Open investigation · Troy · Piqua, 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

12 open leads · unverified

Claim Unanswered [open] data/extracted/troy-piqua/data-centers.md §1 · OpenCorporates (J5 LLC / Shaytura LLC); Hunterbrook, hntrbrk.com/meta-data-centers

Independently confirm (or refute) the Meta backer behind J5 LLC / Shaytura LLC

The developer of record for the Piqua I-75 Business Park campus is a shell — J5 LLC, doing business as Shaytura LLC — stated on the City of Piqua's official project page. `[verified]`. The reported hyperscaler backer, Meta, originates with Hunterbrook's investigation (which traced J5's corporate filing to Meta's Menlo Park HQ address) and is `[reported]`, never `[verified]`: the City cites an NDA and has not named the owner. The 2026-07-11 corporate-filing refresh resolved the Nevada-vs-Delaware ambiguity (Delaware-formed / Nevada-foreign-qualified) and named a manager (David Kling) and a Corporation Service Company signatory (Pamela Gregorski) who also signs four confirmed Meta data-center fronts elsewhere — pattern evidence, `[inference]`, not a Piqua-specific confirmation. The pull target is the primary filing itself plus one independent, non-Hunterbrook instrument tying J5/Shaytura to Meta. Disambiguation guard: never merge the J5/Shaytura entity record with a Meta entity in the graph.

#1482

Corroborate → KLONDIKE-J5

Open question Under review [inference] data/reference/troy-piqua/parcel-assemblage.geojson · Miami County Auditor CAMA (parcel_joined layer 0), 2026-07-13

Is adjacent J3 Development LLC (parcel N44-101772, 93.1 ac) a related SPE to J5 LLC?

The Miami County auditor pull (#1483, 2026-07-13) resolved the campus to three J5 LLC parcels = 607.842 ac. A fourth parcel, N44-101772 (93.105 ac, 2332 W Farrington Rd), is owned by J3 Development LLC — physically adjacent and sharing the same M40-WA022 auditor split lineage as the J5 parcels, but with a different (Cincinnati, not J5's Columbus) mailing address. Common control is `[inference]` only — a lead, deliberately NOT committed to the assemblage geometry. Worth confirming via OpenCorporates / a shared registered agent before any edge is drawn in the graph.

nested-scope resolved 2026-07-13 — the ~1,026-ac / ~1,200-ac gap was campus ⊂ annexation record ⊂ business park, not a missing parcel #1483

Answer this → KLONDIKE-J3

Open question Unanswered [open] Miami County Recorder · data/extracted/troy-piqua/data-centers.md "Instruments to pull" §2–3

Pull the Miami County Recorder deed instrument numbers for the J5 LLC conveyances

The auditor CAMA layer gives sale date and amount (two of the three J5 parcels carry a 2025-12-24 conveyance for $62,234,725) but not the recorder OR book/page or instrument number. Pull the Miami County Recorder instruments to pin the chain of custody on the land transfer, and to test the single-non-primary-source (thislocallife.com) "Piqua Land Company / New Albany Company (NACO)" prior-ownership lead — currently `[reference]`, uncorroborated.

#1483

Answer this → KLONDIKE-DEED

Open question Unanswered [open] civiccapacity.com/p/water-world-what-was-negotiated · data/extracted/troy-piqua/data-centers.md "Water / hydrology hook" · data/reference/oepa/cooling-reconciliation.yaml (troy-piqua, B1

Pull the executed Water & Wastewater Agreement — reconcile the 2.0 MGD reserve vs. the closed-loop FAQ

The negotiated Water & Wastewater Agreement (effective 2026-01-23) reserves up to 500,000 GPD (Tier I) scaling to 2.0 MGD (Tier II / full operation) — ~30% of Piqua's ~6.75 MGD permitted intake — plus ~1.0 MGD reserved wastewater. `[verified]` (MVT; civiccapacity.com). But the City's public FAQ describes a closed-loop cooling system with only an "initial fill-up," occasional top-offs, and domestic-only ongoing use. `[verified]`. These two framings conflict and neither has been reconciled against the actual agreement text — pin to the instrument itself, not either summary, and record which framing governs the consumptive-use screen. **B1 (#1681) ran the A3 cooling-cycling reconciliation harness on this conflict (`watermark cooling-reconcile`):** the outcome is a `reservation_conflict` — the 2.0 MGD makeup + ~1.0 MGD wastewater reservation back-solves to cycles-of-concentration ≈ 2.0 (1.7–2.3), an `[inference]` bracket squarely in evaporative-tower territory and flatly inconsistent with a dry sealed loop's ~0 makeup. **But a reservation is a CEILING, not a metered use, and not a discharge/withdrawal instrument** — so per the epic's re-archetype gate it cannot re-pin the archetype: `cooling_model` deliberately stays `UNKNOWN`, and this stays a **quantified `[open]` gap**, not a resolution. The reserved 2.0 MGD is an upper-bound ceiling, never collapsed into a headline consumptive. The next move is C2 (#1688): pull the executed instrument + metered water-service use to establish whether the facility draws near the ceiling (evaporative) or far below it (nearer dry).

B1 reconciliation (#1681) complete — restated as a quantified [open] gap (reservation_conflict, back-solved CoC ≈ 2.0 [inference]); kept cooling_model=UNKNOWN. Next check → C2 (#1688): the executed 2026-01-23 agreement text + metered water-service use vs the reserved ceiling. #1486

Answer this → WATER-AGREEMENT

Signal Unanswered [open] Ohio EPA NPDES General Permits page — Community Notice 2026-07-21 abandoning OHD000001

OHD000001 was withdrawn — is there an individual NPDES or pretreatment record for the campus?

RESOLVED NEGATIVE on the original thread: Ohio EPA abandoned the draft statewide data-center general permit. Its Community Notice of 2026-07-21 states the agency "has decided not to move forward with finalizing the general permit. The individual NPDES permit issuance process is the most appropriate path forward." `[verified]`. The comment period had closed 2026-01-16 (hearing 2025-12-17) and the Director's final action was still pending at the 2026-07-11 refresh; it never came, so no Piqua/J5 coverage can ever exist under OHD000001. Still `[open]` on the successor question: with the general permit gone, an INDIVIDUAL NPDES permit is the only remaining instrument on a direct-discharge path — but that path is not established here. A facility blowing down to the Piqua sanitary sewer files no DMR at all and is disclosed instead by an industrial-pretreatment (IU) permit and sewer-use agreement. No individual NPDES or IU record naming J5 LLC / Shaytura LLC has been located, and this has not been run as a dated, direct DAM/eSuite search — unsearched, not a searched negative.

next check — search Ohio EPA DAM/eSuite for an individual NPDES permit or an IU/pretreatment record naming J5 LLC / Shaytura LLC (the records ask is #1486

Help confirm → OHD000001

Open question Under review [inference] data/extracted/oepa/troy-piqua/1PD00008.fs.npdes.yaml · data/extracted/troy-piqua/wwtp-oh0027049.dmr.yaml (2023 DMR)

Does the reserved 1.0 MGD wastewater draw fit under 1PD00008 headroom, or is a permit mod implied?

Piqua WWTP (Ohio EPA 1PD00008*WD / NPDES OH0027049; renewal eff. 2022-09-01–2027-08-31) is design 8.7 MGD with an actual mean flow of ~3.224 MGD (37.1% of design, 2023 DMR). `[verified]`. The reserved ~1.0 MGD data-center wastewater is ~11.5% of design and sits within the ~63% unused headroom on paper — but whether it can absorb into existing headroom or requires a permit modification has not been checked against the fact sheet's WLA basis (the low-flow denominator). `[inference]`, unresolved: the committed fact-sheet extraction currently captures only the header pages, so the WLA table itself is a pull target. Weight raised by the OHD000001 withdrawal (2026-07-21): with no data-center general permit, a campus routing to the sanitary sewer files no DMR of its own, so the City's industrial-pretreatment (IU) permit and sewer-use agreement — not a facility NPDES — become the instruments that would disclose the actual load against this headroom.

#1486

Answer this → WWTP-WLA

Open question Unanswered [open] Ohio EPA eSuite / construction general permit · data/extracted/troy-piqua/data-centers.md "Regulatory record"

Construction-stormwater NOI for the ~608-ac campus — not yet found

For the ~607.8-ac developer-owned campus (phase one of the larger ~1,026-ac annexation record), no construction general-permit NOI / site-specific stormwater coverage has been found. `[open]`. A filing would be expected ahead of earthwork; stays tracked here until found or a dated negative is recorded.

#1486

Answer this → CONSTRUCTION-SWPPP

Open question Low confidence [open] Ohio EPA eSuite/DAPC (SWDO, Miami County; "J5 LLC" / "Shaytura LLC" / Farrington Rd) — confirmed-negative 2026-07-11

OEPA air permit-to-install for backup generators — confirmed-negative, re-check

A direct search of Ohio EPA eSuite/DAPC (SWDO, Miami County) under "J5 LLC" / "Shaytura LLC" and the Farrington Road address found no air PTI filing for backup generators. Confirmed-negative as of 2026-07-11 — a clean dated no, not a gap. `[open]` on any future filing: a PTI could still land ahead of construction, so re-check on each sweep.

next check — re-run the eSuite/DAPC search on the next sweep #1486

Answer this → AIR-PTI

Signal Unanswered [open] WHIO, "Community group planning to take legal action over Piqua data center plans" (2026-06-02); Miami County Case Search (no docket, checked 2026-07-11)

Save Piqua has retained counsel but filed no suit as of 2026-07-11

The organized opposition group "Save Piqua" (leader Cree St. Meyer) retained counsel and is fundraising (~$300,000 GoFundMe) toward an injunction. `[reported]` (WHIO, 2026-06-02). No lawsuit has been filed as of 2026-07-11 — an indirect check of the Miami County Case Search portal found no docket. `[open]` on any actual filing. If a suit lands, ingest the complaint and open a litigation register the way Urbana's Thor v. Urbana thread was captured.

next check — re-query Miami County Case Search for a Save Piqua filing #1487

Help confirm → SAVE-PIQUA-SUIT

Signal Low confidence [open] Ohio Capital Journal, "Ohio proposed constitutional amendment to ban data centers will not be on this year's ballot" (2026-06-19)

The statewide data-center-ban ballot amendment did not qualify for 2026 — watch the 2027 cycle

The "Ohio Prohibition of Data Center Construction Amendment 2026" did NOT qualify for the 2026 ballot: Conserve Ohio had only ~73,031 of the required 413,488 signatures (44 of 88 counties, ~17%) by the 2026-07-01 deadline. Organizers publicly shifted to a 2027 attempt (signatures do not expire). `[reported]` — Ohio Capital Journal, 2026-06-19. Resolved-negative for 2026; the live thread is the 2027 signature cycle.

next check — the 2027 statewide ballot-initiative signature cycle #1487

Help confirm → BALLOT-2027

Open question Unanswered [open] Troy Times Tribune (2026-01-27, UDC public meeting)

Troy's (the city) new UDC data-center provisions — a distinct thread, not a disclosed Troy project

The City of Troy (the county seat, Piqua's downstream sister city) is separately writing data-center siting rules into a new Unified Development Code — a 10-acre minimum lot and a 1,000-ft setback from hospitals/schools/parks; a 2026-01-27 public meeting drew 100+ opposed residents. `[reported]` (Troy Times Tribune, 2026-01-27). This is regulatory pre-positioning, NOT a disclosed Troy data-center project — do not conflate with Project Klondike (Piqua). `[open]` on whether any actual project sits behind it, and on the UDC adoption vote.

next check — Troy City Council UDC adoption vote; watch for any actual Troy project behind the provisions #1487

Answer this → TROY-UDC

Signal Unanswered [open] governor.ohio.gov (2026-05-27, OTCA pause); The Register (2026-06-01)

DeWine paused new OTCA data-center sales-tax exemptions — HB 975 vs SB 374 unresolved

Governor DeWine directed a pause on new OTCA (Ohio data-center sales-tax exemption, ORC 122.175) approvals effective 2026-05-27, pending the legislature's Joint Data Center Committee review. Competing bills are unresolved: HB 975 (end the exemption 2026-10-01) vs. SB 374 (end 2027-10-01). `[reported]`. No record of a J5/Piqua OTCA application — granted or pending — has been found. `[open]`. Do not assume an exemption exists for this project.

next check — the OTCA pause resolution (HB 975 vs SB 374) and any J5/Piqua application #1487

Help confirm → OTCA-PAUSE

Showing all 12 open leads. Closed leads move into the record →