1565The 1565 CoalitionSt. Augustine, 1565
Agenda Brief · Board of County Commissioners · Regular meeting

Everything the Board hears on October 6, 2026, read from the packets.

Tuesday, October 6, 2026, 9:00 AM, County Auditorium, 500 San Sebastian View, St. Augustine. 9 regular items, 1 CRA item and 24 consent items, about $22.2 million in contract awards, amendments, change orders and accepted utility systems, plus a $16.65 million cash-requirement report. Every item below has the five W's, the money, its history, the documents behind it, what we could and could not verify in the packet, what to ask, and the dates that govern it. Read first: 6 items in five minutes. The cards: about 36 minutes. The histories and documents: there when you want them.

Live version, with links
34 of 34packets read, 3,007 pages, scanned pages included
142linked source documents, each labeled primary, official web or press
27 · 5 · 1 · 0Verifiable · Mostly · Gaps · Not verifiable; 1 presentation not scored
21corrections to the first edition, each written on its card
63dated events tracked, counted live

Revision 1.1 · Oct. 3, 2026 · Packets retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET · What changed · Print handout (PDF) · Data (CSV) · Data (JSON)

Disclosure: the 1565 Coalition was founded by Justin Tahilramani, who owns commercial property in St. Johns County; The Outpost @ Old Moultrie Rd sponsors the site. Every applicant, agent, vendor and presenter on this agenda is checked in the conflict register; two items are related and disclosed on their cards (3 and C24). The Coalition takes no position on how the Board should vote. A packet-confidence score grades the packet, not the proposal. Agenda PDF · GovTV · Research current through October 3, 2026.

Read firstThe moneyRegular agendaCommunity Redevelopment AgencyConsent agendaCalendarConflictsWho's whoHow we scoreWhat changed
Read these first

The score answers one question: could a resident check what the Board is being asked to approve, using only what the County posted? Higher means more checkable.

Verifiable90–100

You can check what the Board is approving using only what the County posted.

27 items on this agenda
Mostly verifiable75–89

You can check most of it; one or two pieces are missing, unclear or don't match.

5 items on this agenda
Gaps55–74

Important pieces are missing or don't match; you would have to ask the County to fill them in.

1 item on this agenda
Not verifiable0–54

From the posted packet alone, you would have to take the item on faith.

0 items on this agenda

It is not a grade of the project. A bad deal with every document posted scores near 100. A good deal with the contract left out scores low. A high score means "you can see what you are getting"; it does not mean "approve it." A low score means "ask for the missing pieces before voting"; it does not mean "deny it."

Every item starts at 100: 25 each for complete (the documents being approved are attached), consistent (the numbers match), transparent (bids, estimates and calculations are shown) and clear (what, where and when are stated). Points come off only for specific problems, each tied to a page. The list is under every card; the rules are in How we score.

Six things worth your attention.

Every sentence is labeled: The packet says what a County document states, with its page; The packet does not show what we looked for and did not find; Our reading is our arithmetic or interpretation; Press report is not a County record.

  1. Grand Oaks: a $20 million road payment, with $19.4 to $19.5 million in impact-fee credits against it

    The packet says Pulte would pay $20,000,000 for the last 512 homes ($13.8M within 90 days, $6.2M within a year) and receive road impact-fee credits of $19,505,738.80, or $19,396,839 by staff's count. [REG04 pp. 4, 7, 15]

    The packet says Staff calculates the proportionate share at $12,850,449; the agreement states $2,471,306. Staff attributes the gap to the applicant's interpretation of the statute. [pp. 4, 13]

    Our reading The two tables show why: the applicant counts only the two SR 16 segments that fail concurrency (p. 41); staff spreads cost across the affected segments (p. 45).

    Our reading Credits equal about 97% of the payment, leaving roughly $494,000 to $603,000 above credits. Whether that is new road money depends on what impact fees the 512 homes would otherwise owe, which the packet does not state.

    The packet does not show The agreement as read does not name the road projects the money funds.

    The packet says First of two hearings; the Board decides Oct. 20.

  2. Durbin Park: 745 apartments become 330 houses, and the road-charge schedule still counts retail the PUD removes

    The packet says Items 5, 6 and 7 are one package. The PUD change trades 745 apartments for 330 single-family homes on lots as small as 3,200 sq ft in the East Parcel, adds seven waivers, and caps commercial at 1,697,130 sq ft. PZA recommended approval 5-1. [REG05 pp. 5, 11, 35]

    The packet says Item 7's fee schedule is in the packet as scanned pages. It totals $12,862,873, charges $3,538 a house against $1,567 an apartment, and keeps trips equal at 384 before and after. [REG07 p. 4; REG06 pp. 15-17]

    The packet does not show The packet does not explain why the schedule still counts 2,397,130 sq ft of shopping (REG07 p. 4) when item 5 caps commercial at 1,697,130.

    Our reading At $2.803 a square foot, the 700,000-sq-ft difference is about $1.96 million of the $12.86 million projection.

  3. Consent: $9.0 million to finish the Sheriff's building, plus $3.5 million moved from impact-fee reserves

    The packet says Amendment 2 sets a $9,013,634 GMP for full construction, bringing the construction GMP to $13,552,682, and appropriates $3,500,000 of Law Enforcement Impact Fee fund balance because project funds were "not carried forward from the FY 26 to FY 27 budget." [CON17 pp. 1, 4]

    The packet says The cost summary is on p. 44: electrical $1.64M, finishes $1.63M, HVAC $1.35M, general requirements $1.03M.

    The packet does not show The packet does not state the approved project budget or why the carryforward did not happen. It gives the building's size three ways: 38,000, 35,985 and 35,895 sq ft.

    Our reading At 38,000 sq ft, the amendment is about $237 a square foot and the combined GMP about $357, construction only.

    The packet says It is on consent: no discussion unless a commissioner pulls it.

  4. A $969,206 incentive for a 246,480-sq-ft warehouse, with jobs estimated rather than committed

    The packet says Platform Real Estate Group asks for 100% of impact and connection fees back plus four years of general-county property tax; staff estimates $969,205.66. [REG02 p. 3]

    The packet says The application, e-signed July 10, estimates about 70 new jobs across nine suites and cites area wage ranges of $39,700 to $102,400, noting they depend on future tenants. [pp. 6, 8]

    The packet says The 193% return is calculated on p. 4 from $2.84 million in general-county taxes and fees over 20 years.

    Our reading That calculation holds the $26 million value flat for 20 years. Jobs are not a condition of tonight's motion, which only directs the County Attorney to draft an agreement.

    The packet says Florida records show the company, a Delaware LLC based in Louisville, registered to do business in Florida on Sept. 18, 2026. [Sunbiz M26000014876]

  5. The largest consent award, now read in full: $6.98 million for the North Beach water plant

    The packet says Award to SGS Contracting Services at $6,976,400: base bid $5,296,700, an odor-control alternate of $1,649,700 and $30,000 in utility allowances. Five bids were received. [CON13 pp. 1-2]

    The packet says 420 days to substantial completion; liquidated damages $2,376 a day. [pp. 11-12]

    The packet says The bid tabulation is a scanned page (p. 38). SGS is low on base bid plus the odor-control alternate; L7 Construction's base bid alone was $58,000 lower.

    The packet does not show The packet shows no engineer's estimate.

    Our reading With C15 (the $1,179,000 outfall) and C19 (up to $300,000 for the design firm), this consent agenda puts $8,455,400 toward the North Beach plant.

  6. The minutes you are approving record a 3-2 enclave denial, a 3-2 enclave approval, and a vote to reconsider two more

    The packet says The Sept. 15 draft minutes record ENCERT 2026-01 North Palm Valley denied 3-2, ENCERT 2026-08 AFI approved 3-2 with conditions, and a 4-1 vote to schedule reconsideration of two SR 207 enclaves already certified. The budget minutes record a 3-2 vote removing $125,000 tied to the Black History Museum. [CON24a, CON24b]

    Press report The reconsideration meeting was held Sept. 28 and reversed both certifications, 3-2. [Jax Today, Sept. 28]

    The packet says The same minutes record the 5-0 enactment of the food-truck-park ordinance (LDCA 26-05). [CON24a p. 11]

    Disclosure The Outpost @ Old Moultrie Rd, which sponsors this site and is owned by the Coalition's founder, is a food truck park directly affected by that ordinance.

The money

Every dollar on the agenda, largest first.

Do not add these figures together. Each is a different kind of number: a contract award, an annual price, a developer's cost, a projection, payments already made. There is no meaningful total for the meeting.

County money: awards, amendments, change orders, appropriations

FigureItemWhat the figure isSource pageTies?
$9,013,634C17 · Contract Amendment 2 (GMP), Sheriff's Office administration building, Ajax Building CompanyConsent$9,013,634; combined GMP $13,552,682; $3,500,000 fund-balance appropriationCON17 pp. 1, 44Yes: cost summary totals to it
$6,976,400C13 · Award IFB 2995, North Beach Water Treatment Plant improvements, SGS ContractingConsent$6,976,400 (base $5,296,700; odor-control alternate $1,649,700; utility allowances $30,000)CON13 pp. 1-2Yes
$2,405,847C18 · Change Order 1, Tillman Ridge Well 51 and Inlet Beach Well 2R, Jacobs Project ManagementConsent$2,405,847.10; task order grows from $472,169 to $2,878,016 (+510%)CON18 pp. 1-3Yes: $472,169 to $2,878,016
$1,179,000C15 · Award IFB 3005, North Beach RO concentrate pipeline and marine outfall, DB Civil ConstructionConsent$1,179,000 ($1,169,000 lump sum + $10,000 allowance)CON15 pp. 1, 39Yes; low of three bids
$455,377C14 · Award IFB 2875R, trash collection at parks and beaches, M & M Commercial Cleaning ConceptsConsent$455,377.40 a year; about $1.37M over the 3-year term, $2.7M if renewedCON14 p. 1Single bid
$300,000C19 · Change Order 2, North Beach WTP re-design, Mott MacDonald FloridaConsentUp to $300,000; task order grows from $399,895 to $718,815 (+80%)CON19 p. 7Yes

Other figures: developer costs and payments, projections, accepted systems, payments already made

FigureItemWhat the figure isSource pageTies?
$56,103,1626 · DEVAGRMOD 2026-01, Durbin Creek National development agreement, third amendment (second hearing)Regular · developer road costPhases 1–3 roadway costs finalized at $56,103,162REG06 p. 9Yes: $19,712,274 + $36,390,888
$20,000,0004 · DEVAGREE 2026-01, Grand Oaks PUD development agreement (first hearing)Regular · developer payment and credits$20,000,000 mitigation; $19.4–19.5M in impact-fee creditsREG04 pp. 4, 13Yes: $13.8M + $6.2M
$16,651,998C1 · Cash requirement report, Aug. 25–Sept. 8Consent · payments already made$16,651,997.63 across five registersCON01 pp. 2, 6, 7, 11, 12Yes, as our sum; the packet states no grand total
$12,862,8737 · Amendment to Durbin Creek National Road Capacity Charge Ordinance 2020-19Regular · projected chargesRoad-capacity charges totaling $12,862,873 (schedule, p. 4)REG07 p. 4Arithmetic yes; retail quantity differs from item 5
$1,608,736C8 · Accept easement, water and sewer, Coquina Crossing Phase IVConsent · accepted from developer$1,608,736.40 (water $568,668.00; sewer $1,040,068.40 including a $384,000 lift station)CON08 pp. 26-28Yes: matches lien release
$1,545,468C6 · Accept easement, water and sewer, Maplewood (formerly Bella Terra)Consent · accepted from developer$1,545,467.95 (water $537,371.60; sewer $1,008,096.35, of which $417,527.80 is the lift station)CON06 pp. 10-12Yes, with one line off by $9.09
$969,2062 · Economic development incentive, Platform Real Estate Group LLCRegular · estimated rebate, FY29-32$969,205.66 over four years, starting FY29REG02 pp. 3-4Yes
$949,309C22 · Health Department core-contract, FY2027Consent · annual County shareCounty cash up to $949,309; State up to $4,250,817; total program $11.77MCON22 p. 5Not as a line in Attachment II
$568,000C21 · Ratify grant application, Armstrong-Arnold House (Glidden property) acquisitionConsent · grant request with equal match$568,000 state request; $568,000 County match from LAMP reserve; appraised $1,136,000CON21 pp. 1-2Appraisal ($1,136,000) not attached
$183,262C7 · Accept easement, water and sewer, River Rock ChurchConsent · accepted from developer$183,262.15 (water $144,851; sewer $38,411)CON07 pp. 12-14Yes

Every figure carries the packet page it came from; a figure with no page does not go in this table. Items under $100,000 omitted. Reconciliation details are on each card.

Regular agenda

Nine items heard in public, in order. Public comment is taken on each.

1

Wounded Warrior Project trail partnership

Presentation only · District not on agenda · Packet

Presenter: Bill Hayes, Wounded Warrior Project

n/anot scored
REG01 online

Not scored. This is a presentation; nothing is being approved, so there is nothing to verify.

ClockNo decision
  • Oct. 6, 2026Presented at the meeting

Presentation only. Nothing is decided and no follow-up date is set.

Money None

Who

Wounded Warrior Project (presenter Bill Hayes); no County department is named as sponsor.

What

A presentation asking for an ongoing seat for adaptive-cycling input in County trail design. No motion, no agreement.

Where

County trail network generally; the Matanzas to St. Augustine–Palatka trail connector is mentioned.

When

Submitted July 16; heard today. No follow-up date.

Why

"Small design considerations made before construction can significantly improve accessibility."

Record check

One-page cover sheet only. No MOU, no deliverable, no district. The contact number listed is a County exchange.

Look into

Which trail project this attaches to and whether a written design-review role will follow.

Conflict check Wounded Warrior Project. No relationship found

Documents

Primary records

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG01: SHA-256 1777d42def7f8170…, Clerk file modified Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:02:15 GMT

2

Economic development incentive, Platform Real Estate Group LLC

Motion to direct drafting of an agreement · District not on agenda · Packet

Presenter: Christine Valliere, Director, Economic Development & Intergovernmental Affairs

98Verifiable
25232525
REG02 online

98 of 100 · Verifiable. You can check what the Board is approving using only what the County posted. What cost points: Facility type marked "New" (p. 6) but scored as speculative space (p. 3) (-2). How to read the score

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said the application's job and wage fields were blank and the signature page unsigned. Both are filled in and e-signed (PDF pp. 6, 8). The answers are stored as form fields, which our first text pass did not read.

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said the return-on-investment assumptions were not shown and that the packet gave no address. The calculation is on p. 4 and the application gives the road (Agricultural Center Dr., p. 7).

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026Board directs drafting
  • Mar. 3, 2027Impact-fee rate rises; reimbursement grows if permits pull after

The agreement itself returns on a later agenda, date not set.

Money $969,205.66 over four years, starting FY29

Reconciliation
FigureSourceIncludesExcludesTies?
$969,205.66REG02 pp. 3-4Impact fees $313,029.60 + connection fees $188,186.46 + 4 yrs tax $467,989.60Rate increase after March 3, 2027Yes
Who

Platform Real Estate Group, LLC; application e-signed by its vice president (p. 8). Economic Development, Christine Valliere.

What

Direct the County Attorney to draft an incentive agreement: 100% of impact fees ($313,030) and water/sewer connection fees ($188,186) plus four years of general-county property tax ($467,990) for a 246,480 sq ft speculative warehouse, $26M capital investment.

Where

Parcel 0875500080 on Agricultural Center Dr., with I-95 visibility (application, p. 7); zoned Industrial Warehouse.

When

Completion expected Q1 2028; first payment FY29. Impact-fee rate rises March 3, 2027, which would raise the reimbursement.

Why

Staff: project scored 6 points under Ordinance 2014-30's speculative-space category and shows a "193% return on investment" over 20 years.

History

Ordinance 2014-30 (June 2014) created the Business Incentive Program: point-based rebates of impact fees, connection fees and county property tax, each approved by the Board. Recent awards were AdventHealth (April 2025, $222,374 cap, 56 jobs) and Vermeer Southeast (July 2025, $166,645, 18 jobs); 2024 saw a $107,224 warehouse grant and the $2.96M "Project Boilermaker." At $969,206 with no job commitment this would be among the program's largest. State corporate records show Platform Real Estate Group, LLC as a Delaware company based in Louisville, Kentucky (manager Thomas J. Floyd), registered to do business in Florida on Sept. 18, 2026, a month after the County memo recommending it. The packet gives no street address for parcel 0875500080.

Record check

The application is filled in and e-signed by a company vice president on July 10 (pp. 5-8). It estimates about 70 new jobs (nine suites of 4 to 20 employees each), answers "Unsure" on retained jobs, and gives Jacksonville-area wage ranges of $39,700 to $102,400 from JobsEQ data, noting they depend on future tenants. The application marks facility type "New," not "Speculative" (p. 6); staff scored it under the speculative-space category (p. 3). The 193% figure is calculated on p. 4: $2,841,164 in general-county taxes and fees over 20 years, minus the $969,206 incentive, divided by the incentive. It holds the $26 million value flat for 20 years. The applicant asked for confidentiality (p. 8); the application is in the public packet. Florida records show the company, a Delaware LLC based in Louisville, registered to do business in Florida on Sept. 18, 2026; the staff memo is dated Aug. 18.

Look into

Whether the future agreement will tie payments to jobs or wages; why a project marked "New" was scored as speculative space; what happens to the 20-year figure if the building is not fully leased.

Conflict check Platform Real Estate Group, LLC. No relationship found

Score worksheet: 25 + 23 + 25 + 25 = 98
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
K3Consistency-2Facility type marked "New" (p. 6) but scored as speculative space (p. 3)
Documents

Primary records

Official web pages and portals

Press

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG02: SHA-256 de63463893512c6c…, Clerk file modified Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:18:18 GMT

3

MAJMOD 2026-03, IGP Commerce Center PUD

Public hearing, ordinance · District 5 (agenda) · Packet

Presenter: Matthew H. Lahti, P.E., Gulfstream Design Group · Staff contact: Evan Walsnovich, Planner

86Mostly verifiable
25211525
REG03 online

86 of 100 · Mostly verifiable. You can check most of it; one or two pieces are missing, unclear or don't match. What cost points: Vegetation described as non-protected pines (p. 9) and preserved wetlands (p. 11) (-2); Two parcel IDs appear (072451-0001 and 072450-0000) (-2); Status of code case PRIDE 2602879 not shown (-5); Water-management permits for added wetland impacts not shown (-5). How to read the score

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026Decision (ordinance)

Money $208 after-the-fact clearing fee; double fees at permit

Who

IGP Commerce Center LLC; agent Matthew Lahti, Gulfstream Design Group. Planner Evan Walsnovich.

What

Remove 0.26 acres to a companion rezoning, add an 18th lot (2.44 ac, RV/boat storage) with about 1.9 acres of wetland impact, and allow a second monument sign. Wetland impacts rise from 3.33 to 5.53 acres.

Where

International Golf Parkway about 0.2 mile west of US-1, Thomas Industry Way. Two different parcel IDs appear in the packet (072451-0001 and 072450-0000).

When

PZA recommended approval 4-2 on Aug. 20. Original PUD Ordinance 2019-69.

Why

Staff presents both approval and denial findings; SJRWMD's newer delineation increased the wetland acreage.

History

About 59 acres at the southwest quadrant of International Golf Parkway and US 1. Before 2019 it was vacant timberland zoned Open Rural and Industrial with a 2014 special-use permit for a recycling center (owner Smart Recycling of North Florida). On Nov. 5, 2019 the Board enacted Ordinance 2019-69 (PUD 2018-03; PZA 6-0, BCC 5-0) for up to 290,000 sq ft of industrial, warehousing and recycling uses on about 29 developable acres with 30.38 acres of wetland preserved; the 17-lot master plan was recorded in 2022. Per the staff report about 111,186 sq ft is built, 16 of 17 lots have construction-plan approval, and Lot 12 is a 49-space RV and boat storage yard. This is the first modification. The companion rezoning for the 0.26 acres (REZ 2025-17, St. Marks Parcel 2, 68.5 acres to IW) is still under review after a second resubmittal on Sept. 30.

Record check

Unpermitted clearing occurred on the footprint of the new Lot 18 (code case PRIDE 2602879). The staff report describes the cleared vegetation two ways: non-protected slash pines (p. 9) and preserved wetland areas (p. 11). The packet does not say whether the code case is closed or whether water-management permits cover the added wetland impacts. At PZA the applicant "could not provide a straight answer" on when the wetlands were impacted (p. 14).

Errors in the County's packet
  • Cleared vegetation described as non-protected slash pines (p. 9) and as preserved wetlands (p. 11)
Look into

Status of the code case; whether approving Lot 18 ratifies the clearing for $208; why the companion rezoning is not heard concurrently.

Disclosure

Matthew Lahti of Gulfstream Design Group, the applicant's agent on this item, has worked with The Outpost @ Old Moultrie Rd, which sponsors the Coalition. The Coalition has no interest in this application.

Conflict check IGP Commerce Center LLC; agent Matthew H. Lahti, Gulfstream Design Group. Related: see disclosure

Score worksheet: 25 + 21 + 15 + 25 = 86
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
K3Consistency-2Vegetation described as non-protected pines (p. 9) and preserved wetlands (p. 11)
K3Consistency-2Two parcel IDs appear (072451-0001 and 072450-0000)
T6Transparency-5Status of code case PRIDE 2602879 not shown
T6Transparency-5Water-management permits for added wetland impacts not shown
Documents

Primary records

Official web pages and portals

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG03: SHA-256 8093d9059fd8d3d4…, Clerk file modified Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:18:19 GMT

4

DEVAGREE 2026-01, Grand Oaks PUD development agreement (first hearing)

First of two public hearings; no decision today · District 2 (agenda) · Packet

Presenter: Zachary Miller, Attorney · Staff contact: Lauren Dwyer, Transportation Planner

90Verifiable
25152525
REG04 online

90 of 100 · Verifiable. You can check what the Board is approving using only what the County posted. What cost points: Impact-fee credits: $19,505,738.80 in the agreement (p. 15) vs. $19,396,839 by staff (p. 7) (-10). How to read the score

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said the packet does not reconcile the two proportionate-share figures. Staff attributes the gap to the applicant's reading of the statute, and both calculations are in the packet (pp. 41, 45).

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026First hearing
  • Oct. 20, 2026Second hearing and decision

Money $20,000,000 mitigation; $19.4–19.5M in impact-fee credits

Reconciliation
FigureSourceIncludesExcludesTies?
$20,000,000REG04 pp. 4, 13Mitigation for 512 units, paid in two installments$5,040,000 already paid for 442 platted lotsYes: $13.8M + $6.2M
$19,505,738.80REG04 p. 15Road impact-fee credits granted to the applicantStaff's lower figure of $19,396,839 (p. 7)No: agreement and staff report differ by $108,900
Who

Pulte Home Company, LLC; owners Homestead Investments, Day Late Enterprises, Toll Southeast. Attorney Zach Miller. Transportation planner Lauren Dwyer.

What

Announce the second hearing (Oct. 20). The agreement would have Pulte pay $20M in two phases ($13.8M within 90 days, $6.2M within a year) for the remaining 512 units and receive road impact-fee credits of $19.4M (staff) to $19.5M (applicant).

Where

South side of SR 16 between International Golf Parkway and I-95; about 524 acres. Prior developer was declared in default in 2023.

When

Notice published Sept. 15; second hearing Oct. 20 with companion MAJMOD 2026-01, which cuts the PUD from 999 to 954 units.

Why

Staff identifies ten adversely affected road links on SR 16, IGP and CR 2209; proportionate share under staff's method is $12,850,449.

History

Grand Oaks is about 524 acres owned in 2017–18 by Day Late Enterprises. On July 17, 2018 the Board adopted the land-use change and the PUD (Ordinances 2018-39 and 2018-40), each 3-2, for 999 homes, 100,000 sq ft of commercial, a school site and 89 acres of wetland preservation, and approved on consent a concurrency agreement with Southeast Development Partners: $7,500 per lot for the first 212 and $15,000 for lots 213–580 inside a $15 million package, plus a commitment to four-lane about three miles of SR 16 before the 581st lot. Southeast escrowed $5,040,000 for 442 platted lots. On Feb. 21, 2023 the Board denied its request to rework the deal and declared it in default, both 5-0, sending the escrow to FDOT for SR 16 design. Southeast sued in March 2023 and lost in federal court on Sept. 13, 2024; the County said the SR 16 cost had grown from about $15M to more than $60M. An Eleventh Circuit appeal was argued in September 2025 with no decision found. The owner removed Southeast as development manager on Sept. 20, 2024. Pulte, which has built Summer Bay, Spring Park and The Trails at Grand Oaks (about 437 homes), now proposes $20M for the remaining 512 units.

Record check

The proportionate-share figures differ: staff $12,850,449 (p. 4), the agreement $2,471,306.04 (p. 13). Staff attributes the gap to "the applicant's interpretation" of the statute (p. 4). Both tables are in the packet: the applicant's Table 7 counts only the two SR 16 links that fail concurrency (p. 41); staff's spreads cost across the affected links (p. 45). Credits differ too: $19,505,738.80 in the agreement (p. 15) against staff's $19,396,839 (p. 7). Unit math checks (144+145+68+136+19 = 512). The agreement as read does not name the road projects the payment funds.

Look into

What road impact fees the 512 units would owe without the agreement; which SR 16 or CR 2209 projects the money funds and when; which proportionate-share and credit figures the Oct. 20 version adopts.

Conflict check Pulte Home Company, LLC; attorney Zachary Miller. No relationship found

Score worksheet: 25 + 15 + 25 + 25 = 90
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
K1Consistency-10Impact-fee credits: $19,505,738.80 in the agreement (p. 15) vs. $19,396,839 by staff (p. 7)
Documents

Primary records

Official web pages and portals

Press

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG04: SHA-256 fbcf7dc5c240f4a1…, Clerk file modified Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:18:19 GMT

5

MAJMOD 2026-09, Durbin Park PUD (East Parcel)

Public hearing, ordinance · District 5 (agenda) · Packet

Presenter: Ellen Avery-Smith, Esq., Rogers Towers, P.A. · Staff contact: Abrielle Genest, Senior Planner

100Verifiable
25252525
REG05 online

100 of 100 · Verifiable. You can check what the Board is approving using only what the County posted. Nothing cost points. How to read the score

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said the opposition letter could not be read. It is readable (p. 157).

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026Decision (ordinance)

Money No County funds

Who

Durbin Creek National, LLC; agent Ellen Avery-Smith, Rogers Towers. Senior planner Abrielle Genest.

What

Multifamily 2,265 to 1,520 (−745); single-family 0 to 330; retail 2,397,130 to 1,697,130 sq ft (−700,000). Seven new waivers: 5-ft front setbacks, 3,200 sq ft minimum lots, no sidewalks in cul-de-sacs, trees in common areas instead of lots, signs up to 60 sq ft per face.

Where

South of Race Track Road, east of I-95, about 295 acres of the 1,281-acre PUD. Parcel 023480-0000.

When

PZA recommended approval 5-1 on Sept. 17. Companion items 6 and 7 are decided today too.

Why

Staff: density falls from 2.9 to 2.37 units/acre and external trip generation does not increase. Staff notes concern about the "cumulative effect of reduced setbacks, narrower lots, and smaller lot areas" but recommends all seven waivers.

History

Durbin Park is roughly 1,624 acres of former timberland south of Race Track Road on both sides of I-95, owned by Durbin Creek National, LLC, an affiliate of Gate Petroleum. The County designated it Intensive Commercial in 2000. In February 2015 the Board approved the framework still in force: an urban service area (Ord. 2015-4), a 30-year tax-increment trust fund pledging 95% of new county property-tax revenue to road reimbursement (Ord. 2015-5), and developer-paid road capacity charges (Ord. 2015-6). The project was pitched then as 2.4M sq ft of retail, 2.8M sq ft of office, 350 hotel rooms, 999 apartments and a Bass Pro Shops, with the County projecting $449.6M in taxes over 20 years against $9,144 a year as timberland. Walmart opened the Pavilion in 2018. The 2020 PUD reset Phase 2 at 2,265 apartments and a hospital; East Peyton Parkway opened six-lane in 2024, the $285M UF Health hospital is due this fall, and a Whole Foods-anchored center is planned. Bass Pro opened at World Commerce Center instead. Today's package converts 745 of the apartments into up to 330 houses and cuts 700,000 sq ft of retail.

Record check

One resident letter is in the packet (Attachment 3, p. 157); it asks the County to evaluate a large oak near the property line and the residential buffer before clearing. Staff reports school concurrency review is required only above a threshold (p. 36). The agenda records the PZA dissent but not its reason. The packet does not discuss the effect of single-family homes on the tax-increment district that repays the roads, or re-run the 2015 revenue projection for the new mix.

Look into

The opposition letter and the drainage concern raised at PZA; whether 5-ft setbacks match other recent County TND approvals; what the shift does to TIF revenue.

Conflict check Durbin Creek National, LLC; Rogers Towers, P.A. No relationship found

Score worksheet: 25 + 25 + 25 + 25 = 100
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
No deductions: every part starts at 25.
Documents

Primary records

Press

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG05: SHA-256 3fa6b459186312a8…, Clerk file modified Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:18:21 GMT

6

DEVAGRMOD 2026-01, Durbin Creek National development agreement, third amendment (second hearing)

Public hearing, decision · District 5 (agenda) · Packet

Presenter: Ellen Avery-Smith, Esq., Rogers Towers, P.A. · Staff contact: Jan Trantham, Senior Transportation Planner

93Verifiable
23252025
REG06 online

93 of 100 · Verifiable. You can check what the Board is approving using only what the County posted. What cost points: Exhibits 1-3, the operative dollar tables, are scans (pp. 15-17) (-2); Reimbursement paid to date and balance not stated (-5). How to read the score

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said Exhibits 1-3 could not be read. They are scanned pages 15-17.

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026Second hearing and decision

Money Phases 1–3 roadway costs finalized at $56,103,162

Reconciliation
FigureSourceIncludesExcludesTies?
$56,103,162REG06 p. 9Developer-built road costs, Phases 1-3Phase 4 (moved to FDOT); reimbursements paid to dateYes: $19,712,274 + $36,390,888
Who

Durbin Creek National, LLC; Ellen Avery-Smith. Senior transportation planner Jan Trantham.

What

Approve the third amendment converting 745 apartments to 330 single-family in Phase 2B and fixing the developer-built road costs at $56.1M (Phase 1 $19.7M; Phases 2A/2B/3 $36.4M). Phase 4, I-95 widening, moves to FDOT.

Where

The Durbin Creek National urban service area, 1,624 acres both sides of I-95 south of Race Track Road.

When

First hearing Sept. 15 with no testimony; decision today, concurrent with item 5.

Why

Staff "does not object"; trip generation does not increase and required roads are built or funded.

Record check

Exhibits 1-3 (road-capacity-charge schedule, buildout projection, land-use conversion) are in the packet as scanned pages 15-17. Phase costs add: $19,712,274 (Phase 1) + $36,390,888 (Phases 2A, 2B, 3) = $56,103,162 (p. 9). The packet does not state how much the developer has been reimbursed to date or the balance outstanding.

Look into

The actual exhibit tables; cumulative road-capacity-charge and TIF reimbursements paid since 2015; the remaining balance.

Conflict check Durbin Creek National, LLC; Rogers Towers, P.A. No relationship found

Score worksheet: 23 + 25 + 20 + 25 = 93
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
C4Completeness-2Exhibits 1-3, the operative dollar tables, are scans (pp. 15-17)
T6Transparency-5Reimbursement paid to date and balance not stated
Documents

Primary records

Press

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG06: SHA-256 4dec99a3baab607a…, Clerk file modified Tue, 29 Sep 2026 20:09:49 GMT

7

Amendment to Durbin Creek National Road Capacity Charge Ordinance 2020-19

Public hearing, ordinance · District 5 (agenda) · Packet

84Mostly verifiable
23112525
REG07 online

84 of 100 · Mostly verifiable. You can check most of it; one or two pieces are missing, unclear or don't match. What cost points: Ordinance body and fee schedule are scans (pp. 2-5) (-2); Schedule counts 2,397,130 sq ft of shopping; item 5 caps commercial at 1,697,130 (-10); Single-family rate: 2.26 x $1,567 = $3,541, listed $3,538 (-2); 330 x $3,538 = $1,167,540, listed $1,167,415 (-2). How to read the score

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said the ordinance body and fee schedule were not in the posted packet. They are scanned pages 2-5. (The Clerk's file was last modified Oct. 1.)

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026Decision (ordinance)

Money Road-capacity charges totaling $12,862,873 (schedule, p. 4)

Reconciliation
FigureSourceIncludesExcludesTies?
$12,862,873REG07 p. 4Projected road-capacity charges at buildoutCharges already collectedArithmetic yes; retail quantity differs from item 5
Who

Durbin Creek National, LLC; Jan Trantham.

What

Add single-family to the road-capacity-charge schedule, reduce multifamily to 1,520, allow up to 330 single-family in Parcel E.

Where

Durbin Creek National area; single-family allowed only in the East Parcel (east of I-95).

When

Published Sept. 15; enactment today.

Why

"There is no change to the total anticipated revenue of $12,862,873." (agenda)

Record check

The ordinance body and amended fee schedule are scanned pages 2-5. The schedule totals $12,862,873: apartments 1,520 at $1,567; single-family 330 at $3,538; office, shopping, hotel and hospital unchanged. It defines the single-family charge as the apartment charge times 2.26 ($3,541), but lists $3,538; and 330 x $3,538 is $1,167,540, not the $1,167,415 shown. The schedule still counts 2,397,130 sq ft of shopping, while item 5 caps commercial at 1,697,130 sq ft (REG05 p. 35).

Errors in the County's packet
  • Single-family rate stated as $1,567 x 2.26 ($3,541) but listed as $3,538
  • 330 x $3,538 = $1,167,540, listed as $1,167,415
Look into

Which retail figure the revenue projection should use; whether the $3,538 rate or the 2.26 multiplier governs; charges collected to date.

Conflict check Durbin Creek National, LLC. No relationship found

Score worksheet: 23 + 11 + 25 + 25 = 84
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
C4Completeness-2Ordinance body and fee schedule are scans (pp. 2-5)
K1Consistency-10Schedule counts 2,397,130 sq ft of shopping; item 5 caps commercial at 1,697,130
K3Consistency-2Single-family rate: 2.26 x $1,567 = $3,541, listed $3,538
K3Consistency-2330 x $3,538 = $1,167,540, listed $1,167,415
Documents

Primary records

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG07: SHA-256 9d7a84dc43666399…, Clerk file modified Thu, 01 Oct 2026 18:11:19 GMT

8

LDCA 2026-04, Ponte Vedra pool lot coverage, 40% to 44%

Public hearing, adoption · District 4 (agenda) · Packet

Presenter: Jacob Smith, AICP, Planning Division Manager

95Verifiable
25252025
REG08 online

95 of 100 · Verifiable. You can check what the Board is approving using only what the County posted. What cost points: "Influx" of variance requests asserted without a count (p. 3) (-5). How to read the score

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026Adoption

Money None

Who

County-initiated at the request of the Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board. Planning manager Jacob Smith.

What

Raise maximum lot coverage from 40% to 44% on lots of 8,000 sq ft or less in R-1-C and R-1-D, with the extra 4 points usable only for swimming-pool water surface. About 177 lots qualify.

Where

Ponte Vedra Zoning District.

When

PVZAB approved 6-0 on Aug. 3; first reading Sept. 15; adoption today.

Why

"An influx of variance requests" for lot coverage on small lots; staff says drainage impact would be minimal.

History

The Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations are a stand-alone code adopted in 2003 and recodified in 2011 and 2020, capping single-family lot coverage at 40%. Staff told the Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board in April 2026 that about seven pool-related coverage variances had been sought in roughly 20 years. The board asked for research in October 2025, voted 6-0 in April to draft an amendment for lots of 7,200 sq ft or less, tabled it in June to widen the threshold to 8,000, and recommended approval 6-0 on Aug. 3. About 177 parcels qualify.

Record check

The packet cites an "influx" of variance requests (p. 3) but gives no count; PVZAB's April 2026 minutes record staff estimating about seven pool-related variances in roughly 20 years. No drainage analysis is attached. Residents wrote in opposition citing flooding; the packet has no staff response. The ordinance text is on pp. 7-9.

Look into

How many pool variances PVZAB has handled since 2020; whether any runoff analysis exists for the 177 lots.

Conflict check County-initiated (PVZAB). No relationship found

Score worksheet: 25 + 25 + 20 + 25 = 95
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
T6Transparency-5"Influx" of variance requests asserted without a count (p. 3)
Documents

Primary records

Official web pages and portals

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG08: SHA-256 0019e97e4c5ed7f6…, Clerk file modified Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:18:23 GMT

9

Data center temporary planning moratorium (first presentation)

First presentation; hearing Oct. 20 · Countywide · Packet

Presenter: Kealey West, Deputy County Attorney

100Verifiable
25252525
REG09 online

100 of 100 · Verifiable. You can check what the Board is approving using only what the County posted. Nothing cost points. How to read the score

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said no data center had been proposed in the county. We had not checked the County's application portal; the statement is withdrawn.

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026First presentation
  • Oct. 20, 2026Public hearing, enactment
  • Nov. 1, 2026Takes effect; sufficiency cutoff
  • Oct. 31, 2027Expires unless repealed sooner

Money None

Who

Office of the County Attorney (Kealey West), on Board direction from Sept. 1.

What

A countywide pause through Oct. 31, 2027 on accepting or processing land-use and building applications for medium-scale (2,000–5,000 servers, 5–49 MW) and large-scale data centers, effective Nov. 1, 2026. Applications "determined sufficient" before Nov. 1 are exempt.

Where

Countywide.

When

Hearing Oct. 20; effective Nov. 1; expires Oct. 31, 2027 or on adoption of permanent rules. The state OPPAGA study is due July 1, 2027.

Why

The Comprehensive Plan and LDC have no data-center policies on siting, water, cooling, generators, fuel storage, noise or decommissioning; SB 484 (2026) flagged the issue.

History

In May 2026 Commissioner Taylor moved to bar data centers from incentives and restrict siting; it failed 2-3, with the majority asking for a staff briefing. After Nassau County adopted a 12-month moratorium on June 9 and Clay County followed on June 24, the Board agreed unanimously on June 16 to take one up, and on Sept. 1 directed the County Attorney to draft it. SB 484 (Ch. 2026-65, effective July 1) affirms local planning authority over large-load customers, limits water permits for 50 MW+ facilities and orders a state study due July 1, 2027.

Record check

No staff report or PZA review is attached. Who makes the "sufficiency" call in the window between enactment and effect is not specified. Facilities under 2,000 servers are not addressed. The packet identifies no pending application; we have not checked the County's application portal. No vested-rights or hardship procedure.

Look into

Whether any data-center application is in review now; whether PZA review is required for a moratorium; the gap between the County's definitions and the statute's.

Conflict check County-initiated. No relationship found

Score worksheet: 25 + 25 + 25 + 25 = 100
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
No deductions: every part starts at 25.
Documents

Primary records

Press

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG09: SHA-256 d4d207dbb956eb2b…, Clerk file modified Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:18:21 GMT

Community Redevelopment Agency

The Board sits as the CRA for one item.

CRA 1

West Augustine CRA: notice to dispose of six parcels

CRA resolution · District 2 (agenda) · Packet

Presenter: Tera Meeks, Director, Community and Destination

87Mostly verifiable
25251522
REG10 online

87 of 100 · Mostly verifiable. You can check most of it; one or two pieces are missing, unclear or don't match. What cost points: No appraisal, assessed value or minimum price for six parcels (-10); Deadline "Monday, November 8, 2026" is a Sunday (-3). How to read the score

Corrected Oct. 3, 2026 The first edition said Resolution 2022-2 and maps were not attached. Both are (pp. 7-17).

Clock
  • Oct. 6, 2026CRA vote
  • Nov. 8, 2026Stated proposal deadline (a Sunday; verify)

Money No dollar figures; CRA will provide no development funds

Who

CRA; director Tera Meeks. Eligible proposers: nonprofits only.

What

Remove six parcels from the 2022 owner-occupied affordable-housing list and publish a notice to dispose of them: 933 and 829 Pearl St for affordable rental housing; West King St, 141 and 121 N Brevard St and Railroad St for "community support amenities."

Where

West Augustine. Parcel IDs 1169300000, 1169300050, 1173500000, 1173700060, 1173700070, 1173800090.

When

Proposal deadline stated as "Monday, November 8, 2026"; Nov. 8, 2026 is a Sunday. Notice must run at least 30 days before any contract.

Why

"The community has since identified additional needs such as affordable rental housing."

History

The West Augustine CRA was created in September 2000 (Resolution 2000-146). The County and CRA accumulated scattered lots "over the years"; the CRA's FY2025 report counts 168. On Aug. 2, 2022, at the Steering Committee's request, Resolution 2022-2 restricted 120 of them (about 27.5 acres) to owner-occupied affordable housing at or below 140% of area median income; all six parcels on today's item were on that list. In August 2024 the Board spent $70,000 on an engineering review; a January 2025 study found 47 of the lots most buildable, and the FY2025 report says a request for proposals for those 47 was being prepared. Nearby, the 92-unit Villages of New Augustine opened in August 2026.

Record check

Resolution 2022-2 and its 120-parcel list are attached (pp. 7-15), with maps (pp. 16-17). No appraisals, assessed values or minimum price are given, though the statute allows below-value disposition only with findings. No evaluation criteria beyond a "detailed and thorough plan," and the CRA may reject proposals "with or without cause." The proposal deadline is stated as "Monday, November 8, 2026"; Nov. 8 is a Sunday.

Errors in the County's packet
  • Deadline "Monday, November 8, 2026" falls on a Sunday
Look into

Whether the steering committee voted on removing these parcels; current assessed values and whether conveyance is for $0; the correct deadline.

Conflict check West Augustine CRA. No relationship found

Score worksheet: 25 + 25 + 15 + 22 = 87
RulePartPointsEvidence in the packet
T1Transparency-10No appraisal, assessed value or minimum price for six parcels
L4Clarity-3Deadline "Monday, November 8, 2026" is a Sunday
Documents

Primary records

Official web pages and portals

Press

Retrieved October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. REG10: SHA-256 0b833f875dd33e27…, Clerk file modified Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:03:53 GMT

Calendar

What happens after Tuesday.

DateItemWhat happens
Jul. 10, 2026C21Grant application window closed
Aug. 20, 2026C23Grant awarded
Sep. 8, 2026C1Last payment date covered
Sep. 15, 2026C24Meetings the minutes record
Sep. 28, 2026C24Reconsideration meeting held; both Heritage enclaves reversed 3-2
Oct. 1, 2026C22Contract year began
Oct. 20, 20264Second hearing and decision
Oct. 20, 20269Public hearing, enactment
Oct. 26, 2026C18Assumed notice to proceed
Oct. 31, 2026C17Last day to elect value-engineering deducts (about $225K)
Nov. 1, 20269Takes effect; sufficiency cutoff
Nov. 3, 2026C2Public hearing on the vacation, 9 AM
Nov. 8, 2026CRA 1Stated proposal deadline (a Sunday; verify)
Jan. 4, 2027C12Easement expires, 90 days from execution if signed at approval
Mar. 3, 20272Impact-fee rate rises; reimbursement grows if permits pull after
May 4, 2027C15Substantial completion, 210 days from an Oct. 6 start (approx.)
Jul. 20, 2027C18Final completion
Sep. 30, 2027C22Contract year ends
Oct. 6, 2027C4Warranty ends
Oct. 6, 2027C5Warranty ends
Oct. 6, 2027C6Warranty ends
Oct. 6, 2027C7Warranty ends
Oct. 6, 2027C9Warranty ends
Oct. 31, 20279Expires unless repealed sooner
Nov. 17, 2027C17Substantial completion
Dec. 6, 2027C19Task order final completion
Jan. 26, 2028C17Owner occupancy
Oct. 6, 2029C14Initial term ends (approx.)
Oct. 6, 2031C10Five-year term ends if it starts at approval (start date not stated)
Oct. 6, 2031C16Term ends (approx.)

Every dated event in the packets other than the meeting itself, counted live. Approximate dates are labeled on the item card.

Conflict register

Who is on this agenda, and whether we are tied to them.

Every applicant, agent, vendor and presenter on this agenda, checked against the founder's business entities and relationships and The Outpost. "No relationship" means: no ownership, contract, employment, family relationship or pending application between the founder, the Coalition or The Outpost and that party or item.

ItemPartiesStatusDisclosure
REG01Wounded Warrior ProjectNone found
REG02Platform Real Estate Group, LLCNone found
REG03IGP Commerce Center LLC; agent Matthew H. Lahti, Gulfstream Design GroupRelatedMatthew Lahti of Gulfstream Design Group, the applicant's agent on this item, has worked with The Outpost @ Old Moultrie Rd, which sponsors the Coalition. The Coalition has no interest in this application.
REG04Pulte Home Company, LLC; attorney Zachary MillerNone found
REG05Durbin Creek National, LLC; Rogers Towers, P.A.None found
REG06Durbin Creek National, LLC; Rogers Towers, P.A.None found
REG07Durbin Creek National, LLCNone found
REG08County-initiated (PVZAB)None found
REG09County-initiatedNone found
REG10West Augustine CRANone found
CON01County vendors (payments already made)None found
CON02White Palmetto LLCNone found
CON03Resident deputy (private individual, not named); mobile-home owner Elleness, LLPNone found
CON04Front Site DevelopmentNone found
CON05Concert Marsh Landing, LLC; First Coast Electric, LLCNone found
CON06KB Home; Pipeline ConstructorsNone found
CON07River Rock Church, LLC; Vallencourt Construction CompanyNone found
CON08MHC Coquina Crossing LLC; Grovin Farms LLCNone found
CON09Ferguson Enterprises, LLC; Allsite ContractingNone found
CON10Northeast Florida Community Action Agency, Inc.None found
CON11River Plantation PRD Owners AssociationNone found
CON12WCC DRI Owner, LLCNone found
CON13SGS Contracting Services, Inc.None found
CON14M & M Commercial Cleaning Concepts Inc.None found
CON15DB Civil Construction, LLCNone found
CON16Hybrid Design, Inc.None found
CON17Ajax Building Company, LLCNone found
CON18Jacobs Project Management Co.None found
CON19Mott MacDonald Florida, LLCNone found
CON20None (County surplus)None found
CON21Property owners (private individuals, not named)None found
CON22Florida Department of HealthNone found
CON23Florida Department of Law EnforcementNone found
CON24None (minutes)RelatedThese minutes record the 5-0 enactment of the food-truck-park ordinance (LDCA 26-05). The Outpost @ Old Moultrie Rd, a food truck park owned by the Coalition's founder that sponsors this site, is directly affected by that ordinance. The Coalition takes no position on approving the minutes.

Checked Oct. 3, 2026 against Florida corporate records for the founder's entities and the founder's own list of business relationships. Private individuals are not named.

Who's who

Names that appear on more than one item.

Names and firms that appear on more than one item, as the packets list them. Repetition is a fact of the record, not a finding.

How we score

Packet confidence, explained.

What it measures. Whether a member of the public, reading only the posted packet, could verify what the Board is being asked to approve. Four parts (completeness, consistency, transparency, clarity) each start at 25. Points come off only under the published rules below, and every deduction on every card names the page that triggered it. 90 to 100 is Verifiable, 75 to 89 Mostly verifiable, 55 to 74 Gaps, below 55 Not verifiable. Presentations with nothing to approve are not scored.

What it does not measure. Whether the item is a good idea. A well-documented bad decision scores High; a sound decision with the contract left out scores Low. We take no position on any item.

How we read. Every packet was fetched from the Clerk's site at the URL on its card and fingerprinted (SHA-256, page count, the Clerk's last-modified date). Each page was read from its text layer; pages with no text layer (scans, photographs, handwriting) were read by optical character recognition, and every figure or document taken from a scan was checked by eye against the page image. Fillable application forms were read field by field. District, presenter and staff contact come from the Clerk's cover agenda. Where two figures do not reconcile we say so and cite both pages.

Reproduce a score. Open the worksheet under any card, check each cited page, and add the points. A second reader should land within 5 points; if you don't, tell us and we will publish both readings. Worked example, item 4: 25 + 15 + 25 + 25 = 90. K1 -10: Impact-fee credits: $19,505,738.80 in the agreement (p. 15) vs. $19,396,839 by staff (p. 7).

The clocks. Each item shows the dates that govern it, counted live from today. Items marked Historical record something that already happened; items marked No decision are presentations or housekeeping. Approximate dates are labeled. The handout. The printed version carries a QR code on every card that opens that item online, where every document link is live.

Data. The record behind this page is published as JSON and CSV, one row per item with a stable ID (REG04, CON17) that later briefs cite. Social posts are drafted from these cards, using only sentences labeled "The packet says." Corrections: hello@the1565.com.

RulePartPointsWhen it applies
C1Completeness−15The operative document being approved is not in the packet
C2Completeness−6An attachment the resolution or memo incorporates is not in the packet (each, max 3)
C3Completeness−4A supporting record the item relies on is referenced but not in the packet, including "available upon request" (each, max 3)
C4Completeness−2An operative document is posted only as scanned images, with no searchable text
K1Consistency−10A core figure does not reconcile within the packet or with a companion item (each)
K2Consistency−4A figure conflicts with the Board's own prior record (each)
K3Consistency−2A clerical error in an operative document: amount typo, date out of order, conflicting identifiers (each, max 3)
T1Transparency−10The basis for the dollar amount is not shown: no bid tabulation, estimate, appraisal or calculation
T2Transparency−5A projection or return is given without its inputs
T3Transparency−6A disputed figure is given without the method behind one side (each)
T4Transparency−4A contract or task order grows more than 25% without saying what changed
T5Transparency−3Single bid or proposal with no comparison basis
T6Transparency−5A fact the decision depends on is referenced but its status is not shown (each, max 2)
L1Clarity−8What the Board is deciding is unclear, or it approves terms not stated in the packet
L2Clarity−4The location is not identified by address, parcel or map
L3Clarity−3Governing dates (term, start, deadline) are not stated
L4Clarity−3A date in the operative text is impossible or already past
What changed

Corrections and revisions.

Revision 1.1, Oct. 3, 2026. Every packet re-read page by page, including scanned pages, which the first edition's tools could not read. Ten statements in the first edition were wrong and are corrected on the cards they appear on; scores were recomputed under a published worksheet.

  1. REG02 The first edition said the application's job and wage fields were blank and the signature page unsigned. Both are filled in and e-signed (PDF pp. 6, 8). The answers are stored as form fields, which our first text pass did not read.
  2. REG02 The first edition said the return-on-investment assumptions were not shown and that the packet gave no address. The calculation is on p. 4 and the application gives the road (Agricultural Center Dr., p. 7).
  3. REG04 The first edition said the packet does not reconcile the two proportionate-share figures. Staff attributes the gap to the applicant's reading of the statute, and both calculations are in the packet (pp. 41, 45).
  4. REG05 The first edition said the opposition letter could not be read. It is readable (p. 157).
  5. REG06 The first edition said Exhibits 1-3 could not be read. They are scanned pages 15-17.
  6. REG07 The first edition said the ordinance body and fee schedule were not in the posted packet. They are scanned pages 2-5. (The Clerk's file was last modified Oct. 1.)
  7. REG10 The first edition said Resolution 2022-2 and maps were not attached. Both are (pp. 7-17).
  8. CON03 The first edition said the residence agreement was missing. It is attached as scanned pages 4-9.
  9. CON04 The first edition said a handwritten schedule read $17,322 or $23,052 and did not reconcile. It reads $4,621.95 and matches the lien release (p. 5).
  10. CON07 The first edition said the lien release 'through' date was handwritten as March 17, 2025. It is typed as 3/17/2026 (p. 14).
  11. CON08 The first edition said every exhibit was absent. All five are attached as scanned pages; the systems are valued at $1,608,736.40.
  12. CON10 The first edition said the lease and rent were unreadable. The scanned lease sets rent at $1 plus a $300 annual fee (p. 5).
  13. CON11 The first edition said the executed notice was not readable. It is a scanned page (p. 7).
  14. CON12 The first edition said the grantor's signature page was not visible. It is scanned page 6.
  15. CON13 The first edition did not open this 46.5 MB packet. It is now read in full (1,106 pages), including the five-bid tabulation on scanned p. 38.
  16. CON14 The first edition said the fund number was printed two ways. 1113 is the fund and 1137 the cost center; that was our error.
  17. CON15 The first edition said the other two bids were not in the packet. The bid tabulation is scanned page 39.
  18. CON17 The first edition said the GMP cost summary was not visible. It is on p. 44.
  19. CON19 The first edition could not make the task lines add to $295,000. They do, once the $9,260 travel line is included (p. 7).
  20. CON22 The first edition could not place $954,688. It is the health department's local-revenue line in Attachment II (p. 17), not the County appropriation.
  21. REG09 The first edition said no data center had been proposed in the county. We had not checked the County's application portal; the statement is withdrawn.

Packets and agenda retrieved from the Clerk October 3, 2026, about 5 PM ET. Agenda PDF: 8 pages, SHA-256 27fd98d6fdab83be…, Clerk file last modified Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:03:06 GMT. Each card lists the fingerprint of its own packet. If the Clerk posts a revised agenda or packet, the change is written on the affected card with its date and listed here. Nothing is edited silently.