*LICENSE: CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain Dedication). No attribution is required in any adopted instrument.* --- # CHANGELOG: Release 2026.4 **Model Instruments for Data Center Development in Florida Counties** · In-Kind Standard (published through Release 2026.2 as the Automation Resilience and Community Benefit Framework). Release 2026.3 to Release 2026.4. These release notes state the current version of every instrument. Instruments refer to one another by name and section only. No county has adopted these instruments, no developer has signed them, no licensed attorney has reviewed them, and none of the studies they depend on has been done. ## 1. What changed - **Two copies of each instrument.** Each instrument is published as an annotated copy, which opens with a heading block (what it is, what it does, what it works with, what to settle before use, its known gaps and, for most, its main terms in brief) and keeps its drafting notes, and as a clean copy with both removed. A clean copy keeps the instrument's title where its text has no title of its own, and the clean copy of the Exhibit "B-1" Outline and Methodology keeps its list of abbreviations. - **Standards.** Exhibit A adds Sec. 11A, Burials and Archaeological Resources, with Technical Manual Part B-11A. The adopting ordinance adds Section 4A, the procedure for asking the County to consider a development agreement. In Sec. 7, the potable water rule adds two bracketed options: no potable water for evaporative or adiabatic heat rejection, and connection to the County's reclaimed water lines where its local reuse program so provides. Sec. 7(a)(4), which required the facility to meet the Mechanical Load Component of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.4, is replaced by reporting of that figure, with heat rejection energy data, in the application and each annual compliance report (Sec. 7(d)). - **Impact fee ordinance.** The form follows s. 163.31801, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2026-161, Laws of Florida, from 1 January 2027, and adds a bracketed recital on the limits after hurricanes. - **Development agreement.** Exhibit "P" adds a form of commitment status table and completion statement, filed with each application for a site plan or plat, with each annual compliance report, and for each obligation claimed complete. - **Ground lease.** Section 4.7A sets terms for public facilities given as rent. Base Rent alone meets fair market rental value, in cash: the optional credit of rent in kind against Base Rent is removed (Module M3, Section 2.4). - **Exhibit "S".** Section S-10.6(a), which required each liquid-fueled emergency engine to be approved by its manufacturer for operation on paraffinic renewable diesel, is reserved, so no generator rule requires or prefers any fuel. - **Module M2.** The Developer carries the air permit duties for its equipment. - **Private agreement and Module M3.** No benefit pays for surveillance of the public or serves a law enforcement agency other than for emergency services. The private agreement adds an annual meeting and named contacts (Section 4.5). - **County Procedure and Records Kit.** Part G adds a model plan policy on data center water sources. - **Open Legal Questions.** Each of the 51 questions of Release 2026.3 has been researched in the primary sources. This release states the answer the sources support and how firm it is, the change to an instrument the answer calls for, and the narrower question, if any, left for a lawyer or an agency. Questions 52 to 58 are new. - **In-Kind Test.** A table of statutory bars by home is added (Section 8.9). ## 2. Corrections to Release 2026.3 This section lists, once each, the errors in Release 2026.3 texts that this release corrects: a wrong statement of the law or of a fact a reader could rely on, a term the law likely does not allow, or a conflict between instruments. Where the law is not settled, the wording follows the rating the Open Legal Questions give the point or, where no question rates it, the reading of the Drafter's Notes, and the source is named for checking. **In-Kind Eligibility and Characterization Test (version 1.5), Plain Language Guide and Consideration Adequacy and Fit Test (version 1.2)** - **Airport land (Sections 1.6, 3.1, 6.3, 8.4 and 8.7).** The test said a county may take rent in goods or services on its own land, with no exception for airport property. At an airport that receives federal assistance, airport revenue may be spent only on the airport and related air transportation facilities (49 U.S.C. 47107(b) and 47133, apart from arrangements in place by 1982), so rent in kind for any other use would most likely be an unlawful diversion of airport revenue (Questions 23 and 48). Rent on such land is now cash only, used for the airport. The Ground Lease (Section 4.10), Module M3 (Section 2.1(a)) and the Module M3 Options, which had no airport exception, are corrected the same way, as is the Guide. Section 8.4 also listed, among the rules that take an approval out of a county's hands (Section 7.1), the federal rules on motor and air carrier service and the airport grant obligations, citing for the latter 49 U.S.C. 47107 and 40116, a limit on state and local taxes on air travel. Neither takes an approval out of a county's hands. Section 8.4 now says that the carrier rules limit what may be required of carriers without displacing local approval, and Section 8.7 states the rules on airport revenue. - **Telecommunications in kind (Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.6).** The test listed conduit, dark fiber or strand that the developer dedicates. Florida law limits what a county may require or solicit in kind from providers and dealers of communications services (ss. 337.401(3)(f) and 202.24(2)). The county now buys spare conduit at its incremental cost. Under a lease, Module M3 no longer lets a substitute benefit deliver communications services, fiber or conduit to a public body where the developer or an affiliate is a dealer of communications services (Section 1.17(d)), since such a benefit is likely an "imposition" under s. 202.24(2) (Question 36). - **Limits after hurricanes (Sections 1.6, 5.1, 6.3 and 8.6).** The test did not say that Section 28 of Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, reaches every county, and it left out s. 252.422, Florida Statutes. Sections 1.6, 5.1 and 6.3 pointed to a new or tighter standard or a new impact fee without mentioning either limit. Both limits and their reach are now stated (Sections 5.1, 6.1 and 8.6). - **Remedies under s. 70.45 (Section 8.1).** The test said that since 2021 an owner may sue for a declaration that a prohibited exaction is invalid and for an injunction against it, without first exhausting administrative remedies, and did not mention notice before suit. The right to injunctive relief dates from 2015 (s. 70.45(1)(a)); Chapter 2021-203, Laws of Florida, added the declaration, which the owner may seek at its choice once the exaction is imposed or required in writing as a final condition of approval (s. 70.45(2)). The owner first gives the County written notice at least 90 days before filing suit and no later than 180 days after the exaction is imposed, and the County answers in writing (s. 70.45(3)). The test now says so. - **Credits (Section 5.1).** The test said that, apart from credits against an adopted impact fee, no in-kind item is credited against any tax or fee. Where transportation concurrency applies, the applicant that pays its proportionate share receives "a credit on a dollar-for-dollar basis for impact fees, mobility fees," and other transportation concurrency mitigation for the project (s. 163.3180(5)(h)2.e.), and the test now makes that exception. - **Vehicle charging (Section 3.6).** The test treated charging for a public fleet as a service that needs a utility. Charging provided to the public by a nonutility is not the retail sale of electricity, and the regulation of charging stations is preempted to the state (s. 366.94(1) and (2)), so the test now places chargers in an agreement or lease, never in an ordinance. - **Oversizing and reserved capacity (Sections 3.2 and 3.6).** The test presented an oversized main the developer dedicates, and capacity held for future needs, without the limit that keeps them lawful as mitigation. The test now says that mitigation may not reserve capacity for a future need that is not scheduled unless the County pays for it, citing the Florida decisions in its Section 8.1, and an oversized main goes to the utility that serves the area, which pays for or credits the oversizing. - **Valuation inputs (Sections 1.3 and 3.1).** The test's public record rule reached inputs that may be trade secrets, which s. 119.0715 makes confidential and exempt when an agency holds them. An independent valuer now holds such an input, and the record names each input withheld and the exemption that applies. - **Two examples (Sections 3.1 and 6.3).** The emergency power example said title passes to the County on delivery; under Module M2, title passes only in the third of its three forms. Section 3.1 treated a share of capacity the developer would otherwise sell as a purchase and allowed such a costly item only as rent on County land, so, read literally, it left the committed computing capacity Module M3 delivers out of the private agreement. The allowance, priced at the item's recipient value, now reaches a private agreement as well as rent on County land other than airport property, and the computing example counts the sales the developer gives up in the item's burden value. - **Guide, Section 3.** The Guide said the developer may not use anything it gives to lower a tax, fee or rent. The private agreement leaves the ordinary income tax treatment of what the developer pays alone (its Section 2.5). - **Consideration Adequacy and Fit Test, Sections 3.2 and 3.8.** Said that a county leasing its land has "a duty to the public to get fair value" and that "a below-value lease is a gift." Section 125.35 sets no minimum rent, and Florida law makes leasing or conveying real property for economic development a public purpose and counts a below-market lease among the economic development incentives a county reports (s. 125.045(3) and (5)(a)4.). The test now keeps fair value as its own floor, as a policy choice, and treats a below-value lease as a subsidy to be priced, found and evaluated openly. **Standards Ordinance (version 3.0), Technical Manual (version 1.0), Exhibit "S" (version 1.0) and County Procedure and Records Kit (version 1.0)** - **Recital 7 (limits after hurricanes).** The bracketed recital on Section 28 of Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, and s. 252.422, Florida Statutes, covered adopting only, though both limits also bar proposing. It now covers both and records the County Attorney's written determination made before notice. - **Sec. 5(a).** Set back substations with no rule for one an electric utility owns. Section 163.3208 makes new and existing electric substations a permitted use in every land use category other than preservation, conservation and historic preservation, lets a county adopt only reasonable land development regulations for them addressing setback, landscaping, buffering, screening, lighting and other aesthetic compatibility-based standards, and requires approval of an application that meets those standards. It most likely limits Sec. 5(a) as applied to a substation the utility owns (Question 7). Such a substation now has its own bracketed setback and is decided as s. 163.3208 provides. - **Sec. 7(a)(1) (groundwater for cooling).** Barred any groundwater "withdrawn on or off site" from heat rejection, which reached potable water from a public water system and groundwater a third party withdraws for the facility. Where a district authorizes carrying groundwater beyond the overlying land, no local government may adopt or enforce an ordinance to the contrary (s. 373.223(2)), so the bar as applied to groundwater a third party withdraws for the facility is likely not allowed. At a facility that is not a large-scale data center under s. 373.203(4), and so is outside s. 373.262(2), a 2009 decision of the First District reading s. 373.217 to make district permitting all the approval a consumptive use of water needs (7 So. 3d 1129) makes the bar likely not allowed as well (Question 52). The bar now reaches only groundwater withdrawn by or for the facility and leaves potable water from a public water system to Sec. 7(a)(2), and it stops applying to a facility or withdrawal where a court holds, or the Board determines on the County Attorney's written advice, that chapter 373 prevents it, which is the cure for those two cases. - **Sec. 7(a)(3) (water use).** Required every Covered Facility to keep its annualized Water Usage Effectiveness under a cap. Such a cap is likely not allowed where the facility withdraws its own water, and the point is open where it uses utility water (Question 52). The cap is now optional; where none is adopted, the operator reports the figure each year. - **Sec. 7(e)(2).** Required a capped and valved isolation and connection point on the cooling plant, sized to its design flow. A required valved connection sized to a cooling loop's design flow most likely governs the design and construction of a mechanical system, which the Florida Building Code covers (s. 553.73(1)(a) and (2); Drafter's Notes, Sec. 7(e)), so the rule is removed. - **Sec. 8(e) (well owner claims).** Set a County claims process for wells within the projected cone of depression and put on the applicant the burden of proving that a documented adverse impact there was not caused by the withdrawal. Part II of chapter 373 "preempts the regulation of the consumptive use of water" (s. 373.217(4)), and a district permits a use only if it will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water (s. 373.223(1)(b)); the districts whose rules were read require their permittees to mitigate such interference and set their own test of attribution, so a County process with its own standard for the same impact is likely not allowed, the burden shift most of all (Question 52). The process now credits mitigation a district permit condition or rule provides for the same impact and limits, conditions and authorizes no withdrawal; it presumes attribution only for a well whose baseline testing was accepted in time, and only until another cause is shown; a bracketed alternative leaves attribution to the owner's proof; and it gives way where a court holds, or the Board determines on the County Attorney's written advice, that chapter 373 prevents it. As an ordinance, the revised process is still likely not allowed, though its new terms help, and the fallback is the cure (Question 52). - **Water withdrawals (Secs. 8(f)(3), 8(g), 15(c)(3)(F) and 18(c)).** Set conditions on a withdrawal a consumptive use permit authorizes, such as a reduced rate and a floor on surface water withdrawals, and let the County curtail it. Part II of chapter 373 provides "the exclusive authority for requiring permits for the consumptive use of water" and governs over a conflicting ordinance (s. 373.217(2) and (3)), and these conditions in an ordinance most likely conflict with it (Question 52). Sec. 8 now grants, denies, modifies and conditions no consumptive use permit or permitted withdrawal, and Sec. 18(c) curtails no withdrawal of water. - **Generator testing (Sec. 10(e); Exhibit "S", Sections S-10.1(d), S-10.3(b)(1) and S-10.5).** The Standards' limits on when generators may be tested gave way only once a court held that s. 366.032(2), Florida Statutes, prevents them, and Exhibit "S" set the same limits, and an annual cap on testing hours, with no such rule; its disclaimer reached only a restriction "because of the fuel it uses," which is narrower than the statute. On its text, s. 366.032(2) likely protects the use of a gas- or propane-fired generator from those limits (Question 6). The Standards' limits now also give way where the Board so determines on the County Attorney's written advice, and Exhibit "S" applies its limits and its cap to a unit only as far as the Standards then do, and disclaims any restriction of an appliance's use that s. 366.032(2) is held, or is so determined, to prohibit. - **Sec. 16(b) of the Standards and Section 8.2(b) of the development agreement.** Section 8.2(b) let the County withhold further development permits and approvals for the Project during any uncured default. But Sec. 16(b), which no agreement could waive and which the agreement left to govern the approval decision, barred the County from considering any development agreement in deciding an application or conditioning an approval on one, so the remedy could not reach an approval the Standards govern. Where a county keeps it, Sec. 16(e) now lets a written denial rest on an uncured default in an obligation that mitigates an impact, and Section 8.2(b) applies only to such a default (Question 17). - **Sec. 17(e).** Said an anonymous complaint may support an inspection. Under ss. 125.69(4)(b), 162.06(1)(b) and 162.21(3)(b), Florida Statutes, a code inspector may not initiate enforcement proceedings, and a code enforcement officer or a designated code inspector may not initiate an investigation, by way of an anonymous complaint, unless the inspector or officer has reason to believe that the violation presents an imminent threat to public health, safety or welfare or imminent destruction of habitat or sensitive resources. Sec. 17(e) now states that limit. The development agreement's Section 6.3(c), which cited only s. 162.06(1)(b), now defers to all three sections; whether monitoring that an anonymous report prompts is itself barred is open (Question 54). - **Sec. 18(a).** Made access on a suspected unsafe condition a duty enforceable by penalty. Absent consent, exigent circumstances or the like, the subject of an administrative search must have an opportunity for review before a neutral decision-maker (576 U.S. 409 (2015)), so the duty most likely cannot be enforced by penalty or forced entry against an operator that refuses (Question 8). If access is not given, the County may now apply for an inspection warrant under ss. 933.20 to 933.30, Florida Statutes. - **Sec. 18(d).** Let the County withhold building permits until compliance is restored. A building permit whose plans comply with the codes s. 553.79(2)(a)4. names most likely may not be withheld (Question 17), so such a permit is now excepted. The development agreement's Section 8.2(b) is corrected the same way. - **Battery storage (Exhibit "S", Secs. S-12.1 and S-12.2; Technical Manual, Sec. B-12.1).** Exhibit "S" required battery measures beyond the uniform firesafety standards. The uniform firesafety standards reach energy storage systems, and a local authority may not require more stringent ones (s. 633.206(1)(b) and (2)(b)); that bar likely reaches a covenant in a development agreement (Question 57). Those measures are now limited to what the uniform firesafety standards require, and the gas detection and explosion control of Section S-12.1(b) apply only as an equivalent alternative the Operator seeks. The Manual required compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code and the submission of fire test data; it now cites the uniform firesafety standards under s. 633.206 and asks only for test data that exist. - **Kit, Table E-4 (filing with the Department of Environmental Protection).** Listed only the clerk's filing with the Department of State as the filing after enactment. No local "rule, regulation, or order affecting the waters in the state," other than one on water quality, may be enforced until it "has been filed with the department" (s. 373.023(2)), which most likely reaches Secs. 7 and 8 of the Standards (Question 52). Table E-4 now has a certified copy of the adopting ordinance, and of each later ordinance amending either section, filed with that Department before either section is enforced. **Development agreement (version 2.8), Exhibits and Ground Lease (version 1.9)** - **Section 3.4(c) (tolling).** Its caps on tolling did not yield to s. 252.363, under which the Governor's declaration of a state of emergency for a natural emergency tolls a development agreement for the emergency and extends it 24 months more, up to 48 months in total for several emergencies, on the holder's written notice within 90 days after the declaration ends (s. 252.363(1)(a) and (b)). The caps now leave that tolling alone. - **Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6; Exhibits "K" and "Q"; Module M2, Section M2.1(b)(2) and (6), (c)(3) and (e) (the Qualified Fiscal Agent).** Mitigation payments went to an independent agent under a form agreement (Exhibit "Q"), which held them with no period for applying them. The agent's independence most likely did not keep the payments outside the Impact Fee Act; money held with no spending period most likely weakens the record that supports it; and the agent's fee was most likely a mitigation cost the impact study had to carry (Question 16). Payments, draws on their security and the proceeds of disposals now go into a restricted County Mitigation Account, separate from the general fund, each applied only to the line of Exhibit "B-1" it answers, with a period for applying it, a yearly ledger and an independent audit whose cost the Developer reimburses (Section 4.6). Exhibit "K" now secures payments into that account, and Exhibit "Q" is withdrawn. - **Section 4.7(d).** Kept protective gear under the agreement even where the County's impact fee covers it as vehicle equipment, so the same item could be charged twice. An item an adopted impact fee covers as a capital facility now stays under the fee. - **Section 5.5, and Ground Lease Section 10.4.** The screens of foreign ownership did not cover s. 288.860(2)(a), Florida Statutes, under which a political subdivision may not participate in any agreement with an entity controlled by a foreign country of concern; that bar likely reaches a ground lease and a development agreement (Question 58). The representations now cover it. - **Section 7.3(c).** Said the triggers in that section are not a bankruptcy filing, though Section 7.3(b)(2) counts a receivership. After a filing, such a trigger is most likely an unenforceable clause of the kind 11 U.S.C. 365(e)(1) bars (Question 32), and the section now says so. - **Section 8.2 (liquidated amounts).** With remedies stated as cumulative, the daily liquidated amounts were likely unenforceable as drafted. Those for a late notice, report or certificate under Section 9.5 are removed, since the County can record the notice itself (Sections 8.2(c) and 9.5(c)). Each liquidated amount is now the County's sole monetary recovery for the damages it liquidates, without limiting equitable relief or code enforcement; whether that suffices is open (Question 17). - **Section 9.5 (record title notices).** Notices under the Marketable Record Title Act were due by the 25th anniversary of the Effective Date and once in each later 25-year period. That schedule could leave more than 30 years between notices, and the Effective Date can fall years after recording, while a notice under s. 712.05 must be filed within 30 years after the root of title and preserves the covenants "for not less than 30 years after filing the notice unless the notice is filed again as required in this chapter" (s. 712.05(1) and (3)). Each notice is now due within 25 years of recording and then of the last notice. - **Section 10.4(b) (consideration).