Resident Requests and Landscaping RFP Top the May CDD Meeting Agenda

The May 2 meeting began with Chairman Matt Lewis opening the floor to the audience.

Supervisor Greg Chesney was the only board member not in attendance. The first audience member to speak up was Elder Ripper with Helping Hand Lawn Care, whose company narrowly missed the RFP deadline and was asking to still be considered. Lewis thanked him for his time, but politely denied his request.

Steve Splaine, alternate voting member for the Greens, then took the floor with a two-part request regarding the Greens guard house. He noted that while the exterior of the guard house was in great shape, the interior needed attention. He pointed out peeling paint on the walls and floors; the need for hot water and an air vent in the bathroom; functionality issues with the door and filing cabinets; and the request for items like a small refrigerator and paper shredder for the guard staff. Splaine also wanted the Board’s input on the best way to fund these updates. Lewis asked Splaine if he had been to the guard house to see the issues in person and Splaine said he had submitted photos to the Board. He added that the guard staff had reached out the Greens Voting Member Joaquin Arrillaga, who was out of town and asked Splaine to step in. “It’s not where I’d want to be for eight hours a day,” Splaine said of the condition of the space.

Field Manager Doug Mays said he was not aware of issues with the guard house door, but he did have an estimate for painting scheduled for May 3 and was looking into an epoxy option for the floor, like those used on garage floors. He added the bathroom had never had a vent and it had not been an issue. He then said he is a bit behind on some issues like this and thanked Splaine for bringing these items to his attention.

As for funding, Lewis said the Board typically defers to Mays for prioritization of spending. Supervisor Chris Barrett added that CDD staff has a spending threshold that does not require Board approval and he felt like the updates in question would fall within this threshold. Supervisor Reggie Gillis took the opportunity to point out that this is yet another example of the need for long-term planning. “We probably have 15 projects like this. How do we prioritize them? How do we decide when it is time to rebuild?” he asked. Greens Alternate Voting Member Don Roszel stated that he had distributed roughly 50 fliers in Greencrest listing the issues with the guard house and the response was overwhelming. “We love our security guards. They are in a ‘blank’ working space and we want to address it,” he said.

Mays said he would check out the issues and get estimates on the necessary repairs.

Next up was Stonebridge HOA President Matt Rice who wanted to address the maintenance of street trees and sidewalks in his community. He stated there were concerns over the cleanliness of the curbs, islands and sidewalks in the community, adding that based on his calculations there was roughly $19,000 in the Stonebridge right of way budget. “I’m here to challenge the way we’re maintaining Stonebridge,” he said, adding that he wanted clarification on whether pressure washing and maintenance of street trees (including mulch) were in the budget.

Barrett said that behind gates, the items he was asking about are the neighborhood’s responsibility and asked if Rice had the blessing of his community for additional spending. Rice noted that Stonebridge homeowners had both general and Stonebridge-specific assessments and what he is asking regarding the upkeep of the community is similar to what the Greens is requesting for their guard house. Mays countered that homeowners are responsible for pressure washing their sidewalks just like they are for their driveways; the CDD only washes sidewalks in common areas. Rice pointed out 200 feet of common area sidewalk in Stonebridge that hasn’t been addressed. He also pointed to the island at the entrance of Stonebridge that extends inside the gate, as well as the curbing on the island at the back of the community. “I’m looking for a clear definition of what is maintained by the CDD,” he said.

Mays stated that the CDD does not typically pressure wash curbing due to the manpower/time involved.

Gillis added that Rice had a legitimate concern, “We don’t have the processes in place,” he said.

Rice added that 25 years ago, nobody had to think about these issues because, “We were brand spanking new.”

Gillis said that for now, we’re stuck with whatever is in the budget. “If you want that done now, you need monetary backing.”

Barrett interjected that the District can run a deficit and assess the community next year, but the key is maintaining a consistent policy.

Rice asked if the CDD needed some sort of referendum for how funds were spent. District Counsel Erin McCormick replied that the Board usually relies on the HOA to figure out support for spending.

After a bit of back and forth over whether it would make sense to enlist the CDD to pressure wash the sidewalks, Lewis asked Rice for an email with a very specific list of the ask and the frequency of the ask. Rice agreed and said that was a very reasonable request.

In his update, District Engineer, Robert Dvorak stated he had completed the field surveys as part of the recertification of community signage and pavement markings and saw nothing that will impede recertification. He had also been out to look at the crosswalk behind the Greens gate to assess it for pedestrian safety. He said that based on his assessment, a flashing crosswalk sign would be appropriate. “You need something to get people’s attention there,” he added.

Splaine said he felt the crosswalk was too close to the gate and that it might make sense to move it further back. Dvorak agreed there is a sight-distance issue, which is why he wanted to do something that would get people’s attention. Gillis said the whole area needs to be looked at, adding that the conversation was about coming into the Greens, when it is going out of the Greens that is more dangerous with the golf cart crossing. Lewis asked Dvorak to look at the entire area and come back with recommendations.

Dvorak then turned his attention to drainage issues on pond #125 where water tends to creep into residents’ backyards. He said he would like to put in a proposal for a survey request to see if it is possible to improve hydraulics between that pond and an adjacent pond. The board approved survey spending not to exceed $7,000.

In an update on the cell tower project, McCormick said Virtex had agreed to move the pond further north. She noted that silk fencing had been installed between the construction zone and adjacent wetlands and the wording in the agreement would put the onus on the contractor to keep equipment out of the area between the fencing and the wetlands. She added that the County had agreed to a 20-year license agreement.

District Manager Andy Mendenhall gave an update on the landscaping RFP. He had received 10 pre-qualification forms, and seven of the 10 came in on time and had nothing to disqualify them. On May 3 the RFP would be sent to the seven candidates. There would be a mandatory bid meeting on May 19 at 10 a.m. Sealed bids would be due by May 31 and there would a public opening at Mendenhall’s office at 2 p.m. that day. Bids would then be emailed to the Board, which would allow them to select a contractor at the June 6 board meeting.

Regarding the budget for the coming year, which would be approved in August, Mendenhall suggested the Board postpone discussions until the June 6 meeting. That way, they would have an exact number for the landscaping line item. This would require them to move the August board meeting from Aug. 8 to Aug. 1 to adhere to the required timeline, but Mendenhall stated that was a simple matter of running a notice to move the meeting and the board agreed.

In his update, Mays stated that the erosion remediation project was underway and the turf project in the Village Green was complete. He added he had received two more tree removal requests and when he went to visit the first site, the tree had already been removed. The second tree did not pose any threat in Mays’ opinion and the Board voted to deny both permits. The resident who had already removed his tree would now need to take the issue up with the HOA and the Modifications Committee.

Scroll to Top