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, August 18, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. using Zoom communications media technology pursuant to Executive Orders 20-52, 20-69 and 20-193, including any extensions or supplements thereof, issued by Governor DeSantis and pursuant to Section 120.54(5)(b)2., Florida Statutes.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Gregg Kern	Chairman
Mike Taylor	Vice Chairman
Rose Bock	Supervisor
Mike Harbison	Supervisor
Jeffrey Robinson	Supervisor Also present were:
Daniel Laughlin	District Manager
Jason Walters	District Counsel
Dan McCranie	District Engineer
Michael Molineaux	Evergreen Lifestyles Management
Lynzi Chambers	Evergreen Lifestyles Management

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Laughlin called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. and called the roll.

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

The following item was taken out of order.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Hearing for the Purpose of Adopting
the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Harbison with all in favor the public hearing was opened.

Mr. Laughlin stated there is no increase from last year’s budget.

Mr. Buddy Price stated I have a few questions. Looking at the off roll and on roll assessments and the total, I saw a decrease of $2,000 in the total assessments, between the projected 2020 and budgeted 2021. Why would it go down as opposed to up since it’s the same number of units?
Mr. Laughlin responded I don’t think it should. Over time parcels will switch from off roll to on roll.
Mr. Buddy Price stated I’m looking at the totals for the two. I’ve added the on roll and off roll so the projected 2020 total of those two is $681,536. The budgeted 2021 is $679,454, which is a $2,000 decrease in overall assessments so I’m curious why there was a $2,000 decrease.
Mr. Harbison stated I don’t see your first number.
Mr. Laughlin stated your first number was higher than the total, $676,474.
Mr. Buddy Price stated the budgeted 2020 was $676,474 and then the projected 2020 is
$681,000 so you all are projecting more than you budgeted.
Mr. Laughlin stated I see what you’re talking about. I’ll have to get with the accountant about that. It’s set up as a zero-sum budget so there’s definitely reasoning behind that, but I can get back to you on that.
Mr. Buddy Price stated moving down into the administrative expenses, 2020 budgeted versus 2021 budgeted there were slight differences here and there, but for the most part they were about the same and there was only about a $1,000 difference, but in terms of projected 2020, they’re projecting $52,696 against a budget of $71,550 for 2021. Do we expect if those expenses are going to go up that much, or is this just a slush fund?
Mr. Harbison stated I don’t see those numbers. Where are you talking about?
Mr. Buddy Price stated I built my own spreadsheet that picks out certain pieces so if you look at supervisor fees, engineering fees, trustee fees, etc., those add up to $75,050. If you look at those categories, our actual projected is $52,696 in five categories, yet we’re budgeting those five categories $71,550.
Mr. Laughlin stated we do expect to use that, not to mention we do still have a couple more months of this fiscal year. We still have the rest of August and the beginning of September. We also need some money to cover the first few months of the next fiscal year. It

starts October 1st, but we don’t start receiving money from the County until the end of November or December, so we need a cushion there to cover that time.
Mr. Buddy Price stated under field expenditures I’ve picked up three items out of there; landscaping and maintenance being the first one. The budgeted 2020 and budgeted 2021 are identical. We spent substantially less in 2020 and we’re projecting to spend only $82,452 for 2020 and we budgeted $110,233. Do we expect to see that 33% increase from 2020?
Mr. Laughlin stated if you look at our Martex contract it’s set at $9,186 a month, which comes out to that annual amount so we are expecting to use that and we also have a little bit of buffer month in there for certain things that are needed such as mulching and fertilization. We don’t always use the fertilization, but we do set the money aside for it. We should use that full amount though because it’s a contracted amount.
Mr. Buddy Price stated I was pulling my numbers off the column called ‘total projected through 9/30/2020’ so clearly, they’re not matching up to what you say you’re going to spend.
Mr. Taylor stated Martex is now Trim All.
Mr. Laughlin stated yes, I think we chose a landscaper in the middle of the fiscal year. Mr. Buddy Price stated under fountain maintenance you all had budgeted 2020 at
$1,500 and for 2021 we also budgeted $1,500 but for 2020 we’re already projected at $300 over the budget and we’re talking about adding more fountains to the ones we already have, which would be increased maintenance. I just question if that number is going to be big enough.
Mr. Laughlin stated these line items aren’t all perfect that we’re projecting for the next year. We end up doing a budget amendment at the end of the year to balance out anything that goes over or anything that is under. The main thing here was to try to keep the assessment level flat.
Mr. Kern stated I would also add for clarity that this budget is being considered for adoption. The budget has already been approved at a previous meeting, so this Board has reviewed this budget in detail. We’ve shifted some line items around. To Daniel’s point, they’re not perfect projections and they’re not perfect budget numbers that are going to be dead on every year and that’s why we do the catch up at the end of the year to re-balance it. There are two important things. We can’t increase any of this overall budget now, it’s already set

