*LICENSE: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Attribute to Timothy Smith. The model instruments are dedicated under CC0 1.0 and require no attribution in adopted text.* --- **FLORIDA MODEL INSTRUMENTS FOR DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT** # Florida Data Center Model Instruments in Plain English ## A guide for residents, commissioners and county staff *Release 2026.4. Citizen-prepared. Not legal advice. No licensed attorney has reviewed these instruments, and no county has adopted them. This guide states the main rules in plain words and cites instruments by name and section so that a reader can check them. Where the guide and an instrument differ, the instrument governs. Earlier releases remain available on Zenodo.* --- ## 1. What these instruments are **In one sentence.** They are model ordinances, agreements and forms that a Florida county, and the people who live there, can use when a large data center wants to locate in the county, so that the process starts from documents the county wrote instead of terms an applicant drafted. **Why they exist.** A large data center draws on the power grid, water, roads and emergency services. Where a county has no rules written for the use, it reviews an application under its general code. These instruments give a county documents of its own to start from, which it may adopt, change or reject. Adopting them takes studies, staff time and hearings, and any rule a county adopts can be challenged. **No figure is a recommendation.** Every mitigation amount and fee in a county instrument stays blank until a study supplies it, and the Board chooses each figure within the range the study supports. The low end is the hardest to challenge, because Florida law puts the burden on the county to show that a condition is in proportion to the impact (s. 70.45, Florida Statutes; for an impact fee, s. 163.31801). Bracketed standards, such as setbacks and sound limits, are values each county sets for itself. Bracketed figures in the private agreement are reference points for negotiation. **Four places, four tests.** | Place | What goes there | Who signs | The county's role | |---|---|---|---| | Data Center Standards | Rules every large data center must meet (Tier 3, and Tier 2 where the county adopts the optional conditional use review) | No one; it is a county ordinance | Regulator. A standard is never traded for anything | | Impact fee ordinance, or a development agreement | Mitigation of an impact the county's own study measures | No one for the fee; the county and the developer for the agreement | Regulator or party. Only what a study supports | | Ground lease of county land | Rent, partly in kind if the Board chooses, except on airport land subject to federal airport grant terms | The county as landowner, and the tenant | Landowner | | Private community benefits agreement | Benefits that are not mitigation | The developer and an existing community organization | None. The county is not a party | **Two rules hold it together.** 1. **Every county obligation stands on its own record.** Under s. 70.45 the county bears the burden of proving that a condition is tied and roughly proportionate to the project's impacts, and the owner's right to sue "may not be waived." Since *Sheetz v. County of El Dorado* (2024), a condition is not exempt because a legislature imposed it. A signature does not protect an obligation; the study does. 2. **The county stays out of private agreements.** A private agreement escapes the limits on permit conditions only while government stays out of it. County staff and commissioners do not refer groups to developers, attend or facilitate negotiations, comment on drafts, or describe an agreement in a staff report. The county may not consider any agreement in a decision, and a decision that does is set aside and reheard on a timely request that points to evidence of the consideration (Data Center Standards, Sec. 16). The one exception is a written denial, after notice and a chance to cure, while the developer is in default on mitigation it owes under the county's own development agreement (Step 6). ## 2. The instruments, in the order a county would use them ### Step 1. Whether the county may adopt new rules yet Section 28 of Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, bars counties named in the federal disaster declarations for Hurricanes Debby, Helene or Milton, and their municipalities, from proposing or adopting more restrictive or burdensome comprehensive plan amendments, land development regulations or review procedures before 1 October 2027. Section 252.422, Florida Statutes, sets a similar limit for one year after a later hurricane. Together the three declarations list all 67 counties, so every county is covered (each county should confirm its listing in FEMA's data). Before notice of the ordinance adopting the Data Center Standards or of the impact fee ordinance, the hearing calendar in the County Procedure and Records Kit (Part E) has the County Attorney determine in writing whether the ordinance is more restrictive or burdensome; if it is, these limits most likely bar proposing or adopting it while they last. ### Step 2. The Data Center Standards The **Model Data Center Standards Ordinance** adds the Data Center Standards (Exhibit A) to the land development code, adopts the Data Center Technical Manual (Exhibit B) by reference for methods and report formats, and adds a data center entry to the use table. - **Three tiers.