EVANS, Ga. — A signed agreement for Google’s Columbia County data-center development is now publicly available, putting a clearer set of conditions behind the revenue county officials have promoted as a source of homeowner tax relief.
The central payment is at least $45 million a year for seven years. Under the agreement, that obligation begins with the first calendar year in which project bonds are outstanding. A separate $1.5 million annual administration fee begins the following calendar year. The signatures alone do not establish that either payment clock has started. Signed agreement, section 2.4
The Columbia County Observer posted the 39-page signed document on November 7, saying the Economic Development Authority of Columbia County had provided it. GCG reviewed that document and compared it with the unsigned version underlying Karin Parham’s September reporting.
The agreement identifies Kinetic Infrastructure Solutions LLC as directly or indirectly wholly owned by Google LLC. It bears signatures from authority chairman Rick Evans, secretary Jean Garniewicz and Kinetic senior director Aaron McGarry.
The authority’s signature page states an August 26, 2026 effective date, the same day the authority approved the arrangement. The released copy does not show when the final signature was applied. Approval, the stated effective date and public release of the signed document are distinct events.
When the money becomes due
The $45 million annual fee is payable to the development authority regardless of the amount of property tax paid or the number of facilities placed in service that year. Phased construction does not reduce or defer the fee unless the authority agrees in writing.
At the minimum annual amount, seven years produces $315 million. The agreement also says that if the bond lease ends early, unpaid initial fees through the seventh year accelerate as a condition of termination or reconveyance. That protection does not establish when the first bond issuance or payment will occur. Agreement, sections 2.4 and 6.4
County officials have described a distribution of $40 million annually to the county and $5 million to the authority. The MOU does not contain that distribution schedule. The authority’s August 26 minutes record approval of a related intergovernmental agreement; its executed terms would establish the allocation. That executed agreement was not among the records reviewed here.
The public records reviewed for this report did not establish an initial bond closing or a first fee receipt. The MOU contemplates later definitive documents, bond validation and other closing conditions. The authority’s posted board minutes currently run through August 26, with later agendas available. That record gap does not prove a closing has not occurred.
The agreement sets a $200 billion aggregate bond ceiling, subject to further written approval to exceed it. That ceiling accommodates the contemplated phased project and equipment, including replacements; it is not a record of $200 billion already borrowed or spent. The company is responsible for repayment, and the agreement excludes a pledge of county taxing power. Agreement, sections 1.3 and 2.1–2.6
The incentive and its performance tests
The major financial provisions remain materially unchanged from the unsigned copy. The signed version makes the Google ownership explicit, raises the company-paid annual trustee-fee cap from $5,000 to $15,000, corrects a parcel number and changes the company’s notice address to Google’s legal department. Earlier version; signed version
The tax incentive operates through a bond-for-title arrangement: the authority would hold title and lease the property back to the company. Qualifying facilities receiving certificates of occupancy by December 31, 2038 are eligible for separate 25-year leasehold valuation schedules, subject to the independent duties of the Board of Assessors and other taxing officials. Later facilities receive shortened schedules under the agreement. The factor starts at 10% for the first five years and rises to 100% in year 25. Reduced valuation therefore extends through the first 24 years of a full schedule.
The MOU expressly provides no guarantee of a particular amount of property-tax revenue. Appraised values and tax rates still affect the receipts. Agreement, sections 2.4 and 3.1
The performance tables call for cumulative investment of $5.44 billion in year one, $10.88 billion in year two and $17 billion in year three. The corresponding qualifying-jobs goals are 40, 80 and 125. The tables retain the $17 billion cumulative investment and 125-job goals for performance years four through 25. The performance period is tied to the applicable facility tax commencement date, generally January 1 after completion, rather than automatically to the agreement’s effective date. The definitive records will need to explain how those facility-specific dates govern the project-wide goals.
Qualifying jobs generally must involve at least 35 hours a week, pay at least $56,752 annually and include employer-supported health coverage, subject to specified exceptions or authority approvals. Temporary, seasonal and project-based contract workers do not count. Agreement, schedules 2 and 2.2
The recovery provisions contain a threshold worth watching. The operative language calculates jobs and investment shortfalls separately, averages them and requires no Community Recovery Payment when the result is 20% or less. For example, after the full goals apply, 75 qualifying jobs against the 125-job goal would create a 40% jobs shortfall. If investment met its goal, the average would be 20%, at the no-recovery threshold. Other duties and remedies would remain.
There is also an inconsistency to reconcile: section 4.6.5 and one part of the annual-report form use the average shortfall, while another instruction in that form says to use the greater shortfall. The example above follows the operative averaging language. The eventual enforcement documents and reporting instructions should resolve the conflict. Agreement, sections 4.6–4.8 and schedule 2.6A
The broader revenue forecast remains separate. EDACC’s 35-year fiscal analysis projects about $12.1 billion in combined net benefits for the county and school district, but includes future phases the authority describes as proposed and unconfirmed. The consultant says it did not independently verify the project assumptions supplied to it. Signing the MOU does not convert that forecast into guaranteed revenue.
Permits and homeowner relief have their own steps
White Oak’s water-quality review remains open. Georgia EPD’s Section 401 notice sets a November 15 comment deadline for application SAS-2019-00750. The proposed permanent impacts include 24,752 feet of streams and 4.36 acres of wetlands. Those are proposed impacts under review, not a finding of completed damage or final permit approval.
As GCG reported November 4, the separate Corps notice prints conflicting federal comment dates: November 12 on its cover and November 11 in its instructions. Readers should not rely on the later date without confirmation from the Corps.
Meanwhile, Columbia County’s unofficial referendum returns show 87.21% support for the HB 439 homeowner incentive program. GCG’s November 5 follow-up explains why the credit still depends on funding and statutory budget tests, and why the county program does not eliminate school taxes.
The next useful records are concrete: an executed bond lease and closing record, the fee-distribution agreement, actual payment receipts, permit decisions and the county’s homeowner-relief funding plan. Together, they will show how the signed agreement becomes construction, public revenue and a measurable benefit on a tax bill.