MINUTES OF MEETING TURTLE RUN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Turtle Run Community Development District was held on Monday, August 29, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. at Governmental Management Services, 5385 N. Nob Hill Rd., Sunrise, Florida 33351.
Present and constituting a quorum:
Skip Carney	Chairman
Lance Morgan	Vice Chairman
Chris Kapish	Assistant Secretary
Zaida Karnegis	Assistant Secretary
Michael Hohl	Assistant Secretary Also present were:

Julio Padilla Rich Hans
Jennifer Wasserman Michael Pawelczyk Patrick Szozda Patrick Burgess Jonathan Geiger Lynn Kapish

Governmental Management Services GMS (by phone)
GMS (by phone) District Counsel GMS
GMS
District Engineer Resident

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Carney called the meeting to order, and Mr. Padilla called the roll.

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

Moment of Silence

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Carney led the Pledge of Allegiance.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Good News

Mr. Carney: We have the good news segment, Zaida do you have anything to share with us?
Ms. Karnegis: Nothing today thank you.
Mr. Carney: Mike?
Mr. Hohl: Nothing.
Mr. Carney: Lance?
Mr. Morgan: We got some rain yesterday but that was about it. Mr. Carney: It all helps. Chris anything?
Mr. Kapish: No.
Mr. Carney: Ok thank you.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment
Mr. Carney: Public comments we will start with the people in the room. Lynn, do you care to share something with us?
Ms. Kapish: No thanks.
Mr. Carney: Ok, thank you, Lynn. We have some people on Zoom would you identify yourself, please?
Ms. Wasserman: Jennifer Wasserman.
Mr. Carney: Ok and then there is someone else there. Mr. Hans: Rich Hans.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Presentation	with Wasserman GMS-SF

Jennifer

Mr. Carney: Ok we are going to open up with a presentation with Jennifer Wasserman. He is on first this evening with GMS-SF. Jennifer, I guess you are on that you had been asked. Would you like to start? How do you want to start this? Lance do you want to take the floor on this?
Mr. Morgan: Yes. I asked Jennifer to attend the meeting tonight because at the last
meeting and the previous meeting we had some questions regarding this document that was provided to us here at the Board meeting. I got her a copy of it. Julio or Patrick

delivered it to her. I didn't know if she had a chance to see this document and I was a little confused if she had prepared this document or how this document was prepared and if this was accurate. I did speak with her on the phone on two different occasions and I spoke to her on one of those occasions which was today. We didn't really get to talk about the document on the phone so I would like for her to try to tell us about the document that she prepared which says Turtle Run COD Historic Annual Assessment Rate Analysis. If she could first explain that to us.
Mr. Carney: That is her form. The handwriting is from me just to let you know just to clarify that.
Mr. Morgan: Right I understood that. I would first like for her to explain what the
document is that she provided.
Ms. Wasserman: I was asked to prepare an analysis of the historic assessment rates. It goes back from 2001 to 2022 and the assessments are broken out by the operating and maintenance assessment per acre and debt services per acre as applicable. I am assuming you all have a copy of the schedule in front of you. There were some periods when there wasn't a debt service assessment for the debt service assessment. Total assessment per acre which would just be the operating and maintenance assessment and the debt service assessment together. There is a column for the changes. If there was an increase from the prior year it is noted as well as the percentage increase. There is a column that shows the total operating and maintenance assessment total so that is the operating and maintenance assessment per acre times the assessable acres. Then the same for the debt service assessment so that is the debt service assessment per acre times the assessable area. Then those two items together are the total gross assessment and then there is a column for changes in dollar amount and then percentage-wise.
Mr. Morgan: Ok. So, you started in 2001 when you prepared this document, is that
correct?
Ms. Wasserman: Correct. Can you hear me ok? I am talking as loud as I can go. Mr. Pawelczyk: You break up every once in a while, that is all.
Ms. Karnegis: Yes.
Mr. Morgan: Why did you start in 2001 with the historical perspective?

Mr. Kapish: Why didn't we start when the District began?
Ms. Wasserman: For no particular reason. I had the information available, so I was trying to give you a full analysis. I was asked for I believe the last 20 years. It was readily available, so I just added in a couple of years. There was no specific reason. The information was available and I was trying to capture as much information as I could so you would be able to perform a proper analysis. I wasn't aware of the usage of the document so I was trying to provide as much information as possible so it would be as useful.
Mr. Morgan: I understand. Everybody got that? If you navigate down your fiscal year column which is column one to 2011 it shows that operating and maintenance per acre went from the previous from 2010 to 2011 an increase of $2,166 and a change for operating and maintenance per acre. Do you know why that was?
Ms. Wasserman: In 2010 the Bonds were paid off.
Mr. Morgan: In 2010 the current bonds that we had were paid off?
Ms. Wasserman: Yes. When the bonds were paid off the debt assessment per acre was reallocated to the operating and maintenance assessment so the increase from 2010 and 2011 you are at $3,782 operating and maintenance assessment per acre and that went to $5,174.38 per acre. The debt service assessment was no longer necessary which was reallocated to the operating and maintenance assessment.
Mr. Morgan: Because we paid off the bonds that year, I believe they were 20-year bonds, maybe a little bit longer we had refinanced them once maybe.
Mr. Kapish: Twice.
Mr. Morgan: So, when the bonds were paid off the monies that were usually used for the bonds were then reallocated to operating and maintenance per acre is that where that $2,166 per acre comes from?
Ms. Wasserman: That is correct.
Mr. Morgan: If you navigate across the page to the final percent of change the last column says Change from Prior Fiscal Year, what does that represent?
Ms. Wasserman: That is just looking at the dollar amount of the assessment. When we are determining the operating and maintenance assessment, the gross assessment, so that the operating and maintenance assessment per acre times the assessable acres

that gives you the total operating and maintenance gross assessment. In that year in 2011, we didn't have the debt service assessment so that would just be the operating and maintenance assessment per acre times the assessable acre that gives us a total assessment. When you are looking at the analysis the percentage change and the dollar change from the prior year is minimal because your total assessment on your tax bill is relatively unchanged because in reallocating the debt service assessment while the operating and maintenance itself did increase because the debt service portion was no longer applicable. The gross assessment was relatively unchanged, that is why you see in that column the percentage of change is zero.
Mr. Morgan: The last column of the document that you prepared says percentage
of change from the prior fiscal year.
Ms. Wasserman: That is only the dollars. Those columns you are taking the operating and maintenance assessment plus the debt service assessment if it is applicable and that is your gross assessment. That is like your gross roll that when we prepare the tax roll that we send to the County, that is looking at the total dollars and the change from year to year. That is what you are looking at there. That is the dollar changes there and then the percentage change there.
Mr. Morgan: The tax roll on that final column from 2010 to 2011, what is your analysis, the document that you prepared to say? What percentage did we raise taxes that year?
Mr. Pawelczyk: Assessments.
Mr. Morgan: What was the assessment that year?
Ms. Wasserman: The gross assessment for 2011 is $1,611,000 and change. In 2010 it is $1,608,000 so it is very minimal, $3,440 increase in gross assessments.
Mr. Morgan: I am trying to understand your document. Your document says there is a zero percent in change.
Ms. Wasserman: That is not looking at the actual assessment per acre. That
information is different because the total gross assessment is based off of the operating and maintenance assessment for the year and the debt service assessment for the year. In this particular year, the gross assessment total was relatively unchanged. It is about a
$3,400 increase, however the operating and maintenance assessment per acre didn't

increase. We are looking at two different elements here because there are two different columns that reflect, one is for the assessment per acre and one is for the gross assessment. The different columns capture different information.
Mr. Morgan: Is it fair to say and you tell me in your own words between 2010 and 2011 the operating and maintenance per acre increased by $2,166 because of the carryover from paying off the bonds? Is that correct?
Ms. Wasserman: I would state it differently. I wouldn't say carryover, I would say the debt service assessment was reallocated to the operating and maintenance assessment. It is not really a carryover. That is a decision whether or not how to proceed. The operating and maintenance assessments were $3,782. There was a collective decision to increase to $5,174.38. That is an increase in the operating and maintenance assessment from 2010 to 2011. At the same time, people's tax bills did not increase because the assessments were kept relatively level with the prior year because the debt service assessment was no longer applicable, and it was reallocated towards operating and maintenance assessments. I can't say that there wasn't an increase because there absolutely was in operating and maintenance.
Mr. Morgan: Pardon me if I use layman's terms to describe and I thank you for
giving it to us in professional language that you are. There was an increase in that operating and maintenance per acre of $2,166 that year but because the bonds were paid off that is why we had the additional monies.
Ms. Wasserman: Yes. Correct. Apologies if I am repeating myself. I am not sure if you can hear me.
Mr. Morgan: That is ok. Thank you. If you look at the last column percentage of
change from the prior fiscal year, can you denote to me how many times this Board has had an assessment, an additional assessment to the taxpayers of Turtle Run?
Ms. Wasserman: Are we looking at the assessment rate or the gross assessment?
Mr. Morgan: Gross assessment, your last column it says the percentage of change from the prior fiscal year.
Ms. Wasserman: Increases are going to be in where the taxpayers are going to have an increase on their tax bill and not necessarily does that mean that there is no

