MINUTES OF MEETING LAKE ASHTON
COMMUNITY  DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The recessed meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Lake Ashton Community Development District held on October 21, 2019 was reconvened on October 24, 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 Bob Ference Harry Krumrie

Also present:
Jillian Burns Jan Carpenter Christine Wells

Chairman
Vice Chairman Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

Governmental Management Services District Counsel
Community Director

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	Public	Comments	on	Specific
Items on the Agenda (speakers will fill out a card and submit to the District Manager prior to beginning  of the meeting)
Mr. Costello: Ok public comments.   The first speaker, Maxine   Ritter.
Ms. Burns: We just want to state for the record that this is a continued  meeting  from the meeting that was advertised  on October 21,   2019.
Ms. Ritter: Good morning. The LACDD II has presented us with a unique  opportunity offering to purchase the 36 hole course from the developer and maintain the access to the golf course equally among the Lake Ashton residents regardless of their address. They are not asking us for a monetary commitment. They just want our support. The response from the LACDD Supervisors seem to be laced with suspicion and skepticism.     The  folks  on  the  West  are  our  friends.    They  are  our  neighbors    and

sometimes they are family members. We play golf with them. We socialize with them. We spend our holiday celebrations with them. The LACDD II realizes that for various reasons we have not chosen to purchase the golf course at this time. The East gets additional time to buy in if they want. The maintenance of the ponds, the path and the golf course is removed from the developer and the whole ugly mess that is has gone to buying the issues in Lake Ashton gets resolution. Once again, the discussion has come down to us versus them. Later on Monday afternoon after I was at the COD meeting, I was reading my email and I saw an email regarding the food truck and entertainment event that is going on at the HFC. My first thought was oh, that is a West event. Then it hit me I had never thought that way before and it made me sad. It was the first time that I ever succumbed to negative thinking, it should make us all sad that we have let this situation come to this negative place. We are one community. We share our entertainment events, the pools, the pickleball courts, the restaurant and all of the other things that make Lake Ashton a good place to live. We have no reason to assume that the LACDD II has written up the interlocal agreement to purchase the golf course and present it to us with the intent to somehow trick us. I think that it is insulting and rude to make that assumption. I think they came to us in good faith. The purchase of the whole golf course would be an asset to the East just in having the maintenance of the course and the ponds out of the hands of the developer. The East is being handed a gift here. Whether or not the three holes could be seated to the West as a governmental issue that should not have any long term negative consequences to the East. We already think of those golf course holes as being West. The solution that the West has crafted and have paid for seems far more beneficial to us then it is to the West. The West is assuming all of the risk and we are getting a lot of benefits. The price for us buying into the golf course came up on Monday's meeting. Rather than being concerned about what price the LA COD II would charge if we decided to buy into the golf course, we should be concerned with how it could combine our two CDD's and become one community saying multiple duplicate costs and pulling our resources to become one strong community together. This would show true fiscal prudence. I strongly urge the Board to approve the interlocal agreement to allow the LACDD II to purchase the whole 36 holes and do it quickly before they change their minds.

Mr. Costello:  Thank you. Trish Safer.
Ms. Safer: 3754 Litchfield Loop. I'm concerned that there is not enough consideration for us in signing this agreement. I see the only consideration that we get is golf course path access. I'm not convinced that this will be enforceable if access was denied. I think consideration that you should have before signing in writing should be that the East course will be maintained to the same level as the West course so as not to have seeding issues as you discussed about if they decided they only needed nine holes. Number two, we could negotiate at any time a price for purchase directly with the developer during the years that they are operating the course. Number three, the top price for us would be a pro-rated current purchase amount with no more fees added as we have already incurred fees and would if there was another purchase. This would give us time to see if the plan of decreased fees to golf members really works or if it is going go up in cost via assessments. It will also give us the actual cost to operate the golf course by a community and know the deficit cost per member on the East. Thank you.
Mr. Costello:   Thank you.  Mr.  Zelazny.
Mr. Bob Zelazny: 5291 Pebble Beach on the West. First I would thank you for continuing your meeting from Monday. I apologize for not being able to stay to the end. I just want to remind everyone here the West wants to work with the East, that is why we asked for you to reengage and see if we can become one community, one purchase and move forward. I would ask in your negotiations today you do the following; you approve the sale of the golf course tract to the COD I, that you negotiate a cash offer to our COD so that you can retain ownership of your property and that you would cede holes 13, 14 and 15 and the two lots adjacent to the Eagles Nest to the West and then I would ask that your negotiations when you figure out what you are going to offer that you.make sure you include due diligence, legal costs and closing costs. If it is a complete package I believe our Board would be more than happy to entertain it at our next meeting. You need to discuss what a joint use agreement would be, golf club versus the golf course tract and who maintains what. The lady who just spoke, Trish, you should not be concerned with the operation of the golf club. That responsibility has been accepted by the West. All you are doing is talking about the purchase of the golf course tract, land which is in the East and how we address that. Thank you.

Mr. Costello:  Thank you.
A resident: I was here Monday morning when you were discussing the golf course and I just want to know, it was left off very abruptly, good job, Mike, but my concern is that they wanted you to sign something, I don't know if it was in the form of a purchase and sale agreement or it was just going to be included in some sort of a form that was already agreed upon? It was very confusing to understand. However, in Florida don't land transactions have to be in writing? They can't be verbal contracts? Can anyone answer that?
Mr. Deane: Yes.
A resident: How could they expect you to agree upon a price when there was no price ever given? That is not a purchase and sale agreement. They wanted you to buy back or we wanted to join them in purchasing this and then allow them to manage it as I understood it.  Is that correct?
Ms. Carpenter: The transaction very briefly is an interlocal agreement, a written agreement was presented to this Board where Lake Ashton II would purchase both courses East and West side. This Board would approve that plus some other things to allow them to do it and operate it. The purchase and sale was something that came up afterwards that the Board was planning to discuss today.
A resident: Ok. I'm definitely in agreement with that. That would include three holes on the East course or it is the whole thing that we are talking about?
Ms. Carpenter: It hasn't been discussed yet. That is what the Board is here today

to do.

A resident: Ok, thank you very much. Mr. Costello: Do we have anymore? Ms. Burns: No.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Unfinished  Business
A. Consideration of Draft lnterlocal Agreement between Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton II CDD Regarding the Acquisition, Operation and Maintenance of the Golf Club
Ms. Carpenter: Just to bring everybody up to speed. The Board at the last meeting rejected the interlocal agreement presented by Lake Ashton II and instead talked about considering a similar interlocal, but one where this Board would purchase the land within

its boundaries and allow LA II to purchase the land within their boundaries and have Lake Ashton II operate the entire golf course. There is a number of other issues but that was the premise. We did take the interlocal agreement and modify it to quickly incorporate those ideas as well as anything else that comes up today. That is where the Board is now to consider this potential offer back to Lake Ashton II.
Mr. Plummer: I would like to address the issue and in fact make a motion. First of all I would like to make a motion that we allow the West to purchase the golf courses. I would also like to enter into an agreement with them that we purchase the East golf course from them as soon as they can assign it to us at a cost of $250,000 including all closing costs. $125,000 of that at closing time and $125,000 at one year from the date of closing, allow Lake Ashton II to purchase golf course holes 14, 15, and 16. Allow Lake Ashton II to operate the golf course operations on Lake Ashton I land at no cost. The reason I stuck that in there was I was concerned if we lease it to them, then it may alter our not for profit status. Cart paths, bridges and ponds on the East property shall be maintained by Lake Ashton I and there is an issue with the Pro Shop and Eagles Nest. It quite frankly straddles the EastNVest border. My continuing part of this motion to convey at some point the two lots that are on the East side of the Pro Shop between the Eagles Nest, Pro Shop and Dunmore to Lake Ashton II. That would also take care of that issue. Finally I want to work diligently to finalize an interlocal agreement to include this offer and all issues going forward with any and all the golf course issues.
Mr. Ference:  I will second that motion.
Mr. Costello:  Do we have any questions on that  motion?
Mr. Deane: In the first place I don't think we can give land that is in Lake Wales to the COD on the other side. That has to go through the City of Lake Wales if I'm not mistaken. We can't clear title land over to another.
Ms. Carpenter: With cooperation we can, it would mean changing the boundaries of both Districts and there may be some lots split necessarily and a number of other things but if both sides want to do it, it can be done, it just depends on how the cost would be split and that sort of thing.
Mr. Deane: The problem is if you do that and have a continual boundary you are taking 80 homes that are in Lake Wales and putting them in Winter Haven.

Ms. Burns:   Not homes, the golf course parcels  only.
Ms. Carpenter: We are just talking about the parcel that has the Eagles    Nest on it.
It does appear  at least from aerials that the buildings  straddles  East and  West.
Mr. Deane: He's talking about holes 14, 15, and 16 also.
Ms. Carpenter: For the holes that would require an expansion of their District and contraction of this District yes. It wouldn't affect residents. That would just be the golf course property.   That is doable through the various cities we would    have to go to.
Mr. Deane: If the cities agree to it. Ms. Carpenter:  That is correct.
Mr. Deane: I have been told by Lakes Wales that they don't want to give up any property.
Ms. Carpenter: Because it is probably not producing  much  income it may  not be the same issue as the entire golf course but again that would be something that would  have to be taken into account in the agreement that if it couldn't happen  we would come  up with a different  long term lease or  something.
Mr. Deane: What I was told in order to have a continual boundary that they would have to give up houses that are located currently  in Lake Wales  to move  the boundary that would include because the boundary runs straight down  the street  and on the left  side of the street are Lake Wales home. On the right side of the street are Winter Haven and I'm just saying what I was told that would include them having to give up the homes   on that other side of the street to encompass the golf course property and they are unwilling to do any of  that.
Ms. Carpenter: We can expand the boundaries without necessarily changing the city boundaries. It would be just allowing Lake Ashton II to have some property within the city of Lake Wales. A COD can straddle the lines of the city and county as long as there is two different cities. It is fixable. It will take some negotiations with Lake Wales and Winter Haven to make sure it worked, but it is doable.
Mr. Plummer: You are actually not moving any land that is extended in either city from that city, you are just allowing  someone else to purchase that   land.
Ms. Carpenter: Exactly and you would be just expanding the boundary of the District but that doesn't matter if that is in the city limits or not as long as both cities agree.

The lawyers can work through that with their attorneys. It shouldn't impact from a city perspective. It wouldn't impact their revenue or anything.
Mr. Deane:  I'm just saying what I was   told.
Ms. Carpenter: I appreciate that and of course we would have to look through title and everything else, but again, with direction we can draft up  something  to figure  out a way to make it  work.
Mr. Costello:  I think my only question  is the maintenance  of the land.  You want  us to maintain?
Mr. Plummer: Ponds, bridges and cart paths just like we talked about since day one. Part of my reasoning behind that is we have fielded multiple requests about ponds and the shape that they are in. We have told them rightly so that until we own them we can't spend money on them. Under this agreement we would own the land, which includes those ponds, and then we can actually get the ponds back to where they should be and what they should have been along as well. That is neither here nor there. It is a matter that we would own it so we can take care of it.
Ms. Carpenter: The ownership of those I think also, one of the key points would be ownership and the cross easements for people on both sides to be able to use the path system so we can make sure those easements are actually drafted and in place so it doesn't come up again.
Mr. Plummer: That is under the last item as far as working with the interlocal agreement to make those agreements, which I think is very important that we do that to make sure that they do have access to   both.
Mr. Costello: My only other question would be the maintenance of the course itself. We are talking a business that has been on down scale over the last several years and it is quite possible that if there is a financial problem, I can only imagine that and rightfully so they would probably want to close down holes within our jurisdiction prior to closing down any part of the course within their jurisdiction. My only question is are we going to become responsible for maintaining this property? I realize we wouldn't have to maintain it the way the golf course is and it would probably become much less expensive but there is things there that are just, it is always a possibility and not only that, like I said you look at the makeup of the Boards now, you don't know who is going to be here tomorrow. You

just don't know. I realize that they can't give us 100% assurance that it is going to be maintained or that it is going to open or anything else but there is always that possibility. Mr. Ference: That is why the future Boards will take the issue up, not us. We are dealing with the present, not the future.   How can we determine    the future when you just
said we don't know what the Boards may be in the future?
Mr.  Costello:  All we  are  doing  is  protecting  ourselves  against  a problem  in the
future.
Ms. Carpenter: Bob, the way we can do it is to include in the interlocal that there
would be a lease or maintenance agreement, an agreement between the two for Lake Ashton II to operate all the holes in the golf course for a certain period  and then they  would have to come back. It would be an automatic termination for renegotiation if they want to close holes or change the level of maintenance. We can put that in the interlocal. These are some basics. That way, yes, if for some reason they wanted to stop and this Board would have the maintenance obligation that would be another discussion  of what you want to do with the  property.
Mr. Costello: If you don't try to protect yourself against the future don't buy insurance. Don't buy insurance because why worry about it. Whatever happens just worry about it when it happens?
Mr. Deane: That is something that has to be put in the interlocal agreement.
Mr. Costello: I think that quite honestly they have to look at the fact that they are getting a building, they are getting two businesses, the Pro Shop and the Eagles Nest. They are getting equipment. They are getting golf carts and I think the $250,000 is more than acceptable  as far as I'm concerned.   Thank  you.
Ms. Carpenter: The Board did ask us to look at the property appraiser value, the building is at about $340,000 which is generally much lower than the actual market value just so you do know that there are numbers to support that position. We initially drafted to enter into an agreement that they would run the golf course as a cohesive whole. We can bolster that a bit to say that it would be operated at the same standard and with some sort of 90 or 180 day termination should they want to change that which would give the Board a chance to renegotiate something different or decide which holes. That wouldn't obviously have to come later but we can put some basic parameters in to keep that comfort level.

Mr. Plummer: Mike, I appreciate your attention to the detail of trying to foresee the future, but by the same token, if we Lake Ashton I and Lake Ashton II Boards can't put some trust back between us, it is going to be difficult to do much else going forward.  This  is just a start at building that   relationship.
Mr. Costello: I understand what you are saying. Personally, I trust the other Board. They are going to do what they want to do and they run their District is a very good manner as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with sharing amenities or anything else.  Jan is telling us that through an interlocal that we can put something in there and it will go forward fine. The only thing I'm trying to do is to make sure as time goes on should they find a reason and it could happen, maybe it won't happen.  I hope it doesn't  happen, but  by the same token, if we can do it with an interlocal agreement let's do it that way. All I'm asking for is some sort of insurance more-or-less  that  this place is going to be kept  up.  As far as the lakes, they are a mess. We talked to the people from Applied Aquatic, Christine and I two weeks ago. They are looking at least ten treatments in order  to get these bodies of water back into the condition that they were.   Their biggest fear is what   are they going to do the inhabitants of the water, the fish and everything else? There are expenses that we are going to incur but like I said they are getting a lot on this deal as far as I'm concerned.  I like your motion, I think it is good, but by the same token, I think that  we need assurances.   If we can do it through an interlocal, let's do   it.
Mr. Plummer: That was the reason for the last item in my motion was to work diligently on an interlocal agreement that would be agreeable to both Lake Ashton I and Lake Ashton 11.
Mr. Costello: We have a motion  and a second.  Do we have any other questions   on the motion or any other  comments?
Ms. Carpenter: I have two questions on the real property stuff. The three holes conveyance, would that begin immediately on figuring on how to do it or after a certain period? That is a bigger and more expensive issue. Would that be something you would want to put in there? The ability for them to acquire it if they want with a cost or something.
Mr. Plummer: Wouldn't it be more efficient to acquire it right away?
Ms. Carpenter: That would take some time because we have to go to both jurisdictions. That is time consuming.

Mr. Plummer:  Then I would say whatever the best avenue to accomplish  that   is.
Ms. Carpenter: On the Eagles Nest, do you just want to make it more general either dedicate property  or figure out a way to have that building wholly within ownership by LA   II so it is no split if that is the case or just    leave that for now?
Mr. Deane:  You can leave that the way it is.   They say they are going to manage   it and have those two buildings  and run  it.
Mr. Plummer:  That is not the issue.
Ms. Carpenter: The issue is we just need to make sure we know who owns that so if something ever does happen we have clear ownership of the building.
Mr. Plummer: There is approximately  10 or 15% assessed in the East.  That   is the
issue.
Mr. Costello: Do you feel that they are going to have more trouble annexing  the
property that the Eagles Nest and the Pro Shop are on due to the fact that they are businesses and they are going to be taxed?
Ms. Carpenter: I think we just put we will cooperate to achieve in the West side and we can figure out how we do it down the road. I think that is the issue.
Mr. Costello: I think if we can get this agreement through I'm willing to go to bat for them as far as able to annex that property.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think we are talking about annexing at all, I just think we are talking about selling the land so they bill on it just like the land on 14, 15 and 16.
Ms. Carpenter: We just have to figure out where the lines in the city are because it is very strange that it is divided in the middle but it's because these were formed at the County so maybe for any title issues we will cooperate to clarify for them to get ownership of the building on their side, the West side.
Mr. Costello: Financially I mean we are really  not going to be holding  any risk as  far as any other then maintaining  like you said the cart path, bridges    and ponds.
Ms. Burns: I just want to summarize what I have for the record what your motion was. I was writing very quickly. I have $250,000 including closing costs to purchase the land within the Lake Ashton boundaries, $125,000 at closing and then $125,000  to be  paid one year from that date, purchase  holes 14, 15, and 16, allow them to operate the  golf course, including on the East side at no   cost.

Ms. Carpenter: Operate the golf course at no annual cost, but they certainly will have costs to do so operate for no rental   fee.
Mr. Plummer: My only concern was if we leased it to them what that would do to our nonprofit status.
Ms. Carpenter: We are a government so we don't have to worry about that, but we have to make sure it all works. It would be some kind of agreement to lease or whatever, but we are not charging them to do that. They will have insurance and the other costs associated with operations.
Ms. Burns: Lake Ashton would maintain the ponds, paths and bridges within the boundaries of Lake Ashton, and convey the two parcels around the Pro Shop to Lake Ashton II.
Ms. Carpenter: I would say the parties will cooperate to make sure that if there is any property disputes or lines that the property of the Eagles Nest is wholly within Lake Ashton II ownership.   We can come back once we have specifics    how best to do that.
Mr. Plummer:   The last we're just working diligently on an interlocal    agreement.
Ms. Burns: That is what I had, I just wanted  to make sure we had it worded  in a  way everyone was ok with  it.
Mr. Costello: Do we have a joint meeting scheduled? Ms. Burns: No.
Mr. Plummer: In fairness here, does the interlocal agreement in any way shape, now that Lake Ashton II has an offer on the table, does the interlocal have to take place before their closing or can it be worked on past the closing date?
Ms. Carpenter: I would think that they would want to have some sort of written agreement as to what we are doing because they need to know if they are going to acquire both their side and this side, or if we are going to acquire this side, so I think we need to present them. I think we made enough edits that we are fairly close.  Really just cleaning  up the property  conveyances.
Mr. Costello: In reality I think this should have been a joint meeting, but we couldn't do it due to Sunshine Laws. I think we both want to get together to clarify which way it is going to go.

Mr. Carpenter: So, basically in response to their interlocal, this is their counteroffer back. We can, I guess to make it happen quickly, if the Board would approve this with the modifications.
Mr. Plummer: I was going to say some of the issues in the changed interlocal as presented obviously has changed again with this motion if this motion passes.
Ms. Carpenter: We have the $250,000, we can just clarify that. We need the property and the cooperation on the Eagles Nest parcel but I think the paying for the maintenance of the paths we sort of figured that. We guessed a little well on this. Having Lake Ashton II operate it as a cohesive whole and we just added some language to make sure whatever agreement that they could make a change to, not operate a whole or different standards without the Board.
Mr. Plummer: Obviously that work is in conjunction with Lake Ashton ll's attorney,  as well.
Ms. Carpenter: We would have to get the Board comfortable with this. Perhaps    we
could make the changes, send it if there's no major issues. You can all take a look. If we had to come back we could have the meeting again, but I think at this point it is really just adding a couple of the terms I have heard, and then present that to Lake Ashton II as a counteroffer.
Mr. Plummer: The one that you sent us, have you been in contact with Lake Ashton ll's attorney in regard to those?
Ms. Carpenter:  No, we haven't.   Sorry we just got it to you guys last  night.
Mr. Plummer: I understand that. My question is, can the attorneys work on it before we even get to the point of the joint meeting, if you guys can agree on the language?
Ms. Carpenter: Yes, we can. I think it's really a matter of the offer needs to be considered by their Board whether it is in a final interlocal or not but if that is the offer I think that offer can be presented to LA II with a draft interlocal for them to accept with the revisions that the attorney's beat each other up on.
Mr. Plummer: Obviously they can modify the interlocal as they see fit as well.
Ms. Carpenter: The business transaction could be presented just as a verbal agreement  and get this done as quickly as we  can.
Mr. Plummer: Is that what they need to move forward?

Ms. Carpenter: I think so. I think adding to your motion would be to direct staff to complete and add the terms not there so a verbal offer with a draft of the interlocal be submitted to Lake Ashton II.
Mr. Plummer: I agree to add that to my motion. Mr. Ference:  I will second that.
Mr. Costello: Any other questions? All those in favor.

On MOTION by Mr. Plummer seconded by Mr. Ference with  all in favor the Board authorized to allow Lake Ashton II CDD  to purchase the entire golf course, for Lake Ashton CDD to purchase land within their boundaries for $250,000 including closing costs with $125,000 paid at the closing and $125,000 paid one year from the date of the closing, the transfer of holes 14, 15, and 16 to Lake Ashton II CDD, to allow Lake Ashton II CDD to operate the golf course at no rental fee, for Lake Ashton CDD to maintain the cart paths, ponds and bridges within Lake Ashton CDD boundaries, for cooperation of any property disputes to get the Eagles Nest ownership to Lake Ashton II CDD, and staff was directed  to complete  and add the terms not there so a verbal offer and draft interlocal could be submitted to the Lake Ashton CDD II   attorney.

Ms. Carpenter: Mike, if it is ok I just want to report from the last meeting. We did send a demand letter to the restaurant saying we needed the insurance and the certified check. Borden, if you could respond.
Mr. Deane: We did send the demand letter to the restaurant, and for lack of better words, pissed me off, because within twenty minutes after I gave them the letter I got copies of the insurance, so it is something that they have had and I don't know why they haven't been able to give it to us for 18 months. It is ridiculous. We also received yesterday the certified check for the bounced check so they are in complete compliance. I'm checking out their insurance, I know they have the liability in the amount that is required, but I do not know if they have workmen's compensation because it is a separate insurance policy and it is not listed on the policy that was given to us. Other than that, that is where it stands at the present time.
Ms. Carpenter: Ok that is good. That is improvement. Just keep us posted if you need us to look into any of that.
Mr. Deane: I will, don't worry about that.

13

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public  Comments
Mr. Costello:  Do we have any public  comments?
Mr. John Velebir: 5205 Green Drive, West. Just wanted to welcome you guys and your money to this folly. The West has in the interlocal, has made all kinds of promises. Certainly from your perspective you are completely indemnified  for almost  everything. Have you looked at all to see what their capacity is to fulfill is those promises? There are only 442 houses on the West side.  I don't know that they can tax and assess us enough   to fulfill all these promises.   My point to look at the future, no one else but my prediction     is the West COD is going to be bankrupt within a couple of years. Just like they stampeded you into giving them $250,000,  they will stampede  you into having to maintain all of this.  In the meantime welcome, appreciate the money. Maybe it will make my assessment  a little bit less in the coming  years.
Mr. Zelazny:  First let me thank the Board.  I think today was a great day not only   for us but I think for Lake Ashton as a whole so I do appreciate the work the Board did to put this deal together and I think it will be accepted by our Board without many issues. I wasn't going to talk about it, but since John brought it up, we have 680 not 400, and if you look at the number, our payoff to the golf course  $128,000  for the first year  going down  to $119,000 through year six. That equates to $190 per home for six years. That is what  the assessment will be if the golf course does not turn a profit. Granted I welcome your money, but quite honestly, you got a good deal at $250,000 when you consider the deal originally was over $1,200,000 when we talked at broad  numbers.  I think for  $250,000 you did get a pretty good deal. Thank    you for your leadership  and for getting it done.
Mr. Costello: I think on behalf of our Board here we wish  you luck in running the  golf course.
A resident: I would like to know what it is going to cost us to maintain the bridges, paths and ponds and service calls just to get the ponds back up. Do we have any idea  what it is going to raise my amenities in the East? I feel sorry for the West, but I'm also worried about the people in the East on the lower income side as I would  say because a  lot of us are not from New York or California and are on fixed  incomes.  I  just  want to know what the cost is going to increase.   Do you have any   idea?
Mr. Costello:   I have no idea.

Ms. Carpenter: The Board generally doesn't respond, but the District has the obligation to maintain those under the permit, so the obligation is there. I think at this point we already realized we are going to have to on this side be spending some money to get those lakes up to speed even with the current golf course owners. It is somewhat of an inevitable cost and now it is in the Board's control, that just so the Board knows that you have the obligation anyway.
A resident: I want to thank Borden Deane and Mike Costello. You guys did a great job finding all the hidden costs for us.  I appreciate  it   that.
Mr. Costello:   Anybody else?  Ok,  Bob.
Mr. Ference: Thank you, Lord, for all that we have done in this meeting, yesterday, today and tomorrow. We appreciate  you giving  us the opportunity  to love  our  neighbor as ourselves and do what is right for everyone.  Having said that I appreciate that. I make   a motion that we continue this august   meeting.
Ms. Carpenter: We probably should continue this, in case the other Board comes back with questions or comments, otherwise we have to wait the ten days to notice. If we continue this, hopefully  everything  will be fine and we can do it without a   meeting.
Mr. Costello: The only other thing is in the meantime I would like to see a combined meeting set up between the two CDDs only because of the fact that there  are a lot of  loose ends here that we would like to tie up prior to putting our signature on anything.
Mr. Ference: But it gives us the opportunity to say thank you Lord. Mr. Costello: We should  always say  that.
Ms. Burns: Do you think it would be appropriate to allow their Board to consider this offer first should they accept the terms?
Ms. Carpenter: We have to get them to agree to a joint meeting. We will propose it to them.
Mr. Plummer:  There is no way for a joint meeting until they officially   approve.
Ms. Carpenter: They would have to say yes, we would like a joint meeting, so it would be wise to continue this in case something comes up we can respond fairly   quickly.
Mr. Costello: Can we do it indefinitely?
Ms. Carpenter: No, it has to be a date, time and place. Mr. Deane: We have to do it next week sometime.

Mr. Costello:  How about after Monday  coffee?
Ms. Burns: I think we are going to need more time.
Ms. Carpenter: Whatever your availability is. I'm traveling most of next week so Andrew will have to cover that. I'm in Tallahassee all week.
Ms. Burns: How long do you think    until you will have the agreement?
Ms. Carpenter: I would say Tuesday or Wednesday. That gives us time to draft it  up, have the Board look at it. If we have issues we can come back but gives us time for    us to get it to their Board as  well.
Ms. Wells: Caroline, can you look at the schedule for Wednesday?
Ms. Burns: I'm available in the morning and Wednesday. I have to be able to make it to St. Augustine by 4:00 p.m. I can do about 10:00 a.m.
Ms. Carpenter: For this Board let's get a date. We may not need it, but if something comes up that we can't resolve and we need you guys Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. and if it is just a question or two we can even just call in and get a simple question answered.
Mr. Ference: At what point will be know that, not until Tuesday night?
Ms. Carpenter: Probably Tuesday. If there are a number of issues  Andrew  will come in person, if not we can attend by phone  if we have a question.  Hopefully  it won't  be an issue and we can go right to a joint meeting    perhaps.
Ms. Burns: We are just making sure the room is available. Ms. Wells: Wednesday  at 10:00 a.m. will be  fine.
Ms. Burns: Wednesday, October  30, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. at this   location.
Ms. Carpenter: Hopefully we won't need it and we will be all set for a joint meeting, but thank you for doing that.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Ference seconded by Mr. Deane with all in favor the meeting was continued to Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. at the Lake Ashton Clubhouse Ballroom, 4141 Ashton Club Drive, Lakes Wales, Florida.