MINUTES OF MEETING NORTH BOULEVARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Boulevard Community Development District was held Tuesday, August 11, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. at the Tom Fellows Community Center – 207 North Blvd W, Davenport, Florida 33837.

Present and constituting a quorum:

Andres Romero	Chairman
Ron Orenstein	Vice Chairman
Rheah Bridges	Assistant Secretary Also present were:
Tricia Adams	District Manager, GMS
Savannah Hancock	District Counsel, Kilinski Van Wyk
Joel Blanco	Field Manager, GMS

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Ms. Adams called the meeting to order and called the roll. Three Board members were in attendance, constituting a quorum.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment Period
Ms. Adams stated that the public comment period was an opportunity for any members of the public to make a statement. She asked if there was anyone present, and if so, could they state their name and address for the record.
Resident Mr. Robert O’Neal (754 Jefferson St.) noted that the budget had increased by 12% in 2024, amounting to about $273, and then by an additional 25% this year. He said that the COLA was only 3.2% last year and 2.5% this year. Mr. O’Neal felt that the increases were out of line and reflected what the state was warning about. He added that he thought it was the

supervisors’ responsibility to ensure there was no wasteful spending and expressed disappointment at seeing such significant back-to-back increases.
Ms. Adams asked if any others would like to make a statement to the Board.
Resident (Jose Martinez – (883 Fillmore Court) Mr. Martinez commented that he had emailed Trish and Katie with pictures showing oil leaks from garbage or recycling trucks, likely from the waste management company. He noted large blotches of oil on Fillmore, extending toward Jefferson and Half, and asked if staff were looking into the issue.
Ms. Adams stated that this would be addressed during the field manager’s report.
Resident Michelle Cooper – (160 Taft Dr.) Ms. Cooper asked if the painted parking markings away from corners were enforceable limits and whether any signage would be added to make the rules clear before someone ended up getting towed.
There being no further comments, and Ms. Adams closed the public comment period.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the July 15, 2025,
Board of Supervisors and Audit Committee Meeting
Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the July 15, 2025, Board of Supervisors and the Audit Committee meeting. District staff reviewed the minutes. She offered to take corrections. The Board had no corrections to the minutes.

On MOTION by Ms. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Romero, with all in favor, the Minutes of the July 15, 2025, Audit Committee and Board of Supervisors Meetings, were approved.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Resolution	2025-14
Setting	a	Public	Hearing	to	Amend Parking Policies
A. Revised Parking Map
Ms. Adams stated that the Board is considering setting a public hearing to amend the parking policies. The District has parking rules in place, but over the last few meetings, Board members had been asking about updating them. They discussed limiting the parking time at mailbox kiosks and adding “no parking” or “parking allowed” signs in specific areas. At the July meeting, they reviewed a parking map and suggested some changes before moving forward.

District Counsel was then asked for comments before the Board discussed it further. Ms. Adams asked for any comments from District Counsel.
Ms. Hancock stated that the Board had gone over the parking policies again, noting they hadn’t changed in the past few meetings. She added that the main update was shifting from the odd/even side rule to designated areas marked by signs, but no actual parking areas were being moved. She noted that Mr. Blanco’s updated map showed that change. Ms. Hancock said that District Management staff flagged issues such as people parking in ways that blocked driveways. Under the old rules, those cars couldn’t be towed if they were on the correct side of the street. The revised policies would address this issue by permitting the towing of cars that block driveways, fire lanes, or intersections, in accordance with local government ordinances. Ms. Adams noted that the draft map was included in the agenda on page 30 for Board member review.
Ms. Adams said that amending the parking rules required a 35-day notice, so the earliest hearing could be in October.
Mr. Orenstein asked to see an original map. There were detailed discussions on the parking map. Mr. Orenstein wished to keep the conditions the way they were. Board members discussed adding signage in various areas to indicate parking rules and the lot numbers were discussed.
Ms. Adams explained that the parking spaces themselves would not change, and the signage would mainly be a communication tool. She said the Board could choose to review the signage costs before setting the public hearing if they wanted. She added that it was ultimately up to the Board to decide. Mr. Orenstein noted concerns about aesthetics.
Mr. Blanco acknowledged the aesthetic concern of avoiding sign pollution but felt that many people only follow rules if signs are present. Mr. Blanco said that in many Districts they managed, they put up signs to show where things started and ended so people couldn’t say they didn’t know the rules. He mentioned they tried to make the signs look nice, but it really came down to compliance. He added that it was a matter of deciding whether the Board preferred fewer signs for aesthetic reasons or more signs for clarity. Mr. Orenstein added that he wanted the signs to be tasteful in appearance and placement.
Ms. Adams said that the type of signpost made a difference. She mentioned that the standard U-channel posts were common, but the round, cast aluminum posts that were powder-coated black looked nicer. She pointed out they were more expensive but gave a better feel overall.

