Village Community Development District No. 3

Excuse me. Stephan Franklin is not here, but all of the supervisors are here. So please stand for a pledge of allegiance 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. Okay. I'll go ahead and start. Welcome meeting attendees. Let you know you can participate in any of the agenda items, and you can also make comments now before we begin. But if you wish to do so at any time, you have to come to the podium, state your name and where you live. Good morning. Morning. Good morning. Joseph DeMaio, here as a resident of Cottages at Summer 1642 Bell Road Drive, Cottages at Summer Chase. I'd like to talk about something that I talked about at the June meeting. And I have a chain of events, so please bear with me. But at the June meeting, I talked about our flags, the feathered flags that we would like to fly outside the gate at the Cottages at Summer Chase. We were told at the last meeting to get an app from District Property Management. We did. I went to get the app, and we have a flag committee, and one of the members filled it out. And he brought it to their District Property Management. We got an approval. Hold on a minute. We got an approval. It was probably the third or fourth week of June by Victoria, here's the text, saying that our application was approved. We flew the flags. I think there were four flags. Well, US flags. On July 7th, we got a text from Victoria, District Property Management, saying that our flags... Here's what it says. "Unfortunately, your flags are too tall." That's what it said in the text. They're here if you'd like to see them. So I called and I spoke to Dan Lucen, District Property Management. He said they had a complaint about our flags from a supervisor from District Four. Said that our flags were not in compliance. So they took his word, I guess, and denied us. We took our flags down. So again, when I got the application for flying these flags, the cover page, I have it here, and I didn't see this till later, 21-07 resolution, District Six. So I called. I says, "Where's District Three?" "Oh, we don't have District Three. All we use is District Six." Okay. So I read the application. We filled out the application. We filled out the waiver, so the villages is not responsible. We filled out waiver understanding the liability and all that stuff. But in the application, this is what got my attention. Nowhere on this application does it say a height of a flag. It states an example. If you're going to use a 10-foot flag pole, you add 3 feet. That's the distance from the road. So 10 feet tall, 3 feet the distance, 13 feet from any road. Doesn't mention height. We fly 13-foot flags. That's what we fly. That's what we have. And we would have flied them 16 feet from any road. So what I'm looking at here, there is no direction. I would like to see District Three be the leader and put a designation in no higher than such a footage. If I can interrupt you for a moment. In some of the things we're looking to approve today- I'm sorry? In some of the things we're looking to approve today, the architect review, manual modification and so forth, this specifically includes in there information about flags. Not feathered flags. Mm-hmm. Not feathered flags. So what's on your agenda today is for homeowner's property. What Mr. DeMaio is referring to is when homeowners want to put Flags on district property Display And District 3 does have the same rules that he's referring to, and it's on the District 3 page website. So all that you're referring to for District 6, the same information is on for District 3 on the District 3 website. I do hear some staff potential training opportunities that we have with district property management. He is correct when it comes to the height. There's no maximum height. You have to have it a certain threshold off of any multimodal path or roadway, and that's to protect vehicles and golf carts. Right. So certainly, we have some training opportunities on our end with district property management that we'll- So you're going to look into this for him? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Another thing I would request is that Dan Lucen never got back to me on the person who complained, and I think I have the right, we have the right, to know who complained about our flags. Let me interject on that. I called Dan Lucen because I was kind of upset to think that there'd be a supervisor in another district complaining about us and not saying something to us personally. Right. He fell all over himself apologizing for what happened, and I certainly accepted that, and it was no problem. However, he said that the complaint out of District 4 was not directed specifically at us, that it was a height thing, and that they therefore then went around and measured and saw that there were some other things. So I think, and maybe, I'm certain Mike can probably clarify that because I'm certain he's had a discussion with Dan in that regard. But Dan, I didn't think at that point it was absolutely necessary that we had the name of the supervisor, because it would be a FOIA request. I mean, if we wanted to know, we could sure find it out. I would like to know. But I don't think it was directed necessarily at us per se, but I think it was rather in general, is the word I got from Dan. All right. Here's a picture. Bridgebrook Village, District 4, if you'd like to see that. You see how they're flying their flag, which is almost on the road. District 4. Ours were nowhere near this. If you'd like to see this picture. No, I understand. Okay. Right. Armswood actually puts an American flags right out next to the curb. If you go into the entrance of Armswood, they had it right out next to the curb. Mike, did you want to- I mean, so there's- ... say something about this? Good morning. Mike Harris, district property management. I'd just like to clarify, at no point was Summerchase identified as not doing the right thing. There was a generalized question asked of us to go around and look in another district, not District 3, and check flags. Right. At that point, our staff, "We're just not going to go look at one district." We went out and started looking around. I think the information that was given up front was maybe worded wrong or maybe misinterpreted. I have talked to Mr. Lucen about it. But at no point did anyone call and turn in Summerchase or District 3. That was not the case whatsoever. He apologized- Yes ... for what he did. I have addressed that. So the flag, are their flags going to be, they're approved? We need to go back and really look at how this is written. Like Mrs. Duckett said, it really doesn't actively say over, it says 10 foot. Yeah. And it's got to be 13 foot from the road, but I think this is an opportunity for us to go back and clarify these. Okay. So you're going to do that? Yeah. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Okay. Very good. Thank you. I think another thing to take a look at, which I did also, Mike, is if they're buying these from Amazon or whatever the supplier is, there's a lot of flags that at the base of the flag to the top are 12 feet, not including a pole going down. So I think- Right ... if you're going to be buying these things, we should take that into consideration, too. So rather than putting an arbitrary, capricious figure of 8 foot, 10 foot, I mean, as long as the setback meets the specifications. Right. So if the thing falls and doesn't go into anything, I don't care if it's 20 feet high personally. But I think that's one thing we should take into consideration. Where are they buying these things, and what type of-- And even the villages, if you take a look at the villages real estate, they put those green flags out all the time- Right ... for open house and everything. So you see things all over the place. Absolutely. I hope you're not limiting in making the suggestion back to- No. Excuse me ... in terms of what they, or it fits within parameters in which they would buy this thing. Okay. And I can tell you, me and my staff are not in the business of pulling American flags from anywhere. It's a safety issue for us. So when we're looking at things- Right ... we're looking if it's going to- Just call it a setback and so forth ... is it going to hit a windshield or is somebody going to drive into it? Okay. Very good. Thank you. One more comment here. We're all due respect, Mike. The application gives an example of 10 feet. It does not say 10 feet max. It gives an example, but it still has the 3 feet on any height of any flag. So we can fly the flags at 13 feet from the ground, 13 feet with a 3-foot setback. Correct? Yes, it's the height of the flag plus 3 feet away from any multimodal path or roadway or sidewalk where it could fall on somebody. Thank you. Okay. Very good. I'm not sure. What am I supposed to tell you about myself? You want to- I'm Harry Harrison from Summerchase. Would be best if you move that mic up to the next level. Just- Yeah, you can just set it up on top. Oh, oh, oh. Then you can just put it down. There you go. Now we'll hear you. Well, now you see why our flags are 13 feet. Yeah. So I was out there putting them up, and then on the 7th, I guess, we got this text, and that's when I went in to say, well, I just questioned, "Well, what is the height?" I went in and, of course, there is no height. It's height plus 3 away from a road. So then I drove around to all the other ... entrances, and all of them would've failed that. All of them. Because we put it up where our entrance signs are, and what's next to all the entrances? A road or a modal path. And even Harmswood that put up little flags like this, about this high, they would not be allowed because they were along the curb. Right. And so if you go forward with this height plus three feet- Yeah ... and you try to enforce it, then all the entrances around will fail. Every one we looked at. Okay. Thanks. I think the suggestion from Carrie, is this something therefore then that if Mike makes a recommendation, we come back and think you would certainly carry that to all the districts, and we would try to get some uniformity on the thing so we wouldn't have this problem again? There is uniformity, and every district already has a policy, but we need to do some staff training on our part. The boards, when you adopted your policy, you also did not want staff actively going out and removing or enforcing it. Right. And really it's just a liability release on the district to make sure that if something were to happen, you'd have as limited liability as possible. So the uniformity and consistency is there, it's just we need to do some training on our part to make sure that all of our team is aware of the guidelines and making sure that they're providing the consistency. And that the application is close. Yes. To add a little perspective about part of this, when those types of flags became popular, about 15 years or so ago, several of the districts or several of the villages bought them, put them in, and we went through a spate of accidents that happened where wind caught them. They weren't grounded appropriately, and most of them when they first sold them, only were a single stake that went into the ground. And we had two incidents where a gust of wind came out and one hit a car that went by, and there were other instances of the flags being in the road. And we've tackled this several times to make sure that the safety is there. And to talk to Mr. DeMaio's point about the fact that the easiest way to state it is everybody else or several other places, well, you can go through any district and find all kinds of violations of their covenant. Unless somebody chooses to complain, nothing happens. Right. So unfortunately, if somebody chose to complain about yours, that's the way the process works, because unless we're going to- Yeah, it's complaint based. Hmm? It's complaint based. It's complaint based. Yeah. And if nobody complains, I can drive down my street, just a very small section, and could probably pick out eight or nine deed violations. Well, I don't choose to complain, and I don't think anybody else has. But the idea of the flags was simply any of the cautions were done purely out of an intent to try and protect those users of the road. Yeah, safety. Okay. Just one more comment to Gail, to your comment. We've been singled out many times, and I understand the complaint system. That's why I'm bringing it up, just maybe we can correct this, and as Carrie said, maybe training needed for employees that handle this. I understand the complaint system, and it just seems we're targeted more than usual, and it happened before they took our flags. So that's all we're here for. People take this seriously about flags. Yeah. As you all well know. Okay. Thank you. Move on to the next item, which is the consent agenda, which incorporates the approval of minutes for the June 12th meeting. We want to do these one at a time or the entire consent? Okay. And the others have to do with the release of the seventh amended interlocal agreement for the ARC adjustments and then the ARC review manual modifications as well. Now, I've reviewed every one of these items myself and gone through them. They all make sense to me. So anybody, any comments regarding these? Just a question about B in the consent agenda. Uh-huh. There's a release for District 1. If they're released from architectural review, who's responsible at that point? They're going to do the architectural review hearing officer. So District 6 and then Districts 11 and beyond all use a professional engineer architect to review their applications, and District 1 is electing to do the same thing. I'm sort of yes and no about that, based upon the idea that I like the idea of the volunteer organization. But I also know they spend a lot of time, and it's on a weekly basis in order to do this. Hiring somebody to do it makes some sense, but it also makes it significantly more impersonal with regard to the fact that decisions are made. The hearing officer, the individual who has been employed to review this, do you have any idea what the kind of cost is for this individual? We do. They are on an hourly basis, and then it is cost allocated to the districts that utilize the service. District 1, for example How much are they hourly? Two... Matt Armstrong, Community Standards. So it's $230 an hour, CPOs. 230? Mm-hmm. An hour. And then again, it's allocated based on the number of applications for each district that they are reviewing. They have the same open public meeting. Residents can go ask questions, provide feedback, contractors can... So it functions the exact same, but rather than having the committee, it's somebody who's a little bit more trained in reading those. The thought process was initially, when the Villages was first started, a lot of the applications were very basic. Very. It was just replacing different shrubs and trees. Well, now you have $100,000 landscape jobs, and it just got very complex. So when we started doing it in the southern districts, we did offer it to other districts as well, and at the time, everybody chose to use the ARC, the normal committee. But what we're finding, District 6, District 1, and I believe District 4 has it on their agenda for consideration next week as well, is that we're not getting volunteers. So District 6, I believe, advertised for over a year without having an individual on the ARC committee before they went. District 1 had a resignation of both their primary and alternate, and then District 4, same thing. So they elected to go- We've been through this with regard to finding volunteers, and fortunately, we've had people like Mr. DeMaio step up. However, I guess my concern in part is, we had talked previously, some time ago, about possibly providing a stipend to the members of the Architectural Review Committee and found that we cannot do that. Right. And that the idea we're paying $230 an hour to somebody to do the work sort of is a slap in the face to the volunteers that are there. Right. I agree completely. In that this is one of those cases of, if there's any way possible that we can provide a stipend to the volunteer members, I'd rather keep the volunteer system than going to a professional. Yeah, for sure. The only thing that we're able to do, and it has been looked at by multiple district councils, is reimburse for mileage, which we do. Right. But unfortunately, certainly they are a committee of the board in the way it's set up through the Interlocal Agreement. You can't provide that stipend. What if we called them, what are you calling this new person that's reviewing this, Matt? The individual's an architectural review hearing officer. So what if we call Joe DeMaio an architectural review hearing officer and start paying him 230 bucks an hour? So they're- What are the credentials? What do they have to do? They are under contract, so it's a professional contract that we have, and we require them to have certain criteria in order to do that. If you wanted to look into doing that separately outside of the ARC committee, then you certainly could, but it wouldn't be through the established ARC committee that we have. But I guess my question is, if they're good enough to sit as a volunteer on that committee and pass judgment, why in the hell couldn't they get paid, become a hearing officer, and get the $230 an hour? Because now we hired somebody who's supposed to have all these great credentials. Well, if we need the credentials for District 4, why don't we need them for District 3? It seems like we're talking out both sides of our mouth here. And that's a board decision. That's something that you as a board would determine how you want to proceed, whether you want to continue with a committee of volunteers or whether you want to require certain criteria and go under contract with somebody. Okay. Again, it looks like I don't think we need to pay volunteers $230 an hour, but I think if we offered them a small amount per hour- But we can't do that ... if we found a way to do it. But she just said we couldn't do that. Yeah. Based on the review of district council- Can't be done ... both Mr. Briones and Ms. Fox, prior to Mr. Briones, the way Chapter 190 is laid out and the structure that you have as an ARC committee does not allow for them to be paid, just like the AAC members are not paid either. Right. But if you want to enter into a contract with an individual, then certainly you as a governing body have the ability to enter into contracts and to pay individuals. Yeah. The way it's done in the other districts is Village Center, as Village Center provides all of the management services to the districts, has a contract with these individuals, and then the district boards elect to utilize that contract for their services. I understand the concern about providing an individual contract for volunteers. However, I know full well contracts can be written loosely enough that we would be able to do that, and an individual could be able to step away without any difficulty. Okay. So yeah, you could, and I think that's kind of where 2B is at with District 1. They've elected to step away. So you would also need to get the approval from all the other districts to step away and contract with somebody. You don't have to use this one. You can use someone else. But you do have the ability to do that. Just can't pay the current volunteer under the Interlocal Agreement and under Chapter 190. But I think more and more, we're almost, I can't say we're being compelled, but if we lack volunteers willing to come forth and do something, we still have to get these things- approves. So we are going to have to come up with something, and we place an additional burden on the other people who are in there as primary representatives from other districts. Am I not right? Somebody from district, let's say, seven would look at an application from district three, they're going to have to rule on it even though we don't have a primary there. It's basically where Jonah Mayo lives. And maybe we're being forced into taking a look at an alternative, that kind of thing, which I'm certain those other districts must have done the same kind of thing. No. How did you get that? Was that set up like that, Carrie? When they set up those newer districts down south, was it automatically a portion of setting them up that they would have? Yes. The districts that at the time that fell under the developer's purview- Right ... they elected to go in that direction, just like they use a hearing officer for deed compliance cases as well. Right off the bat. Yes, sir. And then the districts have the ability to, once they have purview over deed compliance and architectural review, they certainly can get out of that method, but districts 11, 12, and then 13, will be coming online this year, have elected to stay with that form. Okay. Makes sense. So, I think I only said the three items, A, B, and C that we have in the consent agenda. Do we have a motion to approve them? Move. Do we have a second? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you. So move on to our public hearings. And we have, I think two fewer than we had. Correct. Two have cleared. So we'll start with our first one. Sorry, Matt Armstrong, community standards. So the first one is adoption of Resolution 2026-04, amending and restating chapter two of the district's rule to bring about deed compliance. Sorry, it froze on me. At your May board meeting, the board did authorize for the publication of this amendment. The purpose is to update your standards with additional information to clarify items related to nuisance landscape lighting, exterior lighting, and seasonal displays. Since our initial publication of this information, I wanted to point out just a few additions that have been made during the previous two months leading to this point. First is going to be on the standards on page number one, exterior lighting. We added the italic where it says, "Please refer to the deed restrictions specific to your property to determine any regulations pertaining to exterior lighting." The reason for that is there are units within district three of the villa units that do not have rules pertaining to lighting at all. So we wanted to make sure that in the standards, everyone didn't think that that rule applied to all units. We wanted to point it back to the deed restrictions to make sure that a rule exists for them. So, we added that language in there as well. Underneath the landscape lighting, there were questions about, well, what if I have a light that I want to point up at a palm tree or my magnolia tree? All the information said it needed to be pointed down. So in the second large bullet on page number two, we did put in there that it can be directed upwards, providing that the lighting is low intensity, shielded where practicable, and does not create a glare, light trespass, or nuisance conditions affecting- And it can't shine on somebody's home. Correct. You don't want it to point through the palm tree and then into your neighbor's window. Right. So we added that language in there. And then further down underneath seasonal displays, we added the language or a bullet point that says you can only observe one holiday at a time. So for example, in March, you have St. Patrick's Day and Easter probably going on at the same time. We don't want to see a melding of two holidays decorating your lawn simultaneously. So choose one seasonal display at a time to display. So other than that, it is the same information as previously shown to this board, and it is staff's recommendation for the adoption of Resolution 2026-04, amending and restating chapter two of the district's rule. Now do we have to open a public hearing now? Yes. We'll open a public hearing. If there's anything regarding this. Hi. Would she state it for the record? Hi, Deborah Wallace, Cottages of Summer Chase, 1678 Summer Chase. The amendments being put in about the flags, which refers to the state statute 720 304, the way the verbiage is right now has caused a lot of confusion with people I've been hearing from and talking with, because it's not quoted exactly how 720 304 is stated in the statutes. The confusion being, it isn't clear, the way we've written it, that the villages does not restrict certain flags, say political, garden flag, whatever, but we cannot restrict the US flag, state flags, military, and so on. Right. So I think it just needs to be quoted exactly the way it says, because when you read 720, it's perfectly clear. And then people understand that the villages, we're not saying you can't fly these other types of flags on your home. Then the other thing I see could be a problem is the flag pole attached to a dwelling. We're not stating any type of size for it. You're leaving it up to the individual's artistic ability to see if it's aesthetically proper for the size of their home. You could end up with a flag the size of the window hanging from the house on a Zillow, which I think would be a little ridiculous aesthetic-wise to see. Mm-hmm. So I just think maybe we could do a size on that as well as what we did with the American flags on the flag pole. That's all. That you're just leaving it up to an individual judgment of what looks good on the front of their house. Mm-hmm. And it could be bigger than their garage double windows out there- ... with that one. That's all. Thank you. Hello, board. That would've been in your architectural review manual. That's not in the standards that we're presenting here today. Right. That's what I would think so. Yep. Okay. Does she understand that? Make sure she understands the clarification just made there, Matt, because I think that's significant for her. Yeah. I'll reach out to her afterwards, and we'll discuss the- Okay ... what was being presented. Very good. Yeah, because I think she has a good point. Mm-hmm. But if we've already had it covered, then that's not here. Right. Just so she's aware. Okay. Anything else? I'm going to close the public hearing. So do we have it, excuse me, a motion to approve the adoption of Resolution 2026-04? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. Okay. Next. Yes, sir. Next, we have two public hearings for- ... decompliance, with the first one being case number D3-06-26. Okay. District number 3 v. Mann. As you are aware, in the public hearing process, you act as both judge and jury. In that capacity, you will consider evidence, make findings of fact, and draw conclusions of law. During the hearing, you may only receive evidence from district staff, the property owner, and those that will be substantially and directly affected by the outcome of the board's decision. At the conclusion of the public hearing, you'll need to decide whether staff presented competent, substantial evidence to support a finding of the alleged violation. And if so, you must enter an order of enforcement against the property owner. If there's anyone here to testify today, if you'd please stand and raise your right hand. You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. We can open the public hearing. Open the public hearing now. Hello, board. Matt Armstrong, Community Standards. So before you today, we do have case number D30626, Village Community Development District Number 3 versus Billy J. Mann and Caroline P. Mann at 3288 Shelby Street, Unit 67, Lot 270. Violation of the district's rule to bring about decompliance, specifically the rule that states, "Owners shall keep their home sites neat and clean, the grass cut and edged and irrigated at all times. An owner does not adhere to the regulation, and then the work may be performed on behalf of the owner, and the cost shall be charged to the owner." As stated in your external de-restriction standards, maintenance means exercise of reasonable care to keep buildings, landscaping, lights, lawns, and generally except... Sorry. Lawns and related improvements to good conditions. Standards also state, "Shrubbery must be maintained so it does not extend to soffits and rain gutters of the home and must not obstruct entry to the front door. Hedges are defined as a contiguous group of shrubs." We did receive a complaint regarding this property back on April 20th, 2026. As this board is very aware, this property's come before you multiple times for various other reasons. It is a HUD-owned property. We have reached out to HUD and Saline Finance, who we do know operates with the property. They said that they would send someone out to take care of the issue once they get a bid for it. Unfortunately, they missed their bid deadline, and they now are going back out to get a bid again so that they can have someone come and maintain the property. And as of the other day, we actually received communication from a title company asking about the fines associated and the cases associated with this property. We sent them over all the information, and they thanked us. So typically, when we hear from title companies, that means it's up for sale, and someone's interested in it. So crossing our fingers, that might be some good news for this property. But in the meantime, it is staff's recommendation to fine the owners in violation of the district's decompliance rule as cited by decompliance staff. Owners have seven days to trim the shrubs away from the eaves of the home to bring that property into compliance. The shrubs are trimmed away from the eaves of the home within seven days of the order of enforcement, case number D30626 shall be closed. The shrubs are not trimmed away from the eaves of the home, and the property is not brought into compliance within seven days of the order of enforcement, authorize the district to maintain the property and impose a $150 per maintenance hour fine, plus a $100 administrative fee to be paid within 10 days of the invoice. The owners prohibit the district from maintaining the property, then the owners shall be fined an initial amount of $150 and an additional $50 daily until the property is brought into compliance. The property is not brought into compliance as required herein, staff shall record the order of enforcement claim of lien in the public records of Sumter County, Florida. It is the owner's responsibility to contact the Community Standards Department to request a decompliance officer revisit the property to 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 and seeking an injunction against the owners. The owners are responsible for reimbursing the district for all attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses associated with or related to this order of enforcement claim of lien. The property is brought into compliance and all fines are paid, Chairman authorizes staff to execute and record a satisfaction of release claim of lien. Chairman to execute the order of enforcement. Matt, do we have a lien on that property presently? We do, sir. Yes. And would these fines at the $50 daily rate, since there's been an ongoing kind of concern with it, when would that begin? Oh, the fines have been continuously accruing. Okay. So they're still going on, and it would just be, this is inclusive of what we would do today? Correct. Matt, who is the current owner? Saleen Finance. Okay. Does that mean that HUD is out of this entirely? I do not believe so. I think Saleen Finance is working with HUD on this one. We do have a lien on the property, and the title company who reached out to us to ask us to pay out. And it's not just a lien. This piece of property owes us, if you use the out-of-pocket cost and the fines, a lot of money. They do. And this house has been on the agenda well over 10 years. Yeah. I mean, we've been going through this over and over again. And I ask about whether HUD has any interest in the property anymore because I recognize that if HUD has interest, we probably won't see a dime. HUD will capture- Right ... every dime there is to be taken. So I'm looking sideways at my notes here that we have for this one. HUD responded to an inquiry, and it's transferred ownership to BSI Financial Services, and they are located in Pennsylvania. And so we've emailed that bank regarding to that. So they transferred ownership to- To BSI Financial Services. Mr. Briones, when something like that happens with the transfer of ownership, does that mean that HUD is out of the game? We'd need to look at how that transfer took place, and there's a lot to take into consideration, whether the transfer took place by sale, whether it was a subsidiary. There's a lot of things to look at for that, and I don't have that information in front of me, but we can look at that. See, like I said, if HUD's the owner, we ain't going to see nothing- Right. Nah ... out of the money. That's the case. If a private entity owns this totally and outright- Could be different ... there is a possibility. I mean, although HUD will be the first one up to get any money. So you're going to look into it? Yeah, and it depends on how it was transferred, so we need to look at that. Okay. I would appreciate your doing so because, I mean, we've been going at this one forever. Yeah, a long time. They've been dead for a long time. So we'll close public hearing. Any other discussions on this one? Just a recommendation to accept staff's-- or a motion to accept staff's recommendation. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. Okay, next item. Our second case is D3-09-26, District 3 v. Huzor. If there's anyone here other than Mr. Armstrong who's already been sworn, please stand and raise your right hand. We can open the public hearing. All right. Public hearing is open. All right. Hello again, Matt Armstrong, Community Standards. So before you, case number D3-09-26, Village Community Development, District Number 3 v. Joanne A. Huzor of 3296 Atwell Avenue, Unit 35, Lot 50, violation of the district's rule to bring about decompliance, specifically the rule what states, "It shall be the responsibility of the owners to keep their lots neat and clean and the grass cut, irrigated, and edged at all times. If an owner does not adhere to the regulations, then the work may be performed on behalf of the owner, and the cost shall be charged to the owner. As stated in your external deed restriction standards, maintenance means the exercise of reasonable care to keep buildings, landscaping, lights, lawns, and related improvements in good condition." On July 14th, a complaint was received about overgrown grass and weeds. The violation was verified, and we did write the reminder. We have- On what date did you say? This is 2025, so this is going to be- Okay ... a reoccurring violation presentation today. Oh, yeah, I see that now. Yeah. After following the procedures, the violation was clear on September 24th, 2025, because the property was brought into compliance. After receiving an additional complaint on June 2nd of 2026, a deed restriction reminder was written on June 3rd. Since this was a reoccurring violation offense, the owner was immediately given notice of public hearing by regular and certified mail. Staff has been unable to establish contact with the homeowner. Staff did contact HUD and 24-Hour Asset Management to determine if they maintain the property. We have not received anything to date. A recent inspection on the property on the 8th did determine that the property was out of compliance. There is a piece of paper taped to the front window, so typically we know at that time then it is in a bank process, and so that's why we started reaching out to all of our bank folks to see who may have this particular information. But it is tucked away behind, so it's difficult to read, so that's why we're going through our normal routine of calling different entities. It is staff's recommendation to find the owner to have violated the district's decompliance rule as cited by decompliance staff. Find the owner to be in violation of the reoccurring violation policy as listed in Appendix B, Procedures for Compliance of External Deed Restriction, and schedule for the fines of the Community Development District Number 3. The property is currently not in compliance. The owner has seven days to mow the overgrown grass and weeds or, and remove the weeds to bring that property into compliance. If the grass is mowed and the weeds are removed within seven days of the order of enforcement, case number D30926 shall be closed. If the grass is not mowed and the weeds are not removed, and the property is not brought into compliance within seven days of the order of enforcement, authorize the district to maintain the property and impose a minimum of $250 fine or the actual cost of maintenance, whichever is more, to be paid within 10 days of the order of the invoice. Authorize the district to maintain the property twice a month in the summer and once a month in the winter as needed, and impose a $250 fine each time the district maintains the property. If the owner prohibits the district from maintaining the property, then the owner shall be fined an initial $150 and an additional $50 daily fine until the property is brought into compliance. If the owner violates the same provision of the rule within 12 months of this date, July 10th, 2026, the violation shall be considered a repeat violation. Staff is not required to give the owner reasonable time to correct the violation. Staff shall present the case to the board of supervisors even if the repeat violation has been corrected prior to the public hearing, and the notice shall so state. Owners who have been found to have repeat violations may be fined up to $500, and a board of supervisors may impose a $500 daily fine until the property is brought into 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 and seeking an injunction against the owner. The owner is 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. Any questions you've got to ask? Well, the telling phrase here in all of the verbiage is, "Staff has been unable to establish contact with the homeowner." Right. So we don't know whether the homeowner is alive, dead, if they're alive, they've moved away. I'm looking, I guess, for anecdotal answers to some of this. Has staff or have your personnel contacted neighbors to see if there's any life in the home? If a neighbor says, "Oh, she moved out two years ago and has been gone," or, "She died," does your staff do any of that? We typically do not go door to door knocking on doors to ask. I'm not looking for you to go door to door, but if you went to a house on either side just simply to ask. I can tell you right now, if there's somebody living in the house on either side of me or whether there's any... And it's a good example with regard to the one house because it's vacant most of the time, but there's an active homeowner there. The idea that the staff is unable to establish contact, I don't want this again to be an exercise in futility where we're simply throwing water into the wind because we'll go ahead and fine, and if we find out later that the individual is dead, moved away, lives in Pueblo or something, I don't want to go through all of this over and over and over again, as we have with the Manns. I would make a recommendation to your staff that they at least talk to people on either side to find out, "Do you know anything about this lady? Do you have a present contact?" Well, we do our best when they are outside. If they see someone, they'll try to strike a conversation. I'm just overly cautious about trusting the word of neighbors because we've had an instance before where someone said a neighbor was deceased, and they showed back up. So I'm very cautious about the testimony from neighbors whereas we're looking for death certificates. We're going to contact next of kin on anybody on the property if they have emergency contacts. We'll go that route. We'll try to reach out to any siblings or children that may be on record with us. We try to go that route as much as possible. But if there is a neighbor outside, we see them, we'll also say, "Hey, do you know what's going on with this property? What have you seen?" We do have those conversations. But they know they have not walked up to other neighbors or knocked on neighbors'. I understand your concern. I understand the nature of the issue, but I'd still like to see somebody go, "We're dealing with the property next door. Do you know Mrs. Husser or do you know anything about Mrs. Husser or where we might find her?" And it may be a simple answer that says, "Oh, she died a year ago." Plus, they would have a vested interest being a neighbor to getting that property cleaned up, too. Oh, absolutely. I'm not asking them to step up and do anything. I just want to see if we can get greater information. I'll make the recommendation to your staff. Mm-hmm. Because I think it's valuable in- Yeah, since there's been no contact, I concur. I think we need to take another step to try to gather information. Understood. It may be as simple as, "Oh, yeah, there's somebody there because I see the car go in and out." Right. Thank you. We know they're there. Okay. Understood. Okay. It's understood. Very good. Anything else? Then we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. None opposed. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Board. So move on to old business. Status update. Yes, sir. The first item on old business I will turn over to Mr. Briones, as it was having to do with his recommendation on the reflective pavement markers. Yes, and we did send an email out with the memorandum that I prepared. I'm not sure if you reviewed it and have any questions regarding that. I'd like to make some comments. Okay. Okay? Sure. CDD has 3.97 miles of multimodal path within our district. Our district was created in 1998. It has therefore been in existence for 28 years. I've lived in the district for the last 23 years, and I'm not familiar with any golf cart crashes or accidents involving golf carts during that time within our almost four miles of multimodal path. The standard width of the multimodal path in CDD3 is 12 feet. The standard width of a typical golf cart is four feet. When two golf carts meet on the path traveling in opposite directions, they occupy a total of eight feet, thus there still remains two feet of extra space on either side of the path. Citizens traveling through our district on the path have managed to traverse it without any indication of a distinction regarding a bisection of the path, whether it was in the form of a painted dividing line or RPMs. It should be noted that CDD3 has complied with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices regarding the placement of RPMs where they provide a safety indication. I would submit that before we make a decision on the installation of RPMs in our district, that we should try to determine if we have had a problem in the past with separating the path that resulted in a crash or property damage. If the RPMs would have been in place, might they have prevented the accident? Or were there maybe medical issues or depth perception issues? And is there a greater likelihood to hug the center and thus cause a golf cart group to close closer to each other? Mm-hmm. How many golf carts utilize the CD3 portion of the multimodal path between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM, which would appear to have the greatest impact for a line of distinction? I guess another question would be how many people rollerblade, bicycle, or push carts, whether for babies or dogs, in utilizing our CDD3 multimodal path. Mark, you've indicated that whether we make a decision to install or not to install the RPMs, it would not be a contraindication of the engineering study, and I appreciate what you've done. I thank you very much. I felt in the past that this board has always acted in the best interest of our citizens when making decisions. I also felt that we have truly represented what a consensus was on a particular issue. I do not feel that I have a true pulse of our citizens on this issue. I'm not certain how the other CDDs base their decision to include RPMs, but I sincerely believe that this question deserves more of a collective input than our individual experiences. I'm therefore requesting the possibility of providing a questionnaire opportunity for all the residents of CDD3 and thereby let the majority rule. Carrie, do we have a mechanism in place or can we come up with something so we can get a better sense of this? I don't feel that comfortable in committing this kind of a decision for something that's going to have an impact. And I might also add something as an aside. I travel State Route 44 from Wildwood to the Cove and have dinner over there occasionally. And they have these monstrous big white arrows indicating what direction you're traveling- Yeah ... like you're blind or something. But on every one of them were RPMs, and they would beat the living hell out of your tires. And I don't care what kind of width you had. Well, guess what? There's not a one of them up there anymore. All the RPMs have been taken down. I tried to contact FDOT to see why they took them down. I think they probably had enough complaints from people saying, "What in the world are you doing?" So, I really think, in this case, if the citizens in our district take a look at this, they've probably been on District V and been on some of the ones, and they're saying, "This is a great idea," or "This is a terrible idea. Why are we wasting this kind of money?" I don't have that sense that I would like to sit here and make a decision personally. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather have some collective input from our citizens and let them make the decision on this issue that's tremendous. And not only our citizens I know it impacts, but that's who we're representing, and I'd like to know. And I think that aligns actually with the memorandum that I sent out, which says that you can do it, and in doing that, you take into consideration the balanced engineering report with public safety, operational considerations, costs, public health, safety, and welfare. How do you find that out? Just based on what you said. Input. Right. Is there a way of getting that information? Unfortunately, we don't have a way of contacting- I didn't think so ... just District 3 residents. What we can do, though, is put this item on your agenda for a certain meeting and then put special notices in your postal station bulletin boards that say you are seeking input and feedback on whether or not to install them on your multimodal paths and invite them to either come to the meeting or we can provide an email address, invite them to send an email to provide to the board prior to the meeting, and then we can go that route. But we don't have email addresses for everybody in District 3. Yeah. Certainly, we could send a letter, but that would be costly. Very. I guess this is an issue that we've been talking about- Long time ... my very first involvement with district government goes back to making a statement in front of the VCCDD, Center District, about golf cart paths. And back then, they were the concrete narrow paths that ran through all of north of 466. And my comment was that the issue is two things, speed and courtesy. Mm-hmm. Well, it still comes back to speed and courtesy. If the individuals who are using the carts, and I'm talking about 24 years ago- Mm-hmm ... that this was addressed, speed and courtesy. If individual drivers, bicyclists, et cetera, used a little more courtesy, took a little bit of time and recognized what their speed was, the issue would not be there. I have difficulty even looking at the possibility of doing RPMs based upon the letter that we got from Kimley-Horn, May 2nd. The research, you mean. Hmm? The research that they had done. Well, but there are statements in here that are even lower key. There's a flat-out statement in Kimley-Horn's letter that says, "Therefore, we do not recommend installing RPMs on the multimodal paths apart from the recommendations provided in the areas." But there are some minor, they're not minor. I see it opening us up to some great liability. There's a paragraph in this letter from back in May of 2025, "Accessibility design is considered on shared use paths to accommodate pedestrians. Due to the fact that nearly all shared use paths are used by pedestrians, they fall under the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under ADA design guidelines, paths are required to have surfaces free of abrupt level changes and are required to have a stable, firm, and slip-resistant surface with a minimum clear width of 36 inches." Right. That kind of thing. Have somebody who's handicapped Hit one of those and fall. Yeah. Okay. Morgan and Morgan. Yeah, I think the Kimley-Horn letter, the research they did and everything, and looking at other places and so forth, was very, very good. Very well done. Oh, exceptionally so. And I concur. I think that I'm not in favor of the RPMs. I appreciate- Only the way that they recommended it on sharp corners, and edges, and things where there would be safety issues, and we've done that. So I think we've done what needs to be done with regards to the RPMs. And I appreciate what Supervisor Biddle was saying about- Yeah, me too ... knowing the will or determination of the people, but this is one of those cases of, as representative government, they elected us to make some of these decisions. And I think the decision that we have made thus far is in the best interests of the community. I don't want to face a million-dollar lawsuit because somebody fell and has a permanent injury who is already injured. I think I spent 12 years in public safety, and I have a good idea of the accident rates on the paths, and almost every accident that we dealt with had to do with speed and courtesy. Probably the worst accident has to go back to about 2005. Young man who shouldn't have been driving a golf cart in the first place and shouldn't have had the cart that he had, was a Wii, which was manufactured by Ford Motors. Big cart. Probably doing 30 miles an hour, coming around a curve, and ran head-on into another golf cart. Right. Speed, and this kid had no idea of courtesy, and the couple in the golf cart were very severely injured and spent a long time in recuperation. And fortunately, because it was back before any of the renovations were done on the paths, we didn't wind up being sued, but we wound up in a situation where it came close. And I'd like to know the will also, but I believe that as representatives- Well, I was kind of hoping that we would have a nice, convenient out with what Mark was going to say, that in his legal opinion, that he would concur that kind of thing. But yet there was another engineering study after the one that they did, the original one that we've been hanging our hat on all these years. And they talk about consistency, and I'm seeing district after district, after district after district, putting that thing in. All I'm saying is, I don't want our citizens showing up in mass here someday and wondering, "Why in the hell didn't you guys do this? Everybody else is doing it," kind of a thing. Not that we should fall in line with that. And I typically agree completely, Gail, that I don't want to wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit, but I think that Mark's legal opinion here on this thing kind of made it so that we can make a decision, so if we're comfortable in making the decision on behalf of them. All I was stating was I did not feel comfortable in having a pulse of the people and what they would want, and if we can talk to them and say, "Well, we didn't do it because we don't want you and our district to get sued, and that's why we didn't do it. If the other districts want to subject themselves to that, so be it, but we're not going to do that." And that's fine with me. I'm just saying I would've felt better in giving a yay or a nay on this thing if I would've felt that we really had their collective input. So even though there may have been another study, and there was. There was. There've been several studies since. Issues like the ADA haven't changed. No. That position from the ADA is still there, and look, I came in here in a scooter, and I'm not about to be using the golf cart path or the multimodal path to take a walk. Right. I'm not taking a walk anywhere. You can take that. But I don't want to put the ADA, the individuals who do choose to use it... And I've seen people out there walking the path with their walkers. More power to them. Hey, that's what this place is all about. Live life to the fullest until the end. Mark, you were going to say something? Yeah. So no, I was just going to say, obviously, you know that you can get sued either way. You get sued because you don't have them, you get sued because you do have them. The question is, you need to balance it out, the engineering side of it versus the safety considerations and the considerations of what the public have experienced. So I don't see anything wrong, obviously, with what Supervisor Biddle said, and I understand your side as well. At the end of the day, we get sued because we don't have them. We use the engineering report as our evidence as to why we didn't do it. We get sued because we do have them. We use the legislative findings you make as a board for the safety and the health and the welfare of your residents as our defense for doing it. I don't think there's anything in any of those Kimley-Horn reports that said doing it would violate any laws. It didn't say it would violate the MUTCD. It didn't say it would violate anything. They looked at it from an engineering perspective. I have to look at it from a legal perspective. You have to look at it from a policy perspective and make your decision. And a safety perspective. And either way, you have defenses, is what I'm trying to say. And you can do it, but if you elect to do it, you should make findings as to why you're doing it based on the safety and the health and the welfare, and other policy considerations as to why you're doing it. But you certainly have that. Well, I like the ADA argument. That's a good one to hang your hat on right there. Because we've even allotted for U-shaped driveways because it would be in compliance with the ADA. Right. So I don't want to go against anything that's going to jeopardize that kind of thing, which makes it a lot easier for us to sit here and make a decision, far as I'm concerned. Yeah. I guess the next question is, do you want to look at it further? Because again, I don't think those reports say it violates the ADA. Do you even want to look at that? Are you comfortable saying, "Look, I think we've got enough information now to say we don't want to proceed." And that's certainly, again, a board decision. Taking your stand, and I understand this, and I agree with it. We can be sued for not having them. We can be sued for having them. Sure. Either way. But I do believe, and I'm not an attorney, but I would have to say that I believe we would stand a much better chance of defending ourself in that case if we got sued for not having them. This letter is fairly definitive and also talks about sections from the MUTCD that do not endorse the idea of raised pavement markers. So I think we stand a better chance of defending ourself with the position that we've taken currently than if we put them in. Yeah. Okay. All right. Over this item. If not, we'll move on to the next. Yes, sir. The following two items, the first was to determine who was responsible for the pole that was in the Buena Vista Boulevard roundabout. That is the responsibility of SECO, and we did make sure that they were aware. Who was it the responsibility of? SECO. Yeah. Are they responsible for paying for the replacements as well? Yes. Okay. And then- That answers a question. Yes, sir. I can stop saying. Yes. As soon as we get a timeframe from Sumter County, we will provide it to the board. Okay. Yeah, I notice I keep looking when I go by, nothing going on there. So, let's see. Oops, I got to go back here. Informational items only now, right? Yep. And staff is happy to answer any questions on items A through D if any supervisor would like us to. Financial statements, district property management monthly reports, SECO LED lighting transition. I've seen the letters and information about that. Oh, ambulance in the parking lot. Ooh. And the CD3 public hearing updates. Anything regarding any of them? I'm sorry? No. Okay. District manager reports. Yep. AC, info on that? Yep. I'm just happy to answer any questions if you have on the Amenity Authority Committee meeting. Yeah, I read them all online, so it's pretty obvious. The district council reports. Just one report, your 2026 legislative update. Chapter 2026-164 Florida Laws was passed. And what that does is creates Section 190.0071, establishing recall procedures for elected officials and elected supervisors. Amends Section 190.006, making elected supervisors subject to the new recall procedures. Revises the definition of compact urban mixed-use district in Section 190.003. And finally, it clarifies that the synthetic turf preemption does not restrict the CDD from enforcing deed restrictions. I think that's one of the more critical pieces of that legislation, because as you know, there were lots of questions when they passed the prior legislation that was going to preempt any entity from prohibiting the use of synthetic turf. Well, now they've removed CDDs from there, so it's status quo. We can continue to enforce our deed restrictions as they relate to the use of synthetic turf. Then finally, House Bill 145 was a bill that sought to increase the governmental sovereign immunity limits. That was vetoed, so that's status quo as well. We still have the same caps as we've had in the past with regard to liability. Any questions? And that's my only report. Okay. Supervisor comments. Terry? None. D**k? Nope. Gil? I just have a question. I should've jumped on this earlier with DPM, and this is tongue in cheek. I'm not interested in pushing this, but in the DPM report, the picture, they talk about the entrance sign being replaced with the area for the Glenbrook and Bel Aire. This also has Harmswood. Harmswood isn't ours. Are they sharing? That's why I say it's tongue in cheek. It may only be a matter of a couple of dollars, but we went around the block over who belonged to Harmswood in the first place, and we got Summer Chase, and District 2 got Harmswood. We thought it was the other way around, and we'd been paying for Harmswood's stuff for a long time, and we made a trade-off, and there was some money, but the sign, did District 2 share the cost? It's tongue in cheek. Mike's coming. I could probably pull the paperwork out of my pocket, but... Morning, Mike Harris, district property management. I believe that was just a mistake. They go and take pictures of all the projects. I think we just cut and paste the wrong- Well. Picture in there. Okay. But I will- We'll make sure ... make sure. See, to me, it goes back to issues with... I raised the same issue with one of th