MINUTES OF MEETING LAKE ASHTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Lake Ashton Community Development District was held on Monday, July 22, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. at the Lake Ashton Clubhouse Ballroom, 4141 Ashton Club Drive, Lakes Wales, Florida 33859.

Present and constituting a quorum:
Mike Costello Borden Deane Robert Plummer Murray Zacharia

Also present:
Jillian Burns Andrew d'Adesky Rey Malave Christine Wells Matt Fisher Numerous residents

Chairman Vice Chairman
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

District Manager District Counsel District Engineer Community Director
Field Operations Manager

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
Ms. Burns called the roll and established a quorum was present and led the pledge of allegiance.

SECOND  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Meeting Agenda
Mr. Costello: Ok we need an approval of the meeting agenda.

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Plummer with all in favor the meeting agenda was approved.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment on Specific Items
on the Agenda (speakers will fill out a card and submit it to the District Manager prior to the beginning of the meeting)
Mr. Costello: Public comments on specific items on the agenda. Brenda Vansickle.
Ms. VanSickle: Thank you. I would just like to request of the Board to approve this repair to the strobe lights on the lightning detector system. I was in the pool last week

----- ----- -

July 22, 2019	lake Ashton COD

with about six other people when the all clear went off. By that happening we were in the pool when we should not have been. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Costello: We are already looking into that. I think something has been done to move this forward for repair.
Ms. VanSickle: It was on the agenda. I am seeking approval of that item. Mr. Costello: Ok. Tom Scali.
Mr. Scali: At last Friday's meeting it was extremely disappointing and extremely frustrating that I asked a question and I was not given an answer. It was a question that I have asked a number of times and everyone just went blank. That is not acceptable. We are the people who are going to be responsible for paying this thing. I and everyone else who asks a reasonable and intelligent question should get an answer, and if it is in your bylaws, I want a copy of your bylaws because I am going to forward that to the attorney general in Tallahassee because that is not acceptable. I think the way I was treated at that meeting was deplorable. I got a call from the West, one of the representatives agreed that was deplorable.
Mr. Costello: As I have said to you before, Mr. Scali, when you walked out of that room you were defended but you walked out so fast that you didn't realize it.
Mr. Scali: I didn't walk out that fast.
Mr. Costello: Well Mr. Zacharia was the one who defended you immediately saying that you have asked questions three times, but you decided that you were going to leave, so when you leave a meeting you are not going to an answer. Sorry.
Mr. Scali: You are going to tell me that I didn't wait for your response. I didn't look at the table and look for a response? Are you going to tell me I didn't do that?
Mr. Costello: I am now going to call on Mr. Steve Realmuto.
Mr. Realmuto: Good morning. My comment was more for the budget hearing, but if you want it now I will give it to you. Speaking to the budget, there were two items I wanted to address on the budget. One was the comment that was published by this Board that the consideration of the assessment increase in the assessment had nothing to do with the golf course. Come on now, you all know better than that. We have expended a considerable amount of monies on various things such as attorney fees and various due diligence items including the report. That is money that would have been available for

capital reserves or other things, so there has definitely been an effect on our reserves and therefore what this assessment needs to be so let's just be honest about that. As a question I would like to know exactly how much we have expended in direct costs such as additional attorney fees and the various reports so far on the golf course and how much is budgeted for that in the following year. The other item is, I realize that the $250 is a ceiling, the most you can increase the assessment by, but I am not sure how it is going to wind up today. Even half of that is a large one time increase. I realize it hasn't been increased for a while, but I am sure you have gotten feedback about this. I am sure people would prefer a much smaller yearly increases so they can budget and it doesn't hit them as hard. Please consider reducing the amount of the assessment and doing it on a more frequent basis. It is just not fair to have that big of an effect on folks that are on a fixed income and can't afford that big of an increase. Thank you.
Mr. Costello: Ok, moving on.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the June
17, 2019 Meeting

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Plummer with all in favor the Minutes of the June 17, 2019 Meeting were approved.

Mr. Costello: Approval of the Minutes of the June 17, 2019 Meeting.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Engineer's Report
Mr. Malave: There are few items on the agenda later on I would like to stay when those get discussed, unless you would like to discuss them now, or if there are any questions.
Mr. Costello: You can do it when the matters come up. Mr. Malave: Ok.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Hearing to Adopt the Fiscal
Year 2020 Budget
Motion to Open the Public Hearing

On MOTION by Mr. Zacharia seconded by Mr. Deane with all in favor the public hearing was opened.

Mr. Costello: Motion to open the public hearing.

Public Comment and Discussion
Mr. Costello: Public comment and discussion. Mr. d'Adesky: On the budget.
Consideration of Resolution #2019-06 Annual Appropriation Resolution
Mr.  Costello:	Consideration	of  Resolution  #2019-06	Annual Appropriation Resolution.
Ms. Burns: So, the budget presented is what the Board had direction from the last
meeting, which was to increase the capital reserve line item as well as change a couple of line items. Increasing revenue to the newsletter ad revenue and a couple of smaller line items that we changed. So, this was presented by the direction of the Board. This was the notice that was sent for the $250 per lot increase. If anybody has any questions on specific line items or anything they wanted to discuss from the Board, now would be the time.
Mr. Costello: One of the things that I did notice under restaurant lease, we adopted zero for the fiscal year 2019. We have an actual zero and the next four months we are projected zero, are they paying the rent or are they not? There  is nothing  there to reflect  that.
Ms. Wells: The actual would be there because there is actual through May 31st
and their first payment was in June so they paid June's rent and July's rent.
Ms. Burns: The first year they didn't pay right?
Ms. Wells: Yes but it should be on the projected next four months and the total projected for 9-30-2019.
Ms. Burns: There is no actual to date.
Mr. Costello: Does anybody have any other comments?
Mr. Deane: I have no comments in regard to that. I have comments about the increase. Are we getting there? Are we to that point?
Ms. Burns: Yes.
Mr. Deane: I think it would be wrong to go up $250 for the residents. I realize that this will be the 11th year that we haven't raised assessments. My recommendation is we raise the assessment to $1,875 which is $160.59 increase. It averages out to a little over
$14 per year for 11 years. Based on our budget and the cost of the increase, it would give us $524,631 in our reserves. I believe that will be plenty for this year which of course

has nothing to do with the golf course. I am not trying to budget the golf course. I am budgeting our assessment to make sure that we have reserves in our budget. We do have some repairs that have to be made. Some of them could end up being quite costly. That is what my proposal is.
Mr. Plummer: I have a question about your $500,000 figure. That would be acumen amount or is that the new amount?
Mr. Deane: That would be the new amount, $524,631. It takes into consideration the 7% fee that is charged for collecting the assessment. The total assessment would amount to $1,878,750. The 7% collection fee on that is $130,083 which gives you a net assessment increase of $1,728,677 adding that to the $268 fee which is the combined total of the other assessments listed in the proposed budget at $164,826 for carry forward gives you a total value of $261,503. Deducting the total expenses shown in the budget of $1,636,782 gives you a net figure for reserves of $524,631.
Ms. Burns: I also want to note that the capital projects list here at the discretion of the Board doesn't really contemplate anything being spent from that figure so to the extent you want to do any projects. This budget doesn't contemplate any funds being spent out of that capital projects budget for the next year so to the extent that you wanted to spend money on any projects you would have to take that out of the balance. Just to make sure that we know that there is nothing outlined.
Mr. Costello: Murray, do you have anything? Mr. Zacharia: No, sir.
Mr. Costello: Do you want to put it in a form of a motion?
Mr. Deane: I make a motion that we raise the assessment for maintenance in Lake Wales of $160.59 to increase the total assessment to $1,875 starting I believe it is in October of this year.
Mr. Zacharia: What is the current assessment? Mr. Deane: $1,714.41.
Mr. Costello: What does that leave our reserve at? Mr. Deane: That leaves the reserve at $524,631.
Mr. Costello: We have a motion on the floor. Does anybody want to second it?

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Costello with all in favor raising the assessment $160.59 to a total assessment of $1,875 was approved.

Mr. d'Adesky: So now we would need to alter the appropriation resolution accordingly so what we would say is to adopt Resolution #2019-06 in accordance with those sums adjusting section to the appropriations amount to match the figures that were just approved. As you see in the form in the agenda there are numbers that are filled in. Those will be adjusted to match those numbers.

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Plummer with all in favor Resolution #2019-06 Annual Appropriation Resolution was approved.

Mr. Deane: The reserve shows the adjustment but the other numbers have to be adjusted also to show the assessment of $1,875 and to show the capital increase etc. I move that we adjust the amendment to read the increase of the assessment to $1,875 for Resolution #2019-06.

Consideration  of Resolution #2019-07 Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments
Mr. d'Adesky: Now we need another Resolution #2019-07. Once again, with the numbers adjusted accordingly to levy those assessments on the assessment roll to be collected by the tax collector for Polk County.

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Plummer with all in favor Resolution #2019-07 Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments was approved.

Motion to Close the Public Hearing
Mr. d'Adesky: Now just a motion to close the public hearing

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Costello with all in favor the public hearing was closed.

SEVENTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Unfinished Business
Mr. Costello: Do we have anything under unfinished business? Ms. Burns: No.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	New	Business	and	Supervisor
Requests Mr. Costello: New Business and Supervisor Requests. Ms. Burns: I think Bob has something.
Mr. Plummer: I have some numbers that I was tasked with working with the security for either combining the East and the West or going to separate. I have five different options here. I will pass these out and we can look at them. I didn't present these for a decision to be made today. I want to explain these and then let everybody take these and work on them and see what they think. There are five options. The first one is combining the contract with the West. It involves having gatehouse staff 24 hours a day. One 24 hour roving patrol for the entire community. One pool guard from November 15th through May 15th for five hours a day. That is a combined contract and the number that is listed there, the $195,260.75 is the East estimated cost. In each of these that we go through if the East and the West either combine or work with the same company with a separate contract we could go to one Site Supervisor and reduce those costs all together if we are the same company. Option 1A is the same as Option 1 except it is a separate contract instead of joint contract. Option 2 is presently what we are doing today. It has obviously gatehouse for 24 hours. One 18 hour roving patrol and it is from 6:00 a.m. to midnight for the 18 hours. One pool guard from November 15th through May 15th five hours a day. The estimated cost for that contract is $225,686.75. Again that is the exact coverage that we have today. Option 3 is a combined East and West under one contract. It is a 24 hour gatehouse manning. It has one 18 hour roving patrol for the East from 6:00 a.m. to midnight and share the remaining 6 hours of the 24 hour patrol with the West. It also has a pool guard  included from November  15th  to May  15th  for five hours at a total cost of
$240,901.25. That one gives individual roving patrol to both sides. Each has their own roving basically for 18 hours and then they combine for the remaining six to have a 24 hour roving patrol. Option 3A is the same as the first, it is just a separate contract instead of a combined contract and the number is the same. Option 4 for any of the above if you are looking to reduce cost, this is maybe a way to do it. There was a suggestion made so I went through this option with the company reducing pool hour guards for just Friday, Saturday and Sunday instead of 7 days a week.  The same timeframe from November

15th through May 15th five hours a day. The cost if you do that would be $5,694.60 as opposed to the $12,678 figure if you had it for all 7 days a week. Option 5 which is the last option is a company Envera which is a virtual gate guard. There are no humans anywhere involved in this at all. The system is an electronic system with no human gate guards. It is monitored offsite. Access for the residents is by windshield sticker and for guests, it is an automatic driver's license recognition system. This option includes no roving guard and no pool guard. This system also provides video surveillance and access controls for clubhouse amenities. However the price does not include cost for internet connections with specific download speeds and may require multiple primary and back up lines. The community would also be responsible for any bonds, survey or permits that are required and it is also required adequate power in all locations. On the second page it shows a diagram of where cameras would be and access points for the clubhouse and that amenity. Again there is no humans in this at all. The access point is actually in Sarasota  which  is where  the virtual  person  would  be.   The  cost for that first year is
$158,783  and then each  year  after that it is $73,578.	The  reason for the additional
I
amount for the first year is you are buying the equipment. Those are the five options. I am not suggesting any. I am not proposing any. I wanted to throw the numbers out and show what the difference was as far as the coverage would be and what would go with that. Are there any questions, or if you want to take them and we will differ any decisions to it at a different meeting?
Mr. d'Adesky: The numbers you were using for the one contractor assumption we are assuming the costs under the other sides hourly rate contract. The numbers you used for the tally for the one contract for option 1.
Mr. Plummer: The combined contract is what you are talking about? Mr. d'Adesky: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: It is using the West contract at the moment or we can write a separate contract for the same amount. If you look at Option 1A it is a separate contract but the same amount.
Mr. d'Adesky: I was just asking for the purposes of where the numbers came from.
Mr. Plummer: Then again any of those numbers can be reduced further. There is a possibility of reducing if we share the Site Supervision.

Ms. Burns: Just so everybody knows, options 1 through 4 would have to  go  through a public bid process because they are over $195,000. The only one that wouldn't would be option 5.
Mr. d'Adesky: So I guess the action would be maybe a further date to set a bid process if we wanted to explore this.
Mr. Plummer: That is the idea to present the numbers today for each of the Supervisors to have time to look at it and also I assume it will be included in the minutes so anybody from any of the members can look at it. At a future date kick around what we think we want to do and what we don't want to do.
Mr. Deane: How long do our contracts run at the present time? Mr. Plummer: 60 days to terminate it at any time you want to.
Ms. Burns: I just want to note too because you said it would be in the minutes. The page you have here, the last page would only go to Supervisors because it has camera locations on it.
Mr. d'Adesky: And those are exempt from public records.
Ms. Burns: If there was a records request we would not turn over this page that has camera locations on it just so everybody is clear on that.
Mr. Zacharia: I think that anyone that is a member of our community that would pick up the first piece of paper would have identification of where all the cameras are but might be confused about options 1 and 2. I know I am. There appears to be about a
$30,000 difference between those two options, $195,000 compared to $225,000. If you look at each of what looks like four line items under each option, Option 1 which is labeled East and West combined under one contract says one gatehouse is $121,000 and change, option 2 says the same thing, one gatehouse same price. The second line says under option 1, one 24 hour roving patrol entire community and that is $60,000. In option 2 it says one 18 hour roving patrol under East from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00. That is $30,000 more. I look at that on the face of it and I am saying, well that is suggesting that we are paying $30,000 more for less coverage on essentially 2/3 of the community. I am sure there is explanation but I have lost it. Then it goes on to say the pool, five hours a day between certain days is the same $13,000. I just don't know how to explain to someone why we would be paying what appears to be $30,000 more for less roving patrol.

Mr. Plummer: I can answer the question. First of all, we are paying for the 18 hours in the second one. If we go with the first one, we are only paying for 12 hours of the 24 hours because we share that with the West.
Mr. Deane: So you are saying instead of having two patrol officers there will be only one patrol officer trying to patrol the whole community both East and West in the first contract correct?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Deane: That means we would hardly get any coverage whatsoever because it would take twice as long to get from there to here and then do this section.
Mr. Plummer: You are preaching to the choir. Mr. Deane: We are just trying to analyze it.
Mr. Plummer: That is why I passed these out and gave you the options because there are some significant differences in some of them and some of them are not. The first four options have human interaction and option five has no human interaction.
Mr. Zacharia: Am I correct in assuming that we cannot direct questions to him outside of this meeting?
Ms. Burns: Correct. You can send them to me and I would be happy to answer them for you.
Mr. Deane: Why I recommended to you the Envera information that I gave you, I think it is time that we bring our security system up to the 21st century. I have had lots of residents ask me about a key card system for our amenities because when we rent the hall out, we have people in some cases running everywhere in this building. I have seen that and I am sure everybody has. With the key card system that puts an automatic stop to that. I think that is something that we should really look into. As far as did you speak to Envera if we actually wanted a guard, would they provide one?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, they would, at an additional cost.
Mr. Deane: I understand that at an additional cost, but if we actually need a guard for certain times they would supply one, correct?
Mr. Plummer: They would supply one as well as a roving patrol or whatever you want.
Mr. Deane: My question is during the daytime we have the neighborhood watch and everybody else in the community going around watching the community. We have

proven over the years on our section that the roving patrol basically hasn't done that much that we are paying for because we haven't had the problems. When we had the problems on the East with break-ins and things being stolen is when the development was being built which is years ago. I don't know when the last time we had a problem in Lake Ashton regarding that on the Lake Wales side. I think it has been a long time. Do we necessarily need a roving patrol because we haven't had the problems at night, we have had the problems during the day. They have never been at night.
Mr. Plummer: Roving patrol does additional things besides what you are talking about. Basically the roving patrol and their basic duties is to protect COD property. That is what they are really hired to do. The open and lock the clubhouse. They also check the pool in hours when there is not a guard there. There is a variety of other responsibilities that they do outside of just driving through the community.
Mr. Deane: I understand that, but with the key card system that is automatically taken care of with the key cards.
Mr. Plummer: I agree.
Mr. Deane: To save an additional $40,000 the first year and to save $130,000 every year thereafter unless we want to find out what it would cost per hour for a guard or a guard at the gate or whatever you want to increase the contract, I just think we should look into the 21st century system to help us save money and we can still get the security of the guard if we need it. We are looking to save money.
Mr. Plummer: I know you are, and I appreciate that. I am also looking at the survey that was just turned in that talks about having roving patrol and the manned gatehouses. When I look at the percentages of the people that answered strongly agree that they want a security officer at the gatehouse and a roving patrol and pool security, the highest portion of that is in the strongly agree which is near 90% of the respondents. You are getting someone telling you one thing and some that are telling you something else.
Mr. Deane: True. With all the residents we are going to have differences of opinion, we know that.
Mr. Costello: I have to agree with you, Bob. The human aspect is something that we have had incidents where two of our security guards were able to do CPR and bring a person back I believe. A camera just isn't going to do it. Like Borden said everybody

is going to have a difference of opinion. I don't know, do we have any other conversation on this or any other thoughts?
Mr. Plummer: The reason I brought it was to let everybody take what the  information is and try to digest that and come back at a future meeting and really continue the discussion. I appreciate what Borden has put in at this point because it is school for thought but I think if we know what the numbers are we can go back to constituents and talk about it, get a little input from them as well as far as the services and the dollars and cents that go along with that. .
Mr. Costello: I agree with you. The only thing is, I don't want another thing that is going to extend for the next year.
Mr. Plummer: The contract is set. I don't know that there is going to be a negotiation on the contract because we can get out of any 60 days.
Mr. d'Adesky: 30 days.
Mr. Deane: 30 days written notice.
Mr. Plummer: Then I have an old contract since it says 60 in the copy that I have.
Mr. Costello: I know that there are security guards here, they have done a great job for us. Are they are going to be willing to take on employees?
Mr. Plummer: I have had the conversation with both security companies that are here and both agree that in any point in time that they go to a new location or absorb a location or whatever the case may be, they give the opportunity for those employees to come over as long as it is recommended by the staff from the one they are coming from to do that.
Mr. Costello: I agree with Borden. We have to save money wherever we can, the only thing is are we going to do it at the expense of safety. Do we want to make a decision on this today?
Ms. Burns: No, you have to bid it.
Mr. d'Adesky: I think the thing that is going to be most important especially hearing this discussion, the survey, and all the other factors is coming up with a scope. If we go out to bid we need a scope and it can't be ok, well you can have a system with keycards and video cameras or you can have a manned gate. It has to be one way or the other, very specific so that it is apples-to-apples and not getting completely different proposals.

Mr. Plummer: The intent at presenting the information today was not looking for a resolution, it was just simply giving the information out for each and every one of us to be able to have the data that we can sit down at the next meeting and make a decision to which way we want to go.
Mr. Deane: I think we need to get the feeling of the residents. I think this is something that the residents should be able to tell us if they feel if they are secure enough with or without.  I think the residents  should tell us. I mean that's saving better than a half  a million over five years, that is a lot of money folks. That is an awful lot of money to save over five years. I think it is something that the residents should consider  and get back to  us hopefully within the next 30 days so we can make an educated decision.
Mr. Plummer: I have another Item. Mr. Costello: Go for it.
Mr. Plummer: The other item is a decision that we made several months ago about security at outside events in the ballroom. We made the decision that there would be law enforcement at each one of those if there was alcohol involved. Part of what we have learned since we have started that procedure is the City of Lake Wales were the security comes from requires that if the event has alcohol, it requires two police officers and not one police officer no matter the size of the event. In addition, what we have learned is since we have done this is if it is an issue that has to do with the amenities that is not necessarily a lawful issue unless they have a complaining party, they are not obligated to take that. If they have a staff person here that points out a problem, they will back the staff person up making those decisions. So what we have gone from is from having one security person here for events to having two law enforcement officers and another representative from the staff whether that is a security person or a staff member. When we now bill out to whoever rents the room that price is starting to cause some persons to have some questions about whether they want to rent this facility or go to another facility so the dollars and cents have done that. It has caused issues. Also we have had some events here that were small events that involved alcohol, maybe 30 people at an event and it required two police officers and a security person here as well which seems like a shade bit of overkill. I think that when we made the decision for the two law enforcement officers we might not have had the proper information to go through that and see what

issues those were going to cause down the road. Christine, you could probably add to that because you deal with it a little more than I deal with it.
Ms. Wells: As Bob said it is just getting to where if you have a 30 to 50 person event and even some 100 person events, the City of Lake Wales is very adamant if there is alcohol, they don't care how many people are at this event, they need two officers. Everything that Bob said is just getting to where one event that we did the security fees were over $1,000. It is getting close to where it's almost as much as the room rental. I don't know if we want to just say we only require City of Lake Wales police officers to be here once it goes over a certain number of people? That is up to you guys.
Mr. Plummer: Well the issue that drove it to start with was alcohol from the outside coming in and the influence that it would have on the liquor license was here.
That was the original reason for what we did and law enforcement could respond to that immediately if they were here. The number of cases of issues that we have had are not large but they are there. They present themselves at different times. I think that maybe the size of the party has a little to do with the number of security people and we didn't address that from the beginning and we should maybe give staff a little more latitude in how to be able to do that with staffing that security issue based upon what we are dealing with as far as size of the party.
Mr. d'Adesky: In the past when there is issues, the concerns going back to the original reason why there were concerns from outside alcohol. Would you say there is still those concerns with smaller groups where it might be appropriate if not police there, but a staff member who is supervising that to make sure no outside alcohol?
Mr. Plummer: I think that is what part of the conversation was. I had conversation with the Lake Wales Police Department and how they operate and what they can do and what they cannot do. Their feeling is on the smaller issues if our security is doing that and they have an issue that they can't take care of, it is simply a phone call to get law enforcement in here. On the larger, their suggestion and I agree with their suggestion, the larger the event that you have having the law enforcement presence on property is probably the smarter idea.
Mr. d'Adesky: Right.

Mr. Plummer: I think that somehow in the motion and what we did before the vote that we took, we didn't give latitude to staff to be able to work through that issue.
Ms. Burns: Maybe over 100 requires the police officers and under 100 require staff or security on site.
Mr. d'Adesky: Or give discretion to Christine under 100.
Mr. Plummer: I think 100 isn't a bad number, the only thing is if you have any kind of advance information that might cause you to believe that the 100 is going to be an issue, you might want to go ahead and do it.
Ms. Burns: You can give the authority to staff to make that determination on under
100. Everything over 100 would have to have the police. Under 100 would be you could designate staff to say if they were going to require that event to have the police or not.
Mr. Deane: Why don't we give discretion to the staff? Ms. Burns: That is what we said.
Mr. d'Adesky: Did you want to give full discretion to the staff?
Mr. Deane: We need a number. I don't know what is magical about 100 or 150.
I would ask Christine what is the major number of people we have at events I guess is the best way to put it.
Ms. Wells: We have had events up to 400. I definitely think law enforcement is needed for that. I would think 100 or 150 would be a safe number. I am fine with either number. I do agree with Bob that there are some events under 100 that we may think we may need an officer here. I think our security should be able to handle anything under 150 and below. I am fine with 100 or 150. Then we would just have our security for those events unless we think we would need law enforcement there.
Mr. Plummer: Correct me if I am wrong, if our security has been involved it has been one security officer or have we had two if it went over a different number?
Ms. Wells: We have had two if it goes over 150 and then we have had 3 if it went over 300 but it was our security.
Mr. Plummer: So if we just flat went with 100/150 and bring Lake Wales PD in to be the two over, that would make three because you are still going to need our security. I shouldn't say that you are going to need a staff member here.

Ms. Wells: If it is over 150 with no alcohol then we would have discretion of having just the one security officer and one Lake Wales PD. It is when alcohol is involved and it is a smaller group is when it is overkill.
Mr. Costello: The problem there I think is the fact that if you say no alcohol and somebody brings it in. This is where the problem has arisen.
Mr. Plummer: I understand that but if you have 150 person party here it requires our security person being here anyway and they find that issue there, then they either ask to take care of it or call Lakes Wales PD in. They will send someone to help. I think that we still need the security or our staff to be able to handle that.
Ms. Wells: If it is over 150 with alcohol it would be the two Lakes Wales PD officers and our security. If there is no alcohol it would be the one Lake Wales PD officer and our security.
Mr. Plummer: Alcohol is the kicker for the two police officers. Ms. Burns: Yes.
Mr. d'Adesky: Christine and Mike, I think you dealt directly with Lake Wales. Were they comfortable taking direction? Obviously there needs to be a staff member to say ok do this. Were they comfortable taking that directive from a security person or from staff?
Mr. Plummer: They will do either one. Mr. d'Adesky: Ok.
Mr. Plummer: As long as there is a representative of the club here.
Mr. d'Adesky: Staff and security are dealt with the same contractually. They are both separate entities from the District but they both have authority of the District to work within their areas. The only reason why I mentioned distinction is perhaps staff is a little bit more well versed on the District's rules and policies than security perhaps.
Mr. Plummer: They will work with either. It is just a matter of having somebody here. Mr. d'Adesky: I got it.
Mr. Costello: Ok do we want to make a motion that any party under 100 people can be taken care of with security. Does somebody want to make a motion?
Mr. d'Adesky: 100 or 150?
Mr. Costello: 150.
Mr. Plummer: Are we comfortable at 150?

Ms. Wells: I am fine with 100 or 150. 150 was just our break before from going from one security officer to two when it was just our security.
Mr. Plummer: Did that cause us a problem in the past with just one under 150? Ms. Wells: It did not in the past.
Mr. Plummer: I will make the motion under 150 that is our own security and anything over that requires law enforcement.

On MOTION by Mr. Plummer seconded by Mr. Deane with all in favor when having an event with less than 150 people there will be our own security and any event where there is more than 150 people and there is alcohol involved, it will require law enforcement from the Lake Wales Police Department.

Mr. Deane: Second.

Mr. Costello: Any other Supervisors requests?

NINTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Mr. d'Adesky: I think you guys know what I am working on. Mr. Costello: Anything else?
Mr. d'Adesky: No.

Community Director
Monthly Report
Consideration of Asphalt Repair Quotes
Ms. Wells: The community director report was included in the agenda packet. There is just a couple of things I wanted to highlight. We did have the election date set with the Supervisor of Elections for March 17, 2020 which is the Presidential Preference Primary Election. August 18, 2020 for the Primary Election, November 3, 2020 for the General Election. Also as I mentioned at Monday Coffee this morning, I think most of you were here, the perennial project is probably 90% complete. I just want to thank some of the residents that have helped. I know Diane has been a huge help with this project as well as staff. Matt has been great with helping with anything we need help with. In the report it stated that Yellowstone will be installing mulch at the entrance and clubhouse on July 29 and July 30. I think that actually has been moved up to this week which is great so we should see mulch in there very soon. Also, I did note in there that the sidewalk

from the southwest dressing room is scheduled to be repaired on July 12th. It has been delayed just because of weather so it should be happening this week. Then also the community director's report staff is looking for permission to move the rounders off the activities desk and attach them to the wall that currently houses the hutch and mirror in the back of the foyer. We have been working with the Lake Ashton Woodworkers and they have agreed to help with the project and said the price to do it should not exceed
$350 for labor and materials for taking the rounders that are currently up there apart and attaching them to the wall that is just under the clock. I just wanted to get permission from the Board of Supervisors to see if that was a good decision to make and to move forward with the woodworkers.
Mr. Costello: What are we going to do with the hutch that is back there?
Ms. Wells: I have been thinking of ideas for that. We are still working on what to do with that. The woodworkers actually had a couple of ideas with that too using maybe part of it behind the activities desk or finding another location in the clubhouse to use that piece of furniture. I haven't quite determined that yet, but we would come up with a location for that before moving on to that project.

Consideration of Sign at the Clubhouse Circular Drive
Consideration of Quote to Repair Lightning Strobe Light
Mr. Costello: Ok, you have the lighting strobe light here, which it was brought up during resident comments in the beginning.
Ms. Wells: I think that is on the agenda as well. There is a quote put in the agenda packet from Systematic Technologies for replacement of the electronics box. It is a total of $1,224 for that. It is the only quote because that is who installed it. They would do the repairs and send the old equipment back to the company and install a new electronic box.
Mr. Costello: Do you have anything else?
Ms. Wells: I also have there was a sign included in the agenda packet. A Supervisor had requested to look into getting a sign to possibly put at the circular drive at the clubhouse. A picture of that sign was included in the agenda' packet to see if Supervisors are ok with the wording and if they want the sign placed in that area. It is just informing residents that there is no parking in that area.

Mr. Costello:  This  would be right up here in the circle. I have seen people pull up,   I was here for dinner one night and one woman forgot that she parked out there for 25 minutes. My biggest thing coming  from the background  that I come from, you try and pull a piece of equipment in here, they are not like driving sports cars. They are just too big,  too heavy and they need as much room as they can get. Unfortunately I don't think that everybody, and I don't have a problem with someone pulling up and letting somebody out who has a physical problem  where they  can't get into the building,  that is not a problem,  it is the people who park. They come in and they are only going  to be here for a minute  but then they run into Joe, and they start talking  to Mary.  The next  thing  you know the car is out there for 40 minutes.
Ms. Burns: We can't tow them. In order to tow off District property we have to go through a rule making process of being able to tow, even if the COD owns it. We could put a sign that there is no parking but we would need to leave the portion about them being towed at the owner's expense off the sign.
Mr. d'Adesky: We would need to go through a process and Rey knows there is regulatory science and we need to designate the areas as no parking areas. We can do it but there is a process to it.
Mr. Costello: It's in order to make it a tow away. Mr. d'Adesky: Yes.
Mr. Costello: I don't want to tow anybody's car away. The problem being like I say I see cars that are parked here, 40 minutes later the same car is parked there. Sooner or later some poor person is going to be in the need of help and seconds count. That is all I can say.
Ms. Burns: This is the intent, is that it is for vehicles not golf carts, correct? Mr. Costello: Yes.
Ms. Burns: It doesn't clarify that you can't park your golf cart here from the sign. Mr. Plummer: With golf carts you could still get around and get up to the doors.
That is the issue.
Mr. d'Adesky: It is still a violation if you are blocking an emergency access. If they are trying to come in here and they can't and they find someone who is parked in a way that is blocking an emergency access they will be ticketed and possibly towed.

Mr. Costello: I don't even want to see the person get a ticket. I don't want to see anybody die because like I said, seconds count in that situation and these people aren't driving sports cars.
Mr. Plummer: Do we need a motion to put a sign up without the towing? Mr. d'Adesky: You can't put that on there.
Mr. Plummer: Do we know what the cost is?
Ms. Wells: Yes, I did bring quotes for that. We have three quotes. One was from Action Signs, it is all to provide the same sign. Action Signs was the cheapest. It was
$75. Extreme Graphics was $110 and Chilton Signs was $125.
Mr. Plummer: That is for the 12 x 18? Ms. Wells: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Would that be big enough for them to see? Ms. Wells: I think 12 by 18 would be good.

On MOTION by Mr. Plummer seconded by Mr. Deane with three in favor and one opposed, a proposal to purchase a no parking sign from Action Signs for $75 was approved.

Mr. Plummer: I make a motion that we purchase the sign and install it. Mr. Deane: Second.

Ms. Burns: So we have three in favor and one opposed. We actually didn't get a motion to approve that strobe quote. We talked about it.
Mr. Deane: I make a motion to approve the strobe light repair for the swimming
pool.

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Costello with all in favor a proposal from Systematic Technologies for $1,224 to repair the electronics box strobe lights was approved.

Mr. Costello: Second.

Mr. Costello: Is that it for you or do you have anything else?
Ms. Wells: A couple of things. There was also consideration of asphalt repair quotes that were received. I provided this to Rey to overlook, do you want to go over the different areas, Rey?

Mr. Malave: They are located on your memo. They are just little small areas that need repair. We got quotes from three companies. They provide very similar work and material so they are compatible. Even though in her memo she didn't hand out the last one, which was not received by the time of the memo but we did get it. It is Seminole and they are the lowest for a total of $2,140 for repairing of that asphalt. It includes saw cutting, removing of the material and asphalting, and rolling it with sand similar to some of the repairs we have done before.
Mr. Plummer: My question is for Matt. Those three companies that were listed are privy to the information on the quotes. There is a significant difference in the price and I just want to make sure that the low price is a good company.
Mr. Malave: We have worked with all three of them. Tucker's basically said that is the minimum price just to move out here. So they really didn't give us a good price. All­ Terrain was $3,400. They are pretty much in the same ballpark.
Mr. Fisher: All-Terrain has done some work in Lake Ashton and Seminole has as well, more so the west side I have seen them. That is why we reached out to Seminole, but they do good work.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you. There was a significant difference.
Mr. Fisher: There was. Tucker blew me away with that price so that is why  I reached out to more companies.
Ms. Burns: What is the total of the Seminole?
Mr. Malave: A total of $2,140. Ms. Burns: Thank you.

On MOTION by Mr. Plummer seconded by Mr. Deane with all in favor a proposal from Seminole Paving for asphalt repairs was approved in the amount of $2,140.

Mr. Plummer: I make the motion that we approve the repairs listed on the sheet from Seminole and accept Seminole's bid of $2,140 for those repairs.

Consideration of Quotes to Replace Three Doors
Ms. Wells: The last thing was consideration of quotes to replace three doors.
had received two quotes and I am still waiting on a third quote. The second quote, before
J

I was going to submit to you guys, it had some things on there that I was questioning, but

July 22, 2019	Lake Ashton COD

I haven't heard back from the vendor. I would just propose that we move that to the August meeting. I will have everything ready for those.
Mr. Malave: I will be leaving thank you.

Field Operations Manager - Monthly Report
Mr. Fisher: Good morning. Included in the agenda packets is the operations manager report. Any questions, I will be happy to answer. We have been getting a lot of rain. As you can see the ponds have been filling up nicely. I went out on our tour with Applied Aquatics. The ponds had minimal algae, which is great. It was getting bad over by the RV houses. It was getting pretty bad but it has gone away thank goodness. Also we met with Yellowstone last week and vegetation is growing at a rapid pace right now so we are prioritizing the Boulevard trimming more so the tops of the podocarpus edge is at a point now where the new growth can be chopped in hopes to get a more even cut. They did trim the sides in the lower portions last week, so we will keep on top of that with them. Plants look great. The entrance looks beautiful. It was a great job. Diane is a fantastic gardener, and she got the pots out front. Very colorful, so it is looking good. Thank you.
Mr. Costello: Thank you.

COD Manager
Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2020 Meeting Schedule
Discussion of Financial Disclosure Report from Commission on Ethics -
everyone has filed

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Plummer with all in favor the proposed fiscal year 2020 meeting schedule was approved.

Ms. Burns: The proposed meeting schedule is in your package. It is the same as we are currently meeting which would be the third Monday of each month at 10:30 a.m. They are listed there. There are a couple of exceptions for holidays where it is moved up a week, but if this date and time works for everybody we would just be looking for a motion to approve the schedule and we will go ahead and advertise for those dates.

Mr. Costello: I see everybody filed their financials with the County.

Ms. Burns: Nothing else for that. The only other thing I had is that we have the continuation of the joint meeting scheduled for Friday. That is all that I have.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Approval of the Check Run Summary
Balance Sheet and Income Statement

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Plummer with all in favor the check run summary was approved.

Mr. Costello: Approval of the check run summary.

Mr. Costello: Combined balance sheet.
Ms. Burns: There is no action needed on those they are for informational purposes only but I would be glad to answer any questions anyone has.

ELEVENTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comments
Mr. Costello: Public Comments?
Ms. Iris Realmuto: I would like to propose an option 6 for the security. It is a hybrid system. It would give you the technology for the gatehouse, but still have the roving guard, the pool guard because in terms of roving, one of the things that they do at night is turn on the building for activities that are done at night. The other thing I would like to talk to is the parking sign. I think people are going to ignore it and it is still going to be just more sign nuisance adding to the beautiful landscaping you have just done. I suggest maybe putting a parking sticker ticket on their windshield. I am sure it is probably the same people all the time and it is in your face if you do it that way. Thank you.
Ms. Janice Gordon: Good Morning. In anticipation of Friday's joint board meeting and the Board's desire to obtain more information from the seller, I respectfully suggest this Board request detailed information regarding the bond debt. We will be assuming per the sales and purchase agreement. As you know, developers in Florida use bonds as a means of shifting the financial burden of developing the community's infrastructure to the community's homeowners. Therefore, I think it is imperative to know in explicit detail exactly when the bond findings were refinanced. The bond may have financed infrastructure that is not exclusively golf course property or use. If portions of this bond financed residential use property, will our payoff relieve homeowners of their unpaid bond

debt? If this bond financed residential use property, are homeowners who have paid off their bond debt paying twice. Was this debt combined with other bonds to come up with each homeowner's bond assessment? How by what means has this bond been paid down in the past. Please investigate this and try to get some answers or information by Friday's joint meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Marco Tomlin: I have a question for Mr. Deane. I have a question you were talking about our non-resident guards, everything camera and you said if I heard you correctly was that we should maybe put that out to the residents and let them decide. My question to you is, I think the golf course is much more important than the security and I  am wondering if we should put that out for the residents to decide not the Board itself. Thank you.
Mr. Al Goldstein: Good morning I am Al Goldstein. I am the Lake Wales City Commissioner, which encompasses Lake Ashton. You are COD as elected officials that represent the residents of Lake Ashton with a fiduciary duty to all of them. I have been elected to represent all of them as well as the City of Lake Wales. I would like you to know that I am in favor of residents owning this golf course but with not all of us paying the way for the small percentage of golfers in the community and shrinking every year. I don't want to see us all having to pay for the use of the golf course and I don't like the threats from members of the COD, and not necessarily speaking about our COD, that the threats that are leading us down the path of basic following lies and facts and figures that have never been proven. I think we need to stop and look at that. These sidewalks, golf cart paths are sidewalks, they have been set as a secondary transit system for the residents of Lake Wales back in the year 2000. It took me three and ½ hours to go through ten boxes of meetings, notes and all from 2000 to find these records. I have the attachment here if anybody wants to know exactly what it says. I will read one thing here. This is a letter written to our attorney Jan Carpenter on December 8, 2009 by a city attorney Albert Galloway. Mr. Galloway has been our city attorney for the past 25 years. He sat with all these notes. I was told that these letters were sent to the COD but speaking to members I don't think you have seen this letter. Dear Ms. Carpenter. I am writing in response to your letter of November 3, 2009 concerning the referenced development and golf cart path system including within. You quote in your letter a portion of the staff prepared by

