MINUTES OF MEETING PINE RIDGE PLANTATION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

A special meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Ridge Plantation Community Development District was held on Monday, December 14, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. at the Pine Ridge Plantation Amenity Center, 4200 Pine Ridge Parkway, Middleburg, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Matt Biagetti	Chairman
Jeff Arp	Vice Chairman
Jerry Ritchie	Supervisor
Jeff Lewis	Supervisor
Nelson Nazario	Supervisor Also present were:
Ernesto Torres	District Manager
Wes Haber via phone	District Counsel
Maria Cranford	Amenity Manager Larry Edmiston
Mike Lucas

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Torres called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m., and a quorum was present.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments
Mr. Torres asked for any public comments on agenda items from anyone attending via Zoom (Was Zoom an option for this meeting?). Hearing no audience comments, the next item followed.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Agreement with Basham
and	Lucas	Design	Group,	Inc.	for Professional Architectural Design Services
Mr. Torres stated that the agreement had been prepared by Wes Haber their District Counsel, and the exhibit on Page 11 is the form of Work Authorization that lists the costs of the services. He noted that him and Mr. Mike Lucas had conversations prior to the meeting to give him an idea of the discussions that the Board had been considering. Mr. Torres had asked Mr. Lucas to be present at the meeting so that he could get a more defined set of information and guidance from the Board.
Mr. Lucas asked if the Board had any questions on the proposal.
Mr. Ritchie stated that the document noted that there was a construction manager to coordinate the project instead of a general contractor. Mr. Haber responded that with respect to estimated costs, the engineer would be asked to give his best estimate on what the cost would be before they would go out for a request for proposals for the particular work. He added that depending on what they were having constructed, the expectation would be that they would do an RFP for a General Contractor and that there would be some oversight on the part of Basham Lucas. He noted that the reference to the construction manager in the agreement was an error on his part and that the was no expectation that there would be a different party other than a contractor that would be hired to do the work with Basham Lucas designing and overseeing the work as far as quality and approval.
Mr. Lucas explained that he would work with them to prepare a set of construction drawings and they would compare drawings based on wish lists so that they could bid items out while getting pricing for each component so that if they decided that they didn’t want to do it all at one time, they could at least have an idea of what the future costs would be.
Mr. Ritchie asked if that would also include inspection services, to which Mr. Lucas responded yes. He added that they were currently completing the Amenity Center at another CDD and that he went out there once a week to review what was being done. He noted that he would come to check on the project as often as needed from the District, whether it be once a week to once a month to review payouts.
Mr. Biagetti responded that once they conceptualized the project and came to an agreement on a plan that was put in motion, they would be good to go.

Mr. Lucas stated that they would start off with a conceptual side-plan based on what their expectations were. He noted that he knew that the district had an Engineer’s Report prepared by AT&M, adding he was curious as to how they arrived at the costs and figures presented on the report and if they actually correlated with what they wanted.
Mr. Biagetti replied that the figures were mostly accurate to what they had initially discussed that some figures were based on estimates on what had been done previously at other places so they were not 100% accurate. He added that he thought it was a good starting point as far as the ideas that the board had together.
Mr. Ritchie asked Mr. Lucas if he had ever installed a saltwater pool for a commercial development for a CDD, and Mr. Lucas replied that he had only done chlorine pools before. He added that if they wanted to do a saltwater pool down the road, they could bring in a contractor to compare the differences between the two.
Mr. Torres asked for Mr. Haber to correct the language in the agreement that alluded to a “construction manager” and asked for the agreement to be approved in substantial form.
Mr. Haber noted that the agreement, as drafted, contemplated an hourly rate for hourly work that they may have Basham Lucas do. He added that typically, the parties will negotiate some lump service contract where if they were going to prepare plans for improvements, they could say that they could prepare a set of plans for a certain cost. He noted that they would then enter into a separate work authorization under the agreement that was currently being considered, which would specify the work that needed to be done and the lump sum cost of that work. Mr. Haber added that the agreement that they were currently approving did not have that level of specificity, but that it was certifying Basham Lucas as the architect for the district under an hourly rate. He clarified out that if they wanted to do a lump sum agreement instead, it would be done through a separate work authorization between both parties.
Mr. Torres asked Mr. Lucas if that was something that he would bring back to the board at a later time, and Mr. Lucas replied that he believed so. He clarified that what they would have to do is develop the scope on an hourly basis and come up with a conceptual site plan, and that once that was signed off on, they would come up with a lump sum figure to do the construction drawings.
Mr. Torres asked Mr. Lucas if he would have some idea of the scope by the time they left the meeting after the agreement was approved, to which Mr. Lucas replied that he would.

Mr. Torres asked for a motion in substantial form to approve the agreement for the hourly rates, subject to Mr. Haber making the corrections previously stated.

On MOTION by Mr. Biagetti, seconded by Mr. Nazario with all in favor, the Agreement with Basham and Lucas Design Group, Inc. for Professional Architectural Designs Services, was approved in substantial form.

Mr. Torres asked that they go over the scope before moving on to the next item, and Mr. Lucas agreed. Mr. Torres listed the requested items that needed to be completed per the Engineer’s Report, including the Amenity Center, the pool expansion, a water tot-lot playground or a splashpad, and the sport activities center where the Board had discussed bringing a court center that included tennis, pickleball, and basketball in a fenced area with security. He pointed out there was also as soccer field, playground, pocket parks, with the last item being an expansion of the fitness room and pool deck.
Mr. Biagetti stated that they had a pretty good idea financially of what they could do, but that projects such as the pool expansion and the splashpad were up in the air as they relied on what they could afford and the space that they had, adding that the pool expansion was still one of their top priorities.
Mr. Lucas stated that the budget listed was $1.4 million, and that the first thing they would want to do is make sure is that the current pool was adequate to solve the number of units they had, and that the pool they wanted was above and beyond that. He added that any type of pool that they would like to add would be under 2,500 square feet due to the fact that he would only have to add one facility each for the men’s and women’s bathrooms. He noted that Mr. Torres had discussed having a lap lane style, and that lap lanes are usually 7 feet by 75 feet, so he could do 4 of those while still being under the 2,500 square feet criteria. He pointed out that they could also do something bigger if they wanted, but that it was just a place to start. He stated that a rough estimate of the pool could be between $120 and $148 per square feet, but that he had talked to one pool company that could get them a pool under 2,500 square feet for $350,000. He noted that he noticed the budget was at $450,000 and that they could get between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet of pool deck above that as well as landscaping with the extra $100,000. He pointed out that they had a done a 1,200-foot splashpad at the Bartram Springs CDD that cost

around $200,000 and $350,000 with the play features. He had also discussed the option of doing both with the same pool company, and the contractor had told Mr. Lucas that both could be done for $700,000 because they would be able to overlap the lap pool, the deck, and the play feature.
Mr. Lucas asked that the Board give him feedback as to what they were thinking of putting into the community, and he could see what he could get with the $1.4 million. He added that he would like to know how many pickleball and tennis courts they wanted, and noted that pickleball courts cost around $45,000 and tennis courts $60,000. He also wanted to know if tennis was really a popular activity in the community. He summarized that, depending on what the Board was looking for, he could maximize the $1.4 million to suit their needs. He noted that he understood that $150,000 of that total was for miscellaneous projects throughout the community and asked if they wanted him to take it out or leave it in the total.
Mr. Biagetti pointed out that some of their pool equipment were approximately 15 to 20 years old, and suggested that the $150,000 be used towards that, and asked Ms. Cranford how many showers were within each of the men’s and women’s bathrooms, to which she answered that the men’s had 2 showers, and the women’s had 1 shower and a changing area.
Mr. Biagetti asked if they could renovate those as part of the project, and Mr. Lucas asked if he had plans of the existing building, and he responded that he had been trying to get them from the city for a while with no success.
Mr. Torres added that the other factor they would have to take into account is the distance, and Mr. Lucas responded that bathrooms had to be within 250 square feet.
Mr. Lucas asked what year the facility was built, to which members of the Board answered 2007 or 2008. Mr. Lucas stated that they should still have the documents and plans on record. He also added that they could find out who the original architect was and see if they had the original plans.
Mr. Biagetti asked if 250 square feet was the cutoff, and between 250 feet and 5,000 feet, every increment required more fixtures.
Mr. Lucas noted that anything under 250 feet would only require 1 fixture each for the men and women.
Mr. Biagetti added that one of the requests from the women residents was that they add in a tanning/sun-bathing deck area.

Mr. Lucas replied that it had been done at one other CDD, and they had some issues because there were restrictions as to what you can and cannot do at a public pool.
Mr. Lucas asked if the Board wanted to prioritize the pool and splashpad together, or if they wanted to prioritize the pool by itself.
Mr. Biagetti responded that if they could get the splashpad built in with the pool it would be a greater savings for the district, and then have the courts be second priority. He added that the playgrounds be a third priority.
Mr. Lucas pointed out that if they wanted to hold the $150,000 out of the $1.4 million, it would have to go out to bid and they could work with contractors directly for the playground. He then asked what they were looking at as far as expanding the fitness center, and asked how congested the area was when people were using it.
Ms. Cranford responded that the fitness center was becoming increasingly congested due to residents giving up their memberships to larger gym companies and continuing their workouts at the CDD fitness center instead.
Mr. Nazario added that he had gone into the center a few days prior and there were around 8 people in the facility in the middle of the afternoon, which was considered a lot compared to the usual.
Mr. Lucas asked how much they were wanting to expand the size, and Ms. Cranford suggested that they could at least double the space. Mr. Lucas gave the Board a ballpark price of around $250 a square foot.
Mr. Biagetti pointed out that it would be possible to double it if they configured the hallway in a different way and using a different bar top.
Mr. Lucas stated that they could look at different options, adding that fitness within the amenities of a CDD were extremely popular at the moment and a large selling point.
Mr. Nazario asked the Board if the fitness center was more important than the courts, and Mr. Biagetti replied that both were as equally important.
Mr. Lucas noted that because the pool was the top priority, they were looking at doing the pool and the splashpad together, but that if the fitness center was just as important, he didn’t want to exhaust all the funds in that.
Mr. Biagetti pointed out that Ms. Cranford had put out a Facebook survey for what sport residents would like to play the most, and the top response was tennis. He stated that, as a Board,

they could not overlook what the residents want because they were there to represent a community.
Mr. Lucas stated that two tennis courts would cost $120,000, adding that he wanted to point out that whatever they ended up choosing would be an “either/or” not an “and” decision as to whether they wanted tennis or pickleball.
Mr. Biagetti noted that pickleball had its own director currently as well as the fact that they were giving lessons. He added that the nets required for pickleball were relatively cheap and that they could get portable ones on wheels as well. He suggested that they put lines down for pickleball on the tennis court, and they could just wheel off the pickleball nets against the fence.
Mr. Lucas replied that he had done that at another district, where they had one tennis court that split into two pickleball courts with different colored striping and portable nets.
Mr. Biagetti added that he did not think that the courts would be overrun with people playing tennis, however if they had two tennis courts, they wouldn’t have to worry about the issue.
Mr. Biagetti asked how it was going to affect the existing parking, and Mr. Lucas replied that even though they were expanding the amenities, they were not expanding the client base.
Mr. Nazario pointed out that it had been stated that the pool was okay for the number of residents that the CDD had, but asked if that number included the number of new units that were being added to the community, to which Mr. Biagetti responded that it was built to the 750 units.
Mr. Haber (I think this was someone else.) added that Covid-19 was forcing people to build a new lifestyle, and Mr. Nazario pointed out that that would lead to more residents using the facilities.
Mr. Lucas asked if they were wanting to do a sun shelf at the pool, and Mr. Biagetti stated that lap pools were a greater priority for the residents.
Mr. Lucas suggested that they could increase the area to the full 2,500 square feet, and use 2,100 of it for the lap pool and the latter 400 for a sun shelf. He added that the pool would be a priority no matter what, and that the fitness center would be second priority. He pointed out that it would be great if he could get all three components done, but that he wanted to focus on the most-needed items first. He noted that he would look at doing a tennis and pickleball court

and a multicourt, as well as that he would take out the $150,000 so that the district could do the playground project themselves and that he would work with the $1.3 million.
Mr. Biagetti also added that lighting should be a key component as well, so that there was a timer set on all the lights for around 5:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. so that residents could use them in the evenings. He also asked what they had budgeted for the fitness expansion, and Mr. Lucas replied that they had $350,000 set aside, $450,000 for the pool expansion, the sports field had
$250,000, the playground enhancement was $150,000, and the renovation of the fitness amenities to expand the pool deck was $350,000.
Mr. Nazario asked if they had anything set aside for slide replacements, to which Mr.
Ritchie responded that that was taken out of Capital Reserves.
Mr. Lucas asked if they had someone to do the upkeep on the pool equipment, to which Mr. Biagetti responded that they did, Mr. Lucas suggested that the Board discuss with that entity about evaluating the equipment to get a cost estimate when they can expect to replace something. Mr. Haber (I think this was someone else) stated that he would get in contact with them.
Mr. Arp asked Mr. Lucas if he had heard correctly that if they stayed in the square footage that was recommended, they would have a seven-lane pool.
Mr. Lucas corrected him, stating that there would be only 4 lanes, but that the lanes were 7 feet wide.
Mr. Arp noted that in that case, a lap pool might not be the best solution due to the high number of complaints that they receive from residents during the summer months. He added that they would have a better usage out of a regular pool instead of a lap pool.
Mr. Lucas replied that the lap pool would not be continuously used for laps, but that it would be during certain hours of the day.
Mr. Arp pointed out that he did not think that a lap pool would solve the issue of complaints during the summer.
Mr. Nazario asked Ms. Cranford, based on her knowledge, if they would be able to satisfy the requirements of regular pool use by limiting the use of the lanes.
Ms. Cranford replied that if the lanes were removable, that it would.
Mr. Arp didn’t realize that they were removable, and that in that case, he agreed.
Mr. Biagetti asked Mr. Arp if he was alright with everything else, to which he responded that he thought everything else was on par with the survey that Ms. Cranford had sent out.

Mr. Lucas stated that he would go around and take pictures of the facility before leaving.
Mr. Torres thanked Mr. Lucas for coming, adding that January 19th was their next meeting if he wanted to join then with more information.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Chairlift Proposal
Mr. Torres stated that this item was something that the Board had wanted to delay due to the warranties, and asked Mr. Edmiston to elaborate.
Mr. Edmiston stated that he had done extensive research on warranties for chairlifts and what they were willing to offer on any of them, and found that the maximum warranty was at 2 years. He noted that extended warranties could be purchased, and explained that the extended warranty was a maintenance program that was on a yearly basis. He stated that if they did get a new chairlift he would have maintenance from RMS check it biweekly or monthly to make sure that everything is up to par. He added that this would eliminate the need for a maintenance program considering that RMS was already at the community several times a week. He noted that the old chairlift had been sitting there with no use for quite some time and that there was no warranty left on it, so the best option would be to purchase a new one.
Mr. Ritchie asked if it was the corrosion on the batteries from the chlorine that was causing the problems, and Mr. Edmiston replied that it was. He also suggested that what should happen if the chair was used and there was a chlorine issue, it should be hosed down on a regular basis of once or twice a month. He also added that a cover should be put on it when it was not in use, and that when it was in use, the cover should be hung up and put back on after use. He noted that he could have Maria check it every day to make sure the cover is kept on it.
Mr. Edmiston stated that the chairlift costs that he had been looking at were mostly the same, but that the only difference was shipping, with those costs being $56, $42, and $33. He added that that was for the 400-pound capacity, and that they wouldn’t have to worry about an anchor because they could use the one that was already there.
Ms. Cranford stated that she had some answers for Mr. Arp for questions that he had had at the previous meeting. She noted that she was not able to find the date that the chair was actually purchased, but that she had found emails between Mandy and Karen that were dated from May of 2014 to March of 2015 where the chairs were malfunctioning.

Mr. Ritchie also pointed out that the chair capacity of the old chair was a lot less than the 400 pounds, and he went with the heavier-duty chair so that it was less wear on the mechanical components of it.
Mr. Nazario asked what the name of the company was, and Mr. Edmiston replied that it was SR Smith. He also stated that the model that he had presented were the 300-0000N which was the 400-pound capacity and without the anchor.

On MOTION by Mr. Ritchie, seconded by Mr. Biagetti, with all in favor, the Chairlift Proposal from SR Smith, totaling $5,642.33, was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Mr. Torres noted that Mr. Haber was no longer on the phone due to a family emergency, but added that if the Board had any questions for him, he would pass them along.

District Manager
Mr. Torres stated he had nothing further to report.

Engineer
There being none, the next item followed.

Operations Manager
Mr. Edmiston stated that he would have all the information for things moving forward for the next meeting as far as the chairlift. Mr. Edmiston asked if the Board had any questions, and Mr. Ritchie asked if they should look at proposals for playgrounds or if they should wait.
Mr. Edmiston added that he could bring proposals for playgrounds if the Board would like, and Mr. Biagetti added that there was dry rot occurring on some of the boards of the playground equipment. Mr. Edmiston replied that he would bring back different proposals using different types of materials for the Board at the next meeting.

Amenity Manager

Ms. Cranford noted that they were having the community holiday event this coming Saturday and that would start planning for spring holidays after the winter holidays.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments/Supervisor’s Requests Audience Comments:
There being none, the next item was followed.

Supervisor Requests:
Mr. Biagetti had a complaint from a resident that lives on his street that there were issues with Down to Earth employees speeding down the side street with children playing outside. The resident had called the office at Down to Earth and they said that it would take care of it but that it was still occurring.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting – 1/19/21 @ 6:00
p.m. at the Pine Ridge Plantation Amenity Center
Mr. Torres stated the next scheduled meeting is January 19, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. He added that items that would be discussed would be the playground structure and roof proposals.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Biagetti seconded by Mr. Ritchie with all in favor the Meeting was adjourned.

Secretary / Assistant Secretary

Chairman / Vice Chairman