** Said that no obligation of the Developer is given in exchange for any "approval, assurance, vesting, phase release, Campus Development Envelope, or Term." Actual consideration is likely needed to enforce the covenants against a successor, and that sentence was a successor's best argument that there was none (Question 12). The section no longer lists an assurance, and it now states that the Parties' mutual promises, including the County's, are consideration for each other. - **Section 10.8(a)(3) (later impact fees).** Counted "each impact fee ordinance adopted after this Agreement is executed" among the later laws the agreement anticipates. A local government may apply a later law to a development under a development agreement on that ground only if it is "specifically anticipated and provided for in the development agreement" (s. 163.3233(2)(c)), and a catch-all reaching every fee is likely not specific enough (Question 14). Item (3) now names, in brackets, each fee category the County charges or expects to adopt. **Impact fee ordinance (version 0.3) and Module M2 (version 1.0)** - **Sec. 4.4.** The County need not accept a contribution, and the credit applied only on acceptance, so the County could require a facility, decline it and withhold the credit s. 163.31801(5)(a) requires. The County now accepts in writing the facilities it requires once they meet the acceptance standards of a credit agreement. - **Sec. 4.2.** Gave no credit for equipment leased to the County or owned by a utility, even where a development agreement required it before the fee took effect. That conflicted with the development agreement's Section 10.8(c), and likely with s. 163.31801(5)(a) (Question 11); such capability is now credited. - **Work at County facilities (Fee Ordinance, Secs. 4.2 and 4.3; Module M2).** Set no award or bond terms for in-kind work on County property. The contractor's payment and performance bond of s. 255.05 most likely applies to that work, and competitive award under s. 255.20 likely applies to work credited against a fee (Question 11); both are now required (Fee Ordinance Sec. 4.8; Module M2, Section M2.1(i)). **Module M3 (version 1.0) and private agreement (version 0.6)** - **Module M3, Schedule 2, paragraph D-3(d).** Let a developer's written instruction shorten how long a Recipient keeps its records of screening users, below any period the law requires of it. Retention is now never shorter than such a period, including a records retention schedule that binds the Recipient. - **Private agreement, Section 9.2(a), and Module M3, Section 1.20(c).** Let a surety on the federal list secure the agreement's money duties. A surety bond that pays when an obligor fails, through financial default or insolvency, to pay a monetary obligation is financial guaranty insurance (s. 627.971(1)(a)), so a surety licensed only for surety business most likely may not write it (Question 31). Such a bond is now issued by an insurer licensed to transact financial guaranty insurance in Florida. - **Module M3, Section 1.8(c) (indemnities).** Had a Recipient that is a public body indemnify the Developer "only to the extent Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, permits." A state agency may agree to indemnify only where a statute authorizes it, so a state university most likely may not indemnify the Developer, and for a college the point is open (Question 29). A public body Recipient now gives no indemnity, and one that is a state agency or subdivision is liable only as s. 768.28 provides. - **Module M3, Schedule 1, paragraphs T-9, T-11(e) and T-21(e), and private agreement, Section 5.16(b) (deliveries "in confidence").** Had a purchaser, Recipient or grantee, a public body included, deliver its comparisons of offers, with their costs, "in confidence." A comparison a public host makes is most likely open to inspection when made, unless it is a sealed bid, proposal or reply still exempt under s. 119.071(1)(b), or a vendor's cost data that is a trade secret under s. 119.0715, and delivery in confidence creates no exemption (Question 30). Each such delivery now yields to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, where the person making it is subject to that chapter. - **Module M3, Section 1.12(a) (the Custodian).