Griffin Lakes Community Development District
www.griffinlakescdd.com

Danielle Christie, Chair Benny Barak, Vice Chairman
Teresa West, Assistant Secretary Anina Venuti, Assistant Secretary Karen Warfel, Assistant Secretary

July 2, 2026

Seat 5: Danielle Christie – (C)		
Seat 3: Benny Barak – (V.C)		
Seat 1: Teresa West – (A.S.)		
Seat 2: Anina Venuti – (A.S.)		
Seat 4: Karen Warfel – (A.S.)		

Griffin Lakes
Community Development District
Agenda
Thursday		The Villas at Harbor Isles HOA Offices July 2, 2026	2317 Clipper Place, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 9:00a.m.			Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 293 482 562 570 60 and Passcode: 7Hk9Tr69
+1 872-240-4685 and Phone Conference ID: 678 855 603#

Roll Call

Approval of Minutes of the May 7, 2026 Meeting – Page 3

Staff Reports
Attorney – Memorandum – 2026 Legislative Update – Page 28

Engineer – Proposal for Digitization of Existing Infrastructure Data into ArcGIS – Page 34

Field
Lake 4 Hedge Hard Cut and Clean up Proposal with Cutter's Edge – Page 36

CDD Palms and Hardwoods Tree Trimming Proposals
Cutter's Edge – Page 37

JLS Tree Service – Page 39

Manager

Financial Reports
Approval of Check Register – Page 43
Approval of Unaudited Financials – Page 48

Supervisors Requests and Audience Comments

Adjournment
Meetings are open to the public and may be continued to a time, date and place certain. For more information regarding this CDD please visit the website: https://www.griffinlakescdd.com

MINUTES OF MEETING GRIFFIN LAKES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Griffin Lakes Community Development District was held on Thursday, May 7, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at 2317 Clipper Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Danielle Christie	Chairman
Benny Barak	Vice Chairman
Teresa West	Assistant Secretary
Karen Warfel	Assistant Secretary
Anina Venuti	Assistant Secretary

Also present were:

Ginger Wald	District Counsel
Andrew Gill	District Manager
Jason Gitel	Governmental Management Services
Angel Camacho	District Engineer
Amber Venzal	HOA Property Manager
Several residents	(by phone)

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

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the
April 2, 2026 Meeting
Mr. Gill: Let’s jump down to item No. 2 in your packet which is on page 3, these are the minutes of your last meeting of April 2, 2026 meeting. You’ve had a chance to review those, are there any additions, deletions or corrections from the Board? Hearing none, I’ll ask for a motion to approve those.

On MOTION by Ms. Christie seconded by Ms. Warfel with all in favor, the Minutes of the April 2, 2026 Meeting were approved.	
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Shoreline Erosion
Proposals for Lakes 1 and 2
Landshore Enterprises, LLC
Ecological Improvements
2 Part Proposal
Crosscreek Environmental, Inc.
The Dock Experts, LLC

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Lake Restoration Project
Mr. Gill: Item No. 3 is consideration of the shoreline erosion proposals for lakes 1 and 2, and then we also have item No. 5 which is discussion of lake restoration project, so I’d like to potentially move those up together, and Angel if you don’t mind we can go through all of those together.
Mr. Camacho: Sure.
Mr. Gill: So, we can jump down to page 28 or your packets or you IPads, so if you scroll down to that you’ll see item 3A which is start of the proposals from Landshore and I’ll hand it over to Angel.
Mr. Camacho: Thank you. So, we received three proposals for the shoreline restoration for lakes 1 and 2, which includes the north and south bulkheads. The proposal that we had from Landshore previously was from August of last year, so they submitted a new proposal and included a 3% increase, I think it was originally $421,000, and now it’s $432,430. The second proposal is from Ecological Improvements, now although we told the contractors to propose geotube which is what was placed there originally at north lakes 1 and 2, Ecological came with a different approach. It’s restoring the shoreline with geo synthetic mats anchored in, but their proposal came out to a lot of money at $1,165,031.43. Then we received another proposal and this is a 2-part proposal, and the reason it’s 2 parts is because Crosscreek Environmental, while they do geotubes, they don’t replace the bulkheads. So, we got a separate proposal from The Dock Experts to give us a proposal just for bulkheads and Crosscreek Environmental for the geotubes, and together it would be $485,640.
Mr. Gill: So, a little bit more than Landshore.

and 2.

Mr. Barak: Well, it’s quite a bit more, it’s $50,000 more.
Mr. Camacho: Yes, so you have three proposals we received permits for lakes 1

Ms. Warfel: and this is probably for the engineer, is there a reason why you want

to go with geotubes, is that because that’s what is existing?
Mr. Camacho: Correct.
Ms. Venzal: Ok, because I’m trying to understand the project a little bit more, I met with a couple of vendors who will not do geotubes because they say they break as the grass grows over them because of the plastic, and it was not their recommended method, so I have two other bids that I did obtain for different material that I’d like to forward to you guys to review and see what’s best for the community because the bids that I have seen were all under $400,000 which is a big savings.
Ms. Wald: Yes, but you’re missing the bulkheads, so this is a 2-part, and putting it together, and the bulkhead is really the expensive part, not the geotube.
Ms. Venzal: I understand that.
Ms. Wald: And we’ve been talking about this since last year. Ms. Venzal: I’m aware, and I understand.
Ms. Wald: So, it would have been good too if you had information provided, and Angel there’s how many different methods that you can do?
Mr. Camacho: There’s a lot, the geotubes are geo synthetic, the way Landshore does it is they have one as submerged, and the second tube which is the tube that gets cut open with a coconut net on top to allow some vegetation, and that’s been a proven method. There’s been these geotubes in place for 30 or 40 years with no issue. I’m not sure what other methods you got from contractors.
Ms. Venzal: Yes, it’s up to you guys, and I don’t know if you guys are voting on it
today.
Ms. Wald:  It’s on the agenda to decide today, there’s rip rap, speaking of the
Villages, you’ll see that, it’s the most expensive but, it’s the prettiest but, you’re also limited as to what you can do here in these types of lakes because you do have these wooden bulkheads, and the type of methods of you can also proceed forward and then you’d be changing the look.

Mr. Camacho: Correct.
Ms. Wald: There’s the, what’s the one with the concrete that Landshore does?
Mr. Camacho: Yes, so there’s also woven concrete mats and that’s a lot more expensive.
Ms. Wald: Yes, a lot more expensive.
Mr. Camacho: It’s potentially the same thing, restoring the shoreline, but they use mats for vegetation purposes. (inaudible comment)
Ms. Wald: Right, and you see one method that’s a lot more expensive from Ecological Improvements as well, and it’s your recommendation that goetubes work here, they’ve worked in the past, it’s been around over 20 years, and you don’t see an issue with that as well.
Mr. Camacho: Correct and one thing I also wanted to note, Crosscreek Environmental, although they do geotubes, they don’t put clean fill inside, they dredge it, and that’s not recommended because we’re not sure of the organic material that’s within the lakes, including silt and that’s why we propose clean fill to restore the shoreline that’s been lost due to erosion. That’s something they use, so their proposal came back as geotubes but using material from the lake which you know the material from the lake is the same material that’s was on the shoreline and again without even testing them, it’s recommended to take a fresh approach.
Ms. Wald: And Angel, the work that had been previously done by Landshore how is that holding up?
Mr. Camacho: The geotubes are still in tacked with vegetation around them.
Ms. Wald: So, everything looks good, there doesn’t seem to be any issues since we did that a while ago.
Mr. Camacho: Correct. Ms. Wald: Ok.
Mr. Barak: And just hearing that they break, she said that they break but, we’ve had geotubes since when?
Ms. Wald: 25 years.
Mr. Barak:	And we’re not replacing because they’re broken, we’re replacing because we need to replace the bulkheads and everything.

Ms. Wald: The erosion.
Mr. Barak: Ok, so I don’t see why there’s a need to spend significantly more money to do something prettier when this has been working just fine.
Ms. Wald: And you also have a professional engineer that has made this recommendation and obtained the proposals, and you’ve utilized it already in your community.
Mr. Barak: Right, so it doesn’t make sense to like do two other ways that are completely different and spend more money.
Ms. Wald: Exactly.
Ms. Christie: And since the beginning it’s not like we had the maintenance that we’ve been having lately on these lakes, where as I think they were kind of abandoned in the beginning of this property, and that maybe be like 15 years I would say.
Ms. Wald: Right, maintenance is better. Ms. Christie: Yes.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Wald: Do you have any more questions for Angel? Mr. Barak: No.
Ms. Wald: Does anybody want to ask Angel any other questions, or concerns. Remember you’ve already had your increase from last year for this year’s budget to pay for this project.
Ms. Christie: What was the amount that we talked about?
Mr. Gill: So, you budgeted $378,000 total and it’s on your budget on page 2, and that was adopted last year, and I think it is a little bit more, and you do have the funds and then a couple of the options to project over the next few years to cover all 5 lakes when we get there.
Mr. Barak: Meaning we don’t need another increase. Ms. Wald: For this project.
Mr. Barak: Right.
Mr. Gill: And for the options I gave you none of them have an increase.

Ms. Wald: Well, let’s not talk about that just yet, what we’re talking about is, is the money there, I think the question is, is the money there right now for us to move forward to bid the contract.
Mr. Barak: Right.
Ms. Wald: The answer is yes, like we talked about last time. Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Wald: That’s there, it’s a little bit more than what we had before but, it’s like
$11,000 more, which you still have the money as we discussed, that’s really the question, what Andrew is talking about is the next fiscal year which we’ll get to later.
Mr. Barak: Got it.
Ms. Wald: So, what would the Board like to do, does someone want to make a motion?
Ms. Warfel: Is there an official staff recommendation? Ms. Wald: Angel, what’s your recommendation?
Mr. Camacho: Based on the proposals received and in speaking with the vendors, I think Landshore is the most qualified, including in the proposal is obtaining the permit, revising the plans that were already done to include the bulkhead and everything, and that would be my recommendation.
Ms. Wald: Ok.
Ms. Warfel: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Gill: So with that, if the Board would like to go with Landshore, I’m just looking for a motion to approve the shoreline erosion proposal with Landshore Enterprises for lakes 1 and 2, and authorize staff to draft and execute a contract with Landshore for those services in the amount of $432,430.

On MOTION by Mr. Barak seconded by Ms. West with all in favor, accepting the proposal from Landshore Enterprises, LLC for the shoreline erosion project for lakes 1 and 2 in the amount of $432,430 and also authorizing staff to draft an agreement to be executed by the proper District officials was approved.	

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Resolution
#2026-02 Approving the Proposed Fiscal Year 2027 Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr. Gill: Alright, so let’s jump down to item No. 4, this is consideration of resolution #2026-02. This resolution approves the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and sets the public hearing to adopt that budget. I’ve provided each of you with hard copies of the budget that I’d like to go through briefly and then we can figure out which option you’d like to go with and then set the date and time for the public hearing.  So, on the hard copy of the budget I’m going to jump around a bit and I think the page that we should start at is you jump down to page 6 if it. So, page 6 shows a chart for the lake restoration project, I think that’s the most important thing for these 3 options. So, if you jump down to the projects you’ll see that in fiscal year 2026 you have allotted lakes 1 and 2, in 2027 you have lakes 4 and 5 to be completed, and then in 2028 you would like to get lake 3 done, and that total amount is roughly a little over $1 million dollars,
$1,061,000. So, that gives some perspective to the various options that are going to be covered on the first page of the budget.
Ms. Warfel: I have a question, so as we know costs rise, and as we go year by year, so how are we guaranteed that once we get 2028, which is 2 years from now, that number $370,000 isn’t going to be $570,000.
Ms. Wald: And there are no guarantees in life, but Angel and I communicated yesterday, and I asked for him to provide what the number was when it was originally provided and then we can do the multiplier for the increase of, and normally what we do in construction is about 10% of that increase.
Ms. Warfel: Per unit?
Ms. Wald: Yes, so that number was $370,000?
Mr. Camacho: It was $370,000 but I think we talked about probably $370,000 was going to be $470,000.
Ms. Christie: I mean it’s just out of hand.

Ms. Wald: Well, there’s nothing we can do about that but, the question is timing-wise, and again, Angel and I went through it, timing-wise as to when it needs to be done, we know it does need to be done now, we’re doing the other two.
Ms. Warfel: But there’s no way to lock in the number?
Ms. Wald: No, the only way to lock it in from a legal perspective, the only way to lock it in is to go out and get the proposal, have within those proposals for the contract that they will maintain those prices for “X” period of time.
Ms. Warfel: Right.
Ms. Wald: And good luck getting that, and I’ve only been able to do it once, and the time period was only 6 months, and the reason why they, and actually it was Landshore, and it was a different community. The reason why they did that is they knew we were raising our rates for the next fiscal year, and they knew we had to wait to get the money for March but, they were holding that price because we went ahead and did the bid process beforehand and we locked it in with a contract with that caveat.
Ms. Warfel: Ok.
Ms. Wald: But for 2 years, you’re not going to get that. Now, you have different options as Andrew was talking about and you can also wait, and do an increase, and Angel can speak to 3, but we’ve all seen the reports, maybe you haven’t but, 3 has some time due, and have some time left.
Ms. Venuti: Which one is 3?
Mr. Barak: That’s where the pool is, I think. Mr. Camacho: Yes.
Ms. Wald: I don’t know which one it is but, the estimate is that you’re looking for fiscal year 2028, which is 2 years from now.
Ms. Warfel: Right.
Ms. Wald: So you can do is what you did before which is not increase anything, wait, and get those proposals as you get closer, and then just do that one increase again when it’s right, and it might not have to be 2028, you might get another year out of it, or you can just go back to where you were, go back to your original rates from the year before and then just do a smaller increase which is another one of the options that are here, so you’re collecting over two years to pay for that, or something around those

lines. Now, keep in mind, this is just your proposed budget, you’re still going to have probably sometime in early August, the public hearing on the final budget like we did last year, and we’ll do it over at the hotel if we’re going to increase, and you can always decrease at that time but we have to get this done by June 15th, that’s the deadline. So, some options have been provided to you but, I think the important thing is for this project to get that information from Angel because that’s why we talked about it.
Mr. Gill: Right, so if you look at page 2 of the budget, there’s another chart that shows the three options, at the very top and the key for the options is how much money is going into the lake restoration project for next fiscal year. So, option 1 puts no additional funds in the lake restoration project fund, option 2 puts $400,000 in, and option 3 puts in $320,000, so depending on whether or not you want to do the assessment decrease of $1,000 which is option 1, keep the assessments flat which is option 2, or have a $200 decrease which is option 3 will determine which one you select but, based on what I’ve heard that why it seems like you all need to start building these coffers for these large scale projects moving forward especially with the costs increasing. So, it’s ultimately up to the Board, what we set today is as Ginger said the cap, so you could say today, sure we want to keep the assessments flat, we want to go with option 2, and then at the public hearing you may say, ok we actually want to reduce it, we don’t want to keep it flat, we want to have sort of have the tax bill be a little bit less, and lesser, you can do that, but what you can’t do is at the public hearing say, hey you want to raise it, we wanted to keep it flat but, actually we want to raise it another
$600,000 you wouldn’t be able to increase it at that point, so that’s what you all should keep in mind now as we go through the process whether to keep it flat or reduce it now, or any other option.
Mr. Barak:  I’m just curious, the difference between option 2 and 3, why the
$80,000, is that just like a random number?
Mr. Gill: I think there was a conversation maybe Patrick had, I don’t know if he specific Board members saying a potential $200 increase could be doable for the community versus keeping it flat.
Ms. Christie: So brining that back down and taking of the $1,000.

Mr. Barak: It’s not taking of $1,000, it’s taking off $200 from the $1,000, from the normal, before we started any of these projects.
Mr. Camacho: That’s correct.
Mr. Barak: And what was the project we already paid for already, what was that? Ms. Wald: Those were the other lakes.
Mr. Gill: Lakes 1 and 2, what we just proposed, what you just approved the proposal for.
Ms. Wald: The one that you just approved which is why did the $1,000 increase last year for this fiscal year, is the one that we’re getting ready to do right now that you just choice.
Mr. Barak: For 2027 then.
Ms. Wald: No, it’s for now, and they did other work before. Mr. Barak: What was the other work?
Ms. Wald: Angel.
Mr. Camacho: So, lakes 1 and 2, and we had two different contractors, Landshore, and the scope of work was the bulkhead, the wooden bulkhead so the tops were rotting out, and there were posts that were also rotting out so we had a contractor replace those, and then Landshore did the shoreline only around those bulkheads for lakes 1, 2, 4 and 5. Lakes 4 and 5 had a lot more shoreline restoration, but all the bulkheads in all the lakes, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 had the top ones replaced, so that’s what we’ve done previously. So, this proposal now is to compete the shoreline on the east and west side of lakes 1 and 2 and remove the wooden bulkheads with a new wall that’s not wooden. (inaudible comment) Especially lake 3 I think it was all the way to the homeowners backyards.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Christie: Yes, that’s the one around the pool. Mr. Barak: Right, ok.
Ms. Warfel: So what is proposed under 2027 on 4 and 5, like what’s left for 4 and 5?
Mr. Camacho: 4 and 5 is just replacing the bulkhead from wood to the new material. (inaudible comment)

Ms. Warfel: Ok, so we fixed last time just to make it through and then this would be replacing it with that alternative material.
Mr. Camacho: Correct.
Ms. Christie: So why didn’t we do that from the beginning? Mr. Barak: Because it would be a lot more money.
Ms. Wald: And it was also, I’m not going to say emergency, but it was situation where you were having bigger problems, and you can see how long it takes to increase the assessments, we’re not a HOA or a condo association, everything is collected per the taxes, and you can only do this once a year, unless we go out for a bond, which was an option when we talked about it but, nobody wanted another debt for a long period of time. So with that, it takes a while to collect that money and then once you have money, which you do, then you have to get the proposals, so it just takes a while.
Ms. Christie: Ok.
Mr. Barak: So we did the geotubes thing already for the other lakes? Mr. Camacho: For 4 and 5, yes.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Wald: And that’s what we were talking about, those were done. Mr. Barak: Got it.
Ms. Wald: So, 4 and 5 to that aspect is done but, you don’t have to do anything else if you don’t want to.
Ms. Warfel: I think what we need to do here is for the sanity of the community and the owners, I think however this has been done in the past I don’t know but, I think that some type of letter needs to go out explaining all of this to the resident owners.
Mr. Barak: Yes.
Ms. Warfel: Because I know in the past, and Danielle and I have had a conversation on the street about this, people don’t understand any of this, and they don’t know what’s going on, they don’t even know what the CDD does but, now that I’m understanding exactly what’s happening here, and I’m pretty well versed in the community as a whole just as a resident, this will break it down so that people aren’t having a fit when they see, oh there’s going to be another $800 assessment on the taxes.

Ms. Wald: Well, if you’re going to increase, letters will go out to the residents. Ms. Warfel: They do, and I understand that.
Ms. Wald: You have to put those out and you can put as much information as you want in them that’s why at the last meeting we had it over at the hotel because we were expecting to have a lot of people show up, and nobody showed up.
Mr. Barak: Well, they didn’t show up until they got the bill. Ms. Venzal: It says in your agenda has a very nice little flyer. Mr. Gill: Yes, we’re going to go through that.
Ms. Wald: Yes, and that’s in there. Mr. Barak: Yes, ok.
(At this point several people were talking at one time, and no one conversation could be heard)

Mr. Barak: And nobody is getting an increase because what you’re comparing it from last year, none of these options give you an increase, it’s either stay the same, or lower it.
Ms. Wald: Exactly, so going back to the budget, and understanding again, this is just proposed, we can always lower it later.
Mr. Barak: So, I think more for people’s sanity, it would be nice to have some sort of relieve as far as some financial relieve especially because we got this roofing project going on, and that will start in June, all the way through January, and you’re going to have additional monthly payments, so I definitely think that a decrease of some sort is in order. Would it be possible to have because he even said that lake 3 is not an emergency, so is there another option that we could have where it could be even less.
Ms. Wald: You can do whatever you want and like I said, this is just the proposed. So, let’s just say for the sake of argument, you chose option 3, which is your current levels being reduced by $200, you get to the final budget hearing, and you decide, you know what, we did some more sharpening of our pencil, so to speak, we looked at the budget a little more in depth, and we think with increases and what we have, we can go lower and say, well we can do another year before we have to do the lake, and save some additional money each year into a reserve account, and we

believe we can lower that another $300, just for sake of argument, and then at the public hearing, now you’ve lowered it another $300.
Mr. Barak: Right.
Ms. Wald: Or you can take the $1,000 that you had increased last year for this year and remove it, you still are not adopting a final budget until that public hearing but, again, you want to be realistic for your proposed but, understanding if something happens you want to be able to have the money as well, this is what you’re earmarking towards the future because you know these projects are coming.
Mr. Barak: Yes.
Ms. Wald: But that’s up to you, it is completely up to the Board what you want to do, if you want to change numbers around you can say, hey instead of $200, let’s do
$300 now, that’s also an option, they just redone the numbers.
Mr. Gill: Right, and then between now and the public hearing, I assume you all will have interactions with community members and understand whether or not they would be ok with minus $200, minus $400, minus $500 but at this meeting as Ginger just said, you have to set the cap because we can’t increase it afterwards. So, I would probably advise against at this meeting going with the reduction of $1,000 right now because when we come back in August you can’t go back up but, alternatively if you went with option 2 or 3 now, you could always come back and say, ok, we want it to be little bit lower and get a little bit more relieve at that meeting, and between now that meeting you’ll be in contact with Patrick, and our accountants and they can change the budget for you on the fly.
Mr. Barak: Terry doesn’t look to happy.
Ms. West: I only think of the dollar signs, you know that we’ve been having to pay around here, and I guess maybe a minus, the 3rd option, is probably one of the better ones or no, I mean I think it’s very difficult to figure out what everybody really wants.
Mr. Barak: Right.
Ms. West: So we need to try to appease them a little bit and do the right thing and not raising anything, and maybe about next year, maybe we can lay off for another

year, and to me that’s a good sign that at least we’re trying to save some money here instead of spending it.
Mr. Barak: Yes, I mean my only concern with that is, when you say lay off you mean completely do away with the $1,000, is that what you mean, because I just think when you have these big fluctuations, like ok get this done, and then the following year you’ll like oh we’re going to jack it up, so that’s my only concern, so it’s like I want to kind of find this balance to where we’re still able to, like you said, fill up our coffers a little bit and then the following year, if we do need to increase it, it won’t be that much of an increase so it’s like you don’t want too much of an extreme one way or the other, I feel like and by next year we’ll be done with the roofing so that will kind of go away too so I think we should try to, I mean I kind of like option 3 at this point, and then lowering it from there realistically, and personally.
Ms. Christie: I agree. Ms. West: I’ll take that. Ms. Wald: Option 3?
Ms. West: Yes, I’ll take that.
Ms. Warfel: We can pick option 3 but, we can lower it a little bit more. Ms. Wald: Yes, when you get to the final budget hearing.
Ms. Warfel: Yes.
Ms. Wald: So, you also need to set the public hearing date, and we were looking at early August?
Mr. Gill: Yes, so your scheduled meeting is August 6, 2026. Mr. Barak: Is that also on a Thursday, I’m assuming?
Mr. Gill: Yes, it’s always the first Thursday of the month in this location.
Ms. Wald: And do we want to have it at the hotel, we think we’re going to have more people or do you just want to have it here?
Ms. West: Can we have it here? Ms. Wald: You can.
Mr. Barak: Well, we had quite a few people for the Board of Directors meeting.
Ms. Wald: Really, well when we raised it $1,000, we had three people show up in the hotel, I think we’re ok.

Ms. West: Right.
Mr. Barak: Yes, so August 6th? Mr. Gill: Yes.
Ms. Wald: So, does August 6th work for everybody? Ms. Christie: Yes.
Ms. West: Yes.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so I’ll read the motion.
Ms. Wald: Yes, go ahead read the motion.
Mr. Gill: Ok, so we have resolution #2026-02, approving the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and setting the public hearing, again that’s the budget listed going with option 3 listed, it sets the public hearing for August 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in The Villas at Harbor Isles HOA offices, 2317 Clipper Place, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312, I’m just looking for a motion.

On MOTION by Ms. Christie seconded by Ms. West with all in favor, Resolution #2026-02 approving the proposed Fiscal Year Budget, with Option #3, and setting the Public Hearing on August 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. at 2317 Clipper Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida was approved.	
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion	of	Lake	Restoration
Project (Cont.)
(This item was addressed earlier at this meeting)

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Mr. Gill: We’ll go to staff report, Ginger.

Attorney
Ms. Wald: I don’t have anything for today, I’ll have something for next time with the legislative update.
Mr. Gill: Ok, anything else Ginger?
Ms. Wald: No, like I said we’re putting the finishing touches right now because we’re waiting for the Governor to sign more of these bills into law and so we’ll have the legislative update but, we’ll send it to you and then it will be sent to everybody so you

can have that memo that we do every year. Your insurance is going to go up I hate to tell you because sovereign immunity went up and it’s going to go up even higher next year, so you’re going to see an increase at some point but, all these folks have already taken that into account for that, that’s all I have.
Ms. Christie: So we just did new roofs so that we could get a lower insurance policy and now it’s not going to matter.
Ms. Wald: No, that’s a different type of insurance. Ms. Christie: Ok.
Ms. Wald: That’s all I have, so I think you’re up to Angel now.

Engineer
Mr. Gill: Yes, engineer, anything else for us?
Mr. Camacho: No, I think that’s it, unless anyone has any questions regarding the restoration project. I did send Patrick a proposal for the GIS mapping system, I guess it wasn’t added to the agenda in time but buy the next meeting probably. So, as you’re aware of the GIS system that we have in this community is geared towards stormwater infrastructure where we map the whole inventory of all the pipes and there will be clean pictures, permits, you guys have additional infrastructure here, some landscaping tracts, irrigation so this proposal was to include the additional infrastructure, I think there was a question as to who’s responsible for maintaining the side of the lake from the wall, and now we maintain the wall and there’s a certain section of it. So, with this new system we would implement the whole CDD infrastructure into GIS map. So, on the GIS map you’ll find any maintenance agreements with the condo association, any permits tied to the additional tracts for irrigation, where the irrigation systems are, so if someone has any questions on ownership or maintenance, now they’re included, the only thing included now is the stormwater, so that’s the proposal I sent to Patrick.
Mr. Gill: Ok.
Ms. Wald: So we can have that for next month. Mr. Camacho: Yes.
Ms. Wald: Ok, and let’s get it to the condo association too so they can see it. Mr. Gill: Yes.

Mr. Barak: So we went ahead and approved this project, right? Ms. Wald: Yes.
Mr. Barak: So when does that start? Mr. Camacho: The lake?
Mr. Barak: Yes.
Mr. Camacho: Ok, so I spoke to Adam at Landshore about two projects in the south, and they’re finishing those, so I told all the contractors that today was the actual meeting and then I would advise them, but once they increase that contract and you voting it previously, I just need to get it to counsel, but they’re ready to mobilize once it’s executed. So, in the interim we’ll have them pick up the permits, so I’m expecting the summer start date, right in July.
Mr. Barak: And just if there’s a hurricane or something like they may have to move stuff, and remove all this, that doesn’t cost us anything.
Mr. Camacho: No.
Ms. Wald: That’s on them. Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Venzal: I have a couple of quick questions, can you also have Landshore provide me with their certificate of insurance as well with us.
Ms. Wald: Yes, it’s part of the requirement. Mr. Gill: Yes.
Ms. Venzal: Ok, so just get that over to me so we can have it before the start date so I can notify the residents around those lakes, and then also as far as the contract goes can you just make sure that any warranties are provided.
Ms. Wald: Everything is in the contract. Ms. Venzal: Ok.
Ms. Wald: It’s a standard contract, the same one that we used before.
Mr. Camacho: And we’ll have our preconstruction meeting, and I’ll invite you. Ms. Venzal: Yes, that would be great, thank you.
Mr. Gill: Ok, alright, thank you Angel.

Field – Monthly Report
Mr. Gill: Field report, Jason.
Mr. Gitel: Yes, not much today on the field report, just letting you know that we discussed for the green buttonwood, the hazard that was on Merriner Court on that corner that was removed.
Ms. West: I’m sorry what was it?
Mr. Gitel: The green buttonwood that was along the corner there. Ms. West: Ok.
Mr. Gitel: And you can see that it’s empty right now but, the clusia should grow to each other after a while, so I’m just letting you know it looks a little bit bare there. You can also see the royal palm on Griffin Road that was dying out, that was removed as well, so that’s really all the big things we had. So, Southeast Land Water Management has taken over the lakes, so they’ve been doing their work, I’m not sure if you’ve seen their trucks or anything but, they’re out here. Then one thing Patrick told me to bring up is Cutters Edge, we have the agreement that we were talking about, but we were trying to talk about some things but, we’ve been trying to get a hold of them for weeks and no replies, so things are going a little bit slower and we’re trying to get things done but, we’re not getting responses so we didn’t know, like maybe it’s, do we want to go out for another bid for somebody else for the CDD landscaping side. I mean it’s very basic of what needs to be done here, I know a lot of times when companies want to take over irrigation and landscaping but, we can figure that out but, if we want to get things done quicker and more efficiently and better communication, maybe we look into that. So, if that’s something you want us to look into then that’s just what he’s asking, do we want to do that or what do we want to do.
Ms. West: So, I think we should.
Mr. Barak: Well, I’m just curious Amber, do you have a problems with them?
Ms. Venzal: No, because honestly we were reaching out to him because I had an irrigation issue and he followed up with me pretty quickly.
Mr. Gitel: Ok, so Alex and Michael, we just haven’t really gotten anything from them, so if you guys are getting responses great, but on the CDD side I guess, what we’re doing is we’re not really communicating, and we’re having a lot of trouble with it.

Mr. Gill: And she might be able to help.
Mr. Barak: Yes, is there any way that maybe you could say, hey can you reach out to the CDD side.
Ms. Venzal: I can, I meet with them once a week.
Mr. Gitel: Yes, and we were supposed to meet today but he canceled. Ms. Venzal: Ok, so I can probably reach to them.
Mr. Gill: Yes, if you can work some magic and help Jason that would be appreciated.
Ms. Venzal: Ok, I will say that we have a new condo Board here and who might also be open to shopping landscape as well but, I don’t know that they’re ready to make that decision right now, we just had the election in mid-April but, I’m not opposed to it. Just definitely let me know when you have issues reaching out to them because I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Gitel: Ok, for sure. Mr. Gill: Thank you.
(At this point several people were talking at one time, and no one conversation could be heard)

Mr. Gill: Ok, anything else Jason? Mr. Gitel: No, that’s it.
Mr. Gill: Ok.

Manager – Discussion of CDD Flyer
Mr. Gill: Jumping down to District manager, so thanks to me and Patrick there’s a CDD flyer, I believe this is going to be potentially sent out to the community. It looks really nice, and at first glance I’d just like to make sure that the TEAMS information is updated.
Ms. Warfel: I’ve been around and I worked with Patrick last week to make sure it was updated per what work was done over the last year, and I’ve changed tenses of words, and he double checked it, and I think he worked with everybody and Ginger and made sure about that.
Ms. Wald: Yes, and it looked fine to me, the revisions that we did.

it.

Ms. Warfel: And last meeting Amber offered to send it out once we’re good with

Ms. Venzal: So he can just send it because this is the update one so he can just

send me just the file in it and I can email blast it out.
Ms. Wald: The Board’s good with it, we don’t need a motion. Mr. Gill: Ok.
Ms. Wald: Is everything good? Ms. Christie: Yes.
Ms. Wald: Ok, then we’re good to go.
Ms. West: I have a question, on 4 or 5, the one on the south side, is that 4? Mr. Camacho: No, that’s 5.
Ms. West: Ok, so you know the hill that goes up to the road, who’s land is that, is that HOA’s or is that CDD’s?
Mr. Camacho:	CDD it should be, you’re talking about the one that goes just around the lake bank area.
Ms. West: Right, and then it goes up. Mr. Camacho: Yes, that’s CDD.
(At this point several people were talking at one time, and no one conversation could be heard)

Mr. Barak: We don’t have irrigation? Ms. Wald: Not on lake banks.
Mr. Gitel: I can check that’s one thing I’ll do with the walk through next week, I’ll check it out because I noticed that too, so I’ll just get a better answer on that.
Ms. West: Ok.
Mr. Camacho: That’s lake 5. Mr. Gitel: Yes, lake 5.
(At this point several people were talking at one time, and no one conversation could be heard)

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Approval of Check Register
Approval of Unaudited Financials
Mr. Gill: Ok, let’s move down to item No. 7, which is financial reports, you have your check register and unaudited financials included starting on page 79 of your packet. If there are no questions, I’m just looking for a motion to approve those.

On MOTION by Mr. Barak seconded by Ms. Warfel with all in favor, the Check Register and the Unaudited Financials were approved.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors	Requests	and
Audience Comments
Mr. Gill: Supervisor’s requests and audience comments. Supervisors anything us for us?
Ms. Christie: No.
Ms. Wald: Did that person sign in on TEAMS? Mr. Gill: No.
Mr. Gitel: It said that she was unverified.
Ms. Venzal: Oh, I think she was having a TEAMS issue.
(At this point several people were talking at one time, and no one conversation could be heard)

Mr. Barak: I’m sorry, I just have one more question, I know you said that they were going to start sometime in the summer, but how long is the project going to take approximately?
Mr. Camacho: So, I have an engagement with Landshore to give me a construction schedule, and then I’ll know.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Wald: And we’ll get that for you as an update as soon as we get the contract.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. West: So, you don’t know when it’s exactly going to start? Mr. Camacho: By the next meeting I’ll have the schedule.

Ms. Wald: We just showed you.
Mr. Barak: Are we meeting next month?
Ms. Wald: If you need to, and if not, you don’t have to email can still be provided as to a summary because Angel will provide that information.
Mr. Barak: Right, ok, alright.
Ms. Warfel: I think maybe we could, if you want to hold off, maybe we can hold off until we have the date and we can add that into here saying that it’s going to start in the summer and it’s going to take approximately “X” number of months.
Ms. Wald: If you want to wait, you can. Mr. Barak: Yes.
Ms. Christie: Are there meeting dates that we don’t have going in the summer? Mr. Gill: No.
Ms. Wald: You have each month but, you don’t have to meet, so unless we don’t have any business we do not have to meet next month. Usually what will happen is they’re go out to everyone, is there anything you want to put on the agenda if then we need to meet for the June meeting, and if nothing, then we don’t have to have the meeting.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Christie: But we definitely have to meet in August. Mr. Barak: Right.
Ms. Wald: Yes.
Ms. Christie: And when does the notice go out to residents about the budget?
Ms. Wald: Well, since you’re not raising the assessments, it doesn’t have to go out but, if you want to send it out you can.
Ms. Warfel: Personally I think we should because it’s not raising from last year, but it is still raising from the base.
Ms. Wald:	And you can, and if you want those letters to go out then management can send those letters out.
Ms. Warfel: And how soon before the meeting does it have to go out?

Mr. Gill: You can send them with the flyer. So, if there’s an increase, it’s statutory we have to get it out 30 days before but, because this isn’t a statutory letter it could potentially go out with your flyer.
Ms. Wald: Whenever you want.
Mr. Barak: That’s a good idea because then at least you’re letting people know, hey it’s not going to go up but, we’re still going to have whatever we decide I guess.
Ms. Wald: You’ve reduced it by $200 and for August 6th.
Mr. Barak: Right, so we’re going to have a meeting to discuss whether or not we should lower it, so that’s a good idea.
Ms. Wald: Yes, you can put it that way, that’s not a problem. Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Venuti: And we have to do the registration again?
Ms. Wald: Oh yes, so July 1st is the deadline for your Form 1 but, you just did a Form 1, so you’re probably ok, but for everybody else you have to do your Form 1, you should be getting it this month by email.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Wald: So, you’ve done your Form 1 and you submitted it right?
Ms. Venuti: Yes, and I just called to confirm, it was like a whole drawn out thing because it takes time for them to receive it but, yes.
Ms. Wald: Ok, so you’re in. Ms. Venuti: Yes.
Ms. Wald: Ok, everybody else, they do it every year before July 1st, depending on when they got yours, you may not have to do it again until next year.
Ms. Venuti: They just got it Monday. Ms. Wald: Ok, so they will tell you.
Mr. Barak: Right, meaning they’ll email you.
Ms. Wald: They will send you the information, yes correct. Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Venuti: So, don’t worry about it.

Ms. Wald: Right, don’t worry about it. So, Andrew, make a notation for Jennifer to check on that to see if she has to do it again, and his office will do that for you because they keep records of all that information.
Ms. Venuti: So, is there anything I need to send to you?
Ms. Wald: Send the confirmation that they have your Form 1, you should have gotten a confirmation email.
Ms. Venuti: Ok, and they sent me a letter, like a final notice, and then I called them, and then they gave me a confirmation.
Ms. Wald: Then just give that to Andrew. Mr. Barak: Like a verbal confirmation?
Ms. Venuti: Yes, like a verbal confirmation.
Ms. Wald: Alright, never mind, just have Jennifer look it up and see what date it is, she’ll look it up.
Mr. Gill: Ok, and I just want to confirm at a past meeting in April did Patrick go over the Supervisor of Elections for November?
Ms. Wald: Yes, we did.
Mr. Barak: I think we talked about it. Mr. Gill: You did, ok.
Ms. Wald: April 2nd we did seats #1 and #2. Mr. Gill: Yes, correct.
Ms. Wald: We did the announcement last meeting. So, the other thing you have to do but, you have time is that 4 hours of ethics training but, it’s not due until the end of the year.
Mr. Barak: And you said the rest of us are going to get like the email letting us know to do that?
Ms. Wald: You should be getting it this month. Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Wald: I’ve only had like a handful of people receive it, I have nobody in Broward who has received it yet.
Mr. Barak: Ok, I was just making sure.
Ms. Wald: Nobody has received it yet in Broward.

Mr. Barak: Ok.
Ms. Wald: But the District manager’s office will remind you as well, they’re good about that.
Mr. Barak: Ok.
Mr. Gill: Ok, anything else from anybody?

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment
Mr. Gill: If there is nothing else from the Board, I was just looking for a motion to adjourn.

On MOTION by Ms. Christie seconded by Mr. Warfel with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned.	

Secretary / Assistant Secretary	Chairman / Vice Chairman

MEMORANDUM
TO:	District Manager

FROM:	Billing Cochran, P.A. District Counsel

DATE:	June 11, 2026

RE:	2026 Legislative Update

As District Counsel, throughout the year we continuously monitor pending legislation that may be applicable to the governance and operation of our Community Development District and other Special District clients. It is at this time of year that we summarize those legislative acts that have become law during the most recent legislative session, as follows:

Chapter [TBD], Laws of Florida (HB 0145). This legislation amends the sovereign‑immunity statute to raise liability caps and change tort‑claim procedures for government entities. The bill revises Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, increasing the statutory limits on damages recoverable against the state and its agencies/subdivisions (including special districts). For causes of action accruing on or after October 1, 2026, the liability caps increase from $200,000 to $350,000 per person and from $300,000 to $500,000 per incident. The bill also authorizes state agencies and subdivisions to settle claims or judgments in excess of those caps, up to available insurance limits, without requiring a legislative claims bill.

The bill authorizes a state subdivision (e.g. counties, municipalities, special districts including CDDs) to settle a claim or judgment in excess of the statutory cap without requiring a separate legislative claim bill, so long as settlement is within insurance coverage limits. The bill prohibits any insurance policy issued on or after October 1, 2026, from conditioning liability coverage or payment on the later enactment of a legislative claim bill.

In addition, the bill shortens the pre-suit notice period by requiring claimants to present a claim to the appropriate agency within 18 months after accrual of the claim, rather than the current three-year period. It also revises the statute of limitations by requiring most negligence actions against governmental entities to be filed within two (2) years, while maintaining existing limitations periods for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and contribution claims. The bill also reduces the time for an agency or the Department of Financial Services to make a final disposition of a claim before it is deemed denied, from six (6) months to four (4) months.

This law applies directly to CDDs because CDDs are among the “subdivisions” of state government covered by section 768.28, Florida Statutes. As such CDDs may now be subject to higher damage awards for tort claims.

Chapter [TBD], Laws of Florida (HB 273). This legislation revises Florida law governing state financial assistance and rural economic development programs to include certain

special districts and improve payment processing for eligible rural entities. The bill amends Section 215.971, Florida Statutes to allow state agencies, under certain conditions, to directly facilitate or expedite payment of invoices for counties, municipalities, and qualifying special districts, particularly those located in rural areas or designated rural areas of opportunity. It authorizes agencies to structure agreements so that eligible rural governments and certain special districts, especially those providing water and wastewater services, receive faster payment processing for verified, completed work. The intent is to reduce financial strain and cash flow challenges that rural entities often face when administering state-funded projects, while preserving existing legal and regulatory requirements. The legislation also amends Section 288.0656, Florida Statutes to expand the definition of “rural community” to explicitly include independent special districts that provide water and wastewater services within rural areas of opportunity. This expansion makes those districts eligible for rural economic development support programs and related state assistance. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.

This legislation applies CDDs in a limited and conditional way, depending on the type of CDD and the services it provides. CDDs that are involved in state-funded infrastructure projects, such as water, wastewater, drainage, or utility improvements, may benefit from the amendment to Section 215.971, Florida Statutes. If a CDD is acting as a recipient or sub recipient of state financial assistance, the law allows state agencies to structure agreements so that invoices can be processed and paid more quickly for verified work. This can improve cash flow for CDDs building infrastructure, particularly smaller or rural CDDs that rely on this type of reimbursement funding. Second, the bill’s expansion of the definition of “rural community” under Section 288.0656, Florida Statutes generally does not directly include most CDDs, because eligibility is tied primarily to counties, municipalities, and independent special districts providing water and wastewater services in rural areas of opportunity. A typical CDD would only benefit if it meets those narrow conditions, meaning it operates in a qualifying rural area and functions in a way that aligns with the statutory definition (or is structured similarly to an independent utility-focused district).

Chapter [TBD], Laws of Florida (HB 0655). This legislation creates a new exemption under Florida law (Section 70.90, Florida Statutes) that allows agencies to hold closed attorney-client meetings during the 90-day notice period for claims brought under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act. These closed meetings are limited to discussions between the agency and its attorney for purposes of settlement strategy or negotiation of private property rights claims. While the meetings are exempt from Florida’s Sunshine Law, they must still be recorded by a certified court reporter, fully transcribed, and later released as a public record once the claim is resolved or the statute of limitations expires if no settlement or litigation occurs.

The law also creates a temporary public records exemption for the transcripts, recordings, minutes, and related materials generated during these closed sessions, ensuring confidentiality during active negotiations. However, this exemption is not permanent; it is subject to future legislative review and sunsets in 2031 unless reenacted. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.

The law allows a CDD Board of Supervisors to hold closed attorney-client sessions when the CDD is facing a pre-suit claim under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act regarding topics such as land use impacts, infrastructure construction, easement disputes, and development-related claims that can trigger property rights assertions under the Bert Harris Act.

During these closed sessions, the CDD can privately discuss settlement strategy with its attorney without public disclosure of sensitive legal positions. However, the exemption is narrow and procedural. The CDD must still provide public notice of the meeting, the session must begin and end in an open meeting, and a certified court reporter must record everything discussed. Although the discussion is confidential at the time, the transcript becomes a public record once the claim is resolved or the statutory timeframe expires if no settlement or lawsuit is filed.

Chapter 2026-115, Laws of Florida (HB 1085). This legislation creates the Local Government Cybersecurity Protection Program within the Florida Digital Service to assist local governments in strengthening cybersecurity defenses, particularly against threats such as ransomware. It establishes a statewide grant and procurement program that allows eligible local governments to access cybersecurity-related information technology commodities and services through contracts managed by the Florida Digital Service, with a preference for fiscally constrained counties. The program also requires data-sharing agreements between the state and participating local governments to support threat detection, prevention, and incident response.

Local governments may either apply for grants or independently purchase cybersecurity services through state-negotiated contracts, though the local government remains responsible for any associated costs. The law further requires annual reporting to the Governor and Legislature on program participation, funding, and outcomes, ensuring oversight and transparency. The program is set to operate through 2031 unless reenacted. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.

This law applies to CDDs because CDDs are local governments for many operational purposes, including infrastructure, procurement, and administrative functions, and therefore fall within the category of eligible participants under the Local Government Cybersecurity Protection Program. CDDs would be able to access state-negotiated cybersecurity contracts and services through the Florida Digital Service to improve protection of district systems. Even if a CDD does not apply for a cybersecurity grant, it may still purchase cybersecurity commodities and services through the state contracts, which could help reduce costs and improve security standards. However, participation is optional rather than mandatory, and CDDs remain responsible for all costs associated with any purchases or services obtained under the program.

Chapter [TBD], Laws of Florida (SB 1180). This legislation makes several targeted but significant changes to the law governing CDDs under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, with the most important impact being the creation of a formal recall process for elected board members. The bill’s primary feature is the creation of a new statutory section establishing a detailed procedure that allows qualified electors within a CDD to remove elected members of the board of supervisors through a recall process. The law limits recall to specific grounds such as malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, incompetence, drunkenness, permanent inability to perform duties, or conviction of certain felonies. It sets out a structured, multi-step process that begins with a petition signed by at least 10 percent of eligible voters, followed by verification of signatures, the preparation of a formal record of recall proceedings, and then a second petition requiring 15 percent of electors to trigger a recall referendum. If the referendum proceeds, a majority vote determines whether the board member is removed from office, and any resulting vacancy is filled according to existing statutory procedures. The legislation also imposes campaign finance requirements on recall efforts, establishes timelines, governs petition form and verification, allows limited

withdrawal of signatures, and creates penalties for fraud or misconduct in the petition process. In addition to the recall framework, the bill clarifies that CDD board members elected by residents are subject to recall, aligning CDD governance more closely with other forms of local government accountability. It also provides that individuals removed by recall, or who resign after a recall petition is filed, are ineligible for reappointment to the board for two years.

The legislation further revises the definition of “compact, urban, mixed-use district” under Section 190.003, Florida Statutes. The revised definition applies to districts consisting of a maximum of 75 acres located within a municipality and within either a qualified opportunity zone or a community redevelopment area. The amendment clarifies qualifying development thresholds by providing that such districts must include either at least 400,000 square feet of retail development and 500 residential units, or at least 250,000 square feet of commercial development and 500 affordable residential rental units for very-low-income, low-income, or moderate-income persons. This revision is significant for developers because it affects eligibility and structuring considerations for the creation of certain community development districts.

The legislation clarifies that restrictions on local regulation of synthetic turf do not prevent a CDD from enforcing private deed restrictions, preserving a CDD’s ability to uphold community standards through covenants. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.

This law applies directly to CDDs because it creates, for the first time, a formal statutory process that allows residents to recall elected members of a CDD board of supervisors. It introduces clear procedures, thresholds, and legal standards for removal, thereby increasing accountability of board members to district electors. The law also clarifies that CDDs may continue enforcing deed restrictions despite broader limits on local regulation of synthetic turf and updates certain statutory definitions affecting district formation and development. Overall, the most significant impact is the shift toward greater resident oversight and governance accountability within CDDs.

Chapter 2026-3, Laws of Florida (SB 290). This legislation revises multiple areas of state law, with a primary focus on agriculture, public safety, contractor regulation, and consumer protection. A significant component of the legislation strengthens contractor and vendor accountability by requiring contractors to pay subcontractors and suppliers within 45 days of receiving payment, or in accordance with contractual terms, and authorizing disciplinary action for noncompliance. Additionally, vendors that default on contracts, fail to pay subcontractors, or demonstrate repeated poor performance may be suspended or barred from public contracting for up to five years.

The bill further clarifies and reinforces how public entities may lawfully spend funds and administer contracts for public purposes. The legislation affirms that public funds may be used for core governmental infrastructure and improvements, such as public buildings, emergency shelters, affordable housing, and energy efficiency projects, thereby helping to define the scope of permissible capital projects and expenditures. At the same time, it places limitations on the use of public funds for certain privately owned facilities, reinforcing the principle that expenditures must primarily serve a valid public purpose rather than confer a disproportionate private benefit. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.

This law applies directly to CDDs because CDDs function as local units of special-purpose government that procure services, manage infrastructure, and enter into public contracts. Since a CDD regularly contracts for construction, maintenance, and infrastructure improvements, the new requirement that contractors timely pay subcontractors and suppliers directly affects how a CDD administers its contracts. In addition, the provisions allowing suspension or disqualification of nonperforming vendors from public contracting are relevant to CDD procurement practices, especially where the district adopts or mirrors state purchasing standards. CDDs routinely finance and construct infrastructure such as roadways, utilities, stormwater systems, and public facilities. Clarifications regarding allowable public expenditures, such as for government buildings, emergency shelters, and infrastructure, help define the scope of permissible CDD projects and may influence how CDDs’ structure future capital plans and bond-funded improvements.

Portions of the bill related to consumer protection and fraud prevention, including prohibitions on misrepresentation (such as impersonating officials), have indirect relevance. CDDs and District Management interact with residents, property owners, and contractors, so these provisions reinforce broader legal standards around transparency, proper representation, and avoidance of deceptive practices in district operations.

Chapter 2026-7, Laws of Florida (HB 399). This legislation is a comprehensive land use and development reform measure that primarily limits local government discretion in permitting, zoning, and development regulation while promoting consistency, affordability, and predictability in the development process. A central component of the legislation requires that application fees for development permits and orders imposed by counties and municipalities must be directly tied to the actual costs of reviewing and processing applications, must be publicly listed, and may not be based on construction value or project cost, thereby preventing fee structures that scale with development size rather than administrative expense. The act takes effect upon becoming law.
Even though CDDs do not exercise zoning or land use regulatory authority, the law applies to CDDs as infrastructure and service providers within the framework established by counties and municipalities. As a result, the bill’s restrictions on local governments, particularly those related to development permitting, zoning, and land development regulations, will shape the regulatory environment in which CDDs plan, finance, and construct infrastructure.

The provisions limiting development application fees to actual administrative costs may reduce overall project costs for developments within CDD boundaries, which can influence the scope and timing of infrastructure financed by the CDD, including roads, utilities, and stormwater systems. Similarly, the requirement for more objective and clearly defined compatibility standards, along with limits on discretionary denials, may create a more predictable entitlement process, allowing CDDs to better coordinate infrastructure planning with approved development timelines and reduce delays that can affect bond issuances or capital improvement programs.

Although Chapter 2026-7 does not directly regulate CDD powers or governance, it significantly affects the local government land use framework that CDDs rely on, thereby affecting development timing, infrastructure planning, financing, and overall project feasibility within district boundaries.

Chapter [TBD], Laws of Florida (HB 967). This legislation establishes a clear legislative intent that local governments must accept electronic forms of payment, including credit cards, debit cards, charge cards, and electronic funds transfers, and specifically requires units of local government to offer online payment options. This applies broadly to counties, municipalities, special districts, and other local government entities, as well as constitutional officers such as clerks of court and tax collectors, unless another form of payment is required by law.

The legislation also preserves existing authority allowing local governments to pass along processing fees to users who choose electronic payment methods and confirms that governments are not liable for verifying card validity or available funds when processing such transactions. Importantly, it mandates that if a local government accepts electronic payments, it must also maintain an online system for doing so, reinforcing a statewide push toward digital accessibility and standardized payment options.

This legislation requires CDDs that collect any type of payment, such as fees, user charges, amenity payments, permit-related charges, or other CDD revenues, to offer electronic payment options, including credit cards, debit cards, and electronic funds transfers. It also specifically requires that if a CDD accepts electronic payments at all, it must maintain a system for accepting those payments online, which may require updates to CDD websites, billing platforms, or third-party payment processors. The legislation also allows CDDs to continue passing through processing fees associated with electronic payments (such as credit card convenience fees), and it preserves their ability to require verification of payment validity and sufficient funds. However, it removes discretion in practice by making online payment capability a mandatory feature for any CDD that accepts electronic payments in any form.

For convenience, we have included copies of the legislation referenced in this memorandum. We request that you include this memorandum as part of the agenda packages for upcoming meetings of the governing boards of those special districts in which you serve as the District Manager and this firm serves as District Counsel. For purposes of the agenda package, it is not necessary to include the attached legislation, as we can provide copies to anyone requesting the same. Copies of the referenced legislation are also accessible by visiting this link: http://laws.flrules.org/.

May 1, 2026

Griffin Lakes CDD Attn: District Manager
Governmental Management Services 5385 North Nob Hill Road
Sunrise, FL 33351

Via:	Email Only: pburgess@gmssf.com

Reference:	Digitization of Existing Infrastructure Data into ArcGIS

Dear Patrick and CDD Board of Supervisors,

We are please to submit this supplemental proposal to Griffin Lakes Community Development District (the “District” or “CDD”) for the continued preparation and implementation of a comprehensive infrastructure maintenance program utilizing Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) as a management tool.

Comprehensive Infrastructure Management Strategy
A properly structured maintenance program will include the following key components:
Comprehensive Asset Inventory: Establishing a detailed inventory of maintained infrastructure provides a foundation for informed decision-making. This inventory ensures all assets are accounted for and facilitates effective tracking over time.
Detailed Maintenance Records: Accurate records of maintenance activities enable districts to monitor system performance, plan for future needs, and provide transparency in reporting to regulatory agencies and stakeholders.
GIS will serve as the cornerstone of the recommended maintenance program and will provide advanced management tools to:
Visualize and Manage Spatial Data: Create detailed geospatial maps of landscaping, roadway, common areas, and other infrastructure to streamline asset management.
Support Long-Term Planning: Use GIS data to project trends, budget for unforeseen expenses, and optimize the use of District resources.

Scope of Services
Therefore, with this letter of engagement, we are offering the District the following scope of services:

M:\Contracts\Executed\211004 - Griffin Lakes CDD\CDD - Supplemental Arcgis Proposal Draft GMS.Doc

Digitization of additional existing CDD-owned and operated infrastructure data into ArcGIS: Scope of work includes compiling, verifying, and integrating existing infrastructure records for ongoing asset management and planning. This effort includes:
Roadway
Digitize roadways and right-of-way boundaries. Include attributes such as ownership and maintenance responsibility.
Irrigation & Landscape
Digitize landscaping tracts and irrigation areas. Include attributes such as associated as-built plans, ownership and maintenance responsibility.

Other Services
Other services not described above will be billed by Alvarez Engineers to the District on an hourly basis in accordance with Schedule “A” of the Engineering Agreement dated November 4, 2021 between District Engineer and the District.

Compensation
Total compensation for the work detailed in the Scope of Services will be a lump sum amount of $1,250.00. Invoices will be prepared by Alvarez Engineers at the completion of digitization services. It is our understanding that invoices are due and payable by the District thirty days after the invoice has been submitted.

Please acknowledge acceptance of this proposal by signing below. We look forward to working with the District on this project.

For the District	Juan R. Alvarez, PE
Date:	President, Alvarez Engineers, Inc.

2

Cutters Edge Lawn and Maintenance, LLC
2281 College Ave Davie, FL 33317 US 954-472-0622
info@cuttersedgepro.com www.cuttersedgepro.com

WORK ORDER PROPOSAL
Lake 5 Hedge Trim

DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED

May 12, 2026
Proposal No. - 2838

Property Information	
Griffin Lakes CDD 2317 Clipper Pl
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312	

Hard cut Sweet Viburnum hedge about 2-3' for new growth & Fertlze	
ITEM DESCRIPTION	
Green Waste Disposal	

PRICE	$2,294.03	
SALES TAX	$0.00	
TOTAL*	$2,294.03	
*Prices are subject to change 30 days from above date.

Signature: 			

Alexy Hernandez Cutters Edge

Patrick Burgess

Date: 			

Cutters Edge • 2281 College Ave. • Davie, FL 33317 954-472-0622 • www.cuttersedgepro.com

Page 1 of 1

Proposal #2544

Perimeter Wall Tree & Palm Trimming
Date	2/18/2026
Customer	Patrick Burgess | Governmental Management Services | 5385 N Nob Hill Rd | Sunrise, FL 63351
Property	Griffin Lakes CDD | 2317 Clipper Pl | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

Royal Poinciana

38- Sable Palms

45- Oak

36- Calophyllum

29- Acacia

14- Royal

58- Buttonwood

25- Areca Palms

Japanese Ferns

Christmas Palms

251 Total Trees & Palm

The work shall be performed in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture “Best Management Practices”, ANSI A 300 “Pruning Standards” and Broward County Code of Ordinances Chapter 27- Pollution Control- Article XIV “Tree Preservation and Abuse Ordinance”.

TREE TRIMMING
TREE TRIMMING

TREE TRIMMING Price:	$16,700.68

Perimeter Wall Tree & Palm Trimming at Griffin Lakes CDD	2/18/2026

Subtotal	 $16,700.68 Estimated Tax		$0.00 Total	$16,700.68

Terms & Conditions

By	By
Alexy Hernandez

Date

2/18/2026

Date

	
Cutters Edge	Griffin Lakes CDD

JLS Tree Service
License #A-636

	Proposal #17515	
Date: 6/16/2026 PO #

Jason Gitel
Governmental Management Services 3440 SW 76th Terrace
Davie , FL 33328

Customer:

Griffin Lakes CDD 2317 Clipper Place
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

Property:

	2026 Tree & Palm Trimming	

Scope of work:
Trim the following Trees: (Clearance Prune ONLY)
(1) Royal poinciana
(45) Oak Trees
(36) Calophyllum Trees
(29) Acacia Trees
(58) Buttonwood Trees
(2) Japanese Ferns

Trim the following Palms:
(38) Sable Palms
(14) Royal Palms
(25) Areca Palms
(3) Christmas Palms

Services Billed Upon Completion
Description of Services	Frequency Cost per Occ.	
TR - Est Trees and Palms		$16,275.00	

By	 	
Alex Lapierre	By	 		
Date	6/16/2026	Date	
	
	JLS Tree Service		Griffin Lakes CDD	

	Services	
TR - Est Trees and Palms

Description of Palm Pruning: abbreviation PP
Palms will be trimmed at 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions, in accordance to ANSI A300-1995 standards. Seed pods will be removed from all palms.
Description of Clearance Pruning: abbreviation CP
(Crown Raising and/or directional pruning)-Pruning of lower limbs and canopy of trees/plants that are growing over the sidewalk and/or the roadway space. Also, directional pruning of limbs and canopy growing into structures (building, streetlights, walls, etc.) and/or other plants. Prune to direct growth away from, or at an angle away from, the structure by cutting back to lateral branch(es) that grew away from structure. Clearance Pruning shall be 8 feet clearance over sidewalks and 15 feet Clearance over roadways.
Branches over buildings and or structures will be pruned up to 4 feet clearance from structures. Does not include the removal of the lateral branches over the building or structure.
Description of Crown Reduction: abbreviation CR
Pruning of all primary limbs and leaders in the outer canopy to reduce the size and height of the tree.
Description of Structural Pruning: abbreviation SP
Pruning of limbs throughout a tree canopy to reduce the crossing limbs and correct poor growth forms (multiple leaders on branches, tight angled branch junctures, included bark problems).
Description of Training Pruning: abbreviationTP
Pruning of limbs and multiple stems to train a young tree for establishment to form a structurally sound canopy. Pruning includes Reduction Pruning of multiple leader limbs, Crown Cleaning Pruning for dead, diseased and crossing limbs, and some Structural Pruning to choose dominant leaders and gain good structural branching pattern for tree. Pruning limbs of 1" diameter and larger only for trees.

	Terms & Conditions	
Payment is due in full upon completion of work.
Payment by Credit Card (a convenience fee of 3% will be added to all Credit Card transaction). Please contact our office for a Credit Card Processing Form.
Payment by Check: (Please include Invoice #) All returned or bounced checks are subject to additional bank fees.

Griffin Lakes	
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT	
Check Register

Date

check #'s

Amount

Truist Bank

04/01 - 04/30/26	825 - 831	$20,525.01	

05/01 - 05/31/26	832-838	$11,255.67	

TOTAL	$31,780.68	

AP300R	YEAR-TO-DATE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PREPAID/COMPUTER CHECK REGISTER	RUN	5/06/26	PAGE	1
*** CHECK DATES 04/01/2026 - 04/30/2026 ***	GRIFFIN LAKES GENERAL FUND
BANK A GENERAL FUND-TRUIST
CHECK	VEND#	.....INVOICE..... ...EXPENSED TO...		VENDOR NAME	STATUS	AMOUNT	....CHECK..... DATE			DATE	INVOICE	YRMO	DPT ACCT# SUB	SUBCLASS				AMOUNT	#
4/02/26 00037	3/23/26 REPL CK# 202604 310-51300-49000	*	184.70
REPL CK# 50343 BOARD MEET
3/23/26 REPL CK# 202604 310-51300-49000	V	184.70-
REPL CK# 50343 BOARD MEET
ANINA M VENUTI	.00 000825
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4/15/26 00004	3/31/26 198122	202603 310-51300-31500	*	1,842.50
LEGAL SV THRU 3/31/26
BILLING COCHRAN, P.A.	1,842.50 000826

4/15/26 00001	4/01/26	
	4/01/26	
	4/01/26	
	4/01/26	
	4/01/26	
	4/01/26	
	4/01/26	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
102	202604 320-53800-34000	*	1,669.50
APR 26 - FIELD SERVICES
103	202604 310-51300-34000	*	2,089.25
APR 26 - MGMT FEES
103	202604 310-51300-35000	*	46.42
APR 26 - COMPUTER TIME
103	202604 310-51300-31300	*	92.75
APR 26 - DISSEMINATION
103	202604 310-51300-35100	*	102.00
APR 26 - WEBSITE ADMIN
103	202604 310-51300-42000	*	17.10
APR 26 - POSTAGE
103	202604 310-51300-42500	*	8.40
APR 26 - COPIES
GMS-SF, LLC	4,025.42 000827
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4/15/26 00017	4/15/26 04152026 202604 300-20700-10100	*	11,329.94
TXFER TAX COLLECTIONS
GRIFFIN LAKES CDD	11,329.94 000828
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4/22/26 00024	4/08/26 9136	202603 310-51300-31100	*	1,650.50
ENGINEER SVC THRU 3/31
ALVAREZ ENINGEERS, INC	1,650.50 000829
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4/22/26 00006	4/01/26 2674	202604 320-53800-46200	*	589.41
APR 26 -TURF/LANDSC MAINT
4/01/26 2674	202604 320-53800-46600	*	557.46
APR 26 - OUTD PEST CONTR
4/01/26 2674	202604 320-53800-46300	*	129.78
APR 26 - WET CHECK TEST
CUTTERS EDGE LAWN & MAINTENANCE INC	1,276.65 000830
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4/22/26 00038	4/14/26 1969	202604 320-53800-46800	*	400.00
APR 26 - LAKE MAINTENANCE
SOUTHEAST LAND AND WATER MGMT LLC	400.00 000831
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL FOR BANK A	20,525.01 GRIF GRIFFIN LAKES	NMARINO

AP300R	YEAR-TO-DATE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PREPAID/COMPUTER CHECK REGISTER	RUN	5/06/26	PAGE	2
*** CHECK DATES 04/01/2026 - 04/30/2026 ***	GRIFFIN LAKES GENERAL FUND
BANK A GENERAL FUND-TRUIST
CHECK	VEND#	.....INVOICE..... ...EXPENSED TO...		VENDOR NAME	STATUS	AMOUNT	....CHECK..... DATE			DATE	INVOICE	YRMO	DPT ACCT# SUB	SUBCLASS				AMOUNT	#

TOTAL FOR REGISTER	20,525.01

GRIF GRIFFIN LAKES	NMARINO

AP300R	YEAR-TO-DATE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PREPAID/COMPUTER CHECK REGISTER	RUN	6/04/26	PAGE	1
*** CHECK DATES 05/01/2026 - 05/31/2026 ***	GRIFFIN LAKES GENERAL FUND
BANK A GENERAL FUND-TRUIST
CHECK	VEND#	.....INVOICE..... ...EXPENSED TO...		VENDOR NAME	STATUS	AMOUNT	....CHECK..... DATE			DATE	INVOICE	YRMO	DPT ACCT# SUB	SUBCLASS				AMOUNT	#
5/13/26 00007	4/24/26 39051A	202604 320-53800-46700	*	250.00
QTRLY FOUNTAIN CLEANING
5/08/26 39189A	202605 320-53800-46700	*	310.00
LED LIGHT BULB
FOUNTAIN DESIGN GROUP INC	560.00 000832

5/13/26 00001	5/01/26	
	5/01/26	
	5/01/26	
	5/01/26	
	5/01/26	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
104	202605 320-53800-34000	*	1,669.50
MAY 26 - FIELD SERVICES
105	202605 310-51300-34000	*	2,089.25
MAY 26 - MGMT FEES
105	202605 310-51300-35000	*	46.42
MAY 26 - COMPUTER TIME
105	202605 310-51300-31300	*	92.75
MAY 26 - DISSEMINATION
105	202605 310-51300-35100	*	102.00
MAY 26 - WEBSITE ADMIN
5/01/26 105	202605 310-51300-42000	*	11.10
MAY 26 - POSTAGE
GMS-SF, LLC	4,011.02 000833
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5/13/26 00039	4/27/26 5605	202604 320-53800-46210	*	875.00
RMV DEAD PALM
4/27/26 5606	202604 320-53800-46210	*	1,200.00
RMV GREEN BUTTONWOOD
JUST CALL JAMES INC	2,075.00 000834
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5/27/26 00024	5/08/26 9197	202604 320-53800-60000	*	1,503.00
4/1-4/30/26 LAKES OPS
ALVAREZ ENINGEERS, INC	1,503.00 000835
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5/27/26 00004	4/30/26 198515	202604 310-51300-31500	*	1,430.00

BILLING COCHRAN,	P.A.	1,430.00	000836	
- - - - - - - -	- - - - - - -	-	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	- - -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	- - - -	- - - - -	- - -	
5/27/26 00006	5/01/26	2800	202605 320-53800-46200	*	589.41	
MAY	26	-TURF/LANDSC MAINT	
5/01/26	2800	202605 320-53800-46600	*	557.46	
MAY	26	- OUTD PEST CONTR	
5/01/26	2800	202605 320-53800-46300	*	129.78	
MAY	26	- WET CHECK TEST	
CUTTERS	EDGE LAWN & MAINTENANCE INC	1,276.65	000837	
- - - - - - - -	- - - - - - -	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	- - - -	- - - - -	- - -	
5/27/26 00038	5/12/26	2061	202605 320-53800-46800	*	400.00	
MAY	26 - LAKE MAINTENANCE	
SOUTHEAST LAND AND WATER MGMT LLC	400.00	000838	
- - - - - - - -	- - - - - - -	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	-	- -	-	-	-	-	-	-	- - - -	- - - - -	- - -	
TOTAL FOR BANK A	11,255.67	
GRIF GRIFFIN LAKES	NMARINO	

LEGAL SV THRU 4/30/26

AP300R	YEAR-TO-DATE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PREPAID/COMPUTER CHECK REGISTER	RUN	6/04/26	PAGE	2
*** CHECK DATES 05/01/2026 - 05/31/2026 ***	GRIFFIN LAKES GENERAL FUND
BANK A GENERAL FUND-TRUIST
CHECK	VEND#	.....INVOICE..... ...EXPENSED TO...		VENDOR NAME	STATUS	AMOUNT	....CHECK..... DATE			DATE	INVOICE	YRMO	DPT ACCT# SUB	SUBCLASS				AMOUNT	#

TOTAL FOR REGISTER	11,255.67

GRIF GRIFFIN LAKES	NMARINO

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	

Unaudited Financial Reporting	
May 31, 2026	

Table of Contents

1		Balance Sheet	

2-3	
	General Fund	

4	
	Debt Service Fund Series 2020	

5-6	
	Month to Month	

7	
	Long Term Debt Report	

8	
	Assessment Receipt Schedule	

9	
	Lake Project	

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
Combined Balance Sheet	
May 31, 2026		
General	Debt Service	Totals	
Fund	Fund	Governmental Funds	

Assets:	
Cash:	
Operating Account	

$

Investments:	
State Board of Administration (SBA)	
Bank United (Money Market)	

Series 2020	
Reserve	
Revenue	

Total Liabilites	$	-	$	-	$	-

Total Assets	$	857,463	$	85,588	$	943,051	
Liabilities:	
Accounts Payable	$	-	$	-	$	-	

Fund Balance:	
Restricted for:	
Debt Service	
Assigned for:	
General Fund Reserves	
Lake Projects	
Unassigned	

$

27,853

564,961	
264,649	

-	
-	

-

$

$

-

-	
-	

26,754	
58,833	

85,588

$

$

27,853

564,961	
264,649	

-	
26,754	
58,833	

85,588

95,000	
396,586	
365,877	

	
-	
-	
-	

	
95,000	
396,586	
365,877	

Total Fund Balances	$	857,463	$	85,588	$	943,051	
				
Total Liabilities & Fund Balance	$	857,463	$	85,588	$	943,051	

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
General Fund	
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance	
For The Period Ending May 31, 2026	

Revenues:		
Special Assessments - Tax Roll	$ 627,571	
Interest	10,000	

	
$ 627,571	
6,667	

	
$ 608,503	
15,348	

	
$	(19,068)	
8,681	

Total Revenues	$ 637,571	$ 634,238	$ 623,851	$	(10,386)	
Expenditures:					
General & Administrative:					
Supervisor Fees	$	12,000	$	8,000	$	5,800	$	2,200	
PR-FICA	918	612	444	168	
Engineering	10,000	6,667	-	6,667	
Attorney	13,000	8,667	8,415	252	
Annual Audit	4,800	4,800	4,800	-	
Assessment Administration	4,200	4,200	4,200	-	
Dissemination Agent	1,113	742	742	-	
Trustee Fees	4,100	4,100	4,041	59	
Management Fees	25,071	16,714	16,714	0	
Property Appraiser	854	854	854	-	
Information Technology	557	371	371	(0)	
Website Maintenance	1,224	816	816	0	
Telephone	50	33	-	33	
Postage & Delivery	175	117	113	3	
Insurance General Liability	9,424	9,424	8,410	1,014	
Printing & Binding	400	267	47	220	
Legal Advertising	500	333	-	333	
Contingency	1,530	1,530	1,090	440	
Office Supplies	50	33	-	33	
Dues, Licenses & Subscriptions	175	175	175	-	
Total General & Administrative	$  90,141	$  68,455	$  57,032	$	11,423	

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
General Fund	
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance	
For The Period Ending May 31, 2026	

Operations & Maintenance

Field Expenditures		
Field Management	$	20,034	
Lake and Wetland Maintenance	5,414	
Fountain Maintenance	2,030	
Landscape Maintenance	7,285	
Plant Replacement	25,000	
Mulch & Palm pruning	9,620	
Tree Pruning/Trimming	8,755	
Irrigation Repair & Maintenance	6,604	
Pest Control	6,890	
Utility - Stormwater	420	
Repairs & Maintenance	4,000	
Stormwater Drain System	10,000	
Contingency	10,000	
Reserve	30,000	

$	13,356	
3,609	
1,370	
4,857	
16,667	
4,949	
5,837	
4,403	
4,593	
420	
2,667	
6,667	
6,667	
20,000	

$	13,356	
3,506	
1,370	
4,715	
6,603	
4,949	
-	
1,586	
4,460	
415	
-	
-	
-	
-	

$	-	
103	
-	
141	
10,063	
-	
5,837	
2,817	
134	
5	
2,667	
6,667	
6,667	
20,000	

Subtotal Field Expenditures	$ 146,052	$  96,060	$  40,959	$	55,101	

Projects

Fence Repair	$ 100,000	$	66,667	$	-	$	66,667	
Lake Restoration	301,378	200,919	4,792	196,127	

Subtotal Projects Expenditures	$ 401,378	$ 267,585	$	4,792	$	262,793	

Total Operations & Maintenance	$ 547,430	$ 363,645	$  45,751	$	317,894	

Total Expenditures	$ 637,571	$ 432,100	$ 102,783	$	329,317	

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditure	$	-	$ 202,137	$ 521,068	$	318,931	

Net Change in Fund Balance	$	-	$ 202,137	$ 521,068	$	318,931	
	
Fund Balance - Beginning	$	-		$ 336,395		
	
Fund Balance - Ending	$	-		$ 857,463		

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
Debt Service Fund Series 2020	
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance	
For The Period Ending May 31, 2026	

Adopted	Prorated Budg	Actual	
Budget	Thru 05/31/26	Thru 05/31/26	Variance	

Revenues:		
Assessments - Tax Roll	$ 267,544	
Interest	1,200	

$ 267,544	
800	

$ 258,980	
1,688	

$	(8,564)	
888	

Total Revenues	$ 268,744	$ 268,344	$ 260,667	$	(7,677)	
Expenditures:		
Interest - 11/1	$	24,384	$	24,384	$	24,384	$	-	
Principal - 5/1	220,000	220,000	220,000	-	
Interest - 5/1	24,384	24,384	24,384	-	
Total Expenditures	$ 268,768	$ 268,768	$ 268,768	$	-	

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditure	$	(24)	$	(424)	$	(8,101)	$	(7,677)	

Net Change in Fund Balance	$	(24)	$	(424)	$	(8,101)	$	(7,677)	
		
Fund Balance - Beginning	$	89,014	$	93,688	
		
Fund Balance - Ending	$  88,989	$  85,588	

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
Month to Month	

Revenues:		
Special Assessments - Tax Roll	$	77	$	84,228	$  458,210	$	17,850	$	7,284	$	13,792	$	27,063	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$  608,503	
Interest	993	916	1,109	2,349	2,323	2,575	2,505	2,578	-	-	-	-	15,348	
Miscellaneous Revenue	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	

Total Revenues	$	1,070	$  85,144	$ 459,319	$  20,199	$	9,607	$  16,366	$  29,568	$	2,578	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$ 623,851	

Expenditures:														
General & Administrative:														
Supervisor Fees	$	1,000	$	1,000	$	-	$	800	$	-	$	1,000	$	1,000	$	1,000	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	5,800	
PR-FICA	77	77	-	61	-	77	77	77	-	-	-	-	444	
Engineering	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Attorney	2,228	853	578	605	880	1,843	1,430	-	-	-	-	-	8,415	
Annual Audit	-	1,000	3,800	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4,800	
Assessment Administration	4,200	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4,200	
Dissemination Agent	93	93	93	93	93	93	93	93	-	-	-	-	742	
Trustee Fees	4,041	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4,041	
Management Fees	2,089	2,089	2,089	2,089	2,089	2,089	2,089	2,089	-	-	-	-	16,714	
Property Appraiser	-	-	854	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	854	
Information Technology	46	46	46	46	46	46	46	46	-	-	-	-	371	
Website Maintenance	102	102	102	102	102	102	102	102	-	-	-	-	816	
Telephone	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Postage & Delivery	4	13	5	13	45	4	17	11	-	-	-	-	113	
Insurance General Liability	8,410	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	8,410	
Printing & Binding	-	11	25	-	2	0	8	-	-	-	-	-	47	
Legal Advertising	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Office Supplies	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Dues, Licenses & Subscriptions	175	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	175	
Contingency	-	143	171	119	158	159	172	168	-	-	-	-	1,090	
Total General & Administrative	$  22,464	$	5,425	$	7,764	$	3,929	$	3,416	$	5,413	$	5,035	$	3,586	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$  57,032	

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
Month to Month	

Operations & Maintenance		
Field Expenditures		
Field Management	$	1,670	$	1,670	$	1,670	$	1,670	$	1,670	$	1,670	$	1,670	$	1,670	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	13,356	
Lake and Wetland Maintenance	451	451	451	451	451	451	400	400	-	-	-	-	3,506	
Fountain Maintenance	310	250	-	250	-	-	250	310	-	-	-	-	1,370	
Landscape Maintenance	589	589	589	589	589	589	589	589	-	-	-	-	4,715	
Plant Replacement	1,270	1,480	-	1,778	-	-	2,075	-	-	-	-	-	6,603	
Mulch & Palm pruning	-	-	4,949	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4,949	
Tree Pruning/Trimming	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Irrigation Repair & Maintenance	130	130	677	130	130	130	130	130	-	-	-	-	1,586	
Pest Control	557	557	557	557	557	557	557	557	-	-	-	-	4,460	
Utility - Stormwater	-	415	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	415	
Repairs & Maintenance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Stormwater Drain System	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Contingency	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Reserve	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	

Subtotal Field Expenditures	$	4,977	$	5,542	$	8,893	$	5,425	$	3,397	$	3,397	$	5,671	$	3,656	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$  40,959	

Projects

Fence Repair	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Lake Restoration	390	306	-	553	390	1,651	1,503	-	-	-	-	-	4,792	

Subtotal Projects Expenditures	$	390	$	306	$	-	$	553	$	390	$	1,651	$	1,503	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	4,792	

Total Operations & Maintenance	$	5,367	$	5,848	$	8,893	$	5,978	$	3,787	$	5,048	$	7,174	$	3,656	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$  45,751	

Total Expenditures	$  27,832	$  11,273	$  16,657	$	9,907	$	7,203	$  10,461	$  12,209	$	7,242	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$ 102,783	

Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expe	$  (26,762)	$	73,870	$  442,662	$	10,293	$	2,404	$	5,906	$	17,359	$	(4,664)	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$  521,068	

Net Change in Fund Balance	$ (26,762)	$  73,870	$ 442,662	$  10,293	$	2,404	$	5,906	$  17,359	$	(4,664)	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-	$ 521,068	

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
Long Term Debt Report	

Series 2020, Special Assessment Revenue Refunding Bonds

Original Issuance - 8/28/2020	$2,945,000	
Interest Rate:	2.540%	
Maturity Date:	5/1/2033	
Reserve Fund Definition	10% of Maximum Annual Debt Service	
Reserve Fund Requirement	$26,754	
Reserve Fund Balance	26,754	
Bonds Outstanding	$2,945,000	
Less: Principal Payment - 5/1/21	($195,000)	
Less: Principal Payment - 5/1/22	($200,000)	
Less: Principal Payment - 5/1/23	($205,000)	
Less: Principal Payment - 5/1/24	($210,000)	
Less: Principal Payment - 5/1/25	($215,000)	
Less: Principal Payment - 5/1/26	($220,000)	
Current Bonds Outstanding	$1,700,000	

Page 7

Griffin Lakes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Gross Assessments	$	667,627.31	$	284,621.12	$	952,248.43	
Net Assessments	$	627,569.67	$	267,543.85	$	895,113.52	
allocation in %	70.11%	29.89%	100.00%	

Special Assessment Receipts - Broward County Fiscal Year 2026

ON ROLL ASSESSMENTS

Date	
Distribution	
Gross Amount	Discoumt/ (Penalty)	
Commission	
Interest	
Net Receipts	
O&M Portion	Series 2020 Debt Service	
Total	

10/30/25	
interest	
$	-	
$	-	
$	-	
$	76.66	
$	76.66	
$	76.66	
$	-	
$	76.66	
11/21/25	11/01-11/14/25	126,437.11	5,088.14	1,213.49	-	120,135.48	84,227.73	35,907.75	120,135.48	
12/05/25	11/15-11/30/25	252,000.17	10,079.67	2,419.19		239,501.31	167,915.86	71,585.45	239,501.31	
12/19/25	12/01-12/12/25	435,513.99	17,279.76	4,182.36		414,051.87	290,294.35	123,757.52	414,051.87	
01/02/26	12/13-12/23/25	13,380.54	401.41	129.79		12,849.34	9,008.75	3,840.59	12,849.34	
01/16/26	12/01-12/31/25	12,449.66	373.48	120.76	-	11,955.42	8,382.02	3,573.40	11,955.42	
01/23/26	interest	-	-	-	458.97	458.97	458.97	-	458.97	
02/13/26	01/01-01/31/26	10,695.05	200.70	104.94	-	10,389.41	7,284.08	3,105.33	10,389.41	
03/13/26	02/01-02/28/26	20,070.81	200.70	198.70	-	19,671.41	13,791.75	5,879.66	19,671.41	
04/13/26	03/01-03/31/26	38,289.06	-	382.90		37,906.16	26,576.25	11,329.91	37,906.16	
04/24/26	interest	-	-	-	486.81	486.81	341.31	145.50	486.81	
		$	908,836.39	$	33,623.86	$	8,752.13	$	1,022.44	$	867,482.84	$	608,357.73	$	259,125.11	$	867,482.84	

95.44%
$	43,412.04

Percent Collected Balance Remaining to Collect

Page 8

Griffin Lakes	
Community Development District	
Lake Projects	

	

	

	Applications/	Amount of	Shoreline
Restoration	Lake-side Fence	Engineer/	
Contractor	Invoices	Payments	Lake 1 and 2	Restoration	Contingency	
					
Budget FY2025		$0.00	$0.00	$20,000.00	
Budget FY2026		$301,378.00	$100,000.00	$10,000.00	
Garnet Engineering and Contracting LLC	111	$8,600.00		$8,600.00		
Headley Construction Group Inc	78	$8,552.00	$8,552.00			
Alvarez Engineers	8129	$117.50			$117.50	
Alvarez Engineers	8181	$3,972.50			$3,972.50	
Alvarez Engineers	8218	$1,005.00			$1,005.00	
Alvarez Engineers	8272	$570.65			$570.65	
Alvarez Engineers	8363	$5,000.00			$5,000.00	
Alvarez Engineers	8362	$390.00			$390.00	
Alvarez Engineers	8435	$732.50			$732.50	
Alvarez Engineers	8498	$942.50			$942.50	
Alvarez Engineers	8688	$2,405.00			$2,405.00	
Broward County -Permits		$750.00	$750.00			
Alvarez Engineers	8734	$677.50			$677.50	
Alvarez Engineers	8792	$336.50			$336.50	
TOTAL FY 2025	$34,051.65	$9,302.00	$8,600.00	$16,149.65	

Alvarez Engineers	
8841	
$390.00			
$390.00
$306.00
$552.50
$390.00
$1,650.50
$1,503.00	
Alvarez Engineers	8882	$306.00				
Alvarez Engineers	8991	$552.50				
Alvarez Engineers	9070	$390.00				
Alvarez Engineers	9136	$1,650.50				
Alvarez Engineers	9197	$1,503.00				
TOTAL FY 2026	$4,792.00	$0.00	$0.00	$4,792.00	
					
TOTAL PAID	$38,843.65	$9,302.00	$8,600.00	$20,941.65	
	
	Total	Landshore Enterprises	Garnet Engineering	Engineer/ Contingency	
Contracts/Budget	$461,030.00	$432,430.00	$8,600.00	$20,000.00	
Total	$461,030.00	$432,430.00	$8,600.00	$20,000.00	
	
Remaining balance after change orders	$422,186.35	$423,128.00	$0.00	($941.65)	

Page 9

Griffin Lakes	
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT	
Check Register

Date

check #'s

Amount

Truist Bank

04/01 - 04/30/26	825 - 831	$20,525.01	

05/01 - 05/31/26	832-838	$11,255.67	

TOTAL	$31,780.68