MINUTES OF MEETING 	 LAKE ASHTON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
and
LAKE ASHTON II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Lake Ashton Community Development District and Lake Ashton II Community Development District was held on Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:30 a.m. at the Lake Ashton Health & Fitness Center, 6052 Pebble Beach Boulevard, Winter Haven, Florida 33884.

Present and constituting a quorum:

Carol Pontious Borden Deane Brenda VanSickle
Bob Ference                         Mike Costello

Doug Robertson James Mecsics Stanley Williams Carla Wright Daniel Murphey

Also present:

Jillian Burns Darrin Mossing Andrew d'Adesky
Numerous residents

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS

Chairman Vice Chairman

Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

Chairman Vice Chairman
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

District Manager District Manager District Counsel

Roll	Call	and	Pledge	of Allegiance

Ms. Burns called the roll and everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

SECOND  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments on Specific
Items on the Agenda (speakers willfill out a card and submit it to the District Manager prior to beginning ofthe meeting)
Mr. Robertson: I have one audience comment request form. Mr. Velebir? Mr. Velebir: I am asserting my ability to speak later.
Mr. Robertson: Ok, thank you. In the West we have a slightly different format than in the East. If someone has a request to speak, they can speak at the beginning and if at some point, if they have done that because they wanted to speak something when we had a vote on that particular item, then they have another two minutes later on once the Board has had their conversation so they have a two minute opportunity to talk before we take a vote on something. That is the only difference. So Mr. Velebir said he wanted to speak at some point possibly on the golf course amenity policy.

THIRD  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion	on	Status	of	Golf
Course Negotiations (requested by Supervisor Mecsics)
Mr. Robertson: First subject is the Discussion on the Status of Golf Negotiations, requested by Supervisor Mecsics.
Mr. Mecsics: I just asked that this be put on our joint agenda because it is a joint
thing working as one community to approach this situation we have with the golf course. I know our two Chairpersons have been working diligently to come up with that and I believe there is some paperwork to go with that. At this point I am going to turn it over to both of them for their discussion on it.
Mr. Robertson: Thank you. I am going to go through some of my thoughts here to help people understand the various perspectives. Carol Pontious, Darrin, and I were tasked with getting information from the golf course. We have gone through a process. We had one formal meeting with Jim Lee about a month ago where we discussed pieces.
Ms. Burns: Supervisor Murphey has joined the meeting.
Mr. Robertson: All Board members are present. To try and put things in perspective so people understand when we went through all the pieces it is going to take

a while to get through all the pieces of it because it is pretty complicated and we don't know all the answers  yet.  Right now to put a boundary on what we are talking about is if we were to purchase a golf course the financial risk to the individual homeowners within the  community  at this point in  time looks like it  might be between nothing and

$20 a month, $250 a year is the limited exposure that we believe we would have if we purchased a golf course. I will get through all the pieces so when we talk about all the different things let's keep in mind that the current risk of buying a golf course from what we have seen is between no annual fees to maybe $250 a year to support golf course operations. That puts things in perspective because I have heard people say I am going to sell and leave this community, I don't want to have anything to do with a golf course. Understanding from what we can see, the total risk right now is about $250 a year if that at the top end. So then one of the things we looked at is what happens to this community if there are no golf courses. We made the analysis of we have all this greenspace in the community, which is currently mostly golf course, what do we do with the greenspace if there is no golfing. We still would have to maintain it in some format. We would still have to have a process of maintaining the bridges so we could turn this into a non-golfing community. Everybody can decide if they care or don't care about any change in their house values, but we got bids from our current company Yellowstone and we put them together. If there is no golf course to support our greenspace maintenance, the cost to live in this community would go up by $750 a year to maintain the greenspace. That is from official bids we have gotten. Obviously we are going to try and would have to try and get a better price if we could, but in the order of magnitude it is about $750 to run this community and maintain our greenspace. I don't think that is an option that I even want to consider from my perspective. Right now the golfers are paying 80 to 90% of the cost and they are doing it, while they don't like the fees necessarily, they are paying 80 to 90% of the cost to run the golf course and have the greenspace for all of us. If we were to change that then we would have no golf course and we would have that expense anyway, so keep that in perspective. I looked at the choice of this again, $250 a year. That's from using let's say 1,650 homes, which is approximately the number, we could generate only

if we were to take that money and put that as a supplement to how we operate our golf course. I talked to Mr. Maxwell and said if we were to generate that kind of income to support the golf course operation your golf course would not be losing any money, you would not be wanting to sell it. You would want to continue in operation because there are lots of people who said that he wants to stay because of the lots and wants to stay for other reasons. His answer came back very clear. That is a very generous offer. Not that it was an offer because I am not authorized to do that. It was a conversation of what would happen if we could make you this offer. He said that is a very generous offer. The golf course would be profitable but the answer is no, I don't want to run a golf course anymore. I am 73 years old, I have my grandchildren to play with, and Iwant to do other things. I don't want to be running Lake Ashton's golf course. I am saying but I could give you an opportunity to run this thing where you can actually generate profit rather than generating a loss. He said I understand that thank you very much, but I don't want to run a golf course anymore. That kind of set me back a little bit. I thought we had an opportunity to say let us buy the land so that no one else could come in and try and develop. We could own the land so that we could then protect our community and then you run the golf course for us because I know a lot of people including myself don't want to run a golf course. So would you consider running the golf course for us? His answer was no, I don't want to do that. So I said alright, we are done. I don't have anything else to say. I do not know how to do anything else but say I am going to walk away. There is nothing else to offer. This week when I finished playing golf on Tuesday, Jim Lee was in the Eagle's Nest and he said one more thing, we have now gone through our process and we have found a marketing company that will market these golf courses for us. Because it is a golf course that is not earning any money there is two ways to sell a golf
course based on multiples of earnings, or if the golf course is not making money and everybody has heard there is lots of golf courses in the country that aren't making money but there is a whole professional business that revolves around that. They sell golf courses as a percentage of gross revenue. So they say 90% of the gross revenue is a reasonable number to sell the golf course because there is still revenue. There are still

opportunities to try and figure out how to work it better. They have already selected the company. They will put this golf course on the market through their marketing company
for around $1,800,000. That was the number that was given to me. They will sign that contract in about 45 to 60 days. Like for us we have asked for data. They haven't given us all the data yet. A lot of it is done by Jim Lee, who is an accountant, and he has been
busy with tax season. Up until the end of tax season Carol and I only got a couple of pieces of paper from him. He is now saying alright, I will continue to get all this data for you and give it to you but if you can't see your way clear to at least starting negotiations with us, the window closes for us when I put it for sale through this marketing company. That should take 45 to 60 days. That leaves us a window of opportunity to look at whether we want to pursue the opportunity of buying it. The difference between our owning it versus somebody owning it is if somebody else owns it here are things that happen; they continue to pay all the taxes on the land which we would avoid. If they pay in the order of $1,800,000 for the property there is reasonable expectation that they want to generate income off of that and so if we took a number say 10% of just the sales price that is $180,000 that they would hope to siphon out of the community in terms of gross margin to repay their investment. So they need $180,000 and they also need about
$150,000 to $200,000 to pay for the taxes that we wouldn't have to pay. So from a standing start between the two sides their expenses are about $400;000 more than ours I am told that somebody is going to buy in that order of magnitude. The marketing company said it takes about 350 days right now. That is the average time it takes to sell a golf course. So that is one offer. We can just say no thank you, pass, and he will go off and sell the golf course. It will take maybe a year to sell the golf course, and he will sell it for some price between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000 depending on what types of bids he gets. That is a professional expectation from the company in Tampa that he is dealing with. I didn't collect the name of the company. He told me the name of the company but it was irrelevant for our conversation at this point in time. Now the third option is what he said to us was I'll still come back and said, I still will offer you which is different from the first thing. I would agree with you that I would sell the golf course, the Eagle's Nest, all the

machinery and everything for $470,000. If you recall if you were in the last meeting I netted that with these costs and he said I am going to get all the revenue from the other courses, I want $3,000,000 for my golf course. I immediately subtracted all those things I am not paying for that. I netted that out. So he came back and said $470,000 is a reasonable number that I would accept. I will also give you a long term lease on the building which is where the maintenance shed is where we do the maintenance. Without owning or having access to that maintenance is hard to run the golf course. He would include that. Once this whole place is built out he will change that building into self­ storage which he will rent to people who choose to use it. The part that is currently used for golf course maintenance would be leased to us at no charge or included in the price. So basically he said I will give you the land for nothing if you pay me $470,000 for the Eagle's Nest building and all the machinery I have, or I will go and sell it to somebody else at a higher price and once I sign the contract with another company my offer to you is off the table because I have a contract with another company. Just like when we sell our houses, if you find the buyer on your own once you sign the contract you still have to pay the real estate fees and everything else. Not trying to do anything nefarious, but in about 45 days to 60 days I willhave all my documentation to give to this other company and I will sign a contract. If on the other hand you want to work with us I will still honor this lower price and I will work with you. I will give you all the same details that I would give the other company I will give you. I will give you all those details back to you so you can do your evaluation as well. That is what he told me on Tuesday. There was no formal meeting. He caught me basically in the hallway. He took me off from my buddies when everybody was having a beer. I wasn't. I have kidney stones. That is how he got a hold of me. I share this information with the community. So the way my perspective in looking at it, he considered $250,000 a year more than enough to augment his golf course operations to make it successful. More than enough. If we were to do thesame thing with an outside company or if we were to open it up and try and solicit outside memberships from Traditions and other places, legally we have an obligation that anybody in the public can come in and sign a contract with either CDD and become a member of Lake

 	 	 	 	

May 11, 2018	Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton CDD II

Ashton. It is required by public law. Though we live here and we don't pay that fee there is a fee to be paid so that you can become a member of Lake Ashton. There is a public component to our community. If we are to go and try and get 50 new members from the outside we could make up the difference. We could have the money with added numbers. We could have enough money to not increase anybody's fees at all. As it gets built out we also have the opportunity for more members to come in. In my head I am trying to figure out what is fair for the whole community. If the whole community chipped in to pay the initial down payment or the initial price for the thing, then I would expect the golf course operations to reimburse the two CDDs for all the money that we would spend to buy the golf course. I would then expect them to set a goal of creating a goal of $100,000 reserves. I have many people in my conversations, I have had open meetings in the public where people were worried to set a reserve in case a golf course green goes bad or something happens or some catastrophic event comes in the golf course I don't want you coming back to the CDD asking for money, create your own reserve to handle that and do that from your dues that you are collecting. Once that is accomplished, the CDDs are paid, there is $100,000 in reserves, and then why don't you reduce your dues and look at other ways to generate revenue. There are a lot of people who go out of this community. I am told that there is one list that is 120 that leave this community to go somewhere else to play golf because they think it is too expensive to play here. We have an opportunity to change our fee structure to try and encourage our own members to come back and play here. I don't think like anything else we are not trying to earn money off the golf course, we would just like it to be an amenity that is available to as many people as possible. So if we could reduce the fees because we have better participation in general that would be better for our community. That is how I looked at the three options at this point in time. So we can say we are not interested, please go ahead and sign your marketing agreement and we will take the risk downstream. We will take the risk of what some new company will do. They may make money which would be nice for them or they may lose some money. I don't know the answer to that. I can't forecast that. The other option is for us to take that opportunity. We would then

control our own destiny. We would own our own land basically for no dollars we could own the land. If we own the land that prevents anybody else from trying to come in, rezoning it, redeveloping it or doing any crazy other things that people have talked about. We have talked about the opportunity for someone to rezone this is minuscule. I have said that people in the community and I have had counter arguments coming back to me saying if someone really wanted to come in and build condo's by the lake they could take the golf course. It is wide enough to build a condo and build their own retention pond. I think that is kind of crazy, but that is some of the arguments. We don't have any of those problems if we own the land, there is no risk of rezoning, there is no risk of anything else. Our risk is how well could we utilize and maintain the greenspace that we already own. Right now the best way to do that is through two golf courses. The golfers enjoy that amenity and they will pay the lion's share if not 100% of the cost of running the golf course. So from my perspective if we were to go forward, all I would want from this joint meeting is the Board to look at it and say tell us and decide if you want me or somebody else to continue doing the negotiation. That is one issue. The second issue, do we just say no thank you, go sell it to somebody else, or do we say yes, we are interested. We certainly don't have enough information yet and how do we then go and try to collect that information going forward. I am not asking for a decision to buy the golf course at this point in time. We don't know enough details. We don't have a clue what all the numbers are. I do know that there is a commitment now to assemble all those numbers so that an outside corporation could then market it. I have a commitment from them to give us that same information. So what we need from the Board is a direction to say we don't want to do this anymore, let's just let an outside company come in and buy it. We will live with the consequences, or do we want to pursue the opportunity to buy it at a significantly different price then what someone else would get it at. Those are our choices. If an outside vendor buys it and is successful then we are fine, the golf course continues to operate. We all have enjoyed maintaining our property values and the people that want to play golf. They will pay the added costs of having to run a course with higher costs than we have. If we decide to do it, we end up reducing some of the risk. We can't reduce

all the risks but that land is in our community. Whether we like it or not, that land is in our community and somehow it has to be maintained. So we could give somebody on the outside, they could try and get $400,000 in income to pay the taxes and pay the return on their investment, or we could risk the same $400,000 that we wouldn't have to spend to supplement the golf course. To me I would continue to try and negotiate with them and work out all the details. That would be my preferred course of action. It doesn't mean by saying that we would are committed to buyit. Wejustsay yes, we are interested and we will go through the due diligence process. We would have to come up with all the dates and all the information as other Board members have said, what the salaries were and all the information. All that stuff has to come. The question is whether we want to do that or do we just want to let them go off and sell the golf course to somebody else. I came to the conclusion that he was serious when I made the suggestion that we could pay him $400,000 a year to support the golf course operations. He acknowledged that was more than enough money and he said very nice cleat but I arn leaving. That surprised me. I thought we might have makings of a deal that had some less risk for us, but he said no thank you. He really wants to be done with golf operations. So there is no motion on the Board. That is my report from what I have learned. Carol went to the first formal meeting we had. There is more data that is in this thing that talks about that. I guess we throw it out to discussion of how we want to go from here.
Mr. Deane: I think the benefit for us to own the golf course is there, but until we have the information to do it, I am for telling Mr. Leeor Mr. Maxwell or whoever it is that we are interested, I agree with that. We are interested, but we need all the information before any decision of any sort can be made.
Mr. Robertson: We have already made that cornmitrnent to the cornrnunity before. We said we would hold public meetings with the cornrnunity to explain everything. This is just an example. We would have open public meetings about what are our costs, what are our circumstances and do all that and solicit feedback from the cornrnunity at large before we took a vote. You could put a motion on the floor to say let's buy it and I would vote against it because that would violate what we have already set up with the
9

community. We have told the community you need to know, you need to know the risks, you need to know all the pieces and so we are that point where he is saying if you are interested, I would like to go further and if you are not interested I am pursuing another path. It doesn't rnean that we have to even buy it at the end of the process, we are just saying we are willing to invest our time to see if that a viable solution.
Ms. VanSickle: I think one of the things we were going to talk about today is the consultant, most importantly obtaining a consultant to get us that information. I think we also made a promise to the community that they were going to get a chance to weigh in on it. So I want us to be very cautious.
Mr. Costello: I agreethat until we have a study done it is pretty hard to go forward with the decision. When you enter in a contract for a house you have somebody come in and do a home appraisal on it and everything else. I am not saying that I want to walk
away from it, but by the same token I don't want to run into it. I want to go into it with	' '
I;

a lot more knowledge then we have right now. I think like you said we want the input of the community also because they are the ones that are either going to benefit or suffer for it. I think that to give him any kind of a commitment other than we would like time to look into it I think would be wrong.
Mr. Robertson: Do we just walk away from it or continue the discussion? That is where we are. If they continue to do all these things we will have a good result.
Mr. Ference: There is no doubt about that. I ditto what everyone has said. We are going to ask for input and support from the community, but we are not going to send out a questionnaire out to every household and the majority wins. That is not the way you get input for any amenity in our community. Input is important but majority does not win. The majority of the people don't belong to the golf course. The responsibility is ours. That does not say that we do not encourage input because of other ideas, possibilities, etc. etc., but let's not forget we are in charge of making the decision not the majority of the members. It is not a popularity contest. So while we encourage input, we have to be mindful of the fact that we are not sending a questionnaire and the majority wins. We do or we do not, but the majority wants or does not want. Are we clear on that?

10

Mr. Costello: I am not saying every negotiation should be done by a referendum but I think the major part of our job here is to listen to what the people are saying. I think that we do have to find out what they are saying. Maybe I am wrong.
Mr. Mecsics: Mike, I agree with you. We made a commitment to this community when this first started going that we were going to listen and take in their advice and their feelings. I agree with you Bob that yes ultimately it is our decision but each and every one of these people out here voted for us to do the right thing. I think we owe it and are duty bound to give them that information.
Ms. VanSickle: I think it is very important because this could go either way. It
could be a big risk, or you could be looking at quite an assessment to support this or as
you are saying hopeful that it might cover itself but we don't know. There is a fear of the unknown so I think we have to listen to our people because they are ones paying for this.

Mr. Murphey: I think Brenda also mentioned about hiring the outside consultant to do a feasibility study. Are we still considering doing that? If we are would they be able to get us in this 45 day period?
Mr. Mecsics: I would like since we are discussing it and we're going to talk specifically about that because that is a crux of information that we need, I am not an expert in golf courses and if you saw my golf scores you would know that I am not an expert with golf. However, we need some experts to come in here and we talked about this as a joint meeting then maybe we need to have a motion for that to go forward with getting a consultant that will come, allocate or authorize the funding for that, then give them some parameters. They are going to be our contractors. We don't work for them they work for us. We give them a parameter of when we need it back and then we go forth with that. If you need a motion I will make that motion.
Mr. Robertson: Not yet. I think if we were to indicate that we are interested in continuing this process and that 45 day would expire. He would be willing to work with us. You will still do the same work over the next 45 days to get the information from an outside bidder. He has already agreed to give the same information to us. So if we were to say we were interested we would have I think more than 45 days because as we said
11

we have more things to do. If they were to give it to an outside person it still takes a year to sell the golf course so there is some time of a window in there. If we say no right now, in 45 days it goes for sale. If we say yes we are interested I think the deadline goes away. Mr. Deane: I would like to make a motion that you tell Mr. Maxwell that we are interested in the golf courses. I believe that alleviates the time limits. Then we can do our
due diligence and get the studies and the figures and everything else that we need to make a decision. I make that motion.
Mr. Mecsics: I second.
Mr. Robertson: There is definitely more discussion. Did you want to add in that motion that because we have already done the homework, Carol and Darrin, too, have the National Golf Association, have they given us a quote? Do we want to include the expenditure of those funds by separate motion?
Mr. Deane: Separate motion.

Mr. Robertson: Ok, we will leave that as a separate motion. Ok then is there any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: So far I agree with everything. The 45 to 60 days that was mentioned if we indicate that we want to go forward you said you yield, if we don't come to a decision within the 45 to 60 days will he pass that then onto the marketing company?
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
Mr. Williams: I don't know if it is possible, as you said it is probably another year before a sale would actually happen, I had a real estate license in a prior life in another state. I don't know what Florida state laws are, but I know that in some commercial real estate transactions we were able to put clauses in there that said he has a buyer at a given price and that no fees would be paid by that buyer or him if in fact it sold to that buyer. Something to that effect. Maybe Andrew can clarify that for me, I don't know, but we have had those kinds of clauses in those real estate deals. I would suggest that if we talk to him at the same time if Florida law allows that kind of thing that we put some kind of clause in there. That would be to me, would give us more time to evaluate and look at what is going on. It might be another way.
12

 	 	 	 	 	

May 11, 2018	Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton CDD II

Ms. Pontious: Sounds similar to a right of first refusal.
Mr. d'Adesky: That is permissible under Florida law. If he is willing to give us a right of first refusal that is on his end. Also a standard thing in purchasing the sale of commercial versus the sale is the due diligence period. There is usually inmost big deals I have worked on for example for Universal, there is a 90 day, sometimes even more of a due diligence period to investigate the deal and title and feedback information on that so that is also standard.
Ms. Pontious: I am somewhat offended by the 45 day thing. We have been trying to work with him for months now to get information to be able to assemble the facts and figures and he is the one that has been withholding the information. Been busy, I get that, but it has been on his side not ours that the lack of cooperation has been there. So I think he needs to back away from 45 days and if we are interested we need whatever time we need to get it worked out and if that expires then when we decide we are no longer interested in when he takes the ball from there.

Mr. Robertson: I understand that. I think we are misinterpreting the 45 days. It seems as though I wrote that into this documentation, my fault for not being accurate in what I am saying. He has said that is how long it is going to take for him to write a contract with an outside company. That doesn't mean that we have 45 days and that is it. Once he sends a contr�ct then it is a done deal at that point, but if we express interest in doing something else I think that the window would definitely open. It is not a hard 45 days, more of a, that is what it is going to take to close this other deal, but if you are working with me on this deal I think that number instantly goes away. That is what he needs to make a deal with another company not with us. Now back towhat Stan said we could tell him that we want to, in process with the other company that he has one bidder that is already available that the fees would be paid and I think that we could negotiate something like that. I did ask him in the same process, a term that is called a stocking horse, where you try and find the bidder on the outside to give you a price then you go underneath that. He said that he was not going to do anything like that. What I think is if we express interest he would work with us. He would give us the documentation

information and that could take a lot more than 45 days to go through up until the time that we are satisfied that we have done our part. We can't just string him along for a year to see what happens. He would give us time to go through our proper analysis.
Mr. Costello: Can I ask one question? Precisely what is included in the price of the $470,000?
Mr. Robertson: From my understanding and again we have to go through the

pieces. Included in the price of $470,000 would be the Eagle's Nest, all the mowing machinery an� equipment, all the golf course property, and a long term lease. He said 99 but that was Jim Lee just throwing it off the top of his head. He said a 99 year lease that is typical in some businesses. To take the piece of the maintenance building right now, there is the developer's offices and other things, there is a wood shop. No discussion of the woodshop at this point but the piece of that building that is used to maintain the golf course he would include that. He would not sell it to us because that is part of a different parcel of land but he would give us a long term lease on that so that we could then maintain the golf course. So you could partition off, people know over there that there is a gate that is kept locked right now right at the end of the building, they could make their access to the golf course through that gate as opposed to the other way. So if someone owns the land in the other direction and they are doing something else we would still have access to the golf course through a different gate. He has already thought those things through for us.
Mr. Williams: Other than the $470,000 there would be no additional yearly fees for
the maintenance?
Mr. Robertson: Correct.
Mr. Williams: Going back to the clause that I was talking about, even if we procrastinate and he decides in 60 days he is going to go, the clause goes with what he enters into that agreement so we wouldn't pay any fees. As far as I am concerned, there are other things in this document that I have concerns about or don't necessarily agree with, but until we have the other information there is no reason to go into all of this. There is no reason to discuss the document. It is just one person's thoughts.

Mr. Costello: The one thing I am. trying to determine here is exactly what in the beginning, I was under the impression that it was going to include the sales office. What happened with that?
Mr. Robertson: I am. sorry you got that wrong. Mr. Costello: I m.ay have, I make mistakes.

Mr. Robertson: Me, too. He put a different sales price on the sales office and on the RV storage. There was a separate price for each one of those entities. At our last Board meeting, we agreed that we could not buy the sales business because the resale business is a business. We shouldn't be in com.m.ercial business as a CDD. That brings m.e to one thing that helps, I have been told and I believe it to be true, that if you buy a resale house with their office they offer one year free golf membership. That is an opportunity because they are going to continue to run that business. If we said ok just for argument sake, say we agree to the $470,000, but we say you know what, why don't we donate a portion of that in reserve and then as you sell houses you deduct. We will allow to add one more m.em.ber to our golf course because it won't cost us anything to have an extra golf cart on the golf course, but we can compensate you by your free golf memberships as a way of us not giving you cash. So he still has that marketing opportunity which he likes to win the sales contracts. So there is a way of generating some revenue for us that way, as well.
Mr. Costello: Andrew, as our attorney, what is your legal opinion on this?
Mr. d'Adesky: You did include this speculated information in the report, which is very important and a pertinent factor. However, the x-factor is the bond debt in the O&M allocation. So if you have currently between two CDD's $500,000 in pardebt which is remaining debt which would need to be settled or reallocated. In addition you have
$50,000 in O &M debt, which would need to be reallocated and once again could be reallocated amongst commercial parcels or perhaps reallocated amongst the comm.unity at large which would involve an assessment increase.
Mr. Robertson: We are pretty stingy on how we spend money and Andrew has agreed that he doesn't want to spend any billable hours working on this unless it is a real thing. There are lots of questions that Andrew and I have and Carol have, but we are not

spending our money to have him research them unless we see that there is a reasonable thing going forward. That is why all of those questions aren't answered. We know that they are there, but they are waiting for the appropriate time to work on them.
Mr. d'Adesky: Until we have a deal and a structure, it is really not productive for me to go to research and say is this permissible, is this not permissible because let's say we were issuing additional debt or taking out a note that may or may not be permissible under certain indenture requirements of Lake Ashton or Lake Ashton II. We would have to investigate that but because we are fiscally responsible, we haven't done any of that work yet for either CDD.

Mr. Robertson: In the initial information that was given to us the very first meeting, there was an indication that if we wanted to go forward there was some flexibility on how this thing gets paid for. Why is he offering us a better deal than the outside? Well everybody has different opinions about him but I think that this is one of his major projects and he would rather look at it as being a success rather than a failure. He doesn't need all the money. He is one of those people that doesn't care how much money he has in one sense. He would rather leave a community that was successful and he can say, look at how beautiful it is. It is still that way even after I left the premises. I can't tell you how much, but there is some amount of that he is willing to let us to take over the golf course and make this a long going successful community without his involvement.
Mr. Williams: Can we clarify the motion and give him a chance to speak?
Mr. Robertson: The motion that we recommunicated with Mr. Maxwell, saying that we are interested in pursuing the idea of buying the golf course. We want all the due diligence information would be due to us to come to that and then a further commitment that we would all share that information with the community through public meetings before we make any formal decision. Is that fair?
Mr. Williams: And that was already seconded right?
Mr. Robertson: That was already seconded. I haven't heard from Ms. Wright yet. Ms. Wright: I thought we were already at that point a long time ago.

Mr. Robertson: Ok, so Carla is ok. As a joint meeting we vote as separate Boards, two votes, same motion. Before we vote, we have to give Mr. Velebir a chance to talk.
Mr. Velebir: First of all, I think your Option 3 is terrific. Turns things around and to buy the golf course for virtually nothing is a good deal. As you said we are stuck with this big chunk of land one way or the other. It is going to cost us money and the golf course seems to be the best way. I think most peopleare notconcerned about the purchase assuming you are going to take that out of reserves.
Mr. Robertson: That is one possibility yes.
Mr. Velebir: It has always been an ongoing maintenance. When you originally, when we were talking about this you were saying that the current agreement that the golf course has with the developer, I guess is that for every new home that is sold he gives the golf course $9,250, which includes that one year golf membership, so what I wanted to know is in this deal what happens to that $9,250 and are we still going to be obligated to provide a free year of golf? Thank you.

Mr. Robertson: Correct, good question. He would keep the reason we would get it for that price is that he would keep all those dollars going forward. The $9,250 between the developer is not forever, that is just for the new house sales. Once they are sold that money goes away. For us as an entity if we own it having new members play for a year to see if they want to continue to play golf here is probably a good thing. It wouldn't cost us anything from a cash flow point-of-view. It is how it has worked always. That is how we get the price down from $3,000,000 down to $470,000. I will recognize you because you didn't know our rules, so please. You have two minutes.
Mr. Scali: Tom Scali, Dunmore Drive. Do we know what the current maintenance expenses are with the current developer? For the golf course?
Mr. Robertson: Yes, pretty much.
Mr. Scali: One of the concerns seems to be that you didn't want to run it. Is it possible that the CDD purchases the land and the people who are employed there want to continue to work here? Why not as a plan, let them continue to run it, just know what the costs are and go forward from there?

Mr. Robertson: Absolutely. That is clearly one our options. It is a complicated conversation. IMG is in here right now, International Golf Management. They do the maintenance. Their current contract is about $100,000 a month to do their part of the deal. That is a piece right now. That goes up or down depending on what is going on. That doesn't prevent us from going continuing with IMG. We could go to Bill DeCasper Golf. We could go to other golf course operators and operate with them. That is still an option that we would have. We could use that as part of our due diligence to see where we wanted to go. None of those things are off the table. To me this issue is if we can end up owning the land and then that takes all the bad side risks away from us. Then as a community we try and figure out what is the best way to generate income from that land that keeps all of our maintenance fees down. Opening it up to more members on the outside, things like that, and reducing the membership dues to get more volume. We know that there is certainly more room on the golf course. Those are all things that we could do to make it nicer for people so that they wouldn't have to leave the community
                to play golf. They could play right here. We could have daily fees and stuff like that. The people who are avid golfers, they make their reservations a head of time and the
people who are just walk-in golfers, they just come on the slots that are available on a daily basis. There are many ways to get maximum use of the golf course and for us to generate income so that it doesn't become any form of a burden on the entire community.
A resident: Do we know what his annual revenue is because in here we say that if a golf course is not making money, the normal sale is 90% of the annual?
Mr. Robertson: Correct.

A resident: How could we even be thinking about buying something unless we know the cost of what the money is bringing in? Anytime you go buy a commercial piece of real estate they know. I feel that this company that told him the golf course could sell for $1,800,000, they have to know what his income is before they even come up with that. So right now they are on a better footing then we are. I don't believe the figures you have here are near correct. I can support it, but we need to know what his annual income is.

May 11, 2018	Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton CDD II

Mr. Robertson: I agree. There is an estimate that they gave to them that had the same kind of conversation that they have had with us. That is just the ball park. That is what the 45 days for them is to give them all that data that they are also going to give us.
A resident: So I estimate my house is worth $500,000 and I know well that it is not worth $500,000. Until we get that figure we can tell him yes, we are interested but we want to have the facts in front of us.
Mr. Robertson: Thank you. The way we get that figure is to say yes we are going to continue to negotiate but no one in this room wants us to buy the golf course today based on the facts we have. Not a single soul in this room. Does anybody want to buy the golf course today with the facts that we know? Great, we got not a single hand up that wants to do that. We want to get the data and we want to not let this opportunity pass by if it is a good opportunity. If it turns out to be a sour deal that won't work for us then we just take the chance of him selling it to somebody else and wish for the best.

Ms. Pontious: I think where he is getting these numbers is just round figures. This is not accurate. If you have 400 members and they are paying approximately $5,000 a year that generates $2,000,000. Now you have $100,000 plus in just IMG fees, so you take that
$1,200,000 right there which gives us $800,000 left. Now we have to pay salaries. Is that
included in the IMG contract? We have to pay maintenance on the Eagle's Nest. We have to pay ponds, we have to pay bridges, and we have to pay expenses of operations, water, sewer, electric and all those things. There are just so many unanswered questions that you don't know if they are included in there or anywhere.
Mr. Mecsics: I think that is why we have a motion on the table. We need a motion from Mr. Deane who has put in that we do this and then we can take another motion as far as who we want to study for that. But let's get this thing going.
Mr. Costello: One of the things that you told me, Doug, was that us buying the golf course as a government entity we don't pay taxes on it. Now due to the fact that we are collecting money and dues, does this become taxable at that point?
Mr. Robertson: I don't believe so. Andrew agrees with me.

 	 	 	 	

May 11, 2018	Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton CDD II

Mr. d'Adesky: No, once again, the CDD can't collect O&M on our own property.

That is not a factor.
Mr. Ference:	We talked about needing more information. Can we move on and make a motion? Let's move on get the information.
Mr. Robertson: CDD II, all those in favor of pursuing the motion as stated?

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Mecsics with all in favor the Lake Ashton II CDD Board authorized continuing to obtain information with Mr. Maxwell to purchase the golf course.

Ms. Pontious: And those in favor of continuing to pursue as getting information only for CDD I?
On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Mecsics with all in favor the Lake Ashton CDD Board authorized continuing to obtain information with Mr. Maxwell to purchase the golf course.

Mr. Robertson: Ok, so I guess the next item. would be to look at the contract.

Ms. Burns: Everybody should have a copy in front of them. handed out to all the Supervisors. If you look on page 5 there is a breakdown of the fees. The total cost for all the expenses is $30,000. It would come out to $15,000 per District. There are task orders I have listed on here as optional. If we did want to pursue those the total cost would be
$16,000 or $8,000 per District. You can see the breakdown. We were discussing earlier the timing of this report and how long it would take. What they have listed here is about 60 days. They handed in their proposal in March. It was authorized April 2nd. They have to report to us by June 1st and 60 days is about their tirneline to complete this report.
Mr. d'Adesky: Just an antidote, we had a golf course in another comm.unity and it was $35,000 so this is a com.parable rate.
Mr. Robertson: So then we have a motion for each Board to split the cost of $30,000 to undertake a study by NGF to help us in our evaluation of this purchase.
Mr. Mecsics: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we undertake the study with NGF to split the costand get all theinformation so that we can make a fact based decision.
Mr. Ference: I second that motion.

20

May 11, 2018	Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton CDD II

Mr. Robertson: We have a motion. I don't know if there is any more discussion that we need to have on this.
Ms. Pontious: On the closed golf course real estate value impact, I am wondering if the O'Reilys out of the kindness of their hearts didn't give us enough information that we could eliminate that $4,000 and do the first review and the second comprehensive physical review which is going to tell us I am sure what happens in the other part.
Mr. Mossing: I believe that you could lower that fee by that amount because there was a very comprehensive report behind it. It really did spell out that if the golf course closes, the results are going to negatively impact property values.

Mr. Robertson: So that is an option that we could take out so we can work out. The only other thing is, is the Board willing to have Carol and I and Darrin continue in this process to be the point people are involved. Do we wish to change it around at all? I don't see anything on that so you don't need a motion on that. Before we spend the money to execute the contract I would suggest that we contact Mr. Maxwell and tell him this is what we want to do so that he will give us time to do this evaluation. I don't want to spend the money unless he is cooperating. I am assuming he will, but I just want to make sure that is clear. We will not spend this money unless we get an agreement from Mr. Maxwell that this is appropriate. If he says no that tells us something too.
Mr. Deane: Can we get this agreement in writing? Mr. Robertson: Yes.
Ms. VanSickle: I'd never agree to anything that wasn't in writing.
Mr. Robertson: This whole process of this information that we have that I shared today I made sure that I communicated to Mr. Lee based on what he gave me. I won't even present this unless you give me an email back verifying that is what you believe. We are writing all of this down to written communication so that it can't be confused.
Mr. d'Adesky: Supervisor Ference and Supervisor Mecsics, do you agree to the revised motion?
Mr. Mecsics: Yes, I do.
                               Mr. Robertson: Ok, Lake Ashton II. All those in favor?

21

On MOTION by Mr. Mecsics seconded by Mr. Ference with all in favor proposal from National Golf Foundation for an acquisition feasibility study was approved by the Lake Ashton II CDD Board.

Mr. Robertson: Everyone is in favor. Carol? Ms. Pontious: Lake Ashton I, those in favor?
On MOTION by Mr. Mecsics seconded by Mr. Ference with all in favor proposal from National Golf Foundation for an acquisition feasibility study was approved by the Lake Ashton CDD Board.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion	of
Amenities	Policy
Supervisor Robertson)

Common
(requested	by

Mr. Robertson: I have a discussion of our common amenity policy. We have two amenity policies that are fairly close and we have always said that we are trying to operate as one community. I will take the opportunity now to add a little extra seriousness. If you notice the difference in how Mr. Mecsics is dressing and how I am dressing he is running for re-election folks. I am not, but I am wearing my t-shirt that we are one. West and East are one community. I would like to suggest that we create a
committee that works out our amenity policies. We have a joint amenity policy. There is some things that are exclusive to either side, but that can be an addendum that says these are all the common things so everybody reads one amenity policy. If there is something that applies just to the East it is in Addendum 1 and if it is just the West, it is Addendum
2. That way we again are telling the community, one amenity policy, one community, so I would like to do that if I can get support from the two Boards.
Mr. Mecsics: Cooperativeness and working as one community, Ithink we appoint a member from each one of our Boards to sit down. You don't have to worry about the Sunshine laws and then work with the amenity policies with the two community directors and come up with one community amenity policy for both Boards that we agree on then work out whatever. One of the things that you would have to talk about is we

22

have to define what a guest is for this community because there is some concern about folks that do not have a buy in or are not a resident or a renter and we need to define what truly a guest is so we don't run into any problems. I will make a motion that we appoint from each one of our Boards to discuss this, work with the community directors and then come up with a draft common amenity policy for the Board's consideration.
Mr. Costello: Second it.
Mr. d'Adesky: Do you want to make that designation as part of the motion?
Mr. Robertson: Sure let's do the vote and then we can assign someone to do it.
You want it in the motion?
Mr. d'Adesky: It makes it easier if it is part of the motion.
Mr. Robertson: Do we have a volunteer from CDD II to work on the amenity policy? Mr. Williams: Let's everybody look down this way.
Mr. Mecsics: Congratulations. You noticed he wasn't looking at me. Mr. Robertson: Mr. Williams has graciously offered.

Ms. Pontious: Do we have an offer from the East side? Mr. Costello: Sure why not.
Ms. Pontious: Ok, Mike has volunteered to do it as well.
Mr. Robertson: Ok so we now have our two Board members. On CDD II, all those in favor of the motion?

On MOTION by Mr. Mecsics seconded by Mr. Costello with all in favor Lake Ashton II CDD designated Mr. Stan Williams from Lake Ashton II CDD to meet with the community directors from both CDDs to discuss a common amenity policy for both CDDs.

Ms. Pontious: On the·East all those in favor?

On MOTION by Mr. Mecsics seconded by Mr. Costello with all in favor Lake Ashton CDD designated Mr. Stan Williams from Lake Ashton II CDD to meet with the community directors from both CDDs to discuss a common amenity policy for both CDDs.

23

 	 	 	 	 	

May 11, 2018	Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton CDD II Mr. Robertson: Thank you very much.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion on Amenity Policies
and Definition of What a Guest is and Propriety of Recurring Guests (requested by Supervisor Mecsics)
Mr. Robertson: Discussion of Amenity Policy and Definition of what is a guest. Mr. Mecsics: I think we covered that.
Mr. Robertson: That is going to be included as part of the discussion between Stan,
Mike, Mary, and Christine. So Mr. Mecsics is happy with that.

SIXTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Joint Resident
Feedback Survey
Mr. Robertson: Consideration of a joint resident feedback survey. Mr. Williams: Wouldn't that be part of that?
Ms. Pontious: I don't think it is exactly. One is the amenity policy, that is a separate
issue. We also do a feedback survey. In the past it has been done by the East, a separate survey then the one done by the West. As we were talking about doing ours a month or so ago we said let's wait until the joint meeting and see if we can come up with a plan to do one so that we knew who thought what, when and where all in one place. So I think that is who would like to work on the feedback survey� or maybe Christine and Mary can merge them with the best questions that you feel is appropriate. If you want help from us we are happy to help.
Mr. Deane: I make a motion that the two community directors get together to build a feedback survey for one community.
Mr. Mecsics: If I may, Borden, can we amend that so with your approval to give that a specific time period of once we send it out they have let's say 90 days to get that thing together and back out to the community so we are not going 6 to 9 months?
Mr. Deane: That is fine, 90 days. Mr. Mecsics: Then I second.
Mr. Robertson: Any further discussion?

24

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Mecsics with all in favor Lake Ashton II CDD approved for Community Directors Christine Wells and Mary Bosman to put together a Joint Resident Feedback Survey with a 90 day turnaround timeframe after it has been sent out.

Ms. Pontious: CDD I joint feedback survey, all those in favor.

On MOTION by Mr. Deane seconded by Mr. Mecsics with all in favor Lake Ashton CDD approved for Community Directors Christine Wells and Mary Bosman to put together a Joint Resident Feedback Survey with a 90 day turnaround timeframe after it has been sent out.

Ms. VanSickle: Before we go on, we're talking about amenity policies and everything else we discussed, a letter that was going to go out about clubs and groups. We have the letter that Christine did a very nice job on but we thought it might be more meaningful if it went out jointly. Your Board needs to decide if they want to agree with that. We are ready for it to go out. We want it to go out.
Mr. Robertson: They want a vote now.
Mr. Mecsics: I think in fairness to Mary and our side, she should take a look at it. If she has no disagreement with it then I would recommend to our Board that we concur.
Mr. Robertson: I think it means that we just have a chance to understand it and if we have no objections we agree to do it.
Mr. d'Adesky: Yes, that is just staff direction, it doesn't need a motion.
Mr. Robertson: We are certainly in favor of doing it together.
Ms. Pontious: I think at this point it needs to go out, so we would like to give you maybe to the next meeting to meet together and decide if you want to do it as a community wide event or whether we will just do it on our side.
Mr. Robertson: We can do it within 30 days. Ms. Pontious: Ok, sounds good.
Mr. Mecsics: But it will be a joint one.
Ms. Pontious: Yes, it will come from the joint sides.

25

SEVENTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion	of Card Access for
Amenities
Mr. Robertson: Discussion of Card Access for Amenities. It doesn't say who put this on the agenda?

Mr. Mecsics: I will do it. Mike Costello and I were both designated at one of the meetings to take a look at this. We talked at great length at our own expense at Nini's Restaurant by the airport. You have to mix business with pleasure, looked at the facilities, the resources that we are protecting and I drew upon my experience in the security side of the house. There is a lot that goes into setting a full card access system. There is a lot of impacts both known and unknown. At this time we do not or at least Mike and I both said we don't see it as a viable aspect for this. However, with a company that I did work for at one time because they found how much it would cost as far as the infrastructure and then just the maintenance of it to come up with what we used to call a constable program. In that case people in the community would be considered to be constables and if they see some kind of infraction going on or someone that doesn't belong there they can bring that up. It gives a little more credibility as folks have a commitment taking care of their community.
Mr. Costello: I think that what we both determined was that even with card access you can with codes, you could go with so many different things that quite honestly it is nothing for me to hand another person my card. They are going to be able to use the amenities. The only way that you are truly going to get away with it, I remember when I was working in order to get in our communications center, we used to use fingerprint identification. It is just going to be an extremely expensive ordeal to even consider. You can go with that. You can go with face recognition. I think right now the best thing Jim and I came up with is we have to depend on the people that live in the community when they know that something is happening. When people are coming in using the amenities or attending different functions that they are not supposed to attend it is going to be up to them in order to help us help them. That is the way it goes. I don't think anybody wants to be part of being called a rat but by the same token you are spending your money

26

in order to keep these amenities running. I don't see where somebody should come in and just use them for free.
Mr. Deane: I agree with that. Have we thought about a gate access? A different gate access to come into the community because anybody can buy a clicker.
Mr. Costello: The problem being is the fact that these are considered public roads and anybody has access to this community.
Mr. Deane: They have to go through the gate. So the guard would have the information. We have lots of people that don't live here that have clickers to come in and out the resident gates.

Mr. Costello: That is going to be something that we are going to have to make some sort of a ruling where when the house is sold that we are assured that all of the gate passes are turned into the new owner.
Mr. Deane: They can't because I paid for it when I bought my house. You can't have it even when I sell my house because it is not sold withthe house.
Mr. Costello: We will pay you whatever you paid for it.
Mr. Deane: People aren't going to do it. The sales personnel have them. They are not residents and never will be residents.
Mr. Costello: What do you suggest for the gate as far as being able to allow only residents in and keeping people who are prior residents out or other people?
Mr. Deane: They make a sticker that you put on your windshield. A bar code that you can eliminate when the house is sold.
Mr. d'Adesky: Just from a legal perspective, obviously they are public roads. We are obligated to have access through the visitor entrance but in terms of transponders your transponder policy clickers you can do whatever you want for that. We just had a District change their transponder policy, essentially issued new transponders.
Mr. Costello: The only thing there is the fact that they are going to come in through the gate, they are going to say I am visiting Joe Smith or going to the restaurant, whatever. They are going to do whatever they want to do once they get into the community. We can't follow each and every person. It is virtually impossible.
27

Lake Ashton CDD and Lake Ashton CDD II

Mr. Mecsics: Borden, why don't you let Mike and I sit down like we did with the access card and we will look at our system that we have right now and see if there are any changes of what we have right now. How is that?
Mr. Deane: That is fine.
Ms. Pontious: I think what we need is something that the office staff can eliminate people when they are notified that someone has moved. It is just going into the equipment and eliminating them so there is no option of having any device to get in once you go out.

Mr. Robertson: The other thing that we will do is, and I have lived in a place that they have a bar coder reader, is your car drives up to a certain point and your bar code gets read. They know that it is your car and it also prevents people from as we all understand you press the button about 100 feet away and drive like crazy to get through the gate. It prevents all the stuff. You have to come up and get your bar code read before the gate will come up. The will eliminate some of the safety issues.

Mr. Costello: Jim and I will be more than happy to look into it. Like I said I don't think it is going to elevate the problem totally. I think is it going to slow it down some but I don't think it is going to end it.

Mr. Williams: We have been talking about after hours and I was just curious what is our responsibility of our staffs on both sides as far as watching people who are in the fitness room or in the bowling alley or whatever? Is there any responsibility of the staff to go around and check occasionally? Is that part of their job description?
Mr. Deane: The security people do it at the pool all day long.

Mr. Mecsics: Stan's concern there and I think we discussed this, Mary and I even Christine and I a little bit, every staff member has a responsibility to make sure our amenities are being used by the right people, whether they are security or not. We just don't rely on security. If you do, you are making a mistake. He is exactly right on that. I think it is inherent. As we were saying before it is inherent on all of us if you see somebody in there that doesn't look like they are supposed to be here or you don't know them. You can either ask them or have someone else do it.
28

Mr. Williams: So it is part of their job description. Mr. Mecsics: Yes.
Mr. Robertson: We also just so you know, there have been some individuals who have lived here who have moved out and they start trying to come back and use the facilities. We have become aware of those people and have their picture available so we make it clear to them that if they are not paying they just can't come in and do that. It doesn't prevent in certain cases where individually they can invite anybody. If you are sponsoring somebody for an event that is ok but they have to be properly sponsored. I know there is a basketball group that plays. One individual from the community here likes to play basketball more aggressively than us other 70 year olds, and he gets some people from the outside. He signs them in every single week and they sign the liability waiver so they can play basketball with him.
Mr. Mecsics: I think that is part, Stan for you and Mike, part of our amenity policy is what defines a guest and what defines a recurring guest. That will fall into his area.
Mr. Robertson: Ok, no motion required, but any action will be taken for the next Board meetings.

EIGHTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Community Security
Patrol (requested by Supervisor Mecsics)
Mr. Robertson:	Mr. Mecsics, would you please have a discussion on our
community security patrol?

Mr. Mecsics: I wrote these down so I get the facts right. A little over a year ago we both completed our security contracts and we picked different companies to provide security officer services. The way I am looking at this approach is one of an agnostic approach and does not involve the ethnicity of the selection of either company when that occurred. I was asked if we could have a shared patrol between two different companies. From my perspective with over 45 years in the security area, my opinion was it was needed for an efficient or effective from a commanding patrol and operational standpoint. I still feel that way but there is an opportunity for both of our CDDs to have one act as an executive agent for the community patrol and operate it with his company. Lake Ashton
29

II currently has a 24 hour community security patrol versus the 18 hour patrol car that Lake Ashton I has. I propose that Lake Ashton II CDD become the executive agent for that function. They supervise the community with one consistent approach to the security patrol as well as present a cost savings for both Districts. In the case of Lake Ashton I you will probably be about $30,000 and for Lake Ashton II about $60,000. If agreed to, accommodations could be made to absorb some of those security officers into the existing structure of the company. The actual oversight for the patrol operations would be a cooperative effort between our two community directors with an advisor function I would provide. Obviously a formal agreement would have to be drawn up among the operations strategy between the two CDDs. I recommend that Lake Ashton I CDD appoint a Supervisor, possibly Supervisor Costello with his public safety background to work with me on this. We talk about doing things together and I think this is an excellent area that we can prove we are capable of doing it. I open it for discussion.
Mr. Robertson: So if I understand it right, we have right now, we have two patrols
going into the community. Ours works for 24 hours and the other one is less than that. Based on what we are doing now you feel that a single patrol could cover the entire community effectively. If that were the case we would have a joint patrol that went through the whole community with both realized cost savings as a result of eliminating that. Is that correct? But you would also, as we did in the past, when we transferred the employees that we would like to have we could still continue to have.
Mr. Mecsics: The employees with the present company if the CDD I would like some of those to come over we would work with our company to absorb them in so that we would have a meshed operation so it is one company taking care of all the business.
Mr. Robertson: Of just the patrols.

Mr. Mecsics: Yes. That would give you 24 hour patrol and save you money. It would give us the same thing and save money. Somebody asked about that, about the size of the community. I am just entering into I am going to be teaching a class of Patrol Allocation for a college and the size of this community is well worth it if you do it the right way. I believe you can do it.

Mr. d'Adesky: So to clarify because there is potential of interference of contract issue here. If you have one company perform a joint patrol both in the area of Lake Aston II and Lake Ashton I to go throughout the entire community, I would have to look at that contract because that might be a breach of the scope of the Lake Ashton I's current contract. There might be an amendment to their contract to carve that out to allow for a community wide patrol if they are amenable to that idea. So that is something I would need to look at.
Mr. Mecsics: That would have to be done. I know when we did our contract with Securitas we had a clause in there for expansion of that if we had to in the future.
Mr. Robertson: I don't know if that merits discussion at this point.
Mr. Ference: Jim, are we having a problem with our security that we have to go to this patrol?
Mr. Mecsics: No, it is efficiency, Bob. It is pure efficiency. Mr. Ference: So nothing is broken and we are trying to fix it?
Mr. Mecsics; I don't go by if it is not broken don't fix it. I look for efficiencies, innovation and things in the future so is it broken, I would say yes, because we have two different contracts. Two different companies doing the same thing for just a smaller area.
I think by allowing us to do that we can get an efficiency of that and save you money. It is avoidance of costs.
Mr. Ference: Thereis cost savings. It is not reducing the problem, just cost savings.
Ms. VanSickle: My concern is first of all we decided the two CDDs decided to go with separate contracts. I am pleased with our contractor for the most part. We always have room for improvement, but my concern was we are a growing community. We are a large community. We are getting ready to lose our pool officer as of May 1st. During
the summer we don't have a pool officer. The pool is probably one of our areas that needs to be patrolled more often than anything else. During the summer our officer makes a concerted effort to get through there more often. Also if we have events and we need to
pull a security officer for some reason, I think we are just too large that if we have an emergency at the clubhouse and the rover is way over at the far end of this new area or

Hogan: or somewhere, I worry about a response time issue. I think it is important. I don't see a duplication in service because I think to go the other way we get a loss of service because that trip around is going to be a lot longer. I look at that pool officer to go through
that pool every 45 minutes. I think that is important. They also need to go through the clubhouse. During the day when we have staff it is not as important but when staff isn't there I think it is important especially when we have weddings and stuff like that. One of our rovers does what I call parking lot patrol because when there is no booze being served inside, they set up a bar in the trunks of one of the cars and she is on it. I like that but because she is there and close by she can monitor that more often. Jack and I were walking the dogs through the parking lot and she was way down on the golf cart path by the pavilion and she saw it. She got right back over there. That is the type of service that I really appreciate. I think we need to maintain that.
Ms. Pontious: I think just based on the volume of traffic for some reason our gate gets way more volume of traffic then the Lake Ashton II gate. We have more people coming through the community on our side to get wherever it is that they are going. I really like the community patrolled the way it is right now.
Mr. Costello: We had discussed it and I personally think that the community is a good size no denying it but by the same token my colleagues feel that they are more comfortable with what is going on now we should go with the vote and we will go with whatever the majority feels.
Mr. Deane: I like it the way it is. Mr. Mecsics: We tried, no vote.
Ms. Pontious: Ok, so we are just not interested in changing and we don't need a vote on it.
Mr. Mecsics: There is no motion.
Mr. Robertson: Ok, so we continue to do our patrols and you will continue to do yours and we will go to the next item.

32

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Supervisor Requests and General Public Comments

Mr. Robertson: Are there any Supervisor requests? Mr. Deane: When is the next joint meeting?
Mr. Robertson: Our next meeting is in August so I suggest we have a joint meeting in August as well so we can give an update. We can also, as we did in April, we had an extra meeting to get our budgeting done while there are more people around. We could also have an earlier meeting if something turned up quickly. We are always willing to do that. At this point let's schedule the next joint meeting in August.
Mr. Murphey: Hold on a second, Doug. Don't you think we are going to need to meet again about any results we get back from the golf course consultant and so on? They said 60 days for that. Do you think they will be able to start virtually right away, Darrin?
Mr. Mossing: Yes, I think so.

Mr. d'Adesky: If we need to we could schedule another joint meeting. Mr. Murphey: How much time do you need, a week?
Mr. d'Adesky: We prefer like two weeks notice. It makes it easier on staff to advertise and coordinate.

Mr. Robertson: I think mid-May to mid-July and then we have ameeting in August so depending on how things get done we might need one, we might not. We can always call a special meeting. So then we will just schedule one for at the clubhouse in August. Any other further items for business for the joint?
Mr. Scali: I have to say I am from the East and I am disappointed in our Board not going to one security system. I think it is foolish to have two. If someone goes over the green line and he is right there it is on the other side of his territory he can't do anything. Plus we are talking about significant savings. You can in fact put together a plan that you still have the time after it is one security system. It is just a question of making it happen. I think you made a mistake. Thank you.
A resident: Brenda mentioned that we are losing the officer at the pool because of the summer months. We have a lot of kids come down visiting the grandparents, etc.

and I think we need it. We have had enough problems at that pool and we have enough problems with our amenity policy and here we are going to make another problem by not having an officer. I think we have to reconsider our contract and make sure we have an officer there 12 months a year. That is it.
Mr. Scali: I'd really like to see the two Boards go to one budget, the entire complex. Mr. Deane: We can't do it.
Mr. Scali: You can do it if you make the effort. Split the cost and come up with two individual budgets that are the same. We need to prioritize things as a community not as East and West. That is my recommendation.
Mr. Robertson: Any further? Accepting public comments. You don't have to say it, Murray, we are going to change our General Audience Comments. We want to change that to Public. It is a public meeting and all public are welcome. Thank you, Mr. Zacharia.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment
There not being any further business to discuss,

On MOTION by Mr. Ference seconded by Mr. Murphey with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

A6si tant Secretary/ Secretary
\