MINUTES OF MEETING BOTANIKO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Botaniko Community Development District was held on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. at 2900 Glades Circle, Suite 325, Weston, Florida

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Antonio Fernandez	Chairman
Jai Nandwani	Vice Chairman
Tony Sanchez	Assistant Secretary
Heberto Del Rio	Assistant Secretary

Also present were:
Andrew Gill	District Manager
Paul Winkeljohn	Governmental Management Services
Ginger Wald	District Counsel Ms. Melissa

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

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the May
7, 2025 and February 3, 2026 Meetings
Mr. Gill: The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the May 7, 2025 meeting and the additionally the February 3, 2026 meeting. Those minutes are included in your packet for your review. Are there any questions?
Mr. Nandwani: I think if we go back to May 7th, this has been a recurring kind of comment that we haven’t seen the audio.
Ms. Wald: Yes, and I think what we talked about the last couple of times is again, you’re not approving as an individual Board member or the Board as a whole, any actions that were taken, just that they were the minutes of the meeting and have the opportunity to listen to the audio to make sure they were accurate, and then the question is after

having the opportunity to do that, whether you want to go ahead and approve the minutes at that period of time and that was the discussion.
Mr. Nandwani: Right but I don’t know that we received the audio. Mr. Fernandez: No.
Mr. Gill: They were within the drop box.
Ms. Wald: The other way you can do it, and we did discuss that, so I want to do the first part, the other way you can do it is, each one of you that were not comfortable because you were not here back on May 7, 2025 is you can abstain, and therefore since we have Tony who was here, he would be the only person who is here today to be able to make the motion to approve those minutes, if he chose to do so, so that was the other option that we discussed.
Mr. Del Rio: Yes.
Ms. Wald: So, if that is the way you want to go then each one of you as a Board member would need to state for the record that you’re abstaining.
Mr. Nandwani: Ok.
Ms. Wald: And we’ll take each one separately, I think that’s the best way to do it. Mr. Fernandez: Ok.
Mr. Gill: So what the attorney just mentioned, I’m just looking for a motion.
Ms. Wald: Well, they actually have to state on the record that they’re abstaining. Mr. Gill: Before the motion?
Ms. Wald: Yes.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so with regard to the minutes of the May 7, 2025 meeting, we do have new Board members that were appointed to the Board after those meetings and I believe those Board members would like to abstain from approving those minutes. So, I would like to hear from each of the Board members if they are abstaining, so Chairman Fernandez.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, I’m abstaining. Mr. Gill: Ok, Vice Chairman Nandwani. Mr. Nandwani: Yes, I’m abstaining.
Mr. Gill: And Supervisor Del Rio. Mr. Del Rio: Yes, I abstain.

Mr. Gill: Ok, so with those abstentions, I’ll move on to the approval of the minutes of the May 7, 2025 minutes and we do have Supervisor Sanchez that was present for that May 7th meeting.
Mr. Sanchez: I make a motion to approve. Mr. Gill: Ok.

On MOTION by Mr. Sanchez, the Minutes of the May 7, 2025 were approved and abstained by all other Board members.

Mr. Gill: Alright, so now we have the February 3, 2026 minutes, and we have those minutes.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
Mr. Nandwani: Those minutes are a very different format to the previous ones we’ve seen, this is like a high level of summary I guess, of the discussion without very many details whereas all of the previous minutes, at least we’ve seen have tremendous detail.
Mr. Gill: Yes, and did you all, I wasn’t at that meeting but, most of my Boards have switched to from verbatim meeting minutes to summarized.
Ms. Wald: No, I think what happened was there was an audio problem Paul, had an issue, and if you look at the minutes it talks about it.
Mr. Gill: Ok. So, yes I believe that was the case, I think there was an audio issue with the recording from that meeting so our transcriptionist had to use summarized minutes instead of the verbatim from the audio, and we can send the audio that obtained for that meeting.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, I think we should do that because even the attendance to the meeting are wrong, I mean it mentions Michael Piazza, and Michael was not in the meeting, and I think there were several discussions that we had last meeting that are not reflected in the minutes. So, my request would be to have the minutes always verbatim for all of the meetings because that’s the way to be transparent with the District.
Mr. Gill: Yes, and so generally what happens is, occasionally at other Districts, and I’m not sure how the meeting went in February but, if multiple people talk, the

transcriptionist can’t decipher what’s being said and so they’ll put in a summary section and they have in here for most of these minutes but, what we can do is we can go back and review them and if they are areas that need to be cleared up I’ll talk to you and Paul to seek more information.
Mr. Fernandez: Of course. Mr. Gill: Ok.
Mr. Fernandez: And we can do it before the monthly meeting, I mean you can send the draft and we can start reading, and have a clean version.
Mr. Gill: Yes, so we’ll send you the minutes, you all can take a look at them, I would need you to just highlight them, and then we’ll try to use the audio that we do have to clarify.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so May has been approved and February we’ll update and we’ll put that back on the next meeting whether it’s in April, or May.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of:
A. Response to Outstanding Questions Raised at January Meeting
Mr. Gill: Alright, jumping down to item No. 3A, we have received questions from the Chairman, we received additional questions via email.
Mr. Fernandez: Actually the original questions as well were there, but it was a misunderstanding when you started to respond.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so those other questions that weren’t answered before I believe we answered those sufficiently.
Mr. Fernandez: They were included in the response, yes.
Mr. Gill: Alright, so we can continue to discuss this now or if this format is sufficient.
Mr. Fernandez: I have read them and before concluding, or making a conclusion, and I appreciate staff for making the responses but, before completing that I would like to ask something that drops out from that response, may I.
Mr. Gill: Yes, can you point out where in here, if it’s a specific question. Mr. Fernandez: It’s all around, it’s about the allocation method.
Mr. Gill: Ok, go it.

Mr. Fernandez: It’s the assessments, the allocation method and I think it was your company that proposed it.
Mr. Gill: Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: And I went through the record and at least tell me if I state it accurately. So, we have the CDD, the CDD was established in September 23, 2019, is this accurate?
Mr. Gill: Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: And it was under the request of the developer, right? Mr. Gill: Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: Now around September 30th, one week later, Ford Engineers issued their report of all the infrastructure that was going to be acquired by the District upon the request of the developer. Their report said that this was going to be $10.6 million dollars, and this is how much is coming from the record.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Constructed or acquired, correct.
Mr. Fernandez: Right, so what the CDD did at that moment is established a structure for the bonds to the subscriber, or the underwriter to issue some bonds and the amount that was agreed was $6.88 million dollars.
Mr. Winkeljohn: The amount of infrastructure is still $10 million but the amount that needed to be funded by the bonds.
Mr. Fernandez: So, the difference obviously is the infrastructure that the developer contributed in lieu of the $10.6, which the difference is $3.72 million dollars.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Or it could be about 37%.
Mr. Fernandez: So, this was for 46 homes, and this was for 79 homes. Mr. Winkeljohn: Correct.
Mr. Fernandez: Now it’s really by this amount of 46, and they sold about $81,000 per home but, if you leave out this amount of 79, you get a result in the amount of
$87,000 per home. So, here we have a difference of $6,000 per home, that’s not a big amount but, you cannot say it’s equal.
Mr. Winkeljohn: With that approach, yes.
Mr. Fernandez: Now if you looked to buy 79 homes, around $490,000 difference, so we have a disparity between what was issued by the bonds and financed by these 79 homes, and the infrastructure that was conveyed by the developer.

Ms. Wald: Does that include the cost of issuance? Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, I was just going to say that.
Mr. Fernandez: If we put the cost of issuance it would be much more, I’m just talking about infrastructure.
Mr. Winkeljohn: The other way the math was actually done is you take the 125 and you assign the total debt to all 125, then you subtract out the 46, you get to the math a different way, you’re dividing out against the smallest number, so if you do it that way you’ll see it. If you take 37% of $10 million dollars, those two numbers are right.
Mr. Fernandez: It’s not an amount that’s in the record.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So, if you take the $3 million and the $6 Million with their decimals that’s $10 million.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, but what I did is, this number counts, and again, I’m taking from the record $10.6 from the record, this is Ford’s report.
Mr. Winkeljohn: That’s the infrastructure, correct.
Mr. Fernandez: Correct, $6.88 million is our cost, so the difference, and this is math, is the $3.72.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: We have disparity there. Mr. Winkeljohn: I don’t agree.
Mr. Fernandez: You don’t agree, ok explain it to me.
Mr. Winkeljohn: No, the way the methodology works is you take the 79 units and you multiple the infrastructure percentages by that, and that’s how much money was left for them. The fact that you took 46 out, you could say the same thing, but the total amount of $10.6 million reduced down to $7 million, was bonded, and it’s the same math. It reduces the infrastructure by the number of units.
Mr. Fernandez: But that’s your opinion and so I would like it writing.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Well, it’s should say it in the engineers report, or excuse me the methodology report and I can have the person who wrote that report explain it, the way it’s done and it is simple math, it’s not contrived or difficult but, your approach is clearly isolating 1% differently than the other, and I don’t have it in front of me, so I don’t remember exactly how the calculation is done but, the way this was done is a standard

calculation of debt assigned from the engineers report through an assessment methodology, and I looked at it an it was perfectly proportionate.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, that’s a question for me.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Ok, well I appreciate your effort to do that and I’m sure the way you’re doing it looks right but, that’s not how the methodology was constructed, so we’ll have to have the person who constructed it explain it.
Mr. Fernandez: Perfect, that’s what I would like.
Mr. Winkeljohn: But I looked at it because I look at hundreds of them, it was done exactly as the others.
Mr. Sanchez: But I think the point, and correct me if I’m miss reading this but, assessments are charged to the homes for which the bonds were then assessed. So the assessments were charged to 79 homes based from the engineers calculations, and based on the amount for which bonds were issued.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Correct.
Mr. Sanchez: And that amount $7 million dollars. Mr. Winkeljohn: Correct, in round numbers.
Mr. Sanchez: So, I think where Antonio is coming from is assessments are not being levied on the 46 homes for which the infrastructure was contributed but, if the contribution of the infrastructure was basically what was not bonded then the value of the infrastructure for the 46 homes that were not assessed is different.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, so what I’m saying is I think the piece that’s dropped out of your math, I have to point to it and bring it back in because there is a piece that only applies to homes that receive the debt because they’re paying the cost of issuance, they’re paying an interest rate.
Mr. Fernandez: This is just cost of infrastructure, and let me finish, if we add the cost of the bonds, this difference is bigger, much bigger because we have $700,000 more on this side for the 79 homes, so the difference would be even bigger, so I’m just talking about infrastructure costs, so yes please, do back and look at that.
Mr. Winkeljohn: To me, I looked at the engineers report, it feeds right into the methodology and the methodology multiplies it out, it’s really that straight forward, so this approach is interesting but, that’s not how it’s calculated to I’ll find out and we’ll get it back to you.

Mr. Nandwani: And just for me to understand, so the way you’re looking at it, and I’ll just use my calculator, you were saying $10.6 million, and divided by the 125 homes, so that’s $84,800, and now you attach the $84,800 only to the 79 homes for whom the bond has been issued.
Mr. Winkeljohn: right and he’s saying it’s $87,000.
Mr. Nandwani: Then the bonds should have been issued for $6.7 million. Mr. Fenandez: Exactly.
Mr. Nandwani: If you take that method.
Mr. Fernandez: Exactly, that’s exactly right.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So, they have an option of how the financing is going to look and so in that cost of issuance are, not just the interest rates, there’s capitalized interest, which pays for a year in advance, and you start adding all that up that’s how the methodology is calculated but, I’m not going to argue with you, the position is let’s go to the source, the person who calculated it and I’ll have him explain it.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, let’s do so.
Mr. Gill: Alright, so what I’ll do is, we have the methodology and what I’ll do is I’ll try to set up a call with you and two of our principals that handle methodology reports.
Mr. Fernandez: No, I prefer to have an explanation in writing, I want this in the record, please.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so in the record is the methodology that goes through how the allocations were made.
Mr. Fernandez: I think what I would like to have in the record is how we consummate that disparity, how do you reconcile that disparity, or how you explain that disparity.
Mr. Gill: So if there’s no disparity, I think the methodology report should explain what you need.
Mr. Fernandez: Of course.
Mr. Gill: If you believe there’s a disparity I think potentially a call before something in writing may be helpful to give you just the basic understanding.
Mr. Fernandez: I have no problem with a call, the only thing that I’m saying is that I want it in the record.

Mr. Gill: Correct, right, we can do both, this is sort of above me for the methodology reports but, I know we had a number of calls on this that’s always very helpful.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes.
Mr. Gill: Ok. Are there any other specifics on the questions that you wanted to go

over?

Mr. Fernandez: No, after that we will discuss about my conclusions on this. Mr. Winkeljohn: Got it.
Mr. Gill: Ok, perfect.

B. Lakes Current Situation and Correction Actions
Mr. Gill: Ok, so let’s jump down to item B to discuss the lakes and the lack of water.
Mr. Fernandez: Let me make a question here based on this and based on the things that we’re going to discuss now, and probably Ginger this question should be addressed to you. If we, the CDD, decide to make additional infrastructure investment, let’s say put power that we need to install some cameras for instance, or the lakes if we need to do some investment in the lakes or whatever to correct them, how could this be handled in the CDD, and how would that be reflected into the homeowners?
Ms. Wald: Yes, sure, and let’s just take the cameras for example because that’s an easy example. So, there are security powers that were granted to the District as part of the ordinance by the City of Weston, so if the District wanted to undertake providing security, cameras could be part of it. So, if the District was undertaking that and wanted to put up security cameras, what the District would do is the District would raise the funds through its operations of the District itself, or if it had reserves already which I believe it does have reserves, it could utilize those funds, enter into the agreement with the contractors to provide that and then also for the monitoring of the service to make it work, and then maintenance, and that would be done through the District’s budget. So, that would be a budget line item that you could do now, you could do an amendment to the budget because it’s all general fund to do that now, or it’s something that you could do, and we’re just using examples, to forecast for next year for next budget season, so that’s how that would work.

Mr. Fernadez: Perfect and when you raise funds you have two options, right, you can go to the financials institutions and get a loan or whatever, or you can go to issue bonds again or not.
Ms. Wald: Well, it depends on the cost, so your bonds have limitations as to how often you can go and basically borrow money. So, you would have to look at your bond docs because it hasn’t been that long to make that determination as to whether you can, one, potentially refund or refinance those bonds that you have to have some additional funds to use for other improvements, whether you would have the ability to take a short term loans, obviously that’s something you could look at, or the third is to use money that you already have in your operations account, or to raise your assessments for the following year for that to happen, so those are the three different options.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, and if we work with a loan because we’re talking probably around $1 or maybe $2 million dollars, if we get a loan, let’s say a 2 or 3 year loan, how would that be paid by the homeowners?
Ms. Wald: That would be assessed to whoever had the benefits or that would be all the homeowners within the community using security cameras as the example.
Mr. Fernandez: So the 125 would pay in equal pieces or parts. Ms. Wald: This Board would have to make that decision, yes.
Mr. Fernandez: Wouldn’t this previous situation create an argument for the 46 that they are not going to pay?
Ms. Wald: That is for the bond financing for the original improvements and as to the determination of the benefit and what was being actually provided as the developer versus the offset in the issuances of bonds that would be providing the math based upon that. A lot of times you will see, and I’m just using this as an example, the $10.6 million, let’s say that’s the full amount of the District improvements, with that being the full amount of the District improvements, a lot of times the developers, regardless of how they want to pay or not pay, or contribute will do the full amount, and so if it’s $10.6 but they’re not looking to pass on that whole $10.6, or to provide the improvements to get to the $10.6 then you will have that reduction, so instead of $10.6, you would be looking at something less than that.
Mr. Fernandez: But what I’m saying is in this case, we as the CDD, or the District, we are trying to make an improvement in the berm, and I don’t want to create a debt and

then be trapped in this situation when only 79 of the homes would pay something for that for the benefit of the whole community.
Ms. Wald: It’s all based upon this Board sitting here today making that determination just as it was done before as to the debt whether there is that benefit, number one, to each one of the homes, that would be question number one, and then number two, whether the cost is being fairly apportioned to each one of the homes, which is your questions there, which again, I’m not going to get into as to the math, again, I don’t do math, or I get a report but, based upon, and I just used security cameras, based upon that, as long as there is that benefit to the 125 homes, that is something this Board can decide.
Mr. Fernandez: And that make sense, I agree with you but the problem is, and I’m not a lawyer that’s why I’m asking you, if there’s somebody that says, well there is some jurisprudence created with this.
Ms. Wald: It’s not jurisprudence, that’s a different term.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, I’m asking because we are somehow constrained.
Ms. Wald: I understand, and for that bond issuance additionally the bonds themselves were validated by court, so there is a final judgement that validated those bonds. It would be undoing what was already done with that validation. What you’re talking about now, would be a short term, and let’s just use the short term loan example that you gave, that would not be required to be validated. So, the short term, once you go past 5 years you much validate, you must go to court, if it’s under that period of time, you do not have to.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, and I get all that, I think I didn’t express my question correctly. I’m saying, let’s say that I’m one of the 46 and I don’t want to pay for the cameras or for the power, and I say, you know what, I didn’t pay for the initial improvements, I don’t want to pay for the new improvements because this is already built that way, is that possible?
Ms. Wald: That person or persons would be able to come here to a meeting because it’s open and available to the public and they would be able to state that on the record, and it would be up to this Board to make that determination as a legislative body whether they would accept that or not accept that.
Mr. Fernandez: And they can escalate it to a judge or something or make a suit?

Ms. Wald: They can bring an action but, as long as this body acting as a legislative body making those determinations made them within the law, within what was provided, then more likely than not, it would be upheld if you went to court you would be successful.
Mr. Gill: Distributing the cost amongst all of the members.
Ms. Wald: With what was provided, yes. Again, we can state a variety of different options or things that may or may not occur but, that is something that you could utilize because it is a power of the District for that security and as long as that benefit is there, and the costs are fairly apportioned, then it would be ok.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok.
Ms. Wald: But it’s like any city making a determination as to some improvement after everything is completed and a city wants to do “X”, whatever “X” may be and so that city goes in and they’re saying ok, who is receiving a benefit, as we discussed that, is everybody in the city of Weston receiving a benefit, or is it just upgrading your sewer system in one part in the city, and they’re the only ones receiving the benefit. The city has to make that determination first and go forward, once they figure out, yes we need to happen, so that’s step one, is this something the city needs that something that people can come and complain about. Then step two, who is going to be responsible for the payment for that improvement, and that is basically how the government works to make that determination and sometimes it’s done all at once.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, so just to summarize if I understood, so if we go ahead and use the CDD to power in the berm and to finance that part through the CDD, that’s something that we can finance through the 125.
Ms. Wald: Well, again, whether you could put power in berm, I can’t answer any of that.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, any type of improvement, let’s make it general, any improvement that needs to be done.
Ms. Wald: If it is a CDD power, and it is a CDD purpose then you could go through the process to make that determination, the answer is yes.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, perfect.
Ms. Wald: So, as a general answer, yes, that is something you could do. Mr. Fernandez: Alright, ok, thank you.
Ms. Wald: Now I think you were talking about, still on the lakes?

Mr. Gill: No, now we’re going to go to that, so I think we’re at 3B now to discuss the lakes.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, regarding the lakes Melissa did a power point presentation, and do you want to show that?
Ms. Melissa: Yes, so what I did was to kind of visual, so you guys can kind of better visualize the condition of the lakes because we had discussed this at the last meeting for a better understanding because when you drive around Weston you see the lake they’re in really nice condition but, then you go to Botaniko and you have these weeds that are coming out of the lakes and they’re pretty bad. So, I did do a map here just to kind of, and Antonio can share the actual presentation with you as well.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, I can send it to you.
Ms. Melissa: Just to kind of put the different locations of where the pictures were taken, so this is one of our better lakes on the north side by the entrance, where there’s really nothing that’s coming out of the lakes, it’s super pretty, very nice, no weeds are coming out.
Mr. Fernandez: One comment, the picture are crossed referenced with the letter to the map so you can locate it, and letter K is there on the map and the pictures have the letter, so that’s easy to cross reference.
Ms. Melissa: Yes, so you can kind of locate it. So, here in Botaniko north, this is one of the lakes where you have these weeds that are kind of growing out and you’ll see in these pictures that we kind of go through, this how the majority of the lakes look throughout Botaniko and I have called the City of Weston because we had some kind of misunderstanding as to who is responsible for what and recently I did reach out to the City of Weston, and they did send someone out to come and spray and everything but, they don’t actually remove the actual weeds or anything at all but, they did spray so you did see them kind of turning brown. So, this is in Botaniko north, this is another one and Antonion I know you can probably kind of see there, this is one of the better lakes as well but, you can still see kind of the weeds that are coming out of the lakes. These are kind of smaller photos.
Mr. Fernandez: This is in general, all the lakes are presenting the same problem with more degree or less degree.
Ms. Melissa: Yes, so overall this is another in the north which you can see.

Mr. Fernandez: And we have some situations and you’re kind of jumping it, but look at this, this was a lake.
Ms. Melissa: Yes, we have some that have no more water, it’s just kind of taking

over.

Mr. Fernandez: It looks a swamp.
Ms. Melissa: Yes, and when you do drive around like Weston, outside of Botaniko

you don’t really see the lakes in this condition.
Mr. Fernandez: Have you seen the trench in the south there? Ms. Melissa: Yes, it’s there, the trench in the south is there.
Mr. Fernandez: So, we have an area that has even dried out and there are two small lakes not connected, I think they used to be connected.
Mr. Del Rio: You’re talking about that large lake? Mr. Fernandez: Exactly, that’s what we have.
Ms. Melissa: This is one of them that used to have water, there’s barely any. Mr. Winkeljohn: So, I have a little bit of an update if you’re ready.
Ms. Melissa: Yes.
Mr. Winkeljohn: I also talked to the city planning and city attorney, the head of the lake maintenance for you all, and there’s numerous things that are being gathered to get you to what you can do about it and what outcomes are realistic. He’s identified, and not all lakes are the same, some lakes are permitted with a littoral shelf planting with native plants, and I know you use the word weeds, but that would be the opposite of what they are there for, because there’s requirements in some lakes for nutritional removal because of the golf courses mostly and heavy fertilization. When you have heavy fertilization to meet environmental requirements the plantings have to be there because they help process the phosphorous and nitrogen and different elements that are prone to residual levels especially for a golf course. So, I know this really well and I said to the city, ok are these lake in a treatment requirement or are they supposed to look like the rest of the lakes because the original lakes in Weston have no concept, those concepts were never in permits and they weren’t in best practices which was to have littoral plantings, native grasses or weeds which they look like to most of us required, and the one lake being bifurcated like that, low levels suggest to me that when the lake gets really narrow the littoral shelf requirement marries the one across from it, and so sometimes you’ll get it

where it’s all shallow as an example. I have lakes like that, they’re so narrow that you could walk right across them. So, all of that data, those factual elements, I’ve asked them, ok, get ready because that’s a topic you’re going to have to prove to us that it’s accurate, or it’s not accurate and why haven’t you ever done something, and if it doesn’t have to be required the look that you just compared and contrasted that you want would require mechanical removal because you’re not allowed to spray the lakes past a certain parts per million treatment in a monthly period, and I swear he told me they’re only treating twice a year, and I said what, twice a month I could see, that’s the most you could usually treat a lake is twice a month, but twice a year, there’s no way that’s possible.
Mr. Del Rio: And I’m sorry to interrupt you, so certainly Botaniko is different than Weston Hills, both of them were built on top of a golf course, except that Botaniko is no longer a golf course but, what they’re saying is that they treat golf course in some way where Weston Hills doesn’t have the problem that we do but, if they’re saying it’s because it’s not a golf course then it can be treated.
Mr. Winkeljohn: The golf course is that they’re a strong contributor, and the fact that it was a golf course, the developer comes in and says, ok, we want to put houses on these and we had to do some work to get the permits, they’re going to test, and they may have reviewed that permit and updated because I’ve asked that question.
Mr. Del Rio: No, but what I’m saying is because of the reason, that if it is a golf course and then it should look similar to the Weston Hills because it’s a golf course, and if it is not a golf course then it should look the same or similar to the ones that had golf courses and don’t have it, so either way it should haven’t that. Do you understand what I’m saying?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, I do but, my dollar bet is they allowed them to go to nature, so the big takeaway is they’re aware of it, and they recognize that the treatment expectation is behind your expectation by a long way. They said that they’re not going to be able to do much until the rainy season starts and he hinted that they know they’re behind and that they’re going to take care of it, they’re going to improve it but, he can’t do anything at this time of year because the levels are so low and any treatment, and the math is against them significantly so they want to have the water level back.

Mr. Del Rio: And is there any person that we can actually pinpoint in order to get feedback.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, the manager, I think his name is Eddie.
Ms. Wald: Well, are you dealing with the Bonaventure Development District or directly with the city?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Both, the person at the city that oversees the Bonaventure lakes is and I apologize I don’t remember his name right now but, I have his contact information, he’ on it. My suggestion was to wait and get him to come and present to you his action plan because they’re responsible for it, we’re not, as I guess you know but, it’s an open dialogue. Just in my experience when a lake gets like that, and that never was, which I know what it used to look like, it was like all the other golf course lakes to your point exactly, so it looks like it was just neglected through that long period of time. The think I’m trying to present is that we have to be ready for that answer, that no, we need those plants because of an environmental element, etc., and we don’t know that yet, we’re going to find out.
Mr. Del Rio: Yes but, the point that I was making it cannot be an answer like that because, they can give an answer like that but, the point is that even an answer like that counts then you have Weston Hills to compare it, so that answer is not valid. If they give an answer that says, because it’s not a golf course, then that answer cannot be done because there are some other communities that are not part of a golf course that don’t look like that, so which one is it, so it cannot be both.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right.
(At this point several people were talking at one time, and no one conversation could be heard)

Mr. Fernandez: Even the ones that are next to Weston Hills that are not part of the community they have beautiful lakes, they even have this type of fountain that I would like to put in.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Fountains are very popular.
Mr. Fernandez: Not only because of the beauty but it also circulates water. Mr. Winkeljohn: They have some positive benefits definitely.

Mr. Fernandez: Right, so that’s something that I would like to pursue and proceed because we a CDD have somehow the authority or the power to talk one to one on the same level with the City of Weston and with Bonaventure Development District.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, no doubt.
Mr. Fernandez: And to solve this problem for the District.
Ms. Wald: Ok, so I just have the interlocal agreement, there’s two parts to it, Bonaventure Development District has responsibility for the lakes, pursuant to this agreement, the secondary drainage pipes is CDD, which of course we have a maintenance agreement with the HOA. This is really Bonaventure Development District.
Mr. Sanchez: Not the City of Weston.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Well, they’re a dependent District.
Ms. Wald: So, you’re an independent District CDD, and Bonaventure Development District is a dependent District, that means everything that they have goes through the city, they don’t have the independent power, they have certain powers, but they still have to go through everything for the city, so Paul talking to the city is really talking to the people at Bonaventure Development District as well, and here’s the question I was going to ask and I think it kind of falls into your fountains, if you wanted to do fountains as a CDD, we’d still have to go through Bonaventure Development District to get that approval to do so, which of course we could make that request and proceed forward with the interlocal agreement, maybe take on more responsibilities. Previously when this was entered into many years ago with the city, this is what the city wanted, this was something the city wanted versus the CDD taking on all responsibilities because that is something that was, I don’t think you were there Paul, but that was something that was put in front of them but, they said no, they wanted it, and I actually was part of those conversations, and so that is something that the city wanted to keep. So, I think it is important to go back to the city and maybe to readdress this not just saying, city you need to make this happen, and one of the things you were saying is mechanically remove what’s there, maybe even a team of founding what the cost would be, and then it’s going back to the City/Bonaventure Development District, and saying this is what needs to happen in our opinion you weren’t maintaining it the way that it should be maintained and you have all the rest of your structures under Bonaventure Development District, and with that, the CDD wants to be your partner, and as a good partner what can we do to make this happen. So, maybe taking that conversation and maybe moving the needle a little bit where there, and we’ll have to look at the

budget too, but maybe moving that needle but with a contribution portion of it, and looking at it that way, sometimes that works with dealing with municipalities and dependent Districts.
Mr. Fernandez: So, what could be the next steps in this in order to tackle that?
Mr. Winkeljohn: After today’s meeting I thought I would have a more targeted discussion with them, I understand the lakes, I understand now who owns what, we’ve done our homework, we might take Ginger’s advise and ask the lake maintenance company to provide us an estimate for the mechanical removal to bring the lake to the level, and I can go back to him and tell him, hey this is where this is headed, this Board is very progressive or forward leaning to work with the lake, they want to partner with you, and I’ll say it the right way, but we want to partner with you, what are the next steps and can we do a mechanical removal, can we work together on changing the maintenance schedule, so just hit all the points, and then I would like to have that conversation pier to pie, and then see how he responds and say, ok, they’re not going to like that, would you like to come and meet them at a meeting because they should come to our meeting and put that on the record.
Mr. Fernandez: And I can go theirs too.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, and you’re welcome to be with me if I go to a meeting. Mr. Fernandez: Sure, I’d be happy to.
Mr. Winkeljohn: I would enjoy the backup.
Ms. Wald: That would be a good idea because you can also show everything, I think it’s just something to explore, and Weston is a little bit different but, knowing how cities are, it might be something that they would potentially want to do, it all depends, everything depends on budgets and cities are kind of scared right now. Like I said, Weston is a little different than some others.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: But the problem that we have here in our District is this is a high end community, a beautiful community, we love it but, we have this problem and we need to change that.
Mr. Winkeljohn: I played secret squirrel, I ran around the community and you can cross over through a lot of places because of construction and everything, and when so I saw the lakes, I knew right away, ok this looks like a lake that either was completely neglected, or my other conversation, the ones scenario is that’s required plantings for the nutritional removal, so let’s make sure that we tread carefully and make sure the city and Bonaventure Development

District are partners and don’t just turtle down on us, and not help us but, I think they will, it sounds cooperative.
Mr. Fernandez: So you’re taking that on? Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, I’m on it.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, good, and let me add something because it’s important, in the south, and unfortunately we don’t have a map to bring you but, in the south, the one that I was mentioning the two lakes, they have dried out, probably it’s just opening that trench with some simple material to open that and let the water flow from one side to the other because I think it’s a matter of not only lake of rain but, also the accumulation of dirt coming from the construction itself.
Mr. Winkeljohn: That’s an interesting thought, yes.
Ms. Melissa: So, this is the picture here, so this is connects so there’s nothing like there’s barely any water there that connects this lake to that, and it completely dries up, so that’s where he was speaking of that area there.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Are the lakes numbered, do you have them numbered? Ms. Melissa: Well, here.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Engineering usually does it. Ms. Melissa: Probably they might have it.
Mr. Winkeljohn: For conversation reasons.
Ms. Melissa: There probably is, I don’t have that report.
Mr. Fernandez: And there’s another area now in the north end, this is not something that has dried out but, I would like to at least discuss it. If you look over here, you see this small trench?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: So, this is one of the favorite entrance points of the trespassers, I’m serious, every single weekend they come inside the community and we have cameras all around and we have signals that say, don’t trespass but they just don’t care. So, why don’t we just drop this and unify the two lakes and make a natural pond right there.
Mr. Winkeljohn: I’m sure the engineers would have to sign off on such a thing.
Mr. Fernandez: Of course, so if we can include it in the petition, so one in the south that was there, it just reopened and this might be something we could do.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes.

Ms. Wald: If the city allows you make that change.
Mr. Fernandez: Because my main concern is security, and we’re asking for more effort so we don’t have all those people coming in, but they continue to do it.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Is it a shortcut?
Mr. Fernandez: No, but we don’t have a physical boundary, so we have done a lot of efforts to afford that but, they continue to enter the community.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Ok.
Mr. Fernandez: Thank you.

C. Financial Review
Mr. Gill: Moving down to item 3C, I believe this was added, and it says financial review.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, I requested that to Paul, and thank you for including that in the agenda. So, I went through and we had some sort of an effort to get the financial statement for every year but, we got them in the end. So, I went through them and we had some changes, some huge changes in fiscal year 2025 financial statement, particularly in engineering, we have like 5 times more expense in that year than in the previous ones, and I wanted to understand why. I mean it was $4,000 in 20222, $500 in 2023, $2,000 in 2024, and almost
$11,000 in 2025, so I would like to understand first of all, because I don’t know, we are new on the Board, and I think we need to understand how are the different members of the staff billing, or charging their services to the District. So, we have a fixed amount, we have a per hour amount, how does it work?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, so real quick the District management is a fixed amount, there were a few management costs, like printing and things like that, that go with any volume, and you don’t print as much any more so those are pretty much zero. Engineer is hired by a request for qualifications, and in that selection, and approval of hiring an engineer their rates are included, so they bill accordingly.
Mr. Fernandez: By hour.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, and very similarly is hire the attorney is select, they’re selected differently of how their engaged. So, I’m going to take a pretty good educated guess of what you were looking at, is during construction and during the bond process and during development the construction account and the cost of issuance pays the engineers costs because those projects are tied directly to those processes. When the engineer shifts to the operations of the District that’s when you probably saw they had some, after the bonds and

after the deals are done you might have some easements, some surveying, some softer costs that aren’t typical on a daily basis of the District but, are kind or ramped up at the beginning, a big inspection report, an analysis, I don’t know but, I can pull it up for you.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, let’s go ahead and do that because I’m talking about fiscal year 2023, 2024, and 2025, that’s far after that.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right, so there may not have been a lot of activity, I think this Board only met a couple of times a year.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, so they might have been doing something but, I think we need to understand, we as a Board.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, I can get us detail on that, it’s really easy.
Mr. Fernandez: And there are also some other expenses, there were some other areas, what’s dissemination maintenance?
Mr. Winkeljohn: So, it’s a state requirement, a report that’s filed when you have bonds back to the State of Florida and to the Federal Government as well on the bonds, it’s a paperwork requirement basically.
Mr. Fernandez: $2,500 a year.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, standard for each bond.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, and this might have been part of the review, and I would appreciate if you could forward to me that specific contract of all the services that we have because in the case of management I see like at 10% increase this year, I mean the previous year it was much less but, we went in 2024 from $21,000 to now to $23,700 in 2025, and now you’re proposing in the next budget even more, so would like to understand that. I mean were there adjustments, I understand if there’s inflation, so I need to understand because we need to understand in order to move to the budget because how can we make a budget if we don’t understand how our expenses are.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right, and we’ll run out of time, so let’s get that to you and what you’re looking for but, management contracts typically for a District are similar to the engineer where your operations of the District are rather low, you’re only meeting a couple of times, they’re very efficient meetings, put it that way, when you have a landowners election, or a general election, or the residents come on the Board typically the number of meetings comes up quite a bit, it’s a different job.

Mr. Fernandez: Right, I understand but the numbers here, particularly for fiscal year 2025 that was before the election, even more in 2025 you only had two meetings, March and May, however engineering and management increased, so I don’t understand.
Mr. Winkeljohn: And I can understand that our company probably had, almost all of our clients in that period went up about 3% to 6%, most of our residential Boards, or our District contracts are well over $35,000 annually, so this one was pretty discounted, so I’m guessing that the managers, and you weren’t there but, the prior manager saw that we were low and was trying to get it caught up to our market price, and the Board approves it and then it moves forward. If we were to price this right now it would be well passed $35,000 a year easily.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, we need to review that.
Mr. Winkeljohn: I’m not requesting it by the way, I’m just saying that wouldn’t be the market.
Mr. Fernandez: I understand but, explain at least how are service invoices approved, I mean who approved them, and somebody is approving that even before time has occurred.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So, the way Districts operate financially, naturally, like the way they’re set up and the way they operate, typically is once the budget is approved the District can approve invoices that are within that budget, and not exceeding the budget.
Mr. Fernandez: But this is not the case in this instance.
Mr. Winkeljohn: The presentation to the Board in the financials is, ok, those are the statements, that’s what you paid, that’s a record of the District, if there’s an objection it’s dealt with at that time. At any time during that period if the District Board, whoever it’s made up of, choses to set a cap on something, and any revision to your financial practices would come from the Board.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, and in that regard, I would like to suggest to this Board that we take some orientation to the approval of these expenses, so before going ahead and approving an expense or even incurring it at the time, we should answer one of these questions. The action that’s going to be taking would be to approve any service for the District, or will protect the District’s interests, or adds any value to the District. If any of these answers are yes, let’s go ahead and do it, if no answers are yes, let’s not do it.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right.

Mr. Fernandez: My whole intent is to safe money and reduce the budget because we are going in the opposite direction, and this chairman’s intent is to reduce the annual assessment, not increase it, to reduce it and I think we can.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Ok, and one of the reasons why this system operates the way it does at the cost that it does which is low, is efficiency and the ability of the District to pay its bills, do its finances, have its meetings, all very efficiently and as routinely as possible. New routines, long delays, cause problem for Districts, one is we’re under the payment act so if it has a system that almost guarantees invoices aren’t paid on time, you’re going to be in trouble, so some of it is tied to that and some of it is tied to that efficiency, so we’re open, we have some Districts that have different types of processes and I’ll look and suggest any changes, as how I took what you just said, and say hey, are we doing this the right way.
Mr. Fernandez: No, what I’m saying is even before, those were not invoices but, incurring additional time, so if we have budgeted let’s say $5,000 for any sort of a service, let’s say legal, so we should assume the accumulated amount, we should be monitoring that so we’re not exceeding that, and if we do incur any more then we need to slow down.
Mr. Winkeljohn: And generally that’s handled by the manager and different staff, and Ginger will know right away if her bills are starting to look different than what’s in the budget and we’ll talk right away, and say ok, I’ll present it to the Board and say, hey, our legal fees our outpacing, you have these 2, 3, or 4 things coming and we need to acknowledge that to the Board and put that in front of them, the same thing with engineers, more likely with the engineer where you have some big projects, some studies you want them to do or whatever.
Mr. Fernandez: So, what happened in 2025, was it notified to the Board then because we have $10,000 in there.
Mr. Winkeljohn: It probably was known that the Budget was sufficient to absorb it would be my guess, I haven’t looked at the financials from 2025 to see what the manager might have done.
Mr. Ferandez: That’s why I wanted to review the financials even before discussing the budget for next year.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right but, in this conversation I hope you’re hearing sort of the way it works and the way it works effectively and if you want to change anything we can do that, you can adjust to it but, eventually it could become really inefficient and then things don’t work as well, and they cost more. So, with those cautions I think however you would like to proceed.

Mr. Fernandez: Well, first I would like to receive the contracts and the rates of all those services, so I can have a chance to understand why we are receiving those invoices. Number two, those amounts need to be reconciled and explained why we have the excess against the budget, I’m not questioning whether they are true or false, or wrong or right, I’m saying I need an explanation for it and who approve that, and understand we have a surplus from previous years but, that doesn’t mean we have a green light and just use it without Board authorization, so if this was not authorized by the Board but, happened.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so specifically the years that you’re mentioning are 2023 to 2025, and increase in engineering?
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, fiscal year 2025, engineering is $10,851, it’s five times the amount of the previous year.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Did you have any engineering projects or anything because what I was saying before is how it would happen is the engineer would say, ok, this isn’t routine, what’s happening or what’s about to happen and he would present to the Board, and it’s within his contract to do the work but, he would draw lines around it and say, hey this task is going to have this budget figure to it and if I start to go past that specific budget figure in that task I would have to come back to the Board, so that’s built in, that would be normal.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, so let’s find out and there were a couple of other issues on the other incurred charges, like 10% more in that fiscal year, property taxes, why are we paying property taxes?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Sometime the District will take possession of land that is not tax exempt and it will have to pay on that.
Mr. Fernandez: Like what for instance? Mr. Winkeljohn: A clubhouse for instance. Mr. Fernandez: We don’t have that.
Mr. Winkeljohn: I know, I’m just being hypothetical.
Mr. Fernandez:  But we have $1,000 there, and we are budgeting $1,200 for the next
year.
Mr. Winkeljohn: We file a form of exemption to the Property Appraiser every year for all
District properties and sometimes they deny them and then we have to argue them, so I’ll look at that.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, please.

Mr. Winkeljohn: I’m accounting for $1,000 but, I’ve been through this 1,000 times and it’s a big pain but, that’s right it should be tax exempt.
Mr. Fernandez: I mean even $1.00, I am very careful on any dime that I spend of my own money, and I’m twice as careful when I spend other’s money, and this is other’s money, this is the District money.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: So, I’m going to be very detailed on this.
Mr. Winkeljohn: And that’s the only way we operate as well, I know I do, and I know Andrew will.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, good, alright, so let’s wait for those explanations and we’ll take it from there.

D. Website Policy
Mr. Gill: Alright, let’s jump down to the website policy, it’s my understanding that you all wanted to discuss updates to the website or customizing it.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Let me start because I might have told you a little story about it, and there’s a lot of stuff that we can put on the website but, the way we do it, is we meet compliance, like the ROPs that I sent you, we can put those on there. The minutes are on there, and I sent you a lot of things, and I think we shared with the Board that I wouldn’t put out on a website because they can be manipulated and changed and distort our records. So, websites we typically have all PDF type of files with just certified official records of the District but, many of them are not required to be on the District’s website like the financials, the audit link has to be there.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, the financials are not there.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right, they’re not required but, I can put them on.
Mr. Fernandez: I think we should for transparency we should put all the financials for every fiscal year.
Mr. Winkeljohn: And there reason I just didn’t do it is because that’s your decision and I wanted to present it to you today.
Mr. Fernandez: Good.
Mr. Winkeljohn: And as you identify things that you’d like to add to the website, we’ll just say it on the record and staff will take care of it.

Mr. Fernandez: Well, minutes of the meetings, they’re ok when you put them in the agenda, somehow people can access them when they go to the agenda, they can find the minutes of the previous meeting, and those are going to be verbatim for the meetings, then we don’t need the recordings I believe.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right, and the recordings are hard because they’re very large.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, they take a lot of space but, what do you guys think, I mean what’s your opinion what should we add to the website, is there something else, the financials statements.
Mr. Sanchez: Financials I think is good, the budget and financials.
Mr. Winkeljohn: The budget is required for the previous and current year and the proposed but, the history is not.
Mr. Fernandez: But accounting is producing financial statements with which frequency?
Mr. Winkeljohn: For you all it will be monthly, when there’s no activity they do it before the meetings typically to keep costs down.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, I would like to receive those and we need to publish them when they are approved or reviewed more than approved.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So financials and the budgets are there, but we’ll go back put them all

on.

Mr. Gill: You also said the minutes?
Mr. Fernandez: The minutes are already there right?
Mr. Winkeljohn:	With the meeting file, when the meeting file is posted, the previous

minutes are on there, like we first sent you when you wanted all the financials, the ROPs, the financials are in there but it’s that kind of file.
Mr. Fernandez: So, what do you guys think, what’s your opinion, do you want to have all the minutes there?
Ms. Wald: Are you talking about full agenda packets?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, that’s the question, the requirement is the agenda page. Mr. Fernandez: Will this have an additional cost?
Mr. Winkeljohn: No.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, let’s do it.

Mr. Winkeljohn: And I have a mental checklist when residents take over a Board and these are all things that you should be saying, yes, yes, yes but, I wanted to talk about it before I went too fast because I was saying, why doesn’t have this, why doesn’t have that.
Mr. Fernandez: And then you help me to get some of them. Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, we got it right, so good, we can do that. Mr. Fernandez: Ok.
Mr. Gill: So, annual financials, unaudited financials.
Ms. Wald: Well, if you’re going to do the agenda packets, then if you’re going to have monthly meetings, those financials would be in the agenda packet, it’s only when you don’t have monthly meetings, or you could do them separately anyway.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, what I am trying to understand if we’re going to increase the cost of staff services for having these meetings probably we will reduce the amount of meetings if there’s nothing to discuss.
Ms. Wald: Exactly.
Mr. Fernandez: I mean I want to be efficient, and to make cost reduction when it’s not necessary, so if we don’t need a meeting, we won’t do it but, still we need the financial statements because I will review the financial statements every single month, and that’s what I do in the HOA, and that’s what I’ve always done.
Ms. Wald: That makes sense.
Mr. Gill: Good, so that will be posted.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Good, we can do that, that’s what that was on the agenda for.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Resolution
#2026-03 Approving the Proposed Fiscal Year 2027 Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr. Gill: Ok, so with respect to the budget, we have some slight timing issues, and we’re not up against a wall right now but, we’re required to at least approve a proposed budget and set at date to adopt the budget, it has to be adopted by the end of September.
Mr. Winkeljohn: It has to be proposed by June 15th. Ms. Wald: So you have time.

Mr. Fernandez: When you have all the explanations here, we have all the agreement letters and everything.
Mr. Winkeljohn: We’ll have all that for you, and just a matter of how it’s constructed, the budget that you’re actually proposing is, you want to know what your ceiling of the assessment is going to be, and I already heard where you’re headed is that you’re not worried about increasing it at all, so you could do that, or you could technically do it right now, set the hearing for September or August is better, and then you have all that time inbetween to go through the exercise and develop the final budget, you’re not adopting anything so you can wait until next month and think about it.
Mr. Fernandez: Let’s wait until next month because I don’t want to create any opportunity for anything because I saw in that proposed budget that you were including part of the surplus.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So that’s a question we can decide.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, and I say now wait, we are not using the surplus to pay off the regular operations, we’re going to use the surplus, we going to use it for something that is beneficial for the District directly.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Ok, so that will be an interesting conversation. Mr. Fernandez: I’m glad to have it, always.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right because if you keep using prior year money eventually you’ll run out.
Mr. Fernandez: No, you didn’t understand what I said, what I was trying to say, or I didn’t explain it correctly, I’m trying to make all charges efficient and unnecessary costs need to be eliminated, if there are costs that we’re incurring that are not adding value or are not necessarily we’ll cut them, and that will be reflected in the budget.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: But what I would like not to do is to continue to increase the budget just throw every single year more and more, and we’re eating the surplus because that surplus can be used for something else, that’s what I’m trying to say, I’m not saying that we’re going to use the surplus to finance the operation, no, that’s not the case.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Because I have, I unfortunately have to live with in some Districts.

Ms. Wald: And you want a form of zero based budgeting is what you want, you want to cut what you can cut, and then it goes zero based budget and where you’re not using any type of reserves to finance the budget for the next fiscal year.
Mr. Gill: And we have zero assessments right now.
Ms. Wald: No, that’s not what he’s talking about here, but I understand what he’s talking about.
Mr. Gill: Ok,
Mr. Winkeljohn: Just one concept in a District because if you are really shrewd one year and you lower it and then the next year something happens that’s expected but, you’re not budgeted for it, you would have to raise it, so one of the things you’ll hear out of my mouth is how to keep it as straight as possible.
Mr. Fernandez: And I’m not closing the door to any scenario, so let’s get the explanation, the amount requires that one but, that’s it, that budget will duplicate or change which assessment, the one that we are paying this November, 2026 or we’re talking the one for November, 2027?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Well, it would be fiscal year 2027, staring October 1, 2026. Mr. Fernandez: So, that’s the money we would pay this year.
Mr. Winkeljohn: No, next year.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, it’s very confusing.
Ms. Wald: I know it is very confusing, so local governments fiscal year budget is October 1st to September 30th.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, and the name of the fiscal year is?
Ms. Wald: The fiscal year you are in right now is fiscal year 2025-2026, so this fiscal year will stop or cease on September 30, 2026, and the next fiscal year begins the next day on October 1, 2026, the payment is different.
Mr. Nandwani: So just one question, this fiscal year 2026 budget is through September 30th.
Mr. Winkeljohn: That’s the one you’re living with right now, correct.
Ms. Wald: So, what you have in your agenda with the resolution #2026-03 would be proposed fiscal year 2026-2027 and we just round it up to 2027, but you’re in fiscal year 2025-2026, and the payment is different because you’re paying through the tax roll. So, the monies, you don’t actually get that bill until sometime in July or August, well you

get the TRIM notice, and then the bill is sometime in November but, we always have that 3 months or so where we don’t have money coming in until people start paying and then it comes from the Tax Collector to give to the District, that’s why you will see in every single budget, you want to make sure you have that buffer approximately 3 months.
Mr. Fernandez: So, there’s a cash problem.
Mr. Wald: Exactly, and it’s every local government in the State of Florida does this, it’s just the way that it’s set up.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, so that money that is collected, those assessments that are collected in November to February.
Ms. Wald: All the way to March.
Mr. Fernandez: So, that’s part of the revenues of which fiscal year? Ms. Wald: It is part of the revenues of the fiscal year we’re in right now. Mr. Fernandez: So, we’re collecting after the year.
Ms. Wald: Yes, we collect after.
Mr. Fernandez: So the revenues for this to continue to finance the budget that we are in right now, will be received between November and March of the next year.
Ms. Wald: Yes, and let’s say you’re at 100%, so the fiscal year that we’re in right now, because some people do wait until March to pay, they could save money if they wanted but they don’t, so some people wait all the way to the end of March. Let’s say your 100% at the end of March, 100% collected, that means at the end of March, this District had received 100% of revenues for this fiscal year.
Mr. Fernandez: However we are already in the other fiscal year, so you’re in the fiscal year 2027.
Ms. Wald: But you’re collecting during this fiscal year 2025-2026. Mr. Fernandez: Which ends September 30, 2026.
Ms. Wald: Correct.
Mr. Fernandez: But then that revenue will be collecting during fiscal year 2027. Ms. Wald: Well whatever the next year, not fiscal year but real year 2027.
Mr. Fernandez: And it’s the fiscal year too. Ms. Wald: Any fiscal year.
Mr. Fernandez: Exactly, that’s what I’m saying.

Ms. Wald: So, in January, February or March, is when you’re collecting for next year, you’re going to be collecting for next year’s fiscal year but, you’re already in it, and I know it’s crazy.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So, back to reality is that’s why this budget has the $11,000 charted in it, and that’s the exact balance that’s projected for the end of this fiscal year to go into next year, that amount of money is what you need for October, November, and December because there’s no revenue so you have that gap, and then you always have to roll some money forward.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, I think we are mixing two concepts here, one is the expense budget, and the other is cash flow.
Ms. Wald: Revenue.
Mr. Fernandez: I mean what you’re referring to is during a few months at the end of the year, the District will not have cash because the revenues have not been collected, so I understand that but, that’s another issue, it’s not a budget problem. I mean it’s how do we manage the treasury or the funds.
Ms. Wald: Yes, it’s not a budget problem.
Mr. Fernandez: Exactly, you cannot inflate the budget in order to subsidize that absence, or we could.
Mr. Winkeljohn: But that’s saying your current strategy, or the District’s strategy is to use a little bit of prior year money to be that money for the first quarter and that’s what that $11,000 is.
Ms. Wald: And they are two different concepts.
Mr. Fernandez: But you have already the surplus, I mean we have the funds, we have almost $200,000 in surplus right now, so we have the money to fund those items, so I would not inflate budget that’s my recommendation, I don’t know what you guys think but, it doesn’t make sense to inflate the budget just for financing that for a few months.
Mr. Nandwani: No, I wouldn’t.
Mr. Del Rio: It’s kind of the same problem that we have in our community when we did the assessments the first time but, we tried to reduce to have a minimum, even if there were some issues that the community would have for some not prepared expenses but, we did it, and we didn’t have any problems.

Mr. Fernandez:	Right because they’re two different concepts, and it worked perfectly.
Mr. Nandwani: And I normally budget an hour, but I budgeted an hour and a half this time but I have another meeting.
Ms. Wald: That’s ok, we do have quorum, and we don’t have much left, so we can finish it up.
Mr. Nandwani: Ok.
Ms. Wald: So, we’re going to push the budget and you’ll have all the information, so we’ll push the budget to whenever our next meeting is.
Mr. Fernandez: And in the meantime you guys can get us the explanation of these additional items.
Mr. Winkeljohn: And I’m little annoyed because when I gave you that zipped file, it was the entire District record.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, no it was not.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Then it wasn’t what I asked for because I could tell you wanted to put the whole puzzle together.
Mr. Fernandez: Right, ok.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So, we’ll get that to you, and I think we’re on item No. 5 now. Mr. Gill: Yes, so we’ll table this.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audit	Selection	Committee
Meeting
Opening Audit Selection Committee Meeting
Roll Call
Ranking of Respondents to RFP
Adjournment
Selection of Audit Firms
Mr. Gill: Jumping down to item No. 5, we have the audit selection committee meeting portion of the meeting, and this would be to approve auditors for I believe this is for a new auditor for 2026, so I’m just looking for a motion to open the audit selection committee meeting.

On MOTION by Mr. Sanchez seconded by Mr. Nandwani with all in favor, opening the Audit Selection Committee Meeting was approved.

Mr. Gill: Alright, so we’ve opened the audit selection committee meeting, I believe at the previous meeting all members of the Board were selected as members of the audit selection committee, so for roll call we have Antonio Fernandez, Jai Nandwani, Tony Sanchez, and Heberto Del Rio. So, previously the Board approved a ranking of the proposer’s they attributed out of 100 points with 20% of each of the listed categories, the ability of personnel, proposer’s experience, understanding the scope of work, and the ability to furnish required services. This portion of the meeting we’ll be ranking the proposers, and the ranking sheet is also in your agenda package.
Mr. Winkeljohn: And it’s ok to use one ranking sheet, there’s lots of ways to do this and you can score it verbally, and agree to it verbally, and then you can have that assigned to the score sheet and then by motion adopt it, that’s the most efficient way to do it is to just talk and then as a group assign the score. You could also do it individually, and then we could pull the numbers together and identify who the winner was.
Mr. Fernandez: I understand.
Mr. Winkeljohn: But that’s more tedious and complicated because it’s really simple, there’s 3 respondents, and you do know, and I don’t know what was told to you last time but the first 4 pieces of criteria are statutory and you’ve elected to add the fifth criteria which is cost, so you’ll allowed to look at all of those and score them accordingly, and see which one you rank the highest and they also fixed their price for like 10 years out.
Mr. Fernandez: So, are we committed for that amount of years?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Well, you always have the choice of redoing this every few years, you can go as long as waiting until this expires, if you pick one of these firms you can keep them, and they’ll hold their price like an agreement to 2036, and that lets you control the market for that length of period of time but, if you ever want to change your auditor or say the market gets even cheaper, and that doesn’t happen often but, you could choose to set it, and then say, alright let’s do another request for proposals and start over again any time.
Mr. Fernandez: So, even if we sign with somebody and say that’s for 10 years, we say for 10 years but we can cancel.

Mr. Winkeljohn: Right, it’s annual, so you get the best of both worlds, you get their price for long term but you can choose every year to change.
Ms. Wald: Yes, you’ll have a contract every year. Mr. Fernandez: Alright.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Ok, so someone can tell me your vote.
Mr. Nandwani: Excuse me everyone, I’m sorry I have to leave.
Mr. Gill: So during the discussion for some of my other Boards, generally what the Board will do is they will review the various respondents and then they’ll pick one, they’ll say we’ve read the proposals and we want to go with say Berger, Toombs for example, and then for the rankings it’s someone moot, what they’ll do is they’ll rank 20 points across the board for Berger, Toombs, and then they’ll give each of the other ones maybe 19 or an 18 so their score comes up lower to speed things up. You all can choose whatever selection process you’d like, and Grau & Associates is our current auditor, and they’re the cheapest as well for this.
Mr. Fernandez: I already reviewed all of them. Mr. Gill: Ok.
Mr. Fernandez: So, I would like to hear from the members but, is Grau aware of my comments to their report?
Mr. Winkeljohn: I can give an update on that if you want. Mr. Fernandez: Today?
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, so we’ve spoken to them, they went through it and there were two main things, one which was the makeup of the Board, and the audit being a fiscal year, the Board that year had not converted over to its current setup until November, so the cutoff was before that and so it was accurate. The other part of the proportion, the amount of land that was still owned by the developer, that was corrected, they made a correction to that, and it was a ripple effect on a couple of line items that had the value with that adjustment, so they made all those changes. It was Darrin Mossing, our president, who found one more little glitch that he saw that would be better to update, nothing material enough that it’s really particularly material but we want it right, and they hadn’t made that change as of today so I didn’t present it back to you but, they got it.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, well good they got it.

Mr. Winkeljohn: So, I have the draft, I was going to send it to you but, I heard about this one other change so I didn’t want to waste your time with something that was a half draft, so it’s all good.
Mr. Fernandez: Alright.
Ms. Wald: So, you can do this individually, or you can do it as a collective body for each one of the items of ranking, however you want to do it.
Mr. Fernandez:  Ok, and I already made my mind up, so do you want me to go
first?
Mr. Sanchez: No, I defer to you.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, so Grau already knows us, the history, they’re the cheapest
and we have chance to even change it next year so I would vote for Grau & Associates to keep them.
Mr. Gill: Ok.
Ms. Wald: So you have to do the scoring, so are you stating for Grau & Associates, the maximum for each one of the points?
Mr. Ferandez: I would not say the maximum, I never give a maximum.
Ms. Wald: Well, what you’re doing as the committee is each one of the categories is to give the number of points, so 20, 20, 20, 20 and 20, so you have to put the numbers here.
Mr. Gill: So, let’s start with Grau, so they have a maximum of 20 points for ability of personnel, proposer’s experience, understanding the scope of work, ability to furnish services, and price, which is the cheapest, they can have a maximum of 20 points, would you like the same numbers across the board?
Mr. Fernandez: I would go for the columns, I would suggest because it will be easier to compare the criteria, so I would say Grau has the highest in there.
Mr. Del Rio: Well, you have to pick a number. Mr. Gill: Yes, you have to pick a number.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, 18.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so right now Grau has 18 for the ability of personnel, and Berger, Toombs, I guess that should be lower than 18?
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, pick a number. Mr. Del Rio: 15.

Mr. Fernandez: Ok 15.
Mr. Gill: Ok, and the R. McIntosh, CPA? Mr. Sanchez: 13 points.
Mr. Gill:	Ok, so moving over to proposer’s experience, you said Grau has experience with us, so out of 20 points how much?
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, 18. Mr. Gill: Berger, Toombs? Mr. Sanchez: 15.
Mr. Gill: Ok, R. McIntosh? Mr. Sanchez: 14.
Mr. Gill: Next, understanding the scope of work, Grau & Associates? Mr. Del Rio: 18, across for all of them for Grau.
Mr. Gill: Alright, so understanding the scope of work for Berger, Toombs, they got 15 for the previous item.
Mr. Fernandez: 15.
Mr. Gill:	Ok, and R. McIntosh, they had 13 and 14 and now we’re on to the understanding of scope of work.
Mr. Fernandez: Give them 14, and the problem is that they are new, I mean the one that has the domain above everything is Grau right now.
Mr. Gill: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: So, it sounds a little bit unfair the way that we are doing this but, that’s the truth.
Ms. Wald: And this is all you have to do.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so the ability to furnish the required services. Mr. Sanchez: 15.
Mr. Gill: Jumping down to R. McIntosh? Mr. Sachez: 13.
Mr. Gill: Ok, and now price, Grau & Associates is 18, they came in at $40,000 and some change, and Berger, Toombs they’re at $44,000 and some change.
Mr. Sanchez: So, Berger give them 12 there.
Mr. Gill: Ok, and then R. McIntosh is at $55,000 so they should receive lower than
12.

Mr. Sanchez: Yes, give them 10.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so the totals are and following the rankings by the audit selection committee we have Berger, Toombs receiving 72 total points, Grau & Associates receiving 90 total points and R. McIntosh, CPA receiving 64 points, which means that the committee has ranked Grau & Associates as #1 and would be authorizing staff to enter into an agreement.
Ms. Wald: No, the audit selection committee is ranking Grau #1, Berger, #2 and McIntosh #3 and is recommending to the Board those rankings.
Mr. Gill: Yes, correct because we’re in the committee meeting. Ms. Wald: Yes.
Mr. Gill: So, the committee is recommending to the Board that the Board selects Grau & Associates as the auditor.
Mr. Fernandez: Quick question but, we are able next year to change? Mr. Gill: Correct.
Ms. Wald: Yes, and while you’re sitting right now you’re just the audit selection committee, so you’re just making a recommendation, and soon as we’re done with that, then we’ll come back to the Board.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok.
Ms. Wald: So, you want to make a motion as was stated 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Gill: Right, so I’m looking for a motion to select Grau & Associates as #1, Berger, Toombs #2 and R. McIntosh #3.

On MOTION by Mr. Sanchez seconded by Mr. Fernandez with all in favor, ranking of respondents to RFP, ranking Grau & Associates as #1, Berger, Toombs #2 and R. McIntosh as #3 was approved.

Mr. Gill:	Next I’m looking for a motion to adjourn the audit selection committee meeting portion of the meeting.

On MOTION by Mr. Fernandez seconded by Mr. Sanchez with all in favor, the Audit Selection Committee Meeting was adjourned.

Mr. Gill: Now we’re back in the normal portion of the CDD meeting and the audit selection committee has ranked the respondents as follows for the audit selection, Grau & Associates #1, Berger, Toombs #2, and R. McIntosh as #3, and now I’m looking for a motion to authorize staff to enter into an agreement.
Ms. Wald: Yes, so accept the audit selection committee’s ranking and authorize staff to proceed forward with entering into an agreement with Grau & Associates.

On MOTION by Mr. Sanchez seconded by Mr. Fernandez with all in favor, accepting the Audit Selection Committee’s ranking and authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with Grau & Associates to serve as the District’s auditor was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Mr. Gill: Ok, so we’re almost done, let’s jump down to staff reports, District attorney, anything to report?

Attorney
Ms. Wald: No, but I probably in May, unless we keep going with special sessions, I’ll have the memo for the legislative report. So, firm does a memo every single year of what our Florida Legislature has done in the government, in passing different laws, and we provide a summary of laws that are going to affect CDDs. There are two that one I think it definitely going to pass that would affect CDDs, it’s not going to affect your pocket, and hopefully one is going to help and disappear and actually be cheaper for you, so we’ll see how that plays out.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, good.

Engineer
Mr. Gill: District engineer, anything to report to him?
Mr. Sanchez:	Many updates on my end but, I do have questions regarding anything with the lakes.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so the questions you have regarding the lakes we’ll write to his team and we’ll try to get you updates on those as well.
Mr. Sanchez: Ok.

Mr. Fernandez: Ok, so that’s managed by the engineer, I thought it was Paul that was taking the lead.
Ms. Wald: Paul is working on talking to the city and then if it’s something where we have to convince the city it could be done, then you need the engineer.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, so I would appreciate that before doing the work for a city job we get a projection for the hours that you will require so we can see if that’s within the budget.
Mr. Gill: Absolutely.

Manager
Mr. Gill: For District manager I have nothing to report now, and they don’t have ethics training, right?
Ms. Wald: No.
Mr. Gill: Ok.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Approval of Check Register
Approval of Unaudited Financials
Mr. Gill: Ok, let’s jump down to financial reports and check register, this is sort of goes to what you had talked about before, every month when we have a meeting or if we don’t have a meeting, we provide in the meeting agenda packet the check register, it shows all payments made between the last meeting and the current meeting.
Mr. Fernandez: Again, I prefer to understand how much money we’re billed for all of the instances here in order to approve. So, I cannot approve a check register before understanding that, do you know what I mean, because we have spent a lot of money there, and in some cases it’s over budget, so I prefer to go over the financials first and get an explanation that I have requested before approving the check register.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so I think it’s rather small and the details are pretty specific. Ms. Wald: You can just defer it to the next meeting.
Mr. Winkeljohn: Yes, just table it.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so we’ll table that and similar we have the monthly financials that just shows what we’ve spent, what we projected, the prorated budget to the end of year, the actuals spent, and these aren’t needed to be approved but we put them in the agenda

packet every month for you all to see, and these will be added to the website as the monthly financials.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok.
Mr. Winkeljohn:	But not until they’re accepted, just like the meeting minutes, minutes don’t go up until they’re approved and signed.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok.
Mr. Winkeljohn: So a draft does not go up on the website.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, so let’s go in order, let’s clean up the 2025 and then move into the 2026.
Mr. Winkeljohn:	Right, and all the historical ones that are done goes up right
away.
Mr. Fernandez: Ok, not but in order to approve that one. Mr. Winkeljohn: Right, agreed.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so the check register is being deferred until the next meeting, and the
unaudited financials were included.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors Requests and
Audience Comments
Mr. Gill: Next is Supervisor’s requests and audience comments. There are no members of the public present in person or on the phone. Are there any Supervisor’s requests?

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment
Mr. Gill: Not hearing any, if there’s nothing else I’m just looking for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

On MOTION by Mr. Fernandez seconded by Mr. Del Rio with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned.

Secretary /Assistant Secretary	Chairman / Vice Chairman

Certificate Of Completion

Envelope Id: 24780AFE-CC8C-40C6-B013-ADDC05705875	Status: Completed Subject: Botaniko: Complete with Docusign: Minutes 03-03-26.pdf, Engagement Letter.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 45	Signatures: 3	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
4/10/2026 1:50:06 PM

Holder: Ellen Acosta
eacosta@gmssf.com

Location: DocuSign

Signer Events	Signature	Timestamp

Andrew Gill agill@gmssf.com DISTRICT MANAGER
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)	Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 2601:589:4801:7da0:e19a:b099:8447:cd35
Signed using mobile

Sent: 4/10/2026 1:51:26 PM Viewed: 4/13/2026 6:13:31 AM Signed: 4/13/2026 6:13:42 AM

Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign

Antonio Fernandez afbotanikocdd@gmail.com Chairman

(None)	Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 134.56.42.213		
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	4/10/2026 1:51:26 PM	
Certified Delivered	Security Checked	4/12/2026 10:09:07 AM	

Security Level: Email, Account Authentication

Sent: 4/10/2026 1:51:25 PM Viewed: 4/12/2026 10:09:07 AM Signed: 4/12/2026 10:11:33 AM

Envelope Summary Events	Status	Timestamps	
Signing Complete	Security Checked	4/12/2026 10:11:33 AM	
Completed	Security Checked	4/13/2026 6:13:42 AM	
Payment Events	Status	Timestamps