** Tier 3, a "Covered Facility," has [50] megawatts or more of electrical demand, [40] megawatts or more of computing equipment, [50] megawatts or more of site electrical capacity where a data center is the principal use, or is a large-scale data center under s. 373.203(4). Tier 2 has [5] megawatts or more of computing equipment. Tier 1 is any other. Size is measured across all land under common control nearby, so a project cannot be split to fall below a tier (Secs. 2, 3). - **What the standards cover:** setbacks, screening and lighting; water and cooling, with no groundwater pumped by or for the facility used for cooling, no drinking water used for cooling where reclaimed water is available (and, where a county chooses, no drinking water for evaporative cooling even where reclaimed water is not available), a connection to the county's reclaimed water lines where its reuse program requires one, and curtailment in a drought no later than homes and farms; protection of nearby wells; sound limits measured at homes, with permanent public monitoring; generator testing hours; stormwater, karst and flood; battery and fuel safety; recycling and data destruction for retired equipment; and decommissioning and well owner claims backed by financial assurance (Secs. 5 to 14). State water law may not let a county apply the groundwater rule where a supplier pumps the water or the data center's peak load at one site is under 50 megawatts; the rule no longer applies to a facility or a withdrawal once a court, or the Board on the County Attorney's written advice, decides that state law prevents it (Sec. 7(a)(1)). - **Why there is no closed-loop cooling rule.** "Closed-loop" means different things in different ordinances, and Florida leaves the design of a building's cooling equipment to the state building code, so a county rule that picks one type of equipment is open to challenge (s. 553.73, Florida Statutes). The standards control the water instead (Sec. 7), and a county that wants to keep drinking water out of evaporative cooling can adopt the optional limit in Sec. 7(a)(2), which names no equipment; whether state water law allows it is not settled. Cooling without water usually uses more electricity, most on hot days, and needs more fans, which the sound limits cover. A county can still require cooling that uses water only as an emergency backup in extreme heat on county land it leases, and a development agreement can include the same covenant where the county's study shows a water impact the standards leave unanswered (the stricter operating covenants of Exhibit "S," Section S-7.3). - **Water rules in the county's plan, and where data centers may go.** Since 1 July 2026 a water management district may not permit a large-scale data center's own use of water that the county's zoning rules and comprehensive plan prohibit (s. 373.262(2), Florida Statutes). The law names both. Whether a prohibition in the zoning rules alone is enough is not settled; the Open Legal Questions published with these instruments lean toward yes (Question 52). The model plan policy in Part G of the procedure kit puts the water rules in the plan too. A county that adopts it, by plan amendment alongside the water rules and once Step 1 allows, removes the question. When it chooses the zoning districts where a Covered Facility may go (Sec. 3(b)(1)), it can also weigh where reclaimed water lines reach and how much water the local utility's permit lets it supply. - **Before approval:** letters from the electric, water and wastewater providers stating whether service needs new capacity and whether other ratepayers would bear its cost; a sworn disclosure of who controls the land; independent technical review paid from the applicant's escrow; and a cumulative impact assessment where other facilities are nearby (Secs. 4, 15). - **After approval:** an annual compliance report, a public project page, a complaint line with a published log, and enforcement (Secs. 17, 18). Existing facilities may continue, and a replaced system must meet the current standards (Sec. 19). - **A conditional use review**, an option, makes Tier 2 and Tier 3 data centers conditional uses and lists the findings the Board makes (Sec. 15A). The standards carry no fee or dedication other than cost-based review fees, and a cost-based study deposit where a developer asks for a development agreement (Secs. 1(f), 15(f)). **A county whose only goal is to control a data center's physical impacts needs nothing else here.** ### Step 3. The procedure kit The **County Procedure and Records Kit** holds the forms staff use: a staff report for each application (Part A), with an insert where the county adopts the conditional use review (Part B); a resolution adopting the findings (Part C); the business impact estimate (Part D) for each ordinance; the hearing calendar (Part E) for each ordinance and each development agreement; a gap check for a county that already has data center rules or a moratorium study (Part F); and a model plan policy on data center water sources (Part G). ### Step 4. The studies Every mitigation amount and every fee depends on a study the county commissions. The impact fee rests on a **Technical Study** of data centers as a class, meeting the Impact Fee Act. A development agreement rests on the project's own impact findings, **Exhibit "B-1,"** which state each impact, how it is measured and the range the study supports. The county chooses and directs whoever prepares Exhibit "B-1," and the developer has no part in choosing or directing that work. Where the county has adopted the study deposit, the developer pays for the study through a deposit made before the county considers the agreement; otherwise the developer repays the cost under the agreement, if one takes effect, and the county bears it if none does (Standards Sec. 15(f) and Section 4A of its adopting ordinance; Development Agreement Section 4.1(d)). Those findings serve the agreement and the county's own later studies, such as an impact fee update; they are not used in deciding the data center application. No county has commissioned either one yet. ### Step 5. The impact fee ordinance, for each category the study supports The **Model Data Center Public Safety and Emergency Power Impact Fee Ordinance** charges Covered Facilities, by legislation, for up to three categories of capital facilities, each adopted only where the Technical Study finds both need and benefit: fire rescue and hazardous materials response; emergency medical services; and emergency power at County emergency facilities, which may include public shelters the County operates or designates (Secs. 1.2, 2.4, 3.1). Fees go into a separate fund for each category and pay only for capital facilities (Article V). An applicant may install emergency power equipment at a County facility and convey it in place of the fee, for credit at fair market value (Sec. 4.2); work on public land for credit is competitively awarded and bonded, as for public construction (Sec. 4.8). ### Step 6. A development agreement, if the county uses one: mitigation only The **Model Host Community Development Agreement** is a contract between the county and the developer under Florida's development agreement statute (ss. 163.3220 to 163.3243). It is optional, and no approval may be denied, delayed or conditioned on it (Sections 10.2, 10.3). Once it is signed, the county may deny a further approval in writing while the developer is in default on mitigation it owes under the agreement, after notice and a chance to cure (Section 8.2(b); Standards Sec. 16(e)). It carries: - **mitigation the study measures:** a scheduled Physical Infrastructure Mitigation Payment and a Payment for First Responders for specialized fire rescue equipment and training, each paid into the Mitigation Account, a restricted County account kept out of the general fund. Each payment is spent only on the impact it answers, and the account is reported publicly and audited every year, at the developer's cost (Sections 4.2, 4.3(a), 4.6). No payment from the account pays for any means of surveillance of the public, or for a law enforcement agency except for emergency services, meaning response to a fire, medical emergency, hazardous materials release, disaster or other emergency that threatens life or property, and not surveillance or the investigation of crime (Section 4.6(b)). Where an impact fee covers a category, the fee governs it (Section 4.7); - **the county's standards as recorded covenants** (Exhibit "O") and a schedule of stricter operating covenants (Exhibit "S"), the stricter rule governing on each point. Part S-1, the schedule's general terms, is always attached; each other covenant is kept only where the impact study shows the standards leave part of an impact unanswered at that site and the covenant is sized to that part (Sections 3.6, 3.7, 10.5, 10.9); - **ratepayer protection:** the developer bears the cost of connecting to the grid, and one of its officers swears to the signed utility terms that put that cost on it (Article 5); - **security, decommissioning and restoration**, with, where the study supports it, a County option to buy the site at appraised value if the use is abandoned (Article 7); - **spare conduit** placed in the developer's trenches at the County's request and cost (Section 4.5); and - **a public record of each commitment:** with every site plan and every annual report, the developer files a table showing where each commitment stands. Nothing it builds or conveys counts as done, and no security is released for it, until an officer swears that the work is complete and the county confirms it (Section 6.4; Exhibit "P"). Vesting means that the county rules in force when the agreement is signed govern the project for its term, except as the statute and the agreement allow. Vesting is what the statute provides, and the term, up to the 30 years the statute allows, is the Board's choice. Neither is a price for anything (Sections 2.2, 10.4(b), 10.7). The agreement covers Phase 1 unless the Board elects a campus envelope, which brings the later phases of a full build-out under the agreement, where a study of that build-out supports it (Section 3.2). Later data center standards apply, after a hearing, to phases not yet begun (Section 10.8). ### Step 7. Optional: emergency power at County facilities **Emergency power terms** may be added to a development agreement or a ground lease where the study supports emergency power at County emergency facilities, such as shelters, water and wastewater plants, an emergency operations facility, fire and emergency medical stations, 911 centers and, for emergency services only, law enforcement facilities. The power is provided at the County facility in a fixed order, each step taking over if the one before it is unavailable, ends or fails: backup owned by the serving utility, the developer paying every charge; then equipment the developer owns, installs behind the facility's meter and leases to the County at a nominal rent; then, if that second form would be treated as utility service or its lease ends, equipment conveyed to the County, the developer paying for its upkeep into the Mitigation Account. The developer's work at the County facility is competitively awarded and bonded, as for public construction, and its generators run only in emergencies and for maintenance and testing. Nothing is delivered from the project site, and the County bears no cost (Emergency Power for County Facilities, Sections M2.1 and M2.2). ### Step 8. If the county leases its own land On its own land the county acts as a landowner, and a landowner may bargain. The **Model Ground Lease** is awarded under s. 125.35, Florida Statutes, after a competitive solicitation, and the county first asks likely bidders and lenders about the term, rent resets and any rent in kind. Base rent starts at not less than the appraised fair market rental value and the winning bid, rises each year with inflation, and is reset every five years and on a sale, a change of control, a capacity increase or an extension (Sections 4.1 to 4.4). Because Florida taxes a lease of county land only lightly, a payment in lieu of taxes carries the land's share of property taxes (Section 5.3). The county's standards bind the tenant and every successor for the life of the use (Sections 6.2, 6.3). The lease's water terms (no wells, no groundwater for cooling, and cooling that does not use up water except in extreme heat, and then only with reclaimed water) stay in unless the Board finds on the record that one should come out (Exhibit "S," Parts S-7 and S-8). The Board may also take rent in kind on top of full cash rent, as a computing allocation to a host institution, and may add a computing share for the County's own use, which no one may use for surveillance of the public and a law enforcement agency may use only for emergency services (Section 4.7; the computing terms published as the Civic Compute Allocation, Part 2; Optional Provisions of the Civic Compute Allocation, Section 2.5). On airport land subject to federal airport grant terms, the lease takes no rent in kind, neither of these nor any other, and rent is paid only in cash, at not less than fair market rental value, and used for the airport (Section 4.10; Civic Compute Allocation, Section 2.1(a); Optional Provisions of the Civic Compute Allocation, Section 2.5). ### Outside the county's process: the community track The rest is for residents' own organizations. It is not a county step, and county staff do not hand it to community groups. - The **Model Community Benefits Agreement** (the CBA) is a private contract between the developer and an existing Florida nonprofit community organization, the "Community Party." The County is not a party and receives nothing (Article II). The developer commits a share of the facility's computing capacity that the parties set ([one-half of one percent] in the model, as an illustration only), counting any nearby data center that it or an affiliate builds or runs, paid as money unless the organization chooses the capacity itself (Section 5.1; section 3 below), and commits to first-source hiring, a published staffing plan, registered apprenticeship, and training equipment for the state college, delivered by a fixed date and secured (Article VII). The organization gives support letters that state its own reasons and disclose its interest (Article III). The agreement is published before the first hearing, secured, independently audited and recorded (Articles IV, IX, X, XII). The developer's yearly report on the agreement opens with a table showing where each commitment stands. Each year after approval, the developer presents the report at a public meeting, answers written questions and posts a summary. The meeting is not a County proceeding, and neither side asks the County or any of its officials or staff to take part in it. Each side names a contact who answers questions about the agreement, and the developer keeps a published contact for reports that a commitment is not being met: it collects no name or device data from anyone who makes a report, answers each in a public log, and counts the reports in its yearly report (Sections 4.3 and 4.5). Ground lessees and operators must assume its obligations for their own premises before they occupy the site, and its obligations tied to the capacity installed on the site, with the developer's duties that support them, are declared to run with the land (Article XII). A clause bank holds optional terms, including notice, a first right to new roles and paid retraining for the developer's own employees, and its operating contractors' employees, whose jobs are automated; a child care term is still to be drafted. - A **water term** in the clause bank lets the organization ask the developer to promise that cooling at the site uses no groundwater pumped by or for the project and, if the parties choose, that evaporative cooling uses only reclaimed water or none, with the water metered and reported each year (CBA Clause Bank, form for Section 8.7). Because it is a private agreement, the state's limits on county water rules most likely do not apply to it. - **One set of computing terms**, published as the Civic Compute Allocation, serves both the private agreement and the ground lease. - The computing goes only to an institution that already runs computing: a state college or university, or another public or nonprofit institution, named in the agreement or the lease, or added later under their terms. A community organization can still help residents reach it through that institution. Under the private agreement only, an established nonprofit that is already a public charity and runs computing may serve instead: from the start if the community organization designates it, later if the host and the community organization agree, or when no host serves (computing terms, Sections 1.10 and 3.5). ### The two methodology tests The **In-Kind Eligibility and Characterization Test** decides whether a proposed in-kind item belongs in any instrument and, if so, which one. The **Consideration Adequacy and Fit Test** applies only where a two-sided bargain is lawful: a ground lease of county land and, for the community organization's own use, a private agreement. A separate memorandum answers the legal questions the instruments raise, from the statutes and cases, and lists those still open for a lawyer or an agency. ## 3. Money or computing: the community organization's choice **The choice.** In the private agreement, the community organization decides how the developer's computing commitment is delivered (CBA Section 5.2): - **Money, the default.** An annual Community Payment, set by a negotiated amount per megawatt, by the market value of that share of capacity, or by the greater of the two (CBA Exhibit B). - **Computing.** The capacity itself, delivered without charge to an institution that already runs computing, for residents, schools, libraries, researchers, nonprofits and small businesses. - **Both.** Part as capacity and part as money. **Why money is the default.** Money can buy computing time whenever the community needs it, while capacity no one uses has little value and cannot easily become money again. And many developers lease space and power to tenants who bring their own servers, so they have no computers of their own to give. **When computing can serve better than money.** Only when all four hold: the developer runs the computers or will buy reserved cloud capacity; giving the capacity costs it well below what it would sell for; a host institution has said in writing whom it expects to serve; and those users will actually use it. The agreement makes the first and third into conditions (Section 5.2(b)). The second and fourth are the organization's own judgment. **Where the money goes.** Never to the County and never to the organization's general operations (Sections 2.4, 3.2). It is held as a fund of a community foundation whose own committee of residents recommends the grants, or in an account an independent custodian holds, from which the organization directs grants under a published policy (Sections 5.8 to 5.12). It may be spent only on computing access (computing time, connectivity, devices, software and the staff who give residents access to them) and on purposes the agreement adds, such as licensed child care, and never on training programs, tuition, stipends or transition support (Section 5.10). No purpose the money serves, and no grant, purchase or added commitment under the agreement, includes or pays for any means of surveillance of the public, such as cameras that watch people or license plate readers, or anything for a law enforcement agency except for emergency services (Section 5.10(c)). Every grant is published, the developer has no say in who receives one, the developer pays the cost of administering the grants on top, and part of each payment is saved for after the facility closes (Sections 5.11, 5.13, 5.15). **What computing means here.** A fixed slice of the facility's working capacity is reserved for public use. A host institution, ordinarily a state college or university, gives out accounts, screens users and protects their data, and the developer pays the documented cost of that work on top of the capacity, under a lease or an agreement, in advance on the host's published budget (computing terms, Section 1.5(f); CBA Section 5.17). A share is reserved each quarter for users outside the host, unused capacity goes to the next eligible user, and residents, school boards and public libraries pay nothing (computing terms, Section 1.5). No user may use the capacity for surveillance of the public or to identify, track or profile anyone without consent, and a law enforcement agency may use it only for emergency services (Section 1.5(a)). Where the host is a school district or, most likely, a state college, residents, small businesses and nonprofits get their accounts, and have their requests decided, through an independent partner, such as a nonprofit or a state university, that the developer pays, because Florida limits the communications services that local public bodies provide (Section 1.5(g); s. 350.81, Florida Statutes). A developer without computers of its own can deliver reserved cloud capacity, stated in fixed amounts of computing and never in dollars or credits (paragraph T-13). Capacity not delivered is paid for at replacement cost into a restricted account for public computing (Sections 1.16 to 1.19). Hardware the host gets under the agreement, such as servers the facility retires, belongs to the host but stays dedicated to public use until it is retired, and normally passes to the next recipient when the recipient changes (Section 1.6(d)). **Side by side.** | | Money (the default) | Computing | |---|---|---| | What the community gets | An annual payment for fixed purposes | Reserved capacity on current equipment | | Who runs it | A community foundation, or the organization with an independent custodian holding the money | An institution that already runs computing | | If no one uses it | It goes to the other fixed purposes, or is saved | It can become other digital infrastructure, such as fiber or devices, but not flexible money | | Risk of being redirected | Higher, so it is held outside the County and the organization, with every grant published | Low; capacity cannot be moved into anyone's budget | **Either way.** The organization may change its choice later, within limits, at the start of a year (Section 5.3), and the developer may not use anything it gives to get a credit, exemption or other reduction of a tax, fee, rent or other charge owed to a county, another local government or the state that it would not get without the agreement, take a payment measured by tax increment from the site, or claim a charitable deduction for it; the ordinary income tax treatment of what it pays, such as deducting it as a business cost, is left alone (Section 2.5). ## 4. Glossary | Term | Plain meaning | Where | |---|---|---| | Administration Payment | Money the developer pays the host, on top of the capacity, for the staff and systems that give users access; the developer also pays any such cost above the payment's cap (computing terms, Section 1.5(f)). It never pays for teaching | CBA Section 5.17 | | Allocation | The share of the facility's computing capacity committed under the private agreement or taken as rent in kind | Computing terms, Section 1.4 | | Community Payment | The annual payment the developer makes in place of the capacity. It is the default | CBA Sections 5.6, 5.7 | | Custodian | An independent bank or trust company that holds the private agreement's accounts and security. Never the County | CBA Section 10.2 | | Exhibit "B-1" | The impact findings for one project, on which every mitigation amount, and every Exhibit "S" covenant other than Part S-1, in a development agreement depends | Development Agreement Section 4.1 | | Host Institution | The college, university or other institution that already runs computing and receives the capacity first | Computing terms, Section 1.11 | | Mitigation | Something that answers a harm the project causes, measured by a study and sized to the harm | In-Kind Eligibility and Characterization Test, Part 5 | | Mitigation Account | A restricted County account, kept out of the general fund, that receives the mitigation payments under a development agreement. Each is spent only on the impact it answers, and the account is reported publicly and audited every year | Development Agreement Section 4.6 | | Payment in lieu of taxes | On county land, a yearly payment equal to the property taxes the land would carry in private hands, less the taxes actually paid | Ground Lease Section 5.3 | | Qualified Operator | Under the private agreement only, an established nonprofit, already recognized as a public charity, that runs computing and may receive the computing in place of a host institution | Computing terms, Section 1.10 | | Rent in kind | On county land other than airport land subject to federal airport grant terms, and only if the Board chooses, rent delivered as a computing allocation to a host institution, on top of full cash rent | Ground Lease Sections 4.7 and 4.10; computing terms, Part 2 | | Replacement Cost | What the same reserved computing would cost from an unaffiliated provider at market prices | Computing terms, Schedule 3 | ## 5. What these instruments cannot do - **They are not legal advice.** No licensed attorney has reviewed them, and a county should have its own counsel review any instrument it uses. - **They are untried.** No county has adopted any instrument, no developer has signed these terms, and no county has commissioned the studies every mitigation payment and fee depends on. The author's comparison with adopted ordinances and executed agreements, as of October 2026, found no Florida county that has adopted data center performance standards, no executed ground lease of public land for a data center, no data center community benefits agreement of 2025 or 2026 without a government party, and no executed United States data center agreement that dedicates computing capacity to a community. - **They cannot make a payment lawful without a study**, and they cannot trade a standard for anything. - **They cannot require a private agreement**, steer a project onto county land, or give the County a role in a private agreement or in any recipient. - **They do not deliver power from the site to anyone**, regulate what the facility computes, or set utility rates. - **They do not change the tax picture.** The data center sales tax exemption requires at least 100 megawatts of critical IT load (s. 212.08(5)(r)), and no instrument here grants, withholds or conditions it. - **They have no institution behind them.** One person prepared them, with no organization, funded compliance monitor or named successor. --- *Prepared by Timothy Smith · Citizen-prepared working draft · Not legal advice.* *The author is not licensed to practice law and is not affiliated with, and does not write on behalf of, any university, law school, clinic, law firm, or governmental body. No attorney-client relationship is created by this document or by any use of it. Any jurisdiction considering adoption should obtain review by licensed counsel admitted in that jurisdiction.*