Village Community Development District No. 12

MINUTES OF MEETING VILLAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 12 A Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Village Community Development District No. 12 was held on Monday, June 8, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. at Everglades Regional Recreation Center, 5497 Marsh Bend Trail, The Villages, Florida, 32163. Board Members present: Jon Roudabush Chair Ron McMahon Vice Chair David Robbins Supervisor Phil Montalvo Supervisor Dale Martin Supervisor Staff present: Carrie Duckett Deputy District Manager Mark Brionez District Counsel Karen Clary Budget Assistant Director Jonny Bishop Executive Director of Support Services Chris Ryzoc Assistant District Property Management Director Matt Armstrong Community Standards Director Tyson Dishman Assistant Director of Finance Candice Harris Deputy District Clerk Jesse Andrews Assistant District Clerk FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: Call to Order 1.A. Roll Call Chair Roudabush called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and stated for the record that all Supervisors were present representing a quorum. 1.B. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Roudabush led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1.C. Observation of a Moment of Silence The Board and audience in attendance observed a moment of silence for those who serve our Country and community.

VCDD No. 12 – Meeting Minutes June 8, 2026 Page 2 1.D. Welcome Meeting Attendees The Board welcomed all those in attendance 1.E. Audience Comments There were no audience comments received. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS: New Business 2.A. Approval of Minutes On MOTION by Ron McMahon, seconded by Dale Martin, with all in favor, the Board approved the Minutes for the Meeting held on May 4, 2026. 2.B. Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Proposed Budget Karen Clary, Assistant Budget Director, advised that the Board reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Recommended Budget during the May 4, 2026 meeting. The proposed operating budget of $4,311,353 is an increase of $98,500 or 2.3% from the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Amended Budget, which is the result of increased expenses for Project Wide Fees, Building Structure Maintenance and Other Maintenance accounts. Ms. Clary advised that per the Board’s direction, Staff has included a 2% maintenance assessment increase to the Proposed Budget. Following approval of the Proposed Budget the maintenance assessment rate cannot be increased. The Debt Service Fund budgets reflect interest, and other bond-related expenditures and the revenue received from bond payments. Ms. Clary advised that Staff requests that the Board adopt Resolution 2026-04 to approve the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Proposed Budget and to set the Public Hearing to adopt the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Final Budget for September 1, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. at the Everglades Recreation Center. On MOTION by Phil Montalvo, seconded by Ron McMahon, with all in favor, the Board adopted Resolution 2026-04 approving the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Proposed Budget and Proposed Maintenance Assessment Rates and set a public hearing to adopt the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Final Budget and Final Maintenance Assessment Rates for September 1, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. at the Everglades Recreation Center.

VCDD No. 12 – Meeting Minutes June 8, 2026 Page 3 THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS: Old Business 3.A. Old Business Status Update Carrie Duckett, Deputy District Manager, provided an update on the following Old Business Status Update items: 1. Discuss settlement of fines for 4540 Pearlman Way: Mark Brionez, District Counsel, stated that Supervisor Montalvo, Staff and District Counsel met with Steven Walls and Debbie Gammon, the homeowners of 4540 Pearlman Way, to discuss Case No. D12-08-25 and is presenting the following conditions to the Board for consideration: 1. Mr. Walls and Ms. Gammon will return the swale on their property back to its original design and plant sod or approved ground cover. This will be determined by a signed certification by Clymer Farner Barley (CFB) indicating that the swale has been restored to a manner in which it was designed to function. 2. Mr. Walls and Ms. Gammon will substantially complete the work within 60 days, with full completion in 90 days. 3. If completed, the fines associated with Case No. D12-08-25 will be reduced to District costs associated with the case not to exceed $3,000. 4. If the timeline is not met, the lien on the property will remain and the full fine amount, plus, any additional District expenditures associated with the case, are due in full. Supervisor Montalvo provided an overview of the four stipulations that were discussed with the homeowners and stated that the swale will need to be brought back to its original design with approved Florida-friendly groundcover. Supervisor Montalvo stated that he recommends that the Board approve the negotiated conditions. Supervisor Martin inquired if the conditions presented would relieve the District of any responsibility or liability caused by any damages and expressed concern about the upcoming hurricane season potentially affecting the swale. Mr. Brionez stated that the swale will be brought back to the original construction. Mark Brimer, Village of DeLuna, thanked the Board and Staff for their efforts to identify a solution to repair the swale at 4540 Pearlman Way. Mr. Brimer advised that John Diferfinando,

VCDD No. 12 – Meeting Minutes June 8, 2026 Page 4 of 4546 Pearlman Way, sent an email expressing concern about the blockage that has been placed on the drainage inlet south of the property and inquired that blockage could be included in the Motion. Mr. Brimer inquired what would occur if the swale is not repaired within 90 days or is not completed to CFB’s specifications and requested that this item remain on the Old Business Status Update to provide residents with an update on the process. Ms. Duckett provided an overview of Case No. D12-08-25 and stated that the settlement presented today was brought before the Board after the homeowners of 4540 Pearlman Way requested that the fines be waived. Restoring the swale is a condition of waiving the associated fines. If the timeline is not met, the lien on the property remains and the full fine amount, plus any additional District expenditures associated with the case, will be due. This will be determined by a signed certification by CFB indicating that the swale has been restored to a manner in which it was designed to function. Any other concerns that have been expressed about the property is a civil matter between neighbors Chair Roudabush requested that Case No. D12-08-25 remain on Old Business and that status updates be provided to the Board. Supervisor Montalvo concurred. Stevens Walls, 4540 Pearlman Way, stated that even though Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval was obtained to modify the property, he is prepared to do whatever necessary to rectify the situation. Mr. Walls advised that all properties impacting the swale should be held to the same standard and should return their properties to their original design. Vice Chair McMahon inquired if the swale is on District property or private property and verified that any changes from the original design would need ARC approval. Ms. Duckett stated that the swale is on the homeowner’s property, and any modification requires ARC approval. However, a condition of the ARC’s approval is that a homeowner cannot negatively impact the drainage per the Deed Restrictions. Vice Chair McMahon inquired if it would be considered a District issue if the drainage is impacted. Mr. Brionez stated that any modifications impacting District property would require further action from the Board; however, in this specific case, the Board chose not to proceed with an additional topographical report due to the cost. The Board chose to allow the neighbors to handle the situation as a civil matter. Mr. Walls and Ms. Gammon have agreed to correct the swale and will follow the conditions set forth as presented today so that

VCDD No. 12 – Meeting Minutes June 8, 2026 Page 5 the fines associated with D12-08-25 are waived. On MOTION by Ron McMahon, seconded by Phil Montalvo, with all in favor, the Board approved the recommended negotiated settlement terms for Case No. D12-08-25. Debbie Gammon, 4540 Pearlman Way, inquired about the timing of fines issued in relation to the September 24, 2025 ARC approval and requested that a breakdown of the fines associated with Case No. D12-08-25 be provided. Mr. Brionez advised that the Community Standards Department can provide the requested information. 3.B. Revisions to the Standards and ARC Manual regarding the Amendment and Restatement of Chapter I — Rule to Bring About Deed Compliance Ms. Duckett advised the Revisions to the Standards and ARC Manual regarding the Amendment and Restatement of Chapter I — Rule to Bring About Deed Compliance was provided as information and there will be a Public Hearing held at next month’s Board meeting. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Informational Items Only 4.A. Financial Statements The Financial Statements as of April 30, 2026, were provided as information. 4.B. DPM Monthly Report The District Property Management (DPM) Monthly Report was provided as information. 4.C. Village Community Development District No. 12 Public Hearing Updates The Village Community Development District No. 12 Public Hearing Updates were provided as information. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: District Manager Reports 5.A. Florida Commission on Ethics 2025 Form 1 – Statement of Financial Interest deadline to submit is July 1, 2026 Ms. Duckett advised that the Florida Commission on Ethics has forwarded an email to each

VCDD No. 12 – Meeting Minutes June 8, 2026 Page 6 Supervisor providing a reminder that the 2025 Form 1 – Statement of Financial Interest must be completed online by July 1, 2026. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: District Counsel Reports 6.A. Ethics and Records Training Mr. Brionez provided a reminder of the two (2) upcoming Ethics and Public Records Training Sessions to be held on August 20, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at the Everglades Recreation Center and October 29, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. at the District Office. 6.B. Discussion – Case No. D12-08-25 – 4540 Pearlman Way This item was previously discussed. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Supervisor Comments 7.A. Supervisor Martin: Project Wide Advisory Committee After Agenda Supervisor Martin stated that the After Agenda for the June 8, 2026 Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC) meeting was provided to the Board, as information, and advised that the Committee recommended approval of the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Project Wide Fund (PWF) and Sumter Landing Amenity Division (SLAD) Fund Proposed Budgets. The Committee also discussed the potential of having residents register their golf carts to assist with the collection of damages associated with gate strikes. Vice Chair McMahon stated that this has previously been discussed and expressed concern about the complexities of the District instituting a golf cart registering process. Supervisor Martin advised that the Committee recommended approval to issue a Purchase Order for the replacement of 127 gate cameras at a cost of approximately $137,000 and a Purchase Order in the amount of $312,216.986 for the storm pipe repairs at Basin 5-10. Vice Chair McMahon inquired requested clarification of the PWF and SLAD Funds. Ms. Duckett stated the PWF maintains the common infrastructure, landscaping and multi-modal paths within Districts 5 – 13, along with Brownwood and Lake Sumter Landing. The SLAD Fund is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the recreational facilities located in District 5 – 13. Supervisor Martin stated that the SLAD Fund budget is $156 million and the PWF is $32

VCDD No. 12 – Meeting Minutes June 8, 2026 Page 7 million. Vice Chair McMahon inquired if golf cart registration would be considered infrastructure. Ms. Duckett stated that golf cart registration would not be considered infrastructure. When previously discussed, it was determined that under Chapter 190 the District did not have the ability to require that residents register their golf carts, so any program would be voluntary. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 1:36 p.m. On MOTION by Ron McMahon, seconded by Phil Montalvo, with all in favor, the Board adjourned the meeting at 1:36 p.m. Kenneth C. Blocker Jon Roudabush Secretary Chair

Call to order. Roll call. All supervisors in attendance, please rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Welcome to June's District 12 meeting. If there's nothing on the agenda that you need to talk about, please come to the microphone, state your name and address at this time. I see moving on. I don't see law enforcement, so we will move on. New business. Approval of the minutes. Do the supervisors have any comments on the minutes from the last meeting? If so, I need a motion for it. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Our budget lady. Yes. Good afternoon. Karen Clary, assistant budget director. I'm here today to request adoption of Resolution 2026-04 to approve your fiscal year 2026-27 proposed budget and to set the public hearing to adopt the fiscal year 2026-27 final budget for September 1st, 2026 at 1:00 PM here at Everglades Recreation Center. In accordance with Chapter 190, the district must approve by June 15th a proposed budget, proposed maintenance assessment rates, and adopt a resolution to set the public hearing for the budget adoption. Once approved, the proposed budget will be submitted to the local governing authorities for a 60-day review and comment period prior to budget adoption. The approved proposed budget will also be made available on the district's website and at the village's Community Development District's administration office. The board of supervisors reviewed and discussed the fiscal year 2026-27 recommended budget during your May regular meeting. The attached proposed operating budget of $4,311,353 reflects an increase of $98,500, or 2%, from your fiscal year 2025-26 amended budget. This increase is mainly due to higher project-wide fees and increased maintenance costs. Based on board direction at your budget workshop, there is a 2% increase in maintenance assessments included in fiscal year 2026-27 proposed budget. Also attached are the proposed budgets for your debt service funds. These budgets reflect interest and principal, along with other bond-related expenses, in addition to the revenue received from bond assessment payments. So at this time, staff recommends approval of Resolution 2026-04 to approve the fiscal year 2026-27 proposed budget and to set the public hearing to adopt the fiscal year 2026-27 final budget for September 1st, 2026 at 1:00 PM at Everglades Recreation Center, and we're here if you have any questions. Any comments from the board at this time? No? Do I have a motion from the board? I would move that we adopt Resolution 2026-04 to approve the fiscal year 2026-27 proposed budget and proposed maintenance assessment rate set at the public hearing to be adopted on the fiscal year 2026-27 final budget maintenance amendment rates for September 1, 2026 at 1:00 PM at the Everglades. That's my motion. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you very much. Old business. Yes, sir. The only item on old business is also on district council reports, which was to discuss the fine request waiver, and it's up to you, Mr. Chair, if you would like to address this item now or wait till Mr. Briones' reports. We could- I. You're going to go ahead? Sure. I guess we want to talk about it now. All right. Let's talk. If you go to your agenda, go down to the district council report, you'll see that there's an agenda item on there that lays out the four requirements that we came upon, the agreement we came upon, of course, subject to this board's action when we met with the property owners. And in short, they've agreed to bring that property back into compliance, meaning the soil would be back to original design. They're going to put some ground cover down. We agreed that they would do it substantially complete by within 60 days and full complete within 90 days. And that we would not reduce... Well, I guess we would reduce the fines, but essentially not reduce the cost. So we would recover our cost not to exceed $3,000, which at the time of the meeting, I think we were in the $2,300 range. Didn't take into consideration that meeting that we had as well, plus my time and other time. So, and then finally, if the requirements of one through three are not met, then number four says that it goes back to status quo. They'll owe all the money. So if they don't bring the property into compliance, or not necessarily into compliance, but bring the soil back to original design within that time period, then they essentially would be in default of this agreement and would then owe everything. There would be no waiver or anything like that of the fines. Of course, that's the short of it, and if you're interested in proceeding in that manner, we just need a motion to approve. If you want to open it up for discussion, I would suggest you do so at this point. Do we have any discussion from our supervisors? Is this the deal you were talking about? Yeah. Just a comment. Yeah, we met with the property owners, and the emphasis was that the property had to be restored to its original design, with approved ground cover. And that, if that takes place within the timeframe, that the penalties would be waived except for the costs that we have incurred. They would have to reimburse us for that. And if the terms are not complied with within the timeframe that we just discussed, then we revert back to where we were, that all the fines are reinstated, and then it'll be a matter of enforcement after that. But that was the long and the short of it. And I would recommend to the board that we do approve that. It was an arm's length transaction. We had a good discussion. And I think that if the parties comply, then I think that we will have at least resolved it as best as we can as a board. So I would recommend that we accept that. Thank you. Mark, this relieves the responsibility and the liability of this board should there be damage from... I noticed in whatever was presented when I first read it, it said we're coming up on hurricane season, and should we get a torrential rain or something, and there was damage. But the board is covered with this- As far as this property is concerned, once it's returned to the original design, then you're back to where you were at the beginning as far as status quo. So whether that relieves the board from any liability, it's hard to say, but it does with regard to that property because the property's going to be back to where it was initially. Any other comments from the board? Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have sec- Hold on. We're going to get public comment. Just a comment. So we have a motion and a second. We can have some public comment now. Please come to the mic. Good afternoon, council. Mark Brymer, 4534 Pearlman Way. Thank you for doing this. This is wonderful. We got a feel of all your work and Mr. Briones, all your work. We appreciate what you've done. This has been a long process, and we're glad that we're here. You may have seen an email from John that came out, I believe it was last Thursday early in the morning. It was sent to each of you, plus to Carrie and Mr. Briones. And John had brought up some issues that I wanted to see if you wanted to put into your motion. Maybe you don't, I don't know. The resident on the property line of John has, over the drainage inlet from the south, a bucket over it and put a rock on it that stopped all the drainage coming from that direction towards the property, which is also blocked off. And he was asking if this board could provide any relief for that. So I'm just going to throw these questions out to you. Okay. It mentions, and this may be a little bit semantics, but it mentions a swale to return to original design. And that should, but it doesn't say that to remove the homemade drainage system that's put in there. I just heard Mr. Briones say return it to original. If it's not clear enough, we would like to see that very clear. I'm out in the community a lot, and I get a lot of questions. And the question I got asked three times this last week was what happens after 90 days if none of this comes together? And I'm just throwing these questions out there. What does the board do? What does Mr. Briones' direction at that point, at 90 days, nothing's happened? What goes from there? Another request that came up was to keep this issue on the old business agenda for 30, 60, and 90 days. I don't think you guys have any idea how many people listen to the recordings of this group. Just primarily concerned because they don't want to run into what we've run into. They really don't want to see this happen. I've talked to real estate agents. It's amazing the number of people. I actually got stopped on a softball field, asked what's going on. How do we find out? And so your recordings are very much listened to. So if you can keep that on the agenda, reports from staff or Mr. Briones or Carrie or whoever for the next 30, 60, 90 days, that would be wonderful. Lastly, he mentioned the CFB approval for the demolition. What we're concerned about is that 90 days, 60 days, what gets done may not be what you guys want done. Could we have an assigned agreement from the demolition company that's going to do this, from the homeowners and from the demolition group that's going to do that, provided to CFB to make sure everything is on the right thing? Because we've heard this, "We don't know how to do this. We don't know what's right. We don't know what's wrong." If it's in front of this board, if it's in front of the demolition people, if it's in front of CFB, can't miss it on that sort of thing. So I don't know what of that you want to include. I gave you five different things. But those are the primary issues. But we certainly applaud what you have done, but we just want all the I's dotted and the T's crossed because it just keeps moving. So thank you for your time. Mm-hmm. So Mr. Chair, if you'll recall, this board determined that the drainage issue between the property owners was a civil issue, and that you did not want to take any action based on the fact that if they wanted to take action on each other, they certainly could, but there was no damage to district property. So collectively as a whole, as a board determined that it was a civil issue between the property owners. The only reason that this is back here today, and the only reason that you are requesting that they bring this swale back into original construction is because the homeowners asked for you to waive the fines. And that was going to be a condition of you waiving the fines.If they elect not to, then they will continue to owe the fines, and you would, I would assume, direct Mr. Briones to take whatever legal action is necessary to collect the fines, just like you would do in any other deed compliance case. If they do bring it back into their original construction, and what we would do is ask CFB to go out there and verify that it is in fact back to where it is functioning as originally constructed, then per this agreement, you would waive the fines minus whatever costs you have up until now, not to exceed 3,000. So I just want to remind the property owners that you as a board chose not to enforce this, and if the property owners wanted to enforce against each other, they certainly could. But the only reason that you're discussing this again is because the homeowners requested you to waive the fines. I would just like to have it listed under our old thing for the 90 days compliance- I agree ... to make sure that it is followed up within 90 days from deed compliance. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. I would like to have it still stay on our old agenda. Yes. After the 90 days, if it doesn't meet the thing, then we talk about it at that point. I agree. I think that, again, we have to do that just to keep our thumb on it. But the certification that will come from the CFB or whoever does is what we want. We're looking for that. Once that they sign off, I'm not going to go out there and say, "Yeah, I don't know what I'm doing." But once the contractor and the people that know what they're doing say, "Yeah, this is the way back it is," I can't imagine that they would say if there's a bucket over a drain or something, that that was not part of the original thing. But that's not something that we can deal with at this point. Once we get the certification that it's compliant, then I think that our job is done at that point. That's correct. Again, the bucket over the drain, all of that, it's a civil issue between the property owners. That is not something that you would handle as a board. Correct. Do I have any other comments from the board at this time? I'm the property owner. First of all, I want the board to make it perfectly clear that we have an ARC-approved plan in our backyard, and we're now having to change it. So obviously, we've put expenses in, and now we're going to have to spend more money. In the air of cooperation, we said we will do whatever you want us to do, and we will return it. The problem is the swale is basically a great big seven-foot wide gutter along that wall. It's not going to do any good to clean out the middle of the gutter, and anybody else that has done something in that swale should have to fix it back to normal also, because you're basically cleaning out one section of the gutter, and both of my neighbors have improvements in the swale. And if you go down the wall, there's 14 properties down to the next lake. About half of them have stuff in the swale. Again, I will do cooperation, whatever you want me to do, but you've got to enforce these rules all the way across the board. Mm-hmm. You can't just pick me. It just doesn't seem fair. But I will do what I said I will do. Thank you. Any other comments from the board? That was an interesting point. Again, you are not requiring them to put the swale back as part of a deed compliance process or as part of anything other than a condition for you to consider waiving the fines. You determined that you did not want to have somebody go out and do another study to determine if it was, how much it was impacted. That was something you elected not to move forward with, and if the property owners wanted to enforce it on each other, then they certainly could. And then the matter was closed as far as the District 12 board was concerned until you got a request to waive the fines. As part of that consideration, Mr. Briones indicated that they said they were willing to bring the property back, the swale back into compliance, and that's something that you could require them to do as a condition to waive the fines. But if they had not requested to waive the fines, then per the board's direction, we would continue telling the neighbors that this is a civil issue between the two and not something that the District 12 board wanted to move forward with. I think I understood what you said. The swale is at the wall. It is our property or homeowner's property? Homeowner's property. So any changes from the original design would have an ARC. That's correct. But part of a condition with ARC is that you cannot negatively impact the drainage. That's per the deed restrictions. If you read the deed restrictions, no modification can negatively impact the drainage, which is why you went and had the CFB go out, and they provided the report that they did. Mm-hmm. Now, in order for them to fully be able to determine, you are going to have to do a much deeper dive into it, a more extensive study of it, and this board elected not to move forward with that, and that if, because there was no impact to district property, if the homeowners wanted to move forward with taking any type of action amongst themselves, they certainly could. But the board decided that it was not a district issue that you wanted to move forward with. But it would be a district issue if drainage was impacted. I guess I'll look past you with that question. If it negatively impacts district property or improvements of the district, then you may want to take some action, and that's what we said from the very beginning. Since there was no proof in the report that we received, it was sort of vague. We were tasked with either deciding whether we were going to order another report, which was going to cost 15000, I think, to 20000. 20. Yeah. Or whether we just wanted to let the property owners deal with it civilly because we had no real evidence that it was negatively impacting our stormwater system or anything like that, aside from some, I think, erosion by a stormwater pond that, again, in the report said it could've been caused by something else. So we had no real evidence that what they've done to the property has negatively impacted our property. So with that being the case, there's no reason to take legal action, and again, the board decided they would let them deal with it, as Ms. Duckett stated. However, the property owners at a meeting said they would do whatever they needed to do or whatever we wanted them to do, and wanted to address the fine situation. And the board said, "Okay. We're going to make you do it, but if you want to address the fine situation, then you need to bring it back into compliance, bring it back to its original design." And that's what the property owners have agreed to do. Based on the conversation we had with them, I'm confident that they intend on doing that. But again, this is just a matter of we're agreeing to waive fines because they're agreeing to bring the property back to its original design. If they decide they don't want to do that, despite the agreement we have, well, then the amount of money goes back up to where it was originally, which is, I can't remember what, but 12,000 maybe. Maybe more, I'm not sure. That would be what would be due. And then again, the matter would be a private issue between the neighbors. Any other comments from the board at this time? All in favor of approval? Aye. Thank you. I have a question. I have a question. I'm Debbie Gannon. I'm one of the homeowners of 4540 Proma Way, and I would like for someone, anyone, to explain to me, because our yard is the same as it has been since we put in our ARC application and approval since September 24th, 2025. We're now approved. I don't know what changed to have us in compliance with that September 24th ARC application. The yard's the same except for the perennial peanuts across the back that Ed advised us to put in. What changed? Why did we keep getting fined this whole time? Our yard is the same as it's been since September 24th, 2025. Where did these fines come from? We didn't even get a notice until December that we were being fined. We thought we were fine, and then the fines have continued. Can anybody here tell me? I've sent emails. All I've gotten is an address to where to send the payment for the fine. No one has explained this to us. As far as fines are concerned, I don't know necessarily that that was brought up for full discussion during our meeting. The board has already moved on. You've already voted on the settlement. Certainly, she can reach out to Community Standards if she wants to get information. But the board doesn't have the information on the fines. That's something that Community Standards would have. But at this point, again, you voted on this. We have an agreement. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with this issue and should probably proceed with the rest of the agenda. So my comment is to you, you need to get with Community Standards and talk to them. I've asked for a name for that. You've already emailed them. And I've sent you several emails. All you did was send me an address where I could send a payment. So we don't have your file in front of us, so this isn't something we can answer the question right now. Well, he knows I sent an email about that, so it's okay. And for you about the bucket, that was to stop the dirt from D. Ferdinando's when he was piling dirt on each side of his yard. That's what the bucket was for, to stop it from stopping up the drain. That's all that was for. Can we ask Carrie to move with us? No, we need to move on. We need to move on already. This has passed already. They've had opportunities. You can discuss this after the meetings. After the meeting. After the meeting you can discuss this. At our time, we need to continue with our agenda. At this time, next up is our revision for the ARC. Yes sir, this is only on your agenda as a speaking point. If you had any questions to the proposed revisions, we're happy to answer them, or if there was anything that you would like to discuss with staff about the proposed revisions, but this will be on your agenda next month in a public hearing. Any comments from the board? No. Thank you. Next, moving on, information. Any comments from the board? At this time? Moving on to the district manager. Yes sir, this is just a reminder that your Form 1, Statement of Financial Interest deadline is July 1st. Again, this is something that you should have received an email to your district gov email address. This isn't something that staff is able to unfortunately send to you, so just making sure that you check your email and you complete that by July 1st. I got it. You've done it. To follow up. Done. Thank you. District council? Just one report, a reminder that there are two additional ethics and public records training dates scheduled for this year, the next one being August 20 At 9:00 a.m., and that will be held here at Everglades. And then a second one on October 29 at 2:00 p.m., and that will be held at the district office. If you still need hours, you can sign up through the clerk's office. Okay. You said August 20 will be here? August 20? Yes, here. Everglades? Yep. 9:00 a.m. And the 29th will be at the district office? Yes, sir. Thank you. Moving on. Supervisor's comment at this time. Mr. Dale? Just quickly, much of the meeting was recommending that the budgets be approved. I will throw out one thing that came up right at the end of the meeting, and obviously I've only been on that board a year and here four years. I don't remember this discussion. But evidently there are several people who are seriously interested in potentially registering golf carts. Yes. So- Yeah ... if it's something that this board or any- Thank you ... of the members of the board, this is the first I've heard of it, but it obviously will get discussed in the very near future at PWAC. So I'd be interested to know what the others have to think about that. I've got some initial thoughts, but I'll have more time to think about it. When you say registering. They're talking about, it came up because of damage. There were people complaining that we're not doing a good job of collecting the damage to gates that are getting knocked down. I think we're at the 63% mark of collecting the damages to gates. And so they said, obviously you take pictures of cars, you take pictures of contractors' trucks or license plates, but golf carts do it and you can't track them down. So somebody said, "Well, let's register golf carts." Interesting. If you're going to be able to put the long range sensors to open the gates on a golf cart, then there ought to be a way to take a picture of a golf cart and know that it belongs to John Roudebush or to Carrie Duncan or whoever. And obviously this was discussed in the past and- Yes ... the attorney there was quick to say it's a can of worms, but if somebody's willing to open it, then it's going to have to be discussed. That was basically it. Okay. Just one comment, out of history. Yeah, it was discussed, I'm going to guess about eight years ago, when I was on the District Seven board. It became a bigger can of worms than you can even imagine. And it was

Community Development District 12 Seat 1 - David Robbins, Supervisor Seat 2 - Ron McMahon, Vice Chair Seat 3 - Jon Roudabush, Chair Seat 4 - Phil Montalvo, Supervisor Seat 5 - Dale Martin, Supervisor June 8, 2026 at 1:00 PM Everglades Regional Recreation Center 5497 Marsh Bend Trail The Villages, Florida 32163 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA The District encourages citizen participation in the democratic process and recognizes and protects the right of freedom of speech afforded to all. As the Board conducts the business of the District, rules of civility shall apply. District Board Supervisors, Staff members, and members of the public are to communicate respectfully. It is preferred that persons speak only when recognized by the Board Chair and, at that time, refrain from engaging in personal attacks or derogatory or offensive language. Persons who are deemed to be disruptive and negatively impact the efficient operation of the meeting shall be subject to removal after two verbal warnings. Audience Comments on all issues will be received by the Board. 1. Call to Order 1.A. Roll Call 1.B. Pledge of Allegiance 1.C. Observation of Moment of Silence 1.D. Welcome Meeting Attendees 1.E. Audience Comments 2. New Business 2.A. Approval of Minutes 2.B. FY2026-2027 Proposed Budget 3. Old Business 3.A. Old Business Status Update 3.B. Revisions to the Standards and ARC Manual regarding the Amendment and Restatement of Chapter I — Rule to Bring About Deed Compliance 4. Informational Items Only 4.A. Financial Statement 4.B. DPM Monthly Report 4.C. Village Community Development District No. 12 Public Hearing Updates 5. District Manager Reports 5.A. Florida Commission on Ethics 2025 Form 1 – Statement of Financial Interest deadline to submit is July 1, 2026 6. District Counsel Reports 6.A. Ethics and Public Records Training

6.B. Discussion - Case No. D12-08-25 - 4540 Pearlman Way 7. Supervisor Comments 7.A. Supervisor Martin: Project Wide Advisory Committee After Agenda 8. Adjourn HOSPITALITY STEWARDSHIP INNOVATION & CREATIVITY HARD WORK NOTICE Each person who decides to appeal any action taken at these meetings is advised that person will need a record of the proceedings and that accordingly, the person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, incoming the testimony and evidence upon which such appeal is to be based. Audio recordings of Board meetings, workshops or public hearings are available for purchase per Florida Statute 119.07 through the District Clerk for $1.00 per CD requested. Any person requiring special accommodations at this meeting because of disability of physical impairment should contact the District Office at (352) 751-3939 at least five calendar days prior to the meetings.