Mr. Romero stated what they thought about getting visual items and documentation for the next meeting, before the public hearing is scheduled. Mr. Blanco stated that he could send pictures of a sign.
Ms. Hancock stated that the Board did not have to change the policies to add signs and could keep the status quo if they wished, but she felt adding signs was best practice since it made the rules clearer and more defensible. She noted that if proposals were brought back in September, the public hearing would be scheduled for November.
Ms. Adams added that the public hearing could be set up at any time with proper notice. Mr. Orenstein asked who would install the signs: maintenance or an outside company?
Ms. Adams said GMS could install the signs but the Board could request competitive proposals from other vendors like Fausnight. She mentioned the post choice and finial would affect cost. Ms. Adams mentioned bringing back cost estimates at the next meeting, including per-post pricing, finial/topper costs, and a general labor estimate, so they would have a budget placeholder to work from before deciding. She added that parking rules were posted on the District’s website and there is also a parking map. Ms. Adams said the parking map was the guideline for enforcement since there were no corner paintings or other markings. She explained that signs were installed at each community entrance per Florida statutes, telling drivers which side of the road to park on. For now, enforcement relied on those entrance signs and the maps. She offered to go over the maps with residents after the meeting if they wanted to see where parking was or wasn’t allowed near their homes.
Ms. Hancock explained that under Florida Statutes Chapter 190, the city had minimal ability to enforce parking rules. She said the only action they could take was towing, and they could not issue tickets or fines.
Mr. Orenstein mentioned that he checked the front entrance sign about parking and found that it was small, faded, and hard to read, so he suggested getting a price to replace it.
Mr. Blanco stated that they would take a look into that. Mr. Orenstein had suggested adding solar lighting to the signs. Mr. Blanco replied that he doesn’t put solar lights on signs; that was the first time he had seen that done. But he told Mr. Orenstein that he would check it out and see if they could reinstall solar lights if they work.
Ms. Bridges stated that she was unsure how far from the corners residents can park. Ms.
Adams offered to help Ms. Bridges after the meeting to view the parking map.

Ms. Hancock quested the signs at the community entrance. Ms. Adams explained that what Supervisor Orenstein wanted was to replace the same sign verbiage. Mr. Blanco stated that it would be the exact verbiage, just a bigger sign. It would be a nicer sign with a better coating and possibly better lighting.
Ms. Hancock explained that specific rules, such as parking distances from fire hydrants, stop signs, intersections, or flashing signs, were controlled by county, city, or state law, not the CDD. She said police could ticket violators, and the CDD could not control how that was enforced. She also noted that when staff drafted parking maps, they may apply standard distances from intersections.
Ms. Adams explained that law enforcement officers could issue parking citations under state and local law regardless of District rules. Ms. Hancock stated that law enforcement enforced road rules independently, and the District had no control over this. She noted that officers did as they pleased in their job, and the only thing the District could do was enforce its parking map with towing.
Mr. Orenstein asked if the signs had to be 6 foot high. Ms. Adams replied that they had to be installed in accordance with the MUTCD guidelines.
Mr. Orenstein asked what the guidelines were. He added that he was wondering if they could be like a foot tall. Ms. Adams answered that she didn’t think so, knowing it had to be a particular specification per MUTCD.
Resident Renee Martinez (160 S) inquired whether the Estates would also receive the same parking signs as the Reserves. She explained that their area, especially near the mailboxes, needed them because cars parked on the corners blocked visibility. She said people parked all along the mailbox corner, creating double parking, and drivers couldn’t see oncoming cars until the last second. She emphasized the need for immediate safety signs on her street. Mr. Orenstein clarified that the discussion applied to both the Reserves and the Estates together, noting that the CDD was one whole community and everything covered applied equally to both sides.
Resident Mr. O’Neil (754 Jefferson) inquired about the possibility of adding more speed limit signs, noting that there was only one at the entrance, another at Taps, and none further down Jefferson. Mr. Orenstein said he did not know how many signs were already in place.

Mr. Orenstein asked if they were responsible for the speed limit signs. Ms. Adams said that the District could install additional speed limit signs. She added that they would have to go by the MUTCD guidelines.
Mr. Romero said they were willing to consider it if it improved safety. Still, you reminded everyone that the first concern raised was about saving money, so it was a matter of balancing safety and cost.
Michelle Cooper – (160 inaudible) Ms. Cooper said her car was towed Saturday night and she picked it up Sunday, paying $255. She asked for a picture to show why she was in the wrong, but the tow company wouldn’t give it to her. She said she wanted proof or a picture of the violation. They discussed the sign heights, and Mr. Orenstein asked if they could be lowered to look better. Ms. Adams explained the law required the standard uniform height for enforcement, and Mr. Romero noted only Disney had paid for special exceptions. Staff agreed to bring back more information and cost options.

B. Proposal for 2 Mailbox Parking Only Signs
Ms. Adams presented a proposal showing that mailbox-only parking signs on U-channel posts would cost about $802, with most of the expense coming from labor and mobilization. The Board compared green U-channel posts with black powder-coated round posts and toppers, noting the labor would be the same, but the materials would be different. Mr. Blanco said he would prepare itemized estimates, including posts, toppers, and speed limit signs.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Property Encroachments
They then reviewed encroachments. Letters had gone out with August deadlines. One case involved an RV that wasn’t encroaching but could only be moved by crossing CDD land. The Board agreed to send a courtesy letter advising that any access required Board approval and possibly a temporary agreement. Prior encroachments had already been resolved. Encroachments to be reviewed again after the deadline.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Review and Discussion of Landscaping
Scope of Service
A. Current Landscape Agreement with Prince & Sons

Ms. Adams stated that the Board followed up on last month’s discussion about the landscape service agreement. She explained that Prince & Sons had been the provider since 2018, originally selected through a competitive bid process with three bidders, where they were the low bid. They have kept costs steady for the past two years but are now requesting a 3% increase. The Board discussed whether to renew or go out for bids since the contract allowed 30 days’ notice. They leaned toward seeking bids, and Ms. Adams said an updated scope of services could be ready for October. Ms. Adams noted that the current scope of services and areas maintained were included in the packet, along with a draft proposed scope beginning on page 75. Ms. Adams pointed out that renewals usually came to the Board in September to align with the fiscal year and budget cycle. Ms. Adams stated that two options were presented: renew with Prince & Sons at the requested increase or go out to bid. Board members agreed they wanted to go out to bid.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration   of   Audit   Services
Engagement Letter with Grau & Associates
Grau & Associates confirmed their audit engagement with the District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. They agreed to audit the governmental activities, each major fund, and related notes making up the District’s basic financial statements. The agreement also included the option for four additional one-year renewals and required that they examine the District’s compliance with Section 218.415, Florida Statutes.

On MOTION by Ms. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Romero, with all in favor, Audit Services Engagement Letter with Grau & Associates, was approved.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Ms. Hancock had nothing additional to report.

B. Engineer
Ms. Adams noted that there was no engineer present.

C. Field Manager’s Report
Consideration of Proposals for Pressure Washing

Pressure Wash This
Pineapple Services
Mr. Blanco stated that the entrance landscaping beds were mostly green and suggested adding some colorful plants in the new fiscal year. He reported that the vinyl fencing was intact, and two outfall structures with vegetation and sediment were scheduled for cleaning. The monument sign on Hoover Boulevard needed touch-up paint, which was scheduled, and additional pressure washing proposals had been obtained. He explained that three proposals were received for pressure washing: Pressure Wash This at $4,200, Pineapple Services at $5,000, and a third company at $11,000. Ms. Adams mentioned that Pressure Wash This had done good work in other Districts. The Board voted unanimously to approve Pressure Wash This Proposal for $4,200.

On MOTION by Mr. Romero, seconded by Ms. Bridges, with all in favor, Pressure Wash This Proposal, was approved.

D. District Manager’s Report
Ms. Adams reported that the Board had previously directed staff to notify residents about the Board vacancy. She said that a notice was sent asking for letters of interest or resumes. At this time, no responses had been received, but they had planned to send a reminder before the deadline

Approval of Check Register
Ms. Adams stated they have the approval of the check register from June 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025, totaling $ 25,915.83. Ms. Adams said that the Board had gone over the check run summary, which included trustee transfers, legal notices, and contracted services. A motion and a second were made to approve it. A question arose regarding a newspaper expense, which was clarified as being required for public notice. With that explanation, the Board moved forward with approval.

On MOTION by Ms. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Romero, with all in favor, the Check Register, was approved.

Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Ms. Adams presented the unaudited financials through June 30, 2025. These are for informational purposes only. She stated that she was happy to answer any question. Ms. Adams

said that the Board was told that revenues were fully collected. Expenses were under budget overall, with administration and field costs running low and amenity expenses about on par. She noted that the transfer to capital reserves had already been confirmed on August 8th, although it would not appear in the August financials. No Board action was needed.

Approval of Amenity Policy Clarification Regarding Access Card Insurance
An administrative update was also brought up regarding the amenity policies on page 135 of the agenda packet. Ms. Adams said that the policy had previously stated that facility key cards were issued at closing; however, in practice, they were issued upon submission of an application with proof of ownership. Ms. Adams confirmed this was only an administrative correction, so the Board approved updating the language accordingly.

On MOTION by Ms. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Romero, with all in favor, the Amenity Policy Clarification Regarding Access Card Issuance, was approved.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business
Mr. Orenstein wanted to know the cost of adding evening meetings. A member mentioned a past expense of about $360. It was confirmed that the Board had already adopted a 12-meeting schedule but could revise it at any time with proper notice. Ms. Adams noted that the current hotel location offered both daytime and evening meetings. In contrast, the library only permitted daytime meetings, and Tom Fellows location closed at 8 PM. Ms. Adams noted that some Districts scheduled quarterly meetings to balance accessibility and advertising costs. The Board agreed to revisit the idea of evening meetings after reviewing the upcoming sign costs, since that would affect the overall budget. It was also noted that any changes would require re-advertising, but the expense was minimal.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors'	Requests	and	Audience
Comments
Ms. Adams prompted the audience commenters to list their name and addresses.
Resident Christine (221 Taft Drive) inquired whether the two “Mailbox Parking Only” signs indicated that the spaces were intended for short-term parking only, specifically for picking up mail, rather than for long-term or overnight parking. They sought clarification on whether the

signs were designed to limit parking at the kiosks to quick use only. She asked if there had been any issues with parking longer than noticed. Resident Christine mentioned that people occasionally stopped on the wrong side of the street near the playground and mailbox area, usually for just a few minutes with a golf cart, and this wasn’t considered a significant issue.
A question arose regarding the pressure washing, which was explained to include the fence and part of the playground. The discussion wrapped up with thanks and was part of the public comment period.
Ms. Adams stated that the open-seat appointment was pushed to September because the August meeting had been held a week earlier than usual, leaving too little time for notices and applications to be included in the agenda packet. She added that they allowed residents to submit their information for about a month. The appointment would be made by Board motion and vote, and the nominee did not need to be present. They could not participate in Board action until they were sworn in, but if present, they could be sworn in right away. The appointment would only last through the remainder of the current term, which ended in November 2026, at which point the seat would go to the general election process.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment
Ms. Adams adjourned the meeting.

On MOTION by Mr. Orenstein, seconded by Mr. Romero, with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman