MINUTES OF MEETING SAMPSON CREEK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Sampson Creek Community Development District was held on Thursday, October 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. at the St. Johns Golf & Country Club, Meeting Room, 219 St. Johns Golf Drive, St. Augustine, Florida.
Present and constituting a quorum were:

Mike Yuro	Chairman
Graham Leary	Vice Chairman
Mike Davis	Assistant Secretary
Lori Weitzel	Assistant Secretary
Kyle Geary	Assistant Secretary

Also present were:

Daniel Laughlin	GMS
Wes Haber by phone	Kutak Rock, LLP
Branden Marcinell	Matthews
Stephanie Taylor	Vesta Property Services
Oscar Meranda	Ruppert Landscape Residents

The following is a summary of the actions taken at the October 16, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting of the Sampson Creek Community Development District.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Laughlin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. All Supervisors were present.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment (regarding agenda items
listed below)
There being no comments, the next item followed.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Amenities Booking Request
UPS – Requesting Placement of a Storage Container at 940 Broadhaven
Mr. Laughlin reported that a request was received from UPS, requesting the placement of a storage container at 940 Broadhaven, which was by the cemetery, in the cul-de-sac. They made this request in the past and would compensate the District $2,500.

On MOTION by Mr. Yuro seconded by Mr. Leary with all in favor the request from UPS to place a storage container at 940 Broadhaven was approved.

SJMSAA – Tennis Courts
Ms. Taylor reported that SJMSAA requested to use the tennis courts again this year, as they used them last year. She spoke with the Tennis Pro, to ensure that there were no issues or scheduling conflicts and everything worked out great last year. However, it did get crowded, as they had clinics on Thursday evenings and recommended that the Board approve two courts for either Tuesday or Wednesday afternoons and for their meets on Thursday. Ms. Weitzel asked if the tennis courts were in good enough condition, with the cracks. Ms. Taylor did not believe that the state of the tennis courts was causing any safety hazards, except where roots were lifting by the fence, but they could ensure that it was blocked off. However, in terms of the playing area, there has not been any concerns with people playing on it. Mr. Davis agreed with allowing them to use two courts, as long as one court was available for any walk-ups.

On MOTION by Mr. Davis seconded by Mr. Geary with all in favor the Request from SJMSAA for use of two tennis courts on Tuesdays from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. or Wednesdays from 3:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursdays from 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. was approved.

Ms. Taylor received a request from the parent of a player on the Liberty Pines Academy (LPA) JV football team, for use of the meeting room on Saturday, October 4, 2025 and to have the fees waived. Mr. Davis recalled that the Board waived the fee for the varsity team and therefore wanted to waive it for the JV team.

On MOTION by Mr. Leary seconded by Mr. Davis with all in favor Waiving the Fee for Liberty Pines Academy JV football team to use the meeting room on October 4, 2025 was approved.

Mr. Leary recalled in reading Ms. Taylor’s report, that the Board approved the football team practicing on Mondays and Tuesdays, but they were actually practicing on Sundays, Mondays and Tuesdays and voiced concern that they were not upfront with the Board about it. Mr. Yuro agreed. Ms. Taylor indicated that she spoke with Mr. Spicer about it via email. He understood that the amenity booking request was for Monday through Friday and on the weekend, there was no policy, as it was first come/first serve. He further pointed out that they were not the only team practicing on the weekends and felt that this was something that the Board needed to address. Mr. Yuro agreed that the Board should discuss it, as their amenity field was not intended to be a practice facility for these teams. The purpose was for residents to play touch football. Therefore, they needed to update the policies and make a requirement that there be no organized play, unless it was pre-approved and if they were caught, they would be asked to leave or they would be trespassed.
Mr. Leary did not see any ambiguity in the policy, felt that it was clear in terms of team play and that LPA was not upfront about using the field on Sundays. Furthermore, a great deal of damage was caused to the field, which he would consider the next time that their request was considered by the Board. Mr. Yuro asked if LPA’s amenity request was still valid. Ms. Taylor confirmed that their request was effective until October 28th. Mr. Davis suggested allowing them to finish the season and then discussing it further the next time that they had a request, by stating that reservations were not allowed, as the entire field was available for non-organized play.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Ruppert Landscape Update
Mr. Oscar Meranda of Ruppert Landscape was happy to report that they started providing landscape services on October 6th, with their main focus in and around the Amenity Center. They trimmed all of the shrubs that were overgrown. Grasses were cut back around the pump inside of the pool area and the Loropetalum and Podocarpus were shaped. They have a plan to take care of the dead plants around the splash park and would be presenting a proposal this month, for pest, fertilizer and herbicide. He and the Chemical Manager were planning to meet onsite tomorrow, to select a test plot for chemicals. The biggest concern was the Oak trees down St. Johns Golf

Drive, as many of the areas that Brightview had replaced, did not survive and would see if they could bring it back. If there was nothing that they could do about it, they would find some other solutions. Their irrigation team started mapping out all of the battery controllers and a zone and would present it, once completed, which should be tomorrow. Many color-coded flags were placed, specifying if it's just a rotor head, sprinkler head or PVC pipe break. As far as enhancements, the only one coming up that he would be presenting, was trimming off the Oak tree canopy, at the very corner of the amenity and three of the Crepe Myrtles.
Mr. Yuro asked if there were any surprises. Mr. Meranda was surprised at the number of irrigation breaks and the turf quality. The St. Augustine looked good but was unable to get back towards the cemetery and all the pocket parks, but as they go through these areas, his crew would be reporting what they see and what they could do about replacing some of the turf. Mr. Yuro asked if there was an irrigation map, to provide to Ruppert to get started on the irrigation. Ms. Taylor requested one from the prior landscape company since she started and did not ever receive one. Mr. Meranda pointed out that it was no hassle for them to identify the irrigation. Mr. Davis noticed that the grass was getting long by Pond 24. Mr. Meranda confirmed that they would be maintaining it on Monday and then continuing down Leo Maguire Parkway. Mr. Laughlin noted that he had some irrigation maps from 2022, which he would provide to Mr. Meranda. Mr. Meranda reported that he met with an arborist on the tree that was impeding the tennis court. They could cut back the roots; however, because there was a light pole, there was electrical wiring. They could also elevate the street canopies down St. Johns Golf Drive, to help the Bermuda. It may be cost effective. They were generating a proposal. Mr. Leary noted that there was pine straw in the drains and over the roads on Leo Maguire Parkway and Eagle Point, which he pointed out to Mr. Meranda.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Mr. Haber had no updates. Mr. Leary asked if everything was closed out with Brightview. Mr. Laughlin confirmed that everything was cleaned out, to an extent, with the short turnaround; however, Brightview was unhappy with the new selection and the fact that the District did not continue the agreement. Their agreement ended on October 1st, which put them in a weird spot of continuing right away with Ruppert or pushing it back 30 to 60 days. Mr. Davis asked if Brightview was upset that they were not getting a 30- or 60-day notice. Mr. Haber

indicated that Brightview asked about it, but once it was explained to them that notice was only required during the term of the agreement and it naturally expired under its own terms and there was no automatic renewal, they did not push back.

Engineer
Mr. Marcinell reported that construction was completed at the 420 St. Johns Golf Drive control structure. The inspector was out there the other day and it was deemed to be acceptable. The residents in the area did speak with the inspector, as there were still some slightly depressed areas near the control structure, but even in the photos, nothing seemed out of line and the grass that was installed, was exactly where it needed to be. The sinkhole for Stonebridge was caused by a mixture of structures. The bottom structure was a circle and the top that sealed it, was more of a rectangle and there were gaps on the side that were open. They were proposing that a steel plate be installed, instead of having to do extensive repairs. As a result, staff requested that the proposal be modified for the repairs that were going to be done to the structure, which was for both sides, 50 and 50A. The original proposal was $19,000 and suggested that the Board approve a not-to-exceed amount of $24,000.

On MOTION by Mr. Yuro seconded by Mr. Leary with all in favor the proposal from Flo Line Pipe Services to repair the sinking inlet at Stonebridge in a not-to-exceed amount of $24,000 was approved.

Mr. Davis asked if this was likely to occur in other structures. Mr. Marcinell explained that typically, if they see one, they might see others. Mr. Yuro did not suggest going around and looking at any other areas, as this was the first cul-de-sac that was built and had a model home. However, if they see an issue somewhere else, they should look into it.

District Manager
Mr. Laughlin reported that Mr. Matt Biagetti of GMS would be filling in for him at the next meeting, as he would be out of the county. Mr. Biagetti developed Eagle Landing, serving as the onsite manager.

General Manager
Amenities and Operations Report
Lake Doctors
Soccer Field Report
Ms. Taylor presented the Amenities and Operations and Lake Doctors Reports, which were included in the agenda package.

Proposals for Access Control Upgrade (Item 5)
Ms. Taylor presented two proposals for the software/hardware update for the access control. She originally reached out to three vendors, but unfortunately, the third one could not provide a proposal in time and asked if the Board wanted to table this matter or discuss the two options. Mr. Yuro questioned why they were doing this. Ms. Taylor explained that the software that they had, was outdated and the newer software would allow for different methods of utilizing credentials. The first type of software was Prodata PDK. The second type, Aurora, was used at some of Vesta’s sister communities and there was positive feedback about it. The installation fee for PDK was $16,000, but there was a $9 per month subscription fee for the software. The price of cards would not change, as they would use the same company. There were no additional fees to have mobile credentials. The cost for Aurora was $24,500, which did not have a subscription fee; however, it did have a mobile credential fee of $12 per phone. Mr. Yuro surmised that the charges would add up quickly and asked if the existing cards would still work. Ms. Taylor confirmed that they looked at software that was compatible with the current cards. The system would go down when they were changing all of the hardware; however, after that, everything would be transferred over. Ms. Weitzel asked if residents would pay the $12, if they wanted their phone to be hooked up. Ms. Taylor indicated that it was up to the Board. Mr. Leary felt if they wanted to break even, they should go with Prodata but wanted to know more about the companies and believed that it would be helpful if the software companies made a presentation to the Board.
Mr. Yuro asked if there was a sense of urgency. Ms. Taylor confirmed that there was no urgency; although she was more well versed in PDK, which was a web-based cloud system with unlimited users, which was nice, compared to Aurora, which was software based and was easy to use. The mobile credentials for both companies, was user friendly for residents. Mr. Leary requested that Ms. Taylor find out who owned these two companies and what communities used

them. Mr. Yuro questioned where this expenditure would be paid from. Mr. Laughlin confirmed that it would be paid from the capital. Mr. Leary questioned what they should be thinking about in the future, especially with AI. Ms. Taylor pointed out if the Board was interested in AI, they should update their security cameras, but using mobile credentials was following the demand of what people wanted. With PDK, staff would send out an email to the resident’s email and once they opened it on their phone, they would confirm that they were the account holder. There would be an App on their phone that was Bluetooth enabled. Ms. Weitzel asked if she had to go through this process again if she purchased a new phone. Ms. Taylor indicated that all she had to do was re-download the App. Ms. Weitzel was in favor of it, as long as residents had the option of coming into the office to get mobile access and anyone that did not want to do mobile access, had the option to use a physical card. After further discussion, there was Board consensus to table this item, in order for Ms. Taylor to provide more information to the Board.

Sidewalk Repair Update
Ms. Taylor reported that during their initial sideway sidewalk survey, she had the vendor mark a few spots on some driveway aprons, where it met the sidewalk, because she was uncertain about who was responsible for repairing it. Mr. Haber felt that it was a homeowner's responsibility. They must sign a waiver, and pay the CDD, which would open them up for future requests. The reason why they were asking, was because Precision Sidewalk only worked with HOAs and CDDs and was bringing this up on behalf of the homeowner, to see if the Board was interested. Precision’s information was submitted to the HOA representative, in case the HOA offered to pay for it. Mr. Leary recalled that he raised at prior meetings, that they need to be repaired, whichever way they go about it, as they were pretty bad and questioned the harm in the CDD doing them. Mr. Davis pointed out that once they started working on resident driveways, they opened themselves up for further residents wanting them to do the same. Mr. Leary felt that the right thing to do would be to get them fixed. Ms. Taylor indicated if they do it for one driveway and they say no to the next request; it would sound like the CDD was being selective. Mr. Geary asked if it was more difficult for Vesta to do it this way. Ms. Taylor pointed out that she never did anything like this before. Mr. Laughlin recalled in the past, the resident paid the recording or attorney’s fees for the time that it had taken to draft an agreement.

Mr. Yuro asked if tree roots were causing this and if so, where the tree roots were located. Ms. Taylor confirmed that the tree roots were in the first phase that was built, where the trees were closer to the road. Mr. Yuro felt that it was a CDD issue, as it was a tree that was planted on CDD property for CDD improvements. The sidewalk was on CDD property and the tree was between the sidewalk and the driveway. Mr. Laughlin pointed out that according to the Property Appraiser’s website, the CDD property line was before the sidewalk. The CDD owned the home side of the sidewalk, across the sidewalk, the right-of-way (ROW) and the road. Mr. Yuro indicated that there were sections of the neighborhood, where there were trees on the house side of the sidewalk, that were 15 to 20 feet off of the road, which was a homeowner issue. Ms. Weitzel asked if there was language in a document. Mr. Yuro recalled that the only document that had this language, was the HOA document, that indicated homeowners were responsible for maintenance of the trees and sidewalk. Mr. Laughlin recalled that a resolution was adopted, but the Board could always change previous resolutions. Mr. Haber clarified that both the HOA document and the resolution that the Board approved, stated that the obligation was the resident’s; however, the District had the right, but not the obligation, in circumstances where it was appropriate, to take responsibility and make any repairs. Therefore, if the Board wanted to do it, they had the right to do so, without having to adopt a new resolution or making any changes, as the intent of the resolution, was to give the District the right to take advantage of the language in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions.
Mr. Yuro recalled that the District had been taking care of sidewalk issues throughout the community and asked if the difference was that it was part of the driveway apron. Ms. Taylor replied affirmatively. Mr. Davis voiced concern that the CDD paid for some driveways to be repaired, but not others. Furthermore, if a resident switched over to pavers, the CDD would open themselves up to significant costs and obligations. Mr. Yuro did not disagree, but his argument was more along the lines of a sidewalk. Mr. Davis pointed out that when they were shaving the sidewalks down, they were doing a service for everyone that used the ROW and wanted the HOA to press homeowners to fix their driveway aprons. In his opinion, the CDD was not responsible for rearranging the stone work and it should be through the HOA. Mr. Yuro agreed that there was a difference between the sidewalk in front of a home and the driveway apron. Mr. Leary walked the sidewalks many times and wondered when they would be fixed. In that case, they could inform the homeowner that the CDD had the equipment to level these sidewalks and

get the hazards repaired. If it was only a few hundred dollars, he would repair it. Mr. Davis questioned the CDD’s liability if someone tripped on broken concrete on the apron of someone’s driveway. Mr. Haber confirmed that the District’s liability was limited, but the CDD would likely be named as a defendant in a lawsuit. However, to the extent that the CDD consistently rejected requests to repair it or tell a homeowner that they must repair it and hopefully get HOA support to repair something that was in disrepair and take all actions to obligate the homeowner to fulfill their obligation, the CDD would have a strong defense in a lawsuit. Mr. Laughlin recalled that the HOA has become involved more recently, which was what needed to happen.
Mr. Davis would feel bad if the CDD started to work on a driveway and three months ago, their neighbor replaced their entire driveway apron, because they were being responsible. Mr. Yuro did not want to repair pavers. Mr. Geary agreed, as he did not want to set a precedent that they were fixing some driveways, but not others. Mr. Davis asked if staff had good communication with the HOA. Ms. Taylor confirmed that she had good communication with the new HOA representative who was responsive. Mr. Leary asked what they were asking the resident in these situations to do. Ms. Taylor indicated that residents were being asked to shave their driveway where it meets the sidewalk panel. In this case, the CDD sidewalk was slightly unlevel and was already on the repair list, but if they were trying to level their driveway apron to the CDD sidewalk, it would not work, but because they were raised, it was marked for the CDD vendor to see if it was a CDD responsibility and the cost for doing so. Mr. Leary preferred to make the repair, if it was a few hundred dollars, in order to fix the hazard. Ms. Weitzel asked if this was the same issue as the resident who attended the last meeting. Ms. Taylor indicated that in that situation, it was the driveway meeting the curb of the street. Before making a decision, Mr. Leary wanted to see some photos. Mr. Geary asked if they could put out a notice stating that Precision was going to be onsite a certain date and if a resident wanted their driveway to be shaved down, the CDD was willing to do it, but the resident must pay for it. Mr. Yuro pointed out if the homeowner requested it and were willing to pay, he had no problem having them pay for it. Mr. Geary preferred that homeowners take care of their own driveway aprons, but that the CDD notify them. Mr. Laughlin recommended that the HOA send the letter. Mr. Leary requested that Ms. Taylor provide photos of two or three areas, so that the Board could review them at the next meeting. There was Board consensus.

Ms. Taylor reported that the playground renovations started on October 13th. The contractor was removing all of the planks that were rotted and replacing it with new ones. They were looking at the end of October for pressure washing and painting, mulching it at the beginning of November and installing the fencing. It should take a month to complete everything, as long as everything stays on schedule. However, the wooden bench and wooden picnic tables had quite a few broken slats and it would cost $275 plus shipping for each slat, for a total of $3,000 or they could purchase four green metallic tables and one bench for $4,800. Mr. Yuro recommended going with the metal tables. Ms. Weitzel recalled when talking about the tables, people wanted to keep the look at the wood and was not in favor of the green metal ones, as it would take away the natural look, plus it was not comfortable. Mr. Geary liked the look of the wooden slats. Discussion ensued.

Ms. Weitzel MOVED to repair the picnic tables and a bench at the playground in the amount of $275 for each slat and Mr. Leary seconded the motion.

Ms. Taylor requested a not-to-exceed amount of $5,000, to be on the safe side, as she did not know how many benches in the community were broken. Mr. Davis pointed out that the only broken one that he was aware of, was at Creston Heron and Eagle Point Drive and on Pond 25 but preferred to only approve $4,000. Ms. Weitzel only wanted to replace the ones at the playground and then surveying ones outside of the playground.

On VOICE VOTE with Mr. Davis, Mr. Geary, Ms. Weitzel and Mr. Leary in favor and Mr. Yuro dissenting, approving a not-to-exceed amount of $4,000 to repair the picnic tables and a bench at the playground as well as benches in the community was approved. (Motion Passed 4-1).

Proposals for Access Control Upgrade
This item was tabled.

Proposal for Plate Weights
Ms. Taylor reported that the new equipment was in the Gym and was working great. Their technician did some minor adjustments. However, it was brought to her attention that there

was a need for a weight plate rack, as people were taking the weight plates from the Smith machine over to the Scott bench, which were right next to the front door and it has been getting crowded. Therefore, as a convenience and a safety measure, she asked the technician for a price for a weight plate rack with weight plates on it, which was $2,754. Ms. Weitzel asked if there was a way to relocate the weights, so they were not near the door. Ms. Taylor indicated that at this time, the weights were on one of the machines that was closest to the mirror and people had to walk from the mirrors and past the front door, where there was a four-station cable machine, over to the Scott bench, which created a traffic jam. Mr. Laughlin asked if they needed the weight plates or could they just buy the rack. Ms. Taylor was informed that the additional weight plates would be helpful, due to the high usage, to ensure that residents could work out to their needs. Mr. Laughlin recalled that there was a proposal from Technogym in the agenda package. Mr. Yuro asked if they were using the Smith machine weights on the benches and the plan was to have a rack next to the bench. Ms. Taylor confirmed that the weights for the Smith machine, were also being used for the Scott bench. Mr. Leary questioned why they needed a weight rack now. Ms. Taylor indicated that they did not have a Scott bench before and they did not have to move the plates around. Ms. Weitzel questioned where this money would come from. Mr. Laughlin confirmed that it would be a capital expense. Mr. Yuro did not feel that it was necessary.

On MOTION by Mr. Yuro seconded by Mr. Leary with Mr. Davis, Mr. Yuro and Mr. Leary in favor and Mr. Geary and Ms. Weitzel dissenting, the proposal for new weight plates and weight rack in the amount of $2,753.90 was approved. (Motion Passed 3-2)

Ms. Taylor reported that a resident with a local business, reached out to her to see if they had any advertising opportunities. Currently, they did not, but at some of their sister locations, offered advertising in their virtual newsletter that was sent out every month, for a fee and questioned whether the Board was interested. Mr. Laughlin asked if the CDD would be able to have advertisements in the newsletter for a fee. Mr. Haber advised that if there was a fee, they must have a public hearing. Mr. Davis was not in favor of it, as there were editorials in the newsletter and they were a public entity. Ms. Weitzel agreed, as many residents had businesses that were advertised in their social media groups. Discussion ensued.

Ms. Taylor reported that unfortunately, both of the tennis courts and the basketball courts, were showing signs of wear and needed be completely demolished and rebuilt. This would be an expensive process of approximately $500,000, as the cost per court was $90,000 and there were four tennis courts and two basketball courts. Mr. Laughlin confirmed that funds were earmarked in the budget for this purpose. Ms. Taylor recalled that the tennis courts were built in 2002 and had an asphalt base that starts to disintegrate anywhere from 20 to 25 years. The basketball courts were built later; however, there were cracks that were exposing the base of it and once water intruded it, it would disintegrate faster. She would provide quotes to the Board and they could look at phasing it out. Mr. Leary questioned what professional person informed them that they needed to demolish the beautiful looking tennis and basketball courts. Ms. Taylor indicated that they received two onsite visits from two different vendors. Mr. Leary preferred to get the opinion of someone who was agnostic to construction projects. Mr. Yuro suggested using people who were in the asphalt construction industry and would contact a resident who worked for Duval Asphalt, as needing a complete demolition, sounded like a marketing ploy. Mr. Davis wanted to find a qualified vendor who could provide repair options. Ms. Taylor spoke to vendors who could do a resurfacing. They recommended patching with strips of membrane, which were already on the tennis courts and were starting to stretch. They could also resurface, but they would be looking at cracks again in a year. Ms. Weitzel was hesitant to put a band-aid on it, because prior to being on the Board, it was voted on to do the mesh membrane and a couple of months later, it looked like they did not do anything. Mr. Davis felt that it was a big deal to tear them up. Ms. Weitzel wanted to do a great deal of research, because it would impact the tennis clinics and tennis team. Mr. Yuro pointed out that resurfacing was just putting a new paint coat on top, instead of touching the asphalt. Ms. Weitzel felt that resurfacing was a waste of money, if it did not get to the root cause of the problem, which was the asphalt. Ms. Taylor would continue to have people come out and see what prices they come up with, including contacting the resident who worked for Duval Asphalt.
Ms. Taylor reported that now that she completed her first few months at Sampson Creek, she would like to review the policies and procedures and offer suggestions to the Board at the next meeting and that one Board Member work with her on the entire policies and procedures or specific sections. Ms. Weitzel did not mind working with Ms. Taylor on a playground and pool policy. Mr. Geary offered to work with Ms. Taylor on the field conditions, as there was no

statement about leaving the field in the event of rain, which the football team was doing when it rained. Ms. Weitzel wanted to have language in the playground policy about recreational substances, such as smoking Marijuana. Mr. Davis recalled that smoking was not allowed. Ms. Weitzel also wanted to have a swimming pool feces policy. Mr. Leary offered to assist Ms. Taylor with the policies and procedures. Ms. Taylor appreciated it. She voiced concern about Pond 25A, but thanks to Mr. Marcinell, she learned that the pond was not fed by other ponds. It was only fed by rainfall and taking the water from the streets. Therefore, when the pond was low, it was due to the lack of rain and there were no additional issues. However, they received a great deal of rain this past week, which they were excited about. The algae was looking much better, as with the last treatment, they were able to get most of it to sink. There was a spraying of the bulkhead and was hopeful that residents would notice the difference. The restocking of grass carp, was supposed to be occurring in the next couple of weeks.
Ms. Taylor reported the sidewalk repairs would be starting on October 27th, weather permitting. It should take about two days to complete. She asked the vendor to compile the remaining hazards. If the price seemed reasonable, she would ask them for a price for the entire neighborhood. If not, they would continue to do it in phases. The mirror was installed today. Reflectors would be placed on it and it would be painted. The tiles at the front of the entrance, by 210, that are facing towards homes, have been fixed. There were a couple on the side of the monument, that you could not see, unless you were up against it. However, she still needed to find a tile vendor, as she did not want to pay any additional price for a general contractor and was meeting with someone next week. They were pressure washed, as well as the bridge leading up to that monument. Mr. Davis appreciated that. There were six soft lights and six natural white lights and she asked for six natural lights, to ensure that they were uniform. HED Services completed the erosion project, which they were excited about. Regarding events, a candle making class was held this past Saturday. Next Saturday was the Fall Festival from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. There were going to be food trucks, fall maze, pumpkin decorating and inflatables. There was also going to be goat yoga, on November 8th, which filled up fast. They planned to hold another one in January.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Policy Change to Prohibit
E-Bikes, E-Scooters and Motorized Bikes
Mr. Laughlin reported that he took the language that he mentioned at the last meeting, included it under the golf cart policies and highlighted it. He also added under the two areas for designated path use: “Electric and motorized bikes and scooters are permitted only on designated multi-use paths within the amenity area. Use of these devises is prohibited on playground, sports courts, green spaces and non-designated walking paths. Devices must follow local and State Law regarding usage on paths.” Under safe operations he added, “Devices must be operated at a safe and controlled speed, with due regard to pedestrians. Reckless, aggressive or disruptive operations is strictly prohibited and devices must follow local and State Law regarding the operations of devices.” Mr. Leary questioned the definition of a designated path. Mr. Laughlin would change this to multi-use path.

On MOTION by Mr. Leary seconded by Mr. Davis with all in favor the policy change to prohibit E-Bikes, E-Scooters and motorized bikes, with the changes as discussed was approved.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion  of  Future  Amenity  Capital
Improvements
Pool Deck Renovations
Mr. Laughlin reported that he reached out to Urban Edge, regarding the pool deck renovation, but had not received any response from the multiple emails and voicemails that he sent. He would continue to reach out, but they might not be on the table any more, as the last emails from them, were from 2022, when they initially did these plans. Mr. Davis thought that they refreshed the quote since then. Ms. Weitzel felt that they needed to revise the list of improvements. Mr. Laughlin planned to adjust the amenity room enhancement to reflect the Bradshaw Building Company (Bradshaw) quote. He could either revise the playground enhancement, to say that they were renovating it or change the title to, “Playground Renovation,” as the purpose of the list to track everything that they discussed in the past. Mr. Davis was agreeable to updating the playground line item, since it was a committed project and they had a dollar amount, but would not recommend removing the pickleball courts, as the point of having it on the list, was to discuss it thoroughly. A Resident recalled that this item was tabled and if they permanently table it, the Board could not bring it back up. Mr. Laughlin confirmed

that he moved it to the bottom of the list and would combine the fencing and the playground and change the title to, “Playground Renovation,” change the description and include the total cost. Mr. Davis recalled that a prior Board Member was the source of the Urban Edge contact. Mr. Laughlin pointed out that Ms. Laura Webb referred Urban Edge and would contact her.

Amenity Meeting Room Upgrade
Mr. Marcinell recalled that they had a proposal with Matthews for the amenity meeting room upgrade, which was held up in their internal review process. The full amount was $35,000 for construction plans, survey services, plan design and three rounds of permitting with St. Johns County. Mr. Leary questioned the difference between what Bhide & Hall and Matthews were doing. Mr. Marcinell explained that Bhide & Hall were providing the architect plans (vertical rendering) and Matthews was providing the civil plans (flat plan view with exterior grading), which were mostly drainage related. Mr. Yuro felt that this proposal seemed high, as it was for a one room add on and not much site engineering was required. Mr. Marcinell pointed out that they would be providing the plans that were submitted for agency review, permit and processing, which were required and construction administration, which could be reduced, as they were pricing for five months’ worth of coming out physically onsite to do an inspection and funding review. Mr. Yuro preferred to pay Matthews their hourly rate to come out or put this out for bid, as the amount seemed incredibly high and questioned how three hours times five months or 15 hours, equated to $11,000, as this was an addition to an existing building. The engineer was responsible for getting water and sewer to the site, but that was already in place. There would also be some minimal grading. The proposal was exorbitant but appreciated Mr. Marcinell sharing it with the Board and requested that Matthews seriously look at the full scope of the project and what it was going to cost.
Mr. Leary reported that he had a call with Bhide & Hall, Mr. Laughlin and Mr. Marcinell, a couple of weeks ago, to see where they were at. There were four project estimates. Bradshaw was the lowest at $226,000, Brogden was $350,000, TN Lee Services was $360,000 and Marlin was $651,000. This was based on the architectural plans and asked if anyone was familiar with Bradshaw. Mr. Yuro had not worked with them personally but heard that they were highly recommended. Mr. Leary pointed out that the estimate excluded any new furniture or fittings that they may need. Bhide & Hall were working on the permit set, which would be finished in 30

days. If this project does get approved, they would be looking at formalizing bids in the November/December timeframe, permitting in January/February and starting construction in March. Mr. Davis asked if it would take three to four months for construction. Mr. Marcinell expected it to take three months but would plan for five months. Ms. Weitzel voiced concern about construction being completed in July, as they had Summer Camp. Mr. Yuro preferred not to have construction during the Summer. Ms. Weitzel recommended starting construction, once school gets back in session in the Fall, as the room would not be used that much. Mr. Yuro pointed out that they still needed to get the final architect plans, to provide to these contractors, in order to get final bids.

Playground Enhancement
Mr. Laughlin would remove the playground enhancement, since renovations should be completed by next month.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Contracts Review
Mr. Laughlin presented the Contract List, which was included in the agenda package. It was updated to include the Ruppert Agreement and remove the Brightview Agreement. Mr. Leary questioned the security contract. Ms. Taylor was waiting for an update from the security company, to see if they could remove the vehicle from their current contract or if they needed to go a different route. Mr. Laughlin pointed out that they could consider other proposals for the next meeting. Mr. Geary suggested that they roam around during the busy times. Ms. Weitzel preferred that security not sit in the office.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors’ Request
Mr. Leary reported that he did a quick walk through around the Amenity Center with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Meranda this week. There were three things that he asked to look at; one was tearing the bricks out by the parking lot, that were a hazard, the second was to replace the St. Johns entrance sign, which was broken and the third was painting of the bridge on Hole 18. Ms. Weitzel recalled that a golf course representative used to come to these meetings. Mr. Laughlin noted that they did not come every month but came upon request. There was consensus for Mr. Laughlin to have a golf course representative attend the next meeting. Mr. Davis pointed out that

he had already discussed the broken bench and as Ruppert starts to travel around the community, he requested that they get their advice on how to get some of the ungrassed areas to come back.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comments
A Resident on Drury Court (Robert) was worried about the streets and what the Board was doing about them, as they were getting worse. The money that was bonded for the streets should be utilized to get those streets repaired. It was not only on Drury Court, but community wide. There were mosquitoes growing in the water, frogs were laying their eggs in it and the water was there long enough to where they were hatching. He requested that the bond money be used for the streets or the bond company should be notified that the streets were in dire need of repair. Mr. Marcinell pointed out as a follow up on their inspection, they had historical pictures for when the roads were resurfaced and identified some locations in the old photos, to show the drastic aging difference, compared to another roadway, where the tree line was further back. He expected by the next meeting, to have a comparative between the aging difference of roadway, from that point, to where they were currently. The Resident pointed out that it was getting worse, as they now had street flooding, from the last rainstorm, which was unacceptable. Mr. Laughlin recalled that there was discussion of leveling it out. Mr. Marcinell indicated that their first approach was getting an arborist on board, to see what trees they could trim back, as there was a certain percentage of tree root mass that they could trim, but this did not apply that close to the trunk. They could not make any changes to the curbing other than shaving it, which would not resolve the problem.
Ms. Weitzel questioned the consequences, as the money was intended for the streets. Mr. Laughlin confirmed that it was intended for everything covered under the Engineer’s Report. There were five groupings that the money could be used for, including road repair, stormwater repair and amenity enhancements. Anything that was in the report, which was used for the bond issuance, was what was authorized for those funds to be used for. Mr. Davis felt that this was not an unreasonable request. The Resident believed that the longer they let it go, the worse it would be and the more it would cost. Then they would have to float another bond, which would impact the entire community, if they did not start to work on it now. Mr. Yuro pointed out that they could not replace sidewalk without removing trees, which would upset residents. They could not get a contractor to do anything else to the roads without solving the tree problem, because they

would be back in three years with the same issue. Mr. Davis asked if they should have an arborist look at the trees. Mr. Laughlin would find out if Ruppert had an arborist on staff. If not, they may have one that they subcontract with. Mr. Davis recalled that this item was on the projects list. Ms. Weitzel lived across the street from the resident and noted that what he was saying, was 100% accurate. Something needed to be done but did not know what that was. Mr. Marcinell confirmed that having an arborist evaluate it, was the first option.
Mr. Leary reported when Duval Asphalt came through, the street flooding was not resolved, as he saw areas around the community, where there was flooding, such as on the soccer field and on Eagle Point Drive at the entranceway. However, there were areas where it had gotten worse again, but did not understand whether they were doing a holistic review of the community or addressing a certain street that residents complained about. Mr. Laughlin recalled months ago, the Board discussed having an inspection done of the entire community. Ms. Taylor would have this done by the November meeting. Mr. Yuro wanted staff to drive around a couple of hours after a rainstorm, to see where water was pooling. Mr. Davis agreed and suggested that they make two trips; one when it was dry, on Drury Court and on St. Johns Golf Drive from Drury Court to the end of Eagle Point Drive and from Eagle Point Drive to Leo Maguire Parkway. Then they could travel back out a couple of hours after a rainstorm, to see where the water was pooling. Mr. Marcinell pointed out that they had software that allowed them to geo locate images onto a map. Mr. Yuro preferred that onsite staff take a map and mark the locations where water was ponding. Mr. Davis questioned the cost for the engineer to do so. Mr. Marcinell believed that it would be $6,000 for a crew to be onsite for two days, utilizing this type of software. Mr. Yuro did not want to spend $6,000, when staff could do this in two hours. Ms. Taylor was happy to do so, as long as they had rain between today and the next meeting but asked if she was looking for pooling on the street itself or towards the curb. Mr. Yuro indicated that she needed to look towards the curb. Mr. Leary requested photos and flags of the areas. Mr. Laughlin would reach out to Ruppert to see if they had an arborist.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Consent Agenda
Minutes of September 18, 2025 Meeting
Financial Statements as of September 30, 2025
Check Register

Mr. Laughlin presented the minutes of the September 18, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting, Financial Statements as of September 30th and Check Register for October 16, 2025, for the General Fund in the amount of $122,298.02, which were included in the agenda package.

On MOTION by Ms. Weitzel seconded by Mr. Davis with all in favor the Consent Agenda was approved.

THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting – November 20,
2025 @ 6:00 p.m. @ St. Johns Golf & Country Club Meeting Room
Mr. Laughlin stated that the next meeting as scheduled for November 20, 2025 at 6:00
p.m. at this location.

FOURTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Ms. Weitzel seconded by Mr. Leary with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman