Village Community Development District No. 7 (2026-05-06)

In the May 6th meeting, please, everybody stand. First, let me do a roll call. I'm sorry. All supervisors are here? No. No, we're not. No, we don't. We got- No. Where is he? He's due here, right? Yeah. Ah. Well, he's not here yet. Mr. Klinko is not here, so we got four supervisors out of five. Okay. Sorry about that. Can we- We're running on the budget. Yeah. Can we all stand, do the Pledge of Allegiance, and after the Pledge of Allegiance, please, a moment of silence for all the soldiers we lost and brave soldiers that protect our country. 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. Please be seated. Okay, I want to welcome... Oh, nice attendees. I appreciate you coming. Any attendees have any item that's not on any subject or item that's not on the agenda, please come up and speak. Anybody? Anything? Anybody want to say anything? Seeing none, we'll move on. Let's go to law enforcement's quarterly update. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. My name's Sergeant Adam Dodge with the Sumter County Sheriff's Office. I'm here to provide you with the quarterly law enforcement update. We regularly attend and provide updates on motor vehicle crashes and citations, with golf cart crashes and citations. And I would like to also share with you an update on a recent criminal case here within the community. Over the first quarter of the year, from January to April, the Sumter County Sheriff's Office responded to 362, or worked 362 automobile crashes. We also issued 1,465 motor vehicle citations, which is a higher than normal number for a quarter. For golf carts, we responded to 44 golf cart crashes and issued 50 golf cart citations over that quarter. So obviously, the sheriff takes our traffic enforcement very seriously. We've been very present on Buena Vista, Morse Boulevard, looking to impact driving behavior. We typically see a 50/50 ratio between warnings and citations. That ratio has been slightly, I don't want to say skewed, but higher-end citations. Our traffic enforcement units, they're out there to really impact driving behavior, and unfortunately, citations is the best way to make that happen. We've had positive feedback about the increased presence on those roadways. People are glad to see us. Some people are less glad to see us, especially when we have a chance to chat with them and prevent whatever it is they're off to go do. But it's been a positive. I'd like to share with you an update on a recent criminal case here in the area. There were utility box burglaries at postal stations, if you're not aware. The sheriff's office was investigating those cases, and we have since made an arrest. We now are working to confirm that there's not additional crimes associated with that individual or what he accessed within those boxes. But I did want to share with you that an arrest has been made in that case. All the information I have for you this morning, unless you would like to know about our golf tournament, which is coming up. If you've not already signed up or registered, I'd encourage you... Oh, no. What's our tee time? Nine- 9:40 something. Nine something like that. Early. Good. All right. Yeah. If you've got a tee time before noon, you're a special person. You're an important guy. According to Theresa, the people making the donations took just about all the tee times. We are blessed to have the support that we do, certainly. Great support. Absolutely. Oh. Question. Yes, sir. I don't know if you've read today's paper yet, but there's an article on summonses and streets where the most accidents are. They had the five top ones. I don't know if you read that yet. I have not. I will look. Yeah. It's in today's paper, and the top one was Morse and 466A. Uh-huh. Yeah, and then- Oh, Colony Boulevard ... yeah, and Colony Boulevard. Mm-hmm. Yeah. But it's a nice article on the same subject you're speaking about. Excellent. Yeah. I'll check it out. Any of the other supervisors got any questions? Just thanks for what you do. I appreciate that very much. Yeah, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Yeah, you bet. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. You're going out the other way. Come back anytime. I'm a coworker. Yeah. Consent agenda. Okay, we got three items. Consent agenda, the motion to approve a consent agenda is a motion to approve all recommended actions. All matters on the consent agenda are considered routine, and no discussion is required unless desired by board supervisors or member of the public. Three items are approval of minutes, project-wide monthly invoice, and request to advertise alternate architect review committee, ARC, member position. Motion. Any questions on any one of the three items, supervisors? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passed. New business. The budget. Oh. Ms. Clary is going to present the budget. How come she gets the charts, sure? Good morning. I'm going to do my best. I woke up with very little voice today, so I apologize in advance. I hope you can hear me okay. Good morning. Karen Clary, assistant budget director. Today, we're going to walk through your recommended fiscal year '26-'27 budget for District 7. The goal is to give you a clear picture on where we stand financially, what's driving changes in revenue and expenditures, and the options available to maintain long-term financial stability. We'll begin with revenue. For fiscal year '26-'27, total operating revenue increases slightly, up about 1% or $17,110. The primary driver behind this is the 5% increase in maintenance assessments, which brings in an additional $132,810However, this is offset in part by a significant decline in interest in miscellaneous revenue, down 54% or $115,000 due to lower projected interest earnings and reimbursements. Below operating revenue, we'll see changes in how we use reserves for fiscal year 26-27. Your working capital shifts from a use of $167,541 to an addition of $143,364 for fiscal year 26-27. Roads reserves and capital projects phase one both show new planned uses to support upcoming infrastructure needs. And overall, total revenue increases 20% or $622,892, largely due to capital project funding. Looking at the appropriations pie chart for fiscal year 26-27, this gives us a visual breakdown on where District 7's dollars are spent. As you can see, the largest portion of your budget continues to be your project-wide fees, which make up just under half of your total appropriations at $1.8 million. This reflects our shared responsibility for infrastructure and amenities that benefit the entire community. The next major category is your repairs and maintenance at $493,000. This includes ongoing upkeep of landscaping, irrigation, lighting, and other district-maintained assets. This category increases about 18% this year, driven largely by villa lighting replacements and scheduled maintenance projects. Utilities represent another significant portion of your expenses at $425,478. This category actually decreases by 16%, thanks to lower electricity usage based on actuals through March of 2026. Professional services remain stable at just under $350,000, covering contracts such as engineering, auditing, legal, and other specialized services. We also have capital projects totaling $591,992 this year. This is a major driver of the overall budget increase and reflects the Villa Mill and Overlay project scheduled in your CIP. Finally, personnel and operating costs remain the smallest portion of the budget at $29,994, representing basic administrative and operational expenses. Overall, this chart helps illustrate how the majority of your spending is tied to infrastructure, maintenance, and shared community assets, areas that do directly impact residents' daily experience. On the expenditure side, total appropriations also increased by 20%, balancing the revenue increase. The largest change is the addition of $591,992 in capital projects, specifically that Villa Mill and Overway work that we discussed previously. We also see increases in repairs and maintenance and project-wide fees, while utilities decrease based on actual usage trends. Some of the major drivers behind these changes include electricity being down $86,461 based on actual usage, building and structure maintenance increasing 67% or $54,000 due to villa lighting replacement projects in Grovewood, Kenya, Pilar, and Seneca Villas. Landscape maintenance increases 5% due to contract renewal. Project-wide fees increase 2%, consistent across all numbered districts, and infrastructure increases $592,000 for mill and overlay projects in Bainbridge, Bonita, Grovewood, and Hillcrest Villas. District 7's share of the project-wide cost is based on assessable acreage, the same methodology used for maintenance and bond assessments. Your allocation for fiscal year 26-27 is $1,802,101, or an increase of 2%, and your assessable acreage remains unchanged at 917.72 acres. This 2% increase is driven by the project-wide capital improvement plan, which includes fencing, multimodal path mill and overlay, pump station work, and entry feature repainting. The project-wide CIP increases from 1.05 million this year to 1.77 million in fiscal year 26-27 before moderating in later years. The majority of fiscal year 26-27 expenditures are attributable to fence replacement projects, multimodal path mill and overlay, and the repainting of entry features. Looking ahead, the five-year revenue forecast shows steady operating revenues, with maintenance assessments increasing in fiscal year 25-26 and 27-28 by 5%. After that, assessments remain flat in the projection, which means future increases in expenditures would rely more heavily on reserve usage unless additional rate adjustments are made. Utilization of working capital and reserve funds fluctuates annually based on planned capital and major maintenance projects. On the five-year appropriation side, we see moderate increases across most categories, particularly utilities and repairs and maintenance. Project-wide fees continue to rise a gradual 2% each year, reflecting inflation, contract renewals, and CIP needs. Capital projects appear only in fiscal year 26-27, consistent with your current CIP schedule. This very brief slide summarizes your five-year CIP for District 7. The only major CIP item in the next five years is the fiscal year 26-27 roads mill and overlay project, totaling $592,000. Other categories, wall painting and fence replacement, have no planned expenditures for this period. Looking at some of your maintenance assessment options, because working capital has been used to balance the budget for several years and because project-wide fees do continue to rise, the fund balance is projected to decline without action. Staff has prepared the following three options for your consideration.Option one proposes 5% increases in fiscal year '26-'27 and fiscal year '27-'28. This has about a $30 per household effect to residents in fiscal year '26-'27. However, your fund balance still falls below the target reserve minimum in '30-'31 with this option. Option two proposes 3% increases in fiscal year '26-'27 and fiscal year '27-'28, followed by 5% increases in fiscal year '28-'29 and '29-'30, and a 4% increase in fiscal year '30-'31. The average annual household increase for '26-'27 is $18 with this option. Option three includes a 5% increase in fiscal year '26-'27 and 3% increases beginning in fiscal year '27-'28 through fiscal year '30-'31. Each option affects the long-term reserve levels differently, which we'll see in the following slides. These slides show how each assessment option impacts working capital and reserve balances, your target reserve policy, and the overall health of your fund balances over the next five years. Keep in mind, the district's policy requires maintaining reserves equal to 35% of revenues plus four months of operating expenses. Under all three options, reserves decline over time. The question is how quickly, and whether they remain above that target threshold. Looking at option one, your overall fund balance at the end of fiscal year '30-'31 is projected to be around $1.9 million. This includes annual spending in your general and road reserve funds, as well as utilization of working capital. Consistent across all options, there is spending from your restricted capital project revenues of approximately $812,000 in fiscal year '26-'27, leaving a balance in this fund of $335,110 through fiscal year '30-'31. As you can see, based on current projections, option one causes you to fall below your target policy reserve minimum in fiscal year '30-'31. And looking at the fund balance forecast, expenditures outpace revenues annually under this option, with your fund balance steadily declining through that fifth fiscal year. Moving on to option two, additional maintenance assessment increases in the out years bring your overall fund balance to $2,271,446, or an increase of about $350,000 in comparison to option one. As previously stated, there is approximately $812,000 in spending from your restricted reserve, keeping that balance at $335,000 annually through fiscal year '30-'31. In this scenario, your target policy is met every year based on the target minimum of 35% of revenues and four months of annual operating expenses. By the end of fiscal year '30-'31, your fund balance exceeds the target minimum by approximately $15,000. You can see, based on this option, the fund balance forecast changes significantly with the implementation of option two. Revenues increase annually and balance to expenditures by fiscal year '30-'31, and the decline of your overall unrestricted fund balance is less significant than we saw with the previous option. Finally, we have option three, also increases your fund balance over the five-year period, though not quite to the level of option two. At the end of fiscal year '30-'31, your fund balance is projected to be $2,228,088 based on this option. Your restricted capital reserves remain unchanged from options one and two. Electing option three also keeps you in compliance with your target reserve policy, though your additional reserves above the target minimum are lower than with option two. Looking at this final fund balance forecast illustrating option three, we see revenues do not quite meet expenditures still, even in that fifth year, and your unrestricted fund balance decreases more quickly than it does with our second option. Reviewing some of your recent board decisions surrounding District 7's maintenance assessments in fiscal year '23-'24 and fiscal year '24-'25, staff recommended increases. 35% over three years was recommended in fiscal year '23-'24, and a 15% increase was recommended in fiscal year '24-'25, but at that time, the board showed no change. In fiscal year '25-'26, the board approved a 20% increase with planned 5% increases in fiscal years '26-'27 and '27-'28. We just wanted to show you this as these past decisions do influence where we are today with our balance trajectory. While it may not seem like much, each 1% increase in maintenance assessment generates an additional $26,562 in revenue, or $553 in additional tax collector fees, and roughly $5,000 in other related expenses. However, the annual impact is only around $6 per household for each 1% increase. We just wanted to present this information to help quantify the impact of any rate changes that may be voted on. At this time, we're requesting the board give staff direction for your maintenance assessments, even if that direction is to keep with what we have at the 5%. Please keep in mind that when you adopt your proposed budget next month in June, no further increases can be made at that time. That preliminary approval will include the maximum your assessments can be set at, though you can decide on a lower rate at that time. We currently do have that 5% increase built into fiscal year '26-'27 based on last year's direction, and I open it up for your discussion. Okay. Supervisors, I'll start it off, and obviously, I'm open to any opinions, obviously. Option two sounds to me to be the best at this point. Obviously, we could decide if you want to make it higher just in case, but I'm just saying option two because I think it's very important that our projected balance doesn't fall below the target minimumAll right. And it seems like the best option is option two. We don't fall, and I'm not even happy about that, even with option two, our minimum is above our target, but it's not a lot above our target which is I don't feel comfortable because it seems like every year everything goes up. That's the way our government works. We have a cost of living built-in way we do finances, but I personally think, without raising it, of course, I know we can't lower it at this point. We're going to have to pick a rate. If you want to go like last year, we had an option to go 15, I think it was 15, 10 and 5, and with total for 30 and we went with 20. And we kept it at 20 because we figured we wanted a little cushion, and it was a good idea. Even though 20 was a pretty big hit, especially when last year we had the fire assessment go up. And I remember people meeting me in the mailbox between our assessment and the fire assessment, people's monthly fee went up 100 and something dollars, and they thought it was because of us. They didn't realize the fire assessment was in with the maintenance. That comes in your yearly bill, obviously, as everybody knows. So it was a little confusing last year. This year, obviously, hopefully, we won't have that problem. But I think option two may be a good idea. Supervisors? Judy Ann? I like option two, except what I would do with option two is I would stay with 5% for '26, '27 because people have already thought that that's coming. So that gives us that just a little bit more cushion. And then every year, they can see that there'll be a few percent. But if for some reason inflation goes down, we buy a lottery ticket and win- Good cushion ... we can make those changes. But I think it's very critical, having seen the slide, we're not doing anything, has put us in a position last year to do 20%. So if we can keep it minimal, they can budget for it, then I think we put ourselves in a better position. So I would like option two, but for '26, '27, stay with 5%. You read my mind. Steve? I have no problem with that. I would like to know what we are doing to reduce costs. Well, that's my next question. Beat you to it. What are we doing to reduce costs in this budget? So, from a cost perspective, almost everything that you do is contractually driven, and we do competitively solicit all services. And really that's where you're seeing, even on the project-wide side with... And luckily that has stabilized, that you, Ms. Cleary and Ms. Cook and the budget team have projected out multi-year because we have long-term contracts in place now that you know what your cost exposure is because that's primarily contractually driven. So we do go through the process. We do look for efficiencies, but when we competitively solicit those services and award them, those are your contract rates and that really is what is driving the budget development. Even when we look at electricity, that's a contractual element, so we are basing that off of contract rates. Nina, that, and the same time, very good point. Our purview is really very limited when it comes to budgeting and trying to reduce costs. I think the only avenue, and let me know if I'm right or wrong about this, Brittany, is the capital budget. I'm not saying we should, I'm saying that's probably the only place you really could try to reduce costs. Am I correct about that? And I'll defer to Ms. Cleary. I do believe there are a couple of districts that have at times looked to defer some of their capital improvement projects. You do have a risk associated with that though because unfortunately we're not seeing, especially with oil, petroleum prices, when you look at road mill and overlay projects- Petroleum ... I don't know that we would forecast expenses would go down if we bid those out in out years versus current year. And Brittany is right about that. I will say too that we have been going out this year with DPM folks and if something is on the docket to be done, it's being reviewed before we just say it's in the budget, we're going to do it. We're making sure that it needs to be done, that we can't put those off. And internally, some of the things we can control are management fees we actually have decreased. Yeah. So we're trying to work with you on those aspects as well. You know it's eye-catching and you know it that we had no capital budget last year. I think we had none and all of a sudden we went up to 560,000. That was some climb and that's the only way we could honestly, and I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying it looks like doing this for so many years. The only purview or leeway or authority we have is on the capital budget. We really can't cut anything else because everything like you said is through contracts. Ed? A couple of things, and I know this is not going to bail us out. What do we have pending that would come to us from FEMA with the hurricane? Is that money coming back? Do we have any anticipation as to when that might happen or how much it is for us? We're still working through that process. I can provide you the amount that has been submitted. Unfortunately, reimbursement through FEMA is not- It's huge ... a quick process. Well, I know because we're probably what? Two years into it. What the last time was it, about three years or so it took? It took three years, yes. But yeah, I'd like to know roughly how much might be coming. I know it's not going to bail us out. By the time we get it back, we could probably all have coffee Yeah. That's probably true. I also think option two is probably the best solution. Like last year, I would caution and say, at least for this meeting, to at least put out 10%, just as a safety net in the event something changes between now and then- Yeah ... with the intent in our minds that we would come back to option two with those percentages. But as a cap, I would like to propose the 10%, just as a safety net for us until we can vote on it next month. You're absolutely- And even next month, we can put a higher number in. It's not until September when we do the final vote that we'll just say- Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. But if we do that, I really feel, I remember last year, and we just happened to go with 20%, but people, they don't know. They hear that. They think it's going to be 20 automatically, so hopefully we won't have to go up to 10%. No. Hopefully. So we do put the notice out, make sure we somehow state that in the slide. Yeah. Not to exceed. Yeah, not to exceed, because residents, they'll just see the 10% and think it's going to go up 10% no matter what. And our communications- Yeah ... do stipulate that, that that is the maximum. Yeah. We've also been trying to, internally, when we have calls come in through customer service or our department, we have that household average, so with your figures, what we're looking at, even at 10%, the household average would be $60 annually. So, we do have that information on hand, and we would gladly provide that to you as well if that would be helpful. Yeah. And I just don't think that our expenses are going to go down. They're pretty well-fixed. Yeah. With the contracts and such, we're not going to see- No ... anytime all of a sudden our expenses drop by 10%. It's not going to happen, unfortunately. No, it's tough. A lot of residents don't understand that our purview or what we're allowed to do is very limited. We're not like regular government, we could do away, move money around. We can't do that, and it's hard to explain that to residents. And even under Project Y, 2% every year, that amount- It's a big change ... annually keeps increasing. Yeah. The dollar, the percent stays the same, but the dollar amount is- And what I don't, and I never liked this, like I said, for 13 years, that PWAC is an advisory committee, and they actually tell us how much it's going to be raised. We don't tell them. No. So technically, if PWAC comes back and they spend so much money, and they raise us 5, 10%, we have no authority to change that. Meanwhile, they're getting the money from us. I never did understand that, and to this day, I still never will. It's our money, but they're telling us how much they want, and we have no choice. We cannot change it. Yeah. So we don't even have authority to do that. Well, at the last Monday's meeting, at least there was a little kickback on one of the proposals, the doors replacement down at Eisenhower. They really balked at $70-some hundred per door, and they said, "This is nuts." Yeah. But my point is, the money come- So there's starting to be a little bit of a kickback on- Yeah. I understand ... just where we're standing. But the money comes from the individual districts. It does. It comes from them. And the individual districts should have the say how much they get, not the other way around. True. But it doesn't. It comes from us. But like I said- Yeah ... option two to me is, but I think we should- Yeah, I understand ... we should put the 10% as a safety measure to give us some opportunity if necessary. We may- Yeah. I agree with that, on that. Two, yeah. Go with the 10%. So if we take '26, '27 to 10%, do we want to also take the next one down to 5% as the max? And then when we vote in September, we can bring it back to this if we want. I think people need to- See the future? See the future. No. Do we- And 5% is- Do we cap it? We don't have to cap out years. No, you're only voting on fiscal year '26, '27. Right. Yeah. So we can put the 5% in the out years to give that picture. Yeah. But we can change that going into fiscal year '27, '28. You can say zero, you can say 15. Right. Yeah. We're not held to those numbers. If they see the projection- That's a good point ... then they can see that we're trying to be mindful. Mm-hmm. Because it was great that for eight years nothing happened. Yeah. Yeah. Except then you get smacked upside the head. I agree. You may know better than I do, but I remember in the past when we put out the notice to the residents that for next year, how much the rates will go up or down or whatever for next year, we don't put out the projection to them. We don't project for the next three years. We don't tell the residents that. No. But anybody that pays attention is looking at this slide. Yeah, but they're not looking at this slide. Well- So my point is, they're not going to see that we are adjusting the years coming on, like two, three years. They're not going to see that. They're just going to see what's going to be next year. So let's not show them informa-- don't think they ain't going to know what we project. We don't put out that information to the residents. The information doesn't go individually to the residents. It's presented in our budget. Yeah. We do have the five-year information. And a lot of them don't go online and look at this. They follow up and- Yeah, a lot don't ... and pay. A lot don't. Again, I think that it's more transparent- Yeah ... if we say, knowing that the crazed rate of inflation at the moment could continue- Mm-hmm ... that we'd behonest up front and say, "It could be 5% next year." Well, great that it's only going to be 3%, but it could be 5%. Yeah. So I would prefer that if we're going to do 10%, we're going to offer 10%, potentially. Yeah. That if we want to adjust the others, people are going to say, "Well, why is it 10% and then it's going to be 3%?" So- But they're going to see that unless they go to the website. That's my point. Again- That's my point. The people believe me. Tell me, I'm telling you. You've got 65,000 people in these villages, and I don't know, how many hits you get on your website? And then how many people actually read the budget? Not a lot. I'm just- You know? If we're going to do it- Unless you put that in the email that goes out, in the little memo, the letter that goes out- No ... saying the objective is going to be projected, will be, that's different. But unless they get the notice, I don't think they're going to know what's going on. I'm just asking the question. Yeah, no. If we go to 10%, do we adjust the others, too? Okay. Brainstorm is what we do. And we can provide you with multiple options when we come back in June. We can bring option two with 10%, and then the way it is, 5%, and the way it is, 10% with 5% afterwards. We can bring all of those to you so you can see. Right. Well, bring it with 10%, right? Yeah. For 26, 27. Yeah, 10% and 5%. Okay. And then look at, bring it as is with the 10% to start, and then with the 10% to start and 5% going down. Understood. We can bring you those two options. But that also will give us a better idea, potentially, if we did 5% each year, where we are in the ending balance. Sure. And maybe we don't need 10% because doing the 5% all across- Could do that ... will give us better money. So, you know. Gotcha. Let's look at it that way. Okay. So anybody, any other questions? Any thoughts? No. Okay, we have a couple more slides, but I will bring you back those options in June. Very quickly, finally, we have your debt service fund. Looking at your 2015 assessment refunding for your debt service fund, you are meeting the amortization schedule, have a healthy reserve balance at this time. This concludes the overview of your fiscal year '26, '27 proposed budget. At this time, if there's any further questions, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, the next step is to bring back your proposed budget for your approval at the June 10th meeting. Any other questions? Good questions. Yeah, I do have a question that has nothing to do with this budget, but we're about to be moving into no bond times when we're not collecting bonds. I know a lot of people prepay their bonds, but there's always still some bond funds coming in. At some point, they were what, 20-year bonds? They have a 30-year bond. 30-year, okay. Yeah, 30-year bond. We don't have to worry about that. Okay. I mean- Just curious because that's coming. Yeah, I know what you're saying. I hear you loud and clear. Yeah. We can provide the maturity dates to you for this. Yeah. Thank God we- That's also part of planning. Yeah. Thank God we refinanced years ago, our rates are nice now. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. You got directions, beautiful. Hope the voice gets better. Now I see. We got new business. Brittany? Yes. The next item is under public hearing. Yep, and that's case number, you got it? Case number V7, you got it, V7926. Correct. Good morning, board. Shannon Boyd, Community Standards. Today I'm bringing before you case number D7-09-26, Village Community Development District number 7 versus Robert W. Page and Deborah S. Page, 2710 Iris Way, Unit 147, Lot 210. Okay. We got a district attorney on speaker. Are you there, Michelle? Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the public hearing held today, the board is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity to afford due process to individuals noted in violation of the district's rules. Such process includes a proper notice of the alleged violator, a violator has the opportunity to be heard, and the board's decision is made upon evidence presented to you today. So for that reason, I would like for the board to confirm for the record whether they had any discussions pertaining to this case, either with staff or homeowners outside of today's hearing. None by me. None. Thank you. I'll turn it over to the Community Standards staff. Got the swearing? If you're going to provide testimony in the case today, would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you're about to give in the hearing today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Good morning, board. Shannon Boyd, Community Standards. Again, today I have before you case number D7-09-26, Village Community Development District number seven versus Robert W. Page and Deborah S. Page, 2710 Iris Way, unit 147, lot 210, violation of the district's rule to bring about deed compliance, and specifically the rule that states, "No building or structure shall be constructed, erected, placed, or altered on any home site until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the building or structure has been approved." As found in the Village Community Development District number seven, external deed restrictions, definitions, and interpretations, the district is responsible for approving alterations, changes, or modifications to home sites and the exterior appearance and structure of the home. On March 9th, 2026, a complaint was received regarding a patio extension too close to the property line. Staff inspected the property and verified that there was a rear patio, and there was no ARC application on file for that modification. On March 11th, staff spoke to the homeowners, who indicated they were going to look to see if they had a copy of an approval, or submit an ARC application if necessary. A deed restriction reminder was issued that same day. The initial and second compliance letters were sent out on March 16th and April 2nd, and after following the procedures of compliance of external deed restrictions, a notice of public hearing was sent by regular and certified mail on April 22nd. On April 8th, ARC application number 3335 for the rear patio modification was denied for being too close to the property lines. The guidelines state structures must be at least seven and a half feet off the rear property line and five feet off of the side property lines. On April 16th, staff spoke to the homeowners, who indicated they were working on submitting a new ARC application. An inspection conducted on May 4th confirmed that the property remains out of compliance. Staff's recommendation would be to find the owners in violation of the district's deed compliance rule as cited by the deed compliance staff. The owners have 45 days to submit and receive an approved ARC application for the rear patio modification and bring the property into accordance with that approved ARC application, or restore the property back to its originally constructed design. If the property is brought into accordance with an approved ARC application and an ARC application is received for the rear patio modification, and the property is brought into accordance with that approved ARC application, or if the property is restored back to its originally constructed design within 45 days of the order of enforcement, case number D7-09-26 shall be closed. If the property is not brought into compliance within 45 days of the order of enforcement, impose $150 fine to be paid within 10 days of the invoice, and impose a $50 daily fine until the property is brought into compliance. It is a property owner's responsibility to contact the Community Standards Department to request a deed compliance officer revisit the property and confirm compliance. If the fines reach $1,500, the case shall be turned over to district counsel to seek all available remedies, which may include initiating a lawsuit or seeking an injunction against the property owner. The property owners are responsible for reimbursing the district for all attorney's fees, costs, and expenses associated with or related to this order of enforcement. Chairman, to execute the order of enforcement, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have, and the homeowners are also here as well. Okay. So where we're at with this right now is that the- Chair, if I may speak to open the public hearing. Oh, yes, very good. Thank you very much. Yes. Can I have a motion to open up the public hearing, please? Public hearing. Motion to open. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion. Public hearing is open. That means anybody in the public that said they could speak, okay? So everybody knows you have to... Okay. Thanks. Mm-hmm. Okay, any questions, supervisors? So it appears that this has been... When did this actually... Yeah. How long has this been- March ... when was the initial property changes made without ARC? I could speak to maybe the homeowners might know when it was originally. I don't know when it was, since there wasn't an ARC application on file, I don't know when it was originally constructed. Okay. So we're at the point right now where the resident, obviously, and we'll have her come up in a second. You've got a few questions to ask her, but at this point, they have not obviously met the requirements. Correct. They submitted an application for what's there, but it was too close to the property line, so it got denied. So they're working on getting... They came in and met with staff, so they're working on a new ARC application to submit. I believe at this point, they just want to discuss it with their contractor before they finally submit it. But- So, and it- Yeah ... something would have to be done- Yeah ... with this- Correct ... regardless. Perfect. The footage is the footage. Mm-hmm. So, that's not going to change no matter how many applications come in. So something has to be done at least to mitigate this complaint and allow them to move on, correct? Correct. So basically, what it would be is it would be to submit an ARC application for what could get approved, and then they would go ahead and make those modifications to the property. And it seems like, and I always try to side to the residents, obviously trying to help them, but it seems like you can't move the property line, right? Correct. So- So someone's got to move out ... so, it seems like it's a pretty big construction thing they did. They might have to take that down. Is that what you're telling me? Correct. Or cut it back some. Yeah, cut it back some. Wow. Yeah. How close are they to the easement? They're five feet where they should be seven and a half feet, so they're two and a half feet. Two and a half feet. That's a big difference. Yeah. That's a big difference. Yeah. That's a big difference. So we got to see. Can we have the resident come up and speak and find out what options do you have? Good morning. Give your name and address. Oh. Yes. Okay, I'm a little taller. Can you hear me? Yeah. Name. Deborah Page. Address. 2710 Iris Way. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah. Over nine years ago, the rear patio addition was built to five feet from the rear property line in compliance with Sumter County permitting regulations. We received a deed complaint on March 11, 2026, and we submitted a retroactive ARC application on March 23rd, confident of approval. But to our surprise, we received an ARC denial on April 9th. So this denial required further research, and we discovered that the five-foot side concrete patio, as shown in our boundary survey when we purchased the home, which was also included in the denial, was evidently added by previous homeowners without either ARC approval or county permitting. We now understand that the village's community standards does not have the authority to grant exceptions to deed restrictions. As a result, we acknowledge the District 7 deed restrictions for our property that no vertical structures are to be erected within the seven-and-a-half-foot rear easement. Therefore, we will not appeal the denial, and instead, we have already started the process of bringing our property into full compliance. We have hired a general contractor for this purpose. We have met with the compliance staff for guidance, and we will submit a new ARC application by 5:00 PM this Friday, May 8th, 2026. This is a substantial project that cannot be quickly and easily rectified, and a reasonable amount of time will be needed for our general contractor to plan and schedule the work to be done. Thank you. Can I ask a question now? Tell me if I'm right or wrong. You bought the house with this structure there, or did you have the structure put in yourself? Well, there was a side structure that was there that was not approved or permitted, but we didn't know because it was on our boundary survey. And then we added this portion here that you see to that side- Oh, okay. Got it ... so it made kind of a wraparound. Okay. So the question is, you did put the structure in. Okay, what was there before wasn't approved, and you're saying that wasn't approved. But what you put in, you just added to the non-approved structure, correct? Yes. In other words, you had the structure that was there that wasn't approved, and you added to it. Yes. Okay. Not realizing deed restrictions. And nobody told you about architect review at the time? Anything outside your house, I know it's late in the game, but anything outside your house, no matter what it is, if you need to know, always do architect review. Absolutely. Now you know. I know. Uh-huh. Okay. You now have a contract or you have an agreement with your contractor to- Yes. So that's all in motion right now? Yes. Good. We're hoping to talk with him today to get a drawing, and we're going to submit the new ARC application this Friday. And how much- To have all of this rectified ... how much time you think you'll need to get the permit, and we need extra time. How much do you figure would it be? I have no idea. Yeah. Okay. I just want enough time that we're covered, so we're cool with you. Yeah. Okay. Julianne? I would say that knowing that it's in process- Right ... that their goal is to achieve compliance, that, I don't know how we say, up to four months and then more information and see if it's being constructed, and then if it is, extend it because it's in process. Yeah. Exactly. Very good. We're saying what's protocol because this is pretty big. This is going to take a little time, obviously. Can we give her a extension, obviously, right? And when we get an extension, can the villages do a review of the progress, and we'll adjust it that way. If it takes an extra two months or three months, we'll want to give her enough time to get it done, only knowing that it is being done. Okay? So we need the village to go out there and investigate and make sure it's being done. Can we somehow do something like that? Yes. We can. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, we can absolutely do that. So you pick a timeline, say you want four months. We can go ahead and do monthly updates at each of your board meetings- September 1st ... to see where the property is going and then bring it back to you after that four months if they need additional time. It's- So how about if we say September 1st- Okay ... pending that ARC approves the new plan. Okay. Of course. And if- Second ... nothing's happening, then Okay. It would- As long as the- The activity is happening. As I was about to say, as long as they're moving forward, yes. Give them the waiver until September. So- Ed? Yeah. As long as there's an agreement in hand that the contractor's supposed to do something, I'm more than willing to let this go. Jumping at four months, I don't know. I'd like to just hear maybe in two months, just know that, yeah, somebody broke ground or something happened. But, I think with the contract in hand, I'm pretty satisfied that it's going to get remedied. I agree. Do we need a motion for this? Yes, we will need a motion. And would you like monthly updates- ... at each of your board meetings? Okay. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we'll need to close the public hearing. Yeah. Motion to close the public hearing. It gets so involved, this is... Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Public hearing is closed. Thank you. Okay. So the motion is to extend the period of time. We'll get monthly updates that activity is happening. Yep. But first thing is that they must get ARC approval for the new plans. Mm-hmm. And then if that's approved, and then get dates and times, then they have until the 1st of September, but that we'll get monthly updates on activities as Sharon will drive by and say, "Hey." Yep, absolutely. I'll second whatever she said. Beautiful. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion approved. Thank you, board. Thank you. Nothing ever goes fast. Thank you. And good luck with that, seriously. Once again, we have a situation where property was sold. That's where I was going. It was out of compliance. But only part of it was out of compliance. That's where it becomes a little different then. Yeah. Only part of it was out of compliance. It's a little different, but it was still sold with part of it being out of compliance. We can't get into the- Who was your realtor? Villages? The realtor? Did you go through the Villages agents? Uh, Villages. Yes, okay. So, a realtor that should have known better. Why? I tell you, the first thought in my mind was, if she bought that house, if that resident bought that house and it was that way, if they didn't do any improvement with it, I'll be honest with you, it would be hard for me to even make them liable for that because you buy a house, you don't know if it meets architect review. Well- You don't know. And I honestly believe, I know you may disagree with me, I would've said throw it out. Because I see a pet peeve, if I buy a house and it's got the wrong color roof, and all of a sudden somebody makes a complaint and I'm there one month, now I've got to pay $20,000 to get a new roof done and nobody told me about it, I'll be honest with you, that that would make me jump off the roof. I would- This is ongoing. What are we going to do about it? We don't know. I don't think it's- But that's not our- Yeah, we have no- ... purview to do that. We're here to enforce our requirements. It's a civil matter. We discuss this frequently, and it's something that we-- I understand the emotional side of it to- Yeah ... to want to mitigate and lessen any such impact that it has on the homeowner. But we're treading into waters that we don't have a thing. If we do not hold the standard accountable for everybody, then why have standards? Yeah, but you can't hold somebody accountable for something they don't know, and they're not aware of. I'm sorry, but before we purchased our house- Yeah ... we went ahead and checked to see what the deed restrictions were and that we were in compliance because they had done some things in our house. We were in compliance, we were fine. Most people bought the house, most, not all, bought the houses new. Obviously, you don't have that problem with new, but with the resale, you've got a problem. Most people do not know what architect review is. I agree with you, and somehow they should be told. Well, they should be, but I think- Michelle, can we require- ... we can't ... all sales include a statement that the property is within compliance? Can we require that for District Seven? I don't know that there is a specific requirement that we can enforce upon that, but we can certainly make the request. And this is, you all are aware of it, it is outside the CDD's purview- Mm-hmm ... how the sale between the private homeowners are carried out. But at least, for CDD's side of things, statutorily, the sales agents are required to make a note of the fact that the CDD exists, that there are specific liens involved. And similar to that, I'd imagine there is a disclosure typically made regarding the covenants and restrictions. On the title work, it should definitely show up. So there are entrances for those information to be distributed ahead of individual purchasers. But again, just noting that generally the district is outside that purchase process. The other thing that concerns me is that if you read that packet, they actually got permission from the Sumter County Building Services Division. Mm-hmm. They went and got a permit- Mm-hmm ... for that addition from Sumter County. Yes. Sumter County doesn't know we have deed restrictions? No, they do, but it's the same where if there is some due diligence requirements on behalf of the individual that's making the change in that we let individuals know that just because you get an ARC application doesn't preclude you from getting a county permit to do certain work, and vice versa Yeah. So, Ms. Rigoni, I know this topic has come up before, and it was reviewed. There are disclosures during the closing of properties, and that could entail, even if work was done without a county permit or a city permit, that's all part of the disclosure process, and it does become a civil matter if something is not properly disclosed. And you have to be cognizant of your spending of maintenance assessment funds on private party matters. Yeah. Well, okay. Well- Thank you ... good luck. Thank you. And I hope you get it done as soon as you could. Yeah. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, we have a second- This property has actually come into compliance for case number D710-26. Yes. So that one is being pulled from the agenda. That I should've asked at the beginning. Yeah, that's great. Okay. We're going to old business. Michelle? I mean, not Michelle, sorry, Michelle. Brittany? Well, actually, this is Yeah. It is my item. I'm happy to go through them. Yeah. It is yours. But Brittany, go ahead. You start it, and then Michelle can end it. Sure. So I will defer to counsel on the draft demand letter. We also included the discussion of the deed compliance case threshold. We included that on old business in the event the board wants to consider adjusting it on future order of enforcement, and a copy of the draft letter to the developer, requesting the Chapter 190 amendment is included. We do not have a response as of today, but as soon as that is received, we will provide that to the board. Yeah. Michelle has an update. Michelle, you're up. Thank you, and good morning to everyone who's attending this and maybe hearing for the first time. So I will also go through and briefly recap what the board previously discussed. So at our last meeting, we walked through the district's enforcement and collection options for outstanding covenant violation fines. We ultimately ended up on a tiered approach, starting with demand letters, escalating to a collection agency if needed, and ultimately pursuing a claim through the court process. And today, I would like to focus specifically on that first step of the tiered approach, which is a demand letter. And that is what we have in front of you today. As I discussed last time, the demand letters will create a clear written record, and they will demonstrate the district's good faith effort before escalating into a more formal judicial action. The letter does three key things. First, it identifies the total amount owed to the date of the letter. That is an important nuance. So it's the outstanding fines and the attorney fees and costs that have accrued. Second, it gives the resident a defined number of business days to pay with instructions to contact Community Standards to verify the current balance before submitting the payment. And that is because the amount of the fines accruing does not stop once the demand letter is issued. It continues to accrue until the property is brought into compliance and the fine is paid. So before the homeowner makes a payment, they need to call and ensure that they are paying the correct amount as of the date of the payment. And third, it clearly states that the consequences of non-payment is that the district will pursue all available remedies, including turning the case over to a collection agency or filing a claim in small claims court or in civil court, as appropriate. And if the demand letter doesn't resolve the matter, again, we escalate it to the next step. So demand letter, again, is essentially the first step on the path to ultimately be able to probably and perhaps, if the demand letter does not result in compliance, and if we go through the steps of going through the collection agency and potentially filing a judgment, once we get a favorable judgment, that judgment itself could serve as a lien if we go through these proper legal channels. So our next step is to begin issuing these demand letters. For purposes of finalizing this, we would like board feedback on how long we should give each recipient to respond before staff elevates to the next enforcement step. And then we will work with this form to issue to those violators who have $1,500 in outstanding fines or more. Michelle, on that, I saw you doing a lot of work on that. I know all supervisors got the emails from you. On the demand letters right now, I know we had one that we negotiated with, and I hear that we already got the check. Is that correct? Yes. So that was the settlement agreement with the brother of the homeowner who passed, that we did get a check on that. And that settlement agreement is also, I believe, in front of you. Yeah. Perhaps. Yes. Okay. And then we had, I think it was three others or four others. I'm not really sure. I know you and Armstrong were going through how many more we have. What is that number? We have four violators who have 1,500 or more in outstanding fines. So those four violators will be receiving a demand letter, along with a reference of the order of enforcement. That order of enforcement is a result of you all previously holding a public hearing on each of those violations. Okay, so to proceed in bringing out the, to mail out the letters now, all you need is from us, from the supervisors, is it how long the dates for them to apply or to respond? Am I correct? Yep. That's correct. Okay. Judianne, what do you got? I think that they should have 10 days from businesses. Steve? Is there any sort of legal requirement for that period, Michelle? No specific legal requirement. It is a business judgment of the board. 10 days. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's probably correct because the fines, Michelle, would continue if they paid on the 10th day, the fines would continue up until the or through the ninth day, correct? Yes. So I would think that, yeah, we have to have a shorter timeframe just for the purpose of, if nothing else, keep the fine down for the individual, force him to or he or she to do that. Michelle, I got one quick question. In the second paragraph there, that says, "The district will have no other alternative but to seek." Is there any reason why it's stated that way versus the district will seek all available remedies? Because when you indicate that they have no other alternative, gosh, one of the alternatives would be forgive it, forgive the... And that's not what we're seeking here in a demand letter. Is there some reason why it's stated as such? Nope. It's just a stylistic choice. I'm happy to update that to the preferred language. To me, when I read it, I had that question, but I wanted to defer till today. But I would think that we should just state what we plan to do versus how we can do all sorts of things. But, we're only going to indicate the ones here. Yeah. No, it tells the residents we have no other alternative. This is it. And it shows they may turn around and say, "Well, to hell with it. Good. If you can't do nothing else to me, I'm not going to pay anyway." Is that what you're- Well- ... saying? It shows a little bit of weakness in our point. That's kind of the way I read it. But if not, I'll go with whatever- I understand what you mean ... on that, on that case. Yeah. It's been... I think it was noting the fact that this is just one step in the enforcement steps, right? Okay. The district does have other alternatives that it'll impose on the individual if they are not brought into compliance after receipt of this letter. Okay. But again, it's just a stylistic choice. I'm happy to update to the will of the board. No, I can live with that. And I think 10 days, I think we have to keep it going. And I read that same sentence and went, "We are telling them that we're not messing around." To me, it came across as, "Okay, you haven't done this. Now, this is... Here we go." Mm-hmm. So I didn't read it as being weak. I read it as being strong. Yeah. Okay. The only question I have, Michelle, is nowhere in this letter, because one of the things you said is that they have to call to make sure that they have the total amount, but there's no phone number. I circulated an updated letter via email to the board members- Oh, okay ... last night. That includes a sentence that you must contact Community Standards at the phone number to verify the current outstanding fees and costs prior to payment. Okay. I'm good. So, we could go out with that letter now, right? Am I correct in needing any other information? Nope. That's it. I will update the letter to provide 10 business days to respond, and issue to the first four recipients. Okay. And report back. Okay. We don't need a motion, right? And I think, it's short. You can take a motion, and then I'll wait to after that. Okay. Can we have a motion, please? A motion that we move forward with the demand letter as presented. And second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passed. Thank you. Michelle, what else? Go ahead. No, no. So- No, go ahead. Still- Go ahead, Michelle. Sorry. Go. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Michelle. And so given the 10 business days will run out before the next board meeting, I think it is also prudent for us to discuss what the next step would be. Whether that's turning it over to a collection agency or whether the board would like for the staff to come back to the next meeting with what the next steps should be. I know Brittany was still working on exploring collection agency options for that. And I do want to clarify myself from last board meeting. I was assuming that the collection agency services fee will be well within or below the purchasing threshold amount. I had stated that, we will not need to go out to competitively procure, but, just like any other maintenance and services that the district competitively procure, if it goes over the purchasing threshold, we will need to competitively procure. I just don't think that based on the amount of the outstanding and the scope of the engagement, that that'll become necessary. So I wanted to clarify myself on the brief response that I had. So I know Brittany was still exploring some collection agency options. I don't know whether she's had any proposals ready for you all today. So I'll stop here and turn it over to Brittany to give an update on that end. Yes. Good morning, board members. I do not have any proposals at this time. There were two elements that we were looking for when we were evaluating... companies that are out there, and the most important being that they can handle accruing fines, and not just you turn over a flat amount and they seek collection on that flat amount. This is more in alignment with what some of the code enforcement agencies are doing within the state that I've found, where they do have continuously accruing fines. And then there are two different formats for contract terms. One being that it's a percentage, an agreed-upon percentage, and the other, there are a couple companies that do flat rate amounts, where regardless of what the outstanding balance is, they're going to collect based on that, and for that contract set amount. Volume is an issue at the moment. Not saying that these companies won't do that, but the contracts that I have found, they estimate thousands of accounts per year. High five. Because when you look at the county structure, a lot of the constitutional offices are involved as well. So it might be the clerk of courts office, the sheriff, code enforcement, any type of outstanding fining agency. So we're trying to find something that's the most advantageous. Also