the City of Lake Wales and then raise the question as to whether or not the golf cart path were intended to serve as an alternate internal transportation network augmenting the community's road network. I have enclosed a copy of pages 6 and 7 of the staff memorandum prepared July 24, 2000 for the public hearing in the matter which was held as a public hearing before the City Commission on August 1, 2000. The final paragraph on page 6 reads as follows: After lengthy discussions an agreement has been reached. In addition to the golf cart paths incorporated as part of the course, the path system in the project will also be expanded to have interconnections between the different portions of the development. The intent of the golf cart path system is that it serves as a secondary transportation network. So in other words, it is not only part of the golf course, it is a part of our own network in lieu of sidewalks here in Lake Ashton. Mr. Maxwell did not want sidewalks in Lake Ashton and he stated that in his questions. So what I am saying is please with all the red flags that have been set up against the buy and for the buy of this golf course, please wait. This is a mine field that is laying in front of us. One other thing I want to say is that we have already spent total between the two CDD's over $193,000 in this past year investigating. $78,200 has been spent by this COD. Having to go back and rebuild our reserves, this is one of the reasons so please, you are intelligent people, you represent all of us, let's sit back and wait. Let's not be pushed by the other COD or one or two members of it to do something that we are going to regret a few years from now. Let's wait. We will buy the golf course on our terms. We are dealing with a brilliant businessman. Nobody right now that is serving can compete with him and get any answers so please remember who you represent. Thank you.
Mr. Realmuto: Thank you for answering my question on what we spent already I appreciate that and thank you to Supervisor Plummer for presenting such a detailed list of options and in breaking down the expenses for the security proposals. My better half briefly mentioned considering a hybrid system. I want to expand on that because I really think it presents a unique opportunity to both improve over the exiting security that we have here and save a considerable amount of money over the second and subsequent years. I think most of you know that the gatehouses with the manned guards provide nothing more than an illusion of security. I won't elaborate on that further here but I would be happy to speak to each of you about it individually. What a hybrid system does, what

is most intriguing about it is that is provides us a lot more information on everyone entering the premises. By issuing a pass to cars you know it is a resident's vehicle that is coming in or you have a copy of their driver's license. That is far better security then we currently have. However I suspect most residents and I myself would not want to see no human presence as far as security goes. The cost for the roving patrols and the pool patrol for those few hours are relatively low. I would like to ask Supervisor Plummer to come back with a sixth option or call it 5A if you would like that includes what you proposed for the gatehouse as that type of system but also include whatever the Supervisors feel you want to get for the roving patrol. There was many different options there. The point is that I suspect those costs would be similar. That would be the system that would provide the most security for residents and after the first year starting in the second year provide us considerable savings. Please come back with that, what that might cost for other Supervisors consideration. Thank you.
Mr. David Price: We brought you guys in to take care of our business. Do what we wanted to do and then somebody comes up with this fiduciary, I like that statement and all that stuff but I guess, why can't we ask questions without having the attorney's here to say, oh no, you only get three minutes. Why can't we have a meeting, us folks here who are all brothers and sisters of whatever it is, we want to be able to sit down with you and say why are you guys still pursuing this golf course thing? A long time ago, was it 18 months ago, he says I have a deal for you. I got an offer for $1,800,000 but I am going to let you guys have it for $400,000. Duh, we are still doing it. I hear it brought up here surveys, feelings of residents and did not have all the facts. That has been brought up by one of you people here. My question is why don't you ask us how we feel? Why don't you take the feeling of all the people in here what we think about having the golf course? I am not for the golf course as you can probably tell but those are my questions. Thank you. Oh and I forgot to say shame on you for what you did to Mr. Scali the other day. I think that was absolutely terrible.
Mr. Scali: I am very much in favor of what Al Goldstein said and I would just like to reiterate a few points. The developer is losing $300,000 a year. We originally had a contract for $400,000 plus minus $240,000 for purchase then all of the sudden we went an additional $400,000 for bonds and we got nothing for that $400,000. I think our

negotiating team was at best remiss in that area. At the last meeting we found out that there are a lack of due diligence documents or they are not complete. No mention has been made of the elevator other than as a comment. Soil erosion was not addressed. I am in favor of purchasing the golf course however I do not think this is the right time and I think we should walk away from it. The East group is the only group that could possibly prevent this. The West is fan the torpedoes full speed ahead. I am hoping that next week this Board steps up and has the gumption to stop it. I really hope you do that. I will not be here. I am leaving Thursday, but I hope you stop it.

TWELFTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment
Mr. Costello: We don't have Mr. Ference here for the last part but I will ask somebody to take his place.

As's·lstant Secretary/Secretary

t I

hairmanNiec Cl1ai,111ar1---

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Plummer with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.