MINUTES OF MEETING TURTLE RUN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

A special meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Turtle Run Community Development District was held on Monday, April 12, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. at Residence Inn by Marriott, 5730 N. State Road 7, Coconut Creek, Florida 33073

Present and constituting a quorum:
Chris Kapish	Chairman
Lance Morgan	Vice Chairman
Skip Carney	Assistant Secretary
Zaida Karnegis	Assistant Secretary
Michael Hohl	Assistant Secretary Also present were:

Dennis Baldis Michael Pawelczyk Jonathan Geiger Jon Zak
Rhonda Mossing Rich Hans Tamara Peacock Melanie DeJesus

District Manager District Counsel KCI Technologies Anzco, Inc.
MBS Capital Markets (phone) GMS (phone)
Tamara Peacock Architects Tamara Peacock Architects

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Baldis called the meeting to order and called the roll.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. Kapish led a moment of silence.

Moment of Silence

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Kapish: There is no flag in this room.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Good News
Mr. Kapish: Good news. Does anybody have any good news for us? Skip? Mr. Carney: All good Chris. Thank you.

Mr. Kapish: Zaida?
Ms. Karnegis: Nothing new.
Mr. Kapish: Mike, do you have anything? Mr. Hohl: Nothing to report.
Mr. Kapish: Lance?
Mr. Morgan: It rained in Turtle Run yesterday.
Mr. Kapish: That is good news. We need it very bad.
Mr. Morgan: That was very good news yesterday,	pretty good rain too. Mr. Kapish: How are our hot spots doing Dennis with all that rain?
Mr. Baldis: I will let you know in two days. Mr. Kapish: Ok.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment
Mr. Kapish: Is there anybody from the public here? Mr. Baldis: No.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Traffic Accident &
Acceptance of Insurance Proceeds (Streetlight TRB)
Mr. Kapish: Number 6, discussion of the traffic accident and acceptance of the insurance proceeds, streetlight on Turtle Run Boulevard.
Mr. Baldis: We had a brief conversation at the last meeting on the traffic accident where the streetlight got hit in front of the school. The insurance company of the person who hit it has a $10,000 limit on their insurance. That is what they are willing to pay. The cost is around $14,400. We are looking for direction to accept and send them a letter saying we will accept the $10,000, and if you want to proceed with pursuing the owner of the car for the other $4,000, for the total amount.
Mr. Kapish: I think Mike charges more than that.
Mr. Pawelczyk: A little bit more. It will cost you $600 just to file the lawsuit. Mr. Baldis: I am just looking for direction on whether it is ok to go ahead.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Dennis and I spoke about this is the insurance company that's asking for basically a demand letter from the District. We just need authority to request that they pay us what they owe us, whether it is the $10,000 limit and to authorize the

proper District officials to execute any settlement documents related to that, that are subject to legal review. We haven't seen anything yet but if that is ok with the Board and if what they send us is problematic or provides the District with additional options to pursue that $4,400 or whatever it is, we will advise the Board accordingly.
Mr. Kapish: Ok. I think unless anybody has any objection, I think it is the direction of the Board to have that demand letter sent and I guess we are going to be short $4,400 on that end. At the end of the day, there is nothing we can do but sue them which would probably cost $10,000.
Mr. Hohl: I would make that motion.

On MOTION by Mr. Hohl seconded by Mr. Morgan with all in favor, authorizing District staff to send a demand letter to the insurance company for the traffic accident of the streetlight on Turtle Run Boulevard was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Purchase of Street
Signs
Mr. Kapish: The discussion of the purchase of the street signs.
Mr. Baldis: We spoke at the last meeting, and I told you I would be bringing this back. This is to purchase the remainder of all the street signs for all the streets within Turtle Run and for the installation of them. Mainnor and Joe from Lightworks, in your package you will see that there is a proposal from Horsepower who has reduced their price. I believe they are the best ones to install the signs. They are familiar with the product. They have the ability to store the signs on their property and not on the FPL easement. I met with Mainnor last week and he looked behind Mr. Carney's house. We can have the first delivery of poles delivered and start that process. The poles will come in two shipments. We are hoping to have the first shipment installed by the time the second shipment gets delivered so there is not a lot of poles just sitting out there unattended. I also had a conversation with Jonathan, and they are having an estimate with their engineering cost in there. Considering if we use one vendor, in the past we have used two vendors and have had separate little jobs being installed in different locations, this will be an effort to install them street by street by one vendor and his cost

will be greatly reduced because he won't be coming out multiple times. We can pretty much finish this section and ask Jonathan to come out once instead of every other day or so. That is where we are at. The proposal is there. Mainnor and Joe are here to answer any questions. You can see that the purchase of the poles is $208,970. There are existing poles already at Horsepower. To purchase the signage , he has the poles at
$6,280. The installation of the poles, the 93 remaining poles is $51,150. We would like to move forward with doing that so we can install them all at once, get all the signage completed. We estimate that can be done within four months. Every sign will be in place and we will be done with the installation of the signage. That is what we are looking for.
Mr. Kapish: So what do you need the Board to do at this time?
Mr. Baldis: I am asking you to approve the proposals for the purchase of the signs for $208,970. I am asking you to approve the purchase of additional signage for the existing poles that Horsepower already has on site for $6,280. I am asking you to approve their proposal for the installation of the other 93 signs for $51,150 . You can see it in your package he reduced his unit price to $550, he was very high before. The reason he dropped his price is because the poles will be onsite, he doesn't have to have them shipped to his warehouse, load them up and move them twice . They will all be here, and he can just come out. So he has dropped his price down very competitively. We did have a price that was a couple thousand dollars less than that, but I didn't think using them was a good idea because they didn't have the ability to store the signage on their property. They wanted to store it on the FPL easement and the thought of having 8 pallets of signage sitting out there and what could happen to them, souvenirs or whatever, damage to them, it is just easier to have Horsepower bring what he needs for that street, put them on the poles, put them in, and finish the street systematically. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Carney: Just so the Board is aware , all that money is accounted for. Mr. Baldis: That is correct.
Mr. Kapish: Can we do them separately, so it is clear?
Mr. Pawelczyk : If YOl:J want, I can craft a motion. I think I have the notes.	If someone wants to so move it, you can. It is a motion to authorize the purchase of the

poles and signage from Lightworks as presented in the proposal for $208,970, also from Lightworks for $6,280 for the 15 signs. Correct Dennis?
Mr. Baldis: Correct.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Then to further authorize accepting the proposal from Horsepower Electric for the installation of 93 signs in the amount of $51,150 and authorize the execution of any agreements prepared in connection with those purchases and proposals.

On MOTION by Mr. Carney seconded by Mr. Hohl with all in favor, authorizing the purchase of 93 poles and signage from Lightworks as presented in the proposal in the amount of
$208,970; also from Lightworks in the amount of $6,280 for 15 signs and to further authorize accepting the proposal from Horsepower Electric for the installation of 93 signs in the amount of $51,150 and authorizing the execution of any agreements prepared in connection with those purchases and proposals was approved.

Mr. Baldis: We have an existing contract with Horsepower to install those 15 signs but since we are awarding them the 93, he is dropping that price down to $550 so we are going to have to adjust his contract for that. It is going to be less money than it was previously . That is going to be for $8,250.
Mr. Pawelczyk: We are looking for a motion to amend the existing contract with Horsepower for the 15 signs to reduce the installation cost from $795 to $550 per sign and authorize District counsel to prepare that amendment and authorize the proper District officials to execute it.

On MOTION by Mr. Carney seconded by Ms. Karnegis with all in favor, a motion to amend the existing contract with Horsepower for 15 signs and reduce the installation cost from
$795 to $550 per sign and authorize District counsel to prepare that amendment and authorize the proper District officials to execute it was approved.

Mr. Baldis: That is all I have on that item.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Bond Projects
A  Consideration of Underwriting Agreement with MBS Capital Markets, LLC
B. Discussion of financing possibilities Mr. Kapish: Rhonda, can you hear me?
Ms. Mossing: I can hear you. Mr. Kapish: Is Rich on?
Mr. Hans: I am here.
Mr. Kapish: Zaida and Mike, I don't think you know Rhonda. She was going back 20 years ago; she was our manager back maybe 21 years ago in the old days. Anyway, GMS is her company. Her and Rich have the company and Rich does the southern part of Florida and Rhonda does the northern part of Florida. I think they have Districts outside of the State of Florida. There is numerous Districts in the State of Florida from Fire Districts to Water Districts to CDD's and all kinds of Districts. Rhonda's experience is tremendous.
Ms. Mossing: Chris, can I interrupt? I don't work for GMS. Mr. Kapish: I am sorry, I made a mistake.
Ms. Mossing: I work for MBS Capital Markets and Rich Hans works for GMS. Mr. Kapish: You are correct, my mistake.
Mr. Hans: Years ago.
Mr. Kapish: I was just trying to give an overview of Rhonda, yourself but you actually stated it better than I did. We miss you from the old days. Anyway, we are going to move on. The bond that we are finishing up here was underwritten by Rhonda and MBS Capital Markets. Of course, originally the bond was an $11,000,000 bond. I don't know if everybody has this copy here.
Mr. Baldis: They do.
Mr. Kapish: Just to kind of review it, the bond issue was only $7.5 million, not exactly $8 million. The remaining bond that was validated was $3.5 million which makes a total of $11 million. Again the $11 million if that was issued, we probably wouldn't be in the position we are today of not being able to finish the District. Anyway, the bottom line is what we are looking to do is a proposal. We are just going to be talking about this. We are not going to be getting into details of it, we are just going to give an overall discussion of it, how the bond is issued and how it works from Rhonda today. Just for example, if

were to seek a $5 million bond there would be costs with it obviously, to have it issued. The issues would be that before we come, the amount we need to go for this unlike we did last time where we need to get better pricing, we need to be more accurate in what we are doing, and a good start would be the old bond list which is unfinished projects. Rhonda, go ahead. I am going to turn it over to you and let you explain how it all works and what the District needs to do, the timing of it and how long it would take and that type of stuff. If you want to go ahead you have the floor.
Ms. Mossing: This is an update. Back in 2017 the Board authorized and validated
$11,000,000 for the debt; it could be increased by the District for a list of capital improvements  to have the engineer  prepare for you.   The District actually  issued
$7,545,000 in bonds with targeted projects on the $7,000,000. You have approximately
$3,455,000 left in the bond debt validation issue without having to validate more debt. Chris contacted me and said he thought you might have about $5,000,000 in projects to complete and asked me to take a look at that. We are not really permitted to discuss bond financing with the Board until the Board approves an investment banking agreement with us. Then the investment banking agreement is just contingent upon closing on the bonds. If you never close on the bonds, then you don't pay us anything. If you close on the bonds, then under the terms of the investment banking agreement, you will pay us our fee which is 1.5%. I can't tell you prior to receiving that from you what the structure of this bond issue will look like and how long it is going to take to issue it. It depends upon if you issue $5,000,000 worth of project debt, then you have to validate more bonds. Your attorney will tell you it will take 90 to 120 days to validate bonds. If you just want to issue what is left in the current validation, the first step is to approve our agreement so we can work with the District staff running the numbers. The second step is approving an engineer's report that identifies the projects and costs and then from there decide whether or not you have enough left under that current validation to issue those bonds and whether you need to validate more bonds. Those are the first three steps. If you want to work with the Board and the staff on running the numbers, and then get a list of costs, we would be happy to do that, but we need to enter into a contract to do that to comply with the rules.