change in their assessment rate. That would be in 2004, 2006, and 2016 on this particular schedule.
Mr. Morgan: In 2004 it was a 15% assessment increase.
Ms. Wasserman: That is gross assessment. The actual change in the assessment rate was 16.7%. The gross assessment by 15%. Remember we are looking at different information depending on what column you are looking at.
Mr. Morgan: I am looking at the last column right now. That is what I am focusing the questions on right now is the last column.
Ms. Wasserman: There are changes in the assessable acres so depending on the assessable in a given year remember you have Target; you have changes at different points. I have only been the accountant for a couple years. I don't know all the history. You guys know all the history. Remember you are capturing the assessment per acre. If you are looking at an actual assessment increase, I think for 2004 it would be more accurate to say that the assessment rate increased by 16.7%, and gross assessment was only increased by 15% because that is the total change from year to year based on the gross assessment. The actual assessment rate increase is 16.7%.
Mr. Morgan: The following year 2005 it is a -4.21% can you explain that?
Ms. Wasserman: That is going to be based on, so in 2005 the assessable acres, there was a difference in assessable acres. That is what resulted in the difference. If you look at the debt service assessment and the total operating and maintenance assessment and the debt service assessment, the total assessment per acre is unchanged from 2004 to 2005. The difference is based on the assessable acres for that particular fiscal year. That is what the difference was.
Mr. Morgan: So did the assessment decrease 4.21%?
Ms. Wasserman: Gross assessments, what was on the tax roll. If you look at the actual, what people were assessed per acre, that was unchanged because in total if you add in the operating and maintenance assessment and debt service assessment it is
$4,471.53 in 2004 and 2005. The variance there where you are seeing that $59,024 and
4.21 is because of the change in assessable acres. Remember we are taking the operating and maintenance assessment and the debt service assessment times the total assessable acres to come up with our total assessment.

Mr. Morgan: So that would be a decrease of 4.21% or $59,000, is that correct of what this District, the income that this District took in assessing people based on acres like you explained?
Ms. Wasserman: Yes, that is based on the acre.
Mr. Morgan: The following year in 2006 there was a 20.15% I guess assessment increase?
Ms. Wasserman: That year the assessment increased, total assessment per acre
in 2005 is $4,471.53. In 2006 it is $5,180.69 so that is a $709.16 increase which is 15.86%. The assessable acres also increased so that is also a factor, that is why you see the variances are different. The 15.86% reflects only the increase in the assessment per acre whereas the 20.15% reflects the increase in total assessments because the assessable area went up a smidge.
Mr. Morgan: Ok fair enough. So change from the prior year after 2006 is 2007 is zero, jump in here if you need to correct me, I am just following what this form says., 2008 is zero percent assessment increase, 2009 is zero percent assessment increase, 2010 assessment increase to the taxpayers of Turtle Run is zero percent, 2011 we discussed that but the percentage of assessment to the taxpayers of Turtle Run is zero percentage according to your document. In 2012 the assessment is zero percent, 2013 the assessment is zero percent, 2014 the assessment to Turtle Run residents is zero percent, 2015 there was a 15% assessment increase?
Ms. Wasserman: The assessment went from $5,950.37; it was previously
$5,174.38 so that is a 15% increase.
Mr. Morgan: Correct ok. In 2016?
Ms. Wasserman: In 2016, 2017, and 2018 were unchanged from 2015.
Mr. Morgan: Ok. 2019, 2020, and 2021 it has n/a. Do you have that information
yet?
Ms. Wasserman: If you look at the bottom, the analysis is a little difficult to do
because it depends on the assessment area. Depending on which part of Turtle Run you live in or if it is the commercial side the debt service assessment is different. You see at the bottom there where it says O&M, everybody paid the same O&M. The debt service is separate though. If you are in 2017-1 your debt service assessment is $1,456.70 so then

your total assessment is $5,805.04. If you are in the commercial side your debt service assessment is $1,552.53 so then your total assessment is $5,900.87. In 2017-2 your debt service assessment is $1,602.03 so your total assessment is $5,950.37. So the maximum total assessment is $5,950.37. In the aggregate, if you live in the assessment area 2017-1 or 2017-2, I guess you don't live in the commercial side but the commercial property would have seen a modest decrease whereas in 2017-2 assessment area would have remained unchanged. The piece that had been reallocated that we discussed prior to 2011 when the debt service assessment was reallocated to the operating and maintenance assessment, a portion of that operating and maintenance assessment now has resumed paying the debt service assessment. The operating and maintenance assessment went down from $5,950.37 in 2018 and then down to $4,348.34 and it has remained, that is 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 and the debt service assessments have also remained unchanged. It just depends on what your assessment area is where you live or if you are a commercial owner.
Mr. Morgan: This next question is going to be very critical. In 2011 when we had the unallocated money, or we relocated money, or we reallocated money to the debt operating and maintenance per acre, a Board member is proposing that is a 72% tax increase onto the people of Turtle Run as an assessment. Now that is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. In 2019 when the operating and maintenance per acre dropped from $5,937 to $4,300, would that be a tax or an assessment decrease?
Ms. Wasserman: I am going to answer each piece separately. From 2011 to 2010 the debt service was reallocated to the operating and maintenance assessment. That is an increase of $2,166.56 which is a 72% increase in the operating and maintenance assessment.
Mr. Morgan: Hold on. That is a 72% increase in what?
Ms. Wasserman: Operating and maintenance assessment. Mr. Morgan: For that one specific category, is that correct? Ms. Wasserman: Yes.
Mr. Morgan: My question is if we were to take that same amount of money that
$2,166 and spread it over every category we have equally, would that number come down significantly?

Ms. Wasserman: Can you ask that question a different way because I am not clear about what you are asking?
Mr. Morgan: If you took that same $2,166 per acre which somebody is trying to say is a 72% assessment increase of the taxpayers in Turtle Run and we spread that same amount of money, the additional monies that we had that year and we put an equal amount in every category that would have brought that number down. It wouldn't be 72%. If we would have just put $100,000 over the reallocated money in that category, would that be a 72% increase in that category?
Ms. Wasserman: I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions. I would like to answer questions based on the information that we are looking at. I am not comfortable answering questions on hypotheticals. You are asking a question of whether or not it is an increase, and the increase is $2,166.56. If you take $5,174.38 and you subtract
$3,007.82 and you calculate the percentage change, the 72% is accurate. Now because the debt service assessment was no longer being assessed the property owners did not have an increase on their tax bill because their assessment kept level with the prior year. That said the operating and maintenance did increase by 72%. You also asked if the change from 2018 from $5,950.37 to $4,348.34 would be considered a decrease and that is a two-part answer. Yes, the operating and maintenance assessment did decrease however there is also now a debt service assessment. You can't look at just the operating and maintenance assessment for 2019 to 2022 because now you have both pieces. When you are only looking at the operating and maintenance assessment for 2011 to 2018 there is only an operating and maintenance assessment. So yes there is a decrease in the operating and maintenance assessment from 2018 to 2019 but the total assessment per acre remained unchanged depending on the assessment area. If you look down at the bottom that is what I was trying to explain earlier. In 2018 the total assessment per acre which in that year we only have operating and maintenance assessments we are looking at $5,950.37. From 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 depending on which assessment area you are in, the assessment area 2017-2, their total assessment is $5,950.37. That is unchanged. For 2017-1, 2017-2 commercial, those went down a little bit. The total assessment in 2018 you see $5,950.37 and for 2017-1 it is

$5,805.04 and for 2017-2 commercial it is $5,900.87. Those went down a little bit. You have to look at the whole picture.
Mr. Morgan: Mike did you have a question?
Mr. Pawelczyk: No. I think your question was answered unless you want to try to rephrase it.
Mr. Morgan: I am going to try to rephrase the question. In 2011 how much reallocated funds did we have? Total dollar amount?
Ms. Wasserman: If I take the $2,166.56 which was reallocated, and I multiply it by the assessable acres, that would give me $674,820.
Mr. Morgan: Ok and that is the money that we reallocated into the operating and
maintenance category. Correct? Ms. Wasserman: Correct.
Mr. Morgan: I don't want to ask hypotheticals however if we were to take that
$674,820 and we just divide that into two different categories, not just debt assessment but let's just say we put into reserves or we put it into in case we have a hurricane or something, that number would go down wouldn't it?
Ms. Wasserman: The operating and maintenance assessment is based on whatever is approved based on the budget so if the Board decided to keep the level of the assessment from 2010 to 2011 I don't know what your budget situation is. I don't want to sit here and discuss hypotheticals.
Mr. Morgan: Ok.
Ms. Wasserman: The decision was the debt service assessment was reallocated to the operating and maintenance assessment and that was what was done.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Jennifer, I think the question is and Lance correct me if I am wrong,
it doesn't matter where you reallocate funds to in terms of the line items in the O&M budget, it is not going to change that overall assessment to the O&M budget no matter what line item you put the $674,000 in right?
Ms. Wasserman: Yes. It is based on your total budget.
Mr. Kapish: So basically Jennifer at the end of the day to simplify this, I think is that just a reallocation of funds of wherever you want to put it and whatever line item you want to put in or even if you wanted to create a new line item for those funds, the bottom line

is the taxpayer did not have an increase of any taxes on the back of their tax bill in the overall assessment, is that correct?
Ms. Wasserman: Because of how it was handled the tax bill did not increase
because the operating and maintenance assessments were increased to a level that would keep consistent with the prior year. Saying that there was no increase is not entirely accurate because the operating and maintenance assessment was increased.
Mr. Morgan: It was increased with reallocated assessment dollars, correct? Ms. Wasserman: The operating and maintenance assessment was increased. Mr. Morgan: Right.
Ms. Wasserman: It absolutely was increased. Mr. Kapish: The category was increased.
Ms. Wasserman: If I lived in Turtle Run, I am not going to notice the difference because the assessment I paid last year and the assessment I paid this year are pretty much the same because there is no debt service assessment, but now the debt service assessment is going in the operating and maintenance assessment. The operating and maintenance assessment did go up. It is really a matter of how you are putting it into words I guess because the assessments did go up. They could have remained level with the prior year and then there would have been a decrease so saying that there was no increase is not accurate. There is no increase on their tax bill or the gross assessment.
Mr. Morgan: All the years that we taxed about there were three assessment increases to the people of Turtle Run, is that correct?
Ms. Wasserman: That affected both their assessment rates as well as their tax bills. From 2010 to 2011 only affected their assessment rate, not their tax bills directly because they remained relatively unchanged from the prior year. That doesn't mean that there wasn't an increase because there was an assessment rate increase.
Mr. Morgan: Correct. So in 2020 was there an assessment rate increase in Turtle
Run?
Ms. Wasserman: In 2020 no. The assessments were unchanged from 2019. Mr. Morgan: And 2021?
Ms. Wasserman: No increase.
Mr. Morgan: In 2022?

Ms. Wasserman: No increase.
Mr. Morgan: I want to move you down to; you have the form that I had given to you, correct? The form that there is some handwriting at the bottom of the form, do you have that?
Ms. Wasserman: I do.
Mr. Morgan: It has been written on the bottom there it says in 2004 to 2016, thirteen years the total tax increase of 119%. I am asking you as an accountant is that accurate accounting? Does that reflect this document accurately?
Ms. Wasserman: Just looking at the assessment rates, that is accurate.
Mr. Morgan: So from 2004 to 2016, 13 years there is a total tax increase of 119.56% is accurate.
Ms. Wasserman: For assessment rates, correct.
Mr. Kapish: Not a tax increase, it is a rate increase.
Mr. Morgan: Let me be perfectly clear Jennifer, the people of Turtle Run that we assess for taxes, did they have an increase of 119% on their tax bill in the last twenty years?
Ms. Wasserman: That is different.
Mr. Morgan: Did the people of Turtle Run from 2004 to 2016, the people that live there, the people that pay the assessments, the taxes, did they have their taxes increase 119%?
Ms. Wasserman: The assessment rate did go up by that percentage however in
2011 to 2010 remember their assessment was relatively unchanged from the prior year so the total assessment that somebody paid in 2011 was consistent with the prior year. While the assessment rate did increase what they paid on their tax bill did not because the assessments were left level. That doesn't mean the person that lived there didn't pay an increase but to say that on their bill, on their tax bill if there was a change or there was an increase in that particular year because the debt no longer applied, the assessment rate did go up but if I don't attend the meeting I don't know, I just see the total assessment. The total assessment is what I pay on my tax bill is about the same. You are paying
$5,174.30 in 2011 per acre. In 2010 it is $5,180.47 per acre. You are not going to notice a change in your tax bill because while there was an assessment rate increase at the

same time there is a corresponding elimination of debt service assessments. I think it is accurate to say that percentage is accurate however because the debt no longer applied to people's tax bills in that year, their tax bills did not increase.
Mr. Morgan: The tax bills to the people of Turtle Run, the assessment bills that they get every year for all these years outlined in the document you prepared was zero percent on most of these years except for the three outlined of 2004, 2006, and 2015 correct?
Ms. Wasserman: That is the total assessment per acre though. That is looking at
in the aggregate first taking the operating and maintenance assessment and the debt service assessment and just comparing that, but if you are going to do a proper analysis you have to look at the elements of the total assessment.
Mr. Morgan: Ok so this year the people of Turtle Run, the average resident of Turtle Run, his assessment, his tax bill went up how much?
Ms. Wasserman: In 2022 to 2011 there were no changes. The operating and maintenance assessment and the debt service assessment haven't changed since 2018. That is when the same thing, the same thing in 2011 when we are doing a reallocation, in 2019 there was another reallocation, but this time money went from operating and maintenance assessment back to the debt service assessment to pay for the new bond, the 2017 Bond.
Mr. Kapish: Jennifer, what was the last year that the average taxpayer in Turtle Run who pulled out their tax bill and their assessment that they paid to Turtle Run increased? 2015, correct?
Ms. Wasserman: Correct.
Mr. Kapish: So since 2015 until 2022 according to their tax bill what they pay in assessments, any change, there was no change but in fact in 2019 their tax bill actually went down 1.36%. Would that be a correct statement according to the document you prepared?
Ms. Wasserman: We are looking at the total gross assessment.
Mr. Kapish: That is what I am talking about.
Ms. Wasserman: Only some people's went down, remember when the bonds were issued, the 2017 Bonds were issued the debt service assessment is not flat so not every

resident paid the same portion depending on what your assessable area is. Where your property is determines what your debt service assessment is. Some people, their assessments stayed the same but if you look at the bottom of the document you see 2017-1 those people went down a little bit.
Mr. Kapish: I am looking at 2019, your document says that some people or all the people I don't know their taxes went down 1.36%, is that a correct statement?
Ms. Wasserman: That is not their tax rate, no. In the first two columns where you see that it says change from the prior fiscal year where I have n/a, that is the change in the assessment rate because it varies. That 1.36% is the total gross assessment so you see the $1,853,599.76 in 2018 that is the gross assessment for that operating and maintenance assessment times the assessable acres.
Mr. Kapish: I want to focus on the total gross assessment, not the tax rate because
that is an internal accounting function type thing because the only thing that the person sees on their tax bill is what they pay year to year. That is what this last column is showing what they pay from year to year, is that right?
Ms. Wasserman: The column that you are looking at with the 1.36% is a change in total assessment, that is the gross assessment, that is not where the assessment rates are calculated.
Mr. Kapish: My taxes did not go up that year.
Ms. Wasserman: Nobody's taxes went up. Some people's taxes went down because the debt service assessment per acre went down for specific property owners so the assessment area 2017-1, that debt service assessment you see at the bottom there, under the big table you see where it says 2017-1 assessment area, 2017-2 assessment area commercial, and 2017-2 assessment area. You see how the debt service assessment varies and that is the total assessment. If you look at 2018 the total assessment is $5,950.37. That is the maximum that anybody pays. That is 2017-2 people.
Mr. Kapish: Who is paying a higher debt service assessment? What properties?
Ms. Wasserman: I don't know who is in the 2017-2 assessment area. That I would have to look into, I am not sure. That is how the methodology was computed. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Kapish: I understand.

Ms. Wasserman: I can get back to you with that information, but I don't have that information readily available.
Mr. Kapish: That would be fine, but I believe from my experience from what we
have gone through here is that it is the businesses that have the higher increase in their taxes.
Ms. Wasserman: I believe the commercial would be the businesses.
Mr. Kapish: Commercial include the apartments, businesses, and stuff like that.
Ms. Wasserman: I didn't prepare the methodology. I didn't look into that level of detail. I can't answer that question. I can research it and find out for you, but I don't know off the top of my head.
Mr. Kapish: I have a question that goes back to when Target was built. The Target
part of the agreement there was that they were to give us a $1,000,000 and that was put into our budget. Maybe you don't know this, I am going to ask it anyway, where was that money put, and would you show that as an increase in the rate of anything because if it was put into the operating and maintenance general fund it would show an increase right, if it was a $1,000,000?
Mr. Pawelczyk: It would just show as revenue, correct?
Ms. Wasserman: A one-time contribution of $1,000,000, yes that would show as revenue. That wouldn't be a recurring assessment.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Correct.
Ms. Wasserman: That predates me, so I am not sure of the details of that particular arrangement.
Mr. Kapish: Ok. Going back to the assessments of what is on the right-hand column
and the assessments according to the official numbers here, 2004 was 15% increase. Let me go through this. 2001 was a reduction of 4.12%, 2002 was a zero percent increase 2004 was an increase of 15.04% and then 2005 was a decrease of 4.21% and then in 2006 was an increase of 20.15%, 2007 was a zero percent change, 2008 was a zero percent change, 2009 was a zero percent change, 2010 was a zero percent change, 2011 was a zero percent change, 2012 was a zero percent change, 2013 was a zero percent change, 2014 was a zero percent change, 2015 was 15.00% increase, 2016 was a zero percent change, 2017 was a zero percent change, 2018 was a zero percent change,

2019 shows a 1.36% change. We have already discussed that, so we understand what that is. 2020 was a zero percent change, 2021 was a zero percent change and 2022 was a zero percent change. So if I go through those numbers from 2001 till 2022 there are only three years that there actually was an increase in the assessments to the bills that people pay on their tax bill. Would that be an accurate statement?
Ms. Wasserman: That is accurate.
Mr. Kapish: That is what I wanted to clarify.
Ms. Karnegis: Also to add to it from what you are saying is if a taxpayer is looking at the bill so I am looking at what I am paying I would believe that my taxes did not increase, that is all it know. All I know is what I am paying, right? But if you knew the background to it as we are discussing, there were increases that don't reflect the final taxes until you know the history of where the money went to. So, you do need to know more about it but the taxpayers get the bill, you just pay it. You just see what it is. We don't know the whole background and that is what I heard you trying to explain to us is how these numbers came about. I get what you are saying how the money went into the operation and maintenance and we didn't see an increase. That is all we know. Our taxes were not increased. That is what I see because that is all I see in front of me when I receive my taxes to pay. There is more to it and that is what this is. This is great, it really tells us where the money went and that is the reason why the homeowners do not see the tax increase.
Mr. Morgan: Where does it tell you the money went to Zaida?
Ms. Karnegis: She explained that. She talked about the operation and maintenance and that is why we keep saying zero. You are right Chris, when the homeowners see it, that is all that they see is they see that the taxes still remain the same.
Mr. Morgan: That is a good thing.
Ms. Karnegis: It is but there is more to it that if the homeowners start asking or whatever there is more to it. It is great information. Thank you so much. I think we all learned from it.
Mr. Kapish: At the end of the day I am saying that taxes have not increased since
2015 and we are still on a zero percent budget, so we are actually operating on a 2015 budget in 2022.

Mr. Morgan: That is pretty good.
Mr. Kapish: I think the Board has done a great job as far as the management of the money because I don't think the City of Coral Springs or Broward County, or the School Board can match that record at all, period. So, I congratulate this Board for actually doing a great job in keeping the taxes low from 2015, we haven't had an increase and we are still operating and doing things. I think we all should give us a slap on the back for doing a great job. No one is saying we have done a bad job. We analyzed the thing and we have done a great job.
Mr. Morgan: This is what we did do with the reallocated funds. We did lake bank restoration, and widened the medians, we did all these projects because Turtle Run infrastructure was about 25 years old give or take depending on what year you are talking about. At that time and you weren't on the Board then and neither was Mike, but Skip was on the Board, as a Board we decided to reallocate the bond money when the bond was paid off to rebuild the infrastructure which was built in 1986 or originally. We did a lot of roadwork and a lot of lake bank restoration. That is what paid for the fountains. That is why you have a fountain in almost every lake and all the other infrastructure that was done over the years. My point is to make a negative out of a positive which we haven't raised the people's taxes here in the last three or four years and to try to make this a negative after all the infrastructure and improvements we made just seems to be, we are shooting ourselves in the foot so to speak. To make this look like we raised taxes 119% when we actually took that money and did great things and rebuilt the infrastructure where people want to move here like Mike did six or seven years ago. He wanted to move here. My new neighbors tell me they were lucky to get the house so on and so forth. This is a positive thing to do everything we do Skip and still not have a tax increase this year under this economic environment that we are in right now.
Mr. Hohl: You asked me previously what I thought about all of this, and I understand what you all are saying and how you reallocated money to use as capital items. If you want to compare us to a city or a county or a state when they take out a bond that bond has a certain time limit, that debt assessment is levied on the taxpayer and when that bond is paid off, that levy placed on the taxpayer goes away. It doesn't automatically revert to another line item, it just simply goes away. If you look at this chart

from 2001 to 2010 the operating and maintenance assessment per acre went up over 66% and then when the bond was paid off and you reallocated the money the following year it went up an additional 72% so if you look at that way and you could equate that to Ad Valorem tax that you pay to the City. If the City were to try to do that and raise your Ad Valorem that much yes, it would raise your taxes, but they would have to come up with some really strong justification to do that and I don't know that would ever be possible. I have never seen an Ad Valorem rate go up that amount. One of the things that probably should have been done is another bond should have been thought of or another way to allocate the money or simply roll back the total assessment as to such time that you come up with another capital improvement bond. Simply taking the money, I am not saying that the money was used frivolously, it was used for projects that were needed in the community but the way that it was done really doesn't give the individual taxpayer or homeowner a chance to have a say in what happens with their taxes.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Actually you did because it was an advertised public hearing that they were increasing the assessments and each property owner would have received written notice.
Mr. Hohl: So, they were noticed of the increase.
Mr. Pawelczyk: They had notice that the funds were to be reallocated.
Mr. Hohl: So, to be fair the notice was given but the reality is the operating and maintenance did go up as stated here, and actually if you look at it, it started at $1,800 in 2001 and in 2010 it was over $3,000, then it went up again to $5,100 because the debt service went away. The way that you did it you notice that the taxpayers and the individual homeowner if I am looking at my tax bill if you are telling me that my taxes aren't going to go up a penny then ok, so you are not raising my taxes.
Mr. Pawelczyk: It is not fair to try to look at these numbers only without looking at each budget. I am only saying that because just like Zaida said, they did a lot of things with that money. What did you do with the money? Well, it is in the budget, and it is in the final budget what you spent your money on. It is in the final report so in 2010- ,2011, I was here, and this Board decided to, look we have a lot of stuff breaking down.
Mr. Carney: Yes we all decided.

Mr. Pawelczyk: We have a lot of stuff breaking down what do we do? That was one of the options. Let's use this capital money, put it in capital, reallocate the funds and put it in capital, and use that money. Then long story short a few years later when the interest rates dropped to minimum the Board said let's take advantage of the low-interest rates and do the bond in 2015. That is kind of the history, so you are looking at an increase in numbers in 2004 and 2006 way back then you didn't maintain as much as you do now. Before 2004/2006 you started talking about taking on additional maintenance obligations whether it is the park, the roadways, or whatever which is just like Lance said that is one of the reasons your place is so attractive because you took on a lot of responsibilities from the City and all of those increases were advertised as budget increases and written notice was sent out to the homeowners to state the date of the public hearing process and those that came if there were any had the opportunity to talk about it. So, I think we are looking at numbers and increases but we could talk about it all night. If you are really going to look at it, look at what you spent the money on.
Mr. Hohl: I am not saying that wasn't done for the interest of the public. What I am saying is you can look at the math two different ways and both ways are correct. One is the actual overall assessed revenue is reflected in the final column. Total assessment and as our accountant said that total assessment doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for everybody depending on where you live whether it is a residence, multi-family, commercial, it could actually vary in a given year but overall, what we are taking in remained unchanged many of the years and some of those years if you remember what she said, the total assessed acreage changed. Somehow that increased and we got a windfall it would be a similar way if your house was worth $100,000 last year and this year it is assessed at $120,000 even though the Ad Valorem rate didn't change your taxes would go up. We do it by acre, we don't do it on an Ad Valorem basis. It is a flat rate by acre.
Mr. Pawelczyk: The only reason it changed was when we issued this last bond
those three assessment areas had to be assessed differently because the benefit was different based on the way the bonds were set up. That was the only reason those were different, but I think what Jennifer clarified was they are different but not that different.

Mr. Morgan: What I wanted to clarify here was and I know this is an internal document for the Board. I guess the public can see if they are here or if they want a copy of it, but this was for informational purposes. I guess that is why you generated it Skip. I wanted to make sure this Board understood it. Thank you Jennifer, you did a very good job tonight explaining things to us. For the most part in the last 18 or 20 years, we have had tax increases where the average homeowner felt an increase in his taxes three times. Two times we had a small decrease in taxes or three times since 2001. Taxes increased where we actually levied a tax assessment that was increasing from the year before was three different years which was 15%, 20%, and another 15%. Then we had some years that taxes decreased for whatever reasons. I just wanted to make sure we all understood that the assessments for the people in Turtle Run have not increased since 2015. That was my point and then prior to that, it was 2006.
Mr. Kapish: For of all in order to be real fair, what should be done if you want to
get real numbers you can go back to the beginning of the District when taxes were first collected and you can snapshot anything to show where you are trying to prove anything. That is what this appears to be like. To be fair why don't you go back to 1989 and see from 1989 when taxes started to be collected? Go from there all the way to today. Back then taxes weren't increased at all so the numbers would even be lower.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Typically, they are not increased while the developer is developing.
Mr. Kapish: Also I don't care what the internal workings are of the City, how they move numbers around. I don't really care about that. At the end of the day my neighbors care whether or not they are paying more to the County, they are paying more to the School Board, they are paying more to the City and that is at the end of the day. That is what they care about. That is the real tax increase. What I am paying, and we had a definition up there last time Julio, and the definition was that a tax increase is a change in what you are paying from year to year. What internally goes on is really I could care less what they do inside. As far as the City goes, the City issues a bond under a special thing. This was issued differently. This was issued within the budget that we had. There wasn't a special Ad Valorem Bond because Ad Valorem taxes aren't what we have anyway.
Mr. Morgan: What year was the bond issued, Mike?

Mr. Pawelczyk: I think it was 2015. I am not sure so your taxes would have been changed for 2016. I think.
Ms. Wasserman: The bonds were 2017.
Mr. Kapish: We got the bond and that is the whole purpose of it is that we were able to do what we did with not increasing taxes. Again I don't think the City, or the County can say that. I think we deserve accolades, not negativity.
Mr. Carney: Jennifer you still there?
Ms. Wasserman: I am still here. The exact date is November 9, 2017 so it is technically fiscal year 2018.
Mr. Carney: In 2011 that is when it was 72% at approximately $675,000 correct?
Ms. Wasserman: The increase from 2011 to 2010 the assessment rate increase in operating and maintenance was approximately $674,000, that is correct. I do want to say one thing because when you were talking about the percentage changes you should be looking at the rate column, not the one all the way at the end because that is factoring in the assessable acres and you should be looking at if you are going to be discussing the effect on owners I would be looking at the 16.7%, 15.86% and the 15% because that last column is looking at the gross assessment which is factoring in the assessable acres and you are looking at gross assessment, total that the District is collecting not as it affects the property owner and the assessment rate per acre. I would be looking at the other column, the sixth column not the one at the end.
Mr. Carney: So, the $675,000 was basically for eight years correct?
Ms. Wasserman: If I take the $2,166.76 times the assessable acres and you do the $675,000 times 8 years, that debt service assessment is reallocated for a period of eight years from 2011 to 2018.
Mr. Carney: So the $675,000 was constant. The mistake I made was I kept putting
72% all along which is not 72% every year but the $675,000 was constant. That was my point.
Ms. Wasserman: There was a subsequent increase also in 2015 so the increase
from 2015 to 2018 would have been a bit more if you are looking at that piece. That debt service reallocation is constant from 2011 to 2018.

August29,2022	Turtle Run COD

Mr. Carney: So the $675,000 was constant, the 72% is not like we took it every year, it was one thing but the $675,000 remained constant.
Ms. Wasserman: That is correct. Mr. Carney: It never went away.
Ms. Wasserman: Until 2019 when the debt service assessment was necessary to pay the 2017 Bonds.
Mr. Carney: Understood and we did a lot of good stuff with that money but at the
same time when it was said that we hadn't raised anything, a couple of years a red flag went up and I just wanted to bring this front and center just to say yes we did have some money. When we raised taxes by 16% or 15% and let's say back in one year we raised it by 16%, that 16% remains constant right for the next ten years, is that correct? It never really goes away, it just remains constant.
Ms. Wasserman: The assessments haven't been decreased. They remained steady or have increased. There are minimal changes when the debt was reallocated the total debt service assessment per acre did go down about $6. That seems to be the only decrease that I see in total assessments per acre. Generally speaking, the increases remain there and they generally haven't gone down in the total assessment per acre.
Mr. Carney: So the eight years at the $675,000 was approximately $5,400,000 over that eight years that we were able to spend throughout the community. That is really the only point I was trying to make that yes we did have money to spend. I want to thank you for being here tonight. I am going to ask you to do one more thing, would you mind going over the capital list for us tonight with Horsepower? Would you mind going over that with us?
Ms. Wasserman: Absolutely, give me one second to pull it up and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Carney: We review it at every meeting but since you are here you can run
through it with us, and I would appreciate that.
Ms. Wasserman: I am ready, what would you like to know? Mr. Carney: Let's just start with the ongoing capital project list.
Ms. Wasserman: There were some changes. We haven't had any changes in this particular schedule in a while because the contractors haven't presented the invoices.

Horsepower Electric did provide us with some invoices, some work was completed. Ongoing capital projects were estimated to be $193,702. We just processed an invoice or multiple invoices from Horsepower Electric for the street sign installation. We paid them
$50,000 approximately. Ongoing capital projects are estimated to be $143,257. Three line items from Horsepower Electric and then the Signarama $126,000. Did anybody have any questions?
Mr. Carney: You can move on.
Ms. Wasserman: Then for the capital reserves we are just looking at our current balance which is we have money in an operating account that I use to pay the invoices when they come in. Most of the money is retained in the SBA accounts. Those two accounts have $755,034 and then you see costs to complete the project that goes back to that $143,257. Engineering fees are paid through July so $13,400 is my estimate for August and September. All I did was I took the last ten months and averaged it out and that is where I am coming up with that $13,400. Contingencies are how everything has been going with the cost of everything and if anything, change orders, or any unforeseen expenses that need to be paid, that total is $208,657. The capital reserve balance is
$546,377.
Mr. Carney: Thank you, Jennifer. Does anyone have any questions for Jennifer?
Mr. Kapish: Do you know and maybe you don't but maybe this is something that can be researched given the years 2001 to 2022, do you know what was the overall inflation rate from those years at all?
Ms. Wasserman: Off the top of my head, I would not want to assume anything. The
information is certainly available. Is that something that you would like me to prepare?
Mr. Kapish: I would like to know what the rate of inflation was in the years 2001 to 2022 because we talk about these numbers, but the problem is it is not put to real life. It is easy to sit here and talk about numbers and all this kind of stuff. There is a real-life to everything that is going on. As Mike pointed out some of the things we talked about were how we did some improvements and stuff like this. I don't know what the rate of inflation this year is. It was as high as 12% as I saw reported on the news and I don't know what the final number is going to be but there is a rate of inflation. The home values or property values in 2001 were certainly different than they are in 2022. Now cities can get tax money

just from the property appraisers. Turtle Run has no mechanism like that so cities can collect mounds and mounds of money just because of the value of their homes going up which the city will collect this year. In fact, I was talking to somebody in the City, and I think it is going to be millions of dollars is what they are going to collect just because of the value of the homes. Now they can officially say they didn't raise taxes because they didn't increase the millage rate. They can claim that and that would be a true factor that they did not change the millage rate, so they did not increase taxes, but they are going to have a windfall of money. Turtle Run doesn't operate that way or have the ability to do that. If you could find that out for me I would appreciate that. I would venture to say if you took those three years of increases divided by 20 years, I think it comes out to less than 3%. That is it.
Ms. Wasserman: I will get back to you on that. I don't want to speculate. I am sure
3% is generally what we all kind of believe but it is not something that I generally go research, so I don't want to speculate. I absolutely can look into it and come up with a schedule.
Mr. Carney: Ok anything else for Jennifer? Mr. Morgan: Thank you, Jennifer.
Mr. Carney: Jennifer thank you very much for being here tonight.
Ms. Wasserman: You're welcome. I am happy to answer any of your questions.
Have a good rest of your meeting.
Mr. Carney: Thank you.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS    Approval of the Minutes of the
July 25, 2022 Meeting
Mr. Carney: The next thing on the agenda would be the approval of the minutes of the July 25, 2022 meeting. Do I have a motion to approve?

On MOTION by Ms. Karnegis seconded by Mr. Morgan with all in favor, the Minutes of the July 25, 2022 Meeting were approved.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Update on Progress Report on 9
Monument Signs

Mr. Carney: Mike do you have anything to report on the 9 monument signs at all tonight?
Mr. Hohl: Yes, as I stated last meeting it was approved in DRC and now the
electrical portion of it is being reviewed. They asked to see all of the permits from our electrical contractor. We sent them to them so that they could look at that and now they are just waiting for a report from Signarama on what exists today. One of the things that was in our electrical contractor's scope of work was that they added a J box to the back of the wall to allow for electrical service connection of the sign. The City wants to confirm that before they say ok. Signarama is expecting to have it pass the electrical portion in the very near future and then it will go to an overall review, so we are getting a little closer to finally getting the permit. As I stated before once we have the permit for the sign that starts a timeline of them going into production of the sign and then once they have that timeline when they are going to pull the old signs off to give us time to bring our other subs in to clean and reseal the walls and clean and polish the copper caps. Then the sign will go in, electric will be connected and that will be done on that portion of it. Then Lance is tasked to go back and look at the landscaping at all the entrances once we have the new look to see if anything needs to be changed or if there are issues with the irrigation or take this plant out and put a different plant in. Now that we have it looking like this with the illumination and the coloring and all of that maybe we want to change something, maybe we don't but we will wait to hear back on that. Finally, our secondary entrances will be completed up to par with what we are used in Turtle Run.
Mr. Morgan: Mike can I ask you a question? I voted for the signs, and everything wasn't the first estimated around $5,000? Am I wrong about that?
Mr. Hohl: Yes.
Mr. Morgan: Now it is $13,000 something.
Mr. Hohl: I want to say somewhere around $20,000 to $25,000 per wall for everything. We know that there is going to be some cost increase because of the changes the City insisted that we make which changed our design. We actually elevated the sign to a higher-level sign which is more expensive. Once we have the permit we know that yes this is it, then we will find out what that change is since for Signarama, it doesn't make

sense to do it now because we don't know if the City is going to ask us to change something else.
Mr. Morgan: So we are going to find out what the final change is as far as what the
cost is?
Mr. Hohl: Right. Obviously, if you tell them that we want this pair of glasses which you buy at CVS pharmacy as opposed to a prescription set, there is a huge difference in cost between those two. There will be a difference in the cost. We don't know exactly what that is yet because we don't know what the final design is going to be.
Mr. Morgan: When she came to us in November, I am just going off memory, I thought the signs were going to be about $6,000 or $7,000? Am I way off on that? Basic math is about $13,000 a unit, hopefully it doesn't go much past that.
Mr. Hohl: I don't know what the final price is going to be. We are going to find out and then we will come back to the Board.
Mr. Carney: I don't think that number has changed since the beginning. Mr. Pawelczyk: The contract was $76,500 for 9 signs.
Mr. Morgan: That was just a rough estimate at the time. Yes, about $8,500 or something like that.
Mr. Carney: Ok staff reports.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
A.	Attorney
Mr. Pawelczyk: I really don't have anything to report. I know that at the last meeting we approved an agreement with Industrial Divers. We also approved an agreement with Hall Fountains. Those were all sent to management a week so after they were approved. You also approved the amended restated easement for streetlighting and other improvements at Cypress Pointe. That was sent to Julio on August 10th. I am not sure what the status of the execution of that is. I really don't think I have anything else to report unless there are any questions. No response from Cypress Pointe?
Mr. Burgess was inaudible at this time.
B.	Engineer
1)	Updates on:
a.	Turtle Run Signpost Replacements
a.	

b.	Cypress Pointe Flagpole Improvements
2)	Discussion of Easement Atlas Added

Mr. Carney: Jonathan, Turtle Run signpost replacements, anything?

Mr. Geiger: Well they have all their NOC's filed now. They have renewed their permits. Their permits are active until February 21, 2023. I have not gotten any callback or email back about a schedule that they are going to complete the work. The last time I was in Turtle Run I didn't see any of the additional frames that have been ready since the 28th. They haven't been installed. They haven't emailed or called me back. I have had several attempts to get a hold of the project manager over there trying to get a firm date on when they are going to finish the work. The only other thing I have done in the meantime is the two roadways that were completed prior I did a quick drive-through and walk-through to make sure that all the postholes were backfilled. It was late last week that the NOC's were all approved, and the permits were renewed.
Mr. Carney: I know we recently paid them $50,000 something, what is the
outstanding due about $18,000 or something?
Mr. Geiger: Yes. Their total left including the retainage is $18,555. That accounts for the retainage on Phase 1 of Turtle Run Boulevard and Creekside Drive.
Mr. Carney: That is the total? Mr. Geiger: Yes.
Mr. Hohl: Have we paid that retainage yet?
Mr. Geiger: No, we don't pay the retainage until the permits are completely closed
out.
Mr. Hohl: The only reason I asked that is I noticed there are several of the signposts
if you look in the ground there are holes in the ground. As a matter of fact, the sign in front of my house the same thing happened. I don't know what they used to fill it but obviously, it is settling. There is no water leak or anything like that which is causing it.
Mr. Geiger: What actually has happened in the past that I have noticed is they will break an irrigation line, it does just erode out. That is why I do another final walk-through of these, and I let them know there were two or three at least on Turtle Run Boulevard West and Central that needed to be backfilled. They were against the sidewalk. You can see the sidewalk being undermined. They have been notified about that, but they are

normally just backfilling material. I don't think they fill out unless they absolutely need to. It is normally just with the material they pull out of the ground.
Mr. Hohl: It might be something to look at to maybe fill it with something that is going to stay there for a while.
Mr. Geiger: I can ask them but there will be a cost increase and change order.
They are not going to bring fill in unless someone is paying for it. It wasn't part of the original scope of work for them to provide fill material.
Mr. Hohl: It might be something that we want to think of because it might be a
hazard for people if they step into the hole.
Mr. Geiger: I have let them know that they need to make sure the holes are backfilled properly and at least attempt to do a little bit of compaction. The ones that I have noticed have always been where they have broken an irrigation line. I know there was quite a bit of irrigation lines broken during this whole process. I will inform them again that they do need to make sure that everything is good to go for the City's final inspection and everything.
Mr. Hohl: Ok.
Mr. Carney: Cypress Pointe flagpole improvements?
Mr. Geiger: So for Cypress Pointe, we do have everything completed between the electrical plans and the civil plans. I do have an updated flagpole quote from A Flag and Flagpole Company. Their price did not change, and they said this should be good for the rest of the year hopefully. I don't think it is going to take that long before the District decides to purchase the pole. This actually did go down a little bit. They took off the rush shipment they had on the original proposal. They said if it does need to be a rush shipping job they can obviously tag that back on but given the timeframe for this they didn't need to put that on the proposal. I also got two updated proposals for the installation of the lime rock material and everything to do with the base preparation, the clearing and excavation. We have an updated quote from Anzco and from 3D Paving. Anzco is coming in at
$20,960.28 and 3D Paving is about $6,000 cheaper at $14,411. We worked with
obviously you guys are familiar with Anzco. We have worked with 3D Paving at Coral Bay and some other communities. This is a very tiny job. It is basically just excavation, lime rock prep.

Mr. Morgan: You worked with them in Coral Bay before? Mr. Geiger; Yes. They did some roadway repairs.
Mr. Carney: They were good?
Mr. Geiger: Oh, yes. They did a good job. They are very responsive. I have worked with the guy Steve, the rep over there. He contacts our office with a lot of work, and we try to contact him for things. They are responsive and everything. We had a third proposal from Florida Blacktop but theirs was like $32,000 so I didn't even ask them to reply. Also, I guess they are not paying their other contractors right now.
Mr. Carney: Some companies are too big for this job.
Mr. Geiger: This is where we stand now. Originally we did reach out to three or four other people including Stanford. They all kind of declined to bid on it since it was a smaller job.
Mr. Morgan: The flag company is about $15,000 and change. 3D is another
$15,000 so let's call it $30,000. Where are we at as far as our budget for the flagpoles? We already voted on the electric.
Mr. Geiger: We are waiting on a revised proposal for the electric as well to make
sure nothing has changed based on the engineering plans. Also, we have directed them to include the fixtures because the fixtures were excluded.
Mr. Morgan: Give me a ballpark on that.
Mr. Geiger: Their original proposal was for $4,530. The light fixtures I have them estimated at about $2,500 per light. I think they are about $2,000 when we did the flagpoles on Turtle Creek and Sample.
Mr. Morgan: $2,000 per light? Mr. Geiger; Yes.
Mr. Morgan: So, you are going to need how many lights?
Mr. Geiger: Two. That is going to be about $5,000 given the cost increase. Mr. Morgan: So we are about $40,000.
Mr. Geiger: That is about what I am coming up with. Permit fees are going to be
about $3,000. The last time we did this it was a $2,900 building permit and a $100 electrical permit fee. Then there is still going to be some of KCl's time to do final inspections and certification.

Mr. Morgan: Of course.
Mr. Geiger: The survey has already been completed and the electrical engineering I don't have that number on here for some reason but that was $4,750.
Mr. Carney: So it will be close to $50,000?
Mr. Geiger: All said and done yes closer to $50,000. Mr. Carney: The original estimate was $60,000.
Mr. Geiger: And if it goes smoothly and I am not out there more than once or twice to do inspections it keeps the cost down too.
Mr. Carney: Do you need approval from the Board for the 3D Paving if you feel
comfortable with that?
Mr. Pawelczyk:	Any approval needs to be contingent on the easement being executed by Cypress Pointe which they haven't done yet.
Mr. Geiger: That is the last piece of the puzzle.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I can't prepare the agreement until the easement is executed. Mr. Hohl: So ordering any material would be meaningless right now.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I wouldn't order any material.
Mr. Hohl: We haven't really even finished step one really.
Mr. Pawelczyk: You could do what you want but I would suggest since we are meeting in a couple of weeks, just put it on the agenda for the next meeting to consider proposals and then you can approve them then. Hopefully, you will have an answer from Cypress Pointe by then. If it is not executed, at least it is in process and you can approve them contingently.
Mr. Morgan: Who needs to sign that Mike?
Mr. Pawelczyk: The Association and us.
Mr. Morgan: Right us of course. Has the proposal been sent to them yet?
Mr. Pawelczyk: I sent it to Julio's office on the 10th. I don't know if they sent it yet.
Mr. Morgan: Let's get lined up with Parker and whoever else has to sign that and get that done so we can move forward with this.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I need hard signatures too.
Mr. Morgan: Get this in by maybe hopefully November or something.

Mr. Geiger: It should be a pretty straightforward permit process. It is a full building permit but there is not a lot to this. They give signed sealed drawings and everything with the poles when you purchase them. The City has seen these before, it is not the first time the District has done flagpoles. Barring anything going wrong or any permit delays I think November is achievable at this point as long as we get the easement back. 3D Paving their proposal is mostly based on minimums. This price should not change, and the flagpole company has indicated that this price should be good for the next couple of months. It hasn't changed since February when they furnished the original one.
Mr. Morgan: You have my email right?
Mr. Geiger: Yes. As soon as we hear back about the easement and everything, hopefully, next meeting we will have some project agreements being drawn up.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I have already drafted it.
Mr. Geiger: That is the update on that. The last thing I did have tonight for the Board was survey had a question on the Easement Atlas. They are diligently working on that. The question they ran into, and they asked me, and I said I would pose it to the Board is there a desire to see utility easements in the shopping plazas? They are running into FPL easements and things like that or is this more of a focus on the easements the District is part of or a party to?
Mr. Pawelczyk: I would say the District in my opinion because we don't have
utilities.
Mr. Geiger: That was kind of my direction to them.
Mr. Pawelczyk: We did have that wall issue when we were looking at walls where those easements are but that is more case by case.
Mr. Geiger: I think they might include the utility easements that are added just
because those do affect, if they are close to the right-of-way, the Board does projects there, but I said the stuff over in the parking lots probably not anything that needs to be added especially if Turtle Run is a not party to those.
Mr. Hohl: I would say anything where our easement butts up against another easement we would want to know what that was so we can say can we even go further.
Mr. Morgan: Chris didn't we have one of those made-up years ago?
Mr. Pawelczyk: Yes they have it. They are using that as a starting point.

Mr. Kapish: That was back when George Osborn was the engineer. We all got copies. I don't have mine anymore because it is outdated.
Mr. Geiger: They are preparing one like the other one that the Board has seen before. Because of them doing the title searches when we were looking for the easements for the walls and everything and now, they have everything from 1986 forward there was a lot more information that I think was included originally. They have all the license agreements as well. They are going to put a supplemental book together as I have discussed before just showing the area of coverage for those. Then I was going back to the meeting minutes to look for when the Board approved the $5,000 not to exceed and I did notice that there was a request to have the lake sign locations as well to the easement atlas. I sent them the information for that as well as far as the names and a small GPS coordinate so they will have a document now showing where the lake signs are as well.
Mr. Carney: Ok anything else Jonathan? Mr. Geiger: That is it.
C.	Field Manager
1)	Flag Proof with Color Chart
2)	Signpost/Sign Replacement
a.	Kemper Insurance Offer
3)	Light Post Replacement
a.	Allstate Insurance Offer
4)	BrightView Quality Site Assessment Report
Mr. Burgess was inaudible at this time.
Mr. Carney: That is the actual logo?
Mr. Burgess: Yes, that is. Mr. Burgess was inaudible at this time.
Mr. Kapish: I think if you look at the garbage cans, benches, and stuff they all have the logo and that was photographed and given to Warsaw years ago. It actually has been since the bond five years ago. I would say that is probably the most accurate coloring, and depiction.
Mr. Burgess: I can reach out to them.
Mr. Kapish: What I am saying is this looks pretty close. Mr. Carney: So this is the logo you have on file right? Mr. Burgess: Yes this is what I found.
Mr. Pawelczyk: The trademark registration?

Mr. Burgess: I believe he sent that.
Mr. Kapish: Dennis had an original flyer, an original brochure from Cornelius that developed Turtle Run that drew up this logo. It was an actual color flyer. Was that ever found on his desk? Did you guys ever look to find that?
Mr. Burgess: I know we have been through his documents but nothing that I am aware of. I can always double-check.
Mr. Kapish: I know he had one and he may have had two or whatever, but he did have one. It was the original. You may want to try to find it.
Mr. Carney: And it should be trademarked. It should be the actual trademark not a variation of the logo.
Mr. Pawelcyzk: That is what this is. The logo is the same.
Mr. Burgess: I will see what I can find.
Mr. Carney: Signpost/sign replacement who is speaking on that?
Mr. Padilla: I will. We have been working with both insurance companies. The first item signpost and replacement from Kemper Insurance. They actually sent a check for
$5,597.24 which is less than the amount that it is going to cost us for all the repairs. The
actual repairs are $5,997 so they are saying they have a depreciation of $399.76. Patrick replied back that was acceptable. We are asking to get paid for what it is going to cost us to repair to put back the new pole. They replied back saying that this is their offer.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Julio asked my office to do some research on insurance and depreciation costs. We could do it for the future but for $300 I would just take it.
Mr. Kapish: That was a signpost and not a light post?
Mr. Padilla: That was a signpost and they may be requiring a release form which if the Board approves could be contingent for the attorney to just review it.
Mr. Hohl: Releasing the insurance company? Mr. Padilla: Yes.
Mr. Morgan: It is only $300 you are talking about. Do you need a motion for that? Mr. Pawelczyk: Motion to accept the settlement subject to legal review.

On MOTION by Mr. Morgan seconded by Mr. Hohl with all in favor, a motion accepting the settlement in the amount of

$5,997 from Kemper Insurance for signposUsign replacement repair subject to legal review was approved.	

Mr. Carney: The next one.
Mr. Padilla: The next item is the light post replacement. That is from Allstate Insurance. It is the same situation they didn't send a check but did send their offer. It will cost the District $13,038 to replace the post and get everything back. They are saying that they will pay $12,541.10. The depreciation is $486.90.
Mr. Morgan: Which pole is that?
Mr. Padilla: That is the light post that is on Terrapin. We have the same situation as the prior one.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Since they didn't send a check I would just table it for the next
meeting and we will have our research which I told my associate Gregory I think he was here before. I told him not to spend more than a half hour on it. He is going to look, and I think it is important that we know for the future.
Mr. Padilla: Ok.
Mr. Pawelczyk: Unless the Board wants to accept it. If they didn't send the check I would just wait.
Mr. Kapish: These have been ordered right?
Mr. Padilla: Yes.
Mr. Kapish: We are not waiting. Mr. Padilla: We are not waiting.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I think because the insurance offer is less than the cost of replacement that is why Julio needs to bring it back so you all can accept that settlement which is common. They are always going to claim depreciation that your property is less than it really is.
Mr. Padilla: In addition to that we have the BrightView Quality Assessment.
Mr. Szozda: I will speak on that. They raised the beds in the park. If anybody hasn't noticed it, they did a nice job in there. We removed all the Elaeagnus along the sidewalk on 66th and replaced it with some more clusia's. There was pine straw added to the preserve, the median, it really came out nice. All the cocoplums have been installed along Turtle Run Boulevard. I do have one proposal from BrightView that includes mulching some of the park area, the sylvester pines, incorporating it on all the lights at the

monuments on Sample Road and fixing a rut on Creekside, putting some sod and patching up various areas through the neighborhood that need some attention. That is for
$2,003.39.
Mr. Kapish: Wasn't that rut created by Mastek?
Mr. Szozda: No. Those ruts have been fixed by Mastek. They actually came in and did most of it. The ruts are on the median on Creekside where the mowers have run over and over again.
Mr. Kapish: It is also on Turtle Run Boulevard down by the powerlines.
Mr. Morgan: Are you talking about the center medians? Mr. Szozda: Yes.
Mr. Kapish: They look really bad.
Mr. Szozda: I am well aware of that.
Mr. Kapish: I have never seen that, and the medians have been there for a long time. It goes back to when the bond was paid off, they are running those mowers over wet grass or something.
Mr. Szozda: I just had this conversation in fact he told me he spoke to you about
the median by the roundabout there. The irrigation apparently wasn't working.
Mr. Kapish: Who said that? Arturo? Mr. Szozda: Yes.
Mr. Kapish: Spoke to me about what?
Mr. Szozda: I thought he spoke to you about the median there by the roundabout. Mr. Kapish: What about it?
Mr. Szozda: How dried out it was and terrible looking it was.
Mr. Kapish: Oh yeah, I told him. I am talking about before the dryness.
Mr. Szozda: It did have a fungus on there. Rusty had treated that. It has improved. It is not to the point where it is acceptable yet, but it is heading in the right direction. I would like to get this proposal approved if there is no resistance.
Mr. Carney: Say that again, please?
Mr. Szozda: The proposal for the mulch by the sylvesters, the park area, and incorporate the lights on Sample Road monuments. Those are the lights that have been there forever. We incorporated the new sets, but these lights are still exposed.

Mr. Carney: What is the total cost of that? Mr. Szozda: $2,003.39.
Mr. Carney: Motion to approve, please?

On MOTION by Mr. Hohl seconded by Mr. Morgan with all in favor, a proposal in the amount of $2,003.39 by BrightView for mulch was app ov_e_d_. 	 _

Mr. Carney: Anything else Patrick? Mr. Szozda: No sir.
Mr. Carney: Speaking of landscaping, Lance there is in the 2022 budget, there is a good amount of money left in there for landscape replacement. Just letting you know.
Mr. Morgan: Did you check out the clusia hedge? Mr. Carney: It looks great.
Mr. Hohl: It looks really good.
Mr. Morgan: Art is not done there yet.
Mr. Carney: I don't think that has been calculated into it yet what we have done the past week but there was about $60,000 landscape maintenance take away what we have done recently that is what you have left in 2022 so we are good.
Mr. Padilla: I do have something else under field manager. Latoya sent out a People's Choice pressure cleaning estimate. It is a separate item but part of the field manager report. This is your regular annual fall pressure cleaning. They are asking for
$36,450. It has gone up from last year at a cost of $1,425.
Mr. Carney: It is all budgeted.
Mr. Padilla: Now the dates that we had before that were done last year were September 27 through October 26 which was from a Monday to a Tuesday. If we were to keep the same days for this year it would be September 26 through October 25. If the Board chooses to put those dates in the contract.
Mr. Pawelczyk: In the agreement last year we set a time period within which they had to complete the work. You all said you wanted it done by Thanksgiving. I think last

year you said you wanted it done before Halloween. It is really up to you as to what the time frame is.
Mr. Kapish: Did you know that this never has never been bidded out. We have
never gotten some competitive bids since it started.
Mr. Padilla: We can certainly do that if you would like. Mr. Kapish: I am just making that point.
Mr. Carney: It is a good point.
Mr. Morgan: They do a good job for us every year. Mr. Kapish: I am not saying they don't.
Mr. Padilla: I know in the past for example speaking to Dennis it had been tough to find a company to have the manpower that they do to be able to complete something like this in this time frame.
Mr. Kapish: It doesn't mean that we can't look. The other point is that I don't like the job that they did on the fencing last year. A lot of sections they didn't even touch the fence. Along the preserve and along the front of the Grove Apartments the fence is all moldy and around the park, it still has rust stains and mold on Wiles Road. It looks horrible.
Mr. Carney: I was going to mention that. Pat, you guys need to go around and
check in their daily activities because there was a lot that was missed last year.
Mr. Kapish: I hope the rust comes off I really do because the longer it sits on an object like that it will be very tough to get off.
Mr. Padilla: We will come back with another proposal like this.
Mr. Morgan: Here is the thing about that. They have to have manpower; they are going to start this month. Just be aware of that. We have to have those estimates if we are going to change by the next meeting.
Mr. Kapish: I am not saying we have to change now but it wouldn't hurt to while we are talking about this to go get some prices for maybe next year.
Mr. Padilla: Time is of the essence, so I need to schedule the work. Mr. Carney: So do you want to move on to People's Choice?
Ms. Karnegis: Yes.