when it was approved at its maximum. The only potential thing we could do is reduce it, but we all feel pretty confident in next year’s budget.
Mr. Buddy Price stated there was comments in the last minutes that we expect there are over a quarter million dollars in road maintenance expected somewhere down the road. I just noticed we are not putting any money into our road maintenance budget. Is that just going to be handled as an assessment down the road?
Mr. Kern stated we do have a capital reserves budget of $100,000. We had a capital reserve study done that identified those projections for long term maintenance. The capital reserves can be used for any of those items, including roads if you’d like but what this board had agreed to was that rather than funding now and allowing that money to just sit in an account, the CDD has the unique benefit of being able to do a special assessment with an issuance at some point down the road when that maintenance is needed so that was the strategy we took in considering that reserve and this budget.
Mr. Buddy Price stated there is a resolution to adopt the budget and I noticed that none of the columns were filled in on the copy on the website, but there is also a resolution relating to special assessments. Is there an intention by the board to do a special assessment this year?
Mr. Laughlin stated no, those are just the typical bookkeeping resolutions that are done every year. That resolution is just to certify the roll with the county.
Mr. Walters stated we leave the numbers blank only because as we just discussed, they can be adjusted sometimes at the public hearing so assuming there are no changes we will just carry over the numbers from the budget. As to the assessments, on the budget side, the term special assessment is just a statutory term. It’s our annual operations and maintenance assessment so it’s not like a special assessment from an HOA where it’s on top of the other. So, this is the annual budget assessment that we levy ever year, no different than we have the past 10 years.
Mr. Harbison stated I’m looking at the total projected this year versus approved budget next year and I go all the way down to the bottom and you’ve got the same amount of the operations and maintenance in total and a dramatically different number of units. The gross assessment of $370,000 this year, versus $683,000 of total expenditures, the difference is what the developer pays?

Mr. Laughlin asked you’re talking about the bottom there showing the individual unit assessments?
Mr. Harbison stated if you take $971 multiplied by 382, equals $370,000, but the total expenses are $683,000.
Mr. Laughlin stated that’s just units being moved from off roll to on roll. Off roll, which were previously directly billed to the landowners as the lands are developed and bought, they move from direct bill to on roll for the county.
Mr. Harbison stated I don’t know what you mean by on roll versus off roll, but
$683,000 versus $370,000 is what the developer is going to pay?
Mr. Kern stated the on roll is residents in the community today, the off roll is all the future lots so the residents in the community today are going to contribute $370,000 in revenues and the landowner, in this case the developer, contributes the remaining between the difference there.
Mr. Harbison stated if that’s the case then my question is, and this may just be the way you do it in the budget, but the number of units, is that a projected average for the year, beginning of year or end of year?
Mr. Kern stated it’s what on roll at the time.
Mr. Harbison but I mean what time. Is it the end of September projected?
Mr. Laughlin stated I believe they need that information before August, but I’d have to
check.
Mr. Harbison stated then the approved budget for next year, those 665 units, when is
that? The end of the year?
Mr. Laughlin stated they should already be platted.
Mr. Harbison stated I see what you mean. So, you’ve already transferred that land?
Mr. Laughlin stated yes, those 665 lots have already been platted and transferred to on roll assessments.
Mr. Harbison stated my understanding was phase 5 has not been platted. Mr. Taylor stated it has not.
Mr. Laughlin stated as the developer and the home builder build their homes you have the money being paid directly from the developer to the CDD. As they’re selling the homes

you’re going to get more units on the roll, which comes from the county so the number essentially stays the same.
Mr. Harbison stated I understand that. What is the total number of lots going to be when it’s all done?
Mr. Taylor responded 749.
Mr. Harbison stated then this seems a little low. I don’t want to take more time here because it doesn’t affect the total budget, but Daniel can I call you and go through all this?
Mr. Laughlin responded yes, we will discuss that and I will speak with the assessment roll administrator in my office as well.

On MOTION by Mr. Taylor seconded by Mr. Kern with all in favor the public hearing was closed.

Consideration of Resolution 2020-06, Relating to Annual Appropriations and Adopting a Budget for Fiscal Year 2021

On MOTION by Mr. Taylor seconded by Mr. Kern with all in favor Resolution 2020-06 was approved.

Consideration of Resolution 2020-07, Imposing Special Assessments and Certifying an Assessment Roll

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Taylor with all in favor Resolution 2020-07 was approved.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the July 21, 2020
There were no comments on the minutes.

On MOTION by Mr. Robinson seconded by Mr. Harbison with all in favor the Minutes of the July 21, 2020 meeting were approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Installation of Fountains
in Pond
Mr. Kern stated we talked about this at a previous meeting. This is the proposal for the two fountains that we’re proposing to install in phase 4 in the CDD ponds with the total being
$15,216. These are the two one of the builders in that phase has offered to make a contribution

to the capital funds of the district in the amount of $20,000 in consideration of installing these. The additional funds contemplated there are almost $5,000 more than what this fountain proposal is to give some consideration to some electrical demand the systems actually needed for that, which we are installing already anyway because we need it for irrigation and lighting and other things like that in those common areas but they’re making an additional contribution towards that.
Mr. Robinson asked do we have any ongoing costs for electrical? I looked at the electrical bills for the accounts that we have and it’s kind of hard to map them.
Mr. Kern stated yes, it’s difficult to isolate those. In general, I can tell you that our electrical utility billing is a small proportion than our JEA water bill, so I think the two things to consider for operations and maintenance is obviously the electrical use, but also the fountain service. Even that total budget line item is currently $1,500 for all of the three or four that we have today, so that is probably fairly minimal. Michael, I think you’ve confirmed some numbers to add these two fountains.
Mr. Molineaux stated yes, they are running at $125 each for the maintenance of the fountains per quarter.
Mr. Kern stated so fairly insignificant in the overall annual budget of over $680,000. Mr. Robinson asked who is going to determine where these fountains go in phase 4? Mr. Kern responded I have a site plan that I’m happy to share. As you enter into phase
4 there is a common area there that overlooks the pond. There would be one there and one in that pond just to the west, the larger pond there. I would recommend that we require receipt of the contribution from the builder before we authorize this installation.
Mr. Taylor stated just make sure there are no taxes on the fountain.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Harbison with all in favor the proposal for installation of fountains was approved subject to receipt of contribution from builder being provided prior to authorizing installation of the fountains.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
District Counsel
Mr. Walters stated we obviously received an extension on the ability to hold virtual meetings by virtue of the way we’re holding it today. That is set to expire October 1st so we will keep our eyes out for any further extensions of that and make sure everyone is in the loop.

District Engineer
Ratification of Requisition No. 60
Mr. McCranie stated requisition number 60 is payable to Earthworks in the amount of
$470,493.11 for construction of phase 5.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Taylor with all in favor requisition number 60 was ratified.

Consideration of Requisition Nos. 61-63
Mr. McCranie stated requisition number 61 is for $1,900 for phase 1 environmental analysis required by JEA for the lift station payable to Terracon. Number 62 is various invoices from McCranie and Associates for a total of $5,191.63 and number 63 is to Hopping, Green & Sams for $573.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Mr. Harbison with all in favor requisitions 61 through 63 were approved.

Mr. McCranie stated for some updates, at the intersection of Berryessa and Calumet the drainage work was completed. The concrete and cracks that were in Mr. Geiger’s driveway have been re-patched and it looks nice, so I don’t believe there are any other current issues that I know of. Otherwise, construction of phase 5 is ongoing and I just reviewed and approved the latest requisition which will get sent to Gregg for his approval and will likely be paid prior to your next meeting and we will ask for ratification at the next meeting.

District Manager – Consideration of Designating a Regular meeting Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021
Mr. Laughlin stated you’ll see all of the proposed dates in your agenda package. The schedule is the same as the previous year. We can always add or cancel meetings as needed but we do need to approve a schedule.

