MINUTES OF MEETING TURTLE RUN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Turtle Run Community Development District was held on Monday, June 29, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at the Coral Bay Recreation Center, 3101 South Bay Drive, Margate, Florida, 33063

Present and constituting a quorum:
Barry Winfree	Chairman
Skip Carney	Vice Chairman
Virginia Tropea	Assistant Secretary
Kenneth Murray	Assistant Secretary
Rob Shipe	Assistant Secretary Also present were:
Patrick Burgess	District Manager
Jason Gitel	GMS
Scott Cochran	District Counsel
Jonathan Geiger	District Engineer Several residents

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Burgess called the meeting to order and called the roll.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Moment of Silence
Mr. Winfree led a moment of silence.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Winfree led the Pledge of Allegiance.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Good News
Mr. Winfree: Does anybody have any good news? Mr. Carney: It is all good, thank you.
Mr. Winfree: I am good, Ken?
Mr. Murray: I woke up this morning.
Mr. Winfree: That is a good thing, on the right side of the bed to, right?

Mr. Shipe: The neighborhood is nice and green, looking good. Mr. Winfree: Ginny?
Ms. Tropea: Nope, I am good.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the
May 18, 2026 Meeting
Mr. Winfree: The first item on the agenda is the approval of the May 18, 2025 meeting minutes. Does anybody have any questions or concern? If not, a motion to approve.

On MOTION by Mr. Murray seconded by Mr. Carney with all in favor, the Minutes of the May 18, 2026 Meeting were approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Acceptance of Audit for Fiscal
Year Ending in September 30, 2025
Mr. Winfree: The next item is the acceptance of the audit for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. Once again any questions on that. Basically if you look at the last page we were good last year, we are good again this year. No findings, no recommendations. Everything seems to be fine according to the audit. Is there anything anybody else found that was different?
Mr. Carney: Looks good to me.
Mr. Winfree: Can I get a motion to accept that?

On MOTION by Mr. Carney seconded by Mr. Murray with all in favor, the acceptance of the Audit for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2025 was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney – Memorandum – 2026 Legislative Update

Mr. Cochran: If you look at your agendas on page 58 we have our annual legislative update. It was a busy session of the legislature this year as far as laws that touch on CDDs and other special districts. I am not going to go over all of them, but I will go over the ones that pertain particularly to this District. I should mention as of the time that we sent this out not all of them had yet been approved by the Governor. They were all approved by both houses of the legislature. Since we sent it out they are all approved with the exception of the first one. It was sent to the Governor on June 15th, and we are still waiting on his action on it. With that caveat I will go into it. The first deals with sovereign immunity caps. For a long time now the caps that are applicable to claims against government entities including the District have been capped at $200,000 per person and $300,000 in an aggregate per incident. Those are getting a bump up to
$350,000 per person and $500,000 per incident. The other thing that this legislation does it now authorizes state agencies to settle claims even above those caps as long as there are insurance proceeds to cover it up to available insurance limits those claims can be settled without having to go through a formal claims bill process. The other thing this legislation does is it effects the pre-suit process. Anytime someone is going to file most types of negligence claims against the District they are required to provide a pre-suit notice. Up until now they have had three years from the date from the action accrues to provide that notice, which has been cut in half. Now it is going to be 18 months as opposed to three years. It is also reducing the statute of limitations on most claims to two years. As far as the pre-suit process after the agency received the notice before the agency had six months to investigate and decide whether to accept or deny the claim that process has been shortened to four months. It has kind of streamlines the pre-suit process but increasing the caps. Assuming the Governor signs this into law it will take effect on October 1st so the beginning of the next fiscal year. That is kind of biggy. The next one I wanted to cover is on number 4 on page 3 of the memo it deals with cyber security services. The state has set up a system that allows certain local governments including Districts to get money to help fund cyber security services. The other thing they have done they are engaging certain agreements at a state level for the provision of those services and they allowing local government units to piggyback onto those state level contracts. This is really something for District management to consider as to whether this

is something that would be of interest. Either way you go you can apply for the grants but if you don’t do that you go through the contracts, local government is still responsible to pay for it, but it might be something that could help improve the quality of that or reduce the costs. That is there. Number 5 beginning at the bottom of page 3 another biggy for CDDs. Up until this point the only way that a sitting Supervisor could be removed from office was either by resigning voluntarily or having the Governor remove that individual. Now the legislature has approved a recall process that allows residents that are registered qualified electors within the District to try to initiate a recall process. There are very specific grounds that have to be the basis of a recall effort. Those are malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, incompetence, drunkenness, permanent inability to perform duties or conviction of certain felonies. What this legislation does it sets up a multi-step process for recall. The first thing that someone would have to do is get at least 10% of eligible voters within the District to sign a petition. The signatures on the petition are subject to verification processes. If that part gets accomplished then they have to prepare a formal recall proceedings. If that continues proceeding there is a second petition where they have to get at least 15% of the registered voters within the District. If they meet all of those thresholds that triggers a referendum. Referendums like a one issue election, you see it in the general election with the constitutional issues things like that. It would just be a referendum on recalling a Board member. If that process goes through it requires a majority vote. It is a multi-step process, requires different percentages for different steps. The other thing it does is it does impose campaign finance requirements on recall efforts. It establishes certain timelines and it provides for penalties for fraud or misconduct in the recall petition process. It is an interesting thing but has a ton of steps to it. It is the first time that something like this has been the case for CDDs. The next one I was going to cover is on number 7 on the back page. This deals with electronic payments. It basically provides that for Districts that are collecting any kind of it is not talking about assessment collection, but if you are collecting other types of fees or payments it is requiring government units including Districts to make available electronic payment options. It is also requiring if you are going to collect electronically you also have to make that payment option available online on the website. I am not sure if we collect fees or anything like that. I don’t think so but if it was ever the case if there are fees for permits

or other things like that if it ever comes about you would have to set this up and make it payable on the website. That is it for this year. You can read the rest of them. If you guys have any questions you can always ask us if you want to see the actual legislation. That is it for that. I don’t have anything else to report unless anybody has any questions.
Mr. Winfree: Alright.
Engineer – Updates on:
Avana Apartments Lake Side Slope Repair
Lake Side Slope Remediation Phase 1 through 6 Engineering Studies with Landshore
Mr. Geiger: Good evening. I don’t know Miguel do you want to take this together. Just real quick with Avana just to get that out of the way that is going to be a lot simpler than lakeside slope. At the last meeting or the meeting before the Board did approve the plans that Landshore developed for the Avana area. We sent those over to South Florida because that was a caveat of the approval was to make sure South Florida was onboard. They told us no. They do not like these plans. There was issues with the slope still. Part of the reason it was prepared this way was to try to keep the cost down, which I think maybe Miguel can explain a little bit more why they were prepared that way. Basically South Florida said no. That makes this project a lot more difficult now to accomplish given that that pipe wasn’t installed with the length the as-built said. One of the solutions that they threw out there was a bulkhead or a retaining wall so more of a vertical structure to hold the soil back and everything. There are some exceptions to the 4:1 but this also would be something we would have to permit. This is not something you could just throw in the ground and call it a day. We had a meeting with Landshore about a week ago or late last week to discuss this stuff. South Florida has basically told us that we should probably schedule preapplication meeting with them to discuss the project moving forward because of the complexity. Their email that I got back last week said their first available date was in August. If the Board would like for us to move forward with that we are probably not going to get anywhere until about August with this issue. They gave us two dates.
Mr. Burgess: August 5th and August 12th.
Mr. Geiger: That is the earliest we will be able to sit down and talk to them about the Avana issue. In the meantime we spoke to Landshore about coming up with alternate

solutions to what the cost figure would be and if there was anything that we could accomplish that they are going to approve.
Mr. Miguel: To piggyback on a little bit what Jonathan said there is the original design that was presented to you guys was the cheapest option we could theorize that was the least amount of fill, but you are still stabilizing the shoreline with that armour flex and concrete and providing as a barrier for erosion. Unfortunately that option was not approved. They are sticking to the 4:1 requirement from the top of the bank down the water line. We knew that in the back of our head this would be an option, we were hoping that this would be a cheap alternative. As Jonathan also mentioned a bulkhead is one option. That bulkhead would be place above the waterline and have a railing of some sort protecting people from walking up and falling over that bulkhead. That bulkhead would consist of either a sheet vinyl that is driven down into the ground providing support Mr. Miguel was inaudible at this time. Again structural something that has to be designed and permitted by a structural engineer for approval. Then jumping back to the original idea that we had was expanding that pipe out further into the canal Mr. Miguel was inaudible at this time. making that a 4:1 slope. Both of those two options are more costly than the original design that we had. Moving forward we have done some brainstorming. Those are the two most logical options on the table. We don’t have a price for you guys at the moment for consideration. There is a lot of back and forth. Presenting those line considerations to the South Florida for their review and approval.
Mr. Winfree: Seems like we have wasted a lot of time chasing something that we knew from the beginning wasn’t going to be approved. We need to stop kicking the can down the road and pursue an avenue that we believe is going to be approved. As you just said we pretty much they weren’t going to approve it, but we spent a lot of time chasing that anyway.
Mr. Miguel: I wouldn’t say we knew, I would say it was a possibly. We were hoping that this consideration would be approved. They understood the situation and the conditions that the shoreline is in. A shorter pipe, close to the embankment with steep slopes already there. All we are doing is basically armoring the perfecting that sleep slope around that.

Mr. Geiger: And to be fair what they are recommending doesn’t have the slope requirements either. What the District is saying maybe you guys can pursue this it is the same gamble as them presenting something that is very similar just not a bulkhead with a handrail on top. It is too different from what the District, this is close to half the price. We are looking from a $40,000 project to almost $100,000 to do what South Florida is kind of saying now might be a viable solution.	That doesn’t include the permit and everything. As they said once you start changing the characteristic and you are putting in what they are going to consider. Forget the rule I think it is like 20% of your shoreline can have the vertical bulkhead work but it changes the permit. There is going to be permit mod. It is just more money to expend to go through that route. It is a much longer process.
Mr. Shipe: Is either one of the options hold up longer and less maintenance? The pipe extension or the bulkhead have less routine maintenance on them.
Mr. Miguel: I would say the extension of the pipe would be less maintenance. They are pretty much the same except you know that you are going to extend the pipe, so you have that assurance. You know that it is properly installed.
Mr. Shipe: Scott do we have to involve Avana? Do they have any say if we are changing the shoreline?
Mr. Cochran: I don’t believe so. It is our property.
Mr. Geiger: It is our permit. We are the operating entity. At this point is it the Board’s wish for us to pursue setting this meeting with South Florida because there is paperwork involved and like Patrick said either the 5th or the 12th of August. We are looking two months out from now.
Mr. Shipe: Yes.
Mr. Geiger: It is just time and money expended so we like to formally get approval. We just got this information late last week. We haven’t been sitting on this since last meeting. This is very recent.
Mr. Burgess: We are constantly chatting with each other and working on this. If the pipe was installed correctly to begin with we wouldn’t be dealing with this, but South Florida Water Management District signed off on what it is and now we are dealing with the repercussions of it. We are doing it all the correct way. We are asking for their approval because you guys spend money that could be denied. They are telling us to repair it, and

we are trying to repair it to do what they want done without delaying it anymore. August is their first availability.
Mr. Winfree: The question I have had on all of this actually is what responsibility would Avana have for this at all since they were the permit issuer and then whoever signed off on the permit. From what I understand South Florida doesn’t come out and do inspections on finalization of permits.
Mr. Burgess: Not compared to Broward County license.
Mr. Winfree: Do you know how they sign off on permits? Anybody?
Mr. Geiger: I believe as-builts are normally sent to them. All of our South Florida permits for the lake slopes we have as-builts showing the slopes correct. If the as-built prepared says it is 190 feet with only 130 to 160 or whatever South Florida is not going to look underwater. They are going off of a survey or certifying an as-builts and it looks correct on paper.
Mr. Winfree: So who did that?
Mr. Geiger: I would have to look at that old set of plans to see who did that. Mr. Winfree: Was it an actual engineer, company that signed off on it?
Mr. Geiger: As-builts are prepared by a surveyor, licensed surveyor not an engineer usually.
Mr. Winfree: Not according to their permit. The name of the guy and everything in that permit. Take a look at the permit and see who is responsible for it. That is why I am thinking why are we paying for it. The engineer signed off on it, and it wasn’t done correctly where is that engineer. That is what I am concerned about. Why should we spend
$100,000 for something that wasn’t built the correct way per the plans in the first place. Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree.
Mr. Carney: I said that from the beginning. How do we find out that is the question?
Mr. Winfree: Can somebody do some investigating on that and see how and why that was signed off that way and what recourse do we have that now it is going to cost
$100,000 to fix?
Mr. Geiger: We can look at the permit. We can pull that permit. I can look at who did the as-builts. See who signed off on it. What we do with that information.

Mr. Winfree: That is the next step. If we can at least look at that and see if the company is around any longer. If the company is not around we are wasting our time right. I certainly think that is something worth looking at. If you read anything that South Florida and I don’t think I brought it with me but there is a whole sign off process on who the engineer was and what the company’s name was that signed off that said it was built as specked. Something wasn’t done correctly there. I agree South Florida just like when you do a five year certification right now. The city doesn’t come out, the state doesn’t come out, who are they waiting for to tell them that is done correctly. The engineer has to sign off on it. That is the one that I think we have to look at for some responsibility. It just irks the crap out of me that we have to spend $100,000 because somebody didn’t do their job correctly. That is what it looks like to me. Maybe I am looking at this wrong.
Mr. Burgess: As of right now you are not in compliance with South Florida Water Management District, and they are telling us to repair it.
Mr. Winfree: I agree it has to be done.
Mr. Burgess: We will definitely look into that while we wait for this meeting with them. I think we need to continue to show good faith.
Mr. Winfree: I don’t think they have done anything wrong either. They took the signoff from the engineer to heart just like everybody does here. If somebody signs off on it knowing it wasn’t and the thing also if you look in there, there is no way they had a 4:1 slope that they could sign off on with that pipe where it is. There is no way that could happen. They signed off on two things that weren’t done to spec. I would sure like to know who that is and what we can do about it.
Mr. Geiger: We can look into that.
Mr. Winfree: I agree with have to keep moving. We have to get this done. No doubt about that I would certainly hope that somebody is going to be responsible for us rather than us just have our taxpayers throwing out $100,000 because somebody didn’t do their job in the first place. That is my point.
Mr. Geiger: Understood.
Mr. Winfree: Everybody agree.

Mr. Shipe: Do we want to make a motion to allow KCI and Landshore to meet with South Florida Water and go forward with the first available meeting? Is that what you guys were asking?
Mr. Geiger: I don’t know if we need a motion. Mr. Cochran: Direction is fine.
Mr. Winfree: There is no doubt it has to be done. It is in the permit. If you look at the permit there is two things specifically in there, the slope and how long that pipe is supposed to be and they are two things that weren’t done. Something is wrong. Sorry.
Mr. Geiger: It is frustrating topic. South Florida Water Management is not one of my favorite people to deal with even though they have been very patient with us on everything. Does anybody have any more questions on Avana, or can we move onto more of the bigger issue here? As the Board knows Landshore has been doing engineering studies for the lake’s phases here. I think at this point for Phase 1, which is the two lakes with the geo-tubes we have some preliminary information which I believe was in the agenda. Were there sections in there?
Mr. Burgess: I put in the technical narrative.
Mr. Geiger: Miguel do you want to take this since this is more your forte.
Mr. Miguel: As Jonathan mentioned we have been working with District to evaluate Phase 1, which is lake 11 and lake 12 of the Turtle Run community. We have provided some preliminary surveys. We mobilized two months ago to collect some additional documental data and topographical data. All that information was then taken and analyzed. Did some soil sample testing Mr. Miguel was inaudible at this time. We have come up with two designs considerations for the Board. One option is a concrete mat that is trenched in from the top of the bank and runs down the embankment. The our solution for the underwater slope the will continue at a 4:1 slope two feet below the water line meeting South Florida Water Management’s 4:1 slope for the continuous two feet below the designed water table. Our solution for protection is the implementation of a geo-tube that will be underneath that sure-flex mat providing protection against erosion and future loss. The largest cause of destabilization of the sure-flex mat is the loss of material Mr. Miguel was inaudible at this time. An alternate option that we are also considering is the implementation of a TRM turf reinforcement mat similarly installed trenched up Mr. Miguel

was inaudible at this time. and continuing at a 4:1 until it is past the two feet again meeting South Florida Water Management’s two foot depth requirement for the 4:1 slope. Our means of installation will have that fabric and that concrete mat secured by either utilizing some anchors or having the turf reinforcement mat placed down prior to a pumping and the weight of that sit on top of the fabric holding it in place. Construction wise and timetable wise the concrete mat is a little bit lengthier. On the other hand the turf reinforcement mat is a little bit wider area that needs to be graded and shaped. The timetable for the turf reinforcement is slightly faster. Price wise do we have any prices yet?
Mr. Geiger: Not yet. I haven’t discussed it with them yet. If you want to let them know what the difference is on these.
Mr. Miguel: Sure. We provided some initial prices. We went and looked at those prices again. Tightened them up a little bit. For the Sure-flex our prices are approximately
$200 to $205 per linear foot and then for the TRM the prices are $170 to $175 give or take a dollar or two there per linear foot.
Mr. Burgess: The purpose of Miguel explaining this is you have two options that we need to finalize a set of plans in order to be a part of the bid package when you guys go out to bid for this project. We need direction from the Board.
Ms. Tropea: The more reliable one is the first one right? Even though it is going to be more expensive it is the one that is going to hold up more, better bang for the buck.
Mr. Geiger: Miguel correct me if I am wrong, but you said the concrete mat that was a 50 to 70 year lifespan and the TRM the slightly less expensive that only has a 20 years given maintenance concerns as well. Obviously the concrete mat is going to have less maintenance. It is a heavier product. It is going to hold that shoreline. I think also both these products might get away from us having to plant below the water line which does save the District money and not having to maintain aquatic plants. We spoke with South Florida about that originally, but they said they needed more details then what we were proposing before they relaxed that permit requirement for the naturing and the planting. I do believe both these options would probably satisfy the stability concerns.
Mr. Miguel: With our experience South Florida Water Management they are familiar with these solutions. They have utilized these in their own projects that they have