Mr. Szozda: If I may interject for one second. The City came in and they pressure cleaned from 441 along Sample Road to Turtle Run Boulevard so we might bring that up to them on the proposal which probably could save us maybe thousands of dollars. It was just a month ago the City did it. Patrick and I eventually went out and walked the sidewalks and they are in great shape. I think it would be worthwhile to just bring it to their attention and maybe they will adjust the price accordingly. There is no need to do it twice a month.
Mr. Kapish: What about the south side of Sample in front of Cypress Pointe condo's?
Mr. Szozda: We were out there two days when they were doing our side. I did not
see them on the other side.
Mr. Burgess: On their proposal, it says pressure wash the sidewalks on the west side of Sample Road.
Mr. Szozda: There is not a west side of Sample Road.
Mr. Burgess:  I am not sure what community they are talking about and that is

$650.

side.

Mr. Szozda: Is it a small area maybe that is what they are referring to the south

Mr. Kapish: Basically, their property goes, they have a preserve, and one year they

did the entire from the preserve all the way down to Publix.
Mr. Carney: I think your recommendation is good. A not to exceed this number and if you can get it off $2,000.
Mr. Hohl: I would like to amend the motion to add the words not to exceed.

On MOTION by Mr. Hohl seconded by Mr. Morgan with all in favor, a not to exceed amount of $36,450 for pressure cleaning with People's Choice was approved.

Mr. Morgan: One caveat though Pat did they say when they were going to with the trees with the tree service with BrightView, you need to check on that because then you have Board members or other people go by and see something, oh that hadn't been cleaned when it was. That mildew builds up on those fences pretty quickly but if you have

a map where you say ok they did this section today, we can inspect it and stay up on it because a month later when you are expecting all of the Turtle Run at one time and they keep telling we did that if you have a map of what they did and what they have completed you know that for a fact.
Mr. Szozda: Absolutely.
Mr. Carney: Can we not get quotes because we don't want to be sitting here next year talking about the same thing?
Mr. Pawelczyk: I was going to suggest putting it on the maintenance schedule to bid it out in June or July or something. Pat I will wait to get the final proposal from you and then we will finalize the agreement. It is pretty much ready to go.
Mr. Szozda: Yes sir.
Mr. Carney: Anything else Pat? Mr. Szozda: No sir.
Mr. Carney: The pine straw looks great.

D.	Manager

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
A.	Financial Report on Capital Projects, Emergency Funds, Capital Reserve and All Other Financial Issues
B.	Approval of Check Register
C.	Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Mr. Carney: Financial report that was already discussed. Approval of the check register. Can I have a motion to approve?

On MOTION by Ms. Karnegis seconded by Mr. Morgan with all in favor, the Check Register was approved.

Mr. Carney: We need a motion to approve the balance sheet and income statement.

On MOTION by Ms. Karnegis seconded by Mr. Hohl with all in favor, the Balance Sheet and Income Statement were approved.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS   Supervisors Requests
Mr. Carney: Supervisors requests. Chris, what do you have? Mr. Kapish: I don't have anything.
Mr. Carney: Lance?
Mr. Morgan: I have a couple of things. I was talking to the Vice President and President of Hidden Lake, Julia and Fred Shelton. They want to pony along this year with the lights that the COD is going to put up just east of the roundabout. I had Joe and I talked to Joe, and I think everybody has a proposal here. He wanted to ponytail with us and maybe do something with their entrance. Of course, they would like the COD to possibly fund some of it because they are having some issues over there. It is just a proposal that I am looking at, but I thought maybe we could do their center median for them. I made Joe a la carte it out and make a proposal of how much each item would cost. I supplied a copy with that. If you guys would look at that and see what you think and give me some feedback.
Mr. Carney: I have a question for you. We do Cypress Pointe, we do the Estates,
we do Hidden Lakes all that is left is Newport and Harbor Island. Should we just complete the Districtif we are going to do three?
Mr. Morgan: I don't know that either one of those other entrances have holiday

lights.

Mr. Carney: Harbor Island had nothing last year.
Mr. Morgan: Clarence is the contact person in Newport and then Steve, he is the

contact person ahead of their HOA. Mr. Carney: Just a point.
Mr. Pawelczyk: I would only do it where we have a landscape easement. Mr. Morgan: We already have a landscape easement on the center median. Mr. Kapish: Not in Newport.
Mr. Morgan: But we do in Harbor Island.
Mr. Carney: Newport wouldn't allow us to do the landscaping at that time.

Mr. Morgan: How this started was I was jogging, and I saw that Christmas lights were still up about a month and a half two months ago. Christmas lights were still up so I called Fred Shelton and I said your Christmas lights are still up and he said we are working on that, and this was probably June or July. He said the contractor put that in the estimate and he won't come to take them down. He said we are working on that and that is when that discussion started. I told him I would see what we could do. Just take a look at it and maybe next meeting Joe said he could amend or add anything.
Mr. Carney: I think it is something we should do.
Mr. Hohl: I think it adds to the community to highlight the entrances to the sub­ developments.
Mr. Carney: And then we will be consistent throughout the community. Ok.
Anything else Lance?
Mr. Morgan: That is all I have. Mr. Carney: Mike anything?
Mr. Hohl: I noticed that the dead fish got remediated, either they sank or got eaten or were removed. That is a good thing. There were multiple lakes that I saw them in, but the worst was the one right there by the powerlines. The other thing I guess is a question for our porter, Santos if he can take care of something like this when it happens. One of the benches along the walkway underneath the powerlines there was a blue heron that perched there and just defecated all over the seat and it was there for weeks so nobody could sit there. I think our porter should be in a scope that when he sees something like that to get out there with a bucket of water or a small pressure washer or something and take care of it.
Mr. Morgan: When I saw that I finally contacted Santos and it was cleaned within
the hour. Somehow there is some disconnect sometimes. It is not put down on paper, I guess it is like a cop with his blinders on. He doesn't see anything. I sent him a picture of it and within like 30 minutes he sent me a picture of it, a cleaned bench and everything. I just don't know that they see the things that we see. I told him and I have talked to Art about it and told Art to tell him because there is always this little communication issue to tell Santos to check all the benches too.

Mr. Kapish: This comes into play because People's Choice constantly, they want us to go into a touchup thing where instead of doing this whole District in one swoop they would like to spend time during the year doing different sections. Since they are under contract I don't understand why we just can't call them and have them do things like that. That is what you really need to pressure clean that. A bucket of water is not going to work but a pressure cleaning would. Pressure cleaning some of the benches actually not just once a year but pressure cleaning them throughout the year because they are the ones that get marks on them, drawings, and stuff like this. They also are very filthy. They have leaves and stuff like that on them.
Mr. Morgan: We can also add this to the scope of work for Santos to clean them once a week.
Mr. Kapish: If he has a pressure cleaner.
Mr. Pawelczyk: If you are cleaning them once a week you probably don't need them pressure cleaned.
Mr. Morgan: He cleans the signs; he cleans the light poles.
Mr. Carney: I know we had a discussion the last meeting about the 40-hour porter are we getting that now?
Mr. Morgan: I think so. Art agreed that he would not have him doing some of the things that we have seen him do in the past. He would focus more on the needs of Turtle Run. Art told me that in front of his two bosses the night after the meeting. I am sure they are going to have him do some little things here and there.
Mr. Carney: Of course, that is understood.
Mr. Szozda: He is staying a little longer I have noticed. That helps. Mr. Carney: Mike anything else?
Mr. Hohl: That is it.
Mr. Carney: Zaida?
Ms. Karnegis: I just wanted to put this just to close out from last week for GMS in case anybody needs a copy of that regarding the Ms. Karnegis was inaudible at this time. I just wanted to just close that out in case anybody needed it that is all.
Mr. Carney: We just need a motion to adjourn.

August29,2022	Turtle Run COD

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Hohl seconded by Mr. Morgan with all in favor, the meeting was adjour_ne_d_.	_

P.J/4

, V

j,

SK r (:> '--_J._,LJ