# Data Center Revenues — Google Only (County Analysis) A two-page property-tax **revenue projection** for a Port of Little Rock data center, produced in the #26-439 record set (`Data Center Revenues - Google Only.pdf`, text-layer PDF). Despite the file's "Google Only" title, the analysis models the **[[Willowbend Capital, LLC]] / Project Boar** project at the Port of Little Rock, which reporting has associated with [[Google LLC]] but which the produced record does not itself attribute to Google. The projection was **performed by the [[Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce]]** and is the fiscal-*benefit* counterpart to the caution case in the [[Letter to Quorum Court]] enclosed in the same production. ## What's inside Two one-page tables of projected annual property-tax revenue, each keyed to the **April 2025 MOU** between Willowbend Capital LLC and the City of Little Rock and to the current Pulaski County millage (Ordinance No. 25-OR-56): - **Page 1 — $1 billion / single building.** *"Annual property tax projections for a $1 billion data center in Little Rock based on the terms in the April 2025 MOU with the City of Little Rock."* Total **Property Taxes Due $4,501,000**; Total County Revenues $493,500 (Pulaski County–General $350,000; County Hospital $42,000; Road Fund $101,500); Total City Revenues $1,852,700 (including City Enrichment Investments $300,000 and Electric Franchise Fee (1 Bldg) $394,200); School: Pulaski County $2,849,000 (`Data Center Revenues - Google Only.pdf`, p. 1). - **Page 2 — $5 billion / five-building campus.** *"...projected tax revenue for five, $1 billion, 300,000 square foot data centers, as outlined in the Project Boar application with the Army Corps of Engineers."* Total **Property Taxes Due $22,505,000**; Total County Revenues $2,467,500; Total City Revenues $8,863,500 (Electric Franchise Fee (5 Bldgs) $1,971,000); School: Pulaski County $14,245,000; noted as contingent on *"the right business, economic, and market conditions... for full build-out on the 380-acre site"* (`Data Center Revenues - Google Only.pdf`, p. 2). ## Key takeaways - **Author and method.** *"This analysis was performed by the Little Rock Regional Chamber using... the current millage chart from the Pulaski County assessor's office"* (`Data Center Revenues - Google Only.pdf`, p. 1). The document is the Chamber's revenue case, produced to the county in the moratorium record set. - **The benefit figures are gross projected property tax, not net of the data-center tax exemptions.** The document states the tax rates but does not net out [[Act 548 (2025)|Act 548]] / data-center incentive reductions; the [[Letter to Quorum Court]] in the same production separately notes the revenue comes *"although at reduced rates."* What the document establishes is the Chamber's projected gross figures; it does not establish the net fiscal position. - **It ties the fiscal case to Project Boar specifically** — the $5B scenario is keyed to *"the Project Boar application with the Army Corps of Engineers"* and the 380-acre Port of Little Rock site — linking the county moratorium debate to the [[2026-05 Little Rock Port Authority Produces Project Boar Records|Project Boar]] track. ## People and orgs mentioned - [[Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce]] — performed the analysis. - [[Willowbend Capital, LLC]] — the MOU counterparty and Project Boar developer. - [[City of Little Rock]] — the April 2025 MOU counterparty; recipient of the city-side revenues. - [[Google LLC]] — named in the file title ("Google Only"); not attributed to the project within the document text. ## Cross-references - [[Letter to Quorum Court]] — the caution/cost-shift case produced alongside this benefit case. - [[2026-05 Little Rock Port Authority Produces Project Boar Records]] — the Project Boar / Willowbend track. - [[Act 548 (2025)]] — the data-center tax-exemption threshold reduction bearing on net revenue. - [[county-pulaski/data-center-moratorium-26-439-2026-07-07/_overview|#26-439 production overview]] ## Open questions / follow-ups - The document does not net the incentive reductions; the *net* county/city/school revenue after the data-center exemptions is not established by this record. - The "Google Only" title is unexplained in the text; whether the county intended the analysis to stand in for a Google-tenant scenario is not stated in the document.