approved. The example that Skip is currently passing along is not the exact sample. We are proposing the landlock B35, which is very similar to this but has slightly lighter weave on it. Other than that, have any questions?
Mr. Winfree: Do you have any of the concrete one sitting in your pocket? Mr. Miguel: Unfortunately no.
Mr. Geiger: I believe warranty wise you said the concrete does have a 75 year manufacturer warranty on the product and Landshore I think you said you offer a three year warranty on the workmanship if we get the engineering through you.
Mr. Miguel: Correct. One of the unknowns was the warranty for the fabric and the manufacturer for the fabric has a ten year warranty on the fabric but the lifespan is 50 years.
Mr. Winfree: Rather then the price for linear foot what is the total for each option?
Mr. Geiger: Using his range of $205 linear foot for the almost 9500 linear feet you are looking at $1.93 million for the more expensive option or $1.56 million. That is just two lakes.
Mr. Winfree: That is stage 1.
Mr. Geiger: Keep in mind that these are going to be the more challenging lakes. We are going to have more information as more of these engineering studies get completed. I don’t think we are going to have this magnitude of work required at any of the other lakes. Some of the smaller we don’t have such adverse conditions that we are dealing with. The next phase is longer than this one.
Mr. Winfree: Phase 2 is considerably larger.
Mr. Miguel: Lakes 11 and 12, Phase 1 unfortunately you have to address 100% of the shoreline. Phase 2 you might not have to restore 100%. There might be some areas that are within compliance and the slopes are reasonable.
Mr. Winfree: Closer to where they should be.
Mr. Miguel: Correct and they might need touching up.
Mr. Shipe: Just out of coureosity above what we considered the existing edge of the lake line now how far up will the construction, 15 foot?
Mr. Miguel: Depends on the solution. The Sure-flex concrete mat technically the trench is four to five feet up the embankment whereas the turf reinforcement mat is up to

ten feet. There is going to be some instances where that is going to be weaving around some trees or irrigation or some hedges. We will work with that design consideration.
Mr. Winfree: Rob if you take a look at this cross section here you can see how much further up option 2 goes. Option 2 goes up higher but all that has to be scrapped off then the mat is put down and then you put the sod on while they get anchored on both ends. Then you put the sod over the top of that down to what the shoreline is going to be. The rest runs down for your 4:1 slope.
Mr. Shipe: Those costs all include the resodding?
Mr. Miguel: Yes. The only thing at this point in time that could be an additional is the use of drainage. If there are any instances where there is a need for a drainage pipe or catch basin to catch runoff between homes and run that water out, digging out a trench and placing some drainage pipes that is not accounted for in that.
Mr. Winfree: It is a possibility but not very high.
Mr. Geiger: It is also work that from what I understand might be on private property that the District wouldn’t undertake anyways.
Mr. Winfree: Any other questions. I will give you my two cents worth. You look at the difference in price and multiply that by 20 to 70 years you are going to spend almost three times that amount if you go with option 2 doing it three times. You are almost double by doing that. By doing option 1 it is going to cost a little more, but you are looking at 50 to 70 years and very minimal maintenance versus option 2 that looks like it is going to be you saw what it is. Concrete versus that what do you think is going to happen. That is just my two cents worth. I did the math and figured out how much everything costs and what the difference was. I am sorry to say it is a no brainer. Option 1 seems to be the most economical.
Mr. Carney: What are the two totals?
Mr. Winfree: I have it for what the original one was. The original was $2,033,000.
$18,041,775 for the low end. This came out a little higher on the low. It came out right about in the middle so like you said $1.9 million.
Mr. Geiger: $1.9 versus $1.6 million.
Mr. Winfree: The difference between the original was only a couple hundred thousand between the high and the low so why would you even try to play that game. It

doesn’t make any sense for option 2 unless you try and do something quick and dirty and we are all out of here by then. It is somebody else’s problem, but I don’t think that is fair to the actual taxpayers that are footing the bill for all of this. That is just my two cents. Do you want cheap to go in that is not going to last or do you want the Cadillac. Which is it that you want to have. Personally I would rather spend the money now rather than have to go back in ten years or twenty years and have to do it three more times because you are talking 20 versus 70. It is more likely with the concrete to be on the higher end then the lower end. Just my two cents more.
Mr. Murray: How soon do we need to make that decision whether it is option 1 or
2?
Mr. Burgess: Today. Again this is to get you plans for us to go out to bid. Mr. Carney: What do you need from us today?
Mr. Burgess: We need an approval on whether you are going to go with the turf
reinforcement mat or the concrete block mat option for Landshore to create plan sets.
Mr. Winfree: That is fine for Phase 1 for lakes 11 and 12. We have five more phases to go through, and I guarantee the same process isn’t going to be for all of those if I understand this correctly. For the FPL area we are not going to need all of this.
Mr. Geiger: A lot of those lakes it would just be regrading. We can pump one into the other and plug them.
Mr. Winfree: Lakes 11 and 12 are the biggest ones. They are the ones that most of the water flows through except for the last one and that is a straight shot. Under the FPL lines you don’t have a whole lot of movement there. Nothing moves. They all kind of connect and then go into the big one going all the way down to where 14 goes where it goes out to Coral Bay. Those are going to be a little trickier, but you are saying there are some areas that are fairly close. I think right now and correct me if I am wrong we are not going to use these numbers to figure the whole thing out based on our linear footage right?
Mr. Geiger: The plan is to let Landshore complete the engineering studies so then we have a complete picture.
Mr. Winfree: Exactly, so why do we have to approve one or two right now?

Mr. Geiger: Because they need to prepare the plan sets so they can move onto the next phase.
Mr. Burgess: The engineering study that you approved is to produce one set of plans. They are not going to produce two sets of plans because it is a lot of time. It is not what we paid for. The job was for them to do their studies, produce options so they can provide plan sets so we can move on for Phase 1.
Mr. Winfree: I think our direction is option 1. Option 2 just doesn’t make sense from a cost standpoint or maintenance standpoint. I don’t want to just price it all out based off of just that. We are going to go a little further with their engineering studies to figure out whether we need all of this or how much of this we really need.
Mr. Geiger: This is just for lakes 11 and 12.
Mr. Winfree: Ok. That I am willing to make a decision on.
Mr. Murray: I am going to make a motion that we approve option 1 for lakes 11 and
12.

On MOTION by Mr. Murray seconded by Mr. Shipe with all in favor, a motion to approve Option 1 – Concrete Block Mat for Phase 1 for Lake side slope remediation was approved.

Mr. Geiger: Ok so Miguel now Landshore can now produce the set of the plans, the specs, everything you would have to do and move onto the next phase. Do we have a time frame for the rest of them? Can we expect one phase a month approved at this rate?
Mr. Burgess: And the plans you said are about to be produced?
Mr. Miguel: If the survey is done and the solution is the design down we typically allocate 40 to 80 hours’ worth of CAD time, so a week or two weeks.
Mr. Burgess: We have a special meeting before the next meeting so we will bring back any updates as long as that is approved. We will let you get working on it. Does anyone have any more questions for Miguel?
Mr. Winfree: When will we have the information on 2 to 6. I guess what I am trying to get to here is maybe I am jumping the gun here but like you said we need all this information to be able to go out and get a bond. If I have more information on some of these smaller things with the little bit of money that we have in extra reserves we might

be able to start a little sooner on something else. That is why I am questioning that. We already made the determination that we can start and but bonds in and pay back if we want to or need to. We already approved that two meetings ago I believe it was.
Mr. Burgess: I think it is good to see the entire completion of the studies. Mr. Winfree: What is a good projection for that?
Mr. Miguel: Before that we have a contract to provide Phase 1 for lakes 11 and 12. We presented a contract for Phase 2 and then it was asked to present a contract for 2 through 6.
Mr. Geiger: They have all been approved by the Board. Mr. Miguel: Ok. Signed and sent back?
Mr. Burgess: I will check. We will execute Phase 2.
Mr. Winfree: I remember Phase 2 signing off on that, but I don’t remember signing anything on the other.
Mr. Burgess: We haven’t signed Phase 2. As soon as we have the plans we will get it executed and get going on it.
Mr. Miguel: From that point on is mobilizing into the field, conduct initial surveys, supplement the survey that are provided and then Mr. Miguel was inaudible at this time and has a set of plans for that.
Mr. Geiger: Essentially everything moves along. It seems like at every meeting we are probably going to have a phase to take a look at and either approve an option if they are presented or approve if there is only one option Landshore wants to present make sure that the Board is good with that. This was to try to tie the dollar figure down a little bit better as well. Hopefully we will have a cost update. $200 to $205 is a pretty tight range already.
Mr. Miguel: You will come across, we will send a portion of a plan that has priority areas also, sections that are a high priority and least priority. Would you like just a full shot?
Mr. Geiger: The full picture but if there is a way to provide.
Mr. Miguel: In the past what we have done for communities is we have done survey and we look at the full circumference of the lake we have identified areas where there is a severe need or restoration, a light need and they work with South Florida Water

Management and say we are going to be doing this portion this year because it fits better for our budget. We are going to this portion two years later and they approve that type of restoration efforts, so you are not as bogged down with so much.
Mr. Geiger: That is something we are working with South Florida on. We are going to have to revise that based on once we get the big picture to see where like what Barry said where can we move and start maybe a smaller lake while we get the financing.
Mr. Winfree: Right now we have a little bit of money. If we have something that we can start on that is great and get a jump on it. A bond is going to take us a little while to get. I don’t know what order to tell you to do them. I don’t think we can make that determination now unless you have a magic ball.
Mr. Geiger: I think the way we phased it out is how South Florida originally approved our action plan. That is the way Landshore is working, Phase 1 and Phase 2 from the greatest most expensive, most high risk to some of the lakes that are way less there. After we get the bigger picture back.
Mr. Winfree: Then we can start making that decision. We can’t really tell you right now. Does that make sense? That is why I asked when do you think you are going to have this all done so we can start doing some spending and bond planning.
Mr. Geiger: Landshore and GMS we are constantly talking so if Miguel runs into something and says we are looking at this phase now and this area really needs to be addressed and we think it needs to be addressed first we will take that into consideration. I think it is going to be a mix of what money do we have now, what solutions are we implementing on some of these lakes and South Florida’s patience with us to get an actual start on this.
Mr. Winfree: Makes sense to me. Anybody else have anything?
Mr. Shipe: Was there anything in the survey that we did was there any look at what caused these banks to erode or was it just natural over time or whether it was maintenance not performed, whether it was the geo-tubes that were installed in there that made it too steep to start with. Was there a reason why it became like it is if it was correct to begin with?

Mr. Geiger: Any lake bank is going to have erosion. The District did put geo-tubes in to try to help with that on some of these other lakes. You have explained before it is the tidal fluctuation. There is a lot of east west wind on some of these lakes.
Mr. Shipe: So did the geo-tube, but that was installed incorrectly and was never approved and that is why the Water Management District said that wasn’t the solution. Did that accelerate the steepness of the banks on 11 and 12.
Mr. Geiger: So those lakes they are not steep because of the erosion. They is the dropoff because of the tubes themselves. That was their biggest complaint.
Mr. Carney: What created the dropoff? The geo-tube right?
Mr. Geiger: The erosion of the soil that should have been placed on top originally. Mr. Miguel: Based on my initial evaluation and our engineering evaluation the geo-
tube that was there fixed a hole. If that geo-tube wasn’t there a large dropoff. They tried to fix that original erosion with that geo-tube there. That geo-tube sagged in certain spots. It lost underneath it and sagged more those changing the shape over time.
Mr. Carney: Is that normal erosion?
Mr. Miguel: You experienced significant fluctuation in water level where that water level can start to erode underneath.
Mr. Carney: So that is normal erosion then.
Mr. Miguel: Yes. You also have a really rocky shoreline. The rocks in some spots keep that geo-tube up but based on the design that was approved it was a combination of a geo-tube and then a cut open geo-tube to achieve a 4:1 slope or some slope from that water level down.
Mr. Carney: So you are saying they weren’t installed correctly before? Mr. Miguel: In same opinion I can say that, but I don’t want to put it in. Mr. Carney: They are out of business, don’t worry about it.
Mr. Miguel: If you look at the elevation of one spot and then walk over 50 feet and look at the same elevation you will see a difference in some cases 6 inches to 9 inches. That tube is like a sled going along the shoreline.
Mr. Burgess: Keep in mind that the Water Management District didn’t go inspect every single shoreline. They just said make it 4:1 and it is up to us to figure that out.

Mr. Carney: This is 11 and 12 we are talking about today. They are the biggest lakes with the geo-tubes. It is pretty consistent what we have to do there. When we get into the FPL lake they are all going to be different because you are going to have simple excavation in some areas and in some areas you may have to do the same thing. Are you going to price those out all separately? You are going to have to take each lake and look at it individually.
Mr. Miguel: Mr. Miguel was inaudible at this time. because those lakes are classified under Phase 3.
Mr. Geiger: That is how we originally did the action plan and that is how the proposals that Landshore provided was per phase. Now I believe Skip to your point I think what you are asking is if there are three lakes in one of these phases and they are all three different solutions Landshore can provide a this lake we are going to do this, and it is going to cost this much. They can break the cost out I am sure.
Mr. Carney: Because in those lakes one size doesn’t fit all.
Mr. Geiger: These lakes what we are talking about now is the consistent. We have the one solution.
Mr. Carney: They are not the same as the FPL lakes. The lake behind my house they could walk right into the water there is no dropoff.
Mr. Geiger: That is why they are doing the engineering study. Their plan at some of these lakes they might say this 200 foot stretch we don’t have to do anything with.
Mr. Carney: We are looking at individually and we are looking at it as a group.
Mr. Miguel: We will survey them as a group but then we will do the cost and solution individually.
Mr. Carney: Ok. That makes more sense.
Mr. Winfree: If you look at the map it actually as which lakes are in each phase and then they will look at each lake individually because they have to look at the entire shore of each one of them.
Mr. Geiger: I think the next phase is the only phase with one lake in it. Phase 2 is just that really big lake. Every other phase they should be looking at the lakes individually and what is the best solution at each location is going to be.
Mr. Winfree: We are down to manager progress report.

Mr. Burgess: Any more questions for Miguel to answer?
Mr. Winfree: I think we are done as far as that is concerned. Mr. Miguel: Thank you everybody. I will see you guys soon.
Mr. Winfree: Do good work that is all I can say. Quickly but effectively.
C. Field Manager – Annual Maintenance Plan
Mr. Burgess: So Pat is out of town for a little bit. Jason Gitel with our office is going to be helping out with field and checking everything. He has a few updates but otherwise is going smoothly as of now.
Mr. Gitel: So the coleus has started to be put in at all the monuments. By the time they were not fully done so I will take a look tomorrow, drive by and see if also proper irrigation is getting done in those areas. There is sod that is being replaced where there is a lot of the goose grass that was around. That was killed so it was replaced in those major areas. That should be fully done by the end of the day today and then the flags they will be changed to US flags on Thursday and then switch back early next week. That is what I have on my end so far.
Mr. Burgess: I will distribute Jason’s number in case you guys need anything. I think Pat is off for two weeks. I think he became a Grandpa today, so he is out of town. He is available as well. He can relay anything to us if we need it.
Mr. Winfree: There is one other item that is on here is the holiday approval that is in July. That is for next month. It is due before the end of the month. Is there anything left to do that or are we done with what we put in last year as the upgrades and that is what we carrying forward? Do we have anything to approve except for what has already been approved.
Mr. Burgess: The only thing that you guys approved most recent was the Estates entrance, the Christmas palms and whatnot to be lit and that increased the annual contract amount which is budgeted for.
Mr. Winfree: Otherwise everything is staying the same as it was. Mr. Burgess: Unless you guys want to explore changing anything.
Mr. Carney: Patrick why don’t you have Joe come to the next meeting? I think that would be a good move.

Mr. Winfree: That is what we are leaning towards right now. Everything we put in extra last year stays. That is all I have for this month.
D. Manager
Progress Report
Discussion of FY2027 Meeting Schedule
Mr. Burgess: On the progress report, the Estates speed limit signpost has been installed. The most up to date updates I have for the light poles July 3rd is the delivery date but that is to be determined. They will give us an update when those poles are ready to ship and then we will have our installer meet the delivery onsite.
Mr. Winfree: Is that for both of them?
Mr. Burgess: Yes. They are coming the same time. Jason and I plan on driving around the District to check on any encroachments on CDD property. It is mainly Harbor Island I believe where there is the most concerns. At the end of the day no one should be planning or doing anything on CDD property or any property that is not theirs. We will do a quick inspection and provide a report and see how you guys want to move forward with it. We will make it simple and pretty straightforward. We will work on that while Pat is out. Otherwise I don’t have any other updates unless you guys have any questions on the progress report.
Mr. Winfree: I am fine.
Mr. Carney: A little update on the park situation. Pat is working on fixing the split rail fence at the entrance.
Mr. Winfree: Do we have park approval to do that? Mr. Carney: I already had a conversation with them. Mr. Winfree: Ok.
Mr. Carney: What I told them is we have to keep cars from driving in there. The city will put one of those monument things in the middle so no one can drive through there. I already talked to the city.
Mr. Winfree: Ok so they are onboard with this. Ok.
Mr. Carney: The restroom roof is supposed to be in the 2027 budget along with the basketball court and they are looking at solar lights for the pickleball courts, but they are not sure if they are going to achieve that so we will see.

Mr. Burgess: Moving onto the fiscal year 2027 meeting schedule. I just want to start the discussion. We don’t have to approve anything today. It is more so to get your dates lined up especially because November and December meetings are a little tough to schedule. On page 74 of your meeting agenda is the meeting schedule draft. I will put it on the screen as well. As of now everything else with this meeting room is good to go except for December 21st. You can always have a meeting at GMS for free. That is up to you guys. It is up to you guys to discuss and finalize a plan.
Mr. Winfree: We can make that decision when we get closer.
Mr. Burgess: We can always move it to the 14th at GMS, or we can ask for here. Mr. Winfree: It depends on what we are working on at that time.
Mr. Carney: We can address it when we get closer to the date.
Mr. Winfree: Does anybody have any other exceptions or anything? We will go with this for now. When do we have to post this?
Mr. Burgess: I don’t think it is urgent to do that.
Mr. Carney: We can post the dates then we can make the changes later, right?
Mr. Burgess: The best practice is to approve your schedule a year in advance, post it and not have to advertise again. Again there is no rush to do it today. This is just to start the discussion. I can bring it back at the next meeting if you guys want to take a look at in the meantime and go from there. I have a couple more things. Basically more of an admin thing. Our office typically when you elect officers when you have a new Board member like when Ginny was appointed you choose your slate of officers. The motion is acceptable and that is how our office has always dealt with it, but we like to have a document on record, a resolution stating who the officers are. We would like to start doing that moving forward so I have Resolution #2026-02 which would be approving the elected officers. From June 30, 2025 a motion was to appoint Ginny as Assistant Secretary and keep the rest of the slate as is at that time. It would be Barry Winfree as Chairman, Skip Carney as Vice Chair, Ken Murray, Ginny Tropea, and Rob Shipe as Assistant Secretary, Patti Powers are your Treasurer, Sharyn Henninig as Assistant Treasurer, Paul Winkeljohn as Secretary and Assistant Secretary is myself with GMS. It is more so a little bit of housekeeping on the management side. Unless you have any questions or Mike has anything.

Mr. Carney: You need a motion? Mr. Burgess: Yes.
Mr. Carney: So moved.

On MOTION by Mr. Carney seconded by Mr. Shipe with all in favor, Resolution #2026-02 Electing Officers with Barry Winfree as Chairman, Skip Carney as Vice Chair, Ken Murray, Ginny Tropea, and Rob Shipe as Assistant Secretary, Patti Powers are your Treasurer, Sharyn Henninig as Assistant Treasurer, Paul Winkeljohn as Secretary and Patrick Burgess as Assistant Secretary was approved.

Mr. Burgess: I have one more item. We need to schedule another special meeting in order to have a shade session. We need at least ten days. It is no major rush, but I would like to get it done as soon as possible. Either the week of the 13th or the week of the 20th in July. July 13, or July 20th. Matthew special counsel is open to really anything in July, but we just need to have a special meeting, regular meeting, which we can provide updates on any lake stuff we have at that time. We need to have a special meeting to have a shade session. Does anyone have an objection with Monday, July 20th?
Mr. Shipe: I won’t be here.
Mr. Winfree: You are not here the 13th or the 20th? Mr. Shipe: I am here the 13th but not the 20th.
Mr. Winfree: Any reason we are going out to the 20th? Our ten days should be satisfied for the 13th. The sooner the better probably. I think it is important to have as many as possible. I think that is a good date to get it done as soon as possible.
Mr. Burgess: We can start with the 13th. We should be good.
Mr. Winfree: Everybody agree with that? Do we need a motion or not? Mr. Burgess: Motion to schedule a special meeting on July 13, 2026.
Mr. Carney: At 6:00 p.m. at Coral Bay?
Mr. Winfree: That might be the other issue.
Mr. Burgess: I will have to check with Julio. I can find out and let you guys know. Mr. Winfree: As of right now we will plan on the 13th unless you say otherwise.
Mr. Burgess: So July 13th at the Coral Bay Clubhouse at 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Cochran: I think as long as you have direction from the Board and have a consensus.
Mr. Burgess: I will reach out to you guys as it whether it is confirmed or not. Mr. Winfree: Alright sounds good.
Mr. Burgess: That is all I have.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Approval of Check Register
Approval of Unaudited Financials
Mr. Winfree: The only other thing we have is the approval of the check register.
Anybody see anything on there? Looks good to me.

On MOTION by Mr. Carney seconded by Mr. Murray with all in favor, the Check Register was approved.

Mr. Winfree: Any comments on the unaudited financials? I didn’t see anything.
That doesn’t need a motion.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comments
Mr. Winfree: Public comments. Clarence do you have anything? Mr. Lohman: No.
Mr. Winfree: Chris do you have anything?
Mr. Kapish: Yes last meeting or the meeting before that I brought up the median at the main entrance with trees lifting the curbs and pavers. Did you guys look at that yet?
Mr. Burgess: That was taken care of. Pat has updates on it. That is all I can provide at this time.
Mr. Kapish: Also you have a well that is in the park and we are responsible, the District is responsible for maintaining that well system to keep the staining down. It is staining all the fencing and staining the new park improvements, the play gym. What company do you guys have servicing that well system?
Mr. Shipe: It is not question and answer you know that. Just your piece. Have your three minutes. It is not ask and answer. Do you have a question you would like to submit? Put it in writing and we will get back to you, but this isn’t an ask and answer session.

Mr. Kapish: So you don’t want to say, or you don’t know. Mr. Winfree: Public comment.
Mr. Kapish: This is a public record. It is not a big deal if you don’t want to answer here. Anyway the main entrance fountain which has been stagnant for five years. Nobody has done anything. Taxpayers have the right to know what is going on with that. You guys don’t talk about it, keep it a secret. What is going on with that thing? Is anybody looking into the inside of it to see if there is any algae in there? What is the plan?
Mr. Shipe: I guess you weren’t listening. We are scheduling another shade session, so we are fixing the problems of the past administration who built this thing through the law system, and we don’t discuss that until it is over with and then all the information becomes public.
Mr. Kapish: You mean the past administration that is Skip?
Mr. Carney: Chris, submit your questions and we will answer you if you email. Mr. Winfree: Chris you darn well that we can’t let the public know at this time. A resident: Excuse me, why not.
Mr. Burgess: The Board adopted a resolution for a three minute public comment. You know this. I understand you have questions but as you submitted your email to me today I will respond to it.
Mr. Shipe: It is a public comment not ask and answer. Mr. Winfree: Three minutes are up. What is your name? Ms. Liz: Liz.
Mr. Winfree: Do you have anything? Ms. Liz: Not at the moment.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors Requests
Mr. Winfree: Supervisor requests. Skip? Mr. Carney: No.
Mr. Winfree: Ken?
Mr. Murray: Nothing for me. Mr. Winfree: Rob?

Mr. Shipe: Unfortunately when I was on my way here today I was stopped at the stop light and I was looking at the two light poles that we had installed. I know we just had them pressure cleaned but the top part that actually holds the light are they made out of metal or concrete. The paint is shattering off on the bottom of the poles. I don’t know if that is something rusting off and causing the paint to flake off. Is it something we need to do routine maintenance on? Coming down Turtle Run Drive, the flagpoles the last one the bottom portion of the black sections are flaking off on the bottom. I just saw that.
Mr. Burgess: We can take a look at them. I believe they are cast iron.
Mr. Geiger: I would just contact Lightworks about it. They should be able to tell the District if there is a warranty on them. Mainnor is pretty easy to work with.
Mr. Burgess: We will take a look at it.
Mr. Shipe: In the last meeting discussion there was going to be some letters going out. Did that happen? I didn’t see anything.
Mr. Carney: Letters for what? Ms. Tropea: The drains.
Mr. Burgess: Sorry I meant to speak about that. I put together a draft letter that Scott reviewed, Jonathan reviewed I am just recommending to the neighboring property owners to do preventive drain cleaning which is very standard especially in Florida. It is just stating that we have no authority to tell anyone what to do just more so it works as big general system and we recommend cleaning it, so it doesn’t have any issues downstream. South Florida Water Management District reviewed it. They don’t have any comments. I don’t think they will comment on anything but didn’t say don’t send it out. Barry has seen it and I think as long as the Board is ok with Barry seeing it we can try to find out the proper owners are and mail it out. Essentially we can’t tell them what to do. It is more we are doing our part you do your part.
Mr. Shipe: Ok.
Mr. Burgess: I can put it on the special meeting as well if you guys would like to
see it.
Mr. Winfree: I thought everybody saw it already. Mr. Shipe: That is all for me.
Mr. Winfree: Ginny do you have anything?

Ms. Tropea: I am good.
Mr. Winfree: I got two items the irrigation system I hear a lot about the irrigation system. I hear it needs a lot of repair. It probably needs a complete overhaul. One of the things I was thinking about and just for this Board to think about I don’t need a decision now or anything in that direction but if we are going to go out and get a bunch of money for the lakes to fix them all up I need to back up to this irrigation where we were originally thinking of doing and get another million dollars to do that then have to go get another bond and go through all the payments and everything for that, that maybe we should look at it right now at least getting some quotes for getting a new irrigation system. We could put that in as one bundle. Just something to think about. I am not asking for a vote right now or anything. When we start figuring out what all this is going to cost I hate to go out there and then two years from now we have to float another bond and pay the $50,000 minimum to do a bond, and it is only a million. Just think about it. I know we need to see if we can’t get something. Along those same lines BrightView has been around for quite a few years. They do somethings they shouldn’t be and I think there is things that they could do. I think we need to work with BrightView or maybe we go out for a total rebid or whatever to figure out what we are going to do for our landscaping also, maybe we combine those two. It seems to me that we can do a little better. Sometimes BrightView is right on top of things and other times they seem a little lacking. I don’t know if anybody else sees that. Let’s see if we can’t nail down what exactly they are supposed to be doing. When was the last time we did an amendment to the contract with them?
Mr. Burgess: You have only amended your original agreement from 1990 maybe when they were ValleyCrest.
Mr. Carney: About two years ago.
Mr. Burgess: They are just amendments. I think that you guys should have a clear scope of what they are currently doing. I talked to Scott about this. It is just a lot of time being put into an amended restated agreement but just to understand what they currently doing and making sure they are doing the right scope of work now that it is 20 years later from when they originally started with you guys with multiple account manager changes. I think it goes hand in hand with the irrigation also.
Mr. Carney: The original contract has about fourteen amendments to it.

Mr. Winfree: I think it is kind of hard keeping up with all the amendments to that original contract rather than getting it restated for everything or go out and get an overall bid something along those lines so that we have a little bit better understanding of what it is that BrightView is supposed to be doing. Does that make sense?
Mr. Burgess: Yes. I think you guys could definitely set up an RFP basically, but we need to narrow down exactly what the District does. We know what you guys do there is multi areas that you maintain that are not CDD property. You have license agreements. You have easements to do stuff. So I think it would be smart to get a clear scope of services that you want and expect for the District and then go out to bid based on that but for the amount it would have to be a legal bidding process.
Mr. Winfree: This is just me maybe we already have something like this, but do we have something that clearly states what CDD property is and what other property we are doing at this time. Even if we start with what is CDD. I know we are cutting some grass that is city property with easements like you were saying. How do we mesh all that together? Right now I don’t think anybody know what the hell we are supposed to be doing.
Mr. Geiger: Patrick has talked to me about this before. For other Districts I have created maps showing who owns what basically to help landscapers. Patrick did talk to me about starting that process so we can start marking something up so if you go out to bid every company can look at the same thing and say we mow here, we trim here. It is a process though because of the 20 or 30 license agreements with the city. There is a lot of easements and stuff.
Mr. Winfree: Exactly. We are doing a lot of work out there above and beyond what is CDD property because of all of the easements and stuff we are doing.
Mr. Burgess: What the District is supposed to maintain is the service that is being done but as far as going out to bid and getting clear map of what a vendor should be doing we just have to visually show them until we get a map. It wouldn’t be a quick process to go out to bid.
Mr. Winfree: I am not saying it is, but I am saying it is something we should be working towards. I can give you a clear example how long have we been talking about

Newport, what are we going to do with that property that is CDD property that we are not maintaining. That just doesn’t seem right to me.
Mr. Burgess: That will be an easy discussion with BrightView. I wasn’t aware that they weren’t maintaining that.
Mr. Winfree: I understand but it is still something that I think if we had a clear here is what we are supposed to be doing would make life a lot easier. It is something we should look at.
Mr. Burgess: We can put something together for you guys to look at with the help of Pat. It is up to you guys if you want us to spend our time doing that.
Mr. Murray: It is something that should have been defined a long time ago.
Mr. Kapish: There is already a booklet prepared with where all the easements are.
Keith and Schnars prepared that.
Mr. Geiger: It was updated last year.
Mr. Burgess: It is a simple process. It is not rocket science. It is just going out to bid for landscaping and just getting a vendor that the District deserves. BrightView does well but you guys are definitely a high end community in the area, so you guys deserve the best vendor.
Mr. Winfree: I think we ought to have a clear vision of what we are working on currently. Anything else. Can I get a motion to adjourn?

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS   Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Carney seconded by Mr. Murray with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned.

Assistant Secretary/Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman

Certificate Of Completion

Envelope Id: 3BD6FEF5-4962-8A15-817B-F52CABA4DE3A	Status: Completed Subject: Turtle Run: Complete with Docusign: 6-29-26 Minutes.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 29	Signatures: 2	Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2	Initials: 0	Ellen Acosta

AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)

1001 Bradford Way
Kingston, TN 37763 eacosta@gmssf.com
IP Address: 162.199.192.217

Record Tracking

Status: Original
7/30/2026 1:57:59 PM

Holder: Ellen Acosta
eacosta@gmssf.com

Location: DocuSign

Signer Events	Signature	Timestamp

Barry W. Winfree bjwinfree@outlook.com Chairman
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)	Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 2600:1700:9072:24cf:953a:2061:7da3:6c76

Sent: 7/30/2026 2:00:07 PM Viewed: 7/30/2026 6:14:57 PM Signed: 7/30/2026 6:15:26 PM

Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign

Patrick Burgess		Sent: 7/30/2026 2:00:08 PM	
pburgess@gmssf.com		Viewed: 7/30/2026 2:36:03 PM	
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)	

Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style	Signed: 7/30/2026 2:36:23 PM	
	Using IP Address:		
	2601:582:c300:60d0:ed5c:34e1:d6fb:bc54		
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign			
In Person Signer Events	Signature	Timestamp	
			
Editor Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Agent Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Intermediary Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Certified Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Carbon Copy Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Witness Events	Signature	Timestamp	
			
Notary Events	Signature	Timestamp	
			
Envelope Summary Events	Status	Timestamps	
Envelope Sent	Hashed/Encrypted	7/30/2026 2:00:08 PM	

Envelope Summary Events	Status	Timestamps	
Certified Delivered	Security Checked	7/30/2026 2:36:03 PM	
Signing Complete	Security Checked	7/30/2026 2:36:23 PM	
Completed	Security Checked	7/30/2026 6:15:26 PM	
Payment Events	Status	Timestamps