** Left in brackets the requirement that the Custodian be authorized to exercise trust powers in Florida, though Section 1.14(a) has it hold the Continuity Escrow in trust. Trust business is the business of acting as a fiduciary, which includes acting as a trustee (s. 658.12(8) and (21)), so that role most likely needs trust powers (Question 31). The requirement is now operative. **Exhibit "B-1" Outline and Methodology (version 1.4) and Open Legal Questions (Release 2026.3)** - **Outline, Part 5.** Called a figure carried from a model form "Fatal under *Sheetz*." *Sheetz v. County of El Dorado*, 601 U.S. 267 (2024), held that conditions a legislature imposes are not exempt from the tests for permit conditions, and left open whether a condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored as one imposed on a single parcel. Part 5 now gives the reason such a figure fails: nothing in the record ties it to the Project's impacts. - **Outline, B-1.3.7.** Tied staffing to the payment for first responders, which the agreement limits to equipment and training. Staffing is now recorded as an operating cost no agreement item answers. - **Open Legal Questions, Question 3.** Asked how s. 252.422 applies to Hurricane Isaias as a storm that was not a hurricane where it made landfall. FEMA's emergency declaration does label it a tropical storm incident, but its major disaster declaration of 27 October 2026 gives the incident type as hurricane, and the National Hurricane Center records a hurricane landfall near Destin, Florida. The statute turns on the National Hurricane Center's classification, so that part of the question does not arise. **Start-here page (Release 2026.3)** - **Licenses.** Said that the CC BY 4.0 license of Record 2 "reaches published derivative works only, never adopted text." The license's attribution terms apply whenever the material is shared with the public, modified or not (CC BY 4.0, Sections 1 and 3(a)(1)). The page now says that a published copy or adaptation of Record 2 credits the author, and that no text a county adopts comes from it. ## 3. Instruments (Record 1) Each instrument below is published in an annotated and a clean copy. | Instrument | Release 2026.3 | Release 2026.4 | |---|---|---| | Model Data Center Standards Ordinance, with Exhibit A, Data Center Standards | v3.0 | v3.14 | | Data Center Technical Manual (Exhibit B to the Standards Ordinance) | v1.0 | v1.11 | | Module M1, Conditional Use Review | v1.0 | v1.2 | | County Procedure and Records Kit | v1.0 | v1.12 | | Model Data Center Public Safety and Emergency Power Impact Fee Ordinance | v0.3 | v0.8 | | Model Host Community Development Agreement | v2.8 | v2.20 | | Model Host Community Development Agreement: Exhibits and Forms | v2.8 | v2.12 | | Schedule of Supplemental Operating Covenants (Exhibit "S") | v1.0 | v1.9 | | Module M2, Emergency Power for County Facilities | v1.0 | v1.5 | | Exhibit "B-1" Outline and Methodology | v1.4 | v1.9 | | Model Ground Lease | v1.9 | v1.17 | | Module M3, Civic Compute Allocation | v1.0 | v1.10 | | Module M3 Options | v1.0 | v1.5 | | Model Community Benefits Agreement | v0.6 | v0.15 | | Community Benefits Agreement Clause Bank | v1.0 | v1.8 | | Commentary | Release 2026.3 | Release 2026.4 | |---|---|---| | Drafter's Notes | v1.0 | v1.20 | ## 4. Guide and methodology (Record 2) | Document | Release 2026.3 | Release 2026.4 | |---|---|---| | Plain Language Guide | Release 2026.3 | Release 2026.4 | | Open Legal Questions | Release 2026.3 | Release 2026.4 | | In-Kind Eligibility and Characterization Test | v1.5 | v1.10 | | Consideration Adequacy and Fit Test | v1.2 | v1.6 | ## 5. Not carried forward, and earlier releases - The Model Articles of Incorporation, the Model Bylaws and the Trust Governance Rules, for a community Trust, are not carried into this release. They remain in Release 2026.3. - The Exhibit "B-1" Outline and Methodology now governs over the Release 2026.2 methodology piece on Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2," which is kept in the methodology record as history. - Releases 2026.1 and 2026.2 are superseded by the current release. Release 2026.3 replaced Article V of their development agreements (on-site combustion and generator fuel) with fuel-neutral limits. ## 6. Changes between releases An error found between releases is listed in a dated correction note on the description of the record it affects, as prominently as the text it corrects. Where a new statute or court decision requires a change, the changed text is published as a new version of the record, with a dated note, after the same checks as a release. Every other change waits for the next release. *Prepared by Timothy Smith · Citizen-prepared working draft · Not legal advice.*