MINUTES OF MEETING
AMELIA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Amelia Walk Community Development District was held Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. at the Amelia Walk Amenity Center, 85287 Majestic Walk Boulevard, Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Gregg Kern	Chairman
Mike Taylor	Vice Chairman (by phone)
Rose Bock	Supervisor
John Murphy	Supervisor
Mike Harbison	Supervisor

Also present were:

Daniel Laughlin	District Manager
Jason Walters	District Counsel (by phone)
Dan McCranie	District Engineer
Michael Molineaux	Evergreen Lifestyles Management

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Laughlin called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. and called the roll.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments
There being no comments, the next item followed.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the December
11, 2019 Meeting
There were no comments on the minutes.

On MOTION by Ms. Bock seconded by Mr. Harbison with all in favor the Minutes of the December 11, 2019 meeting were approved.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Proposals for Preparation
of an Updated Reserve Study
Community Advisors
Dreux Isaac
Reserve Advisors

Mr. Laughlin stated I was asked to obtain proposals to update the capital reserve study at the last meeting. You’ll see we have three proposals from Community Advisors, Dreux Isaac, and Reserve Advisors. GMS has worked with each of these firms and I’d say they’re all qualified to do the job. The biggest factor to separate these would be the price.
Mr. Harbison asked looking at the balance sheet, are we referring to the reserve balances in the bond sections, or the reserves in the fund balance?
Mr. Laughlin responded these would be the capital reserve funds. It should have its own budget in here. Previously, we had Dreux Isaac prepare the reserve study and it was completed in 2014.
Mr. Harbison asked so it’s just that one line then, which is about $3,000,000? Mr. Kern asked is it not part of the general fund?
Mr. Laughlin responded it’s in there. That’s the contribution we make for the year in the general fund because the money comes from there. On page three of the general fund we have the reserves on the bottom at $100,000. That’s just showing what is coming out for the year into the capital reserve account.
Mr. Harbison stated it shows the capital projects fund beginning balance at $5,036,220.
Mr. Laughlin stated that’s for the bond series. Those are just reserve funds that are kept in there. We used the capital reserve money last year to resurface the pool, so the $100,000 that we’re putting in this year is going to be what is in the account.
Mr. Harbison asked what is the balance now?
Mr. Laughlin responded we’ve transferred $33,000 so far. We will transfer money over time sometimes because we get money from the County in payments rather than all at once, but by the time we have all of our assessment money in, we will have deposited $100,000 into the capital reserve account.
Mr. Harbison asked so we’re looking to spend a couple thousand dollars just to re- estimate a fund that’s only at $100,000?
Mr. Laughlin responded the reserve study is a 20 to 30-year plan.
Mr. Kern stated they will tell you in 10 years you should expect to spend $100,000 to resurface your roadways and they will do the same for the building roof, or a pool resurfacing so that gives us a good budget number for those reserves to say we expect to spend ‘X’ amount of dollars in the next 10 or 20 years.

Mr. Harbison asked what is a ballpark of that ‘X’ amount? Mr. Kern responded that’s what they’re going to tell us.
Mr. Laughlin responded the current reserve study breaks everything down in various ways. In this one you’ll see they have the year, and right now we’re in 2020 and these are where the funds are going that we will be putting away so they’re recommending this year we put $65,000 in the capital reserve account.
Mr. Harbison stated so it’s over 10 years, so it’s a budget of roughly $700,000 or
$800,000.
Mr. Laughlin stated it goes out 30 years, but it gets a little out of date when it goes out that far. It’s really just a plan on how much you should be saving each year.
Mr. Harbison stated I’m just trying to see if it’s worth the cost, versus how much the money is as opposed to you just picking a number because you have just as much experience as they do.
Mr. Laughlin stated we always recommend these for communities like this, especially ones that are getting older. My company won’t know when an A/C unit might go out, or when the roof needs to be repaired and that’s what this will help estimate. They will say it has a 10- year lifespan and you’ve had it for four years, so you can expect in six years you’re going to have to replace it, so they have you put away a fraction of that replacement cost for the next six years.
Ms. Bock stated I live in a CDD and have acted as Chair for that CDD in the past and we used one of these companies and we expanded our fitness center, we’re now taking on a road repaving project and it’s been very valuable to us to have that because you have a professional. Daniel might know from experience what it might be, but it’s not what he does every day.
Mr. Harbison stated so in terms of doing your annual capital project budget essentially? Ms. Bock stated right.
Mr. Harbison asked and that includes resurfacing of your roads?
Ms. Bock stated well it does in my CDD, because the County does not accept roads in St. Johns County anymore, so we have to repave them all. I don’t know if it’s the same here.
Mr. Laughlin stated it’s the same here.

