MINUTES OF MEETING ANABELLE ISLAND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Anabelle Island Community Development District was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. at Plantation Oaks Amenity Center, 845 Oakleaf Plantation Parkway, Orange Park, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum:

Darren Gowens	Chairman
Sarah Milner	Vice Chairperson
Marcus Martinez	Assistant Secretary
Rose Bock	Assistant Secretary

Also present were:

Marilee Giles	District Manager, GMS
Jennifer Kilinski by phone	District Counsel, Kilinski Van Wyk Lindsay Moczynski by phone	District Counsel, Kilinski Van Wyk Glen Wieger by phone	District Engineer, Live Oak Engineering
Freddie Oca	GMS
Jay Soriano	GMS

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Ms. Giles called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Four Board members were in attendance constituting a quorum.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments
Ms. Giles opened the public comment period for agenda items only.
Resident (Edward Kennedy) raised concerns regarding the condition of common areas, citing excessive weeds, pest issues, mold, poor turf condition, and inadequate irrigation, particularly near Windsor Lakes Way and community mailbox areas. The Board advised that the District has documented resident complaints and forwarded them to the vendor, and that legal

review may be necessary to determine potential enforcement options under the existing contract. Discussion also addressed the contract’s expiration in September 2026, the possibility of pursuing future bids or an RFP process, and the scope of service. Mr. Kennedy was concerned about the responsibility for removal of temporary construction mesh and delays in roadway completion and repairs. The Board stated that construction-related debris and mesh removal may fall under the builder’s responsibility and that further follow-up would continue. Residents were encouraged to continue providing written complaints and photographs to support documentation and enforcement efforts.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration  of  Memorandum  of
Understanding with DreamFinders
*This item was moved up and taken out of order.
Ms. Giles asked for approval to move agenda item 8 forward on the agenda for consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding with Dream Finders. Ms. Moczynski provided an overview, explaining that the agreement was necessary to allow Dream Finders access to District property in connection with installation of a traffic signal and related utility service, while protecting the District from associated risk. Louie Callen of Dream Finders clarified that the agreement was needed to obtain a meter from Clay Electric and noted that the CDD had previously granted the required easements to Clay County for the traffic signal infrastructure. He explained that, upon acceptance, Clay County would assume ownership of the traffic signal, meter, and related service. There was a motion made to approve.
Discussion followed regarding repairs to turf impacted by recent construction activity near the entry sign area. Mr. Callen advised that damaged turf was being repaired and that replacement of the line to the transformer was underway, with completion anticipated by the following day. It was noted that irrigation may need to be activated temporarily to help establish the new sod. He stated that any construction-related damage caused by its work would be repaired or replaced.

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Ms. Bock, with all in favor, the Memorandum of Understanding with Dream Finders, was approved.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Minutes of the April 15,
2026 Meeting

Ms. Giles presented the minutes from the April 15, 2026 meeting and asked for any comments or corrections. The Board had no changes to the minutes.

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Mr. Martinez, with all in favor, the Minutes of the April 15, 2026 Meeting, were approved.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Acceptance of Minutes of the April 15,
2026 Audit Committee Meeting
Ms. Giles presented the minutes of the April 15, 2026 Audit Committee meeting. The Board had no changes to the minutes.

On MOTION by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Ms. Bock, with all in favor, Accepting the Minutes of the April 15, 2026 Audit Committee Meeting, were approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Ratification of Audit Engagement Letter
with Grau and Associates for Fiscal Year 2026
Ms. Giles discussed ratification of the Audit Engagement Letter with Grau and Associates for the Fiscal Year 2026 audit. She explained that the engagement letter confirms the auditor’s acceptance of the appointment and outlines the scope and objectives of the audit.

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Ms. Milner, with all in favor, the Audit Engagement Letter with Grau and Associates for Fiscal Year 2026, was ratified.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Update on CDD Easement Encroachments Ms. Moczynski presented an update regarding easement encroachments involving fences located within District easements. She reported that letters had been sent to six affected property owners and that many recipients had responded. Staff and counsel are working with the responding residents, with some already agreeable to entering into the necessary agreements, while others have raised questions requiring further review. It was also noted that additional documentation is being gathered to confirm fence locations where surveys are not presently available in the property records. Overall, the Board was advised that the matter is progressing positively through ongoing

communication and review. Ms. Giles noted that one resident in attendance may provide comments later in the meeting and that additional unrelated fence matters remain under review.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Proposals:
Governmental Management Services for Fiscal Year 2027 Operations Services
Mr. Soriano explained that the proposal represented a continuation of existing services, including maintenance support, repair and replacement hours, and limited operational assistance for items such as pressure washing, trash pickup, culvert clearing, and similar maintenance needs that exceed current staff capacity. It was noted that certain sidewalk maintenance concerns may stem from drainage conditions affecting homeowners’ areas, and that the District may provide limited support for an initial annual cleaning while homeowners may remain responsible for portions of those areas. He also explained that the proposal included optional facility attendant services for the amenity pool if needed in the future, though no significant issues currently warrant routine use of that service.

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Ms. Milner, with all in favor, Governmental Management Services for Fiscal Year 2027 Operations Services, was approved.

United Land Services for Sandridge Entrance Refresh
Mr. Soriano stated that the proposal concerned the Sand Ridge entrance area, which has been significantly impacted by construction activity and road development. He explained that the work would address the entryway only, including the median and front entry sections, not the interior neighborhood common areas. The proposal was described as a cleanup and entry refresh to repair visible damage such as deteriorated sod, construction debris, and rust staining. It was also noted that United would not cover the sod repair under warranty, and the County would not replace the sod, leaving the District to address the issue. He stated the proposal as a substantial project, including mulch, knockout roses, and sod replacement, at a total cost of $13,739.
The Board discussed electrical repairs and lighting restoration on one side of the entrance had been completed and that construction on that side was finished, with remaining concerns limited to the opposite side. It was noted that county assistance, if any, would likely be limited to minimal remediation such as seeding and may not include mulch, flowers, irrigation, or ornamental plantings. Board members questioned whether the proposed scope and quantities would fully

replace what had previously existed and whether the proposal represented a reduction in improvements. In response to concerns regarding cost, scope, and vendor performance, the Board directed staff to obtain additional comparable estimates, including revised options with more color and plant material, and agreed to table the proposal for future consideration.
Mr. Soriano discussed a proposal for irrigation repairs associated with the same entry-area restoration project previously under consideration, noting that the damage largely resulted from roadway work and that the County would not fund irrigation improvements. Staff advised that the area currently contains significant sand and mud and explained that irrigation work is necessary before landscape restoration can proceed. Board members questioned whether the proposed plant material and quantities were equivalent to the original improvements and expressed concern that the total cost of irrigation and landscaping restoration could approach $20,000 without clearly restoring the area to its prior condition. Mr. Soriano confirmed that additional estimates could be obtained from other vendors for both irrigation and landscape components and stated that a more competitive and comparable set of proposals would be presented for future Board review.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration  of  Resolution  2026-04,
Approving the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2027 and Setting a Public Hearing Date for Adoption (August 19, 2026)
Ms. Giles presented Resolution 2026-04, approving the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget and setting August 19, 2026 as the public hearing date for final adoption, in accordance with the statutory requirement to allow at least 60 days between preliminary approval and adoption. She explained that the budget includes both the general fund for operations and maintenance and the debt service fund for bond assessments. Although the overall assessment level increased, she advised that resident assessments would remain unchanged from FY26 because the developer will again provide contributions sufficient to offset the increase. She explained that certain budget lines increased due to statutory engineering requirements, including costs associated with the annual engineer’s report, pond bank inspections, and the required stormwater and wastewater needs analysis, while other line items decreased. It was also noted that some engineering-related reports may potentially be deferred until 2027.
During Board discussion, clarification was provided that the proposed budget serves as a maximum spending authority and may be reduced at final adoption but cannot be increased above

the proposed amount. Board members confirmed that budgeted amounts do not require full expenditure and that unused funds remain with the District rather than being spent automatically. She also noted that actual developer contributions to date have been below the budgeted estimate and that professional service line items, such as attorney and engineering fees, are budgeted conservatively in case needed.

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Mr. Martinez, with all in favor, Resolution 2026-04, Approving the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2027 and Setting a Public Hearing Date for Adoption (August 19, 2026), was approved.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Ms. Moczynski reported that there were no substantive legal updates at this time, other than reminders regarding statutory compliance requirements for Board members. She noted that Form 1 financial disclosure filings are due by July 1st and may be completed electronically, and reminded Board members of the annual four-hour ethics training requirement, which may be completed at any time before the end of the calendar year.

Engineer – Discussion of Underdrain Project
Mr. Wieger provided an update on the underdrain project, advising that additional comments were submitted to the engineer of record on May 15, 2026, and that a revised resubmittal package was expected within the next several days for review. It was noted that, following receipt and review of the full package, issuance of the district permit could occur within approximately 30 days. During discussion, the Board inquired whether the updated materials would be circulated prior to the next meeting and whether Board action would be required. Mr. Wieger confirmed that the permit package would require signature by an authorized District representative and offered to include Sarah on the e-mail related to the project. The Board discussed the likelihood of a coordination call among the Chair, District Engineer, and District Counsel once the full submittal is received. It was also confirmed that the Board and any affected residents would be updated once the materials are available and reviewed.

Manager

Report on the Number of Registered Voters (319)
Ms. Giles stated that the District Manager’s report included a letter from the Supervisor of Elections Office, noting that under Florida Statute Chapter 190 the District is required to report the number of registered voters within the Community Development District. She advised that, as of April 15, 2026, the District contained 319 registered voters.

Annual Form 1 Filing & Annual Ethics Training
Ms. Giles reminded Board members they are required to complete Form 1 financial disclosure filings by July 1st, and she would continue monitoring compliance and sending reminders as that deadline approaches because late filing could result in penalties. She also noted that the four-hour ethics training requirement is due by December 31, giving members additional time to complete it. She explained that she can verify whether Form 1 filings have been submitted through the system and would continue checking regularly, but she cannot verify completion of the ethics training, which she described as essentially an honor-based requirement without the same type of visible reporting.

Operations Manager
Mr. Oca stated that electrical repairs had been completed in the Sand Ridge area, and landscaping work would be deferred until irrigation repairs are resolved, at which time quotes would be obtained for the remaining work. He also reported an issue with the amenity access system, explaining that two residents are currently awaiting new access cards because newly issued cards are not functioning properly. He advised that a service appointment with the access company had been scheduled for Friday to correct the issue, while confirming that existing cards continue to work.
Mr. Soriano discussed options regarding the current United Land Services contract as it approaches expiration, explaining that the Board could either consider a one-year extension or initiate a request-for-proposals process for a new contract. He noted that, although the District is not legally required to follow a formal public RFP process at its current spending level, he generally recommends using a structured and transparent process to ensure comparable proposals and avoid concerns of bias. He advised that a typical transition process would require approximately 60 days, including preparation of a detailed scope, vendor site visits, proposal review, and Board award. He cautioned that new proposals could come in at higher costs than the

current contract, which could affect the recently planned budget. As an alternative, he suggested asking the current contractor to agree to a more detailed contract form that would clearly define responsibilities and pricing, thereby improving the District’s ability to enforce performance standards during the remainder of the current term. He stated that under more detailed contracts, the District can quantify missed services and apply those amounts toward corrective neighborhood improvements rather than simply seeking refunds. He noted that the current contractor remains in place through at least September, and that the Board would need to decide whether to continue with the contractor beyond that point or proceed with a bid process.
The Board discussed timing and process considerations for a potential request-for-proposals process for landscape maintenance services in light of resident concerns regarding current vendor performance. The Board advised that, because the current contract expires in September 2026 and a transition process generally requires approximately 60 days, an RFP would need to proceed promptly in order to allow Board review and potential award by the July or August meeting, with July preferred due to the upcoming budget adoption in August. They explained that the current vendor would still be notified and included in the process, and that the preparation of a detailed scope and timeline would begin immediately for Board review. It was emphasized that, regardless of any future procurement decision, the current vendor remains responsible for maintenance services during the growing season and through the balance of the existing contract. Mr. Soriano noted that vendors sometimes continue providing services during a transition period if needed and confirmed that the Board retains multiple options regarding notice and contract continuation. The Board directed staff to proceed with preparing the scope, timeline, and related materials for review in advance of the July meeting.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors Requests
Ms. Giles asked for any Supervisors requests.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments
Resident (Mr. Anderson) inquired about the status of Block Island Parkway, including the connecting roadway to Robinson Ranch, and asked whether there had been any recent discussions or an anticipated timeline for that project. The resident observed increased activity near the model homes and sought clarification regarding potential progress on the roadway improvements.

Mr. Weiger discussed Mr. Anderson’s question regarding the timeline for future development phases and the Block Island extension associated with Dream Finders. He advised that the schedule for phases three through five is outside the District’s direct control and knowledge, as those activities are being undertaken by the developer. It was noted that a Dream Finders representative who had attended earlier in the meeting may have been the appropriate party to address the development schedule. Mr. Anderson stated that he had identified several perceived errors and omissions in a proposed variance agreement and had engaged legal counsel to review the document. He advised that revisions may be proposed and requested that this be reflected in the record. Ms. Giles stated that any proposed revisions should be submitted for review and could be forwarded to District Counsel for consideration.
Resident (Mr. Kennedy) asked whether the timing of engineering-related drainage work on Windsor Lakes Way is dependent upon completion of the roadway project, including the final asphalt topping. He asked for clarification as to whether the drainage estimate and related engineering efforts would proceed independently or in coordination with the final roadwork schedule.
District Engineer stated that the current proposed underdrain improvement is intended to address the flooding issue in the front section of the community, specifically in the area serving the first three entrance ponds. He noted that this is the specific improvement item currently under review and indicated that any additional drainage or related work in other areas would generally be considered after all lots are built out.
Mr. Kennedy stated that farther down the roadway past the creek a section of road near his property appears to be deteriorating and may be experiencing subsurface or drainage-related failure. He noted that a PVC pipe had previously been placed in his front yard, apparently in connection with earlier testing or related work, and expressed concern that no further update had been provided. He stated that water is coming up through the roadway in that area and stated that the road surface appears to be washing out. He requested confirmation that this location is included in the planned repair review and not limited solely to the front entrance area. He noted that he had observed individuals conducting drilling or soil-testing activity near the adjacent lake and wanted to ensure the engineers were aware of and evaluating that portion of the roadway.
District engineer stated that ECS would be Chris Eden and Jared and he clarified that he is the engineer for the CDD, not the one doing the work. He stated that his role is to advocate for the

District and address concerns related to engineering oversight. He explained that if residents or Board members observe discrepancies, contractor issues, or failures to follow proper procedures, those matters should be brought to the Board’s attention so he can raise them with the engineer of record responsible for monitoring the work and seek corrective action.
Ms. Giles asked Mr. Kennedy to send her an email and she will forward it to the engineer of that roadway.
Mr. Kennedy reiterated concerns regarding a drainage area previously cleared by maintenance personnel, stating that the location continues to hold water and remains in poor condition, comparable to drainage issues near the Sand Ridge entrance. He agreed to provide photographs by email for further review, and staff advised that any such documentation could be forwarded to the District Engineer. He also noted concerns regarding temporary construction fabric or silk mesh remaining in the community and emphasized that the District should not bear the cost of removing materials associated with development activity.
A Board member clarified that the District would continue requesting the builder’s assistance and seek to minimize any burden or cost to the District.
Resident (Mr. Ling) stated that he had an additional question regarding the Sand Ridge area, asking whether trees that would be moved for the underdrain project would be returned once the work is completed. He also commented that, in any future vendor selection or contract negotiations, the District should pursue more precise contract language to reduce ambiguity and better protect the District’s interests going forward. He requested improved communication regarding development activity in phases three, four, and five, including how those future phases may affect the CDD and whether amenities or related community features may change as development progresses.
Ms. Giles noted that the future development will operate as a separate Community Development District and will not have rights to use this District’s amenities unless the applicable non-resident annual fee is paid. She stated that the only connection between the two communities will be the roadway, and that they will remain independent from one another.
Resident (Ms. Kennedy) followed up regarding the status of communications with United Land Services, noting that approximately two weeks had passed since the initial email and requesting an update on whether any response had been received from the vendor.

A Board member advised that resident emails and complaints are reviewed and forwarded to the appropriate contractor for discussion. Ms. Kennedy reiterated strong dissatisfaction with the current landscape maintenance contractor and expressed opposition to renewing the contractor’s agreement, citing concerns that ongoing maintenance deficiencies were not being addressed promptly and were now resulting in avoidable additional costs to the District. The Board responded that resident emails and photographs remain important for documenting issues, supporting follow-up with the contractor, and establishing a record of unresolved problems. It was noted that such communication should continue regardless of whether the Board ultimately retains the current vendor or selects a new contractor, as timely documentation assists staff in tracking performance issues and pursuing accountability. Staff acknowledged that documented resident complaints and photographs remain valuable in evaluating vendor’s performance and supporting future action.
Resident (Mr. Greene) asked about the budgeted line item for community holiday decorations and asked how requests would be handled if the community later decided to organize holiday-related activities or decorations. He asked for the appropriate contact person and process for initiating such requests.
A Board member explained that unused budgeted funds do not lapse or disappear but instead remain available and may ultimately be transferred into capital reserves. He noted that the District will eventually need to build reserve savings for long-term capital items such as building air conditioners, bathroom fixtures, pool equipment, well equipment, motors, and similar infrastructure, typically through a third-party capital reserve study and long-term replacement plan. He clarified that prior holiday decoration expenses, such as Christmas wreaths, should have been coded to the holiday decorations budget line. He explained that the special events budget line has not been used and could support limited neighborhood activities such as food trucks, a pool gathering, or a small holiday event, although the currently budgeted amount would fund only a modest number of such activities.
Ms. Giles clarified that the budget includes two separate line items: $2,000 for special events and $2,000 for holiday decorations. She explained that while these amounts are currently limited, a future resident-controlled Board could choose to increase those budget lines if it wished to support more community events. She also noted that the current budget structure is being supported in part by developer contributions, which are helping to prevent increased costs from being passed on to residents at this time.

THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Balance Sheet and Statement of Revenues & Expenditures
Assessment Receipts Schedule
Approval of Check Register
Ms. Giles stated that the financial reports included the balance sheet and statement of revenues for the period ending April 30, 2026. She noted that the assessment receipts report reflected that the district was 99% collected, and that the April check register totaled $32,185.35. She also advised that she observed no unusual variances in the check register.

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Mr. Martinez, with all in favor, the Check Register, was approved.

FOURTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Ratification of Pay Requisition No. 25
Ms. Giles presented ratification of Pay Requisition No. 25. She noted this is a pay requisition to Clary and Associates in the amount of $2,250.

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Mr. Martinez, with all in favor, the Series 2022 Pay Requisition No.25, was ratified.

FIFTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting – Wednesday
June 17, 2026 @ 2:00 p.m.
Ms. Giles stated the next meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2026, at 2:00 at the same location.

SIXTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Gowens, seconded by Mr. Martinez, with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman