Florida’s inland platform for AI-scale compute infrastructure.
A two-site, 776.54-acre hyperscale data center platform in Frostproof, Polk County, designed for AI, cloud, colocation, high-performance compute, government, and defense demand — with renewable-first power planning, closed-loop cooling, and phase-gated institutional de-risking.
Transaction snapshot and project purpose.
Create a large-format, green, inland Florida hyperscale campus positioned for AI, cloud, colocation, and government-grade demand, with a reconciled base case and clearly labeled upside scenario.
Total acres across two Frostproof sites: 472 acres on Hwy 27 and 304.54 acres on Old Fort Meade Road.
Programmed data hall / campus footprint with phased development, secure circulation, substation zones, and expansion flexibility.
The detailed December 2025 feasibility base case is phased through Month 60. Long-range dual-campus and high-margin assumptions are shown separately as upside.
Primary monetization paths: phased build JV, recapitalization into construction capital, or strategic sale after de-risking.
Investment thesis: scarce powered land with value-creation gates.
The first stage is designed to convert early risk reduction into institutional value before full vertical deployment.
AI & cloud demand
Hyperscale, AI training, inference, and cloud expansion are creating demand for large-load campuses capable of supporting 100MW–250MW+ blocks.
Scarce Florida platform
Florida is a major U.S. data center market, but large contiguous, lower-cost inland sites remain limited compared with coastal alternatives.
Risk-shaped phasing
Pre-construction capital targets land, utility, design, permitting, incentives, and anchor-tenant traction before major vertical capital is deployed.
Multiple exits
The project can be recapitalized, built through a JV, sold strategically, or scaled into long-term operating ownership after de-risking milestones.
First 12-month underwriting focus
- Land control, environmental due diligence, geotech, and survey work.
- Duke interconnection studies, transmission routing, and substation strategy.
- Renewable energy, microgrid, and power-quality planning.
- Architecture / campus basis-of-design package and market-facing concept package.
- Permitting, municipal coordination, incentive applications, and anchor-tenant development.
Value inflection logic
Market and customer strategy.
Positioning is aimed at large-load users that value scale, resiliency, power certainty, and a faster path to expansion.
Demand drivers
- AI / ML training and inference capacity needs.
- Cloud platform expansion by hyperscalers.
- Low-latency edge and content delivery demand.
- Government and defense workloads requiring security and reliability.
- High-performance compute and high-density infrastructure demand.
Competitive positioning
- 60%–70% lower land cost than coastal alternatives, per sponsor materials.
- Lower hurricane-risk profile than Miami / Tampa coastal sites.
- Multiple utility options and fiber access along the US-27 corridor.
- Scalable acreage with room for phased growth.
- Renewable-first power and closed-loop cooling narrative for ESG and community acceptance.
| Customer Segment | Typical Demand | Priority Needs | Target Users |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hyperscale Cloud | 100MW–200MW blocks | Reliability, pricing, long-tenor power certainty | AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud, OpenAI |
| Enterprise Colocation | 10MW–50MW deployments | Premium services, compliance, flexible terms | Financial services, healthcare, enterprise IT |
| Content & Network | Moderate capacity | Low latency, interconnection value | Netflix, Akamai, Cloudflare, Fastly |
| Government & Defense | Secure long-term capacity | FedRAMP / FISMA alignment, reliability, security | Federal agencies, DoD, state governments |
| High-Density Compute | Flexible large-load demand | AI readiness, power density, rapid deployment | AI labs, HPC users, blockchain infrastructure |
Two-site platform with frontage, scale, and phasing flexibility.
Illustrative renderings and tract documents support a two-phase campus concept in Frostproof, Polk County.
Campus 1: Hwy 27
Primary hyperscale development site with planning case capacity up to 1GW. Current PSA cites $16.0M purchase price, 60-day due diligence period, 30-day close, and two 30-day extensions.
Campus 2: Old Fort Meade Road
Expansion campus / secondary phased development with base-case capacity assumptions at 400MW and long-range planning case up to 1GW. Current sponsor call notes cite approximately $10.6M purchase price for the 304.54-acre site; final figure should be confirmed against the latest PSA before investor distribution. 60-day due diligence period, 90-day close, and two 30-day extensions.
Power, water, cooling, and network are the core underwriting variables.
The concept is framed around utility-scale redundancy, renewable energy, closed-loop cooling, and carrier-neutral connectivity.
Power Strategy
- 138kV or 230kV preferred for dual-feed redundancy.
- Base-case initial commissioning phase: 200MW (alternate sponsor planning case: 250MW).
- Ramp toward 1GW on Campus 1 and 400MW on Campus 2 in the base case, with higher long-range capacity planning shown separately.
- Customer-owned substation / microgrid option.
- Duke-owned alternative also contemplated.
- Renewable energy as primary source of power.
Water & Cooling
- Municipal water allocation cited at 2M+ gallons.
- Closed-loop cooling expected to reduce water use by approximately 90% versus traditional designs.
- Projected full-build daily use: 200k–400k gallons versus 2M–4M traditional.
- Reclaimed-water planning potential.
- Water efficiency supports permitting and community-benefit narrative.
Network & Resiliency
- US-27 corridor fiber access with multiple carrier-neutral options.
- Feasibility targets under 5ms to Tampa.
- Feasibility targets under 10ms to Miami / Orlando nodes.
- Flat 24/7 load profile can support utility planning.
- Secure vehicular circulation and campus perimeter strategy.
Technical concept for institutional-grade operations.
Target standards are framed around Tier III / Tier IV reliability, high-density scale, and repeatable campus design.
Tier III / IV target
Uptime target of 99.995%; Uptime Institute certification process contemplated in the feasibility study.
PUE target 1.15–1.25
Targeted performance versus 1.4–1.6 for traditional facilities, driven by optimized systems and cooling approach.
AI-ready cooling
Gensler LOA and client-held engineers support prototypical MEP, structural, acoustic, and utility design.
Repeatable campus logic
Shell and utility design supports phased 200MW–250MW increments, with expansion based on tenant demand, utility readiness, and financing milestones.
Gensler LOA Deliverables
- Pre-design master planning and programming.
- Phased campus plan across two sites.
- Prototypical data center building concepts.
- Conceptual site plans and zoning / capacity projections.
- Basis-of-design narrative, floor plans, elevations, and campus renderings.
- Market-facing conceptual package.
Steady-State Operating Frame
- Uptime: 99.995%
- Mean time to repair: under 2 hours
- Water usage per kW: 90% below benchmark
- Onsite 24/7 NOC and SOC
- Critical spares inventory: $2M–$5M
Phased development roadmap.
A phase-gated development roadmap designed to advance land control, utility certainty, design, permitting, tenant traction, and construction readiness before major vertical capital deployment.
Critical Path Items
- Duke interconnection studies as longest-lead item.
- FDEP air-quality permits for backup generation.
- Long-lead electrical equipment procurement.
- Closed-loop cooling engineering and procurement.
- Municipal, county, and community support.
Proceed-to-Construction Criteria
- Renewable and utility power path confirmed.
- Anchor-tenant LOIs secured.
- Phase 1 financing commitments secured.
- Major permits in hand or final review.
- Community support solidified.
Assumption framework: underwriting base case vs strategic upside.
This matrix separates reconciled underwriting assumptions from strategic upside scenarios so investor discussions remain consistent and scenario-labeled.
| Assumption Area | Base Case (Underwriting) | Upside / Strategic Scenario | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Capacity Block | 200MW initial commissioning block. | 250MW initial block in alternate sponsor planning scenario. | Pending final sponsor sign-off. |
| Campus 2 Capacity | 400MW base-case planning assumption. | Up to 1GW long-range planning case. | Pending confirmation of final planning posture. |
| Year-5 EBITDA Margin | 48% reconciled base-case margin. | Higher-margin scenario (including sponsor-provided illustrative cases). | Base case reconciled; upside support pending validation. |
| 1GW Capacity Ramp | 200 → 400 → 600 → 800 → 1,000MW. | Alternative ramp paths including 250MW-led deployment. | Scenario-dependent; must be clearly labeled. |
| Return Profile | 9–14% unlevered IRR; 15–22% levered IRR; 18–24x exit range. | Higher-return scenarios cited in sponsor materials. | Use base metrics for underwriting; upside for strategic context. |
| Revenue / EBITDA Model Family | Reconciled base-case table (1GW planning case) shown in financial section. | Alternate sponsor model families (including higher run-rate profiles). | Do not blend model families without scenario labels. |
| Campus 2 Purchase Price | Approximately $10.6M per recent sponsor call notes. | Prior references differ in legacy materials. | Final PSA value required before investor reliance. |
Financial profile: base case and upside case.
The base case is reconciled to a Year-5 EBITDA margin target of approximately 48%. Alternate high-margin assumptions are disclosed separately as upside and are not the underwriting base case.
1GW Campus — Reconciled Base-Case Revenue & EBITDA Planning Case
| Year | Capacity Online | Annual Revenue | Reconciled EBITDA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 200MW | $400M | $192M |
| Year 2 | 400MW | $850M | $408M |
| Year 3 | 600MW | $1.4B | $672M |
| Year 4 | 800MW | $2.1B | $1.008B |
| Year 5 | 1,000MW | $3.8B | $1.824B |
1GW Campus — Alternate Upside Scenario (Sponsor-Provided, Pending Validation)
| Year | Capacity Online | Annual Revenue | Illustrative Upside EBITDA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 250MW | $400M | $260M |
| Year 2 | 400MW | $850M | $580M |
| Year 3 | 600MW | $1.4B | $980M |
| Year 4 | 800MW | $2.1B | $1.5B |
| Year 5 | 1,000MW | $3.8B | $2.8B |
400MW Campus Planning Case
| Year | Revenue | Study Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | $24M | Utilization ramp begins |
| Year 2 | $72M | Capacity and lease-up expansion |
| Year 3 | $180M | Blended pricing at $100/kW/month |
| Year 4 | $288M | Utilization continues toward target |
| Year 5 | $408M | 85% utilization assumption |
Phase-gated capital roadmap.
Capital is structured to separate Phase A de-risking from full construction deployment.
Land Acquisition + Pre-Development
Includes land control/acquisition, due diligence, site plan, initial architect fees, geotechnical studies, surveys, environmental studies, permits, PUD / zoning, Duke studies, and anchor-tenant market package.
Return Options
- Payback plus interest.
- Equity participation.
- Preferred equity with conversion rights.
- Priority return at sale, recapitalization, or construction financing.
Power Shell + AI-Ready Infrastructure
Campus 1 buildout target: approximately $5B. Campus 2 buildout target: approximately $1.5B. Broader master-plan framework references up to $9.7B across a dual-campus vision.
Return Options
- Equity ownership.
- Preferred return and repayment at sale.
- Construction JV participation.
- Strategic takeout by end user or infrastructure buyer.
| Capital Stack Component | Illustrative Share | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Equity | 25%–30% | Sponsor, strategic, and institutional capital for development and ownership. |
| Senior Debt | 50%–60% | Construction and project finance debt after de-risking milestones. |
| Mezz / Preferred | 10%–15% | Flexible capital layer for risk-adjusted returns and structured participation. |
| Government Grants | 5%–10% | Non-dilutive support through infrastructure, energy, rural, and economic-development programs. |
Incentives, tax advantages, and policy readiness.
The project is framed to combine Florida data-center tax advantages with broader community and infrastructure incentive pathways.
Florida / Project-Specific
- Sales-tax exemption on electricity for qualifying data centers.
- Sales and use tax exemption on infrastructure and equipment.
- Potential property-tax abatements, phased assessments, or PILOT structures.
- Study estimate for total tax benefits / incentives: $50M–$150M over project life.
Federal / Non-Dilutive
- Opportunity Zone treatment for long-term capital.
- New Markets Tax Credits via CDE structures.
- EDA, DOE / IIJA, USDA Rural Development, and green-bank / infrastructure programs.
- Broader materials cite $25M–$60M+ in grants and tax credits.
Policy / Permitting Posture
- Early agency engagement with Frostproof, Polk County, CFDC, and Select Florida.
- Water-efficient cooling and energy management positioned for disclosure readiness.
- Community impact data prepared for potential future transparency requirements.
Sponsor platform and delivery ecosystem.
Current materials show a sponsor with federal / cybersecurity credentials, supported by design, construction, utility, and renewable energy relationships.
JustOne Frostproof
Sponsor / developer with federal contracting, Small Disadvantaged Business status, security / compliance positioning, government relations, incentives, and real-estate development experience.
Gensler
Architecture / campus planning LOA for pre-design master planning, phased campus study, prototypical buildings, renderings, and market-facing concept package.
Robins & Morton
Mission-critical construction LOA. References include 1,500+ employees, HostDime experience, SmartFab prefabrication, and Zurich / F&D surety support.
Duke / Energy Partners
Duke engineering analysis request filed. Sponsor energy-partner list includes renewable power and potential fuel-cell, battery, and microgrid solutions.
Risks and mitigation.
The feasibility study classifies overall risk as moderate, with key mitigation around phasing, water efficiency, and utility planning.
| Risk Category | Why It Matters | Mitigation Posture |
|---|---|---|
| Power Infrastructure | Duke capacity and timing can delay the project. | Renewable-first strategy, early interconnection studies, multi-utility redundancy, substation / microgrid options, interruptible non-critical loads, and phased scaling. |
| Permitting & Environmental | Air permits, wetlands, wildlife, and zoning can stretch timelines. | Pre-application strategy, phased permits, Phase I/II ESA, wetlands delineation, wildlife surveys, and municipal coordination. |
| Tenant Acquisition | Slow lease-up can impair financing and returns. | Target 200MW hyperscale users first, widen to enterprise / government, and phase delivery to demand. |
| Construction Cost / Procurement | Long-lead equipment and market volatility can erode returns. | 10%–15% contingency, early-release procurement, mission-critical GC capabilities, and prefabrication strategies. |
| Water / Policy Scrutiny | Florida water use and disclosure rules can drive local resistance. | Closed-loop cooling, 90% water-reduction target, municipal allocation, reclaimed-water planning, and proactive disclosure readiness. |
| Capital Markets | Financing costs and investor appetite may change before construction. | Phase-gated capital deployment, strategic sale optionality, recapitalization flexibility, and structured JV pathway. |
| Financial Model Reconciliation | Inconsistent EBITDA, capacity, or timeline assumptions can weaken investor confidence. | Maintain a clearly labeled two-track presentation: reconciled 48% EBITDA base case plus separately labeled upside scenario. Confirm all capacity, land-cost, and schedule assumptions against final sponsor materials before investor distribution. |
Data room support.
Diligence materials are available to qualified investors upon request and subject to NDA.
Investor diligence materials may include PSAs, city support documentation, water-capacity support, renewable-energy partner materials, Duke/utility correspondence, Gensler LOA, engineering/construction partner documentation, site studies, tract materials, and sponsor feasibility assumptions.
Multiple entry points. One platform-scale infrastructure thesis.
Best-fit investors include infrastructure funds, digital infrastructure investors, hyperscale strategic partners, mission-critical real-asset investors, utility / energy infrastructure partners, and capital partners comfortable with staged governance.