A correction is a fixture here, not an afterthought.

What changed: This page said CRA Resolution CRA-R-2020-9 was not in any packet Cheatonville had reviewed, asked whether it would be posted, described bylaws §5.2 as the only provision swapping a Town title for "Executive Director," and said that gap was documented in Cheatonville's project-manager finding. The resolution has been posted on the CRA's website since 2021 and replaces "Mayor, Finance Director or CAO" with "Executive Director" in the Town procurement policy the CRA adopted in 2020, and the finding does not address that gap. The purchasing section and related questions have been revised.

What changed: This page said CRA Resolution CRA-R-2020-9 had not appeared in any packet Cheatonville had reviewed, asked whether it would be made public, and described bylaws §5.2 as the only provision swapping a Town title for "Executive Director," a gap it said was part of Cheatonville's project-manager finding. The resolution has been posted on the CRA's website since 2021 and replaces "Mayor, Finance Director or CAO" with "Executive Director" in the Town procurement policy the CRA adopted in 2020, and the finding does not address that gap. The manual section and related questions have been revised.

What changed: The closing section still described the plan document itself as carrying internal contradictions and a wrong-city error, and repeated the withdrawn claim that it contains no financial analysis for the years past 2027 — the same statements this page's August 4 correction had already retracted and re-attributed to the adopting resolution, CRA-R-2025-24. The closing now matches the corrected Part 5: the plan's Appendix C projects tax increment through 2045, and every projected dollar after 2027 depends on a new county formula and an amended interlocal agreement not yet negotiated.

What changed: This recap originally said that how much of the $200,000 utility reimbursement has actually been paid "is not established on the record." It is: Amendment No. 2 to the development agreement, executed February 4, 2025 and reproduced at pages 33–36 of the August 18, 2026 meeting packet, states in its recitals that the Town "has reimbursed HostDime $200,000.00 in accordance with Section 3(a)(i) of the Agreement." The sentence has been revised.

What changed: Part 2 originally attributed its quotations to "the Town's presenter" and "a member of the same team." The speakers are now named: CRA Executive Director Michael Johnson said "our project has nothing to do with a museum" and "no one reached out to the city for collaboration," and a representative of the Eatonville Chamber of Commerce said the Town, CRA and Chamber are "all working together collaboratively" despite a "reputation of not working together." Nothing in the earlier wording was inaccurate, but who said which matters here: one is the applicant agency's director describing the other applicants, the other is the Chamber describing Eatonville's own institutions. A paragraph has been added making that distinction explicit. The speaker of the 2021 MOU answer is still not identified, and the brief now says so.

What changed: Updated the same day as publication with the task force's own August 11 records, which resolve two things the brief had left open. The status note originally said Cheatonville had not confirmed the disposition of P.E.C.'s $53 million request; the task force's written recommendations and meeting recording show P.E.C. did not advance and was referred to the county's ARC grant program, while the Town of Eatonville CRA did advance. Part 3 originally rested its central point on Cheatonville having found no public record of county approval of the CRA extension; that has been replaced with Orange County staff stating on the record, at the August 11 meeting, that the county "hasn't committed to that" and that the CRA's "expiration date of January 1 of next year" still stands.

What changed: Part 5 stated that the 2025 Plan Update projects tax increment revenue only through 2027 and that "No financial case is presented for the 18 years beyond 2027." That was wrong: the plan's Appendix C projects tax increment year by year through 2045. The passage has been rewritten to state what the record actually shows — the capped $350,000 County contribution runs through the 2027 sunset, and the plan's own text conditions everything after that on a new formula and an amended interlocal agreement with Orange County. The full plan is now reproduced in the Cheatonville Library so readers can check the projections themselves.

What changed: Part 5 cited Florida Statute §163.3755 for the Orange County delegation of redevelopment authority. That was wrong: §163.3755 governs termination of a community redevelopment agency, while §163.410 is the delegation provision for a county with a home rule charter — and the plan itself cites §163.410 twice and never mentions §163.3755. Corrected. The Short Version also described a Citrus County reference, two conflicting end dates, and a wrong-city effective-date clause as all appearing in "a plan document"; only the Citrus County reference is in the plan, and the other two are in the adopting CRA resolution. Reworded to attribute each to the correct instrument.

What changed: Part 6 cited Florida Statute §163.387(7)(b) for the 10-day budget-filing requirement with Orange County. The correct citation is §163.387(6)(b) — subsection (7) governs disposition of trust fund money remaining at fiscal year-end, not the filing deadline. Corrected.