On MOTION by Mr. Harbison seconded by Mr. Kern with all in favor the regular meeting schedule for Fiscal Year 2021 was approved as presented.

Mr. Laughlin stated I’ve received a few emails from residents wondering about the possibility to designate a block of time in the morning for lap swimming until maybe 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m.
Mr. Harbison stated I raised that issue before, and I asked Michael about it. We don’t have to make it ongoing, but I think it’s something we should try until maybe 10:00 a.m. and we can try for a couple of months and see how it goes and adjust as needed or discontinue.
Mr. Laughlin asked Michael, do you know how many people are typically here in the morning before 9:00?
Mr. Molineaux responded there are families coming before 10:00 but I would think we’re safe between 4:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Harbison stated especially once school starts.
Mr. Molineaux stated I can put it out there as an update and see what reaction we get.

On MOTION by Mr. Harbison seconded by Mr. Taylor with all in favor designating lap swimming only period facility until 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday was approved.

Community Manager - Report
Mr. Molineaux stated it’s been another good month at the community. We’ve replaced a control switch for the ceiling fans in the covered patio. We’ve replaced the valve and timer at the roundabout at Majestic Walk Boulevard. We’ve put up a clock in the pool deck at the request of some of the members. We had to break up four sections of sidewalk up by the main entrance to the community. They’ve been totally broken up, removed and repoured. We’ve

enforced the District’s guidelines for the use of the swimming pool and the gym with no particular problems. In process we’ve got replacement of inoperable maglock, but that has actually already been completed and the only project we’re looking at trying to do is replace a corner piece on a gutter on the clubhouse.
Mr. Taylor stated I had a call from a resident niquiring about an alligator in one of the ponds. Have we taken care of that?
Mr. Molineaux stated we’re working on it. Mr. Taylor asked is it really five-feet long?
Mr. Molineaux responded I’ve been called out there once to look at it and by the time I get there it’s gone. The individual that made that call doesn’t live on the pond, but I have spoken to residents along there and the ones I’ve spoken to do not want us to remove it because they’re aware there isn’t a nursing home that these guys go to and removal is almost definitely slaughter.
Mr. Taylor stated I don’t know if the board has any other feedback or comments on that, but just wanted to go on record that I got an email.
Mr. Laughlin stated the residents do have the ability to call the hotline number. At a lot of other communities we don’t handle this, we just direct them to the correct authority. They come out and they will assess whether they think it’s aggressive or whether it’s big enough.
Mr. Taylor asked which pond is it?
Mr. Molineaux stated behind Berryessa. They move between the ponds using the drainage system. I’m happy to do whatever I’m guided to do.
Mr. Kern stated I don’t know that there’s any direction from this board, but feel free to direct them to those folks who do the trapping. To the extent they become a nuisance to the community I think the HOA can manage that, but I think for the time being those individual requests can be directed to the hotline that is being referenced.
Mr. Molineaux stated that has been published in the update, but I’ll make sure that goes out again this Friday.
Mr. Laughlin stated they will come out and assess it. Sometimes they won’t remove the gator if they don’t think it’s necessary.
Mr. Robinson stated we talked last month about putting the signs that got removed back. Did you go ahead and do that?

Mr. Harbison asked why do you want them to be put back? They’re contrary to what we approved at a CDD meeting.
Mr. Robinson stated because that’s what we talked about last month. Not immediately putting them back, but wait 30 days. If we can move that one sign that is blocking a visual path from the car.
Mr. Molineaux asked is this to be concreted in?
Mr. Robinson stated no, just the normal way. Concrete won’t stop the sign from being removed.
Mr. Harbison stated I don’t understand why you want them put back. They’re purely marketing signs for the builders that we paid for to be wayfinding signs.
Mr. Robinson stated yes, they are marketing signs, but for the CDD benefit to have home sites turned over to builders as quickly as possible to keep them occupied. That’s all.

