> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fredcopapertrail.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Rowan Mailer Audit, Part 10: Who Produced Rowan’s “Independent” Economic Analysis? - URL: https://www.fredcopapertrail.com/who-produced-rowan-economic-analysis/ - Published: 2026-10-22T14:30:13.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-22T14:30:13.000Z - Description: The Maryland Tech Council hired Sage to estimate benefits from Rowan’s projects. Rowan supplied some starting numbers. What did the forecast leave out? - Author: C. L. Horn - Tags: Data Centers, Rowan Digital Infrastructure Rowan’s Frederick County mailer promotes jobs, economic activity and tax revenue using an analysis it calls independent. The Maryland Tech Council commissioned that study from Sage Policy Group. Rowan supplied important assumptions used to calculate the projected benefits. The study estimates what could happen if the projects are built and operate as expected. It does not establish what they have delivered or compare the projected benefits with the full public cost. To judge Rowan’s claims, residents need to know where the starting numbers came from, what the study left out and what happens if the projects fall short. ## Evidence At A Glance - **What Rowan Says:** An independent analysis supports its claims about jobs, business activity and taxes. - **What The Records Show:** The Maryland Tech Council commissioned Sage’s December 2024 study. Rowan supplied some of the starting numbers. The report estimates benefits from construction and operation; it does not calculate what remains after public costs. - **📯 Horn’s Take:** An outside firm did the calculations. That does not mean someone independently checked every number Rowan supplied or tested what happens if its plans do not work out. - **What Is Still Missing:** The full study agreement, who paid for the work, how Rowan’s numbers were checked and the calculations behind its newer, larger claims. ## Who Hired Sage, And What Went Into The Study? The [Maryland Tech Council’s December 2024 announcement](https://mdtechcouncil.com/new-analysis-shows-rowans-data-centers-will-provide-major-boost-to-frederick-county-jobs-and-tax-revenues/?ref=fredcopapertrail.com) says the Council commissioned the study and Sage Policy Group conducted it. The Tech Council is a technology and life-sciences trade association. It works to promote its industries and influence public policy. It did not approach Rowan’s projects as a government auditor. Sage used IMPLAN, software that estimates how project spending could support jobs and business activity, along with its own tax calculations. Its [report](https://mdtechcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Sage%5FMDTC%5FRowan%5F1%5F2%5Fand%5F3-1.pdf?ref=fredcopapertrail.com) identifies Rowan’s expected workforce among the numbers used in the analysis. The Tech Council commissioned the study. Who paid the bill, what instructions Sage received and whether anyone independently checked Rowan’s starting numbers remain unanswered in the public material. Sage estimates the benefits of building the projects and putting them into operation. It does not show what happens to those benefits if construction takes longer, some buildings never open, operators hire fewer people or the property is worth less than expected. It also does not subtract the costs borne by government, residents or the environment. The report estimates economic activity and tax revenue. It does not calculate what Frederick would gain after paying its share of the costs. Sage does explain why some benefits could be larger than its estimates. Its construction estimate leaves out the equipment installed inside the buildings, and its tax totals leave permitting and impact fees unquantified. Those exclusions support its description of parts of the estimate as conservative. They do not show how the forecast holds up when something goes wrong. **In Plain Language:** Residents get a forecast of benefits if the projects proceed as assumed. They do not get a comparison showing what Frederick gains or loses if the work takes longer, fewer jobs remain or public costs rise. **📯 Horn’s Take:** “Independent” does not answer how demanding the test was. Sage calculated benefits from the planned projects without publishing a downside comparison. Rowan gets the favorable numbers. Residents still have to ask what could shrink those benefits and what costs sit outside the calculation. ## Who Was Connected To Whom? Kelly Schulz, whom the [Tech Council named CEO in 2022](https://mdtechcouncil.com/maryland-tech-council-names-former-state-commerce-and-labor-secretary-kelly-schulz-new-ceo/?ref=fredcopapertrail.com), previously represented Frederick County in the Maryland House of Delegates and served as Maryland’s labor and commerce secretary. She also helped Frederick County examine data-center policy. The county’s [March 2024 Data Centers Workgroup report](https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/350277/Data-Center-Workgroup-Final-Report?ref=fredcopapertrail.com) lists Schulz on the workgroup and its Community Benefits subgroup. That subgroup considered taxes, workforce development, economic opportunities and other possible benefits. Schulz advised the county through that workgroup. She did not have authority to approve Rowan’s permits. Sage founder Anirban Basu also has government-advisory experience. His [firm biography](https://sagepolicy.com/who-we-are/?ref=fredcopapertrail.com) records his service as chair of the Maryland Economic Development Commission from 2014 through 2021\. The study does not name the person responsible for each calculation, so Basu’s position at Sage does not establish that he personally produced every number. Rowan appears in the [Tech Council’s member directory](https://members.mdtechcouncil.com/technologydirectory/Details/rowan-digital-infrastructure-3172738?ref=fredcopapertrail.com). The Council’s [2025 Maryland Data Center Summit program](https://mdtechcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Program-Data-Center-Summit.pdf?ref=fredcopapertrail.com) names Rowan as title sponsor. That sponsorship came after the December 2024 study. It shows a later business relationship, not who paid for the earlier report or whether anyone changed its findings. **In Plain Language:** The group that hired Sage promotes the industry and lists Rowan among its members. Its leader also helped Frederick County weigh data-center benefits. Those roles belong beside the study’s findings, where readers can see who helped shape the discussion. **📯 Horn’s Take:** The Tech Council helped bring these numbers into the public debate while advocating for the industry they describe. Calling the study independent should not make the association’s own role disappear. ## What The Numbers Actually Count Sage’s model estimates spending at the projects, purchases from suppliers and spending by workers’ households. Its totals reach beyond the construction sites and beyond Frederick County. The [report](https://mdtechcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Sage%5FMDTC%5FRowan%5F1%5F2%5Fand%5F3-1.pdf?ref=fredcopapertrail.com) gives several different kinds of numbers: - **15,526 statewide construction job-years:** One full- or part-time position lasting a year counts as one job-year. This is work added up over time, not 15,526 different people or permanent jobs. - **About $1.4 billion in construction cost:** This is the expected cost of the powered core and shell, the building before the equipment inside. It is a starting number for the model, not a record of payments to Frederick County small businesses. - **$2.2268 billion in statewide economic activity:** This estimate includes construction and the additional activity it supports. It cannot be added to the construction cost as another separate investment. - **275 direct operating jobs:** This is the original estimate for the workforce once the facilities reach steady operations. - **$19.1 million in annual county taxes:** This is the estimate after full buildout, combining property and income taxes. It is not money the county has already collected. The [benefit-claims guide](https://www.fredcopapertrail.com/data-center-claims-guide/) explains how project spending, forecasts and actual results differ. **In Plain Language:** A job counted during construction is not automatically a job that stays after the building opens. Money spent on a project in Frederick is not automatically money paid to a Frederick-owned business. And a projected tax payment is not yet money available for county services. **📯 Horn’s Take:** Rowan’s headline numbers need their labels attached. Leave out where, when or what was counted, and a reader can mistake temporary work for lasting employment or a forecast for money already received. ## Rowan’s Larger Claims Need New Calculations Rowan’s [September 2026 community-investment article](https://rowan.com/the-future-of-data-center-development-depends-on-community-investment-not-just-infrastructure/?ref=fredcopapertrail.com) cites approximately **$2.5 billion** in construction-related economic activity and more than **330 full-time permanent jobs**, attributing its economic claims to independent analysis. The December 2024 study estimated **$2.2268 billion** in statewide construction activity and **275 direct operating jobs**. The newer figures are larger. Larger projects or changed plans could explain an increase. But no updated study explaining these totals has been located in the public material examined for this article. Without that calculation, readers cannot tell which buildings are included, whether the construction timetable changed or why the expected operating workforce grew. They also cannot tell whether the newer figures were produced by Sage using the same method. An updated report should identify the projects, dates and starting numbers behind each total. It should say how much activity is expected in Frederick County and how much elsewhere. **In Plain Language:** Rowan has raised the promised benefits. The public still needs the work showing how it reached those larger numbers. The old report cannot verify a new claim simply because both describe Rowan’s projects. **📯 Horn’s Take:** A company changing its plans can reasonably change its forecast. It should publish the new calculation with the new number. Readers should not have to guess which parts of an older study still apply. ## What Would Show Whether The Benefits Arrived? An industry group can hire a capable outside firm, and that firm can produce useful estimates. The Tech Council’s role alone does not establish that Sage’s calculations are wrong. But a forecast answers a different question from records of what happened. Employment records would show jobs held. Purchasing records would show which businesses received payments. Tax records would show what government collected. Public-cost records would help show what residents paid to support the development. **In Plain Language:** The study can help Frederick consider what the projects might bring. To judge what they actually bring, residents need results and costs from the projects themselves. **📯 Horn’s Take:** Rowan can point to the forecast as a case for its projects. It cannot use that forecast to settle whether residents received the promised benefit. The unanswered questions are concrete: who paid for the study, how Sage checked Rowan’s starting numbers and where the calculations supporting Rowan’s newer claims can be found. Previous: [Part 9: What Kind Of Jobs Is Rowan Counting?](https://www.fredcopapertrail.com/what-kind-of-jobs-rowan-counting/) Corrections: FredCo Paper Trail welcomes corrections supported by source records. [Read the corrections policy.](https://www.fredcopapertrail.com/corrections/) Material changes will be dated and described on this article.