Mr. Kapish: Rhonda, what was the amount based upon that $5,000,000, the annual cost?
Ms. Mossing: If you wanted to fund $5,000,000 it would be $5,800,000 in debt.
Ms. Mossing was inaudible at this time.
Ms. Mossing: It really depends upon the improvements that you are constructing and who is benefiting from those improvements, what the annual assessment per residential unit, per commercial unit will be. I can tell you that if everybody benefits equally, you are looking at a debt service per quarter acre for a $5,755,000 bond issue over 30 years is about $269 per unit in addition to what you are already paying.
Mr. Kapish: Right. Again, going back to the projects on the original bond, they were balanced between the benefit from residents, benefit from the businesses and partners and whatnot and the condominiums. That I guess Rich went ahead and did a methodology on it so that is how we had to balance what we did for residents and what
we do for the businesses. We can't expect people to pay taxes for a benefit they are not
\
receiving. That is very important. I guess what we are going to try to do here is to just get an overview of this and how it works. Then we are going to have to go through the list of what wasn't completed.	I have a question of some of the things that weren't completed, can that tip the balance of the assessments to certain taxpayers versus the others because maybe we didn't balance it out with the actual construction of those items. Mr. Hohl: What was the cost? Was it per acre or per quarter acre for the $5,000,000
bond?
Mr. Morgan: Per quarter acre, $269 I think she said.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I think what Rhonda is saying is if the Board wants to move forward
with this, you need to enter into this or approve this underwriting agreement before she can give you financial advice. Rhonda, can you hear me, it is Mike? Anyway, she can't really talk to you about this until you approve this agreement.
Mr. Kapish: What we are doing is we are giving some arbitrary numbers just to show what it would be like until like Mike said, until we enter into an agreement with her. Mr. Pawelczyk: And that is if you are interested in moving forward with the bond issuance.	If you are interested in exploring one, and you need her advice as an investment banker to give you the advice, she kind of outlined a little bit beforehand. We

need to enter into this underwriting agreement. There is no cost to the District unless we move forward to issue the bond. We don't pay MBS until you issue the bonds. Her fee comes out of the bond proceeds. If you are interested in exploring the bond issuance for any amount, she needs this agreement approved by the bond first before she can give you investment advice. Since she can't hear you now, she can't give you any advice anyway .
Mr. Kapish: Is Rich off too?
Mr. Baldis: Rich, can you hear me? Mr. Hans: I am here.
Mr. Baldis: Mike pretty much summed it up with where we are at.
Mr. Kapish: Ok, does everybody understand what we are talking about? We are talking about exploring something that doesn't cost us any money until it is issued. It is one of the possibilities that we need to explore because with the budget, and going over the budget, we haven't gone over it yet, but some of the items for streetlights for example, we have 119 streetlights now that need to be maintained. That is a cost that is now incurred by the District. The fountains, those are costs that have been incurred over the years that we have put them in. Whenever you do something that is an improvement, you are going to have some costs factors and that is exactly what the District does. It maintains this property. Now it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be a lot of money, but every time you put something on there and here in this case, we lost $4,000 for this pole. We need to have a line item and increase and add some line items to the budget and put the appropriate amount of money in there to figure out what they cost. I think if we look at some of the line items that we have for Mike and for the engineer and stuff like that, we need to take a look at what those line items are. Today also we have a line item for the grass cutting. If we ever needed to or wanted to put that out for bid, we might be surprised at what the bids are. In fact, what they would be versus what we are paying today. We need to be on a financial plane so that we can be able to do these things without having hiccups. If you go back, and I think everybody was provided this sheet I think, it goes back to the year 2001 and what the total assessment per acre was and what the percent that has changed was. I go back to 2015 which was the last time that we had a tax increase. Unfortunately, we don't have the ability that the City has or the County

when they issue tax letters, what they do is they go by appraisals. Appraisals go up automatically because every year unless it is a recession, the appraisals on people's properties goes up. Without even raising a dollar on their taxes they are getting more money every year. They are getting lots of money especially now with homes being sold and bought. I know people that are paying three times as much as I am paying now in City taxes on the total tax bill. Nothing can be done about it. The City will say we never raise your taxes. That is sort of true and sort of not true because if they really wanted to not raise my taxes, they would lower the millage rate. They keep the millage rate the same and once in a while they do raise the millage rate on top of the appraisals which really gets them a lot of money. I am not criticizing necessarily the cities for doing that. The City's two biggest expenses to run the City is police and fire. Those are the two biggest expenses a city has. Now the other costs are important, but they are not as much as those two entities. Bottom line is that I think we have done pretty good. We have actually issued a bond, absorbed the bond, and didn't raise taxes over it. From 2016, 2017 and 2018, and in 2019, we went down a little bit. It was a rounding type thing of numbers, but we haven't raised taxes in six years. If you went according to the cost of living and I don't know what the cost of living is exactly, but let's just say for arbitrary purposes let's just call the cost of living is 2 to 3% a year. In six years that would be at least 12 to 18%. If you took that and let's say the bond that you purchased was within that realm and you have enough leftover, we still have a carryover today. We will have to go into those numbers deeper in another meeting when we have more time. This is just a meeting to introduce this because we have to have this budget downtown by June 14. This is April, so we have two months to get this thing downtown to do something. One thing you don't want to is, well this was advice that we should have done a while ago, was just every other year or so raise it 2 or 3% to keep it with the cost of living so people don't go, oh wow 15%. It depends on the people that are going to be impacted. We are all going to be impacted for example, the Harbor Island development which has zero lot line homes and they pay about $850 to the COD because CDD's taxing is based upon the square footage of the lot. My lot is X amount of square feet. It is bigger than Lance's lot, so I pay more than Lance does. I don't get any more benefit. In fact there is other people who live on the Boulevard for example, they got a wall. We all benefit from the

construction of the wall, but they are a direct benefit from the construction of the wall because they actually get a wall, I don't get anything. Not that I am not happy about that because anything that you do to improve the District makes it an improvement for all is what I am saying. Does anybody have any questions at this point?
Mr. Pawelczyk: I think Mike and Zaida understand this but any time you issue a bond, it is only for capital improvements. It has nothing to do with maintenance. I just want to make sure that is clear. I don't want to put words in Chris's mouth or talk for him, but I think what he is saying is that if you adopt your current budget, you are going to need to look at that budget and apply more of what you used to have in your capital line items towards maintenance which would thereby reduce your current capital line item unless you increase the assessments accordingly. The bond would just be for capital items, improvement projects. For the most part, there is no maintenance costs that bond proceeds could pay for. It can't pay for maintenance.
Mr. Kapish: Yes, you cleared it up for me. We have increased maintenance costs and we need to look at those things. The second part of that, once you take that cost that we have built into the budget, and use it for maintenance of things, we are still going to need to do some things. We need to fix some things and those things we are going to have to compile a list and come up with what we should be doing. Again, not going to get into that tonight because we have a whole thing here to do and we try to keep these meetings relatively not an all-night. We try to keep them an hour and a half at tops. This needed to be introduced tonight. It needed to be introduced two months ago probably or even in January is when we needed to talk about it, because we need to move on this item quickly because we need to make a decision. That decision could range from doing nothing and keeping everything the same to doing something. I think when you do something, especially with the District, we live in a nice place. If we want to keep a nice place, it is going to cost money. It is what it is. I guess that brings me to this item which is the MBS Capital Market underwriting agreement. There is no downside to entering into this so we can start exploring things and talking about things. What I am looking for is a motion to enter into an agreement with them to explore this for our budget purposes.
Mr. Carney: Can I make a comment? I really don't think we are prepared, or I am not prepared to enter into any agreement tonight. That is my opinion. We are a Board;

everyone speaks independently, but that is my opinion. We need to have more discussion.
Mr. Kapish: Again, it has nothing to do with anything that we are going to be held to. It is an agreement, just like we talk about a park agreement , it doesn't mean that we have to do that, but we need to do this because we have two months to do a budget.
Mr. Morgan: Mike, this is just an agreement, you probably reviewed the agreement, just so we can talk with her, otherwise without an agreement in place, she can't give us any information.
Mr. Pawelczyk: It is so you can talk to her about a potential bond issue. Mr. Morgan: Without that, she can't talk to us at all, correct?
Mr. Pawelczyk : Essentially yes. She can't give you the advice you would be looking for from a bond standpoint other than to run the numbers that she has already provided which is kind of preliminary, just an idea to what it looks like. I think she probably had help from Rich to do that. There is really no reason to discuss that. It only applies to the budget if you are going to, and I don't know from a timing standpoint, you could include another debt assessment on this year's budget or this year's tax bill coming up that you are going to approve the budget for. I have no idea, that is a question for Rich. I don't know if you could do that in time to cover the capital side.
Mr. Hohl: If my math is correct, looking at the chart that was given to us on historical annual assessment rates, and the percentage of change from one year to the next, back in 2004 we increased the rate 16.7% and in 2015 it was a 15% increase.
Mr. Kapish : Correct.
Mr. Hohl: If we were to choose to go for this entire amount on this piece of paper here where the assessment is $1,074.44 per acre, that would be over an 18% increase which basically since 2001, and I don't know what it was before then, that would be the largest increase we have ever had in assessments in any given year. That is something to think about. I kind of have to agree with Skip, I don't know that we are prepared to talk about whether or not we want to issue a bond. I think we are kind of putting the cart before the horse. I think the first thing we need to do is, we lay out all the capital projects that we think might be something the District would want to look at and come up with some type of an estimate to a cost to each of those, then decide if this is something we

need to do in one chunk, or if this is something we can do over time. There is two ways to do capital projects. One is on an annual basis with the money that you already have. A lot of government agencies have a capital improvement plan where they lay out all their capital projects and every year the Board prioritizes those projects. Then they decide how much money do we want to budget for capital.   In our case, is it $500,000 or
$1,000,000 or $10,000,000? Depending on what we decide from our list of prioritizations, we pick the projects that we feel can be funded within that amount of money. I think until we do that, we really can't say with clarity how much money we would even need to borrow if that is what we would choose to borrow. If that was the decision to do, is to borrow. We may be able to over time using that capital improvement plan tackle these projects one at a time and not have to take a bond. Maybe the rates would have to go up as our annual expenses went up, and maybe we could incrementally increase as opposed to a one-time 18% or 20% or whatever it is going to need to be. That is a pretty big hit for anybody to see on their tax bill. I really think we need to discuss our approach to this and our strategy towards it, and maybe give each of the Board members a detailed list of capital projects so that we can say yes, this one is important, this one is more important than that one.   You did say we have ten projects; we need money to fund all ten projects, but maybe only the top five projects are important to everybody on the Board. Maybe some of the projects are important to some people and some are not, but it may work out that not all ten are as important to everyone in the same way. I think we need to do that first. I think the other thing we need to think about is, we represent everybody that lives in Turtle Run and all the businesses. We don't want to look like we are just arbitrarily raising taxes just because we want complete projects. We need to do it in a way that stays fiscally responsible is understanding of the individual homeowners. Right now, if you look at what has been happening with the economy and people losing their jobs, coming in and saying we want to raise taxes 18%, I don't know how well that is going go with the taxpayers. I think we need to first lay out our plan and then decide how we want to fund it. Do we want to fund it over time on an annual basis and maybe we do need to raise our taxes every year to make that happen, or do we want to front load it with a bond? The fact that we currently have a bond, that is going to be paid off in another 25 years or, so that is debt that is already there. It is just something I think we need to think about

before we move forward. I understand wanting to get it done before the budget, but I agree with our attorney, I don't know that we have the time. We might, but it would be close. The question then remains is, should we push an issue that we are not completely sure that we want to move forward with yet. Personally, I don't have enough information to make that decision tonight.
Mr. Pawelczyk: The timing really is not so much an issue when you issue the bonds, because you could issue the bonds in September and that assessment just wouldn't appear until the following years tax bill. It is still going to increase the overall assessment. That is the only thing with the timing that I was mentioning. I don't know if you could issue a bond in time for that to be included as part of the debt assessment on this budget. That was more my point.
Mr. Hohl: So, we levy or change our debt assessment once a year according to our budget, is that correct?
Mr. Pawelczyk: The debt assessment is adopted when you issue the bonds. You have a debt assessment on your bond. There is an amortization schedule that is approved. It is essentially the same for the 30 years of the bond.
Mr. Hohl: The taxes could change during the tax year is what you are saying, or would we have to wait until the tax year?
Mr. Pawelczyk: If you were to issue let's say after the deadline to get this into the property appraisers tax collector's hand, I am talking bond only, then those monies that are being assessed would not be assessed until the following year. They wouldn't be part of your fiscal year 2022 budget; they would be part of your fiscal year 2023 budget. It doesn't mean you could still get the money earlier. That is the information the investment banker tells you as to how that bond is structured in terms of how it is paid off. To me, it really doesn't matter when you do that. I think one of the purposes is to try to, what we talked about the last couple of meetings, it seems like the Board is trying to if we need to increase the assessments, let's do it now.
Mr. Kapish: It is not about issuing a bond today, tomorrow or next week. It is not about that. The issue that we are talking about is that the assessments will have to increase period because our carryover is $200,000 right now. That is not enough to do anything with. What we have left, unless you want to wipe out the $400,000 or $500,000,

we don't even know what we will have left by the time we pay all of our bills. We were all against wiping that out and going below a certain amount of money. I don't know where you are going to get money from to do any capital projects period. There is none. That is what the cold hard reality is today, is that this it's not so much about a bond, it is about setting our assessments and deciding what the assessment is going to be by June. What I am trying to incorporate in that is options like issuing a bond. The bond would be issued months later or maybe a year from now. It is not about tonight. I am discussing a long­ range financial plan for the District to get us to the level and to get us to the place where it should be. We don't have any money. That is the cold hard truth of it at the end of the day. We don't have any money even to do a small project, we don't have any money to do that. We don't have any money to finish the walls that was have already started in the Estates. We don't have any money for that. What I am looking at is, I know businesspeople and people are looking at this, they are good if they get something done and they see it. They see something tangible done. People don't like it when you tax them, and they get nothing out of it. This is the one place in Turtle Run, every dollar that is taxed here doesn't go anywhere else outside of Turtle Run. It stays here. It goes into the community. That is why the community looks the way it does. The community looks the way it does not because we have taxed too little, actually it is amazing that we are aiming at the spot for the little taxation that there is. This last tax bill, my tax bill went up
$300. I don't know about yours, but my overall tax bill went up $300. Nobody said anything. Nobody cared. Nobody went to the City, they just accepted it. My tax dollars are all going everywhere else in the City of Coral Springs, but we are not seeing it in Turtle Run. We have talked about a lot of things. What we need to do is get a decision on an assessment, what the assessment is going to be for this coming year. I would rather have an increase one time and forget about it. We have gone through this. You can see that we have gone through this and we didn't lose our mind. People didn't lose their homes. Nobody likes to pay more, but when we say 15%, if I pay a dollar as a tax and my taxes go up 15%, I am paying a dollar and 15 cents is what I am paying. Numbers sometimes can be very misleading when we sit there, and we use them to say that this is like outrageous. At the end of the day, everybody at this table is not paying the majority of this at all. The people that are paying the majority of this actually have indicated that

they like the lights, they like those types of things . We also talk about the lights, right now we are paying a light bill for streets that are City streets. Now if we want to save money, we need to work on those things too at the same time and turn that light bill over to the City. That is going to take discussing with people from the City about it. I had talked about that and initiated it awhile back, but we got sidetracked with other stuff. The bottom line is that again, we are not deciding anything tonight. All we are doing is trying to open up options. When you close doors for things you don't have any options., that is all I am saying. We are going to have to do something because the pay as you go type thing, there is no such thing. If we paid as we go, we wouldn't even have streetlights today. We wouldn't have anything today Mike, at all. The carryover was $500,000 and we are talking about the last three or four years, what is that $1,000,000 or $2,000,000? We would barely have enough money to pay for streetlights. There is where people would like to be and there is reality.  The reality is that the District has no money.  The District is going to have to decide what the assessments are. Again, I don't know why there is a problem with entering into an agreement that doesn't cost you any money. It doesn't even mean that you have to even issue a bond at all, it just means that you are able to talk to somebody and get some financial advice. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Mr. Carney: Mike, the percentage of increase isn't 18%, it is 26%.
Mr. Kapish: I don't know what the increase would be. That is what the whole discussion would be about. Nobody is saying that it is going to be this or that. We are throwing out numbers here of what they are going to be.
Mr. Hohl: I was just going off of this historical sheet. Mr. Kapish: I understand that.
Mr. Hohl: The total assessment per acre is different for year 2019, 2020 and 2021. It shows it's the same as 2018 where in this other sheet it actually went down for those three years. If it went down, then it would be a 26% increase.
Mr. Kapish: The District lost some taxable property way back. We do have 311 assessable units right now. Anyway, I didn't want to belabor this whole point. I was trying to make it simple for people. I thought we could, again, we are not looking for deciding what the assessments will be, but a 4% assessment will not do anything. A 4% assessment will yield you $40,000. I don't know what you are going to do with that.

That might be good for maintenance costs, but that is not going to build anything.
Mr. Hohl: I think the first thing that we need to do is look at the whole budget presentation without the bond and what would the assessment rate need to be in order to cover the proposed budget. That is why I am referring to this line item budget that was given to us that has all of the expenses detailed out by line. For instance, there is a line where lighting and electrical repairs of $20,000 which is a $15,000 increase from our current budget year. There is a line for landscaping, so on and so on. There are some increases and there are a few decreases in this proposed budget. I would like to know out of this proposed budget, what would the annual assessment need to be to cover that without any additional capital expenditures being added to the budget?
Mr. Baldis: I just wanted to say this is a preliminary budget. It is not a proposed budget. We will work on a proposed budget. This is just to get the conversation started. Yes, I went through this to get it started and I increased items that I thought that we needed to increase . Some items were eliminated. I moved them around and I changed some of the narrative to give a better description of what each line item is covering. For the pool, we don't have a pool which is confusing for someone who doesn't sit in this meeting, so it was changed to fountain and it describes what that cost is. This was just to get the budget conversation going.
Mr. Morgan: These figures were gathered from historical perspectives from the past and what you have known that has changed in this past year.
Mr. Baldis: Yes. I tried to get a start on that.
Mr. Morgan: It may be higher, or it could be lower, a lot of things depending on what the Board wants. The Board sets the budget in the final analysis.
Mr. Hohl: Again, my question would be under this preliminary budget with what we are currently collecting, is there enough money to cover the expenditures?
Mr. Baldis: The increases that were put in and also the decreases, all of that change came out of the capital project transfer out. That is the item that decreased the most if you look on page 2, the capital project transfers out, it went from $74,000 down to
$6,555. As we go through this process, we still have to finish paying off projects we have, and we don't where we are at with those. We are much closer than we were before, and I believe some things got approved already and Jonathan is going to have something

tonight. We will have a really good handle on what is going to be owed to finish those seven projects out very soon, I would say by the next two meetings, and we will know what we have left in the reserves and the capital from the existing money we have. There are really only two unknowns that I can give accurate information on, and it is engineering costs and when those poles go in the ground, whether they are going to hit irrigation, I can't predict what repairs and stuff like that is going to be. I think we will be able to really know what we are going to have to spend and have leftover soon.
Mr. Carney: We will have a little bit more leftover then what has been the forecast. Mr. Pawelczyk: This preliminary budget proposes no increase in the assessment. Mr. Baldis: Correct.
Mr. Pawelczyk: But really just takes a little bit from certain line items including the current capital project fund, right?
Mr. Baldis: Yes.
Mr. Pawelczyk: So no change basically. Mr. Baldis: Yes.
Mr. Kapish: Your capital improvements fund, which is only $100,000, is down to
$6,000, that is why I say that from year to year we will have enough to maintain ourselves, but we don't have enough to do anything. Even refurbishing signs, we are not going to have money to do anything with that period. That is why we have to take a look at the big picture and do what is best for Turtle Run as a whole. I don't know if it is going to be an 18% increase, I don't know if it is going to be a 12% increase, but we need to figure that out because we are ready to shove this thing down to the tax office in the middle of June so that is 60 days away. We don't have time or can afford the luxury of micro scoping every little thing. We are going to have to come up with a general plan and move with it. Like I said, you can increase the budget by 4% and that is going to yield $40,000. That is not enough to do anything with. I wouldn't even bother increasing the tax 4% to something that you really can't do anything with. It doesn't make sense.
Mr. Carney: $51,000 is the exact number at 4%.
Mr. Kapish: $40,000 or $50,000, whatever it is, the bottom line is you still can't do anything with that. Just to build a section of wall is $200,000 to $300,000.

Mr. Hohl: That is my point. When we use the wall as an example, I am not confident that building a wall is something that everybody wants to do. Pick any project you want, build a new street, we don't know that the projects that I want are the projects that you want or the projects that Lance or Zaida want. We need to put them all down on paper and decide what are the priorities, what comes first and then look at our budget and say, do we have the money to do those top priorities now or are we happy with doing them in the next two years or whatever it would take, or do we need to take out a bond because we are not going to have the money to do the ones that we think are important.
Mr. Kapish: That is right.
Mr. Hohl: Until we do that exercise, and I know you did it before, I am saying it is time to do it again because some of the projects may not have a priority anymore .
Mr. Kapish: The Estates wall needs to be finished. Lance's neighbors all the way down the street, about a dozen of them are all looking for this wall.	Now what do you want us to tell them? They are not going to get the wall. I am not going to tell them that.
Mr. Hohl: I guess the price that we were looking at, $62,000 a home, that is a big chunk of money when you are talking about five or ten or fifteen homes that you want to put a wall behind.  That could be a good project.  It may not be the number one project. I think we talked about this before, that right now our biggest eyesore is our nine monument signs to all of our entrances that are in disarray that need to be refurbished. Until we do that, I don't know that we need to tackle other projects. We are going to finish the signage which if you look at everything that we did under the bond, I think this has done a yeoman's job of improving the District.
Mr. Kapish: To refurbish those signs it is not $30,000, I don't know. You said that Skip. Where did you get that figure from?
Mr. Carney: It was a guestimate at this point.
Mr. Kapish: You got it from no source. We are talking about something that we have no sources to cite.
Mr. Carney: It may not even cost that much.
Mr. Kapish: It is going to cost more than that because we got a figure from Tamara Peacock with $73,000 which didn't include electric. Then those signs were built in the early 80's. They are not brought up to code. As soon as you start pulling caps off, the

electric is all rotted. I know that because I have seen it. It all has to be replaced. The electric is probably going to be $20,000 a sign. Let's just say it is $100,000 to refurbish the sign. Then you have architectural costs, and you are going to have engineering costs because you can't pull that sign apart and put granite or whatever you are talking about in it, you have to engineer it. It has to have wind loads. It has to surpass Coral Springs standards. Something that was built in 1980 is not going to meet up to the standards of today.
Mr. Hohl: That was the whole point of not tearing them down and refurbishing. If you don't pass a certain threshold, you don't have to do the things that you just said and meet the current code. You can continue with the code that it was built on.
Mr. Kapish: You still have to get an architectural drawing. It has to go through DRC approval. You are going to have to pay for all of that stuff all over again. Again that
$73,000 cost that we talked about doesn't include electric, so let's just throw $20,000 for electric and then you have to go through all those engineering costs. By the time you finish, you may come up with $150,000 for refurbish a sign when you can knock it down for maybe $225,000. I am just saying. Sometimes you are throwing good money after bad. You have to look at the big picture Mike. When we throw numbers out to somehow influence people's minds, let's talk facts. Let's be real. The important part about it is, is to be real. This isn't our money. You can sit there and say the Board decides this, the Board has to decide, and you said earlier in the meeting that we need to be fair and spend the money according to what the entire District is. That is what we should do but we haven't done that. You have a gentleman here who came here from Harbor Island and he expressed his interest in getting the signs that he was promised. Instead he was belittled and what he was told was you got your streets and streetlights. That is not what he was talking about. He was talking about the entrance feature. That is what he was talking about. That is a real person who pays taxes. He was blown off, blown away.
Ms. Karnegis: Chris, you also need to be careful about what we say. One of the things that you keep saying is taxpayers are paying taxes and they are not seeing any improvement and they are.
Mr. Kapish: They are now.

Ms. Karnegis: We have things. The gentleman that was here, he wants to see an improvement. We may not be able to improve it to what we planned originally but we may be able to improve it to what is acceptable where somebody will say yes, that is nice.
Mr. Kapish: The District is not an HOA. You can't look at it like that. The City raises your taxes again $300. Did you get upset about that?
Ms. Karnegis: It is two different things that we are talking about. Mr. Kapish: No, it is not, it is all taxes.
Ms. Karnegis: It is, but it is two different things that we are talking about.
Mr. Kapish: I got upset about it, I will tell you that. I got upset about it because you know why, because that money goes someplace else in the City and I don't get the benefit of it. If I even raised taxes at the COD level $150, I would be happy because everything probably would get done and I would receive a direct benefit from it, not a direct benefit, but an indirect benefit. You would receive a direct benefit for that wall by the school. We don't have money to build that wall right now. I don't know maybe we take it off the list.
Ms. Karnegis: That is what we need to do.
Mr. Kapish: I think the wall, whether it benefits me or not, I think it benefits the District. If it benefits the District, I am all for the wall.  I am just saying.  I didn't want to get into the minutia, I wanted to get into a general discussion to open the minds of what we need to do because some of the things that we have bantered around, have been bantered around behind the scenes is not true.
Mr. Morgan: My understanding is that Chris just wants permission, if he wants to talk to Rhonda about a bond or anything like that, we are not promoting a bond. We are not going to get a bond, but she legally, for whatever reason, she can't talk to Chris about anything about a bond. I don't talk to Rhonda and I don't think any other Board member does, maybe I am mistaken, but I haven't spoken with her outside of when she used to come to the meetings. Mike, is that accurate, that Chris just needs permission to talk to her in case he has some questions about a bond? We are not saying we are promoting a bond.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I don't think its Chris. I think it is advising the Board.

Mr. Morgan: If the Board has questions. I personally don't have any questions for Rhonda, and I don't know if any of you guys do, but apparently Chris does, and he is looking at some options.
Mr. Pawelczyk: It is not just a bond; it is financing capital improvements. There are other ways to do it.
Mr. Morgan: We talked about it a couple of meetings ago, about a dialog with the City. I don't think anything is going to come about that from the City with the park and that type of thing, just my personal opinion. I could be wrong, but if he wants questions or answers, he just wants where he can call and have some dialog with her or the Board. That is an option for us at a later date. I don't think it is going to be, but there is nothing wrong with us having permission to talk to her. That is just my opinion. You guys could disagree . We are not promoting a bond. Mike is right when he says we have to have a priority list. Can it be done with capital funds that we ave on hand? Can it be done in other ways? It may be a lot of things, it may be nothing. I don't know, but we are getting tied up in just permission to talk to somebody. I understand what you are saying, and I understand what we are all saying, but we are just talking about giving her permission to talk to Chris or any other Board member. If I have a question, she says she can't do it without this being signed.   It doesn't cost us anything.   I read it really quick.   I guess there is some legal reason why she can't talk to a Board for any questions.
Mr. Pawelczyk: She needs to be engaged.
Mr. Morgan: Do you see any danger in the Board agreeing to this?
Mr. Pawelczyk: I don't see any legal problems, but it is still a Board decision. Mr. Morgan: I get that, but there are no legal problems.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Just to supplement what Lance said, also Rhonda did say she can't give you any numbers till you determine what your priority projects are. She said that. You are going to have to go through that process anyway.
Mr. Morgan: I was there during the last bond and it took us two to three years to get a bond.
Mr. Kapish: Actually, it didn't take us two to three years; it took two to three years to decide what we wanted to do because we were starting from scratch. Now we have something to work with, it won't take that long.

Mr. Morgan: If the Board decides to do it. Is there a time limit on the validation, do you know? She said we have already been validated . Does that expire eventually or anything like that?
Mr. Pawelczyk: No. You still have that $3 million some odd number left under that amount total.
Mr. Hohl: Question on that amount. That has already gone through the process.
All it would take from the Board would just be to authorize what?
Mr. Pawelczyk: To supplement the engineers report to deal with exactly what you are going to do with that remaining, let's call it $3,500,000.
Mr. Hohl:	Would that have to be covered in an additional assessment to the taxpayer to cover that amount?
Mr. Pawelczyk: They are not taxes. Everybody keeps calling them taxes, they are assessments . They are on your tax bill as Non-Ad Valorem.
Mr. Hohl: It is a special taxing district that we are in though? Mr. Kapish: Right.
Mr. Pawelczyk: It is an independent district, it is not a special taxing district.
Mr. Kapish: There is a special tax in the sense that you are paying something that other communities don't pay because you have things in your community that other communities don't have.
Mr. Hohl: What the community development district is, is that taxing district if you
will.
Mr. Kapish: Which is what makes your community a higher level of degree of the
way it is. You said that you moved to Turtle Run because you said that you liked the way it looks. Everybody that I have talked to who has moved to Turtle Run recently have all said to me that they like the way it looks. They are getting more money for their houses right now in addition to the housing boom. It is only because of the shortage of houses. My next-door neighbor sold his house, he sold it for $660,000. Now the houses on the Boulevard with a wall, they are going to get more money because they have a wall versus no wall. That makes those properties much more valuable. You decide what kind of neighborhood you want to live in. Do you want to live in this level of neighborhood, or do you want to live in this level of neighborhood?  Turtle Run has always been the higher

class. The Preserve was actually designed to be homes in there. There were about maybe 15 homes in there. They were going to be a bigger lot. They were going to be a larger square foot home and they were going to tear into some of those trees. That is when they had a protest from kids from the Coral Springs High School to preserve what is left. That was a big thing and the developer backed off. They went ahead and donated that preserve and it is owned half by Coral Springs and half by Broward County. Broward County made it a nice little park. That amenity has helped increase the values of our homes because people always say you have a park, a city park, and you have shopping close by. You have the Turnpike and you have the Sawgrass Expressway which are all amenities which all increase value because in real estate it is location, location, location. That is what makes the value of your homes.   Zaida will probably, if they put a wall behind it, between the school and the houses will probably go up $30,000 in value, I don't know. I would pay $150 a year to get $30,000 in value of my house. It is a no brainer. There is a lot of things here to think about and a lot of things here to discuss, but on the same
· token we don't have a whole lot of time. The assessments are what we are talking about. That assessment has to be decided. Nobody is deciding anything about a bond. We are trying to open up the doors to get information. Information is power and it has always been power. The more information you have, the more powerful you are to make better decisions. Again, like Lance said, all I was asking for is permission to talk to Rhonda . If you guys want to deny that and not talk about that, that is fine, no problem .
Ms. Karnegis: I have a question. With the capital improvements, because we already went through it for the first bond, and we put down exactly what we were going to spend on capital improvements, if we go to that extra money, can the same capital improvements apply to the new bond?
Mr. Pawelczyk: I think they can. The question is whether or not, whatever is in that project list, how that is going to be assessed across the property owners like we did the first time. Not all the projects that are on that list are assessed equally per commercial as they are for residential. That is why Rhonda said I can't give you numbers till you tell me what you are going to use the money for. That is really what she is asking for. You have to go through that anyway. We have to know what we are building, what we are going to spend money on for a bond. For operation and maintenance assessment you

don't need to know that. You can just have a capital line time and use it for whatever you want.
Mr. Hohl: So, you are saying depending on what the project is, it may or may not apply the same way to a residential property as opposed to the business property in Turtle Run.

be.

Mr. Pawelczyk: The benefit might not be allocated the same.
Mr. Hohl: A road might be the same, but a wall behind somebody's house may not

Mr. Kapish: That is correct.  The tendency has been to slant it a lot towards the

residents and not so much towards the businesses. When I mentioned putting in the wall, actually talking about Terrapin Lane and Sample, which has already been designed, gone to DRC for approval, paid the architect for all that work to do that in the plaza where the Turtle Run Shoppes is, where it was redone who the developer, Mark Corlew, who was on this Board, now has his plaza that looks a little different because he updated it; an updated sign in front of his plaza would surely benefit him as a business paying 60% of the taxes. Some of these things need to be discussed and come out a little bit instead of getting misinformation here. Again, we still have a lot of business here to do tonight so I don't want to belabor the point. Again, I would like to have somebody make the motion to be able to talk to Rhonda and get some information instead of shutting it down. It makes no reason to say no when there is no downside.
Mr. Pawelczyk: The motion is to enter into the underwriting agreement with MBS, correct?
Mr. Morgan: Yes, just for information gathering like Chris said. I don't think there is any downside to talking to somebody to reference information. It is just my opinion.
Ms. Karnegis: I second that just to get information.
Mr. Pawelczyk: That is not what the agreement is for just so you know. That is what the purpose of the agreement is so you can talk to the investment banker and she can provide you with advice. It basically allows you to talk to them. It is not just for information gathering. You are authorizing to enter into this agreement as it is written so if you were to issue your bonds, you agree to pay MBS 1.5% of the principal amount of

the bonds. That is the only thing if you issue bonds. If you don't issue bonds, there is no financial impact on the District.
Mr. Morgan: It is a big step from talking to someone and getting a bond.
Mr. Pawelczyk: There is lots of moving parts and lots of things to do, but you are authorizing to enter into this agreement.
Mr. Morgan: Because that is how she gets paid if we get a bond. Mr. Pawelczyk: Correct.
Mr. Morgan: Is there somebody that could do it cheaper maybe? Is there something else that we want to look into?
Mr. Hohl: That is my next question. That 1.5% is a fee that is not the interest that we would pay correct, on the bond itself?
Mr. Pawelczyk: Correct. That is a cost of issuance.
Mr. Hohl: In addition to the 1.5%, we would also have to pay interest on the bond, correct?
Mr. Pawelczyk: Oh yeah, whatever interest rate you could get, sure. There is interest on the bond. If you borrow a million dollars, 1.5% of that million dollars gets paid to MBS for all the work they do to underwrite the bond.
Mr. Kapish: That is why when originally when we talked about the bond, originally it made no sense, the $11,000,000 should have been issued because the cost to issue it was the same whether you issued $11,000,000 or whether you issued $7,500,000.
Mr. Pawelczyk: 1.5% of $11,000,000 versus 1.5% of $7,500,000.
Mr. Kapish: You are paying a percentage of the bond but what I am saying and now we would have to do it twice, when we could have done it once.
Mr. Hohl: We are still paying the same.
Mr. Pawelczyk: What Chris I think is saying, because he has gone through this and he has been very involved in all the bond issuances,   when he says you are paying twice, in some instances you are paying twice. You are paying GMS twice, you are paying District counsel twice, you are paying bond counsel twice and you are paying the engineer twice. So there are costs that you are paying twice, but you are really not paying MBS twice because their fee is based on percentage of the bond. You are paying closing costs

twice to some degree just like if you were to mortgage your house twice. You are paying closing costs each time, that is what he is saying.
Mr. Kapish: That is correct. Mike, you cleared it up, thanks.  That is why we pay
you.
Mr. Pawelczyk: That is what the underwriting agreement does. It just authorizes
her to come in and provide investment advice to you. If you choose not to issue the bonds, then there is no problem with that in the agreement. I think from Rhonda's perspective, we have worked with her, my firm has worked with her for years, well before I was there, and she is very good at what she does. I don't think that it would make any sense for the District, although you could go out and get another underwriter, but at the same time it is like anything. If you went out and got another District counsel or another District engineer, you are still going to pay about the same. You are not gaining anything by doing that. The only way I would recommend the Board to go out and change an underwriter would be if the underwriter just wasn't doing their job which you haven't authorized her to do anything yet, so we certainly can't say that.
Mr. Hohl: I think that answers my question.

On MOTION by Mr. Morgan seconded by Ms. Karnegis with four in favor and one nay, authorizing the District to enter into an underwriting agreement with MBS Capital Markets, LLC was approved.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Fiscal Year 2022
Budget
Mr. Kapish: Let's move on now to the bigger part of our agenda. Basically, the discussion of the fiscal year 2022 budget, we pretty much discussed that. I think we covered what we needed to cover. We are not going to get down to the nitty gritty tonight as far as numbers.
Mr. Baldis: I just had a question about what just happened. What is the next step now? There was a talk about doing a list and I know Rhonda said she needs a list of projects. How are we going to go about doing that list? I don't think that was decided. It was just that we were going to talk to her once we get the list.

Mr. Kapish: I think what we need to do is first of all, it is pretty much an accepted fact here that the District has exhausted all of its funds even though you have $600,000 or $700,000, unless we want to blow through that for some project. I don't know if that is a wise idea that you want to do that. You always want to have some funds to hang over. We had a million dollars and now we are going to have less than that. We all here said and agreed that we didn't want to dip into that and go below a certain amount of money. That being said, we can probably keep the budget as is and not raise anything. Be aware that we won't have any money to do anything, period. We have $200,000 which I don't know if that is the carryover now or whatever, but that is not enough to do anything with. The pay as you go type thing means nothing gets done. That is what it really means. It means that we don't build or do anything because we don't have the money. That is why young couples go out and they get a mortgage on a house because they don't have
$300,000 in their pocket to pay for a house. They pay for it over 30 years.
Mr. Baldis: I am just asking how are we going to compile the list? That is all I am asking.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Can I just make a suggestion, so we are not still talking about this an hour from now? What I think the Board should do is, the manager can circulate a list from the engineer's report of items that we didn't do. I think we have already done that, right? Circulate it to the Board members and the Board members should add to that list any other capital improvement items that they think should be included as part of that list and present it at the next meeting. Then you guys can prioritize whether you want to do them. Hopefully we will have some sort of estimate, rough estimate of cost on those items. Then you can determine from there I think if you want to include additional capital money in your O&M budget which would mean increasing your assessment on the next budget or include all of that in some kind of bond for instance which would not increase your O&M assessment on your proposed budget, but it would increase the overall assessment you pay to the District as a resident and property owner or a combination of both. Certainly, if you have any questions, you need to talk to Dennis and Rich so they can make sure they get your comments in there. What Dennis needs, not just on the capital improvement item, Dennis needs your input on the preliminary budget whether or not you are going to increase it, and any comments on line items that are in there, noting

that this Board can always change at any time in the year any of the line items that are in there, but because basically you are adopting an assessment level. Whatever that assessment level is currently per acre, that is the assessment level that you are looking to adopt in here and you are using this as a guideline. When you change a line item because you can take money out of capital to pay for streetlight bill, that is a motion that comes to this Board, the Board makes it and essentially it amends the budget to move that money around. That is what I would suggest in order to get it moving so you guys can decide what you want to do one way or the other. I think it really relies on your input and your review of this in-between meetings. That is the only way I think Dennis's office can put it on paper.
Mr. Kapish: I think also too with projects we need to get accurate costs for things. You can get that without putting it out for bid. If you talk to a source, a contractor or somebody, and they can take a look if you have a set of plans and stuff like that, then they can give you a cost. It may not be 100% until you actually bid it because all costs are just that, they are just somebody's estimate. Sometimes you can get a good estimate on some things and sometimes you are not going to get a good estimate at all. The problem for the projects that we did, yes, there was some room for change orders and stuff like that, but how much was spent on other things that were unforeseen like replacement of sprinklers and sod and stuff like that. Some of those projects didn't include that. That is the key to doing that, is to get actual clear estimates so that you can do it right. That is the problem that we ran up against. We were not working with real numbers. We were working it backwards.   We were saying we are going to issue a bond for
$8,000,000 and we are going to do all these things. We can't do it that way. We have to be real and we have to say these are the things that will make Turtle Run look great. Whatever they cost, they cost. If want to spend this amount of money, $2,000,000, that is fine. You make the priority of what we agree on. If it is $4,000,000, that is fine too. You make a list of the things that cost $4,000,000. We can't do it backwards and go, we are going to do this and then shove everything in there and say we are going to build all this for this amount of money. It is not going to work. Why would we repeat the same mistake that we made? It doesn't make any sense. I don't want to do that. I am sure nobody here wants to do that.  That is what we have meetings for and that is what we will talk about.

The next meeting we will start then. Maybe we can have a meeting dedicated just to budget only. A budget workshop, we can do that. Is there anything else so we can move on? We have Tamara Peacock here and we have Jon to talk about the fountain, which is a leaking fountain and really needs our priority and needs our attention.
Ms. Peacock: The good news is that we have some contractors that are qualified people that will come and do the work that we discussed at the last meeting. Melanie that is helping me, she does a lot of construction management in the office. She got drawings to people. She discussed with Hall Fountains who they would recommend . One of the people they recommended I had already talked to them at Shamrock. We did get ahold of the Urdl people, and they did say that they would not, they were the ones that Florida Leak recommended. What was the fourth company that Hall Fountains recommended, Greenbrook Pools.
Ms. DeJesus:   Right now, we have two people who have gone to the site. One who is going again tomorrow to finalize their proposal , which is Watermark Construction and then Shamrock Pool Services, I talked to Kerry Nichols, he currently services your pools now. He had spoken to Dennis too previously about his concerns regarding the pools. He was discussing having somebody come out there and take another look at the fountain to give a proposal. The other two that we have been talking to is JT Custom Pools and Greenbrook Pools, but the first two, Watermark Construction and Shamrock Pools, we feel like those are the strongest ones.
Mr. Kapish: What is the name of the two pool companies?
Ms. DeJesus: Watermark Construction and then the second one is Shamrock Pool Services.
Mr. Kapish : Shamrock services pools, do they build pools and construct them? Ms. DeJesus: They do leak repairs on fountains, and they do some construction .
I think it is not intensive, but right now discussing with them and trying to get a quote, they said that they would be able to do leak repairs. The only thing about Shamrock, I guess right now they are a few weeks out. They wouldn't be able to anticipate starting right away versus Watermark Construction which they have some flexibility and would be able to mobilize faster.
Ms. Peacock: He said he would have his estimate this week.

Mr. Kapish: Can you give us an overview of what they are going to do?
Ms. DeJesus: Yes, of course. Right now in talking to both Watermark Construction and JT Pools and kind of reflected by Shamrock Pools, we are estimating that the cap and stone would have to be removed from the middle wall. All the masonry cells would need to be filled.
Mr. Kapish: Jon, aren't the masonry cells filled? Mr. Zak: Yes.
Ms. DeJesus: Ok.
Mr. Zak: There should be no money for filling the cells.
Ms. DeJesus: Ok. Then the hydraulic cement that has to be spread across all seams in the wall and a cold joint would need to receive the hydraulic cement.
Mr. Kapish: Can we define cold joints because my definition of a cold joint is when you have previously poured concrete like a slab, and then you have a masonry wall built on top of it. It will stick and it is connected, and it will hold the building, but a cold joint is something that is a separate pour.
Mr. Baldis: Will they present a plan or are they just verbally telling us what they are going to do? Will there be something for the Board to look at showing what it going to happen, step by step?
Mr. Kapish: Wouldn't we have a construction plan? Mr. Zac: Chris, they would give you a procedure plan.
Mr. Baldis: When do you think we can get that plan to give to the Board to look at? Ms. Peacock: I think it will go with their bids, right?
Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Baldis: We will have one this week or before the next meeting?
Ms. Peacock: We are hoping to have two. We were trying to get you three.
Mr. Baldis: We should have two for the next meeting for them to look at, going this is the plan and how they are going to do it.
Ms. Peacock: Yes.
Mr. Baldis: Thank you.

Mr. Zac: A cold joint is when we are pouring concrete, there is a two hour lapse you always worry about putting concrete that is already set up with fresh concrete to it. That is what creates a cold joint.
Mr. Kapish: Also, a cold joint would be where if you cut a pool, and you add onto the pool or you modify the current pool. You would basically tie into the pool, but it would still be a cold joint.
Ms. Peacock: We don't have that.
Mr. Zac: It wouldn't be a cold joint, it would be a repair joint at that point. The cold joint is strictly when you are pouring concrete.
Mr. Kapish: Ok I am sorry, go ahead.
Ms. DeJesus: Building upon what Dennis is saying, is that we have already gone through a back and forth with them saying that we do need a procedure and we have not outlined this procedure with them. We are waiting for their outline as to not influence their procedure and do comparisons between them, to see which methodology is best.
Ms. Peacock: That is what they do all these years and we are going to let them tell us as pool experts the best course of action. We have suggested this course that we were reading to you because after talking to three different people, that was the combination of all things that they said. We are starting with that to get them out there and do the pricing, but as the one said, that he would fill the pools and test it so we may actually have a fee for detection companies to come to test it before you put the cap and the stone back on. That is a whole other thing that we don't even list in there, but I would anticipate that because before they start reassembling things, they are going to want to know that the leak is gone .
Mr. Kapish: Doesn't Hall Fountains have to take out their stuff? Ms. Peacock: No.
Mr. Kapish: What about the sealer that is in there now? Ms. Peacock: They are going to have to prep the surface.
Mr. Kapish: The question is, would they be removing all the sealer that is in there?
Ms. Peacock : No, I don't think they have to remove all of it, but I do believe that it has to receive a prep. I am not sure exactly how they will knock it back so that it bonds.

Mr. Kapish: What kind of warranty are we getting?
Mr. Zac was inaudible at this time.
Mr. Kapish: Isn't that kind of like Sherwin Williams paint where there is a warranty for ten years on the paint, but when it starts coming off your walls, they send a representative out there and they say, well, you didn't prep this right so therefore you are not getting anything. Go ahead I am sorry.
Ms. Peacock: I didn't know if you wanted us to go through the other things that were in the procedure.
Mr. Carney: Question. Is there a cost affiliated with the sealing or is that already taken care of by you guys?
Ms. Peacock: Is the cost to add the additional waterproofing going to be taken care of by us?
Mr. Garney: Yes.
Ms. Peacock: No, it is an added value.
Mr. Carney: Do we know what the cost is?
Ms. Peacock: That is what we are doing, we are getting prices for the additional

work.

Mr. Kapish: Who is going to pay for it?
Ms. Peacock: This would be requested and be approved and paid for by the

Association.
Mr. Kapish: By who?
Ms. Peacock: By you guys because it is an added value. It is work that wasn't originally part of the bid.
Mr. Kapish: I don't understand that. We have a fountain that has been leaking
since the day there was water put in it. Now we are having to pay for it. It was actually designed to have the water cascade over the Turtle Run and that was not functionable. That had to be taken out. Then we act1,.Jally paid a bunch of money to put in plumes in those fountains. We paid for that ourselves .
Mr. Carney: $13,000.
Mr. Kapish: And I don't know how much all this is going to cost. Ms. Peacock: The one man with Watermark said around $16,000.

Mr. Kapish: And the District is supposed to pay for that?
Ms. Peacock: Well like I said he was the low bidder and the next were substantially higher.
Mr. Zac: That had nothing to do with it.
Ms. Peacock: I am just saying that the waterproofing is additional waterproofing. Mr. Kapish: It is additional only in the sense that it is a leaking fountain.
Mr. Hohl: I have a question. Who designed the fountain to leak the way that it did? Mr. Kapish: Not me.
Mr. Hohl: Didn't we pay someone to design to build a fountain that would not leak? Mr. Kapish: They designed the entire fountain.
Mr. Hohl: Who is they?
Mr. Kapish: Tamara Peacock .
Ms. Peacock: We did the design documents.
Mr. Hohl: Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you are going to design a fountain that you design it so that it wouldn't leak.
Ms. Peacock: Yes.
Mr. Hohl: When I had my boat redone there was a leak, I called the guy back and they completely redid the surfaces. You pay for it the first time. We did something wrong. They fixed it.
Mr. Kapish: Ok where are we now? Mr. Carney: I agree with Mike.
Ms. Karnegis: When you use the word added value, to me it is not an added value, to us it is just a completion of the same project. I don't see any additional that we are getting from this except what we asked for in the first place, which is a working fountain. There is nothing else that we are getting.
Ms. Peacock: The products and the waterproofing that you are getting were not what was originally specified. When we did specify waterproofing in the design documents, it was supposed to be a complete installation. It was not designed to leak.
Mr. Kapish : We are not even getting the flow of water that was designed.
Ms. Peacock: That is really another issue, that is talking about the size of the pipe that was specified to go to the fountain which was in the Hall Fountains shop drawing.

don't have the technical knowledge to make a judgement call on what diameter Hall Fountains should have put to the manifold at the top of the fountain.
Mr. Kapish: So, the cascade and manifold doesn't work because of the size of the pipe that Hall Fountains used?
Ms. Peacock: It really just didn't have enough water to be honest in my opinion. That is why it didn't show on that wall the way that we had on our design drawings that we were looking at in the very beginning. When I said it was Esplanade, the precedent that we used when we said that we liked that fountain, let's do something like that. The length of the manifold was like 8 feet or something, ours was 12 feet and it had the same amount of water.
Mr. Kapish: What was it on the plan?
Ms. Peacock: Again, we went with the shop drawings from Hall Fountains with that.
Mr. Hohl: Who did we contract to design the entire entrance feature including the fountains and all that? Was it one entity or multiple entities?
Mr. Kapish: One entity.
Mr. Hohl: So, it was one architect.
Ms. Peacock: Yes, it is my company. We did the architectural design. Then we had some engineering backup, structural came from KCI. Hall Fountains did the equipment design with a shop drawing, so it was a team with us.
Mr. Kapish: Let's just say this. This thing gets redone and it leaks again, then what do we do?
Ms. Peacock: The reason why we are painstakingly going through this is to be sure that we get a certified pool contractor on board to do the work. You could just specify products and having people apply them which has not really worked well.
Mr. Kapish: So, we don't have any assurance that this is going to fix it?
Ms. Peacock: I would believe that the certified pool contractor that takes this on is going to certify that it is going to be fixed, yes.
Mr. Kapish: This certified pool contractor is selected by you. Ms. Peacock: I am getting the estimates to present to you.
Mr. Kapish: You are asking the Board to select the contractor?

Ms. Peacock: I think at the point that we get the most competitive price, then I would like the Board to approve the selection of one of those amounts.
Mr. Kapish: I don't know. The big issue really is why are we paying for a fountain
twice?
Ms. Peacock: You are not paying for it twice. In the scope of all the work that has
been done out there, that is not a double request.
Mr. Hohl: My recollection is that we have already fixed it twice. We have fixed the hydraulics and we paid a contractor to do that fix based upon the redesign with the plumes and taking out the pipe. Then we also paid to have additional sealer put on that was recommended to us and that didn't work. We have made two modifications to the original plans that are an additional expense that have not worked to give us a fountain that looks nice and doesn't leak.
Mr. Kapish: Let me ask you guys, who on the Board is willing to pay for the fountain cost here? Anybody?
Mr. Carney: I don't think so.
Mr. Morgan: We paid for the first modification when the fountain worked properly, we paid for that one. We ate that cost. I think the oneness is on either the vendor or the architect to deliver us a satisfactory product, isn't it?
Mr. Kapish: We have a brand-new fountain again that hasn't worked since day one. That is where the Board is at.
Mr. Zac: Can I say something about their attempts to do fixes and everything else? I am the only one that has spent any money so far and I am the only one that is owed a lot of money. Listening to your conversations in this meeting today, I am worried about whether or not you are going to pay me or if you have enough money to pay me. We have to come up to a head here real quick guy.
Mr. Morgan: What does the Board owe you? Mr. Zac: $50,000.
Mr. Morgan: I don't hold you responsible for anything. The construction was done properly.
Mr. Zac: I am just worried that, I hear all the conversation here. I have spent two hours listening to everything.

Mr. Baldis: I just want to ask a question. Why don't you think that you are responsible because Tamara Peacock, it is your design? The waterfall did work. There was plenty of water coming out when we increased it. It overflowed onto the letters that were designed from your company, so we had to turn it off or we would have destroyed the letters. They did say that they would pay for the jets. Why don't you think it is your responsibility to give the Board a fountain that doesn't leak, that they have to continue to pay for this and pay for that?
Ms. Peacock: It clearly didn't have waterproofing everywhere it needs to have it and my drawings are diagrammatic, they are not supposed to be the detailed depiction of every little corner that you put waterproof there.
Mr. Baldis: I understand what you are saying. My other question is, why you didn't get a qualified pool person in the beginning instead of getting us to this point? Wouldn't that have been something in your design to get a qualified pool person to say this is what you do? That is what I struggle with the whole conversation.
Mr. Zac: Let's do this because I am not going to come to anymore of these meetings. Let's get the proposals in here.  Let's figure the best way out.  I need to get out of here. I have a bond tied up for $800,000 that is keeping me from getting more work. I have been out there two years now guys. Do you realize how much cost there is every day just to pay my guys to go there? So far, I haven't seen anybody spend any money other then get some proposals which I do 50 times a week. I need to end this because I really think at this point, you guys want me out of here and I want to be out of here. Let's get some proposals and figure out what we can do guys because I am sure not going to deal anymore with this. Point blank as far as I am concerned, I am being delayed from completing the project.   I passed all my inspections.   Let's be realistic , try to figure the best way to get this done.
Mr. Kapish: Jon, we want a working fountain too. We all do. I don't think the Board is going to flip out money to fix a fountain that has been flawed from day one. Everybody can point fingers but the five us here didn't build it. We didn't design it; we didn't architect it at all. We hired people to do that. Now it is kind of like Mike just said, he had a pool redone and it leaked. The guy came back out and redid it or whatever had to be done to

fix the leak. It is kind of like an old saying that Lance is very familiar with, is if you don't have time to do it right the first time, you have time to do it right the second time.
Mr. Baldis: I think these are two different things. You are asking to close out your contract. That has nothing to do with this. They said they are getting proposals from someone else to do this, so it doesn't affect where you are at. I know tonight you wanted to ask if you could close out. That is a separate conversation from this. It is two different conversations and they are getting intermixed. We need to address one at a time.
Mr. Hohl: I don't think it is an unrealistic expectation to ask an architect to design a fountain that doesn't leak and does what it was originally designed to do. It didn't do that. We had to change the jets to make it look different because the first design wasn't doing what it was designed to do. Then we found that it was leaking, and we paid to have the contractor fix that. It is still leaking. To me I don't necessarily blame the contractor, he is doing what he is being told to do but we still haven't solved the leaks.
Mr. Zac: I think you paid for the black coating to go on. Originally it was a light blue coating that was on there. Because it didn't reflect the lights correctly, we put this waterproofing on.
Mr. Morgan: That was included in the original bid and everything?
Mr. Zac: The first bid was the light blue if you remember we put in. That was in the original bid. Then we came back in with the black coating which is the epoxy coating. We did that because of the reflectivity.
Mr. Kapish: The only reason why we don't have a cascade affect which the fountain was designed for is because it didn't work. Like Dennis said, it got all the letters wet which would fall off eventually and not last very long.
Ms. Peacock : If you remember, we discussed those letters and it is hitting those letters and we had specified them to be stainless steel so they would be resilient against the water because we knew the water was going to hit them. You made a decision later that it wasn't wanted. You just now said that you didn't want it to hit the letters because you thought that they would fall off. We specifically designed it so they could take the water.
Mr. Carney: When the water was running in the evening, you couldn't even see any water.

Ms. Peacock: That is what I remember. We went away from manifold because you couldn't hardly see it. I asked Hall Fountains why and they said because that is how much water, it is a 1 ½" pipe and I compared it to the other job, and I realized that the manifold was 50% larger than the job that they used.
Mr. Zac: Stainless steel is better. The reason we went to that is because you can go back and repaint the stainless-steel letters very cheaply. It is an easy coating to put on. Stainless steel will last for almost forever. We had that whole problem in Coral Springs on all these signs that were aluminum, it is all peeling off right now. You got a better product by going to the stainless steel.
Mr. Baldis: So we have stainless steel? Mr. Zac: Yes.
Ms. Peacock: Yes, you do. On top of this, that is why whole thought with doing
this additional waterproofing, it is not just fixing the leak, it is creating like you said something that will last for ten years. It won't be a maintenance nightmare for Dennis and pool people later. All these little joints and all the block and underneath the cap and everything else, this is giving you a superior product that will last for years and years without having to go back and seal cracks and do any maintenance.
Mr. Kapish: We have had the roundabout for at least ten years. The only problem we have with the roundabout is kids messing with the nozzles and turning them upside down and putting suds in it. That is the only problem we have had with that. There is no leak. The brick needs to be refurbished but the bottom line is that we have had no problems with that at all. That is a huge pool, a huge undertaking. I saw the pipes when they tore up the street to put those things in. They were massive. We don't have any problems. Green Pools built that. I guess it was a good reason that is was a pool company that did it, but the bottom line is that I am not an architect or engineer but all I can say is when I get something done at my house, or a contractor comes over, I expect them to do it right because my money is good so I expect a good job. I can tell you right now, all I can say is I don't know what you are going to do with it, but I think five people here are saying they are not going to pay for it. That is end of that issue. They want a fountain that works, but the Board is not going to pay for it. Am I right?
Mr. Baldis: Correct.

Mr. Kapish: Where do we go from here, I don't know.
Ms. Peacock : I think we need to go ahead and get the prices from the contractors because at the end, you want the best possible product.
Mr. Baldis: Ok, so I will put that on the agenda that we will have a few proposals for the next meeting.
Ms. Peacock: Ok. Thank you. Did you want to talk about the secondary walls?
Mr. Kapish: Go ahead. There was some discussion about whether we should refurbish or build new walls and then there was the comment made about, well, you would have to go back and redesign and reapprove and redraw and all that stuff. If it does work out that there isn't money to build new walls, we can do a proposal that is more detailed for the alternate. I would suggest if we are going to do that, that we should have a budget and then maybe back into it. I had given some drawings to Jon too, but he just got them. I gave him the breakdown of the prices which suggests that we reprice the new walls so that the numbers are good. As everyone knows, prices have really changed. A lot of things have gone up in expense so I don't know that the numbers that we had previously is still a good number and you should have a hard number.
Mr. Zac: I will be honest with you guys now; I just saw a 50% jump in plywood since January. Concrete has gone up about 33%. The problem now is we can't get materials. Aluminum windows right now, the heavy-duty commercial stuff and stuff like that is like 20 weeks . I think what is happening is the prices are going up considerably so it might be best to wait six months and see what happens. There is just not enough manufacturing out there for us to catch up with everything. I don't know if you are truly getting realistic prices at this point.
Mr. Kapish: Let's get back to the wall issue. What are we talking about changing a wall? What do you mean?
Ms. Peacock : I think that we had sent you an estimate, the one that you said was
$70,000 that didn't include the electrical in it to do a refurbishment. Then I didn't know if the Board wanted me to pursue being more specific with that or getting you an estimate of what it would cost, I mean I think it would be an administrative approval if you are just doing a repair and replace finishes on them.
Mr. Kapish: I thought you were talking about the pool still.

Ms. Peacock: I am talking about the secondary walls now.
Mr. Kapish: We are not talking about that tonight. We are not getting into that. We have a leaking fountain. That is the one we need to talk about.
Ms. Peacock: Ok, alright.
Mr. Kapish:	If you are going to have two proposals to bring back to the next meeting, fine, and we will go from there.
Ms. Peacock: Ok.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Mr. Kapish: Mike, do you have anything for us?
Mr. Pawelczyk: I know the meeting has gone rather longer than usual, but I do want to report on a bill that was approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor. It is the only bill at least as of last week that was signed by the Governor. You might know that the legislative sessions are ongoing in Florida. It expires actually at the end of this month. This is Chapter 2021-1 Laws of Florida. You have probably heard snippets of it on the news and talked about it all through Covid. I guess it relates to civil liability for damages related to Covid-19 claims. This District doesn't have a clubhouse so it might not be as much as an issue for this COD, but this bill applies to businesses, government, whatever, City of Coral Springs and it makes it very difficult for people to sue for Covid- 19 related claims as it should be to prevent frivolous lawsuits . The Governor said he was going to push this forward and legislature did. It was approved so basically, if the business or a COD is acting in good faith in following the existing guidelines and laws related Covid-19 guidelines, mask mandates, wiping down things, whatever would apply to their particular property, whether it is playground equipment or pools as long as they are in good faith doing what they are supposed to be doing under those guidelines they are immune from liability. Even if they are found not to be in good faith and that they really just don't do a good job of maintaining the property, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was grossly negligent. That is more than just saying you are negligent. Negligence is basically to show that the plaintiff has a duty of care and that the plaintiff breached that duty of care and that damages were incurred as a result. Gross negligence is a much higher standard to meet then just simple negligence. It makes it difficult for

people to sue others per Covid-19 related claims. If you think about it, they still would have to prove that they caught it as a result of that entity's negligence which that is hard to do in the first place. I think this keeps it out of court because you have to meet the standards before you can file that lawsuit. In other words it could get dismissed if you don't meet these standards and businesses and governments don't waste a lot of money defending these unless someone truly has a legitimate claim. If you guys want a copy of this, we can circulate it tomorrow to the Board. I just thought it was interesting so I am letting all my Boards know about it before I send my legislative update which will come out in May or June after all the other laws come out and are approved by the Governor. I just thought that was interesting, so I wanted to share that with the Board. I am sure many of you will come across it in your everyday life in the first place. I will let Dennis shoot it to the Board members, that way you have it and if you wanted to review it more closely you can. Any questions, otherwise I don't have anything other than to say if you have any questions that I can answer on financing or assessments or budget issues, you can reach out to me if Dennis doesn't have all the answers you are looking for. I am happy to try to help through that process because I know you are kind of in a difficult moment now. That is all I have.
Mr. Kapish: Thanks Mike.
Engineer - Approval of Extra Work Authorization for Survey As-Builts for the Main Entry Walls with Fountains
Mr. Kapish: The engineer's approval of extra work authorization for survey as-builts for the main entry walls.
Mr. Geiger: Do you want to start with that and talk about the bond projects after?
We didn't get to that part.
Mr. Kapish: Do you have a lot?
Mr. Geiger: I have a couple of things that I do want to discuss. Mr. Kapish : Let's do the approval.
Mr. Geiger: This is an extra work authorization from our survey department. Jon needed the final survey's done to close out the permit with Coral Springs on the two entry walls. We wanted to present this to the Board to get approval so they can get the work done and he can get his permit closed out so this would be for $5,000 and that would take

care of getting what he needs done, record drawing wise. That is the last thing you need right?
Mr. Zac: That is it.
Mr. Kapish: Ok so it is $5,000. When would you be doing that?
Mr. Geiger: They said they could start this week if approved and expedite that for Jon. They know that he is trying to get everything wrapped up.

On MOTION by Mr. Hohl seconded by Mr. Carney with all in favor, the extra work authorization for survey as-builts for the main entry walls with KCI in the amount of $5,000 was approved.

Mr. Baldis: While we are talking about Jon, he is asking to close out his contract. Mr. Kapish: I understand that.
Mr. Baldis: We owe him $49,596.10.
Mr. Kapish: Is there any objection to closing out his contract? Mr. Hohl: Move to approve.

On MOTION by Mr. Hohl seconded by Ms. Karnegis with all in favor, motion to close out the Anzco, Inc. contract for the front entrance feature in the amount of $49,596.10 was approved.

Mr. Morgan: Jon, one question. If we decide to move forward somehow, someway with repairing the fountain from this point on, you are not the contractor we would call?
Mr. Zac: I am not just going to walk away from you guys. I just want to make sure that what they are doing is correct. I still want to be involved. If something goes wrong, we are all in it. I would like to see what they are going to do. I would get a warranty from them and I do agree that if they had a pool contractor that knows what he is doing, I just want to know the procedure that is going to be done. I was willing to help out whatever to get if off the books. The thing is too, it is like anything else, you are probably going to have to hire a pool company to maintain this and I would recommend the people that do this work should be the ones that maintain the fountains. It is just a smart move. If

anything goes wrong, they are going to fix it right away guys. I didn't understand the design with the manifolds and all that, but Hall Fountains is pretty good. They know who the people are that are out there so I would use their expertise too as to who they would recommend also.
Mr. Kapish : Hall Fountains, they have a very high track record.   They do fountains all over the place. They fly to different states. A lot of the fountains up in Orlando and Disney and stuff like that are all done by Hall Fountains. Like I said, we have numerous floating fountains in our lakes and all the floating fountains are done by Hall. The roundabout fountain is done by Hall. Again, we have had no problems with any of them. I really question when somebody said that Hall Fountains did something wrong. I really question that.
Mr. Zac: You are right. I have been using them since 1990 and never had any issues with them. I think the perception of what somebody wanted and what they got might be completely different. Lance, I would like to see what is going on too. I am just not going to walk away from this.
Mr. Baldis: I have your number.
Mr. Zac: Thank you guys, I appreciate it.
Mr. Kapish: Goodnight Jon.  Jonathan, you want to go over the bond projects? Mr. Geiger: Just so the Board is aware with Creekside Drive, we did meet with the
City out there. There is going to be a requirement for the contractor to mill and surface some of the stripping that needs to be redone where the asphalt it is coming undone.
Mr. Kapish: It is because I drove over there the other day and I got pebbles all over my car.
Mr. Geiger: Stanford is still getting that scheduled out. His issue now is he is contacting and trying to find a different sub to do the thermoplastic. He wants to get this all scheduled so he can get in there and mill and resurface. I am still waiting on a schedule but that is the result of our meeting. There will be a mill and resurface. One of the things the City did do was specify that they do not want to see any additional asphalt seams. It is going to be milled and resurfaced in a way that it is milled and resurfaced in a way that it is going to look newer, but it is not going to look like they just patched the side of the road.

Mr. Kapish: That is exactly what we want.
Mr. Geiger: The City actually did go and require mill and resurface in additional areas that Broward County did not originally intend, so that was good as well because there was an area I thought needed from esthetics was not going to be what the District was desiring. That was a good thing. The brick pavers, I think we are just waiting on RPM's to be installed. We did have a conversation with Stanford, and he said he would get those RPM's in. I think it just might be mother issue where he is waiting to get another stripper on board to perform that work. Terrapin Lane, I did talk with Florida Blacktop .
Mr. Baldis: On the brick pavers, isn't there a pay request from Stanford? Mr. Geiger: Yes. I do not have that with me though, do you?
Mr. Baldis: Yes, we are trying to close these projects out.
Mr. Geiger: Stanford has submitted his second pay request for the brick pavers and this one is for $35,746.65. He is requesting that this get paid and that would just leave the retainage which is $15,401.43 that I recommended not be paid until the permit is closed out and the job is finished. That includes the estimate to redo the crimson and everything. This is all inclusive of all the fixes he has had to do.
Mr. Baldis: You are looking to get an approval on that? Mr. Geiger: Yes.
Mr. Kapish: Ok we just need a motion for the $35,746.65 to Stanford.

On MOTION by Mr. Carney seconded by Ms. Karnegis with all in favor, a second payment request from Stanford Construction in the amount of $35,746.65 for brick pavers was approved.

Mr. Geiger: I guess while we are talking about Stanford, we actually did discover that he is owed some retainage for the driveway on the Turtle Creek Lake access path. He had not received his final payout for that. We confirmed on our end and he did on his end that he has not been paid this amount. For that project he is requesting a closeout so this would be totally done with that project, $15,877.45. That was just the retainage that was left from the initial contract and the change order for the driveway.
Mr. Hohl: That permit has been closed?

Mr. Geiger: This permit has been closed. Final inspections have been passed on both the projects that this was related to. The bollards are in. That was the last little bit. It wasn't part of the project.

On MOTION by Mr. Hohl seconded by Mr. Carney with all in favor, Passive Park East final payout to Stanford Construction in the amount of $15,877.45 was approved.

Mr. Geiger: The last thing I did have is the efforts to get the FOOT permit closed out over at Sample Road and Terrapin, the sod was installed by BrightView and I have gotten confirmation from the City that the irrigation was repaired there.
Mr. Kapish: Right now the sod is dead.
Mr. Geiger: It was pretty brown when I went by there the other day.
Mr. Kapish: It is horse hay right now. I am just asking maybe FOOT wants to replace the sod up there because as a citizen that pays taxes and stuff, I think that the medians should be maintained.
Mr. Baldis: The District will not be paying for that. Mr. Kapish: They will not be paying for that?
Mr. Baldis: No. Worst case scenario, BrightView will be paying for that sod because they were given direction to check to make sure the irrigation was fixed before they put the sod in, and they didn't do that.
Mr. Kapish: Ok, that is fine.
Mr. Geiger: If the grass doesn't come back, FOOT won't close it out with the dead grass. I will let BrightView know. There is some additional work that still needs to be done. Rob from Florida Blacktop has gone back and forth with FOOT on some of the mill and resurface requirements specifically for that bike lane. He kind of got passed around the chain. He went as far as to contact someone he knows in operations because he has a contract with FOOT and he said if I am going to have to mill and resurface this little small area, let me see if there's any other work that they are proposing to do anytime soon on Sample Road. Unfortunately, FOOT did not really have any work in the area so this idea of him kind of not having to do just the bike lane but getting to have FOOT pay

for the whole thing to get done did not work out. After back and forth with FOOT, they are not dropping this requirement to mill and resurface this bike lane. Florida Blacktop has asked me to present a change order to the Board. They feel that this is additional work being requested to satisfy a permit condition and it is not something that they feel they should have to eat the cost on.
Mr. Baldis: How much is it?
Mr. Geiger: $12,830. This would have been work that would have had to be included anyways. This would have had an update for them to get this permit closed.
Mr. Baldis: What happens if we don't do it?
Mr. Geiger: Your FOOT permit won't get closed out. Your Terrapin Lane permit won't get closed out with the City. Your FOOT will lapse. I don't know if they have any legal action with that. Florida Blacktop won't get their $2,800 bond back from the City because the permit won't be closed out. If the Terrapin permit lapses and we have to go reopen it and close it out because the City requires you to do that for any reason, that is going to cost money to reopen it.
Mr. Baldis: Is this something KCI missed or how did this come about?
Mr. Geiger: If the contractor would have done the work the way he did the work and we had the FOOT permit originally, he still would have had to come back and done this work. It still would have been required.
Mr. Baldis: So KCI didn't put in the plan is what you are saying?
Mr. Geiger: What our plans showed we wouldn't have had to do this work if they would have done it the way our plans showed technically. If they would have come and saw cut where we had it showing.
Mr. Baldis: Why didn't they do that?
Mr. Geiger: This is kind of an issue where the plans showed one thing the way it was able to be constructed.
Mr. Baldis: Who made that decision to change the plan?
Mr. Geiger: Nobody changed the plan. Mr. Baldis: They didn't follow the plans.
Mr. Geiger: They did follow the plan. It is with construction there are some things that you are going to put on paper that is not going to work out that way in the field. When

they had to go and remove that curb to extend that bullnose, they had to do a small patch on the asphalt which has led to this.
Mr. Kapish: They just want to fix that small patch?
Mr. Geiger: No, this is to mill and resurface the full width of that bike lane across the intersection of Sample Road and Terrapin Lane required by FOOT as a condition to close the permit out.
Mr. Kapish: Just so we understand this, you are talking about milling from curb to curb the whole crosswalk?
Mr. Geiger: The bike lane, milling a five-foot bike lane outside of Terrapin Lane. They don't have the stripping because it is an intersection but where the bike lane ends on one side and picks up on the other side of the intersection on Terrapin. It is about a five-foot width from the face of the curb, into Sample Road, and across the entire intersection.
Mr. Kapish: You are telling me that is going to cost $12,000?
Mr. Geiger: When you talk about small areas like this, there is minimums for crews. That is pretty standard with a contractor. There are minimums on orders of asphalt and concrete.
Mr. Kapish: Does it have anything to do with that patch that was made? Mr. Geiger: That is why this has to be redone.
Mr. Kapish: You are saying we are doing all this for that little patch.
Mr. Geiger: Yes. That is consistent with what FOOT requires on any other job. You touch a lane and you cut into it, you have to mill and resurface the whole lane. They are only requiring us to do the bike lane here which usually they require a 50 foot either direction for efficiency.
Mr. Kapish: It will have to be restriped and everything again.
Mr. Geiger: There is very minimal stripping that has to go in. They have some stripping work they have to take care of anyway. Yes there is $2,700 in here is for paint and thermo.
Mr. Kapish: The contractor is? Mr. Geiger: Florida Blacktop.
Mr. Kapish: Did you speak to them?

Mr. Geiger: I have spoken with them. He feels that this would have been work that you guys would have had to pay for anyways. This should have been included originally.
Mr. Kapish: How would we do it originally?
Mr. Morgan: We have been on this one issue for 15 minutes. I make a motion we adjourn the meeting and push everything over to the next meeting. Somebody second it and we will get out of here. This is ridiculous. This is like the dog chases its tail. That is my motion. Mr. Chairman recognize my motion.
Mr. Kapish: Lance made a motion and I will be able to second it.
Field Manager
Manager

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

On MW ION by Mr. Morgan seconded by Mr. Kapish with all in f	o(, the meeting,.was adjourned.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Supervisors Requests

Adjournment