On MOTION by Mr. Robinson seconded by Mr. Kern with Mr. Taylor in favor and Mr. Harbison opposed replacing the signs that have been removed and moving the sign blocking visibility was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors’	Requests	and	Audience
Comments
Mr. Harbison stated today is the election and we would have known who the supervisors would be.
Mr. Laughlin stated the CDD seats run with the general election in November.
Mr. Harbison stated nevertheless, we have someone who has formerly submitted their name and we have maybe 10 more who said they will and will submit their resumes. What I’d like to do at the September meeting is have them on Zoom or however we do the meeting and have their resumes for all us and that we can appoint who will then take the two seats effective December 1st.
Mr. Walters stated we can’t appoint someone at that meeting. We can consider their resumes and have them make presentations so the board has time to think about it and consider it. The only hiccup to that may be between September and November other candidates may arise, but we could certainly have them attend the meeting if they’re able and give a

presentation to the board for their consideration, but it will be post that November election when we make the appointment.
Mr. Harbison stated I don’t agree with that. You have to wait seven days after the election and that is the appointed effective December 1st, but I don’t see why we can’t appoint them ahead of time.
Mr. Walters stated because there’s not a current vacancy.
Mr. Harbison stated let’s find a way to try to do that, so we know who it is going to be and they know who it is going to be and it works seamlessly.
Mr. Walters stated I can take a look at it, but so long as there are no vacant seats, there’s nothing to appoint.
Mr. Harbison stated there is because we know when those seats become vacant.
Mr. Walters stated correct, and once they become vacant, we can make an appointment.
Mr. Laughlin stated we will look into and we can discuss this along with the budget also. My only thing is if we start too early people’s situations could change, they could move. We could definitely accept resumes a month before the meeting we will appoint, that way we know who is interested and it will give us time to think about it.
Mr. Harbison stated that would be helpful.
Mr. Robinson stated I think we should continue to solicit resumes, but start discussing this at the next two or three meetings and be prepared on the November 17th meeting and that’s when we will be able to formerly vote, correct?
Mr. Walters stated it’s the second Tuesday following the election Mr. Robinson asked so the seats become vacant December 1st?
Mr. Harbison stated actually November 30th.
Mr. Laughlin stated we can discuss this as we go through meetings. I have received a couple and I’ve sent them to Courtney to keep a tab on them to have them added.
Mr. Harbison stated the last one is, and this is more of a long term issue and maybe it’s more of a developer issue, but as we move forward in phase 5 with that three-foot strip, the buffer between the lots and the marsh area it’s going to be our intention this winter or early next year to look at a kayak canoe launching place somewhere on the river and I don’t know if it’s possible or how much it would cost, but I want to be able to retain the ability to do that if we want to and it makes sense.

Mr. Kern stated I’m just curious if we’ve had any qualified candidates register with the county for the election.
Mr. Laughlin stated nobody qualified for the seats so both seats will be filled by appointment.
Mr. Kern stated apologies I didn’t get this on the agenda earlier, but in the interest of time rather than waiting another month, I’d like to verbally convey to the board what I’ve received in regard to irrigation and landscape installation in phase 4. Given that we have the electrical services going in now and there are water services that already contemplated we’re ready to do the common area landscape. There are two areas: the entry to phase 4 where Majestic Walk Boulevard ends, both sides of that road, and the dead end of that road across the street. The other area is surrounding the lift station very similar to what we’ve done in previous phases where we’ve landscaped around those lift stations. The landscape proposal is from Trim All, our current maintenance company which also does installs and have done several of them throughout the community to date. It’s my experience that I typically like when the maintenance company also does installs because then they’re responsible for not only material when it’s installed, but they’re responsible for maintaining it so you have less exposure to a plant dying and it not being covered. The common area owned around that JEA lift station total is $24,315. The entry to phase 4, both sides of the road and the bull nose of the dead end there is at $81,439. The material pallet is very consistent with the rest of the community and I would propose these to be funded out of the construction proceeds from the bond issuance so I think the total there is right around $105,000. I can certainly share these. Maybe in lieu of you being able to review them it would be appropriate for me to ask for a not to exceed approval.
Ms. Bock joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Laughlin stated I don’t know if I’ve ever done a not to exceed on something that is paid by requisition. I’d imagine we could just ratify it?
Mr. Walters asked do we have a timing issue here in terms of between now and the next meeting?
Mr. Kern stated yes, we’re ready to start the work and I’d hate to lose another 30 days. There’s particularly a resident adjacent to the entry of phase 4 who has been vocal about their concerns with the landscaping improvements not being done.
Mr. Walters asked in terms of dollars what are we looking at?