Mr. Kern stated the roads are actually the main driving factor in this. Mr. McCranie did an assessment a couple years ago and said in ‘X’ amount of years we should expect to spend a couple $100,000 in repaving, so that was really the big component of the budget and I think it just gives you something to base your decisions off of so you don’t leave yourself short and all of the sudden you need to repair a road and it cost you $100,000, but there’s no money left in the fund and now you have to do a special assessment and everybody has to pay that one-time upfront fee instead of being able to spread it out.
Mr. Laughlin stated the first proposal we have is Community Advisors. The owner actually just did Amelia Concourse and I’ve worked with him in a few districts.
Ms. Bock stated I’ve worked with him too in a couple of districts and he’s very levelheaded and we’ve been following his advice in my community.
Mr. Laughlin stated his cost is $1,800. Next we have Dreux Isaac, which is the firm that did the current study we have, and their fee is $3,200. Lastly, we have Reserve Advisors, and their fee would be $3,300.
Ms. Bock asked does this meet the threshold where you have to take the lowest bidder? Mr. Laughlin stated no that’s a very high amount.
Mr. Kern stated based on the recommendation and the experience of the other Board member, I would make a motion to approve the Community Advisors proposal for the reserve study.
Mr. Harbison asked how much was the Reserve Advisors fee? Mr. Laughlin stated $3,300.
Mr. Harbison stated okay I see, that was the full fee. So, you were saying Community Advisors and you’ve worked with them before?
Mr. Laughlin stated yes on other districts.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Ms. Bock with all in favor Community Advisors proposal for preparation of a reserve study report was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Resolution	2020-03,
Adopting an Internal Controls Policy

Mr. Walters stated as we do from time to time, over the last several years you’ve heard us doing our legislative updates and this is one of the statutory changes that came last year through the session. It requires the District to have an internal control policy, so we do so by resolution and the policy itself is attached behind the resolution as Exhibit A. This is largely taken from the statute itself and the requirements, and then some of the accounting procedures and guidelines. Candidly, these are the type of controls that the District has had in place for the last decade or so. As you all know, we have an annual audit that tests a lot of these type of controls and you’ll see that in the management letter where it makes statements like, we did not find any occasions of X,Y, or Z and those are the types of controls that this is generally referring to, but we are now required by statute to have a policy and this is what we propose to the Board. Just as a reference too, this is a policy we’re rolling out to the districts we represent around the State, not just this one.
Mr. Harbison stated when I first looked at this, I thought this seems very mechanical, cut and dry and all that. We need very different kinds of things, like some specific types of expenses or amounts. We need to define who reviews them, when and that kind of stuff, but if this is simply to have a policy in place based on statutory requirements, then I can support what is here, but I’d like to at some point move that we add some other specific kinds of things. I need to get a better handle on what is to go in the life of the CDD; is it really just financing, are there things other than the roads, etc. and I don’t really have a good handle on that yet, so I was suggesting to Daniel that I could either come down there and meet with somebody, or meet with Jason to get a better handle on that. For the purposes of today, I can support what is there in this policy.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Harbison with all in favor resolution 2020-03, adopting an internal controls policy was approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Proposal from Trim All
for Berm Landscape Enhancements
Mr. Kern stated as we’ve developed, we have multiple areas in the community that are common areas that the CDD owns that we will look to make landscaping/irrigation type improvements, so this is a section that backs up to the haul road, it’s a landscape berm. Michael assisted me in collecting a proposal for the work. There is irrigation available in the

area, so that’s helpful. It started off a little bit more than this, but we went through some value engineering if you will, to get it to something that’s very comparable to what is existing in the community, but not going to cost a whole lot. You can see the breakdown of the material going in there. The proposal is for $12,323.
Mr. Murphy stated so we’re talking about along the haul road along the back there. Will this help us prevent some of the flooding issues we had previously? I know we shored up the back side of that with the berm, etc. Is this just a continuation of that process or is this something in addition to that we need to do?
Mr. Kern responded I don’t know that it’s really in continuation or an addition, it’s really a continuation of that theme of the berm and landscaping between us and the haul road. It’s on the other side of that haul road and it’s a District owned property. Speaking to drainage, I did send a proposed plan to Dan to have him look at just to make sure we weren’t blocking anything up or creating issues.
Mr. Murphy stated only because in the past it’s been a very sensitive issue.  Mr. Kern stated if anything it would keep water from coming into the property.
Mr. Harbison stated in the general fund budget analysis down in repairs and maintenance there’s a variance to date on landscaping extras, flowers and mulch, of almost the same number. They’re not related though, are they?
Mr. Kern stated I don’t suspect so.
Mr. Laughlin stated that’s up to this point, so you’ll see that it is over budget and that happens. At the end of the fiscal year we will do budget amendments. Essentially, some items are going to be under budget and some of them are going to be over, you just move money around to balance out the line items.
Mr. Harbison stated this will have to come from somewhere.
Mr. Kern stated the intent was as we develop these new landscape areas, they are funded through the construction funds of the bond proceeds for those projects, so it’s not going to hit the general fund. That would be if we were replacing a tree or turf in an existing area. If we’re doing new installation it’s more of a capital improvement project, so the intent was to have those funded through the construction funds.
Mr. Laughlin stated yes, that will go through the requisition process.

Ms. Bock stated I have to ask a question about those beavers. You’re talking about the water. Are those involved at all in this?
Mr. Kern stated not unless they have a hard time getting through a landscape berm.
Maybe Michael will have an update for us when we get to Community Manager.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Murphy with all in favor the proposal from Trim All for berm landscape enhancements was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
District Counsel
There being nothing to report, the next item followed.
District Engineer
Ratification of Requisition Nos. 34-39 (2018 Area 3B) and 60-62 (2018A)
Mr. McCranie stated number 34 is to Earthworks for phase 4B construction. Number 35 is to Earthworks for phase 5 construction. Number 36 is McCranie & Associates for our engineering services, that does encompass six months. Number 37 is Hopping, Green & Sams for $391. Number 38 is to Earthworks for phase 5 construction, and number 39 is to Earthworks for phase 4B construction. Also included for ratification is number 60 to Earthworks for phase 4A construction, 61 is to Hopping, Green & Sams for 4A legal items, and number 62 is to Earthworks for phase 4A construction.
Mr. Harbison asked did I hear you say that these were already reviewed and paid?
Mr. McCranie stated they were reviewed, approved and paid. They didn’t need to come to the Board because they had to be paid between meetings based on contracts, so these have to get ratified you. The next ones for consideration are for your review/approval and have not been signed or paid.
Mr. Harbison stated so the Board reviews things. The Board reviews a contract before it’s been signed. Why do we bother to ratify them?
Mr. Laughlin stated we’re in a contract with them. When we don’t have monthly meetings, for example our last meeting was in December, it has to be paid in a timely manner, so in cases like this, the engineer reviews the work, signs off on it if it’s good to go and sends it

to the Chairman who then reviews it and signs it. Typically, we don’t have skipped meetings and will have less ratifications because we will be within the timeframe to approve them.
Mr. Harbison stated it seems to me then, that we should have an internal control policy that the Chairman has the authority and responsibility to approve these things between meetings.
Mr. Kern stated that’s my understanding is that the Chairman has the authority based on prompt payments and those type of things and it’s generally for something that is already under contract so if it’s a stipulated pay under an existing contract, then you can go ahead and approve it outside of a meeting.
Mr. Harbison stated I’m trying to get the point that should be the focus of review and analysis and it sounds like we’re saying it’s the contract, and the contract is reviewed by the Board in detail before it’s signed and all that.
Mr. Laughlin stated it’s also reviewed by the engineer and counsel.
Mr. Walters stated there’s several layers to this as well. The requisition is part of what we call the financing package. If you think of it as kind of a loan term, the bondholders have funded ‘X’ amount of money for the construction of the project, that goes into the trustee-held accounts and the trustee is not authorized to release those funds without several steps being taken. One of those is the approval of the agreement, which we did at inception, then the pay applications have to come in from the contractor and the engineer has to review those. That requisition then goes to the trustee, the trustee reviews them, and then they release the funds directly to the contractor, so there are a lot of built-in controls on that. Generally, if you look at our rules of procedure, I think the Chairman has the authority to sign those, because they’re pursuant to an executed and approved contract. We certainly could have some additional specificity in a policy that we may come up with in the future, so that’s something to keep on your list.
Mr. Harbison stated I’m just thinking of recognizing how we actually do it. If it makes sense to do it that way, then put that in the policy.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Ms. Bock with all in favor requisitions 34-39 (2018 area 3B) and 60-62 (2018A) were ratified.

Consideration of Requisition Nos. 40-42 (2018 Area 3B) and Requisition No. 63 (2018A)
Mr. McCranie stated number 40 is to Earthworks for phase 4B construction, their final draw. Number 41 is to Hopping, Green & Sams for legal services, and number 42 is for the central installation of mailboxes; it’s 50% of their deposit. Number 63 is to Earthworks for phase 4A final draw, so it’s the companion to number 40.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Murphy requisitions 40-42 (2018 area 3B) and 63 (2018A) were approved.

Ratification of Earthworks Change Order No. 3 for Calumet Repairs
Mr. McCranie stated two months ago or maybe longer, we were requested by the Board to get contracts for two areas of work; one is the Williston cul-de-sac that we received a proposal for, and then work at Calumet, which is the intersection of Calumet and Berryessa, in which we have some problems. I have reviewed both of those and also went out after a storm event and took pictures of the complaint. The complaint is that the curbing holds water. It is my recommendation that the amount of work, $22,000 or $23,000 worth of work, to try to repair a situation that is so minor that you may create more of a problem than it’s worth, I do not recommend that work on that cul-de-sac. I do recommend the change order number three for Calumet repairs in the amount of $37,730. It is an item that has shown up on my annual engineer’s report for the last three years that needed repair. It’s a curb inlet, along with some minor pavement failure around the curb itself.
Mr. Kern stated at the last meeting the Board had given me the authority to work outside of the meeting to try and move this effort along, so I had already approved the work at Calumet, so we’re ratifying this. Also, based on the engineer’s recommendation, decided not to move forward with the cul-de-sac work as it was proposed.
Mr. Harbison asked did you look at if Earthworks had any responsibility in the work that they did?
Mr. Kern stated sure, I think that’s something probably better spoken to by Dan. This particular work has been on his report for years and we’ve noticed it deteriorating.
Mr. McCranie stated I don’t think Earthworks even constructed that phase, because that is part of phase one that was done, I don’t know how many years ago. There are certain signs

of the inlet of being hit or something by different vehicles through the years, which would break the concrete, so I don’t see it as a defect in the quality of workmanship. I think it’s just a minor failure that needs to be repaired.
Mr. Kern stated it was probably due to general construction activity, but it would be very difficult I think to pinpoint the real root of the cause. It’s a phase one roadway that was built in maybe 2005 so I think it’s just a general deterioration of that section of road and storm inlet.
Mr. McCranie stated along with that work at Calumet, Mr. Geiger was always coming forward and requested that we check out his driveway and concrete areas. The minor cracks in the curbing will be patched again. We’re working on a schedule with Earthworks, so we don’t have a schedule yet.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Murphy with all in favor Earthworks change order number three in the amount of
$37,730.05 was ratified.

Mr. McCranie stated I have been paying attention over the last months to the back roadway. While it’s filled with water in the ditch, everything is flowing well. All of the areas that are on our side of the area are dry, so the situation that we had maybe two years ago now, the fix that we put in place is still working and working very well.

District Manager
There being nothing to report, the next item followed.

Community Manager - Report
Mr. Molineaux stated some of the maintenance items that have been completed since our last meeting are we’ve remulched the playground area with four inches of approved playground mulch, rewired two pool-side security cameras that had been severed during renovations, replaced the existing cleaning company with Summit Facility Solutions, replaced a photocell and breaker at the front entrance at the community, replaced defective light and timers on two fountains. At the request of homeowners I’ve worked quite extensively with the Nassau Sheriff’s Office and did a three phase operation to monitor speeding; one was a stealth

camera, one was a fixed sign showing speed, and the third was officers issuing citations. That worked really well. The four ponds and fountains we’ve had cleaned and serviced as part of routine maintenance. We needed to replace the swimming pool filters because they were very poor. We replaced damaged fan switches in the workout area, we installed a bike rack at the front of the amenity parking area, we replaced four broken and damaged street signs around the community and installed a roundabout sign that we actually had ourselves. Two lamps on the outside of the amenity center were not working and are now working. The island in the middle of the main entrance when you come in is quite the substantial median. It actually has 11 landscape lights in it and they are now working.
Moving on the maintenance items in process, we have a small gutter repair that needs to be done at the rear of the amenity center. I’ve had bids on it. It literally is a corner piece. I’m still working on it, because I find it outrageous what they’re wanting to charge us to put on a corner piece. The deck sealing actually started yesterday. It was cleaned and pressure washed yesterday, so both the covered deck and the area out by the pond will all be restained over the course of the next couple of weeks.
I have one item for bid and proposal. I’ve not been able to get additional bids for this, but it’s for the replacement of the handicap chair in the pool. I’ve been here since November 6th and for the first two weeks I was recovering a poor lady out at the pool who was using the chair, but it wouldn’t come back up again. The particular model that we have is quite aged and it has two motors. One motor rotates left and right and the second motor is and up and down motion. It looks as though it’s been worked on quite a lot and I’m making a suggestion that we replace it. There is one motor that still works. I’ve also assessed whether it’s worth to replace the broken parts, but again, we’ve then got a 15 year old lift with a couple of new bits in it, so my suggestion is that we just replace it with a new chair and I have one estimate at $5,700.
Mr. Laughlin stated the proposal has the sales tax in it, so we can get that removed and then it would be $5,455.
Mr. Kern stated I’ve never had to replace one before so I’m not sure what the pricing should look like.
Mr. Molineaux stated there’s a multitude of different designs and I suggest, because most of the time handicap lifts are used by children, that we go with something that’s really

simple and fairly robust and they have one that operates basically as a slide out and a drop down, rather than having a lot of rotating motion.
Ms. Bock asked is there a warranty that comes with it?
Mr. Molineaux stated I’m sure there is, but I can’t tell you that at this time.
Mr. McCranie asked will that chair be able to use the same base and everything, or do you have to redo the whole thing?
Mr. Molineaux stated the estimate includes some concrete work at the base. Quite literally, I’ve had to get a lady out of the pool twice.
Mr. Laughlin stated I imagine by law this is something we need to have working. Mr. McCranie stated yes by ADA requirements.
Mr. Kern asked have you at all discussed it all with our pool maintenance contractor? They’re also the ones that did the resurfacing. I’m just curious if we can shore up the pricing a little bit. In the interest in timing I think I’d be okay with a not to exceed amount and I’ll work with you directly and if we can find something that is more competitive we will go that route, but it certainly seems like something we want in place.
Mr. Murphy asked would it be fair to say that this was probably the original chair?   Mr. Laughlin stated yes it hasn’t been replaced since I’ve been here.
Mr. Molineaux stated I don’t know what our linear footage is, but if it’s under 300 linear feet we could get away with just the zero entry, but I’m assuming since one has been put in the likelihood is it’s required.
Mr. McCranie stated we did a study a long time ago and I think it was required.
Mr. Molineaux stated Crown Pools is obviously very knowledgable. They did the permit for the pool when they redid it so they would be able to speak to those requirements and if there’s a minimum standard we need, so I would just like to have their input at least. Maybe they can price it and maybe they can’t. Again, I’d be happy to work with you outside of a meeting.
Mr. Murphy stated I think that’s wonderful. As the weather starts to warm there are going to be more people that are going to want to use the pool so as soon as we can get this done and in place I think it will be helpful for our membership because I know in the past there was a little bit of disgruntlement with the residents with regard to not being able to get to the

pool for fine reasons, but if we have the opportunity to get this done ahead of time so they can use it, I think that would be worthwhile.
Mr. Molineaux stated certainly, my intention is to have this done as soon as possible and at the same time have the canopies and furniture all pressure washed and ready for the spring and summer season.
Mr. Laughlin stated we can do a motion to approve the replacement of the ADA lift at a not to exceed amount and we can allow the Chairman to execute.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Murphy with all in favor replacement of the ADA pool chair lift at an amount not to exceed $6,000 was approved.

Mr. Kern stated I appreciate the update. It looks like you’ve made a lot of progress and those are all really good things for the community. I might be able to help you with the gutter. We had some gutter work done on the renovation so maybe their vendor might be able to come help us and they might have even been responsible for that connection.
Mr. Molineaux stated I’ve had the Taylor Morrison crew out here and they wanted
$200 to fix it. It literally just requires a corner piece. Mr. Kern stated I’m happy to work with you.
Mr. Harbison stated I’ve heard from a lot of residents so far about how pleased they are with Michael and his work, primarily his communication. It’s really been an improvement and everybody I’ve talked to is very happy about it.
Mr. Kern stated I would echo that. I’ve heard the same positive feedback so we really appreciate the hard work.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors’	Requests	and	Audience
Comments
Supervisors’ Requests
Mr. Murphy stated I just want to ask about the beavers. It’s a small issue but we did talk about it as a potential issue. I don’t know where we’re at with it, if we’re anywhere.
Mr. Kern stated I’ve asked Michael to help us with that one.
Mr. Molineaux stated when we first addressed it with our neighbors, it was quite a significant problem. They engaged a trapper to come in on a monthly basis to take care of

things and he seems to have done a good job. The only thing I think I need to do, is to suit up and get out there, just to put eyes on what is actually happening. The traps seem to have done a good job next door, but he’s wanting a proposal for us and I just want to see it before we do anything.
Mr. Kern stated I think the last that he had reported was the water was down significantly.
Mr. Molineaux stated it came down from 4-feet to 14 inches.
Mr. Kern stated it’s great to do our homework because it’s not a cheap proposal that he’s presented, and maybe it’s really that the problem is more on their property than it is on ours and I hate to get into an annual contract for something that’s a non-issue.
Mr. Molineaux stated it was somewhere around the $10,000 mark.
Mr. Kern stated we always have that contact if there comes another time when there’s an issue that we really think is on our property and we need to be a part of it, we can always do an emergency beaver relocation, but I don’t know that I’d be comfortable with a monthly service.
Mr. Molineaux stated I don’t think it’s necessary yet.
Mr. Laughlin stated that’s something that would be best if we could get it before we do our budget for the year.

Mr. Murphy stated my wife and I are unfortunately moving back to Connecticut, so our house is on the market right now. I’m not sure when we’re going to sell and when we’re going to close, but I just wanted to give you a clear heads up. I know there were some good candidates that we talked about last time that would love to be on the Board and I’m sure would do a wonderful job. I’m pretty sure I’ll be here at the next meeting in March, but I wanted to give you a heads up.
Mr. Laughlin stated if it does happen sooner you can just email me, and we can accept it at the meeting and notice for the new spot.
Mr. Kern stated we wish you all the best either way.

Audience Comments
Ms. Paula Robinson, 85062 Williston Court, stated I was thinking when I drove up here, in the past Jennifer or somebody put a sign out that said CDD meeting today at 2:00 p.m. and I think that might be a good idea if we could start that up again.
Mr. Laughlin asked was it a removable sign? Ms. Paula Robinson stated yes.
Mr. Harbison asked out on the street?
Ms. Paula Robinson responded yes out on Majestic Walk Boulevard by the driveway entrance to here, so they’d put it out there the morning of the CDD meeting. The only reason I knew about this meeting today is because last month’s meeting was cancelled, and I read somewhere that the next scheduled meeting was today, so I don’t think people knew that the meeting was today.
Mr. Laughlin stated it is noticed in the newspaper every month and we have the whole schedule on the website every month.
Ms. Paula Robinson stated maybe put it in the email that you send out every Friday. Mr. Molineaux stated that’s an HOA-related update.
Mr. Laughlin stated you could just send an e-blast out maybe the week before.
Mr. Kern stated we approved a schedule for the whole year so every meeting should be available, and we can include that in a newsletter.
Ms. Paula Robinson stated there’s got to be a sign here somewhere because Jennifer had one.
Mr. Laughlin stated maybe we can look for it. I don’t know what happened with it after the renovation.
Mr. Molineaux stated I’ll have a look for the old one and if it’s not usable we will have a new one made.
Ms. Paula Robinson stated Fast Signs maybe.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business
There being none, the next item followed.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Balance Sheet & Income Statement
Assessment Receipts Schedule
Approval of Check Register
Mr. Laughlin stated on the assessment receipts schedule we are currently 92% collected. The check register totals $115,253.07.
Mr. Harbison stated can I ask a question on our debt interest? It’s tax free, right, to the holders of the bonds?
Mr. Laughlin stated yes.

On MOTION by Ms. Bock seconded by Mr. Kern with all in favor the check register was approved.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting
Mr. Laughlin stated our next meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2020 at 2:00 here at the amenity center.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Ms. Bock with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman