · findlayecondev.com/2024-year-in-review (both read direct) · data/extracted/findlay/flood-mitigation.md

Identify the Phase 1 benching contractor and contract price

Phase 1 benching (floodplain benching near Swale Park, removal of four low-head dams downstream of Lye Creek, instream riffle construction; the reach between Howard Run and the NS railroad bridge) was completed in 2024, but the construction contractor and the contract price are not disclosed in any reachable source. OPEN. Note: the "$2.56 million" figure in circulation is the U.S. 68 / SR 15 roundabout (ODOT-administered), NOT the Phase 1 benching — do not attribute it here.

#1465

Answer this → PHASE1-CONTRACTOR

Open question Unanswered [open] hancockcountyflooding.com/about-us (read direct) · WTOL sediment-dredge article (timeout; search-rendered) · data/extracted/findlay/flood-mitigation.md

Find the sediment-characterization study at Riverside Park dam (only a dredging project is documented)

The Blanchard River Watershed Partnership is running "sediment removal near the dam located at Riverside Park" — WTOL reporting (search-rendered) describes removing "up to 40,000 cubic yards" of sediment from a reservoir that shoaled from 7–8 ft to 3–4 ft deep, with pre-construction from December 2022 and construction from early 2024. OPEN — no formal sediment-CHARACTERIZATION / sampling report, OEPA 401 water-quality certification, or Section 404 sediment-management plan was located; this water-quality project is distinct from the Phase 1 low-head-dam removals downstream of Lye Creek. Cross-filed per the issue's leads bullet.

#1465

Answer this → RIVERSIDE-DAM-SEDIMENT

Open question Under review [inference] lrd.usace.army.mil article #3643262 (403 direct; reader-proxy recovered) · hancockcountyflooding.com/faq (2015 BCR) · data/extracted/findlay/flood/usace-blanchard-review-plan-2024.epa.yaml

Resolve whether the 2024-01-11 USACE Blanchard feasibility Review Plan is a renewed effort or archival

USACE LRD published a Review Plan for a "Feasibility Study of flood risk management and ecosystem restorations plans for the Blanchard River Watershed, Ohio" on 2024-01-11. A Review Plan is USACE QA/peer-review scoping normally produced at the START of a feasibility study, so the posting reads as a renewed/active federal effort — but that is [inference]; the page states no active/renewed/ archival status, and the 2015 recommended "Western Diversion of Eagle Creek" died on a (never- quantified) negative BCR. OPEN — confirm the study's live status via the DVIDSHUB link the article references and the Buffalo District. The record row is committed (data/extracted/findlay/flood/usace-blanchard-review-plan-2024.epa.yaml).

#1465

Answer this → USACE-2024-REVIEW

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/cso-sso-overflow-record.watch.yaml · data/extracted/oepa/findlay/2PD00008.npdes.yaml

The CSO Long-Term Control Plan addendum is due 2026-11-01 — a dated deadline on an issued permit

NPDES modification 2PD00008*VD (effective 2026-02-01) exists to move one thing, twice — the Municipal CSO Schedule milestone event code 34099 and the Long-Term Control Plan Addendum, both to "No later than November 1, 2026." The City's 1998 LTCP did not attain its designated level of control of four overflows per typical year; a 2018 evaluation found 12 of the CSO outfalls no longer had combined sewer upstream (they are now SSOs); the updated integrated LTCP approved 2021-07-08 was then superseded by the City's request for more time. Ten CSOs remain authorized, two of them to Eagle Creek. WATCH — capture the addendum when filed, and whether the deadline moves a third time. The pretreatment milestone (event 52599, due 2026-05-01) is the sibling date, and it asks whether Findlay will impose local industrial-user limits for total phosphorus toward a 0.5 mg/L target — see PRETREATMENT-52599-SUBMITTAL, which ECHO now records as unachieved. MEASUREMENT ADDED by issue 1461 from the DMR record: combined-sewer overflow activity is rising — 4 events / 1.27 MG in 2023, 8 / 5.87 MG in 2024, 12 / 6.46 MG in 2025, and 11 events / 7.50 MG in the first six months of 2026 alone, already more volume than any complete year on the record. Outfall 004 (East of Old WWTP) has gone 0 -> 1 -> 2 -> 3. Four of the ten authorized CSOs reported nothing across the whole 42 months. Read the addendum against that series when it lands — and note that raw counts must NOT be compared to the four-per-typical-year control level, which is a modeled design-rainfall standard whose attainment is Ohio EPA's determination.

#1460

Help confirm → CSO-LTCP-2026-11-01

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/tp-seasonal-load.watch.yaml · data/documents/oepa/OHP000001.pdf (Part III.1.b, IV.C, IV.D)

Request Findlay WPCF's reported Individual Seasonal Loads — the derivation says 2024 is UNDER and cannot call 2025

NARROWED by issue 1461, which reconstructed the load from the DMRs using the general permit's own equation (OHP000001 Part III.1.b — median seasonal concentration x season volume x 3.7854). The derived spring loads are 4,450 kg for 2023, 2,756 kg for 2024 and 3,101 kg for 2025 against a 3,200 kg Individual Load Limit — so the plant went UNDER its allocation in the first season the general permit governed, having been ~39% over in 2023, and the 2017-2021 TMDL record of 4.8-5.5 MT no longer describes it. Two things still need the reported number. (1) The 2025 season CANNOT BE CALLED from monthly data: its break-even median is 0.4334 mg/L, which falls between the season's own monthly means, so the approximation error spans the limit. (2) The bound figure is a REPORTED value — parameter 51451, "Phosphorus, Total - Kg", entered on the July eDMR — and it is absent from OH0025135's effluent chart entirely, while a pull against OHP000001 itself returns zero DMR rows. It lives in Ohio EPA's eDMR under the general-permit coverage, which ECHO does not mirror. ASK — the Season Reports for 2024, 2025 and 2026 (Part IV.D, due each September 1, submitted through the eBusiness Center), each carrying "the calculated Individual Load and a brief assessment comparing the Individual Load to the permittee's Individual Load Limit." Ohio EPA DSW.

#1461

Answer this → TP-SEASON-REPORTS

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/icis-compliance-reconciliation.watch.yaml · data/documents/oepa/findlay/filename-map.yaml · data/documents/oepa/Jan_2026_List_of_Variances.pdf

Obtain the original 2PD00008UD issuance — the DAM now serves only the VD modification package

Ohio EPA's DAM slot for this permit (permits/doc/2PD00008.pdf) serves the 2025 modification package, not the 2024 renewal it modified, so the corpus holds the *UD FACT SHEET but not the *UD permit as issued. Its term is recorded from a third instrument — the January 2026 statewide variance list, which prints "2PD00008*UD | 001 | 11/1/2024 | 10/31/2029" — rather than from the permit itself. OPEN — request the as-issued *UD permit (and its transmittal) from Ohio EPA DSW so the chain is byte-complete and the 2024-11-01 effective date is grounded in the instrument that carries it, not in a list about it. RAISED IN PRIORITY by issue 1461: these bytes would settle a live reconciliation. ECHO carries an unachieved "Study Plan" schedule violation dated 2025-12-01, but the permit in force has no milestone due that date — it has event 34099 due 2026-11-01, which is the date the *VD modification moved. That the 2025-12-01 flag is the superseded pre-modification instance of 34099 is currently [inference] precisely BECAUSE the *UD permit is not in corpus; its Schedule of Compliance page would print the original due date and convert the inference to [verified] in one step. Separately, the DMR record now corroborates the 2024-11-01 effective date independently — the mercury monthly limit steps from 3.9 to 3.3 ng/L at the 2024-11-30 monitoring period — so the term no longer rests on the variance list alone.

#1460

Answer this → UD-ISSUANCE-BYTES

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/icis-compliance-reconciliation.watch.yaml · data/extracted/oepa/findlay/2PD00008.fs.npdes.yaml

The mercury variance runs with the permit to 2029-10-31 — track the annual 12 ng/L condition

Findlay's mercury variance dates to a 2010 permit modification and was renewed in the 2024 action under OAC 3745-1-38(H). The water-quality-based limit is 1.3 ng/L; the variance-based monthly average is 3.3 ng/L, with a daily maximum of 1700 ng/L and a standing condition that the ANNUAL average stay at or below 12 ng/L. Ohio EPA records the effluent falling from 8.5 ng/L at issue to 2.2 ng/L now. The January 2026 statewide variance list carries a Modified Allowable Ambient Concentration of 3.29 ng/L for this outfall — essentially identical to the effluent limit, which is what a 1.0 acute dilution ratio means in practice. WATCH — the annual condition is the trigger that would end the variance, and DMR mercury is the series that answers it. ANSWERED for now by issue 1461, which pulled that series: the worst calendar year on the reported record averages 1.115 ng/L (2024) against the 12 ng/L trigger — roughly a factor of eleven of headroom — and the highest single month ever reported, 1.49 ng/L in September 2024, is under half the 3.3 ng/L monthly limit. The fact sheet's 2.2 ng/L for 2018-2023 has fallen further. DOWNGRADED to an ANNUAL check: nothing in the trajectory justifies a shorter interval, and the trigger is an annual average by its own terms. Re-check the DMR mercury series once per calendar year.

#1460

Help confirm → MERCURY-VARIANCE-RENEWAL

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/warn/goodyear-tall-timbers-mold-2026.warn.yaml

Where does Goodyear's Tall Timbers mold work go — the WARN letter does not say

Goodyear's 2026-01-30 WARN letter notices a permanent closing of the Tall Timbers Mold facility at 2025 Production Drive and 85 separations from on or around 2026-03-31, weighted to skilled work (39 Manufacturing Technicians, 8 engineers, 7 Technology Specialists). It names no destination plant, no consolidation, and no labor organization, and it states there are no bumping rights. OPEN — the receiving site is a widely reported detail that this instrument does not support, so it is not carried as a claim. Confirm from a Goodyear filing or a second primary source before it is written anywhere as fact. The parcel's next use is the second half of the question.

#1460

Answer this → WARN-GOODYEAR-DESTINATION

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/warn/michigan-sugar-findlay-2025.warn.yaml

Michigan Sugar puts a severed Findlay rail spur on the record — map what else lost service

Michigan Sugar's courtesy WARN filing (2025-12-11, four employees) gives an infrastructure reason for closing its Greenwood Street warehouse "Rail service was previously severed to the Findlay site," which with Ohio's stricter truck-weight limits made the site unservable from its Michigan factories. That is a freight-access datum about a specific industrial parcel, from the tenant, in a filed instrument. OPEN — which line, when, and by whom; and whether the same severance affects neighbouring parcels. Cross-check against the Norfolk Southern and CSX corridors already in the flood record (the Cory Street-CSX benching and the NS bridge).

#1460

Answer this → FINDLAY-RAIL-SEVERANCE

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/brownfield/round-11-hancock-2026.award.yaml

Establish Hancock County's presence in Ohio Brownfield Remediation Rounds 4-10

Round 11 (announced 2026-05-13) brought three Hancock awards totalling $999,998 — the former Lincoln Elementary remediation, the Tiffin Avenue gas-station assessment, and a BUSTR assessment at a former Gas America in Bluffton awarded to the county rather than the city. Two of the three are subsurface petroleum. OPEN — whether the county appeared in earlier rounds is unresearched, so the Round 11 total is not a program total and must not be presented as one. Pull the Rounds 4-10 award lists and, for each Hancock site, the BUSTR Tier 1/Tier 2 assessment reports, which are the documents that would say what is actually in the ground.

#1460

Answer this → BROWNFIELD-ROUNDS-4-10

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/data-centers.md · src/watermark/sites/_profiles.py (_FINDLAY.facilities) · src/watermark/pipeline/entities/_graph.py

Seed the corporate chain in the entity graph — One Power, OnSite, Basalt, MARA (≠ Marathon)

The cross-document entity graph is DERIVED, not curated - it resolves parties only out of routed extraction genres (deeds, NPDES permits, Secretary-of-State filings, EPA actions). Findlay's corporate chain is therefore documented in prose (data/extracted/findlay/data-centers.md, from the One Power Form S-1 CIK 2039139 and MARA's 2024-11-11 release) and pinned on the site profile's SiteFacility, but it has no structured filing behind it, so no node exists for One Power Co, OnSite Partners, Basalt Infrastructure Partners, or MARA Holdings. OPEN — pull the Ohio Secretary of State business filings for the One Power and OnSite entities (and Goodyear's and Michigan Sugar's Ohio registrations) and extract them with `watermark extract --kind sos`, which is the mechanism that puts a company in the graph with an agent and an organizer. HARD GUARD to carry into every one of those records - MARA Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ MARA, ex-Marathon Digital, a bitcoin miner) is NOT Marathon Petroleum Corporation (NYSE MPC, the Findlay-headquartered refiner and a Hancock County NPDES permittee). Two unrelated companies that share a city and half a name; a graph that merges them would be wrong in the most quotable way available.

#1460

Answer this → ENTITY-CORPORATE-FILINGS

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/grid/findlay/aep-dct-tariff-posture.yaml · data/extracted/grid/findlay/megawatt-hub-interconnection.gap.yaml

Who actually holds the AEP Ohio electric service agreement at the Findlay Megawatt Hub?

Schedule DCT applies to "the customer," and at this site nobody has established who that is. One Power owns the land and built its own transmission-voltage digital substation; MARA Holdings leases capacity behind it under a 15-year take-or-pay lease "due regardless of whether or not the customer elects to purchase power." So the party with an ESA or letter of agreement with AEP Ohio may be One Power rather than MARA — and One Power describes the hub as a multi-tenant electrified industrial park for uses spanning compute, crypto, EV charging, cathode/anode manufacturing, hydrogen and indoor farming, which is not obviously a facility "used primarily or exclusively for electronic information services." Whether Schedule DCT reaches the hub, its compute tenant, or neither turns entirely on that contract. It also decides the grandfather question — Existing Load bills at a 60% minimum demand and escapes the $20,000 supplemental transmission customer charge, New Load bills at 85% for a ramp-plus-eight term. OPEN. An ESA is a bilateral contract and is not published; the route is a PUCO records request or a One Power/OnSite disclosure.

the hinge for the whole tariff analysis — everything else about Findlay's grid posture is downstream of it #1464

Answer this → HUB-ESA-CUSTOMER

Open question Unanswered [open] dis.puc.state.oh.us (blocked, checked 2026-07-31) · data/extracted/grid/findlay/megawatt-hub-interconnection.gap.yaml

PUCO's docket system refuses automated retrieval — the tariff docket is unsearched, not empty

Every request to dis.puc.state.oh.us in the 2026-07-31 sweep came back as an application-firewall page ("Request Rejected ... Your support ID is ..."), with and without a browser user-agent, referer and session cookie — the case-record route for 24-0508-EL-ATA and a direct document request alike. PUCO's own news page for the 2025-07-09 order also 404s, leaving only a GovDelivery mirror. That matters more than an ordinary gap: PUCO is the one forum where a Findlay large-load instrument would actually be filed, so the +300 MW negative rests on three weak routes and one that was never searched. OPEN — pull by hand-browser or written request. First target: a search-engine result described Initial Comments filed 2024-06-25 by One Energy Enterprises in 24-508-EL-ATA at CMID A1001001A24F25B53005B01397. If real, that puts the Findlay hub's own developer on the record as a party in the tariff case. It could not be opened, a follow-up search did not corroborate it, and no party list was obtained — do not cite it until the bytes are in hand. Second target: the Commission's Opinion and Order itself, which the corpus does not hold.

OWED RECORD — a records-access obstacle, recorded as such rather than as a negative finding #1464

Answer this → PUCO-DIS-ACCESS

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/grid/findlay/rocky-ford-138kv-2024.project.yaml

Did Rocky Ford Station energize on its December 2025 schedule?

Both OPSB filings (24-0707-EL-BLN and 24-0706-EL-BNR, filed 2024-09-10) plan construction from January 2025 and an anticipated in-service date of December 2025, to meet Border Basin I's required date under FERC-approved interconnection agreement PJM AE1-146. Nothing captured confirms it happened. OPEN — an in-service confirmation, an OPSB compliance filing, or Border Basin I's commercial-operation date would close it, and the answer decides whether 81 MW of Hancock County solar capacity is now delivering. Do not write "in service" without one.

#1464

Help confirm → ROCKY-FORD-INSERVICE

Open question Unanswered [open] aepohiowire.com/transmission-northwest (read 2026-07-31) · data/extracted/grid/findlay/rocky-ford-138kv-2024.project.yaml

Put scope, schedule and cost on the Central Findlay 69 kV rebuild — there is no OPSB case to pull

The issue asked for this project's OPSB case number and the answer is jurisdictional, not a search failure. AEP Ohio's own description is 69 kV — four miles rebuilt, two miles of new overhead, one mile of new underground — and Ohio siting jurisdiction begins at 100 kV under R.C. 4906.01(B)(2), so the work generates neither a Letter of Notification nor a Construction Notice. That also means the record is thin rather than closed: AEP's page gives no schedule, cost or route, and the project factsheet URL the issue carried is 404. OPEN — a 69 kV rebuild still needs local road and ROW permissions and would surface in AEP Ohio's distribution capital filings at PUCO, and one mile of new URBAN underground line implies a route worth mapping against the downtown flood-mitigation footprint.

#1464

Answer this → CENTRAL-FINDLAY-69KV

Signal Unanswered [open] Ohio S.Ct. No. 2025-1458 docket · data/extracted/grid/findlay/aep-dct-tariff-posture.yaml

The data-center tariff is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio — capture the decision

The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group appealed the PUCO's 2025-07-09 order to the Supreme Court of Ohio as Case No. 2025-1458, "In the Matter of the Application of Ohio Power Company for New Tariffs Related to Data Centers and Mobile Data Centers," on propositions of law running to undue discrimination and equal protection, sufficiency of the evidence, the specificity of the Commission's reasoning under R.C. 4903.09, and whether the case was an application for an increase in rates under R.C. 4909.18. The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel filed as intervening appellee 2026-03-24. The tariff is in force pending appeal and no decision was located as of 2026-07-31. WATCH — a reversal or remand would unsettle every Findlay tariff conclusion in the record. Do not write that the tariff has been upheld.

#1464

Help confirm → DCT-APPEAL-2025-1458

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/grid/findlay/behind-the-meter-generation.yaml

Did Whirlpool's Hancock County Net Zero project (14.4 MW wind + 6.0 MW solar) reach operation?

One Power's Form S-1 lists it in the Construction Phase as of 2025-01-23, one of three Net Zero projects combining wind, solar and a digital substation behind an industrial customer's meter under a 20-year take-or-pay agreement. If built it would roughly triple the county's operating behind-the-meter renewable capacity, which stands at 15.0 MW of Wind for Industry across Whirlpool's, Ball Metal's and Valfilm's plants. OPEN — One Power withdrew its registration in May 2025 and has published no successor disclosure, so there is no updated public source. Note the taxonomy trap the issue body fell into: 14.4 MW + 6.0 MW is the NET ZERO project, not Wind-for-Industry, and Whirlpool's operating Wind-for-Industry project in the county is 3.0 MW.

#1464

Answer this → NETZERO-WHIRLPOOL-COD

Open question Unanswered [open] onsitepartners.com news release 2025-06-12 (read 2026-07-31) · data/extracted/grid/findlay/behind-the-meter-generation.yaml

Confirm the AEP/Bloom fuel-cell commitments — the captured release names neither Findlay nor One Power

Issue 1464 carried three linked claims: an OnSite Partners/AEP/Basalt collaboration to deploy Bloom Energy fuel cells for data-center customers, an AEP 1 GW Bloom agreement, and a PUCO-approved AEP onsite-power project. The first was read directly and comes up short of the connection drawn — the 2025-06-12 release names no site, no MW figure, no PUCO approval, and does not mention Findlay, Hancock County, One Power or the Megawatt Hub, even though OnSite (funds advised by Basalt) had announced its acquisition of One Power. The second and third were not captured or confirmed at all and are carried nowhere as claims. OPEN — pull AEP's own Bloom announcement and the PUCO onsite-power docket, and check whether any of it touches this site. Bears on the tariff analysis: parallel behind-the-meter generation at a Schedule DCT site needs an O.A.C. 4901:1-22 interconnection agreement, and netting it against Contract Capacity carries an instantaneous-curtailment obligation.

#1464

Answer this → AEP-BLOOM-ONSITE

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/findlay-ordinance-2026-42.gap.yaml

Obtain Ordinance 2026-42 as certified, with the council journal and the recorded roll call

The instrument issue 1463 is named for is not in corpus and could not be retrieved. Every findlayohio.gov and findlayohio.com path returns HTTP 403 to an automated fetch with or without a browser user-agent, American Legal's Findlay code library returns 403 to both curl and the fetch tool, and findlay.legistar.com resolves to an unprovisioned tenant whose API answers "LegistarConnectionString setting is not set up in InSite for client: findlay". So the city has no machine-readable legislative record at all. What is held is two secondary articles, and the more detailed of them hedges its own roll call mid-sentence ("DeArment (or DeLong per some records)") while listing both names, which is the signature of an aggregated account rather than a reading of the journal. OPEN. This is an ACCESS FAILURE, not a denial and not a negative — nobody has refused anything because nobody has asked. An R.C. 149.43 request is DRAFTED and NOT SENT at data/extracted/findlay/governance/records-requests/2026-07-31-findlay-clerk-of-council.md (items 1-3). The single most load-bearing missing string is the ordinance's own definition of "data center" — acceptance criterion 1 asks for it verbatim and it cannot be supplied from reporting.

#1463

Answer this → ORD-2026-42-CERTIFIED-TEXT

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/records-requests/2026-07-31-findlay-clerk-of-council.md

File and log the pre-annexation-agreement request for Allen Township parcels

Annexation is the hinge between the two regimes in this county. Land annexed into Findlay leaves township zoning and enters the city's, where the moratorium runs — and it cuts the other way, because Allen Township's proposed Section 1521 would let a data center take water only from "a municipal water and sewer system" or "an approved public utility provider", so a township site may need a city relationship to be servable at all. Pre-annexation agreements are where both threads are written down. Issue 1463 reports pending records requests on them, and names 2025 annexation ordinances 2025-62, 2025-63, 2025-65 and 2025-113 (Keller-Keller-Siferd Enterprises LLC, 37.906 ac, Allen Twp, "Amber Waves" to I-1) known only from AI-summarized council coverage. None is corroborated. OPEN — items 5 and 6 of the drafted request cover this; filing it is acceptance criterion 3 and the response log is the follow-on.

#1463

Answer this → PRE-ANNEXATION-AGREEMENTS

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/allen-twp-data-center-amendment-2026.zoning.yaml

Capture the three Allen Township zoning hearings on 2026-08-19 and the rezoning hearing on 2026-08-05

TIME-SENSITIVE, and the most consequential scheduled event in this site's record. On 2026-08-05 at 7:00 p.m. the zoning commission hears Interstate Capital LLC's application to rezone about 135.3 acres at SR 613 and TR 142 from Agriculture to I-1 Light Industrial. On 2026-08-19 it holds three hearings in one evening — 7:00 p.m. clerical amendments that also move conditional-use duties from the Zoning Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals, 7:30 p.m. proposed Section 1521 Data Centers, 8:00 p.m. the Section 1520 replacement for Energy Storage Systems. Watch for text revised at hearing, then for the trustee-stage hearing that R.C. 519.12 requires next, then for any referendum petition within 30 days of adoption. Note the interlock — Section 1521 assigns approval to the BZA, a body that does not hold that power until the 7:00 p.m. amendment passes, so the "clerical" hearing is load-bearing.

#1463

Help confirm → ATZC-HEARINGS-AUGUST-2026

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/allen-twp-data-center-amendment-2026.zoning.yaml

Resolve whether proposed Section 1521 reaches a bitcoin-mining load at all

Allen Township's proposed definition captures facilities housing servers "for the purpose of storing, processing, or distributing electronic data". The disclosed operation at the Findlay Megawatt Hub is MARA Holdings, a bitcoin miner. Whether proof-of-work hashing is "processing electronic data" within that definition is not answered by the text, and the answer decides whether the 10 MW Total Facility Load cap reaches the site's only disclosed load. The contrast is instructive rather than academic — AEP Ohio's Schedule DCT does not leave it to inference, it defines a "Mobile Data Center" that names cryptocurrency mining outright and attaches a sworn foreign-adversary attestation to it (see the grid record from issue 1464). Allen Township drafted from a neighbouring township's template and did not inherit that precision. OPEN — do not resolve it from the text as it stands; watch the 2026-08-19 hearing and the trustee stage for a crypto or blockchain clause.

#1463

Answer this → DATA-CENTER-DEFINITION-REACH

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/allen-twp-zoning-adoption-and-referendum.yaml

Determine which adopted district covers the Megawatt Hub parcels, and what Section 1502 preserves

Two linked unknowns that together decide whether the proposed 10 MW cap could ever bind the disclosed facility. First, which district the 2026-05-11 map assigns to the Hub parcels — the map is a PDF with no parcel labels, so answering it needs the Hancock County Auditor's parcel layer joined to the district geometry, which belongs to the places sub-issue 1462. Second, what Article XV Section 1502 (Nonconforming Lots, Uses of Land, Structures and Premises) preserves for a use established during the twenty months between adoption on 2024-09-09 and effect on 2026-05-11, when the township was still unzoned as a matter of land use. That window covers the period in which the Hub was contracted and partly energized. OPEN — until both are answered, never write that the amendment would close or shrink the Hub.

#1463

Answer this → HUB-PARCEL-DISTRICT-AND-NONCONFORMING-USE

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/allen-twp-zoning-adoption-and-referendum.yaml

Resolve the 2025 ballot-language case that revoked Allen Township's zoning status

The first referendum passed in May 2025 and was then invalidated over abbreviated ballot language. All the corpus holds is the township's own recital, in its 2026-07-07 zoning commission minutes, that a 2025 hearing must be redone "because Allen Township's zoning status was revoked by Judge Jonathon Starn" — note the minutes spell him Jonathon where the county and the appellate record spell him Jonathan. The case number, the docket, the final entry, the challenged ballot text and the certified May-2025 canvass are all unheld. Contemporary reporting describes the challenged language as stating the plan would establish the township as an agricultural district, and describes Starn denying One Power's interim motions to stop the count — which means the company lost early and won late, a sequence worth confirming rather than assuming. OPEN, with two access failures behind it — the Clerk of Courts eServices portal at ea.co.hancock.oh.us times out entirely, and the BOE publishes results only from the November 2025 general forward. DO NOT conflate this case with 2026-Ohio-405, which is Open Meetings Act only and says nothing about the ballot.

#1463

Answer this → BALLOT-LANGUAGE-CASE-2025

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/hancock-sb52-restricted-area.gap.yaml

Pull the adopted 2022-04-19 SB 52 restricted-area resolution, its number, roll call and final map

What the corpus holds is the MEETING-SETTING Resolution 167-22 of 2022-03-15 (Bateson moved, Pepple seconded, roll call 2-1 with Bechtol dissenting), the published notice, and the PROPOSED exclusion map whose legend reads "Does not Include areas inside Incorporated Municipalities and Biglick Township". The resolution actually adopted on 2022-04-19 is not held, and neither is its number, its roll call, or its map — so whether the adopted map matches the proposed one is unestablished. Reading 167-22 as the adoption is the trap here. The county's AgendaCenter is reachable but holds nothing before 2024-02-13 and a date-ranged search over spring 2022 returns zero items. OPEN — needs a separate records request to the Hancock County Commissioners' clerk, a different agency from the city request, so do not append it to that one. Scope reminder for whoever picks this up - R.C. 303.57 restricted areas reach large wind and solar only and do not reach data centers, so this resolution is a generation control and must never be described as a data-center siting control.

#1463

Answer this → SB52-ADOPTED-RESOLUTION

Open question Unanswered [open] data/documents/findlay/governance/Minutes-7-22-26-special-ATZC.pdf

Establish who "Dan Smies, On-Site Partners" and "Jon Cross, Cross Capital Consultant" appeared for

The Allen Township Zoning Commission's 2026-07-22 special-meeting minutes — the session that drafted the data-center language — record four guests: Jacob Mercer of Hancock County Regional Planning (author of the Washington Township template the text was merged from), Justin Kahl the Assistant County Prosecutor, "Dan Smies, On-Site Partners", and "Jon Cross, Cross Capital Consultant". That these four attended and are so described is verified. Everything past the strings is not. The name similarity between "On-Site Partners" and the OnSite entity in One Power's corporate chain (OnSite, funds advised by Basalt, announced its acquisition of One Power in February 2026) is suggestive and is ONLY a name match until an instrument confirms it. OPEN — resolve both entities through the Ohio Secretary of State, and establish whether either appeared on behalf of a party with an interest in the Megawatt Hub. Attending a public meeting is not itself improper and nothing here suggests otherwise; the point of resolving it is that a reader of the eventual Section 1521 is entitled to know who was in the room.

#1466

Answer this → ONSITE-PARTNERS-AT-THE-DRAFTING-TABLE

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance/allen-twp-rezoning-interstate-capital-2026.yaml

Identify Interstate Capital LLC and who holds title to the two SR 613 parcels

A Birmingham, Michigan LLC filed on 2026-07-01 to rezone about 135.3 acres at the NW corner of SR 613 and TR 142 from Agriculture to I-1 Light Industrial, stating a proposed use of "Warehousing / Manufacturing" and claiming a 140 million dollar investment on an exhibit branded "Allen Commerce Park". Nothing connects this applicant to a data center and this lead does not suggest one. What is missing is ordinary due diligence — the Ohio Secretary of State registration and statutory agent for Interstate Capital LLC and any related entity, and who owns parcels 020001015303 and 02000100123 of record and on what instrument (title, option or contract). Note the parcel-number discrepancy to resolve while you are in the auditor's data - the application and exhibit write the second parcel with 11 digits, the township's own hearing notice writes it with 12. Also worth retrieving is a legible copy of the site-plan inset, whose two building square-footage labels are illegible even at a 500 dpi render. The recorder and auditor pulls belong with the places sub-issue 1462.

#1462

Answer this → INTERSTATE-CAPITAL-OWNERSHIP

Signal Unanswered [inference] data/extracted/findlay/governance/allen-twp-data-center-amendment-2026.zoning.yaml

Flag the dry-cooling versus closed-loop contradiction in proposed Section 1521 before the hearing

Subsection D.1 of the proposed Section 1521 permits only "air cooled (dry cooling)" and then expressly prohibits "Closed-loop liquid cooling systems, where water or coolant is continuously recirculated within a sealed system and is not consumed through evaporation". Dry cooling at data-center scale is normally implemented AS a sealed recirculating liquid loop rejecting heat to air through a dry cooler, so as drafted the permitted method and the third prohibited method describe overlapping equipment — a rule aimed at water consumption that also catches the lowest-water option. This is a drafting observation, not a legal opinion, and the prohibition may be intended to reach liquid immersion or district heat rejection; the text does not say. It bears directly on the platform's own third cooling axis (the CLOSED_LOOP_DRY archetype, epic 1676). Worth a public comment before 2026-08-19 rather than an analysis after.

#1463

Help confirm → COOLING-CLAUSE-CONTRADICTION

Signal Unanswered [open] data/documents/oepa/OHP000001_FS.pdf (Attachment 3, p. 9) · data/extracted/findlay/watch/tp-seasonal-load.watch.yaml

The 2026 Individual Seasonal Load hits the July eDMR on 2026-08-20 — the cheapest check on the file

OHP000001's fact sheet prints the general permit's own annual calendar (Attachment 3, p. 9), and it carries a milestone the issue body did not have: by AUGUST 20 each year the permittee must submit the calculated Individual Seasonal Load in kilograms to the July eDMR, under parameter 51451 ("Phosphorus, Total - Kg", 1/Year, Calculated, monitoring month July). That is eighteen days after this record was written. TIME-SENSITIVE — re-pull the effluent chart for OH0025135 (and try OHP000001) after 2026-08-20 and look for 51451. If it appears it is the REPORTED, permit-bound number and supersedes every derived figure in tp-seasonal-load.watch.yaml; if it carries prior seasons it would also close the 2025 season, which the derivation explicitly cannot call. Note that 51451 is absent from the chart today and that OHP000001 itself returns zero DMR rows, so it is possible the value never reaches ECHO at all — that outcome is itself the answer, and it makes the Season Report records request (TP-SEASON-REPORTS) the only route.

time-sensitive — 2026-08-20, then 2026-09-01 (Season Report) and 2026-11-01 (GP Annual Report) #1461

Help confirm → TP-2026-EDMR-AUGUST-20

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/icis-compliance-reconciliation.watch.yaml · data/documents/oepa/findlay/2PD00008.pdf (p. 14)

Was the 2026-05-01 local-limits phosphorus justification submitted? ECHO says unachieved and not reported

This is the LIVE half of the ECHO-vs-state schedule reconciliation, and the issue body's blanket "federal ICIS not reflecting the state modification" does not explain it. Event 52599 (Municipal Pretreatment Schedule, "Eff Limits For Pollutants") is due 2026-05-01 in the permit AS CURRENTLY IN FORCE (2PD00008*VD, p. 14); the *VD modification's two revisions touch only event 34099 and the LTCP addendum language, so no state action moved it. ICIS records it "Schedule Event unachieved and not reported" as of the 2026-07-31 extract — three months past due. What it requires is the phosphorus milestone: a technical justification for revising or retaining local industrial-user limits, including specifically whether local limits for total phosphorus "will facilitate substantial progress toward achieving a monthly average effluent concentration target of 0.5 mg/L" — half the permit's own limit — or evidence that they would not. The eight significant industrial users discharging 0.428 MGD (renewal fact sheet, p. 8) are the load that reaches. OPEN — whether the City submitted it and Ohio EPA has not entered it, or whether it was not submitted, is unresolved; a state-to-federal data lag is a real and common cause. ASK the two addressees the permit itself names: Ohio EPA Central Office Pretreatment Unit and Ohio EPA Northwest District Office, for the submittal and any acceptance letter. This is the one scheduled event in this permit that could change the plant's phosphorus trajectory.

#1461

Answer this → PRETREATMENT-52599-SUBMITTAL

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/icis-compliance-reconciliation.watch.yaml (ECHO DFR pulled 2026-08-02)

What drives the three Reportable Noncompliance quarters ECHO's own detail blocks cannot explain?

ECHO flags OH0025135 as in Reportable Noncompliance in Q1 2025, Q2 2025 and Q1 2026, and nothing in the Detailed Facility Report accounts for them. The single numeric effluent violation in the whole record (ammonia, 1.41 against a 1.4 mg/L weekly max, period ending 2023-10-31) accounts for Q4 2023. The two permit-schedule violations begin 2025-12-01 and 2026-05-01 and cannot reach the 2025 quarters. CWASECompliance, CWACSCompliance, CWAEffluentALRExceedences, CWA3YrD80D90Counts, Notices, FormalActions and ICISFormalActions are ALL EMPTY for this permit — no formal action, no penalty, no notice. OPEN, and deliberately unguessed: candidate categories exist (DMR non-receipt, pretreatment reporting, biosolids reporting — the facility carries both a biosolids and a sewage-sludge report flag) but nothing in the retrieved record selects among them. Resolve from EPA's ICIS-NPDES quarterly non-compliance history (QNCR) tables in the ECHO bulk downloads, which carry the noncompliance category per quarter, or from Ohio EPA Northwest District Office's own quarterly reports. Matters because "5 quarters in noncompliance" is the figure a reader meets first, and three of the five are currently unattributable.

#1461

Answer this → ICIS-RNC-QUARTERS-UNEXPLAINED

Open question Unanswered [open] data/documents/oepa/OHP000001_FS.pdf (Attachment 3, p. 9) · data/extracted/findlay/watch/tp-seasonal-load.watch.yaml

Ohio EPA's General Permit Annual Report is promised each November 1 and no edition can be found

OHP000001's fact sheet (Attachment 3) commits Ohio EPA to release a General Permit Annual Report each November 1 that determines compliance with the Cumulative Limit, identifies facilities in violation, and publishes the permittee list and the Cumulative Limit for the upcoming critical season. NO EDITION IS PUBLICLY DISCOVERABLE for 2024 or 2025 — eight candidate filenames were probed in the same Ohio EPA portal folder that serves OHP000001.pdf and OHP000001_FS.pdf (both return 200), all 404, and targeted searches surface nothing. Record as an ACCESS GAP, not a negative, and note precisely what it is: Attachment 3 lists that row's Permit Condition as "--", so this is an administrative commitment in a fact sheet, NOT an enforceable permit term. It matters because it is the instrument that would say whether the 39-facility bubble still holds — the last published group figure is the 2024 Biennial Report's 43,304 kg against a 64,170 kg cap, for the 2024 season only. Related: the permit's own cited URL for the Season Report form (Part IV.D) is also dead, 404 in both its printed and hyphenated forms. ASK Ohio EPA DSW whether the annual reports exist and where; and watch for the 2026 Biennial Report, which had not appeared as of 2026-08-02.

#1461

Answer this → GP-ANNUAL-REPORT-NOT-PUBLISHED

Signal Unanswered [inference] data/extracted/findlay/watch/tp-seasonal-load.watch.yaml · data/extracted/findlay/water-watch.md

What did Findlay actually do in 2024 to halve its spring phosphorus, and what did it cost?

The DMR record shows a clean behavioural break. Through 2023 the plant's effluent phosphorus ran at roughly the same concentration all year — spring 0.708 mg/L against 0.761 mg/L the rest of the year. From the 2024 season onward it runs at roughly 0.40 mg/L inside the March-July TMDL season and roughly 0.75 mg/L outside it, against an individual-permit concentration limit of 1.0 mg/L that never changes. The derived seasonal load falls from 4,450 kg in 2023 to 2,756 kg in 2024. The timing points at the general permit, which took effect 2023-11-01 and whose first governed season was spring 2024. What the corpus does NOT hold is what changed operationally — the plant precipitates phosphorus with ferric chloride, so a seasonal chemical-dose increase is the obvious candidate, but that is inference and the operating record is not in evidence. The Season Report is the document that would say: OHP000001 Part IV.D requires "a summary of any activities, projects, or planning conducted in the previous 12 months with a goal to reduce the total phosphorus load." STORY — a plant that cut its spring load by about 38 percent the season a watershed permit took effect, and that now runs two different treatment regimes in the same year, is the concrete local answer to what the Maumee TMDL actually does. Pair with the chemical cost and the WPCLF absence.

#1466

Help confirm → TP-SEASONAL-TURN

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/sdwa-findlay-city-pws.watch.yaml (ECHO SDWIS DFR pulled 2026-08-02)

Is Findlay City PWS's 2019 Consumer Confidence Rule violation live, or a record Ohio EPA never closed?

The SDWA primary check on PWS OH3200111 (FINDLAY CITY PWS — active, community, surface water, 54,040 served) returns no health-based violation: no MCL, no treatment-technique and no other monitoring violation, with lead 90th percentiles of 0.0021-0.0025 mg/L against a 0.015 action level across the five periods carrying a published result (ECHO lists eight and prints "0 mg/L" for three, read as no published result rather than a measured zero). But ECHO shows the system in "Violation Identified" status for twelve consecutive quarters, and all twelve are ONE item carried forward — a Consumer Confidence Rule violation, category "Other", Unaddressed since 2019-01-03, which drew a single informal State Violation/Reminder Notice the day it was recorded and nothing since. The CCR governs the annual water-quality report a system delivers to its customers; it is a reporting rule, not a contaminant standard. OPEN — seven and a half years unaddressed with one same-day informal notice and no escalation looks more like an unclosed record than a live enforcement posture, but that is a pattern argument, not evidence. Resolve with Ohio EPA DDAGW Northwest District Office, which holds the CCR certifications, and by obtaining the City's own published Consumer Confidence Reports for 2019-2025. DO NOT publish "Findlay's drinking water is in violation" or "the city has not reported water quality to its customers since 2019" — neither follows from this record. DISAMBIGUATION: OH3200114 "FINDLAY WATER DEPARTMENT" is a different, INACTIVE system (inactive since 1988-08-01) whose enforcement history ends in the 1980s; never cite it.

#1461

Answer this → SDWA-CCR-2019-UNADDRESSED

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/sdwa-findlay-city-pws.watch.yaml

Obtain the 2024-06-04 sanitary survey report — the 2021 survey was clean and this one was not

Ohio EPA's district office runs complete sanitary surveys of Findlay City PWS on a roughly triennial cadence. The 2021-06-15 survey recorded no deficiencies AND no recommendations in any evaluated category. The 2024-06-04 survey recorded recommendations in five — Source, Treatment, Finished Water Storage, Pumps and Distribution — with deficiencies in none. ECHO publishes only the coded summary, not what the recommendations were. OPEN — whether the change reflects aging plant, a different surveyor, or a routine shift in emphasis is not determinable from the codes. Worth pulling because the supply-side financing thread is already live: the corpus carries a 2025-04-18 report that sewer repair bills are adding up, and Findlay is absent from the WPCLF PY2025 and PY2026 project lists. Request from Ohio EPA DDAGW Northwest District Office. Next survey falls due around mid-2027 on the observed cadence.

#1461

Answer this → SDWA-SANITARY-SURVEY-2024

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/watch/cso-sso-overflow-record.watch.yaml · data/extracted/oepa/findlay/2PD00008.fs.npdes.yaml

Pull the 2018 CSO evaluation that found twelve outfalls were in substance sanitary overflows

The permit record recites, but the corpus does not hold, the 2018 evaluation report that found Findlay's 1998 LTCP had not attained its designated level of control of four overflows per typical year and that twelve of the CSO outfalls no longer had combined sewer upstream — making them, in substance, sanitary sewer overflows. That document matters more now that the overflow series is measured, and it matters BECAUSE the series will not settle the classification on its own: the ten located sanitary stations reported more occurrences than the combined outfalls in 2023 (6 against 4) and 2024 (14 against 8) but FEWER in 2025 (7 against 12) and through June 2026 (7 against 11), no volume is reported for any sanitary station, six of the ten reported nothing at all across 42 months, and four of the ten authorized CSOs likewise reported nothing. The located stations also cannot be summed with station 300, which the permit makes a system-wide reporting point on a different counting basis. Which station is really which is the question the 2018 evaluation answers, and it bears directly on whether any reported sanitary overflow was an unauthorized discharge — a CSO is authorized under Part II.D, an SSO is not. Request from Ohio EPA DSW; it should also be an attachment to the LTCP record due 2026-11-01.

#1461

Answer this → CSO-2018-EVALUATION-BYTES

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/bosc-site-footprint.yaml · data/reference/findlay/README.md · data/extracted/findlay/data-centers.md

Pull the deed chain for the 2025 and 2026 Megawatt Hub land purchases — grantee, instrument, consideration

The committed holding is a 2023-05-08 county export — eight Allen Township parcels, 108.65 ac CAMA / 105.873 ac planar, standing in three One Energy vehicles. Press reporting puts 110 ac closed 2026-03-05 for $5.9M in the North Findlay Industrial Park plus 40 ac in 2025, and neither appears in that source because it predates both closings. Two further gaps sit on the same thread. The One Power Form S-1 calls the campus "~170 acres" against the 108.65 ac of record, a 61-acre difference no parcel was invented to close; and 12385 TR 215, the hub's own address in that filing, matches no parcel in the 2023 slice at all (12411 TR 215, the office, is the nearest). OPEN and specifically UNSEARCHED, never a negative finding — Hancock County publishes no parcel ArcGIS REST service; the Auditor's live CAMA is Beacon/Schneider only and returns Cloudflare HTTP 403 to every non-browser request; the Recorder's index is Kofile CountyFusion, whose guest login 404s outside a browser session. Both were probed 2026-08-02, so this is a manual or account-authenticated pull rather than a scriptable one. What the deeds would settle, in order of value — the grantee vehicle for each purchase, the instrument numbers and grantors, the considerations, any easements, and whether the 61-acre gap is owned, leased or optioned.

#1466

Answer this → HUB-DEED-CHAIN

Signal Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/data-centers.md · data/extracted/grid/findlay/megawatt-hub-interconnection.gap.yaml

The host withdrew its IPO and was acquired while holding a 15-year take-or-pay — watch the contract, not the company

One Power Co filed a Form S-1 on 2025-01-23 (EDGAR CIK 2039139, confidential draft submission 2024-11-12), withdrew it by Form RW on 2025-05-09, and placed securities privately by Form D on 2025-07-23. A September 2025 reorganization with layoffs and a lender workout is [reference]. On 2026-02-16 OnSite Partners — owned by funds advised by Basalt Infrastructure Partners — announced its acquisition of One Power [verified]. Through all of it the MARA instrument is unchanged, 150 MW for 15 years on a take-or-pay basis payable whether or not the tenant draws power. SIGNAL, not a finding. Nothing here establishes distress at the Findlay site and no claim about any party's solvency is carried or should be written. The reason to watch it is structural — ownership of the hub changed hands while its principal revenue instrument stayed fixed, and a change of host is the most likely route by which the unresolved service agreement (HUB-ESA-CUSTOMER) and the +300 MW claim finally acquire a document. Next checks, cheapest first — MARA's 10-K and operations updates for the Findlay energization status, then any Ohio Secretary of State or UCC filing recording the OnSite transfer.

#1466

Help confirm → ONE-POWER-DISTRESS-AND-CAPITAL

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/governance-watch.md · data/extracted/findlay/governance/findlay-ordinance-2026-42.gap.yaml · data/extracted/findlay/governance/records-requests/2026-07-31-findlay-clerk-of-council.md

Three reported transparency episodes around the city moratorium are uncorroborated — locate the primary records

The issue that commissioned this story names three episodes of friction around Findlay's data-center moratorium — a data-center meeting described as invite-only, a resident cut off while addressing council, and the moratorium passing only on a second attempt. THE CORPUS HOLDS NONE OF THEM, from any source. They are recorded here as uncorroborated assertions, not as facts, and none of them is writable anywhere until a record supports it. The retrieval routes are the ones already blocked for Ordinance 2026-42 itself — findlayohio.gov, American Legal's code library and the unprovisioned Legistar tenant all refuse retrieval — so the council journals for 2026-03-17, 2026-04-07 and 2026-04-22, the meeting notices, and any minutes recording public comment are items in the drafted, unsent R.C. 149.43 request to the Clerk of Council. One caution before any of it is repeated. The Allen Township zoning referendum genuinely did take two attempts, the first undone over abbreviated ballot language, so a second-try account may be a conflation of the township vote with the city ordinance. Establish which instrument the account belongs to first.

#1466

Answer this → CITY-TRANSPARENCY-EPISODES

Open question Unanswered [open] data/extracted/findlay/warn/goodyear-tall-timbers-mold-2026.warn.yaml · data/extracted/findlay/warn/michigan-sugar-findlay-2025.warn.yaml · data/extracted/findlay/dislocation-and-brownfields.md

Source Findlay's micropolitan economic-development ranking from its publisher before pairing it with the WARN filings

Findlay's civic identity rests substantially on a repeatedly cited top-ranked micropolitan economic-development record, and the corpus holds that ranking from no source at all — no publisher, no year, no criteria. It is therefore not assertable, and the economic-identity counterpoint it would support cannot be drawn yet. What the corpus does hold is the other half of the pairing. Goodyear's 2026-01-30 WARN notice gives a permanent closing at Tall Timbers Mold with 85 separations weighted to skilled work, naming no destination plant and no labor organization. Michigan Sugar's is a courtesy filing covering four employees in which the employer disclaims the trigger, and its real value is an infrastructure datum — rail service was previously severed to the Findlay site. Pull the ranking from the publication that issues it, with its year and its methodology, and only then decide whether the pairing is a real tension or two unrelated facts about the same county. Do not publish the juxtaposition before the ranking is sourced.

#1466

Answer this → MICROPOLITAN-RANKING-VS-WARN

Showing all 44 open leads. Closed leads move into the record →

MWCD board award votes + Norfolk Southern bid opening fall on 2026-07-14 — capture the outcomes

Locate the Eagle Creek appropriation dockets — landowner names, court, case number, status

Resolve whether MWCD levies a Blanchard-subdistrict assessment for basin O&M (method not finalized)

Pull the July-2021 conservancy-court plan amendment adding Eagle Creek to the District plan

Identify the Phase 1 benching contractor and contract price

Find the sediment-characterization study at Riverside Park dam (only a dredging project is documented)

Resolve whether the 2024-01-11 USACE Blanchard feasibility Review Plan is a renewed effort or archival

The CSO Long-Term Control Plan addendum is due 2026-11-01 — a dated deadline on an issued permit

Request Findlay WPCF's reported Individual Seasonal Loads — the derivation says 2024 is UNDER and cannot call 2025

Obtain the original 2PD00008*UD issuance — the DAM now serves only the *VD modification package

The mercury variance runs with the permit to 2029-10-31 — track the annual 12 ng/L condition

Where does Goodyear's Tall Timbers mold work go — the WARN letter does not say

Michigan Sugar puts a severed Findlay rail spur on the record — map what else lost service

Establish Hancock County's presence in Ohio Brownfield Remediation Rounds 4-10

Seed the corporate chain in the entity graph — One Power, OnSite, Basalt, MARA (≠ Marathon)

Who actually holds the AEP Ohio electric service agreement at the Findlay Megawatt Hub?

PUCO's docket system refuses automated retrieval — the tariff docket is unsearched, not empty

Did Rocky Ford Station energize on its December 2025 schedule?

Put scope, schedule and cost on the Central Findlay 69 kV rebuild — there is no OPSB case to pull

The data-center tariff is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio — capture the decision

Did Whirlpool's Hancock County Net Zero project (14.4 MW wind + 6.0 MW solar) reach operation?

Confirm the AEP/Bloom fuel-cell commitments — the captured release names neither Findlay nor One Power

Obtain Ordinance 2026-42 as certified, with the council journal and the recorded roll call

File and log the pre-annexation-agreement request for Allen Township parcels

Capture the three Allen Township zoning hearings on 2026-08-19 and the rezoning hearing on 2026-08-05

Resolve whether proposed Section 1521 reaches a bitcoin-mining load at all

Determine which adopted district covers the Megawatt Hub parcels, and what Section 1502 preserves

Resolve the 2025 ballot-language case that revoked Allen Township's zoning status

Pull the adopted 2022-04-19 SB 52 restricted-area resolution, its number, roll call and final map

Establish who "Dan Smies, On-Site Partners" and "Jon Cross, Cross Capital Consultant" appeared for

Identify Interstate Capital LLC and who holds title to the two SR 613 parcels

Flag the dry-cooling versus closed-loop contradiction in proposed Section 1521 before the hearing

The 2026 Individual Seasonal Load hits the July eDMR on 2026-08-20 — the cheapest check on the file

Was the 2026-05-01 local-limits phosphorus justification submitted? ECHO says unachieved and not reported

What drives the three Reportable Noncompliance quarters ECHO's own detail blocks cannot explain?

Ohio EPA's General Permit Annual Report is promised each November 1 and no edition can be found

What did Findlay actually do in 2024 to halve its spring phosphorus, and what did it cost?

Is Findlay City PWS's 2019 Consumer Confidence Rule violation live, or a record Ohio EPA never closed?

Obtain the 2024-06-04 sanitary survey report — the 2021 survey was clean and this one was not

Pull the 2018 CSO evaluation that found twelve outfalls were in substance sanitary overflows

Pull the deed chain for the 2025 and 2026 Megawatt Hub land purchases — grantee, instrument, consideration

The host withdrew its IPO and was acquired while holding a 15-year take-or-pay — watch the contract, not the company

Three reported transparency episodes around the city moratorium are uncorroborated — locate the primary records

Source Findlay's micropolitan economic-development ranking from its publisher before pairing it with the WARN filings

Obtain the original 2PD00008UD issuance — the DAM now serves only the VD modification package