Mr. Kern stated there are two different areas so really two different proposals. One is
$24,000 and some change and the other is $81,000 and some change.
Mr. Robinson stated on the entry to phase 4, we looked at pictures of that last month.
Will that go right up to his property line? Is that a buffer that is going to be unmaintained?
Mr. Kern stated there is a bit of natural buffer adjacent to his property and then the other side of it is right of way common area for the district so that landscape line encompasses that whole area and I just figure while we have them out there we can tidy up that whole corner and entry to phase 4.
Mr. Walters stated if these are improvements that are going to be funded by bond proceeds, and to the extent bond proceeds are expended, the developer has the completion obligation to fully fund so long as the board is comfortable authorizing Gregg to secure proposals for that landscape installation work on the terms that he’s prepared for them, we can do that. That is a question for the board. We would just need to give Gregg a not to exceed number where we at least have that cap on the size of the expenditure.
Mr. Kern stated I can represent that is the understanding. I believe there are funds available, but to the extent they are completed in advance of this coming due, the developer would obviously have that obligation under the completion agreement. The total amount for the two different proposals is $105,754 so I guess I would ask for a little bit of wiggle room in there, maybe 5%, just in the event we have some changes between now and then. It sounds like I would need to look for the board’s approval to approve a not to exceed maybe $110,000 for the irrigation and landscape installation for phase 4.

On MOTION by Mr. Kern seconded by Ms. Bock with all in favor landscape and irrigation installation for phase 4 common areas in and amount not to exceed $110,000 was approved.

Mr. Robinson stated I haven’t witnessed it personally myself, but there seems to be a lot of algae in the ponds but they’re also getting a lot of mosquitos swarming around and the pest control company can’t do anything about it until the algae is cut down, so we need to get Lake Doctors out to look at that. Some of the ponds seem to be worse than others.

Mr. Molineaux stated I have been working with the current contractor and I am interviewing a second alternative contractor right at this time. There is a possibility that we will be changing vendors.
Mr. Robinson stated I get comments when I’m out walking about what are these people doing external home improvements, whatever is visible, are they going to the ARB, and my honest reaction is I don’t know. I know there are upwards of eight applications that get approved. I was wondering, what if we were to invest in some signs that says, ‘this is an ARB approved project’? That would create awareness that if you’re doing something like landscaping, you’re supposed to go through the ARB, because I see new projects starting and my gut tells me they’re not all going through the ARB.
Ms. Bock stated since those are ARB questions and it’s an ARB idea, I believe that would go through the HOA. We are not the ARB.
Mr. Laughlin stated yes, you could talk with Michael about that afterwards.

Audience Comments
Ms. Laura Bowen, 85189 Champlain, stated I have a question about a sign that I saw today. I was actually going on a bike ride around the phase 5 area. There was a very small sign that looked like it could be picked up from Home Depot that said, ‘No Trespassing’. As I went around the back side of phase 5 and back into phase 4 from Poplar Street I looked for another sign on the back side and it didn’t look like anything was over there, so I didn’t know if that was new signage that now we’re not allowed to proceed into phase 5 or if that was just put up.
Mr. Kern stated Michael, perhaps you can help look into that sign and explore who may have put it there.
Mr. Molineaux stated I’ll look into it.
Mr. Robinson stated when the phase 5 roads were being built there were no trespassing signs on both sides of the road from where it was paved to non-paved at both entry points. Since then some of the signs have been knocked down. I don’t know if the developer wants people driving through phase 5 or walking into the phase 5 portions that aren’t paved but it seems like one of the construction companies might have put those up.
Mr. Taylor stated yes, we do like to have signage posted on our construction sites for safety reasons, but also for enforcement rights if we need to call the police to enforce it.

Ms. Laura Bowen asked is the stance then that we are not to ride bicycles or anything in the back part of the neighborhood then?
Mr. Taylor stated no I think you can ride on the paved roads; just be aware it is a construction site.

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

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Balance Sheet & Income Statement
Assessment Receipts Schedule
Approval of Check Register
Mr. Laughlin stated the check register totals $73,470.68.

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

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting
Mr. Laughlin stated our next scheduled meeting is on September 15, 2020 at 2:00. We will notice appropriately, whether it be virtual or onsite.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

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

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman