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, November 20, 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:

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

Also present were:

Matt Biagetti	GMS
Wes Haber (via phone)	Kutak Rock, LLP
Branden Marcinell	Matthews
Stephanie Taylor	Vesta Property Services
Jason Davidson	Vesta Property Services
Dylan Clackson	Ruppert Landscape
Andrew Pelfrey	Pelfrey Tree Service Residents

The following is a summary of the actions taken at the November 20, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting of the Sampson Creek Community Development District.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Biagetti called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. All Supervisors were present with the exception of Mr. Yuro.

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

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment (regarding agenda items
listed below)

Board:

Mr. Biagetti opened the public comment period. The following residents addressed the

Mr. Rich Barrett of 932 Brookhaven Drive indicated that a number of residents from Brookhaven Drive were concerned about the cemetery location for pickleball, as it would cause more traffic and noise on Brookhaven Drive. Mr. Davis indicated that this item was tabled, but was included on the potential list of projects, so the Board could refer to it.
Marilyn from Red Hawk thought that pickleball was on the agenda and there was discussion about dual use.
Ms. Joanne Ernst of 923 Eagle Point Drive was pro-pickleball but wanted to address her feelings on the meeting room improvements and pickleball.
Mr. Ben Ernst of 923 Eagle Point Drive allowed Ms. Joanne Ernst to use his allotted time for public comments.
Ms. Tara Eddy of Highland View was new to the community and asked if there was a way to have virtual CDD meetings next year. Mr. Leary offered to consider it.
Mr. John Dodi of 908 Brookhaven Drive felt that Ms. Ernst’s points were valid and recalled that the Board’s first choice was to convert one of the basketball courts to a pickleball court, but this did not occur, because the people across from the Amenity Center, complained about the sound.
Mr. Chuck Hood of St. Johns Golf Drive recalled that an acoustic measurement survey was done, showing that the facility needed to a minimum of 600 feet from a home. Mr. Davis noted that the site survey map, sound survey and cost estimates, were available in the public record and if anyone wanted copies, they should contact Mr. Biagetti and Mr. Laughlin. Mr. Biagetti offered to post the reports on the website.
Ms. Corrine Darling of 1929 Glenfield Crossing Court questioned whether a sound study was done, from the tennis court to the houses. Mr. Leary indicated that an acoustical engineer was hired to evaluate different sites and recommended the cemetery site.

Mr. Davis pointed out that it would not be constructive for the Board to go back and forth on this matter, but understood that residents had strong opinions about pickleball and if they felt pickleball was a great idea, he encouraged them to read the material and figure out what the Board missed, as the Board did a good job of exploring all of the possibilities. Ultimately, the Board decided not to proceed and wanted to spend the money on other potential projects that would also improve the neighborhood.
Mr. Dan Renda of Brookhaven pointed out that not all communities had pickleball, such as Shearwater. Ms. Weitzel pointed out that other neighborhoods were being built as-is. The Board was trying to put something in a community that did not have the space for it, but the Board was open to other ideas. Mr. Leary recalled that Stillwater had pickleball, but their nearest home, was over 200 yards away.
Mr. George Seder of 901 Brookhaven Drive asked if anyone addressed this with Troon. Mr. Leary confirmed that Troon was aware of all the discussions. Mr. Davis recalled that it was before the current management changed. Mr. Seder felt that consideration should be given to the people buried in that cemetery and the fact that there would be a funeral while people were playing pickleball.
Mr. Kurt Radecki of 504 Stone Bridge Path Court lived closer to the field than anyone else and at one time, the proposal was to put the pickleball court right in his backyard and encouraged his neighbors, to try to find some common ground. Mr. Davis pointed out that there was nothing stopping residents from discussing this matter and walking around the community with a petition, if pickleball was supposed to be there.
Ms. Lisa Dunsky of 724 Eagle Point Drive wanted to understand how the process worked. Mr. Leary explained that the Board Members were residents that were elected into their seats. They all had one vote. Their responsibility was to best manage the maintenance of the community. Ms. Davis clarified that they were a mini legislature, chartered by the State and under Florida State Law, that defined what a CDD was and how it worked. Board Members had a vested interest in this community. Ms. Dunsky questioned who voted against it and what the vote was. Mr. Davis recalled that the tabled the issue and there was no vote. It remained on

the list for discussion purposes. Ms. Dunsky preferred to have face to face conversations with her neighbors.
Mr. Kurt Radecki of 504 Stone Bridge Path Court questioned whether the Board committed to other projects. Mr. Davis confirmed that they were close, but had not made final decisions on how the money would be spent, but they spent some of the money and had plans for this room and for the pool deck improvements. Mr. Leary pointed out that they did some large maintenance items, because the community was showing wear and tear. Ms. Weitzel indicated before considering building anything brand new, they wanted to ensure that the current amenities were of best quality.
Mr. Bill Worth of Brookhaven Drive did not understand why someone would move into a community that did not have pickleball.
Ms. Tracy Murray of 1039 Eagle Point Drive recalled when she moved into the community 23 years ago, pickleball as not as popular as it was now and believed it something was popular, they should be open to it. If the acoustic test showed that the pickleball courts would be far enough distance away, she did not understand why this was still being brought up.
Ms. Tara Eddy of Highland View felt that there was a great deal of confusion about what happened, has not happened and how to find the information and asked if someone was responsible for communicating and making different points more available, in order to have a better website. Mr. Davis admitted that it was not easy to find, but it was all public information. Mr. Daniel Laughlin’s contact information was available on the website and Ms. Taylor was an excellent resource.
Ms. Tracy Murray of 1039 Eagle Point Drive recalled seeing a document showing where the pickleball courts would be located. There was parking, alleviating the concern about people parking in the Brookhaven cul-de-sac. They were only talking about three courts and therefore, there would not be a great deal of traffic. Mr. Leary recommended only having two courts, to alleviate that concern.
Cathy of Brookhaven Drive was happy to have a conversation that was non-confrontational.

Ms. Debbie Weigel asked if the Board would consider not having any parking. Mr. Leary assumed that 50% of the people would walk up to the pickleball courts and 50% would drive.
Mr. George Cedar of Brookhaven pointed out that everyone in the room that was in favor of pickleball, did not live on Brookhaven Drive.
Mr. Tom Daddario of 1504 Drury Court looked at the announcements that were sent out to residents but could not figure out what was going on. Mr. Davis encouraged Mr. Daddario to review the agenda packages. Mr. Biagetti offered to gather any documents that were pertinent, but on the CDD website, under Additional District Documents, the pickleball sound study was posted.
Mr. Ralph Darling of 1929 Glenfield Crossing Court questioned why dual use of the tennis courts was ruled out. Mr. Davis offered to meet with Mr. Darling to discuss it.
Ms. Lisa Dunsky of 724 Eagle Point Drive questioned whether residents wanted something to happen and what it would take for the Board to vote on it. Mr. Davis indicated that it was a legislative Board and they had the ability to vote and make things happen.
Ms. Jill Flores of 1746 Pepper Stone Court asked if a cost analysis was prepared.
Mr. Leary confirmed that it was in an agenda package, but it was two years old.
There being no further comments, Mr. Biagetti closed the public comment period.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Amenities Booking Requests
Ms. Taylor reported that an amenity booking request was received from Mr. Bill and Brooke Curtin, for a half field rental on Saturday, December 6th for a birthday party from 10:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Approximately 20 kids would be using the field. This request was outside of their normal rentable time. Mr. Geary asked if there were regular Saturday morning events that may be disturbed by this request. Ms. Taylor did not think so, as most Fall leagues were completing their season. Mr. Davis requested that they be informed if it was raining, they could not use the field. Ms. Taylor would be present to enforce it.

On MOTION by Ms. Weitzel seconded by Mr. Leary with all in favor the amenity center request from Mr. Bill and Brooke Curtin for Saturday, December 6, 2025 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Landscaping Team
Report
Mr. Dylan Clackson of Ruppert Landscape, filling in for Mr. Oscar Meranda, presented a monthly report. Mr. Davis felt that they were doing a nice job of getting started. Mr. Leary noted that the soccer field overseeding looked great and liked the flyer that they included in the monthly newsletter. However, he voiced concern that the irrigation in front of the community, had been out for weeks and no one knew about it. This did not leave him with any confidence in Ruppert, as they performed an audit. In addition, the CDD was spending a great deal of money on sod and flowers and if the irrigation was not working consistently, they were wasting money. There was no irrigation in front of the community, and the flowers and plants were wilting. Ms. Taylor reported that she spoke with Mr. Meranda prior to this meeting regarding smart irrigation, but it was expensive, as they would have to convert a few things over, but the first step was to contact companies that offered smart irrigation, which were Rainbird and Hunter and have them survey the property and confirm that there could be smart irrigation. Once they find out whether it was for the entire community or for a section, it would be presented to the Board. Mr. Leary looked forward to getting that update.
Mr. Leary reported that he did a walkthrough with Ruppert and Vesta about six weeks ago. The dead tree was addressed, which he appreciated. They were looking at the tree canopy. The pavers looked horrendous, but there was a proposal. The palmetto bushes over by the tennis courts, looked shocking. The remediation from the work that the golf course did by the tennis court area, needed to be cleaned up. The grasses outside of the gym and the shrubs around the gym, have not been trimmed. The Bermuda grass adjacent to the soccer field, has not been mowed for five weeks. Mr. Clackson would follow up, by bringing this matter to Mr. Meranda’s attention. Mr. Leary reported that there was a big hole in the ground between the swimming pool and the soccer field and dirt was piled up. Mr. Clackson would corner off the area, as it was a safety concern. Mr. Leary wanted the community to look pristine and was embarrassed that families coming in for Thanksgiving, had to see the community look like this. Lastly, he was

concerned that the CDD paid $30,000 a year or so ago, to the golf course for their portion of the parking lot to be re-landscaped, but it looked horrible. If the golf course could not maintain it, the CDD should ask for some money back. Mr. Biagetti asked if it was Troon’s responsibility to maintain it. Mr. Leary replied affirmatively. Mr. Davidson reported that there had been some movement in the parking lot. They were pressing on the golf course, to get it back to the state of where it needed to be. Ms. Weitzel asked if the flowers that were planted, were expected to bloom. Mr. Clackson confirmed that it was his first time on this property and had not seen the flowers, but would follow up with Mr. Meranda regarding the irrigation issues.
Proposal for Dead Tree Replacement
Proposal for to Lift the Tree Canopies Along St. Johns Golf Drive
Ms. Taylor presented two proposals from Ruppert. The first one was to remove a dead tree on St. Johns Golf Drive and replace it with the same type of tree. The second proposal was to lift the tree canopies along St. Johns Golf Drive. However, she was hesitant to do so, as they just did this in September. Mr. Davis agreed, as it did not seem to be a problem. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the trees were in the dormant stage, at this time and would not grow a great deal, but recommended doing this in January or February, as the trees would start to grow again in March. Mr. Davis asked Ms. Taylor to look into lifting the tree canopies on Eagle Point Drive.
t

On MOTION by Ms. Weitzel seconded by Mr. Leary with all in favor the proposal from Ruppert Landscaping to replace a dead tree on St. Johns Golf Drive in the amount of $1,265 was approved.

There was Board consensus to table the proposal to lift the tree canopies along St. Johns Golf Drive until the growing season.
Attorney
There being none, the next item followed.
Engineer
Mr. Marcinell wished to withhold the amenities and Drury Court discussions until later in the meeting, but reported that the 105 Stone Bridge path repair was completed. He asked if Mr. Yuro wanted a final inspection, but did not receive confirmation. The Pond 20 control structure was cleaned and the grates were put back into place by Lake Doctors. At the time of the inspection, they did not see any continuous leakage.  However, there was a small leak, which

would be monitored. Mr. Davis asked if Pond 20 goes downstream. Mr. Marcinell indicated in the video near the orifice structure that maintains the water level in the pond, there appeared to be a crack inside of the structure that was allowing water to spray out. Mr. Davis pointed out that he questioned it because when he was walking his dog one day after a storm, fairway 12 was flooded in two different spots, which were downstream of Pond 20 and requested that Mr. Marcinell check with Troon. Mr. Leary recalled that this area historically flooded badly, but had not seen it that bad before. Mr. Davis confirmed that this was the worst that he had seen it. Mr. Marcinell would make a note of it. Mr. Davis was fine with it, if Troon did not have any concerns about it. Ms. Taylor noted that they did not have any rain since they cleaned the outflow structure and would ask that Troon continue to monitor it and if there was flooding during the next rain, they would work together to figure out what was going on.
District Manager – Update on the Goals & Objectives for Fiscal Year 2025
Mr. Biagetti recalled that two months ago, the Board set the goals and objectives for Fiscal Year 2026 and provided an update on the goals and objectives for Fiscal Year 2025. Mr. Leary asked if the goals have changed. Mr. Biagetti confirmed that they had not changed.

On MOTION by Mr. Leary seconded by Mr. Davis with all in favor the District performance measure standards and annual reporting from October 1, 2024 to September 1, 2025 were approved.

General Manager
Roadway Inspection (Item 5)
Ms. Taylor introduced Mr. Andrew Pelfrey, an arborist with Pelfrey Tree Service, who inspected the Oak trees. Mr. Pelfrey recalled that he was asked by Ms. Taylor to come out and look at the roots that were upheaving the pavement on Drury Court. This was common in a neighborhood with a maturing canopy. In this case, 20-year Live Oaks were planted close to the road and suggested cutting the roots with a clean cut, as opposed to ripping them with an excavator. On the other side, where sidewalks were starting to upheave and there were trip hazards and efforts were made to grind the sidewalk, he recommended replacing those areas with a pervious sidewalk, to give the trees more breathing room and not replace the curb against the tree trunk. There were some growth regulators that they could treat the trees with, if they undergo stress in this situation, such as Cambistat, which slows down the elongated growth of

the trees and roots and forces them to take the nutrients in and focus on what they currently have. They would use it for trees that were under stress or to reduce the trim cycle. If the Board was considering a canopy management plan, Mr. Pelfrey could provide a proposal as well as references. Mr. Davis thanked Mr. Pelfrey for coming and noted that the worst area was Drury Court, but there were areas on the other side of Eagle Point Drive, where water was pooling and the road was cracking and questioned their favorite solution and least favorite solution. Mr. Pelfrey pointed out that their least favorite solution was to remove and replace the tree, as his first choice would be to saw cut, patch those areas, pull the roots up neatly, re-laying it and putting enough asphalt in there where they were not damaging the roots. If they had to cut the roots, Mr. Pelfrey suggested doing it under the supervision of an arborist. Mr. Leary requested information on how widely the chemical was used and how long it was used. Mr. Pelfrey offered to provide a safety data sheet on the chemical. If there was a stressed-out tree, they would inject the chemical into the soil and include some micronutrients. Mr. Leary asked if the chemicals were permanent. Mr. Pelfrey stated they would temporarily restrain growth.
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. The grass carp installation was completed. A table was provided showing where the fish ended up, which was based on the size of the pond and the current fish.
Sidewalk Repair Update
This item would be discussed later in the meeting.
Roadway Inspection
This item was discussed.
Proposals for Access Control Upgrade
Ms. Taylor presented three proposals for the software/hardware update for the access control, one of which was for Alarm.com. A table was provided showing the installation and recurring fees. The cards would be coming from the same company. Unfortunately, an issue arose where they need a new access control panel for their current access control. This should be repaired if they did not want to have new software. Ms. Weitzel asked if the new access control panel was $4,077. Ms. Taylor confirmed that was the price for the current system. Ms. Weitzel understood that they would move towards being able to use cards or a mobile device. Mr. Davis

felt that the timing was no good, but if they did the access control for the tennis courts, they would have to redo the system to make that work. Ms. Taylor indicated that there would be a slight fee to reinstall it, but they would have to pay that fee whether they change the current system or get a new system. Mr. Leary pointed out that these were big companies. Ms. Taylor noted that ProdataKey dealt with strictly access control, while Keyscan Aurora and Alarm.com dealt with both access control and security. She worked with two out of the three and their sister company worked with the third one. They all had fairly high reviews, were well liked and had the ability of mobile access. Therefore, she was content with whatever route they chose. Mr. Leary questioned Ms. Taylor’s recommendation. Ms. Taylor recommended ProdataKey, as they used webpage software, which she was well versed in. With this software, she would be able to work with a desktop and see all of the gate statuses on her phone, to ensure that the system was working and unlock a gate if she needed to from her house. It was user friendly. Residents would be sent an email and they would download an App. It was Bluetooth enabled. She also liked Alarm.com, but they were more expensive. However, if they purchased new security cameras, they could integrate them together. She had no experience working with Aurora, but was confident in these three companies and was comfortable with whatever route the Board chose.
Mr. Davidson confirmed that a few of his communities used Aurora, such as Rivertown and Durbin Crossing. The owner of the company was very responsive, knowledgeable and resident friendly. He did not work with the other two, but felt that all of them were equal and whichever route the Board chose, they would get good service. Ms. Weitzel asked if there would still be two cards per household. Ms. Taylor confirmed that residents would receive two cards per household, plus use of their mobile device. There would be an age limit on when mobile credentials could be used, which was 16. A Resident asked if the mobile access would have a different phone number or the same access code. Ms. Taylor indicated that it was not actually a code. Residents would download an App and hold up their phone with their Bluetooth on. If a resident changed their phone, they would be sent a new email to re-register. Mr. Geary asked if there was any benefit to using Alarm.com, as it allowed for a camera feature. Ms. Taylor pointed out that Alarm.com was similar to ProdataKey. It was web page based and allowed for mobile credentials. A Resident asked how other communities control access, whether it had to be requested by the resident or would just be the people listed on the mortgage.  Ms. Taylor

explained that they would request proof of residency for anyone who was 18 years of older, such as a Warranty Deed or lease. In addition, they would perform a yearly audit. Mr. Leary voiced concern about stability, privacy and hacking and preferred having a company that was innovative. Ms. Weitzel was also concerned about hacking, but they needed to go with the changing times. However, she was not in favor of spending $4,000 for the new access control panel and then deciding in six months to go the smart route. They did not have to make a decision tonight.
Mr. Leary pointed out that Aurora wanted $24,000 upfront plus $12 per phone. Ms. Taylor indicated that they could do a fees hearing, to add a mobile credential fee. If they had 800 homes and one person per household got a mobile credential, the cost would be $9,600. Mr. Davidson felt that they could absorb the first one and if someone changed phones, they could pass that cost onto the resident. Some communities provide access cards and if the resident loses it, there was a fee to replace it. Mr. Davis noted that Alarm.com and ProdataKey had an occurring monthly fee and questioned what happens to that fee. Ms. Taylor pointed out that Alarm.com was more expensive because it included mobile credentials, but ProdataKey could offer mobile credentials without having a fee associated with it, which was why there was such a price difference. The $90 for ProdataKey had to do with the cloud system that goes with the access control panel. Mr. Leary asked if Ms. Taylor has done an installation with Alarm.com. Ms. Taylor confirmed that she was not present for the installation and did not have personal experience with it, but the tech that came out to do the survey, was very thorough. Mr. Leary pointed out that the cost for unlimited number of phones was $6,000, which seemed like a good middle ground option, as they would provide good quality in terms of support and integration. Mr. Geary questioned the difference between ProdataKey and Alarm.com. Mr. Leary voiced concern that ProdataKey were a small company. The company that was included with their security system, was small and they had many problems. Ms. Taylor pointed out that they did not work with the software representatives. They typically worked with installers.
Ms. Weitzel indicated that the installation fee was more with Aurora, but there were no recurring fees. Ms. Taylor confirmed that this was the case, because it was a license and once it was in the computer, they paid for the license. Ms. Weitzel surmised that eventually they would end up spending even more than what it would cost with Aurora, because with Alarm.com, they would spend $470 per month. Mr. Geary asked if the $12 per mobile phone was recurring. Ms.

Taylor explained that once the phone was registered, they would pay $12, but if they get a new phone, they were paying an additional $12. Mr. Geary felt that was a good point. Ms. Weitzel agreed, as they would end up spending more than they would even spend with Aurora with the recurring monthly fees. Mr. Davis calculated that Alarm.com had $5,500 fees in fees and in two years, they would be at $26,000, which was over the $24,500 installation fee for Aurora and ProdataKey was $16,000 for installation and $1,100 in fees. It would take eight years to get to the cost of the Aurora system, which was $24,500. Therefore, Mr. Davis was in favor of going with ProdataKey, but doing it next month. Ms. Taylor preferred to approve it tonight, but would do whatever the Board wanted.
Mr. Geary was in favor of ProdataKey, but was concerned that he did not know enough about these companies. Ms. Taylor liked that the installer for ProdataKey, who worked with multiple software companies, used ProdataKey for their own company. Ms. Weitzel liked the idea of having a set price and did not like having reoccurring fees. Mr. Geary questioned what incentive they had to service the CDD once they sold the system. Ms. Weitzel liked that Mr. Davidson worked with them at Rivertown. Mr. Davis clarified that he was more concerned that they would walk away from their software, as the company that they had right now, stopped rolling out updates to their software. Therefore, he liked the one and done fee structure. Mr. Leary agreed that they should be getting updates and questioned where this money would be coming from. Ms. Taylor confirmed that there were some line items that they did not utilize the funds. Ms. Weitzel was in favor of approving the proposal from Aurora. Mr. Davis was in favor of ProdataKey. Mr. Geary was not in favor of ProdataKey and was not necessarily in favor of Aurora, but questioned how this came about. Mr. Davis explained that this conversation took place a couple of months ago, because the company that was running their existing system, would no longer support the software, which was more likely to happen with a company that charged a flat fee, but no recurring fee. Mr. Davidson suggested following up with Aurora and asking these questions, as these concerns were valid. Therefore, the Board should table this matter.
A Resident asked if there was a contract for extended years. Ms. Taylor recalled signing a three-year contract for ProdataKey for Fleming Island and at the end of three years, there would potentially be a re-adjustment. Mr. Davis estimated three years was $15,000 for installation and another $3,000 in reoccurring fees, which was still under $20,000 for

ProdataKey, versus Aurora which was $24,500 in the first three years. Mr. Leary felt that it would be helpful to know what additional information they needed in order to make a decision by the next meeting. Mr. Davis wanted to ask Aurora if they would stay on top of their software and not let it age out and ask Alarm.com if the $465 per month would go up or could it be locked in and what they were paying for. If they locked in the $465 cost for three years, they were at
$30,000 for three years, which was higher than Aurora. There was Board consensus for these questions to be answered in December. Ms. Taylor reported for the security contract, she did find rates for unarmed versus armed guards. For all three security companies, their hourly holiday rate was 1.5 times their normal hourly rate. However, she did not include this in the yearly tentative cost, but it would be included in the current schedule. If they were to look at having an unarmed guard, they could increase the schedule to seven days a week, which was within their budget line item. In addition, there was a security vehicle in their parking lot, which was currently $160 per week or $8,000 per year. However, she did not include that into the budget for unarmed guards. This would just put them over the budget line, if they intended to keep the vehicle. Mr. Leary indicated that he was out of town for the meeting where the security vehicle was discussed, but was not in favor of removing the vehicle, as it was a strong deterrent. Mr. Biagetti announced that there would be a closed session to discuss security, at the end of the meeting.
Tennis Court Demo and Basketball Court Asphalt
Ms. Taylor reported that Nitty came out yesterday to evaluate the tennis and basketball courts and determined like everyone else, that both needed be completely demolished and rebuilt. There were two proposals, which were around $450,000 for four tennis courts and two basketball courts, because the asphalt under the surface of the tennis courts, was starting to disintegrate, which why the cracks came back so quickly after the resurfacing. On the basketball courts, there were many cracks leading into the base itself, which allowed water to get in there. In speaking with all of the vendors, the tennis courts would be a higher priority compared to the basketball courts. Ms. Weitzel questioned the price if they did not do the basketball courts right away. Mr. Davis recalled that one of the quotes was $300,000 and the other was $330,000 for the four tennis courts and $100,000 for the basketball courts. A Resident who was a tennis player asked if it accounted for tree or stump removal. Ms. Taylor indicated that they would be able to cut the root; however, the tree would continue to grow.  Therefore, they must look at

removal and putting in a different tree, which would be an additional fee that was not included in the demo. Mr. Davis did another walk around the tennis courts and felt that the two trees in between the tennis courts should come out and preferred in the long term, not as part of this project, turning it into a project where they do something interesting with the space between the courts, such as tearing down a section of the tall fence, putting down some pavers and bleachers and making it a pass through. In addition, there were drainage issues and requested that an engineer provide an opinion.
Ms. Weitzel questioned with the current condition of the tennis courts, the lifespan that was left. Ms. Taylor indicated that Nitty stated there were two years left until it became a safety concern. Mr. Davis felt that it was already a safety concern. Ms. Weitzel agreed, as she tripped on the tennis court. The Resident who was a tennis player felt that the water was creating a safety concern, as it created mildew on the tennis courts and made them slippery. There were also mushrooms growing in the cracks. Mr. Leary noticed hairline cracks when he walked the courts and voiced concern that the CDD would spend $500,000 and they would end up with cracks again. In addition, there were no complaints about the tennis courts until tonight. Ms. Weitzel recalled being the one who raised the issue about the tennis courts and asking them to check it out. Mr. Leary was unaware of this. The Resident suggested having clay courts. Mr. Davis asked if they mentioned clay courts to these vendors. Ms. Taylor did not mention it, due to the constant maintenance of clay courts. The Resident did not see the need for a permanent structure between Courts 2 and 3, but liked having benches, so that spectators could sit; however, resurfacing was the issue, which was why they were considering demolition. Mr. Geary questioned the warranty, if they start seeing cracks. Ms. Taylor would check. Mr. Leary questioned why he was hearing that it would cost $400,000 and then seeing another price of
$85,000. Mr. Davis recalled that Duval would do the asphalting for $85,000. Ms. Taylor pointed out that Duval would do the asphalt layer, but they still needed someone to do the tennis court layer, resealing, painting and the membrane. Mr. Leary asked whether Duval did courts before. Ms. Taylor confirmed that they did the asphalt portion.
A Resident voiced concern about using a subcontractor, as there would be finger pointing if there was a problem. Mr. Davis felt that the right way to address that, would be to add the Duval proposal, but they should ask Duval about the amount of asphalt, as their proposal showed
1.25 inches, but the other vendors stated 1.5 inches. Mr. Leary suggested obtaining proposals

with a breakdown in cost, for comparison purposes and finding out how long the courts would be closed for. Ms. Taylor believed that the demo would take three to four weeks, depending on the weather and it would take four months to complete everything. A Resident asked if they would do all of the courts at the same time or it would be broken out into segments. Ms. Taylor indicated if they did all four courts at the same time, it would take a month and less time if they did it in phases. However, the tennis courts were hard to get to and they might want to get a potential agreement with the golf course, to go through the sidewalk by the putting area, which would be the easiest route. Otherwise, they would have to go through the golf cart path. Mr. Davis pointed out that they would have to figure out what the general idea would be for landscaping and assumed that fencing was part of the proposals. Ms. Taylor recalled that one proposal definitely included fencing, but would have to double check the second one. Mr. Davis requested a grid of demo, layers of installation, fencing and have a sense of what the landscaping would cost. Before Vesta took over, there was a proposal from BrightView to remove the bushes and move them back 1 foot away from the fence. Ms. Taylor would try to find it. In addition, Mr. Davis requested that Ms. Taylor talk with the vendors about installing drainage, not on the court, but in the landscaping and separate the basketball courts from the tennis courts. Ms. Taylor would prepare a table and provide at the next meeting.
Ms. Taylor prepared a list of addresses where there were visual roadway impacts. She was unable to do one on water pooling, but once it rained, she would be able to prepare one. Ruppert had their arborist come out and review the Oaks, as they had huge root systems that continued to grow. A permanent solution would be to remove those trees; however, that was not the route they were looking for. Unfortunately, it would be similar to how they were treating the sidewalks and would be an ongoing project and they needed to ensure that they were budgeting appropriately. She would continue to talk with the arborist and find solutions, such as a phased approach. Mr. Leary appreciated the photos, as they were helpful, but voiced concern about not having a vendor to do this work, as this was not a sidewalk company. It was a road company and they needed to find vendors to get bids and quotes, but appreciated Ms. Taylor’s research. Mr. Davidson would get with Curb Solutions and Duval Asphalt. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Marcinell’s opinion on the curbing and roadway. Mr. Marcinell had a conversation with the arborist about not trimming so close to it, as it would end up killing the trees, but there were not many

solutions, other than to remove the curb and re-install it. The only true solution was to remove the trees and replant something else and finding a contractor that was willing to do the work.
Mr. Davidson recalled that the Grand Haven community in Palm Coast was going through a similar issue and recently, he went through almost a two-hour workshop discussion with a lady who came in and provided some information and was happy to reach out to her to come up here and provide this information to the Board. Mr. Marcinell recalled a community in Palm Coast that used a partial pipe system that allowed the roots to live underneath it, with the sidewalk above it. These were options to delay it. Ms. Weitzel felt that the trees were specific to their community and every year they needed to budget money for it. Ms. Taylor reported that a concern was received about Pond 20’s outfall structure and how slow the pond water was draining. She was able to get Lake Doctors to come out to clear out the vegetation on the side that was growing, as well as dead vegetation. They were able to clean out the vegetation on the side and inside, as well as to get the metal grate back up. The engineer did come out to inspect it, but there was no true safety hazard at this time.
Monument Tile Repair
Ms. Taylor reported that there were some tiles missing from the monument. A vendor was able to come out quickly and provided a proposal to color match it, but it would not be perfect because the current tiles were older and sun stained. The vendor would clean the two front monuments by CR 210, grout it and re-seal it, to provide a more uniform look for $4,000, which was within industry range. This vendor was recommended by a sister community. There was only one proposal, as it was hard to find tile vendors that were responsive, reliable and performed satisfactory work. Ms. Weitzel asked if there were two broken tiles. Ms. Taylor confirmed that there were two visible broken tiles, which were already taken care of and this proposal was to fix the rest of the tiles that were broken that were not so visible. Mr. Leary preferred to table this proposal. Ms. Weitzel agreed, as they may want to redo the monument at some point. There was Board consensus.
Paver Repair
Ms. Taylor received a price of $2,400 from a vendor that was recommended by a sister location, to install pavers leading to the tennis courts and edging. The reason why they were shifting so much, was the concrete edging that was supposed to be near the pavers to stop them from shifting, disintegrated. She preferred to handle this with a sense of urgency, as the District’s insurance agent performed an insurance walk through and this was one point of

reference that they made. Mr. Davidson tried to contact other vendors, but was not successful in receiving feedback from them. He worked with this vendor in several locations and they were reliable and do a good job. There were other sections that needed attention and this vendor would provide proposals. Discussion ensued.

On MOTION by Mr. Davis seconded by Mr. Geary with all in favor the proposal to repair the pavers leading to the tennis courts in the amount of $2,400 was approved.

A Resident asked if the golf course helped contribute money towards the maintenance, as it was by the golf cart parking. Mr. Davis indicated that the golf course pays taxes. Mr. Leary pointed out if this was golf course property, they should pay for it, but it was CDD property. Mr. Davis recalled that there was no landscaping in this section and wanted to do something to solve that problem. Mr. Davidson noted in the budget season, staff would have a list of items and they could budget for these items in the next three years. Ms. Taylor reported that the playground renovations were completely done, including the painting and mulching. They were just waiting for the climbing pieces for the rock wall and once received, they would install them and open the playground temporarily on Sunday or early next week. Her goal was to open by Thanksgiving. The spring riders were on the maintenance schedule, as they had some items that popped up that they did not anticipate. Ms. Weitzel questioned when the fencing would come in. Ms. Taylor was told that it would arrive next week, but with the holidays, they may not come in until the following week. They were able to repair the sidewalks that were on the list that was provided to the Board at the end of October. She asked Precision Sidewalk to survey streets in sections. The Board could approve a not-to-exceed amount or approve a range. She was told that a not-to-exceed of $15,000 would cover all of the sidewalks on the four streets. Mr. Davis questioned a lifted sidewalk panel with a blue dot on it on Eagle Point Drive. Ms. Taylor explained that there were a couple on Eagle Point and Stonehedge Trail Lane that would be replaced because they were too high. They would continue to provide her with a list and if there was anything that they could not repair, it would be replaced. Mr. Davis wanted to pace out the sidewalk repairs, so it was not a burden on the budget and was fine waiting a couple of months before they move onto the next round. Mr. Geary agreed.

Regarding the gym, Ms. Taylor was waiting for the weight plate and weight rack to arrive, which should be in the next couple of weeks. Once it arrived, it was an easy installation. She had not received any communication from the HOA representative about information they provided homeowners about the driveway aprons. She only found two on her drive through that were raised, compared to the adjacent sidewalk panel. She did not look at driveway aprons going to the curbing or if the driveway itself was raised. She was only looking where pedestrian walkways would be and was hoping to get direction from the Board on how to approach it. Mr. Geary felt that they needed to have direction on this, take a stance and stick with it. Ms. Weitzel agreed, as they were getting more and more emails from residents about it. Mr. Davis felt that it needed to be a homeowner responsibility and should be pursued through the HOA, as some people replaced it with concrete and others used a different level of material. Mr. Geary agreed. A Resident asked who would be responsible if he tripped on a driveway apron. Mr. Davis indicated it would be a question for an attorney, but the CDD was doing its best to ensure that the sidewalks were walkable. Mr. Leary concurred that it was a homeowner responsibility. Mr. Davis recalled that the HOA wanted to replace the entire driveway, but the CDD was not asking for that. All the CDD was asking for, was the apron. Mr. Davis requested that 2 Men replace the sidewalk panel at 413 St. Johns Golf Drive, as it was next to where the kid fell and broke his arm.
Ms. Taylor reported that a water slide inspection was performed, to ensure that the interior of the slide was up to standards. Their findings would be provided to the Board at the December meeting. It was common to do a resurfacing regularly and re-caulking sections of the slide where there were no safety concerns. The field looked nice with the Winter rye grass. She did not have time to look at the Amenity Center sign, which was next to the parking lot, but would be bringing suggestions at the December meeting. Holiday decorations started to go up; however, she misunderstood the directive and only changed the snowflake lighted designs. Those were all the same; however, there were still some mixed lights and was more than happy to meet with the vendor after this season, to discuss a more comprehensive look for the community for the next season. There were no new updates about Summer Camp. Registration would be open on January 5th. Two websites were provided to the Board from their sister locations that had newsletters where local businesses or residents with businesses, advertise their business in the newsletter for a fee. Mr. Davis recalled at the last meeting, the Board decided not

to pursue it. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the Board wanted some examples. Resident Appreciation Day was held, which 45 residents attended and received a free mini bunt cake. Goat Yoga was held on November 15th, which 20 people attended with the four goats. They would hold one again in January. The food drive ended today. They had a ton of donations, which she was appreciative of, that would be provided to the St. Johns Food Pantry tomorrow. In December, they were doing a holiday themed cocktail making class and on the 11th, there would be letters from Santa. Countdown to Christmas was on the 13th, where participants could get a photo with Santa and Mrs. Claus. There will also be a toy drive for the Ronald McDonald House. Residents were asked to bring new unopened toys. They were finishing off the year with their eighth annual Jingle Jog on Friday evening. It was $25 per person.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Amenity Policy Upgrades
Mr. Leary suggested that this item be deferred to the next meeting, so Board Members had quality time to go through the Amenity Policy, unless there was something urgent to address. Ms. Taylor indicated that the most urgent one was the Golf Cart Policy, as Florida Law changed for who could operate a golf cart. The age range was currently 15, with a valid learners permit or 16 or older with a valid Driver’s License. Mr. Davis recommended keeping all of the detailed language, but include a note that it was per Florida State Law. He requested changing the language about reserving the field for sport teams, as one team was not playing by the rules. Ms. Taylor pointed out that all Fall sports leagues were concluded at this time. Mr. Davis noted that there was a list of various sports and soccer and football should be added. He wanted to clear this up before the next set of requests, because of the problems that they had with that recently. Ms. Weitzel recalled that there were current policies for reserving it Monday through Friday, but they had issues with the weekend. Mr. Leary wanted to make it clear that it was not available for reservation on the weekend without Board approval. Ms. Weitzel voiced concern about use of the field at own risk, as there were many recent issues with people being kicked off of the soccer field and felt that they needed to clear up the language. Mr. Davis noted that it was a security issue. Ms. Taylor wanted to preface the difference between dawn and dusk and sunrise and sunset. Mr. Geary pointed out that it changed every day, but sunrise and sunset was a specific time. Mr. Davidson indicated that in other communities, it was generally 30 minutes before or 30 minutes after. Ms. Weitzel asked if signs were posted. Ms. Taylor confirmed that they did

not post signs, but would love to install a bulletin board for posting the sunrise/sunset times and field rules. Mr. Davis felt that was reasonable, as they could also post any reservations. Ms. Taylor would look at prices for bulletin boards. This item was tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Davis requested that the green growth over the top of bulkhead on Pond 24, be addressed, so they did not have degradation of the wall. Ms. Taylor would have the entire bulkhead addressed.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Driveway Repair Procedure
Ms. Weitzel requested that this item be listed separately, as residents were sending them emails. This item was discussed.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Drury Root Damage Issue
This item was discussed.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion  of  Future  Amenity  Capital
Improvements
Pool Deck Renovation
Mr. Davis was happy to see updated quotes from Urban Edge, as well as Matthews version of the work that was required, but wanted side by side comparisons, to help highlight the key aspects. Mr. Geary asked if their revised pricing was reflected on the spreadsheet. Ms. Taylor recalled that Mr. Laughlin was waiting for the revised pricing, but the spreadsheet was updated, as it showed 11-14-2025. Mr. Davidson had a conversation with Mr. Laughlin. It included the proposal for $188,000. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the proposals included tax, which would be removed and the subtotal was $164,679. The proposal for $182,639, was for some additional work that would best fit the community. Mr. Davis suggested tabling this item until the next meeting, so that all five Board Members could make a decision. There was Board consensus.
Amenity Meeting Room Upgrade – Proposal from Matthews for Construction Services
Mr. Leary reported that he met with the architect, Bhide & Hall, to discuss one change in the spec, to include a door for code reasons, that would go out to a concrete pad. The mechanical, electrical drawings and specs were completed. The architectural drawings and specs would be completed by Thanksgiving. All of this information would be ready to go back out to the construction companies, such as Bradshaw, which had the lowest estimate. He would follow

up with them, as they could possibly formalize their quote by December and obtain further quotes, so that by the December or January meeting, they should have final costs on this project. A Resident asked if they would still be doing the work by the end of the Summer after camp. Mr. Leary pointed out if they could get final estimates by December and make a decision, they could talk with the contractor to see if they could get it completed before June. Mr. Leary asked if Mr. Biagetti could follow up with Mr. Laughlin regarding this project.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration  of  Resolution  2026-01,
Amending the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Mr. Biagetti presented Resolution 2026-01, Amending the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, which was included in the agenda package. This was the process to reallocate funds budgeted to bring what was actually spent, for auditing purposes. There was an increase of $4,467. Mr. Leary questioned the increase in pool maintenance and amenity center and decrease in repairs and maintenance. Ms. Taylor believed that one got over coded and one was under coded. Mr. Davis pointed out that these were changes to the budget that were already closed. Mr. Biagetti confirmed that it was for Fiscal Year 2025 and did not change the actual bottom line. Mr. Davis suggested that Ms. Taylor and Mr. Laughlin provide an explanation at the next meeting, as to these changes. Mr. Leary recalled that adjustments were made in telephone and cable, because they under budgeted, but it increased by $6,000 and requested an explanation. Mr. Haber requested that the Board make a motion to adopt the resolution, as there was a deadline and Mr. Laughlin could provide input at the next meeting.

On MOTION by Mr. Davis seconded by Mr. Geary with all in favor Resolution 2026-01, Amending the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget was adopted.

THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Contracts Review
Mr. Biagetti presented the Contract List, which was included in the agenda package.
Nothing has changed.

FOURTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors’ Request
There being none, the next item followed.

FIFTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comments
The following residents addressed the Board:
Mr. John Dodi of 908 Brookhaven Drive voiced concern about e-bikes and motorbikes. Mr. Leary indicated that there would be specific policies for the amenities, but felt that this was a law enforcement matter. The Board created new policies into these policies, but it has not been included yet. Mr. Didi further pointed out that he received a letter from the HOA to paint their mailbox, but every street sign and light post, were in bad condition. Mr. Davis requested that Ms. Taylor add the street sign and light posts to their continuous maintenance list. Mr. Leary recalled that Ms. Taylor was handling the entrance signs. Mr. Dodi questioned why there were changes in the quality of the landscaping. Mr. Davis confirmed that the landscaping company recently changed. Mr. Dodi appreciated all of the hard work of the Board and even though residents complained, it was not directed towards the Board. Mr. Davis recalled when the landscaper was changed to BrightView three years ago, it took them awhile to come up to speed and Ruppert was in the same place.
A Resident spoke about a problem with the sprinkler system. Mr. Leary confirmed that there was a mainline rupture on CR 210, which was sorted out.
Mr. Davis questioned the lamppost that was knocked down. Ms. Taylor was working on it. She had to get estimates from their vendor.
The Resident noted that the landscaping on Eagle Point Drive going towards Brookhaven looked nice, but thought that they were going to trim the trees. Mr. Leary requested that any landscaped issues be reported. Mr. Davis preferred that there be a committee to discuss what they should be doing with their landscaping. Mr. Leary requested that this item be addressed at the next meeting, along with the policies, security and Fiscal Year 2026.
A Resident questioned what was decided with the tennis courts. Mr. Davis recalled that they were gathering more information, in order to get quotes and figure out how to fund it.

SIXTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Consent Agenda
Minutes of October 16, 2025 Meeting
Financial Statements as of October 31, 2025
Check Register
Mr. Biagetti presented the minutes of the October 16, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting, Financial Statements as of October 31st and Check Register for November 20, 2025, for the General Fund in the amount of $115,916.42 and Capital Reserve Fund in the amount of
$39,114.40, which were included in the agenda package. Tax bills were sent out at the beginning of November and assessments would start to be received at the end of this month. There was a positive variance of $34,000 on the expense side.

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

SEVENTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Proposals for Security Services
This item was tabled.

EIGHTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting – December 18,
2025 @ 6:00 p.m. @ St. Johns Golf & Country Club Meeting Room
Mr. Biagetti stated that the next meeting as scheduled for December 18, 2025 at 6:00
p.m. at this location.

NINETEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

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

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman