Title: SP_coversheet
Author: Stacie M Vanderbilt

September 1, 2026

Storey Park CDD

Date of Estimate:
Estimate Number: Project/Job:
Estimator:

9.23.26
LP00200
Storey Park CDD Eric Donaldson

Storey Park Community Development District September 28, 2026
Page  of 3

Storey Park
Community Development District

Storey Park
Community Development District General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Month to Month

Storey Park
Community Development District Capital Reserve Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Debt Service Fund - Series 2015
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Debt Service Fund - Series 2018
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Debt Service Fund - Series 2019
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Debt Service Fund - Series 2021
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Debt Service Fund - Series 2022
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Capital Projects Fund - Series 2021
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park
Community Development District Capital Projects Fund - Series 2022
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For The Period Ending August 31, 2026

Storey Park Community Development District

Agenda October 6, 2026

Agenda

September 29, 2026

Board of Supervisors

Storey Park
Community Development District
219 E. Livingston Street, Orlando, Florida 32801 Phone: 407-841-5524 – Fax: 407-839-1526

Storey Park Community Development District

Dear Board Members:

The meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Storey Park Community Development District will be held Tuesday, October 6, 2026 at 4:00 PM at the Offices of GMS-CF, 219 E. Livingston Street, Orlando, Florida. Following is the advance agenda for the meeting:

Roll Call
Public Comment Period
Approval of Minutes of the September 1, 2026 Meeting
Consideration of Proposal from Hall Company, Inc. Prologue Ave & Theme Alley Intersection Repair
Staff Reports
Attorney
Engineer
Consideration of Proposal for Additional Services Related to Pond K-1 Trail Grading
District Manager’s Report
Approval of Check Register
Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Field Manager’s Report
Public Comment Period
Supervisor’s Requests
Other Business
Next Meeting Date – November 3, 2026
Adjournment

The balance of the agenda will be discussed at the meeting. In the meantime, if you should have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,
Jason M. Showe District Manager

CC:	Jan Carpenter, District Counsel Christina Baxter, District Engineer

Enclosures

Minutes

MINUTES OF MEETING STOREY PARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Storey Park Community Development District was held on Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. at the Offices of GMS-CF, 219 E. Livingston Street, Orlando, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:
Willem Boermans | Chairman
Matthew Antolovich | Vice Chairman
Travis Smith | Assistant Secretary
David Grimm | Assistant Secretary
Also present were: |
Jason Showe | District Manager
Jan Carpenter | District Counsel
Cameron Roberts | District Engineer
Alan Scheerer | Field Manager

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Showe called the meeting to order and called the roll. A quorum was present.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment Period
Mr. Showe: We only have members of the Board and staff present. So, there's no public comment period.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the August 4,
2026 Meeting
Mr. Showe: We can go to the approval of minutes of the August 4, 2026 meeting. Those minutes were included as part of your agenda package. We can take any corrections or changes at this time or a motion to approve.

On MOTION by Mr. Antolovich seconded by Mr. Boermans with all in favor the Minutes of the August 4, 2026 Meeting were approved, as presented.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Proposal from Pape-
Dawson for Theme Alley & Prologue Avenue
This item was discussed later in the meeting.
Mr. Showe: We have a proposal for some survey work. So, we'll turn that over to Cameron.
Mr. Roberts: We sent you guys the proposal for the survey, between the Pond K-1 trail and wetland. I know that the Board approved a not-to-exceed at the last meeting. So, I did bug the guy and asked him if it could be penciled down a little bit tighter. He said it is what it is. He's estimating about two days’ worth of work in the field and about a half days’ worth of work internally in the office.
Mr. Showe: Does that relate to the map that you handed out or is that separate? Mr. Roberts: That's separate.
Mr. Showe: Okay.
Mr. Scheerer: That's the asphalt trail by the wetland and the K1 pond. Mr. Showe: Okay.
Mr. Smith: It was determined what we wanted to do with it, right? Mr. Roberts: Correct.
Ms. Carpenter: Once you get the survey, what will it provide? Will it give enough information?
Mr. Grimm: The point of that, was to determine if there was some grading to alleviate liability.
Mr. Antolovich: Also, to figure out if it was just a fix that was just going to be new grading or whatnot.
Mr. Smith: Yeah, because I think when we had the discussion last time, it was designed a certain way. It was built, but there was never, I think, what I recall, not a verification of what it was built to. This was to verify the grading, to see if it matched what was permitted and what we expected.
Ms. Carpenter: Well, I thought that they said they weren't any permits. That's why I was

asking.

Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Ms. Carpenter: That’s why I was asking whether it was a permitted design.

Mr. Smith: I think the permitting was wrong. Ms. Carpenter: Were there plans?
Mr. Showe: I think it was designed.
Ms. Carpenter: Were there design plans?
Mr. Smith: There were design plans. Whether it was built to design was, I think, one of the things that we wanted to establish. Then I think the other was, if we were to do a fix, are there simpler fixes that could be implemented that were less costly, than the two main options, I think we had to consider.
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah, I was just asking to make sure that the design plans are available, so you don't get a survey and don't have something to compare it to.
Mr. Grimm: That would have to be something that the Chairman would have to approve. Mr. Roberts: We have design plans.
Ms. Carpenter: Okay. Perfect.
Mr. Boermans: The most important part is the big fix, the most expensive fix, is over six figures.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: Our job is to be financially responsible. So, that's why we have to find the best solution. What do you all think about this and the price?
Mr. Showe: Yeah. Just for reference. the not-to-exceed proposed at the last meeting, was
$2,500. Obviously, it was over that.
Mr. Grimm: That was based upon?
Mr. Showe: I think it was based on Christie's opinion. She threw out a number. Mr. Smith: It was just a guess.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: I think it's the intricacies. I'm not defending any other way. Just FYI, we think we need about 5-foot increments and we're measuring sod levels directly next to trail levels. Then the edge of the trail and then the sod. We're creating a pretty substantial grid to really inform. Hence why it's two days’ worth of work for only 500 linear feet.
Mr. Grimm: Well, let me ask this question. You say that the original design plans are available. I guess my fear is that we pay for the survey and all we'll look at whether the survey

matches the plan, without knowing what the plan is. Because up until the last meeting it was always it's working as designed.
Mr. Roberts: The interaction between the wetland overflow into the pond, is working as designed. The trail is graded negatively towards the wetland in certain areas, which is obviously making it worse. I think what we're trying to communicate is, even if we did raise the trail and actually graded positively towards the wetland and we fix those sod areas, that overflow is still going to occur, because there's not enough head and pressure difference.
Mr. Grimm: Because it's coming through the lakeside and not the hillside. Mr. Roberts: Yes.
Mr. Grimm: In theory. It's overflowing from the lake up until the path, because the lake is too full.
Mr. Roberts: It's going from the wetland to the pond. Mr. Antolovich: To the lake.
Mr. Grimm: We've been told that it's kind of acting as designed, because the water is coming out of the wetlands, down the slope, across the path and into the pond. But obviously during the wet season, the pond is higher, so then it's just creeping up. There is a portion of the path, where it actually is away from the south end of the path. Every time I drive by it, I can look to the right and there is just standing water on the path itself.
Mr. Roberts: At the edge of the house, that first lot. I know the spot you’re talking about. Mr. Grimm: It is kind of close to the street. Do you know what I’m talking about?
Because you can see it from the road when you drive by. My understanding was the issue was always because the water was overflowing in the lake, which creeped up to the path. The wetland drainage was working as designed into the lake, but the lake was creeping this way, which was causing the flooding on the path itself. Am I wrong when I say that?
Mr. Roberts: It's more in the wet season, the water level in the wetland raises above existing ground and flows over the trail into the pond.
Mr. Grimm: Which is how it's supposed to work.
Mr. Roberts: Which is how it's supposed to work. So, the elevation of the wetland is 84.
The elevation of the trail is 84. The elevation of the water in the lake, the pond is 76.
Mr. Grimm: I guess it depends on what part, because you said that some parts are level with the retention of the wetland.

Ms. Carpenter: We are going totally out of line here.
Mr. Roberts: Approximately, but yes. Some areas are a little bit lower. It slopes down towards the wetland.
Mr. Grimm: Which brings another question. Hypothetically we picked one of the options of fixing the issue. At what point where do we fix it? Because water is not just pulling in one spot. It's pulling in from way up here, all the way down and then actually it's pulling there, no matter what happens with the water, Obviously, Alan can contest that concrete breaks apart like crazy there, causing asphalt potholes.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, potholes in the asphalt, because of the water ponding. Mr. Grimm: Right.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah.
Ms. Carpenter: Again, this is not legal. This just sort of crossed my mind from the conversations, because of the price this time. There were thoughts that maybe the sod had burned up high along the path, that it was holding water rather than letting it drip down.
Mr. Showe: Drain through.
Mr. Grimm: I heard that insulation facade might be the reason. Grass is lower than…
Ms. Carpenter: Is there any inspection? I know when you look at a yard, sometimes the roots grow up and suddenly you've got this much.
Mr. Scheerer: It's like any yard. Over time, you are going to mow it at a certain height, and that grass is going to grow to that certain height and it's going to stay at that certain height.
Ms. Carpenter: Rather than spending $6,000.
Mr. Grimm: I think the survey was brought up, because how do you know if there's a landscaper issue that threw the sod after it was ready to be sodded? How do we know if it was a grading issue? We're being told it's not a design issue, because that's what Lennar asked for. Apparently, based upon the comments from Christine, they told Lennar that it was a bad idea and Lennar still said to do it as is.
Ms. Carpenter: They said it was going to flood. Is there anything, inspection-wise, that you can see if you look at and say, “Hey, yeah, in these four areas?”
Mr. Scheerer: Well, we know that we have one big area and that's the flooding coming over from the wetland, but then also coming between the two houses off of Imaginary Way, there's a big dip that comes down like this. So, not only are we getting ponding issues right there,

but it's also coming from irrigation from the yards and downspouts facing that way from the gutters.
Mr. Boermans: Yeah, it’s absolutely horrible there, at the entrance. Mr. Scheerer: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: It’s all eroded.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. Unfortunately, Dan never fixed what Dan said he was going to do. I got a price to re-asphalt it. At the time, it was about $21,000 to do it.
Ms. Carpenter: Oh, wow.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. It's not a simple pothole.
Ms. Carpenter: I was just wondering, is there any sort of landscaping inspection or something to see, if we trim the stump down?
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, we do.
Ms. Carpenter: Would it make sense to spend a few hundred dollars doing that?
Mr. Scheerer: We edge the trails from time to time as they grow over. But as far as mowing, there's not a whole lot that we can do for mowing. When I mow my yard, if I'm mowing it at 3 inches, it's going to stay at 3 inches.
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah, but you get that clump of roots and stuff that suddenly is above the

path.

Mr. Scheerer: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: I'm sorry if I interrupted you. Ms. Carpenter: Oh, that's fine.
Mr. Boermans: The easiest way, what I would think to fix it, is to build a trench and then

in some spots, have a pipe underneath, so the water can go underneath the road.
Ms. Carpenter: That would require permit modifications. Mr. Boermans: Oh, for sure.
Ms. Carpenter: Is the pond discharging properly? Do we know if there's anything flooding the pond?
Mr. Roberts: There is nothing wrong.
Mr. Boermans: There’s nothing wrong with it. I’ve never seen anything wrong with it. Mr. Roberts: Besides the structures.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.

Mr. Scheerer: Yes, that's a whole other story. Mr. Roberts: That's another thing.
Ms. Carpenter: That’s a whole other thing.
Mr. Roberts: We looked at putting in a pipe. We put an actual structure in the northern corner of the wetlands.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: You have to raise the trail a little bit in that area, to get the sufficient cover, the depth to the pipe. By the time we actually started looking at permit modifications and applying to the city, there were our fees, environmental fees and geotechnical fees. If you remember from a couple months ago, we sent three options. That was the second option.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: After we actually did a cost breakdown, we said that's just not even an

option.

Mr. Boermans: Oh yeah.
Mr. Roberts: That was just not even realistic. I think the purpose of the survey, is to

figure out the minimum that we could be achieved, to alleviate to a certain amount. We can't guarantee that it's going to fix it, but in this area, the whole thing has to be re-graded. So, instead of saying all 500 feet raised up to a certain elevation, we would say 100 feet re-graded positively towards the wetland. These 50 feet trimmed down the sod on the western side and these 50 feet trimmed down the sod on the eastern side. That was the idea of getting this detailed grid survey.
Mr. Smith: But if I look at the survey scope, it says that it would provide a comparison to the engineering drawings, horizontal and vertical data, referenced to State planning coordinates. Is that section the reference back to the design?
Mr. Roberts: That's a more standardized coordinate system that surveyors work to in Florida.
Mr. Smith: Okay, but what part? I'm just looking at the scope of what the $6,500 covers. I don't read anywhere where it says directly it's going to compare back to the engineering drawings or the plan.
Mr. Roberts: The survey scope would not state that. They're just picking up elevations and giving us a topographical map.

Mr. Showe: After the survey, that would then go on to the engineering staff, the engineering staff would have to evaluate that survey and compare it.
Mr. Smith: But I'm just trying to see the total cost of it. Because here, it says that it is
$6,000 for that, but then there's a cost to do the evaluation. So, I was wondering what the all in cost would be. I only see part of the cost here. I'm not seeing the next step.
Mr. Grimm: It’s confusing, because it's the same company. Mr. Smith: Yeah. The scope is missing.
Mr. Grimm: It slides a little bit. Ms. Carpenter: Yes.
Mr. Grimm: This isn't the full scope of the job. Right?
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah. This is solely for the survey. They usually have separate departments.
Mr. Roberts: Yeah, we can prepare a proposal.
Mr. Grimm: It's not going to make anything clearer. It's going to let us know the total amount. Based upon previous information that we've had with other services, I would say that it's going to cost at least $1,000. Because if you recall, when we did the parking and there were some other things, when you look at the hourly rates, etc., I'm sure it's not one person doing it. It's probably multiple people doing it. Each level of job title is more expensive. But my question is, would we be able to get the original stuff before this takes place?
Mr. Roberts: Yes.
Ms. Carpenter: You want to just send a copy to Jason, so he has it in the record.
Mr. Grimm: I still don't even really know. I kind of understand Cameron's point. Like, what is it really going to do? You can't stop gravity.
Mr. Showe: Well, he's trying to be clear when he says it.
Mr. Grimm: You have the big hill that comes off of those homes. Do the wetlands, connect or relate to each other at all, if the wetlands come over?
Mr. Roberts: When I went to the site, that sloped down from the homes, where the asphalt sprouted out, I think those are two separate problems. That's a grading issue off of the back of the lots. The wetland is not flooding in. We're just getting a lot of velocity of stormwater coming down that hill. That hole can just be filled today and should go away. The wetland issue would not be related to that.

Mr. Grimm: I don't know, other than call my friend who's running for State House and say, “listen.”
Mr. Showe: If I'm hearing correctly, what we can do, is we can get them to send me the original plans. We can distribute that to the Board and maybe they can come up with just what their cost would be after they get the survey, so that you guys can see the total cost.
Mr. Grimm: We don't want a ballpark.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. We missed that one, didn't we? Mr. Showe: Yeah. If that's kind of what I'm hearing.
Mr. Smith: Yeah, I think we need that before we can make a decision. Mr. Showe: Okay.
Mr. Boermans: I agree. Now that almost rainy season is almost getting to the end and before we do anything, whenever we are doing this, we should be one month further.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Ms. Carpenter: Well, you can see how bad it is. This is the worst that it should be. Mr. Showe: Correct.
Ms. Carpenter: In the next four weeks or five weeks. Mr. Roberts: How is it now?
Mr. Boermans: Do you want to do that or should we approve the survey now? Because now there is so much rain.
Mr. Grimm: They are not going to care about that. Mr. Roberts: It shouldn’t matter, to be honest.
Mr. Grimm: They're like, “Oh, there's a lot of water here.”
Mr. Antolovich: So, there are two plans. One proposal was $75,000 and the other was
$180,000 for the boardwalk. What was the cheaper option? Do you guys remember?
Mr. Roberts: We would raise the elevation of the trail. Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: About a foot and regrade the trail. Mr. Antolovich: Is a survey needed for that?
Mr. Roberts: For?
Mr. Antolovich: Well, I'm trying to figure that out. Mr. Roberts: Not for us to direct a contractor.

finish.

Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: I think we would want them to get us an actual survey by the time that they

Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Grimm: You're talking out of what they're going to cost?
Mr. Antolovich: Well, I'm wondering, is this survey going to happen no matter what? Mr. Showe: Or you need a second survey, if you do the first survey.
Mr. Smith: But we may not need the same fine detail of the survey. If we're just going to

raise it, we might pay half. I'm not an expert in this, but we probably won't need that finer grid, because it would raise it again in bulk.
Ms. Carpenter: Is this in the capital project for this year?
Mr. Showe: There's been no money, no funding allocated, but any expenses would come out of the capital project account.
Mr. Antolovich: This fiscal year does start next year, though. I mean, next month. Mr. Scheerer: It does start next year. Very good, sir. Next year and next month.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Grimm: But you said that we're in good shape. Do we have some discretionary money?
Mr. Showe: You have $423,000 in capital reserves. Mr. Smith: Yeah, we have $420,000.
Mr. Scheerer: You have outfall problems. Ms. Carpenter: If you have a hurricane.
Mr. Boermans: We had to fix one of our weirs and it was $180,000. Mr. Smith: Yeah, but we have another one that might come up, too. Ms. Carpenter: FEMA is not reimbursing very well anymore.
Mr. Scheerer: Pick your poison.
Mr. Antolovich: My thoughts on it, we've had a lot of complaints. People want to get it fixed. It's going to cost money to fix it. Finding out whether it was installed properly or not, if there does get to be a blame put on somebody else, I guess my first question is, is there any actual resource that we have at this point in time? If not, then it's pointless to figure out who is to blame, if there's anyone to blame.

Ms. Carpenter: I guess that's pointed at me. I’m winging it here, with the little bit that I know about it. But if it was not built to plans, you may be able to go after a contractor to say, “These were the plans. You did not build it appropriately.” If the way it was designed was not something that had to be permitted, it would probably be difficult to go after anybody for the design and the setup that was required by the city as part of the permitting. So, the fact was they did it with something that the city made Lennar build. Again, not knowing anything about Lennar and the Engineer and design, but if no permit had to be complied with, it would be hard to find a standard to comply.
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah and that's what Ms. Baxter was saying, too. There was not a requirement.
Ms. Carpenter: I have a number of CDDs that are looking at developer issues and you have to hire another engineering firm and a consultant. Those reports tend to be in the $10,000,
$20,000 or $30,000 range. So, to litigate, you're going to end up spending $50,000 or $100,000 minimum, to try to pursue a claim. Whether you get someone to settle, it really depends on the facts that you can find. But most of the cases are where there's permitting or there's an actual contract with specs that said, “Okay, this did not happen.” Again, I don't know. I haven't seen the plans.
Mr. Grimm: But I mean, I can't imagine they just said, “Put in a water thing.”
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah, they had to build the pond. Mr. Grimm: The wetland.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Ms. Carpenter: They have to make the stormwater work with the wetland in the pond. Mr. Grimm: I mean, gosh, it's likely that they have bigger issues than Storey Park CDD,
if all they have to say is, “We're going to put it right there and then just do that and we’re good to go.”
Ms. Carpenter: You have to look at all of the other plans to see if there was a better place to put it or was this the only place? I mean again there's a lot of facts.
Mr. Grimm: Would this be county or city? Ms. Carpenter: The city.
Mr. Grimm: What kind of department would that be? Do you know? Mr. Roberts: Public Works.

Mr. Scheerer: Public Works or Stormwater Department.
Mr. Showe: Planning Department, if there was an approval process.
Mr. Roberts: As part of the Plan Development (PD), there was a trail required around there, I believe. The location of that was discussed throughout. In the planning, they only care that there's a trail there, that's 6 feet wide. That's the only thing that they will care about. The city would look at the connectivity of how it flows and code requirements of maintaining our stormwater for pre and post discharge. That would usually be the Public Works Department or if the City of Orlando has their own Stormwater Department. I'm not sure. But either way Public Works would be the ones for you to call.
Mr. Grimm: They would be the ones that said we need to have a pond that meets the specific parameters of this plan.
Mr. Roberts: It's more that we tell the city that we would like to put a pond here, this big, to cater for this much, to meet your overall final development stormwater criteria.
Mr. Grimm: Would the Public Works Department be the people that drafted that criteria at some point in time?
Mr. Roberts: Yes.
Mr. Grimm: Then of course the commissioners approved that particular situation. Mr. Roberts: Yes.
Mr. Antolovich: Correct me if I'm wrong. A lot of times it's more just almost like a point system. It not necessarily always has to be these exact dimensions of this or whatever. It's the minimum standards and whatever way the developer comes up with that, as long as it checks the boxes.
Mr. Grimm: I asked this question, because I'll just reach out to people and say, “This is what the situation is” and I'm curious to know what their response is going to be. We have very strict parameters.
Ms. Carpenter: We have to be really cautious, if you talk with other government officials. Mr. Grimm: I'll do my own research on it.
Ms. Carpenter: But if you're doing it as a Board representative, the Board needs to approve you doing it.
Mr. Grimm: To do my own research?
Ms. Carpenter: If you're contacting government officials.

Mr. Grimm: I'm not contacting anybody. Ms. Carpenter: Okay.
Mr. Grimm: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: Yeah. It's so difficult, because I think whenever you would look at a main road with a sidewalk and there are structural issues with it, it's easier than the trail, because the trail is like an amenity. So, it's so much more difficult.
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah. It doesn't have specifics. Like a sidewalk has to be a certain width.
You can't have certain depth. It has to be level. A trail is much more flexible.
Mr. Grimm: I understand. Ms. Carpenter. Okay, thanks.
Mr. Antolovich: If we were to just do the re-grading, what would we need beforehand?
Surveys or no?
Mr. Roberts: The $95,000? Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: I want to say no, at least not to the extent that, that survey is. Mr. Smith: Cut it in half.
Mr. Roberts: Because really, it's just to get the contractor out there. Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: Get his own survey done before, if he needed one. Mr. Smith: But if we raise it, how will we verify that by fixing it? Mr. Roberts: We would request as-builts, as well as do inspections.
Mr. Boermans: Would it be a good idea to get proposals from contractors?
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah, I guess we're running down two avenues. One, whose fault is it and can we get someone else to pay for it? And two, we still need to get it done, whether it's us paying for it or not.
Mr. Smith: But I don't know. From what I've heard, it has to be a very high bar, for someone pay for it, unless the cause of action is...
Mr. Grimm: Unless there is a plan and after the survey the plan says this was not done. Mr. Smith: Yeah.
Mr. Grimm: Now who do you go after? Do you go after Lennar as the developer or the subcontractor that Lennar hired?

Mr. Smith: And what's the statute of limitations?
Mr. Grimm: I’m sure that the statute of limitations hasn't expired. I'll ask the attorney. Mr. Boermans: It's within five years.
Ms. Carpenter: When was the flooding discovered? Mr. Antolovich: Last year.
Mr. Boermans: The year before.
Mr. Grimm: When I first moved there, I've been there for just over three years. Ms. Carpenter: I can confirm it for you.
Mr. Smith: But if my understanding is correct, right now the survey is $6,500. If we need to survey anyway, maybe it's not going to be this fine, but it still would be something for a few thousand plus dollars.
Mr. Antolovich: Potentially.
Mr. Smith: Maybe it’s $3,000 to $4,000 to have that option to proceed with someone else and is that worth it? The way that I think through it, we're going to probably have to have a survey at some point anyway. It may not be the fine detail here, but it will be several thousand dollars that we have to cover. It may not be the 5 feet or 10 feet.
Mr. Grimm: It's a $100,000 job, plus or minus.
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah. What would it take for you to draft a scope of work to put out to
bid?
Mr. Roberts: A couple grand.
Mr. Antolovich: If it's going to cost $100,000 to fix it. Mr. Grimm: Does it cost us money to solicit business?
Mr. Showe: Well, they have to develop a scope. They need to develop a solid scope that
we can send apples-to-apples.
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah, just to develop the scope. Mr. Scheerer: Right.
Mr. Antolovich: So, we would need that anyways. Right? I mean, if we can prove something that they did wrong and we want them to fix it and they go, “Okay, how do we fix it?” We can tell them how we want it fixed, right? Or try to sue them for an amount of money to pay for it. So, no matter what…
Mr. Boermans: We need to survey it.

Mr. Antolovich: No, we need to get proposals.
Mr. Smith: The way I'm thinking of it, is it's going to cost us roundly $100,000, no matter what options we go with. We are potentially paying $3,000 or $4,000 more, to explore the option that they may not fall back to us. So, that's what I think the option to me is. It's $3,000 for that option, if it wasn't built to plans or to the engineering design, to try to hold something. I think that's at least certainly how I think the decision should be made.
Ms. Carpenter: Do we have a contract for that work or know who even did it? Do we know who did the construction?
Mr. Scheerer: We can find out. I know Lennar had a contractor out there and we have a Lennar employee that works for us now. So, she might get some information for us. Who is it?
Mr. Smith: Elevate.
Mr. Scheerer: I'm not sure. I thought just the main contractor did all of the pond digging and stuff over in K-1.
Ms. Carpenter: It's something to find out, if you want to pursue looking at somebody. Mr. Roberts: It was the same contractor?
Mr. Scheerer: Yes.
Mr. Roberts: Do you know who that was? Mr. Showe: I don't know off hand if we do.
Mr. Scheerer: Well, we probably have requisitions somewhere that were paid through bonds for whatever work.
Mr. Grimm: I'll just put it out there. I’m a Real Estate Agent.
Mr. Antolovich: Is there any overlap between potentially going down this detailed survey route and getting proposals?
Mr. Showe: I think they are two separate issues.
Mr. Antolovich: If you go to the proposal route, are you going have to get some survey work done that this would cover?
Mr. Roberts: Me creating the scope for the Option 1 $95,000 fix, could that also be used for Option 2 for the minimum works scope? Yes, I think so. Because regardless, we would be reconstructing trails and grading appropriately using the same cross sections. So, yes.

Mr. Boermans: I'm just worried with the $95,000 proposal, that it is really $95,000 and it would not exceed more, because initially we were thinking that it would cost $110,000 to
$150,000 and then it ended up being $180,000.
Mr. Antolovich: These are rough estimates.
Mr. Roberts: We compare it to schedules that we receive from contractors. But it's for 300 or 400 lots, right? I think we've learned now, that we need to upscale that nearly 100% to their unit rates. So, that $95,000 is higher than what it would be if it was just our normal jobs. But they are going to tell you the most. You don't get three quotes.
Mr. Boermans: Yeah. Of course,
Mr. Grimm: While I have an opinion on this, I don't have opinion on what direction you go in, so I'll defer to the other two gentlemen.
Mr. Showe: Yeah. I'm kind of hearing a lot of different directions. Mr. Scheerer: Yeah.
Ms. Carpenter: That was why I had questions. Just because I've seen too many CDD's spend money.
Mr. Antolovich: I would like to know what it costs to replace it. I doubt that we're going to find somebody who is at fault and then litigate and then get money back and not drag it on forever. Even if we did get some money back, how long is that going to take and how much are we actually going to save?
Mr. Boermans: Yeah, I agree on that.
Mr. Grimm: I assume repairs can't be made and then you try to litigate at that point. Ms. Carpenter: Only if it's an emergency or a health and safety issue.
Mr. Showe: Yeah. It has to be a health and safety issue. Ms. Carpenter: Can you give galoshes to all of the runners?
Mr. Antolovich: Being quoted at $250,000, is a lot different, if it actually comes back quoted at $50,000.
Mr. Showe: I agree.
Mr. Smith: I don't know how long it would take to get the quote and prepare the spec. Mr. Antolovich: Yeah and get some bids.
Mr. Smith: For us to consider, because I'd like to know if we're saying… Mr. Antolovich: What are we trying to achieve?

Mr. Smith: Yeah, just weigh it against it.
Mr. Antolovich: Are we trying to save $30,000 or are we trying to save $200,000? So, I would like to get quotes and bids for the re-grading. What do you guys think?
Mr. Smith: I agree.
Mr. Showe: So, what I'm hearing is that we would need a motion to authorize the Engineer to go ahead and put a scope together and get bids.
Ms. Carpenter: With a not-to-exceed. We need some number.
Mr. Showe: Well, would you have a not-to-exceed for your work? Ms. Carpenter: What do you need?
Mr. Scheerer: $2,000.
Mr. Grimm: Can you sign something that says $2,000? Mr. Scheerer: We'll have them on record.
Mr. Grimm: I'm just kidding.
Mr. Roberts: I'm just doing math in my head real quick. Mr. Antolovich: No pressure.
Mr. Roberts: $2,500 is probably fair.

Mr. Antolovich MOVED to authorize the District Engineer to prepare a scope and obtain bids to re-grade between the Pond K-1 trail and wetland in a not-to-exceed amount of $2,500 and Mr. Boermans seconded the motion.

Mr. Smith: I would approve $3,500 with Chair approval, if it comes to that. Mr. Showe: So, then why don't we just do a not-to-exceed of $3,500?
Mr. Roberts: Okay.
Ms. Carpenter: Let the Chair approve it. Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Showe: We'll still give the Chair approval once we get the proposal.

On VOICE VOTE with all in favor authorization for the District Engineer to prepare a scope and obtain bids to re-grade between the Pond K-1 trail and wetland in a not-to-exceed amount of
$3,500, with the Chair’s approval was approved.

Mr. Showe: Keep working the issue. Mr. Boermans: It is a pain in the butt.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Addendum	#1	to
Landscape Maintenance Agreement with OmegaScapes, Inc. - Added
Ms. Carpenter: We sent a demand letter to OmegaScapes last month, laying out the issues that we saw in the performance of their work and requested not the $20,000 contribution, but 50% and they came back and agreed. So, we drafted an agreement and they've been cooperative and did not contest it.
Mr. Showe: They've executed the agreement. It also includes the one-year warranty that the Board requested and also the language.
Ms. Carpenter: Language stating that this isn't precedent for something else. Mr. Showe: Correct.
Mr. Showe: So, we believe it represents what the Board approved. We just wanted to have a motion to go ahead and have that approved. OmegaScapes has already signed it. I think they're ready to start on Monday.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. If it gets approved today, they're going to have somebody out to spray all of the grass on Monday. The grass is going to end up brown and dead. So, you may want to let your neighbors know.
Mr. Showe: We can send something out too.
Mr. Smith: Yeah, we can just send a communication out, because I see a lot of people take their pets to Hammock Park.
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah, we'll send it to John.

On MOTION by Mr. Grimm seconded by Mr. Boermans with all in favor Addendum #1 to Landscape Maintenance Agreement with OmegaScapes, Inc. was approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Non-Ad	Valorem
Assessment	Administration	Agreement with Orange County Property Appraiser
- Added

Mr. Showe: Behind that, is more of just a housekeeping item. This is for next year's Property Appraiser Agreement. It's required for us to use the on-roll assessment. There's really no change in the agreement, so we would just look for a motion to approve.

On MOTION by Mr. Grimm seconded by Mr. Antolovich with all in favor the Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Administration Agreement with Orange County Property Appraiser was approved.

Ms. Carpenter: You left out the most exciting thing. The Orange County Tax Collector isn't going to hold the money any longer, because people pay early.
Mr. Grimm: Does the Controller hold it? Ms. Carpenter: No, the Tax Collector.
Mr. Showe: Well, this agreement is with the Property Appraiser. Ms. Carpenter: Oh, okay. Bummer.
Mr. Showe: These are different folks. We've had some issues with the Orange County Tax Collector, but Jan has been helpful in getting that resolved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Mr. Showe: With that, we'll turn it over to the attorney.
Ms. Carpenter: Sorry. I had something good and it took a long time. No, we don't have anything else. I don't mean to be negative on the potential claims. My litigators would love to jump in, but from what we're seeing in our Districts, a lot of money is going out the door without really remedying the problem. If there was something that was clear negligence or clearly something wasn't done properly, then I say go for it.
Mr. Grimm: What would you encourage residents who have some issues with developers after the fact, using our neighborhood as an example? Contact legislators?
Ms. Carpenter: Contact legislators and then go after your seller, if you get large groups of people all bringing up the same issues.
Mr. Grimm: The seller is the developer.
Ms. Carpenter: Then the developer will respond, if they get enough people pushing back on the same issues. Because the homeowners have the private rights, if their yard is flooding or if somebody's yard is not graded properly. They have much more clear construction claim 558

rights. It's much harder when a government is getting something that's been permitted or isn't required to prove something different.
Mr. Grimm: Being only less than a year on the Board, do we have the ability to figure out these types of things that have come up since 2015? In 11 years, not just Parcel K, but the whole community, how many issues have come up that are CDD related, that could potentially be pointed to the developer? I'm not trying to get you to make something up. I'm just curious. Just being here, there have been multiple issues.
Mr. Boermans: We had the weir damage. Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: You can go look at engineering, but a hurricane came through at that time. So, there was a lot more water than normally came through. That's how it started to erode and it just collapsed completely. At that moment, I think the developer can say, “Well, there was a hurricane.” It's so hard to fight that one, especially when you look for a major developer, well, a major developer that have a big law firm behind them. To start that fight from our side, from the CDD side, will cost so much money. Is it really worth it?
Mr. Grimm: That's why I asked for a ballpark number in the last 11 years. Is it multi million dollars? Is it $500,000? Is it $5 million? I don't know.
Mr. Showe: Just since I've been involved, the weir is the only real issue and then the trail and the other weir.
Mr. Scheerer: The other weir. Mr. Grimm: The grass issues.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, the sod issue.
Mr. Antolovich: But that's really more of an HOA issue. Mr. Scheerer: No.
Mr. Antolovich: Do we have a bunch of it? Mr. Scheerer: Well, Parcel K.
Mr. Grimm: You should see the dog park. Mr. Scheerer: The dog park and the areas. Mr. Grimm: There is not even grass anymore.
Ms. Carpenter: But we've got that in one CDD. But then you're looking at whether it was due to the landscaper or the maintenance people or the irrigation.

Mr. Showe: If that's on the plan to install, then we've got a hard case to make. Mr. Scheerer: They just put in the wrong sod in Parcel K, in our opinion.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: That ProVista sod has roots that grow laterally. They don't sink. So, you end up with surface turf that doesn't always perform well.
Ms. Carpenter: But then the other side that we see and I don't know in Storey Park, are the things that the developer did in addition, after the fact, to restore problems. Because most of the developers in the early years, find a bunch of things and do more than they had to.
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah, they do.
Mr. Grimm: I’m just curious to know if there was something worth exploring. Ms. Carpenter: Yeah.
Mr. Grimm: You mentioned a full community of people. Mr. Boermans: It's a difficult situation and it's frustrating.
Ms. Carpenter: It is. CDDs are a relatively new invention, so there's no case law. There isn't a body of law to be able to say this should happen. Just treat it as any other governmental entity.
Mr. Boermans: So, now my next question. I just passed by on… Mr. Smith: Story Time Drive?
Mr. Boermans: No, no, no. Conway Gardens Drive. In that area, they have retention ponds and they put solar panels in there. Would that ever be an option for us to save money?
Ms. Carpenter: Are the solar panels for OUC? Mr. Boermans: They were OUC’s. Correct.
Mr. Grimm: There's also one at the main toll booth, in the Curry Ford area. There's a pond in there. It's starting to become something maybe more.
Mr. Scheerer: Interesting.
Ms. Carpenter: We don't have a utility, so I don't know what we would be using the power for.
Mr. Antolovich: I actually did this with the city. I went through a little program on it. What they're doing, is they are slowly putting more and more solar panels out on unused water areas, whether they're retention ponds or parts of lakes or whatnot. Then they basically pay whoever owns that waterway, to put it there. It just goes back to the grid.

Mr. Boermans: But I think with this CDD, we can do it towards the management fee. Mr. Grimm: To lower the fee?
Mr. Boermans: Yeah.
Mr. Antolovich: It would come in as some sort of income stream. But the biggest issue to address your point though, is they are very slowly rolling that out. If CDD wanted to try to get into that program, there's apparently a mini multi-year wait list.
Mr. Grimm: I’ll call Tom. No, I won’t.
Ms. Carpenter: You also have a lot of homeowners that might not want them in their neighborhood. I can just see that as being a problem with residents saying, “I can see it from my house. I bought a lake view. I didn't buy a solar panel.”
Mr. Grimm: There are plenty of ponds that are hidden, wouldn't you say? Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, we got a few in the back.
Ms. Carpenter: Do you want to get the information to them to see if there's a list to get
on?
Mr. Grimm: Yeah.
Ms. Carpenter: Sure, that makes sense.
Mr. Smith: I see where you're going, because on Story Time Drive, there's a path between
Dowden Road and Moss Park Road. I don't know if that's ours or not.
Mr. Scheerer: It is city property.
Mr. Smith: Okay. Because they dug it up and they were repaving.
Mr. Scheerer: There was a lot of work that was going on there. I actually saw All Terrain Tractor doing some underground work in that area. It looks like somebody came in and repaved all of the areas that they were doing work on.
Mr. Smith: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: But that's not CDD property. That road is owned by the city. Mr. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Scheerer: Story Time Drive is owned by the city. Moss Park Road is owned by the city and Dowden Road is owned by the city. I know Brandon sent us a truncated dome that was dislodged.
Mr. Grimm: Why do we have county utility for water? Mr. Showe: I think they just provide the water.

Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. City, County, City, County, City, County. Mr. Showe: Wherever the line is.
Mr. Scheerer: It all looks like the City of Orlando to me.
Mr. Antolovich: It wasn’t owned by the City until it was built out. Mr. Grimm: The City is cheaper.
Mr. Scheerer: Is it?
Mr. Grimm: I've always found that it is. Ms. Carpenter: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: I wouldn't know. I have a well.
Mr. Grimm: They're cheaper for power too. I don't understand why we have Duke. I know who owns everything.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. It just depends on your area. That big smokestack that you see over
there.
Mr. Boermans: Now we're talking about these roads. I think for eight years, we had lights
on Story Time Drive and Dowden Road and there are always jumper cables in between. Nothing is underground.
Mr. Grimm: They plug them in. That's how they do it.
Mr. Boermans: No, they're all above ground, because the underground is broken. Mr. Grimm: Are you talking about the holiday lights?
Mr. Boermans: No.
Mr. Antolovich: No, the lights themselves.
Mr. Scheerer: I believe that's all been corrected. There was one power pole, when I was out there probably four years ago or so, that we were fighting with Lennar on. They actually had to run power from one side to the other.
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah, I think that was there this year. Mr. Boermans: The one on Dowden Road is still there.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. Well, as far as I know. We can check with them and see if it can be removed, but I know they do jumpers. I thought like Travis was saying, they were hanging the Christmas lights and the holiday lights on them.
Mr. Boermans: We don't have Christmas lights, right? Mr. Antolovich: No, we don't.

Mr. Grimm: Not until Christmastime. Mr. Scheerer: You get big snowflakes.
Mr. Antolovich: They don’t light up where I live. Mr. Grimm: I like the Christmas trees.
Ms. Carpenter: Holiday trees. Mr. Scheerer: Christmas trees. Mr. Antolovich: Okay.
Ms. Carpenter: I have nothing else to report. Mr. Boermans: Thank you.
Mr. Scheerer: Wow! That was quick.

Engineer
Mr. Showe: We can go to the Engineer’s Report. Are there any updates on your end?
Mr. Roberts: One question. Not to bring up the trail again, but am I going to include in this scope, the regrading of the hill portion?
Mr. Grimm: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: Do we need to make a motion?
Mr. Showe: No. I think he just wanted clarification. The Board already made the motion. Mr. Smith: But just for clarity, again, I know it was just a rough estimate. Did that
$95,000 include that scope, that estimate?
Mr. Scheerer: I don’t think so.
Ms. Carpenter: We'll just have them billed separately. Mr. Smith: Okay.
Ms. Carpenter: Ask them to break out their proposal to include that, versus not including

it.

Mr. Scheerer: I think the original scope was just for the wetland area.
Mr. Smith: I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that. I just want to have a comparison. Mr. Roberts: That will all be included in my scope.
Ms. Carpenter: A separate cost so they can see the difference. Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, pricewise.
Mr. Roberts: I'll include that to be separate.

plans.

Ms. Carpenter: Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Roberts: In front of you are the Prologue Avenue and Theme Alley intersection

Mr. Smith: What's happening there? What's the change?
Mr. Roberts: There's the low point at the northwest corner, where the manhole is. Mr. Smith: Okay. Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: That's ponding. Mr. Antolovich: Where is this?
Mr. Showe: It's at the intersection of Prologue Avenue and Theme Alley.
Mr. Scheerer: At the intersection of Theme Alley and Prologue Avenue, there's a

manhole that's underwater.
Mr. Grimm: It's not too far from Imaginary Way.
Mr. Roberts: There are potentially two causes. The pipe at the manhole is degrading the dirt around it. It's gotten loose somehow. That's probably more unlikely. More likely is that water just seeps through over time and the road is just slowly degrading with water infiltration.
Mr. Smith: When I lived on that side, at least the first couple years, there were some sewer issues in that area when we first moved in, that were persistent. I don't live right on that street or that area, but I saw various kind of professionals out there doing work in that area. I don't know if that contributed to it.
Mr. Roberts: Repetitive tracking over the same area, will degrade the road more significantly over time. The roads are only designed for a certain amount of load that the cars or trucks are on and the number of times that they're driven over.
Mr. Grimm: Can you explain why developers can build the road, then start building homes and big old dump trucks come through and then they never fix them after that? Why is that?
Mr. Roberts: Not to be combative, but I guess how else do you do it?
Mr. Grimm: You would resurface after the fact. But I know resurfacing doesn't necessarily prevent or fix any kind of indentions and things like that. I mean, obviously you have to have roads in there to develop it.

Mr. Roberts: You’re 100% correct. But the city or agency will say that the road needs to be finished before you can lot it and plat it. We need to provide access. So, the only way that we can provide access, is if you have your finished road to our standards.
Ms. Carpenter: It's one of those that you can't win.
Mr. Grimm: Well, it's just a crazy situation, because the roads are destroyed by that.
Mr. Roberts: I'm shocked that in Florida, they allowed us to build sidewalks. Because the sidewalks are always destroyed. Always. And 90% of the time, the builders come by and rebuild it again. But now, a lot of the agencies, don't require us to build the sidewalks as part of the master infrastructure. I kind of consider that a win.
Ms. Carpenter: It is a win. I just drafted an agreement for that.
Mr. Scheerer: In Wellness Ridge, they don't even require them to put the second lift asphalt on first.
Ms. Carpenter: Which is nice.
Mr. Scheerer: The best thing to do, is put the base in, put the sub asphalt in and leave it until all of the construction is done. Then you come in, fix all your curbs, redo all of your asphalt and you have a fresh lift. They should do that everywhere, in my opinion.
Ms. Carpenter: Orlando and Orange county don’t do that. You have to have fully permitted roads to drive on.
Mr. Antolovich: So, where this manhole is being relocated, it's a big area of the road. When you open that manhole up, is that just a giant area underneath that whole road? I thought manholes usually just went to a little claustrophobic service area.
Mr. Roberts: I think that one's about 3-foot diameter, maybe 4-foot diameter. Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: It connects to other manholes. Mr. Antolovich: Oh, do they?
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: That's a stormwater manhole. Mr. Antolovich: Okay.
Mr. Boermans: Do we have to pay for it?
Mr. Scheerer: Pay for what? The stormwater, yes.

Mr. Showe: Yes, the stormwater.
Mr. Scheerer: If it's sanitary sewer, then it goes to the municipality. But I'm pretty sure that's stormwater. Right?
Mr. Roberts: There's an inlet over here. You can barely see it. Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: I believe that manhole connects to that inlet. Mr. Antolovich: Got it. Okay.
Mr. Scheerer: It drains into the inlet and into the manhole.
Mr. Roberts: So, what this proposes, is to again, minimize the amount of work required, utilize the now existing levels and grades and elevations that are there now, because it's all been funneled to the manhole or at least around the manhole. It proposes that we lower the manhole lid and replace the top with a slotted grate. So, that way stormwater can go into the top. The manhole lid now becomes the new low point and everything grades towards the manhole.
Mr. Smith: Are any other road improvements needed?
Mr. Roberts: We would recommend the asphalt remediation. You have to fix the road or else it's going to keep degrading over time.
Mr. Smith: Yeah, but the question is, just in this one area, do you need to go out further?
Mr. Roberts: We have it going to the edge of the travel lane on the other side, just before the parking and as well as pretty much up to an inlet that is here in the alley.
Mr. Antolovich: How much does this cost? Mr. Scheerer: $20.
Mr. Grimm: $1 million.
Mr. Roberts: We've done an estimate. Mr. Smith: I say $25,000.
Mr. Roberts: We've done an estimate with our one-time markups. It was $46,000. Mr. Smith: $46,000.
Mr. Scheerer: Is that all?
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Roberts: But it's a one-time cost. They have to get multiple crews out here to do one small amount of work.

Mr. Antolovich: Do we have other areas, with similar situations that we need to get fixed or is this the main one?
Mr. Roberts: This is a significant one where the road is actively failing.
Mr. Showe: Yeah. This is one where we have received a lot of resident input. Mr. Scheerer: Especially from the guy on the corner.
Ms. Carpenter: Maybe they could asphalt the trail, if it's dangerous and people are complaining and its degrading and you don't want the rest of the road to fail.
Mr. Smith: We still need to go out for bids. So today, are we just making it aware and then we get a markup?
Mr. Roberts: This is what would be sent to the contractor. Mr. Antolovich: Not for bid?
Mr. Roberts: Yes.
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Showe: Would the same type of vendor do this as would do the trail work? I mean could we maybe go out for bid and do two separate scopes to the same vendor, so we can see if maybe there are some cost savings and mobilization by using the same vendor? But then if we can have each one of them bid separate, you also pick different ones for different pieces.
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah. How quickly can you do a better scope? Mr. Roberts: It would not take long.
Mr. Showe: Okay.
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah, that sounds good. Do we need a motion for that or is this more informational?
Mr. Showe: I think he's already done the work. So, as long as there's no opposition, then we can have him proceed with getting proposals for this project.
Mr. Antolovich: Yeah.
Mr. Smith: I guess the only question is timing. How long has it been at this level or is there a timeline for acting at this point?
Mr. Antolovich: Is the road going to collapse in the next three months? Mr. Grimm: It’s not going to collapse. The concern is that it expands. Mr. Antolovich: Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Scheerer: We have plywood.

Ms. Carpenter: Is there anything dangerous out there? Mr. Scheerer: No.
Mr. Showe: It's just standing water.
Mr. Scheerer: It’s just standing water. There is a depression in and around the manhole at the entrance to the alley.
Mr. Antolovich: But we're not going to get a sinkhole that will swallow somebody? Mr. Scheerer: Let's hope not.
Ms. Carpenter: You never know in Florida.
Mr. Scheerer: Let's hope not. Think positive and happy thoughts, sir.
Mr. Smith: Okay. So, then for the next meeting would we have the bid package? Mr. Showe: We would hope so.
Mr. Smith: Is this part of the capital budget? Mr. Showe: That is where it would come from. Mr. Roberts: That’s all I have.
District Manager’s Report
Approval of Check Register
Mr. Showe: Then we can go to the approval of the Check Register. In your General Fund, we have Checks #1722 through #1734.
Mr. Smith: I just had one question. If you can remind me, we replaced damaged sod. Was that the treatment or was that something else?
Mr. Scheerer: Is this on the Check Register? Mr. Smith: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: $5,600.
Mr. Scheerer: It’s all good. I got you. If you recall, we had a lot of damage sod around the rights-of-way at Epic Park, between the sidewalk and the curb. So, we had those all replaced. That was discussed over several meetings, I believe. Then as you know, annually we close the dog parks down.
Mr. Smith: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: So, we closed the one on Charades Street. Mr. Smith: Okay. So, it’s dog park sod.

Mr. Scheerer: Well, the dog park is included in that. You're looking at Bahia versus Bermuda around Epic Park. So, it's a different turf, but that comprises that replacement. That wasn't anything that I tried to slide in.
Mr. Showe: No.
Mr. Scheerer: I got you. I already had it written down. I knew you guys were going to ask about it.
Mr. Grimm: I figured it was old. Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, it's old stuff.
Mr. Showe: Then certainly there are some debt service transfers starting in August. Those are just transfers from your General Fund to the Debt Service Fund, as those assessments come in.

On MOTION by Mr. Grimm seconded by Mr. Boermans with all in favor the July 29, 2026 through August 25, 2026 Check Register in the amount of $104,367.26 was approved.

Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Mr. Showe: Behind that, is your Balance Sheet and Income Statement. No action is required by the Board. We are performing about $70,000 better than budget to actuals for the year. So, we're in great shape there. With that last bit of assessment revenue that we received in late August, we are at up to 102% collected on our assessments. So, we're in great shape there.
Mr. Antolovich: How do we collect more?
Mr. Showe: This is fundamentally how the CDD works. So, for us to collect $100, we have to assess $106. People that pay their Tax Bill in November, can take a 4% discount and then we pay the Tax Collector 2%. So, again, for us to get $100, we have to bill $106. So, if there are people that pay their Tax Bill in January, we receive 1% or 2% extra.
Mr. Antolovich: Got it.
Mr. Showe: So, we almost always get over 100%, slightly. Mr. Scheerer: It is like bonus money.

Field Manager’s Report
Mr. Showe: We’ll roll on to Alan for his report.

Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. I don’t have a lot on the field stuff. I am working on all of the proposals for next month's meeting. I know that the Board had requested information on the pros and cons of fountains and ponds. Unfortunately, about 15 minutes ago, my contractor sent that to me and I don't feel comfortable sending it to anybody right now, until I have a chance to read it. I also have documents on how a stormwater pond functions and the different positive and negative plants that can go in there. Should you not choose to do a fountain, you may want to look at maybe some littoral plantings around the perimeter, which will help with your insect and algae control and stuff like that. So, next month we'll have a little more information. I'll get the stormwater stuff to Jason. If he feels that we need to send it out in advance, we can certainly do that.
Mr. Grimm: I’m so sorry to interrupt. Can you see if there's a solar option that's viable? Mr. Scheerer: For fountains?
Mr. Grimm: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: Of course. Like I said, I know for a fact, the power ones are very expensive.
Mr. Grimm: We have a lot of ponds.
Mr. Scheerer: Again, I think somebody brought up that that apartment complex has a fountain in the pond out front. You have a beautiful view as you're going down Dowden Road, but most of the CDDs that we deal with, find fountains that are beneficial going into ponds that are beneficial for everybody that travels through the neighborhood.
Mr. Showe: Right.
Mr. Grimm: Someone complained today about a nice, new paved path. I’m just saying. Mr. Scheerer: I understand, sir. But anyway.
Ms. Carpenter: Fountains are difficult.
Mr. Boermans: Yeah, it's very difficult, because a lot of our ponds are behind people's homes. There is one on History Avenue. Not everybody can actually enjoy it.
Ms. Carpenter: Exactly.
Mr. Scheerer: The thing about that, is you have to have a power source. The nearest power source could be in Mr. Grimm's front yard and we have to trench all the way back to put in the rack. For a seven and a half horsepower fountain, on average running from 8:00 p.m. to

10:00 p.m., seven days a week, you are going to generate anywhere between $500 to $600 a month in electric. That does not include service.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: But we will certainly bring that information to you, unless there are solar

panels.

Ms. Carpenter: Does anybody fish at the ponds?
Mr. Antolovich: Yes, they do. They're not supposed to, but they do.
Ms. Carpenter: That's why I was asking. We have one District that just put a beautiful

fountain in. I think it’s on its third motor now, because of fishing lines. There is more now in maintenance than the cost of installation.
Mr. Scheerer: It's about $6,000 for a motor. Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: It cost you a couple hundred to pull it out and clean it and put it back, but if the motor goes...
Ms. Carpenter: They're trying to figure out cages, anything to stop the fishing lines. Mr. Grimm: She wants to tie it into her house.
Ms. Carpenter: Oh yeah, another $500.
Mr. Scheerer: Whereabout are you on K-1?
Mr. Grimm: I'm near the wetlands. Not directly related. I’m at the big lake over the weir into the conservation where the path to nowhere goes.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. As we talked about earlier with the cleanup of Hammock Park on Satire Street, OmegaScapes has indicated that they will be out on Monday to spray that. We'll make sure that they have proper placards in place to let people know that it is being sprayed.
Mr. Showe: We'll get a message out through the HOA. Mr. Grimm: Thank you.
Mr. Scheerer: That’s all I have.
Mr. Showe: Obviously that's all weather permitting too. Mr. Smith: Yeah.
Mr. Boermans: About the fountains, when I just did my quick research, whenever you look for the water fountains on solar, it can maybe go up to one horsepower, maybe sometimes

three to five horsepower with configurations. But to get seven and a half horsepower, you still need a main grid.
Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Scheerer: Well, you don't necessarily need to have a seven and a half horsepower one. If you were looking at the corner fountain at Story Time Drive and Dowden Road, you may not need any more than a three horsepower. You just need something that's going to move the water.
Mr. Grimm: Just get three horses for that.
Mr. Boermans: That was initially what Lennar told us.
Mr. Scheerer: I used to have one when I had a pool. Now I don't have a pool.
Mr. Antolovich: We were supposed to have equestrian shows. That was in the original sales literature.
Mr. Scheerer: Equestrian trails?
Mr. Antolovich: Quarterly equestrian shows and stables and everything for everyone in the community.
Mr. Scheerer: Reunion has one.
Ms. Carpenter: We've got a stable for sale.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, we've got a stable for sale, if you have a couple of million dollars. Ms. Carpenter: You have stables, but no trails.
Mr. Antolovich: Horses?
Ms. Carpenter: Well, the horses can't go anywhere.
Mr. Scheerer: Well, the horses couldn't go in there, because they built the stable and found out that they had sand skinks.
Mr. Grimm: Is this at Reunion West? Mr. Scheerer: Reunion.
Ms. Carpenter: Up on I-4.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, I-4 at Champions Gate. I have the prettiest office on the planet up
there.
Mr. Smith: I visited for a family event. Is it like an Airbnb or Vrbo type of community or
is it open?
Mr. Scheerer: It’s everything.

Mr. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Showe: They have a little bit of everything.
Mr. Scheerer: Yeah. They have long term rentals, short term rentals and full-time residents.
Mr. Grimm: It's in a unique pocket. It's technically old county Davenport, right? Mr. Showe: Reunion is all Osceola.
Ms. Carpenter: It's right on the Osceola/Polk County line. Mr. Scheerer: This is one of the newest houses.
Ms. Carpenter: Yeah, they're nice, small little homes.
Mr. Antolovich: Did we have any complaints regarding the fireworks? Mr. Scheerer: Not one. They did a great job.
Mr. Showe: Alan said that they did a great job cleaning up. We had no issues. That was kind of our foray into CDD fireworks. That's something we would not have any opposition to next year with the same vendor.
Mr. Scheerer: Whoever coordinated it, did a good job. Mr. Showe: Yeah.
Mr. Antolovich: Did you see it? Mr. Showe: No.
Mr. Grimm: I heard it.
Ms. Carpenter: Was it good?
Mr. Grimm: I wasn't going to get out in the rain.
Mr. Antolovich: When you do these packages, they show you a video, to show you kind of what it will look like. It was five times better than what they were advertising.
Mr. Showe: Wow.
Ms. Carpenter: Wow.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment Period
There being no comments, the next item followed.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor’s Requests
Ms. Carpenter: Are there any Supervisor’s Requests? Mr. Grimm: No.

Mr. Antolovich: No.
Mr. Boermans: No.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business
There being no comments, the next item followed.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Meeting Date – October 6, 2026
Mr. Showe: The next meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2026. We need a motion to adjourn.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Boermans seconded by Mr. Smith with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

Secretary / Assistant Secretary	Chairman / Vice Chairman

Section IV

2026
Hall Company, Inc.
225 Old Sanford Oviedo Road Winter Springs, FL 32708 Orlando: 407.327.4930
Fax: 407.327-7345
www.HallCompanyInc.com

°	Site Work
°	Paving
°	Asphalt repair
°	Pot hole repair
°	Overlay of existing asphalt
°	Sealcoating
°	Striping and signage
°	Crack and joint repair
°	ADA Compliance
°	Sport courts
°	Speed bumps
°	Wheel stops
°	Concrete repair
°	Concrete Replacement
°	Drainage corrections
°	Storm line repairs
°	General pipe repair

_[ STOREY PARK CDD	_]
Presented to: Jason M. Stowe

RE:  Storey Park CDD

Dear Jason,

Please find attached hereto our proposal for our services. The proposal describes in detail the procedure and/or products used to ensure a very professional and efficient completion of the project.

After reviewing this proposal, please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or concerns.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal and look forward to working with you on this project.

Respectfully,

Eric Donaldson/Estimator

Storey Park CDD
Description | Qty | Unit | Amount
Mobilization/General Conditions | | |
Mobilization/Demobilization | 1 | EA |
MOT | 1 | LS |
Clean Up | 1 | LS |
On Site Utility Locates | 1 | LS |
Mobilization/Demobilization | 1 | EA |
SUBTOTAL | | | 24,817
Site Demolition | | |
Demo Asphalt | 1559 | SF |
Demo Sidewalk | 92 | SF |
Demo Curb | 84 | LF | 10,234
Earthwork | | |
Grade Roads and Parking | 174 | SY |
Grade For Concrete | 15 | SY |
SUBTOTAL | | | 5,237
Storm System | | |
Replace Manhole Lid with Grated Lid | 1 | EA |
SUBTOTAL | | | 1,574
Base and Paving | | |
Prime and Sand Base | 174 | SY |
1.5" SP 12.5 Asphalt Paving | 174 | SY |
1" SP 9.5 Asphalt Paving | 174 | SY |
Base | | |
8" Crushed Concrete Base | 174 | SY |
12" Stabilized Subgrade | 200 | SY |
SUBTOTAL | | | 36,566
Curbs | | |
12" Ribbon Curb | 20 | LF |
3' Valley Gutter | 68 | LF |
SUBTOTAL | | | 3,406
Concrete Walks | | |
4" Sidewalk | 92 | SF |
ADA Matt, Truncated Dome | 20 | SF |
SUBTOTAL | | | 2,367
Pavement, Striping and Signage | | |
Striping and Signage | 1 | LS |
SUBTOTAL | | | 1,265
TOTAL DUE UPON COMPLETION:	$85,466.00

We appreciate the opportunity to present our proposal and look forward to being of service to you on this project and in the future. If you have any questions regarding our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Eric Donaldson/Estimator | | Acceptance of Proposal
Phone: (407) 327-4930 | |
| | Print Name
| | Date

| QUALIFICATIONS
| GENERAL CONDITIONS
1) | NO SOD, MULCH, LANDSCAPING OR IRRIGATION INCLUDED.

2)

NO ENGINEERING OR DESIGN SERVICES ARE INCLUDED. ALL SUCH SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE
EOR.

3)

NO PERMITS OR FEES ARE INCLUDED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN OUR SCOPE OF WORK
ABOVE.

4) | NO PERFORMANCE,PAYMENT OR MAINTENANCE BONDS ARE INCLUDED.
5) | NO BOLLARDS, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE OR PAD INCLUDED.
6) | TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND UTILITIES AND COST OF SAME ARE NOT INCLUDED.
7) | SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING AND COST FOR SAME NOT INCLUDED.
8) | SURVEY AND LAYOUT SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR OUR WORK ONLY.
9) | CONNECTION FEES,UTILITY DEPOSITS AND IMPACT FEES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL.
10) | NO GAURDRAILS ARE INCLUDED IN OUR PROPOSAL
11) | DUST ABATEMENT NOT INCLUDED.
12) | NO CONCRETE PAVEMENT INCLUDED.
13) | NO ELECTRICAL (EX. STREET LIGHTING/TRANSFORMER PAD) INCLUDED.
14) | NO HARDSCAPES (BIKE RACK) INCLUDED.
15) | NO ROOF DRAINS INCLUDED.
16) | CONSTRUCTION AND PERMANENT FENCING AND GATES ARE NOT INCLUDED.

Sheet # | Description | Date | Last Revision
| EXISTING CONDITIONS | 8.26.26 |
| SITE PLAN | 8.26.26 |
| GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN | 8.26.26 |
| Addenda | |
| None | |

HISTORY:
Hall Company is locally owned and has operated in Central Florida for over thirty years. During this time, we have created both a highly successful site development division and asphalt division. Our expertly trained teams have acquired an extensive range of expertise, professionalism, and an impressive edge in both areas.

LEADERSHIP:
James C. Hall, Chief Executive Officer	Michael Eubanks, President

FACILITIES:
Hall Company’s facilities are company owned and located on prime industrial property in Winter Springs, Florida. All operations are based from these facilities.

PRODUCTS:
Hall Company specializes in site development such as earthwork, clearing, roadway base, paving utilities, pavement repair (drainage repair and correction), overlay, sealcoating, parking bumpers, sports courts, ADA compliance, crack and joint repair, striping, signage, drain correction/mitigation, and concrete installation and repair.

COMMITMENT:
Hall Company operates under a steadfast commitment to ensure each and every project undertaken is afforded the same quality workmanship and professionalism. We have proven that our high standards for producing a quality project ensure customer satisfaction. As a result of our stellar commitment, we have become a highly regarded leader in our community in the construction arena and possess a widely recognized reputation for completion of quality projects in a timely fashion.

HALL COMPANY REFERENCES:

GREER CONTRACTING
670 Clay St.
Winter Park, FL 32789 Mr. Scott Greer
(407) 599-5380
R.H.S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
1706 E. Semoran Blvd. Apopka, Florida 32703 Mr. Roger Stitt
(407) 880-7099
ERNEST HOLMES
11420 Old Well Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70810 Mr. Ernest Holmes
(225) 761-1966

SHOEMAKER CONSTRUCTION
2701 W. 25th Street Sanford, Florida 32772 Mr. Dean Shoemaker
(407) 322-3103

D.J. HAYCOOK CONSTRUCTION CO.
431 North Causeway
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 Mr. Reed Hadley
(407) 427-8222

SENTRY MANAGEMENT
2180 W. SR 434 Ste. 5000
Longwood, FL 32779 Ms. Vallery Harrison
(407) 788-6700

GLR, INC.
3795 Wyse Road
Dayton, OH 45414 Mr. Aaron Crabtree (937) 418-2422

AAGAARD-JUERGENSEN, INC.
5695 Beggs Road
Orlando, Florida 32810 Mr. Walt Juergensen
(407) 298-1550
AAGAARD-McNARY
P.O. Box 608003
Orlando, Florida 32860 Mr. Doug Aagaard
(407) 296-6885
SEMINOLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
205 W. County Home Rd. Sanford, FL 32773
Mr. Carlo Scorpio
(407) 665-5268
SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOLS
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. Sanford, FL 32776
Mr. Perry Moore
(407) 320-0000
SKANSKA USA
60 N. Court Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Randy Nixon
(407) 839-2925
SI GOLDMAN
799 Bennett Dr.
Longwood, FL 32750 Mr. Conrad Sutliff
(407) 830-5000
PCL CONSTRUCTION
6700 Forum Dr. #100
Orlando, FL 32821 Mr. Cooper Chesebro
(407) 363-0059

Section V

Section B

Section 1

September 28, 2026

Via Email

Storey Park Community Development District c/o Jason M. Showe, District Manager
Governmental Management Services – Central Florida 219 East Livingston Street
Orlando, FL 32801 jshowe@gmscfl.com

Subject:	Proposal for Additional Services
Storey Park Community Development District Pond K-1
Project No. 20500006-013 (15-060)

Dear Mr. Showe:

Pursuant to the original executed agreement dated April 7, 2015, Pape-Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC provides this proposal for additional services to the original agreement for the additional services as outlined below. All services shall be accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original Agreement.

Pape-Dawson is pleased to provide this Proposal for professional engineering services associated with the Pond K-1 multi-purpose trail in the Storey Park Community Development District located within Orlando, Florida.

Pape-Dawson Consulting Engineers LLC (Pape-Dawson) and Storey Park Community Development District (Client) enter into this Proposal as follows:

SCOPE OF SERVICES

A. Pond K-1 Trail Grading Modification (Task 301)

It is understood the Client would like to obtain contractor bids for grading modifications and reconstruction of 1025 LF +/- of the multi-purpose trail located along the east side of Pond K-1 (Exhibit 1). The modifications are anticipated to include raising the trail 0.4 ft and graded with a cross slope of 2% to allow drainage to sheet flow towards the pond.

To facilitate contractor bids Pape-Dawson will complete a markup of the previously approved Parcel K Phase 2 Construction Plan Sheets. Markups to include the following level of detail:
Grading Plan C4.00 – grading limits, grading spot elevations at 100 ft cross section intervals, locations of typical grading sections. Grading elevations will be provided for

existing pond top of bank, trail edge-of-pavements, and tie-in locations to the existing elevations at 100’ increments.
Typical grading cross sections

Please note, survey of the existing conditions is recommended to facilitate design and bidding from contractor(s). At this time the above scope will be completed based on the pre-development topographic survey as shown in the city approved construction plans, as well as any as-built data available.

Pape Dawson will also provide a brief bid scope narrative to assist the Client and contractors with bidding the grading and trail modifications.

FEE SCHEDULE

Task Number | Description | Amount

Lump Sum

Hourly Fee Estimates
in Accordance with Exhibit B

301 | Pond K-1 Trail Grading Modification | $2,100.00 | ---

Hourly services will be billed in accordance with the hourly rates listed in Exhibit B. Should the cost of hourly services requested by the Client exceed the Estimated Hourly Fee budget in the table above, Pape-Dawson will notify the Client and submit an Amendment to avoid interruption of services.

These fees do not include required application fees made payable to the respective public agencies through which permitting is required, reimbursable expenses as specified in this agreement or illustrative plans that may be required for community/public meetings.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS

Scope does not include construction plans, permitting, and/or construction services.
Scope does not include survey or geotechnical services
Scope assumes grading markup and bid scope will be provided to the Client, bid coordination and/or bid review services are not included.

SERVICES NOT INCLUDED
This scope of services does not include geotechnical services, environmental, landscape architecture, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permitting, transportation engineering/planning or site lighting design. It is assumed that these consultants will contract directly with the Client.

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSE

Reimbursables will be charged on a direct cost basis times a multiple of 1.20. Reimbursables shall include, but not be limited to, all print and reproduction costs associated with reports, prints and reproducibles, postage and shipping, expenses to travel outside a thirty (30) mile radius of the office.

OTHER
The costs, fees, budget, and scope of work set out herein are valid for ninety (90) days from the date of this Proposal. If Pape-Dawson does not receive an executed document from the Client within ninety (90) days from the date of this Proposal, the costs, fees, budget, and scope of work are subject to revision at Pape-Dawson’s sole discretion. Pape-Dawson to provide a revised Proposal with the modified costs, budget, and scope of work should revisions be made.

Should you have any questions regarding the information included in this Proposal please do not hesitate to contact us. Please return a signed copy of this Proposal for our records.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Sincerely,
ACKNOWLEDGED & ACCEPTED

Pape-Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC	STOREY PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Nicolle Van Valkenburg, P.E. Associate Vice President

Christina M. Baxter, P.E. Senior Vice President

Attachment(s):

Name:	 Title:	 Date:	

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CONTACT INFO

Name:	 Address:	 Phone:	 Invoice Email:	

-Exhibit “B” – 2026 Schedule of Representative Rates – Florida
-Exhibit “1” – Grading Plan
-Exhibit “2” – Grading Details
-Exhibit “3” – Option 1 Email

O:\Marketing\Proposals\Letters\2026\09\260928 (20500006-013).docx

SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIVE RATES - FLORIDA
Effective: July 4, 2026
Classification | Hourly Rate
Administrative Assistant | 100.00
Assistant Project Manager | 225.00
Associate Vice President | 280.00 – 380.00
Aviation Planner | 120.00 – 150.00
CAD Manager | 160.00 – 205.00
Client Services Manager | 240.00 – 365.00
Construction Inspector | 130.00 – 140.00
Construction Manager | 185.00 – 255.00
Construction Operations Leader | 340.00
Construction Representative | 160.00 – 180.00
Construction Survey Manager | 225.00
Data Analyst | 145.00
Design Leader | 250.00 – 325.00
Designer | 160.00 – 170.00
Document Controls Specialist | 210.00
Electrician | 100.00
Environmental Scientist | 120.00 – 165.00
Executive Officer | 450.00
Executive Vice President | 450.00
Field Coordinator | 150.00
Field Manager | 215.00
Geoscientist | 160.00
Geospatial Manager | 210.00
Geospatial Staff | 135.00 – 175.00
GIS Analyst | 135.00
GIS Manager | 185.00 – 200.00
GIS Specialist | 155.00
Grad Eng / EIT | 140.00 – 185.00
Graphic Designer | 75.00 – 120.00
I&C Specialist | 145.00 – 200.00
I&C Technician | 105.00
Intern | 75.00 – 95.00
Land Planner | 140.00 – 160.00
Landscape Architect | 200.00
Landscape Designer | 125.00 – 175.00
Lead Aviation Planner | 190.00
Managing Principal | 400.00
Managing Vice President | 390.00
National Practice Leader | 400.00

Schedule of Representative Rates - Florida Effective: July 4, 2026
Page 2 of 3

Classification | Hourly Rate
Permitting Manager | 240.00
Permitting Specialist | 135.00 – 170.00
Planner | 150.00 – 170.00
Plat Coordinator | 150.00 – 160.00
Platting Manager | 155.00 – 175.00
Practice Leader | 280.00 – 390.00
Principal | 400.00
Principal Engineer | 240.00
Principal Investigator | 160.00
Principal Planner | 250.00 – 300.00
Production Manager | 165.00
Program Manager | 270.00 – 360.00
Project Archaeologist | 135.00
Project Controls Manager | 195.00 – 215.00
Project Controls Specialist | 140.00
Project Coordinator | 125.00 – 180.00
Project Engineer | 200.00 – 240.00
Project Manager | 225.00 – 280.00
Project Specialist | 125.00
Project Surveyor | 175.00 – 225.00
S.I.T. | 140.00
Senior Associate | 250.00 – 350.00
Senior Construction Inspector | 160.00
Senior Construction Manager | 220.00 – 250.00
Senior Construction Representative | 180.00
Senior Designer | 180.00 – 205.00
Senior Environmental Manager | 230.00
Senior Environmental Scientist | 170.00
Senior Field Coordinator | 195.00
Senior Graphic Designer | 150.00
Senior Land Acquisition Agent | 160.00
Senior Landscape Architect | 225.00
Senior Permitting Specialist | 170.00
Senior Planner | 225.00
Senior Plat Coordinator | 175.00
Senior Project Coordinator | 160.00
Senior Project Engineer | 230.00 – 250.00
Senior Project Manager | 270.00 – 340.00
Senior Project Surveyor | 225.00 – 280.00
Senior Survey Project Manager | 245.00 – 290.00
Senior Survey Technician | 175.00 – 195.00

Schedule of Representative Rates - Florida |
Effective: July 4, 2026 |
Page 3 of 3 |
Classification | Hourly Rate
Senior Utility Coordinator | 230.00
Senior Vice President | 400.00
Shared Services | 100.00 – 200.00
Staff Archaeologist | 90.00
Survey Department Manager | 280.00 – 325.00
Survey Field Crew Member | 150.00 – 195.00
Survey Project Manager | 225.00 – 265.00
Survey Technician | 130.00 – 155.00
Technician | 135.00 – 180.00
Utility Designer | 160.00
Vice President | 390.00
Technician, Planning | 120.00 – 145.00
Technologist I | 100.00
Survey Crew |
1-Person Robotic Crew | 195.00
2-Person Survey Field Crew/Senior Party Chief | 195.00
3-Person Survey Field Crew/Senior Party Chief | 235.00
Catamaran & Sonar | 275.00
Drone & Licensed Pilot | 295.00

06/01/21

ENG2020-12598

12013 DOWDEN RD Orlando FL

F
BROCK EVANS

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Key Map:

F

Consultant:

1.88 ac

E	E

EXHIBIT 1

D	D

Project Name:

EXTENTS OF GRADING & TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION

STOREY PARK - PARCEL K PHASE 2
(WEWAHOOTEE PD)

C	C

Submittal To:
CITY OF ORLANDO, FL
Sheet Title:
GRADING PLAN

Sheet No.:

^B	^B	C4.00

NICOLLE VAN VALKENBURG
P.E. NO. 0066616

March 30, 2021

Seal:

R

DATE:

Digitally signed by Nicolle Van Valkenburg Date: 2021.03.30 14:57:57-04'00'

croberts
2026-09-17 13:12:14
--------------------------------------------
1.88 ac

A

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

This item has been electronically signed and sealed using a digital signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered
_A  signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Poulos & Bennett, LLC
2602 E Livingston St, Orlando, FL 32803 Tel. 407.487.2594 www.poulosandbennett.com
Eng. Bus. No. 28567

06/01/21

ENG2020-12598

12013 DOWDEN RD Orlando FL

F
BROCK EVANS

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Pond Chart

Key Map:

F

Consultant:

E	E

TYPICAL GRADING SECTION
^A	N.T.S.

TYPICAL POND GRADING SECTION
^D	N.T.S.

TYPICAL GRADING SECTION

G

N.T.S.

D	D

Project Name:
STOREY PARK - PARCEL K PHASE 2
(WEWAHOOTEE PD)

^C	TYPICAL GRADING SECTION
B

N.T.S.

TYPICAL POND GRADING SECTION

E

N.T.S.

TYPICAL GRADING SECTION
^H	N.T.S.

C

Submittal To:
CITY OF ORLANDO, FL
Sheet Title:
GRADING DETAILS

Sheet No.:

^B	^B	C4.10

NICOLLE VAN VALKENBURG
P.E. NO. 0066616

March 30, 2021

Seal:

R

DATE:

Digitally signed by Nicolle Van Valkenburg Date: 2021.03.30 14:58:05-04'00'

A

TYPICAL POND GRADING SECTION
^C	N.T.S.

TYPICAL GRADING SECTION

F

N.T.S.

TYPICAL GRADING SECTION

I

N.T.S.

This item has been electronically signed and sealed using adigital signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered
_A  signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

EXHIBIT 2

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Poulos & Bennett, LLC
2602 E Livingston St, Orlando, FL 32803 Tel. 407.487.2594 www.poulosandbennett.com
Eng. Bus. No. 28567

Cameron Roberts
Subject:	RE: Pond K-1 - Wetland Trail Overflow

Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 7:22 AM
T : Jason Showe <jshowe@gmscfl.com>
Cc: Alan Scheerer <ascheerer@gmscfl.com>; Christy Baxter <Christina.Baxter@pape-dawson.com>; Nicolle Van Valkenburg <Nicolle.VanValkenburg@pape-dawson.com>; 15-060 <15-060@pape-dawson.com>
Subject: Pond K-1 - Wetland Trail Overflow

Good Morning Jason,

The Pond K-1, wetland, and trail interaction is functioning as designed.

The wetland is designed to overﬂow across the trail and drain into Pond K-1. It is noted this is only likely to occur during large storm events and at the end of the rainy season when the groundwater table is elevated within the wetland.

While it is acknowledged the design is unfavorable to the residents, there is no code requirement specifying trails to be above design storm events.

EXHIBIT 3 - OPTION 1

Potential solutions:

The trail is reconstructed and raised approximately 0.4’ and graded with a 2% cross slope towards the pond.
The existing trail is inconsistently graded leading to limited draining across the trail and ponding where the existing trail is cross sloped towards the wetland.
It is noted this solution would not prevent the wetland from overﬂowing the trail again but can limit the duration of ﬂooding to during/after storm events.

A culvert can be installed underneath the trail to drain the wetland.
A modiﬁcation to the Storey Park SFWMD ERP and City Permit would be required with scope including but not limited to:
i. | Revised stormwater calculations and report. |
ii. | Environmental consultation to conﬁrm we are | not draining the wetland to the
| point the natural wetland habitat is not impacted.
It would still be recommended to reconstruct the portions of the trail that are cross sloped towards the wetland.
It is noted this solution would not prevent the wetland from overﬂowing the trail again but can limit the duration and number of times its ﬂooded due to storm events.

A boardwalk can be installed over the trail.
The boardwalk would be approximately 500LF per last year’s site walkover and extent of ponding.
A City building permit would be required for the structure.

Solutions 1 & 2 is the most cost-e:icient but would not provide certainty the wetland would not overﬂow the trail again. Solution 3 is the least cost-e:icient but does provide certainty the wetland would not overﬂow the trail again.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions or advise on which option the CDD would like to move forward with.

Thanks,

Section C

Section 1

Storey Park
Community Development District
Summary of Invoices

August 25, 2026 - September 29, 2026

Fund | Date | Check No.'s | Amount
General Fund | 8/26/26 | 1735-1738 | $	11,844.77
| 9/2/26 | 1739-1742 | 49,925.13
| 9/18/26 | 1743-1751 | 40,206.72
| 9/25/26 | 1752-1755 | 33,327.00
| | | $	135,303.62
Payroll | September 2026 | |
| David Grimm | 50148 | $	184.70
| Matthew Antolovich | 50149 | 184.70
| Travis Smith | 50150 | 80.08
| Willem Boermans | 50151 | 184.70
| Willem Boermans | 50152* | 185.70
| | | $	819.88
| TOTAL | | $	136,123.50

*Replacement check for June meeting.

AP300R	YEAR-TO-DATE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PREPAID/COMPUTER CHECK REGISTER	RUN 9/29/26	PAGE	1
*** CHECK DATES 08/25/2026 - 09/29/2026 ***	STOREY PARK - GENERAL FUND
BANK A GENERAL FUND
^CDHAETCEK	VEND# .....INVOICE..... ...EXPENSED TO...	VENDOR NAME	STATUS	AMOUNT	....CHECK.....
DATE	INVOICE	YRMO DPT ACCT# SUB SUBCLASS	AMOUNT	#
8/26/26 00012	8/15/26 238530	202608 320-53800-47000	*	3,888.00
AQUATIC PLANT MGMT AUG26
APPLIED AQUATIC MANAGEMENT INC	3,888.00 001735
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8/26/26 00028	8/04/26 9358	202607 320-53800-46300	*	1,166.27
INSTL 3GAL PLANT MATERIAL
8/17/26 9370	202608 320-53800-46300	*	1,000.00
PLANT REMOVAL
OMEGASCAPES INC	2,166.27 001736
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8/26/26 00043	8/04/26 INV38293 202607 320-53800-48100	*	996.00
SECURITY 7/27/26-7/30/26
8/11/26 INV38529 202608 320-53800-48100	*	996.00
SECURITY 8/03/26-8/05/36
8/18/26 INV38857 202608 320-53800-48100	*	996.00
SECUITY 8/10/26-8/12/26
OFF DUTY MANAGEMENT INC	2,988.00 001737
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8/26/26 00047	8/11/26 20500006 202607 310-51300-31100	*	477.50
PREP & ATTEND CDD MEETING
8/11/26 20500006 202607 310-51300-31100	*	1,925.00
THEME & PROLOGUE MARKUP
8/11/26 20500006 202607 310-51300-31100	*	400.00
REVISED ANNUAL INSPECT
PAPE-DAWSON CONSULTING ENGINEER LLC	2,802.50 001738
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/02/26 00020	8/28/26 6205	202608 320-53800-47500	*	2,750.00
RPLC 3 SECTIONS OF SDWLK
BERRY CONSTRUCTION INC	2,750.00 001739
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/02/26 00049	5/22/26 14276	202605 320-53800-47400	*	800.00
DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL
COMMANDO PEST CONTROL & TRAPPERS	800.00 001740
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/02/26 00028	8/27/26 9378	202608 320-53800-47300	*	875.35
IRRIGATION ENHANCE AUG26
9/01/26 9380	202609 320-53800-46200	*	43,507.78
LANDSCAPE MAINT SEP26

- | - | - | - | - | - | - - - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - -
| | | | | | * | | | | | | 996.00
| | | | | | * | | | | | | 996.00
- | - | - | - | - | - | - - - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - -

OMEGASCAPES INC	44,383.13 001741

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/02/26 00043	8/25/26 INV39168 202608 320-53800-48100
SECURITY 8/17/26-8/19/26 9/01/26 INV39531 202608 320-53800-48100
SECURITY 8/24/26-8/26/26

- - - - - - - -

OFF DUTY MANAGEMENT INC	1,992.00 001742

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STOR -STOREY PARK- TVISCARRA

- - - - - - - -

AP300R	YEAR-TO-DATE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PREPAID/COMPUTER CHECK REGISTER
*** CHECK DATES 08/25/2026 - 09/29/2026 ***	STOREY PARK - GENERAL FUND
BANK A GENERAL FUND
^DACTHECK	VEND# .....INVOICE..... ...EXPENSED TO...	VENDOR NAME	STATUS DATE	INVOICE	YRMO DPT ACCT# SUB SUBCLASS
^9/18/26 ^00004	9/17/26 34216	202609 300-15500-10000	* FY27 GEN.LIAB/PUBLIC OFFC
9/17/26 34216	202609 300-15500-10000	* FY27 PROPERTY INSURANCE

RUN 9/29/26	PAGE	2

AMOUNT | ....CHECK.....
| AMOUNT | #
8,157.00 |
17,645.00 |

EGIS INSURANCE & RISK ADVISORS	25,802.00 001743
_9-_/1-_8/-_26- _0-_00-_02- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9/01/26 304	202609 320-53800-12000
FIELD MANAGEMENT SEP26
9/01/26 305	202607 310-51300-42000
USPS 941 FORM
9/01/26 305A	202609 310-51300-34000 MANAGEMENT FEES SEP26
9/01/26 305A	202609 310-51300-35200 WEBSITE ADMIN FEE SEP26
9/01/26 305A	202609 310-51300-35100 INFORMATION TECH SEP26
9/01/26 305A	202609 310-51300-31300 DISSEMINATION FEE SEP26
9/01/26 305A	202609 310-51300-51000 OFFICE SUPPLIES SEP26
9/01/26 305A	202609 310-51300-42000 POSTAGE SEP26
9/01/26 305A	202609 310-51300-42500 COPIES SEP26

*	1,622.25
*	.81
*	4,055.67
*	108.17
*	162.25
*	1,577.17
*	.27
*	6.37
*	13.35

GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES

7,546.31 001744

9^-/1^-8/^-26^- 0^-00^-05^- ^-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/11/26 157065	202608 310-51300-31500
REV AGENDA/ATTEND CDD MTG 9/11/26 157065	202608 310-51300-31500
ROOT ROT DEMAND LETTER

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
*
*

- - - - - - -
47.35
1,466.50

| 9/11/26 157065	202608 310-51300-31500 DRAFT-APPLIED MGMT AGRMNT | * | 144.00
| 9/11/26 157065	202608 310-51300-31500 OMEGASCAPE CONTRACT ADD. | * | 434.50
| 9/11/26 157065	202608 310-51300-31500 AUGUST 2026 POSTAGE | * | 11.27

- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

LATHAM LUNA EDEN AND BEAUDINE LLP
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-

-

- -

-

-

-

-

-

- - - - -

2,103.62
- - - - -

001745
- - -

9/18/26 00043 | 9/09/26 INV39873 202608 320-53800-48100 9/09/26 INV39873 202609 320-53800-48100 | | | * * | | | | | | 332.00 664.00 | |
| SECURITY 9/01/26-9/02/26 OFF DUTY MANAGEMENT INC | | | | | | | | | | 996.00 | 001746

- - - - - - - - 9/18/26 00015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/18/26 09182026 202609 300-20700-10000
STOREY PARK CDD C/O REGIONS BANK

-

-

- -
*

-

-

-

-

-

- - - - -

- - - - -

1,411.49

- - -

001747

- - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - | - | - - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - - | - - - - - | - - -
| STOR -STOREY PARK- TVISCARRA | | | | | | | | | | |

SECURITY 08-31-2026

FY26 DEBT SERVICE SER2015

1,411.49

AP300R	YEAR-TO-DATE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PREPAID/COMPUTER CHECK REGISTER	RUN 9/29/26	PAGE	3
*** CHECK DATES 08/25/2026 - 09/29/2026 ***	STOREY PARK - GENERAL FUND
BANK A GENERAL FUND
^CDHAETCEK	VEND# .....INVOICE..... ...EXPENSED TO...	VENDOR NAME	STATUS	AMOUNT	....CHECK.....
DATE	INVOICE	YRMO DPT ACCT# SUB SUBCLASS	AMOUNT	#

FY26 DEBT SERVICE SER2018 | STOREY | PARK CDD C/O REGIONS | BANK | 568.36 | 001748
- - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - | - - - - | - - - - - - - | - | - | - | - - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - | - | - - - - | - - -
9/18/26 00015 | 9/18/26 09182026 202609 300-20700-10200 | * | 547.14
FY26 DEBT SERVICE SER2019
STOREY | PARK CDD C/O REGIONS BANK | 547.14 | 001749
- - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - | - - - - | - - - - - - - | - | - | - | - - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - | - | - - - - | - - -
9/18/26 00015 | 9/18/26 09182026 202609 300-20700-10500 | * | 765.74
FY26 DEBT SERVICE SER2021
STOREY | PARK CDD C/O REGIONS BANK | 765.74 | 001750
- - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - | - - - - | - - - - - - - | - | - | - | - - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - | - | - - - - | - - -
9/18/26 00015 | 9/18/26 09182026 202609 300-20700-10600 | * | 466.06
FY26 DEBT SERVICE SER2022
STOREY | PARK CDD C/O REGIONS BANK | 466.06 | 001751
- - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - | - - - - | - - - - - - - | - | - | - | - - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - | - | - - - - | - - -
9/25/26 00012 | 9/15/26 239247 | 202609 320-53800-47000 | * | 3,888.00
AQUATIC | PLANT MGMT SEP26
APPLIED AQUATIC MANAGEMENT | INC | 3,888.00 | 001752
- - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - | - | - | - | - | - - - - | - - - - - | - - -
9/25/26 00020 | 9/17/26 6216 | 202609 320-53800-47800	*	425.00

9/18/26 00015	9/18/26 09182026 202609 300-20700-10100	*	568.36

REPAIRED DOG PARK FENCE

BERRY CONSTRUCTION INC	425.00 001753

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/25/26 00028	9/18/26 9411	202609 320-53800-46300	*	28,350.00
RMV TURF/APPLY HERBICIDE
OMEGASCAPES INC	28,350.00 001754
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/25/26 00043	9/15/26 INV40164 202609 320-53800-48100	*	664.00
SECURITY 9/07/26-9/08/26
OFF DUTY MANAGEMENT INC	664.00 001755
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL FOR BANK A	135,303.62
TOTAL FOR REGISTER	135,303.62

STOR -STOREY PARK- TVISCARRA

Section 2

Storey Park
Community Development District

Unaudited Financial Reporting
August 31, 2026

Table of Contents

1		Balance Sheet

2-3 | General Fund Income Statement
4-5 | Month to Month
6 | Capital Reserve Income Statement
7 | Debt Service Series 2015 Income Statement
8 | Debt Service Series 2018 Income Statement
9 | Debt Service Series 2019 Income Statement
10 | Debt Service Series 2021 Icome Statement
11 | Debt Service Series 2022 Income Statement
12 | Capital Projects Series 2021 Income Statement
13 | Capital Projects Series 2022 Income Statement
14 | Long Term Debt
15 | Assessment Receipt Schedule

Total Fund Balances	$	615,524	$	425,174	$	2,245,617	$	36,675	$	3,322,990

Total Liabilities	$	8,823	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	8,823

Total Assets	$	624,347	$	425,174	$	2,245,617	$	36,675	$	3,331,813

Balance Sheet August 31, 2026

General | Capital Reserve | Debt Service | Capital Projects | Totals
Fund | Fund | Fund | Fund | Governmental Funds

Assets:
Cash - Truist Investments: Series 2015
Reserve Revenue Interest Sinking Fund
General Redemption Prepayment
Series 2018 Reserve Revenue Interest Sinking Fund
General Redemption Series 2019
Reserve Revenue Interest Sinking Fund Prepayment Principal
Series 2021 Reserve Revenue Interest Sinking Fund Construction
Series 2022 Reserve Revenue Interest Sinking Fund Construction
SBA - Operating
SBA - Capital Reserve SBA - OCPS
Prepaid Expenses

$

260,652

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
- 363,695
-
-
-

$

24,147

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
- 368,747
32,280
-

$

-

367,928
704,049
19
72
1,623
2,239

76,866
182,833
0
0
75

123,393
191,756
0
0
1
41

172,331
198,649
0
64
-

104,883
118,793
0
0
-
-
-
-
-

$

-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
- 21,453

-
-
-
- 15,222
-
-
-
-

$

284,799

367,928
704,049
19
72
1,623
2,239

76,866
182,833
0
0
75

123,393
191,756
0
0
1
41

172,331
198,649
0
64
21,453

104,883
118,793
0
0
15,222
363,695
368,747
32,280
-

Liabilities:
Accounts Payable

$

8,823

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

8,823

Fund Balances:
Assigned For Debt Service 2015 Assigned For Debt Service 2018 Assigned For Debt Service 2019 Assigned For Debt Service 2021 Assigned For Debt Service 2022 Assigned For Capital Projects 2021 Assigned For Capital Projects 2022 Unassigned

$

-
-
-
-
-
-
- 615,524

$

-
-
-
-
-
-
- 425,174

$

1,075,931
259,773
315,191
371,045
223,677
-
-
-

$

-
-
-
-
- 21,453
15,222
-

$

1,075,931
259,773
315,191
371,045
223,677
21,453
15,222
1,040,697

Total Liabilities & Fund Equity	$	624,347	$	425,174	$	2,245,617	$	36,675	$	3,331,813

| | Adopted | Prorated Budget | | Actual | |
| | Budget | Thru 08/31/26 | Thru 08/31/26 | Variance

Revenues:
Special Assessments Interest

$

1,191,240
18,000

$

1,191,240
16,500

$

1,220,645
20,339

$

29,405
3,839

Total Revenues

Expenditures:

$

1,209,240

$

1,207,740

$

1,240,985

$

33,245

Administrative:
Supervisor Fees FICA Expense Engineering Fees Attorney Arbitrage
Dissemination Agent Annual Audit Trustee Fees
Assessment Administration Management Fees Information Technology Website Maintenance Telephone
Postage
Printing & Binding Insurance
Legal Advertising Other Current Charges Office Supplies Property Taxes
Dues, Licenses & Subscriptions
Total Administrative:

$

$

12,000
918
12,000
25,000
1,800
18,926
10,200
17,500
8,111
48,668
1,947
1,298
100
750
750
8,553
2,500
700
100
- 175
171,996

$

$

11,000
842
11,000
22,917
1,200
17,349
10,200
14,000
8,111
44,612
1,785
1,190
92
688
688
8,553
2,292
642
92
- 175
157,425

$

$

9,000
689
30,727
11,261
1,200
17,449
10,200
14,000
8,111
44,612
1,785
1,190
- 767
115
7,588
1,786
606
5
153
175
161,419

$

$

2,000
153
(19,727)
11,655
- (100)
-
-
- (0)
- (0)
92
(80)
573
965
505
36
87
(153)
-
(3,994)

Total Expenditures	$	1,367,169	$	1,262,922	$	1,187,966	$	74,957

Total Reserves	$	89,892	$	89,892	$	89,892	$	-

Total Maintenance - Shared Expenses	$	1,105,281	$	1,015,606	$	936,655	$	78,951

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Operation & Maintenance | | | | | | | |
Field Management | $ | 19,467 | $ | 17,845 | $ | 17,845 | $ | -
Property Insurance | | 29,179 | | 29,179 | | 21,520 | | 7,659
Electric | | 3,000 | | 2,750 | | 1,276 | | 1,474
Streetlights | | 263,140 | | 241,212 | | 206,254 | | 34,957
Water & Sewer | | 56,400 | | 51,700 | | 41,167 | | 10,533
Landscape Maintenance - Contract | | 522,093 | | 478,585 | | 478,586 | | (0)
Landscape - Contingency | | 20,000 | | 18,333 | | 10,541 | | 7,792
Lake Maintenance | | 46,656 | | 42,768 | | 42,768 | | -
Mitigation Monitoring & Maintenance | | 13,750 | | 12,604 | | - | | 12,604
Irrigation Repairs | | 25,000 | | 22,917 | | 26,463 | | (3,547)
Repairs & Maintenance | | 20,000 | | 18,333 | | 7,465 | | 10,868
Roadways & Sidewalks | | 15,000 | | 13,750 | | 8,000 | | 5,750
Trail & Boardwalk Maintenance | | 7,500 | | 6,875 | | - | | 6,875
Dog Park Maintenance | | 5,000 | | 4,583 | | 8,790 | | (4,207)
Operating Supplies | | 1,500 | | 1,375 | | - | | 1,375
Pressure Washing | | 7,500 | | 6,875 | | 7,500 | | (625)
Signage | | 8,619 | | 7,901 | | 12,943 | | (5,042)
Enhanced Traffic Enforcement | | 39,500 | | 36,208 | | 44,737 | | (8,529)
Contingency | | 1,977 | | 1,812 | | 800 | | 1,012
Reserves | | | | | | | |
Capital Reserve Transfer | $ | 89,892 | $ | 89,892 | $ | 89,892 | $ | -

Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $	(157,929) | $	53,019
Fund Balance - Beginning | $	157,929 | $	562,505
Fund Balance - Ending | $	- | $	615,524

Revenues: | | Oct | | Nov | | Dec | | Jan | | Feb | | Mar | | Apr | | May | | Jun | | Jul | | Aug | | Se | | Total
Special Assessments | $ | - | $ | 51,488 | $ | 110,328 | $ | 76,100 | $ | 829,346 | $ | 28,630 | $ | 33,336 | $ | 34,018 | $ | 24,110 | $ | 11,882 | $ | 21,408 | $ | - | | $ | 1,220,645
Interest | | 1,205 | | 912 | | 676 | | 1,033 | | 2,007 | | 2,982 | | 2,758 | | 2,621 | | 2,226 | | 2,193 | | 1,726 | | | - | | 20,339
Total Revenues | $ | 1,205 | $ | 52,400 | $ | 111,004 | $ | 77,134 | $ | 831,352 | $ | 31,612 | $ | 36,094 | $ | 36,638 | $ | 26,336 | $ | 14,075 | $ | 23,135 | $ | - | | $ | 1,240,985
Expenditures: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Administrative: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Supervisor Fees | $ | 800 | $ | 1,200 | $ | - | $ | 1,000 | $ | 1,000 | $ | 600 | $ | 800 | $ | 800 | $ | 800 | $ | 1,000 | $ | 1,000 | $ | - | | $ | 9,000
FICA Expense | | 61 | | 92 | | - | | 77 | | 77 | | 46 | | 61 | | 61 | | 61 | | 77 | | 77 | | | - | | 689
Engineering Fees | | 1,619 | | 240 | | 1,669 | | 7,149 | | 720 | | 771 | | 1,380 | | 2,454 | | 10,029 | | 4,698 | | - | | | - | | 30,727
Attorney | | 1,272 | | 822 | | 212 | | 893 | | 553 | | 1,291 | | 1,875 | | 551 | | 569 | | 1,121 | | 2,104 | | | - | | 11,261
Arbitrage | | 600 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | 600 | | - | | | - | | 1,200
Dissemination Agent | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | 1,677 | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | 1,577 | | | - | | 17,449
Annual Audit | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | 10,200 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | | - | | 10,200
Trustee Fees | | 3,500 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | 10,500 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | | - | | 14,000
Assessment Administration | | 8,111 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | | - | | 8,111
Management Fees | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | 4,056 | | | - | | 44,612
Information Technology | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | 162 | | | - | | 1,785
Website Maintenance | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | 108 | | | - | | 1,190
Telephone | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | | - | | -
Postage | | 117 | | 47 | | 27 | | 73 | | 9 | | 147 | | 9 | | 167 | | 36 | | 23 | | 111 | | | - | | 767
Printing & Binding | | 1 | | 3 | | 3 | | - | | - | | 7 | | 5 | | 80 | | 8 | | 3 | | 6 | | | - | | 115
Insurance | | 7,588 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | | - | | 7,588
Legal Advertising | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | 896 | | - | | 207 | | - | | 683 | | - | | | - | | 1,786
Other Current Charges | | 44 | | 95 | | 67 | | 46 | | 45 | | 45 | | 53 | | 61 | | 45 | | 60 | | 45 | | | - | | 606
Office Supplies | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 1 | | 0 | | 1 | | 1 | | 0 | | 0 | | | - | | 5
Property Taxes | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | 153 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | | - | | 153
Dues, Licenses & Subscriptions | | 175 | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | - | | | - | | 175
Total Administrative: | $ | 29,793 | $ | 8,402 | $ | 7,881 | $ | 15,140 | $ | 8,307 | $ | 20,061 | $ | 20,686 | $ | 10,285 | $ | 17,452 | $ | 14,168 | $ | 9,246 | $ | - | | $ | 161,419

| Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sept | Total

Operation & Maintenance
Field Management

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	1,622

$	-	$

17,845

Property Insurance | 21,520 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -	21,520
Electric | 119 | 122 | 116 | 133 | 125 | 114 | 113 | 109 | 107 | 110 | 109 | -	1,276
Streetlights | 20,792 | 16,755 | 22,457 | 15,232 | 18,851 | 20,346 | 18,415 | 16,484 | 20,313 | 18,307 | 18,302 | -	206,254
Water & Sewer | 3,429 | 4,398 | 4,957 | 3,996 | 3,070 | 3,258 | 3,686 | 3,614 | 5,300 | 2,638 | 2,820 | -	41,167
Landscape Maintenance - Contract | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | 43,508 | -	478,586
Landscape - Contingency | - | 500 | - | 1,875 | - | - | - | - | 400 | 6,766 | 1,000 | -	10,541
Lake Maintenance | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | 3,888 | -	42,768
Mitigation Monitoring & Maintenance | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -	-
Irrigation Repairs | 6,205 | - | 2,836 | 1,947 | 3,287 | 7,546 | - | 986 | 2,134 | 648 | 875 | -	26,463
Repairs & Maintenance | - | - | 1,580 | - | - | 200 | - | - | 5,685 | - | - | -	7,465
Roadways & Sidewalks | 1,485 | - | 885 | - | 665 | 1,350 | - | 865 | - | - | 2,750 | -	8,000
Trail & Boardwalk Maintenance | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -	-
Dog Park Maintenance | 685 | 465 | 2,785 | 1,405 | - | - | - | 3,290 | - | 160 | - | -	8,790
Operating Supplies | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -	-
Pressure Washing | - | - | 7,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -	7,500
Signage | 725 | - | 375 | 3,602 | 5,853 | - | - | - | 963 | 1,425 | - | -	12,943
Enhanced Traffic Enforcement | 3,984 | 3,652 | 4,648 | 3,984 | 3,984 | 4,316 | 4,316 | 3,569 | 4,316 | 3,652 | 4,316 | -	44,737
Contingency | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 800 | - | - | -	800
Total Maintenance - Shared Expenses | $ | 107,962 | $ | 74,911 | $ | 97,157 | $ | 81,192 | $ | 84,853 | $ | 86,147 | $ | 75,548 | $ | 77,936 | $ | 89,035 | $ | 82,724 | $ | 79,190 | $ | -	$ | 936,655
Reserves | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Capital Reserve Transfer | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 89,892 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $	- | | $ | -	$ | 89,892
Total Reserves | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 89,892 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $	- | | $ | -	$ | 89,892

Total Expenditures | $ | 137,754 | $ | 83,313 | $ | 105,038 | $ | 96,331 | $ | 183,053 | $ | 106,208 | $ | 96,234 | $ | 88,220 | $ | 106,487 | $ | 96,892 | $ | 88,436 | $ | - | $ | 1,187,966
Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $ | (136 549) | $ | (30 913) | $ | 5,966 | $ | (19,198) | $ | 648,300 | $ | (74 596) | $ | (60,140) | $ | (51,582) | $ | (80 151) | $ | (82 817) | $ | (65,301) | $ | | $ | 53,019

Total Expenditures	$	162,396	$	148,863	$	220,679	$	(71,816)

Total Revenues	$	101,892	$	100,892	$	107,865	$	6,973

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues: | | | | | | | |

Transfer In Interest

$

89,892
12,000

$

89,892
11,000

$

89,892
17,973

$

- 6,973

Expenditures: | | | | | | | |

Contingency Capital Outlay

$

600
161,796

$

550
148,313

$

503
220,176

$

47
(71,863)

Fund Balance - Ending	$	487,945	$	425,174

Fund Balance - Beginning	$	548,449	$	537,988

Excess Revenues (Expenditures)	$	(60,504)	$	(112,814)

Total Expenditures	$	597,500	$	597,500	$	612,494	$	(14,994)

Total Revenues	$	640,298	$	638,298	$	680,339	$	42,041

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues: | | | | | | | |
Special Assessments | $ | 616,298 | $ | 616,298 | $ | 631,573 | $ | 15,275
Special Assessments - Prepayments | | - | | - | | 17,040 | | 17,040
Interest | | 24,000 | | 22,000 | | 31,726 | | 9,726
Expenditures: | | | | | | | |
Series 2015 | | | | | | | |
Interest - 11/01 | $ | 193,669 | $ | 193,669 | $ | 193,666 | $ | 3
Principal - 11/01 | | 215,000 | | 215,000 | | 215,000 | | -
Interest - 05/01 | | 188,831 | | 188,831 | | 188,828 | | 3
Special Call - 05/01 | | - | | - | | 15,000 | | (15,000)

Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $	42,798 | $	67,845
Fund Balance - Beginning | $	648,401 | $	1,008,086
Fund Balance - Ending | $	691,199 | $	1,075,931

Total Expenditures	$	245,675	$	245,675	$	245,675	$	-

Total Revenues	$	254,827	$	254,327	$	263,899	$	9,572

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues: | | | | | | | |
Special Assessments | $ | 248,827 | $ | 248,827 | $ | 254,316 | $ | 5,489
Interest | | 6,000 | | 5,500 | | 9,583 | | 4,083
Expenditures: | | | | | | | |
Series 2018 | | | | | | | |
Interest - 12/15 | $ | 82,838 | $ | 82,838 | $ | 82,838 | $ | -
Principal - 06/15 | | 80,000 | | 80,000 | | 80,000 | | -
Interest - 06/15 | | 82,838 | | 82,838 | | 82,838 | | -

Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $	9,152 | $	18,224
Fund Balance - Beginning | $	163,519 | $	241,549
Fund Balance - Ending | $	172,671 | $	259,773

Total Expenditures	$	240,550	$	240,550	$	240,550	$	-

Total Revenues	$	246,964	$	246,297	$	256,392	$	10,095

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues: | | | | | | | |
Special Assessments | $ | 238,964 | $ | 238,964 | $ | 244,821 | $ | 5,857
Interest | | 8,000 | | 7,333 | | 11,572 | | 4,238
Expenditures: | | | | | | | |
Series 2019 | | | | | | | |
Interest - 12/15 | $ | 75,275 | $ | 75,275 | $ | 75,275 | $ | -
Principal - 06/15 | | 90,000 | | 90,000 | | 90,000 | | -
Interest - 06/15 | | 75,275 | | 75,275 | | 75,275 | | -

Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $	6,414 | $	15,842
Fund Balance - Beginning | $	169,500 | $	299,348
Fund Balance - Ending | $	175,914 | $	315,191

Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)	$	(8,400)	$	(7,700)	$	-	$	(7,700)

Total Expenditures	$	331,669	$	331,669	$	331,669	$	-

Total Revenues	$	344,800	$	343,925	$	356,490	$	12,565

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues: | | | | | | | |
Special Assessments | $ | 334,300 | $ | 334,300 | $ | 342,633 | $ | 8,333
Interest | | 10,500 | | 9,625 | | 13,857 | | 4,232
Expenditures: | | | | | | | |
Series 2021 | | | | | | | |
Interest - 12/15 | $ | 98,334 | $ | 98,334 | $ | 98,334 | $ | -
Principal - 06/15 | | 135,000 | | 135,000 | | 135,000 | | -
Interest - 06/15 | | 98,334 | | 98,334 | | 98,334 | | -
Other Sources/(Uses) | | | | | | | |
Transfer In/(Out) | $ | (8,400) | $ | (7,700) | $ | - | $ | (7,700)

Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $	4,731 | $	24,822
Fund Balance - Beginning | $	161,442 | $	346,224
Fund Balance - Ending | $	166,173 | $	371,045

Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)  $	(5,000)	$	(4,583)	$	(4,094)	$	(489)

Total Expenditures	$	202,380	$	202,380	$	202,380	$	-

Total Revenues	$	209,049	$	208,591	$	216,721	$	8,130

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues: | | | | | | | |
Special Assessments | $ | 203,549 | $ | 203,549 | $ | 208,538 | $ | 4,989
Interest | | 5,500 | | 5,042 | | 8,183 | | 3,141
Expenditures: | | | | | | | |
Series 2022 | | | | | | | |
Interest - 12/15 | $ | 73,690 | $ | 73,690 | $ | 73,690 | $ | -
Principal - 06/15 | | 55,000 | | 55,000 | | 55,000 | | -
Interest - 06/15 | | 73,690 | | 73,690 | | 73,690 | | -
Other Sources/(Uses) | | | | | | | |
Transfer In/(Out) | $ | (5,000) | $ | (4,583) | $ | (4,094) | $ | (489)

Excess Revenues (Expenditures)	$	1,669	$	10,247

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues:

Total Revenues	$	-	$	-	$	709	$	709

Interest	$	-	$	-	$	709	$	709

Expenditures:

Total Expenditures	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-

Capital Outlay	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-

Other Financing Sources/(Uses)

Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-

Transfer In/(Out)	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-

Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $ | $	709
Fund Balance - Beginning | $ | -	$	20,744
Fund Balance - Ending | $ | -	$	21,453

Budget	Thru 08/31/26	Thru 08/31/26	Variance

Revenues:

Total Revenues	$	-	$	-	$	458	$	458

Interest	$	-	$	-	$	458	$	458

Expenditures:

Total Expenditures	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-

Capital Outlay	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	-

Other Financing Sources/(Uses)

Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)	$	-	$	-	$	4,094	$	(4,094)

Transfer In/(Out)	$	-	$	-	$	4,094	$	(4,094)

Excess Revenues (Expenditures) | $ | $	4,552
Fund Balance - Beginning | $ | -	$	10,670
Fund Balance - Ending | $ | -	$	15,222

Storey Park
Community Development District Long Term Debt Report

SERIES 2015, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS |
(ASSESSMENT AREA ONE PROJECT) |
INTEREST RATES:	4.000%, 4.500%, 5.000%, 5.125% |
MATURITY DATE:	11/1/2045 |
RESERVE FUND DEFINITION	50% OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE |
RESERVE FUND REQUIREMENT	$303,522 |
RESERVE FUND BALANCE	$367,928 |
BONDS OUTSTANDING - 9/30/15 | $9,210,000
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/16 | ($90,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/17 | ($155,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/18 | ($160,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/19 | ($170,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/20 | ($175,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/21 | ($180,000)
LESS: SPECIAL CALL 11/1/21 | ($10,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/22 | ($190,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/23 | ($200,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/24 | ($205,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 11/1/25 | ($215,000)
LESS: SPECIAL CALL 05/1/26 | ($15,000)
CURRENT BONDS OUTSTANDING | $7,445,000

SERIES 2018, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS |
(ASSESSMENT AREA TWO PROJECT) |
INTEREST RATES:	3.750%, 4.375%, 4.875%, 5.000% |
MATURITY DATE:	6/15/2048 |
RESERVE FUND DEFINITION	25% OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE |
RESERVE FUND REQUIREMENT	$62,200 |
RESERVE FUND BALANCE	$76,866 |
BONDS OUTSTANDING - 5/22/18 | $3,865,000
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/19 | ($65,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/20 | ($65,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/21 | ($65,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/22 | ($70,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/23 | ($70,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/24 | ($75,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/25 | ($80,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/26 | ($80,000)
CURRENT BONDS OUTSTANDING | $3,295,000

SERIES 201 (ASSESS

INTEREST RATES: MATURITY DATE:
RESERVE FUND DEFINITION

9, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS MENT AREA THREE PROJECT)

3.500%, 3.750%, 4.250%, 4.400%
6/15/2049
50% OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE

RESERVE FUND REQUIREMENT RESERVE FUND BALANCE

$119,695
$123,393

BONDS OUTSTANDING - 5/31/19 | $3,995,000
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/20 | ($70,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/21 | ($75,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/22 | ($75,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/23 | ($80,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/24 | ($80,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/25 | ($85,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/26 | ($90,000)
CURRENT BONDS OUTSTANDING | $3,440,000

SERIES 2021, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS |
(ASSESSMENT AREA FOUR PROJECT) |
INTEREST RATES:	2.375%, 2.875%, 3.300%, 4.400% |
MATURITY DATE:	6/15/2051 |
RESERVE FUND DEFINITION	50% OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE |
RESERVE FUND REQUIREMENT	$167,150 |
RESERVE FUND BALANCE	$172,331 |
BONDS OUTSTANDING - 6/15/21 | $6,030,000
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/22 | ($125,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/23 | ($125,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/24 | ($130,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/25 | ($135,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/26 | ($135,000)
CURRENT BONDS OUTSTANDING | $5,380,000

SERIES 2022, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS |
(ASSESSMENT AREA FIVE PROJECT) |
INTEREST RATES:	4.250%, 4.500%, 5.000%, 5.150% |
MATURITY DATE:	6/15/2052 |
RESERVE FUND DEFINITION	50% OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE |
RESERVE FUND REQUIREMENT	$101,774 |
RESERVE FUND BALANCE	$104,883 |
BONDS OUTSTANDING - 9/15/22 | $3,105,000
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/23 | ($50,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/24 | ($50,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/25 | ($55,000)
LESS: PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 6/15/26 | ($55,000)
CURRENT BONDS OUTSTANDING | $2,895,000

Storey Park
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Gross Assessments  $ 1,267,495.00  $ | 655,813.00 | $  264,077.00 | $  254,217.00 | $  355,784.00 | $  216,542.05 | $  3,013,928.05
Net Assessments  $ 1,191,445.30  $ | 616,464.22 | $  248,232.38 | $  238,963.98 | $  334,436.96 | $  203,549.53 | $  2,833,092.37

ON ROLL ASSESSMENTS
42.05%

21.76%

8.76%

8.43%

11.80%

7.18%

100.00%

Special Assessment Receipts Fiscal Year 2026

2015 Debt	2018 Debt	2019 Debt	2021 Debt	2022 Debt
Date	Distribution	Gross Amount	Commissions  Discount/Penalty	Interest	Net Receipts	O&M Portion	Service Asmt	Service Asmt	Service Asmt	Service Asmt	Service Asmt	Total

11/10/25
11/20/25
11/25/25
12/05/25
12/15/25
12/22/25
12/22/25
01/15/26
02/13/26
03/13/26
03/13/26
04/15/26
05/15/26
06/15/26
06/16/26
07/15/26
08/14/26
09/15/26
09/16/26

ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH ACH

$7,031.29
$14,198.00
$107,915.12
$136,596.26
$30,403.41
$0.00
$104,711.52
$188,495.69
$2,054,238.90
$0.00
$65,786.97
$82,288.45
$83,466.21
$55,121.84
$0.00
$28,254.46
$50,990.28
$5,622.46
$0.00

$369.14
$1,459.99
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$567.92
$4,316.58
$5,463.84
$1,216.14
$0.00
$4,188.45
$7,539.80
$82,169.60
$0.00
$2,631.48
$3,019.92
$2,576.92
$894.09
$0.00
$0.00
$83.85
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.99
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,922.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,102.47
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$864.34

$6,662.15
$12,170.09
$103,598.54
$131,132.42
$29,187.27
$1,500.99
$100,523.07
$180,955.89
$1,972,069.30
$4,922.13
$63,155.49
$79,268.53
$80,889.29
$54,227.75
$3,102.47
$28,254.46
$50,906.43
$5,622.46
$864.34

$2,801.74
$5,118.08
$43,567.94
$55,147.20
$12,274.59
$631.24
$42,274.56
$76,100.25
$829,345.60
$2,069.98
$26,559.78
$33,336.05
$34,017.66
$22,805.26
$1,304.73
$11,882.30
$21,408.49
$2,364.50
$363.49

$1,449.64
$2,648.14
$22,542.43
$28,533.64
$6,350.98
$326.61
$21,873.23
$39,374.94
$429,110.67
$1,071.03
$13,742.26
$17,248.37
$17,601.03
$11,799.64
$675.08
$6,148.00
$11,076.94
$1,223.41
$188.08

$583.73
$1,066.33
$9,077.19
$11,489.68
$2,557.36
$131.52
$8,807.72
$15,855.15
$172,790.50
$431.27
$5,533.61
$6,945.42
$7,087.43
$4,751.37
$271.83
$2,475.62
$4,460.36
$492.63
$75.73

$561.94
$1,026.52
$8,738.27
$11,060.68
$2,461.87
$126.60
$8,478.86
$15,263.16
$166,338.92
$415.17
$5,327.00
$6,686.09
$6,822.80
$4,573.97
$261.69
$2,383.19
$4,293.83
$474.24
$72.90

$786.44
$1,436.64
$12,229.46
$15,479.74
$3,445.46
$177.19
$11,866.41
$21,361.23
$232,796.10
$581.04
$7,455.29
$9,357.38
$9,548.71
$6,401.40
$366.24
$3,335.34
$6,009.33
$663.71
$102.03

$478.66	$6,662.15
$874.39	$12,170.10
$7,443.26	$103,598.55
$9,421.49	$131,132.43
$2,097.02	$29,187.28
$107.84	$1,501.00
$7,222.29	$100,523.07
$13,001.16	$180,955.89
$141,687.50	$1,972,069.29
$353.64	$4,922.13
$4,537.54	$63,155.48
$5,695.22	$79,268.53
$5,811.66	$80,889.29
$3,896.11	$54,227.75
$222.90	$3,102.47
$2,030.00	$28,254.45
$3,657.48	$50,906.43
$403.96	$5,622.45
$62.10	$864.33

| TOTAL | $ 3,015,120.86  $ | 1,829.13  $ | 114,668.59 | $ 10,389.93 | $ 2,909,013.07 | $ 1,223,373.44  $ | 632,984.12  $ | 254,884.45  $ | 245,367.70 | $ | 343,399.14 | $  209,004.22  $  2,909,013.07
| $ | 102.68% (75,920.70) | Net Percent Collected Balance Remaining to Collect

15

Storey Park CDD presented by Hall Company, Inc.