MINUTES OF MEETING OAKRIDGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Oakridge Community Development District was held on August 6, 2025 at 6:00 p.m., at the Driftwood Community Center, 3000 N 69th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Ron Mitcham	Chairman
Steven Nathasingh	Vice Chairman
Ana Salazar	Assistant Secretary
Allen Blenden	Assistant Secretary
Evangeline Ott	Assistant Secretary Also present were:
Andrew Gill	District Manager
Scott Cochran	District Counsel
Ramone Tesone by phone	District Engineer
Enrique Henri	Property Manager of Hollywood Oaks

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Oath	of	Office	for	Mr.	Ron
Mitcham, Mr. Steven Nathasingh and Ms. Evangeline Ott
Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. and administered the oath of office to Supervisor Mitcham, Supervisor Nathasingh, and Supervisor Ott.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Gill called the roll.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience	Comments	–	as  per
District’s rules, each speaker has 3 minutes to provide comment

There being no comments, the next item followed.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the
May 7, 2025 Meeting
Mr. Gill presented the minutes from the May 7, 2025 meeting and asked the Board for any comments or corrections. The Board had no changes to the minutes.

On MOTION by Mr. Blenden seconded by Ms. Ott with all in favor, the Minutes of the May 7, 2025 Meeting were approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public	Hearing	to	Adopt	the
Fiscal Year 2026 Budget
Motion to Open the Public Hearing
Mr. Gill asked for a motion to open the public hearing.

On MOTION by Mr. Mitcham seconded by Mr. Nathasingh with all in favor, Opening the Public Hearing, was approved.

Public Comment and Discussion
Mr. Gill asked for any public comments or discussion. Mr. Enrique Henri asked if the bonds mature at the end of 2028. Mr. Gill stated that the bonds mature on May 1, 2033. Mr. Blenden stated that they reissued the bonds to pay for the lake bank restoration.
Mr. Enrique Henri asked if anything can be done before 2033 as far as the bonds are concerned if there are going to be increases in the services. Mr. Gill stated separate from the administration of the CDD is the debt service and that is generally locked in unless the Board decides they are going to refinance.
Prior to getting to the resolutions, the budget that is in the agenda package was the budget that was previously approved by the Board, no changes have been made to that.

Consideration of Resolution #2025-08 annual Appropriation Resolution
Mr. Gill stated Resolution 2025-08 is the annual appropriations resolution and appropriates from the revenue the District will be receiving a portion for the general fund and a portion to pay the debt service.

On MOTION by Mr. Blenden seconded by Ms. Ott with all in favor, Resolution #2025-08 annual Appropriation Resolution, was approved.

Consideration of Resolution #2025-09 Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments
Mr. Gill stated Resolution 2025-09 allows the levy of the non ad valorem assessments on the properties within the District and passes that assessment roll on to the property appraiser.

On MOTION by Mr. Nathasingh seconded by Mr. Mitcham with all in favor, Resolution #2025-09 Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments, was approved.

Motion to Close the Public Hearing
Mr. Gill asked for a motion to close the public hearing.

On MOTION by Mr. Mitcham seconded by Mr. Nathasingh with all in favor, Closing the Public Hearing, was approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Engagement
Letter with Grau & Associates to Perform the Audit for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2025
Mr. Gill reviewed the engagement letter with Grau & Associates to perform the audit for Fiscal Year 2025.

On MOTION by Ms. Ott seconded by Mr. Mitcham with all in favor, Engagement Letter with Grau & Associates to Perform the Audit for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2025, was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney – Memorandum – 2025 Legislative Update
Affidavit Compliance with Anti-Human Trafficking Laws
Mr. Cochran stated this is our annual memo summarizing the legislation that affects CDDs. The first one is the new public records exemption for certain categories and public officers that are allowed to request from the records custodian from a public entity to have certain of their identifying information exempt from the public record disclosure. CDD officers are not among those types of officers who are entitled to the exemption. However, if someone within the District does qualify as one of those categories of public officers and requests that their identifying information be kept exempt and comply with requirements of the statute then we would have to keep that exempt for them.
Mr. Cochran stated the second change deals with bond rating requirements and prohibits CDDs from imposing stricter bond rating requirements than the state allows.
The third update deals with rulemaking and adds red tape to the process, makes the requirements for notice to be more specific in terms of the format that is used.
The fourth change deals with ethics, there is a new stolen valor prohibition, people who campaign for seats or serving in seats are prohibited from claiming military service with honors that they didn’t obtain. The other thing it does is allows the attorney general to pursue wage garnishment for unpaid civil or restitution penalties arising from ethics violations. If there is an ethics violation they assess monetary penalties, if those don’t get paid within a certain period of time it does authorize the attorney general to garnish wages to enforce that.
Mr. Cochran stated the fifth change only applies to developer-controlled Boards, deals with platting and replatting.
Mr. Cochran noted the final update deals with different things regarding construction contracting and permitting type things. One that could be of interest is it requires the state department of environmental protection to establish minimum

standards for installing synthetic turf on residential properties and prohibits local governments from enforcing stricter work policies or guidelines that those the state allows. The other thing the legislation does is reduces the timeframe within which certain building departments have to complete reviewing certain types of permit applications.
That could be of interest if you are in for permitting.

Engineer
Mr. Nathasingh asked for the status of the FEMA issue. Mr. Gill stated between the last meeting and this meeting we had a call with the consultant but there is a resolution issue with the lapse and lidar, there is some sort of overlaying maps and the resolution for the properties next to each other was such that the level here was different than the level there. Ramon and I reached out to the state attempting to get updated maps for them to try overlay to correct that resolution. He is still in the process of working with them on that.

Manager
Consideration of 2025 Performance Measures and Standards as Required by Florida Statute 189.0694
Mr. Gill stated as you will recall the state has asked CDDs to provide a list of performance standards that we hope to meet in the fiscal year. We provided a template to the Board, the Board approved it, and we met each of those conditions.

On MOTION by Ms. Ott seconded by Mr. Blenden with all in favor, the 2025 Performance Measures and Standards as Required by Florida Statute 189.0694 were approved.

Mr. Gill stated we would like to use the same template for Fiscal Year 2026 with an amendment to the number of meetings to hold at least two meetings.

On MOTION by Mr. Mitcham seconded by Ms. Ott with all in favor, the 2026 Performance Measures and Standards as Required by Florida Statute 189.0694 amended to hold at least two Board meetings annually, were approved.

Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Meeting Schedule
Mr. Gill presented the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 meeting schedule.

On MOTION by Mr. Nathasingh seconded by Ms. Ott with all in favor, the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Meeting Schedule reflecting meetings on October 1, 2025, February 4, 2026,
March 4,, 2026, May 6, 2026, July 1, 2026 and August 5, 2026, was approved.

Form 1 Financial Disclosure Due July 1, 2025
Mr. Gill stated everyone has filed their form 1.

Reminder to Complete Annual Ethics Training by December 31, 2025
Mr. Gill stated your ethics training is due by December 31st. I can resend those links to the Board.

Update on Letters Sent and Responses
Mr. Gill stated the first letter deals with fences that extend from the property owner’s home toward the lake. We wanted to clarify and the Board asked that we send letters to the homeowner’s association so they can let their residents know that any fences that are installed need to be approved by the CDD if they extend to our property. I spoke with the engineer, and it is a little difficult because the easement is different depending on where the home is located. The best course of action is if the homeowner wants to install a fence that extends toward the lake, they should reach out to the CDD and the engineer and we can let them know if it is on our property and we need to approve it or no, the fence would still be on their property.
Mr. Gill stated I spoke with Supervisor Ott about a portal, I think the document we sent to the HOA I can send an additional email saying these were submitted to you and we request that they be included somewhere that residents can look at them. Would that be sufficient?
Ms. Ott stated I have asked that the documents be put on the homeowner association’s portal and they are not there. I was told that she would put it out there, but

it needs to be there because the subject comes up more and more regularly and people are putting up temporary fences and it is looking pretty bad.
Mr. Mitchan stated we don’t have a portal the Oakridge Homeowners Association has a portal. I wanted to check, this letter that went to Hollywood Oaks is the same one that went to Oakridge, correct?
Mr. Gill stated yes.
Mr. Mitcham stated how the HOA disseminates that information is up to the HOA. I don’t think we should be telling them how to disseminate that information. We give them the letter stating this is what we need to do and how they choose to do it, whether they put it on the portal, saying it at the meeting, on the ACC form when they fill out the paperwork, however the individual homeowner’s association chooses to disseminate that information is up to them.
Ms. Ott stated I didn’t speak to her as a Supervisor here and I am on the HOA grievance committee in our community and at the HOA meeting the fences came up. I didn’t say a word and I haven’t seen this letter. At the grievance committee there was a resident that was talking about fences and one of the other members of the grievance committee said do it, I’ve got one. The next day I looked for the document and didn’t find it and I called you. The residents didn’t know anything about this letter or the rules and I didn’t know how to get it out there so I asked the manager is this out there and she said she hadn’t had time but she planned on doing it.
Mr. Gill stated I don’t know if we are at the stage where we reach out to the homeowners, at other Districts we have done that. We start with the homeowners association saying please disseminate this to the residents and if that doesn’t work and you as the CDD Board feel that folks are building things within a CDD easement essentially damaging the lake bank we would send a letter to those homes along the lake banks stating that these are the rules, this is what is required, this is what you cannot do. I don’t know if we are ready for that yet.
Mr. Blenden asked can we put a copy of it on our website so it is a public record out there on the website that anybody could look at whether they choose to look is something else.
Mr. Gill stated we can put it on the website.

Mr. Nathasingh stated I am one of the homeowners on the lake and when the house was built, the builder put in the fence and they went straight down on the lake, in fact went over the bank. When we had the lake restoration recently it didn’t interfere with that. At least where I am there is concrete that the fence sits on so it doesn’t interfere with what we have done. Some of the homeowners who have been there a long time, it wasn’t their choice to build a fence it was the builder.
There are some homeowners on the west side of Hollywood Oaks and there were trees directly on the bank and that to me is a problem. Some of these trees have very aggressive roots and the work we have done, the roots can go under it and damage it.. If there is anything to be done I suggest we find some way to get these trees removed. Those roots will go under and damage the matting.
Mr. Mitcham stated when it comes to these lake banks and we are talking about fencing here but with the point he brought up it should be anything that is going to be done on the bank needs to be approved by us.
Mr. Nathasingh stated there is a tree on my property directly on the lake and it has been there forever and I continue to cut it but who knows how long it has been there. I have no problem with it being removed because of the potential damage.
Mr. Mitcham stated when the neighborhoods were originally created there was a landscape plan that was done for every lot that showed where the trees were to be placed. Trees on the Oakridge side were not placed in the lake bank area. That would have been put in later and you would have to get a permit from the city to do that.
Mr. Nathasingh stated there is a row of Jamaican trees along that north wall and the seeds drop and they start growing and that is exactly what happened with me. It grew, I ignored it and in five hears it was huge.
Mr. Mitcham stated for purposes of this conversation we will put it on our website for anything to be done within the lake banks they need approval from us.
Mr. Gill stated I don’ think this specific letter needs to be included but I can work with Ron or another supervisor on a statement to be included on the website and have a link saying anything within the lake bank is prohibited.

Mr. Blenden stated I’m looking at our meeting schedule and if a resident wants to put in a fence and file the paperwork with the HOA on October 2nd, they can’t do any work until we approve it.
Mr. Gill stated likely I would work with the engineer, we would receive that approval and I would reach out to the Board members. We wouldn’t hold up approval or we could have a special meeting. This District was set up to be almost purely administrative and the HOA to handle homeowner issues.
Mr. Mitcham stated that is correct.
Mr. Gill stated I will work with Ron on what goes on the website. The next letter is sent to the City of Hollywood regarding 35th Street drainage system.
Mr. Mitchan stated there was a meeting you had with the city and there was a discussion of 35th Avenue and in that meeting the City of Hollywood indicated they were no longer interested in continuing to do what they were doing along 35th Avenue and if that was the case then I would like to get that in writing because we need to enter into an agreement with the master association to maintain 35th Avenue. This is a conversation and there is nothing in writing that backs up that conversation.
Mr. Gill stated that letter was sent in July and I did not receive a response. I left another voicemail and followed up with the city. At this point I think we should escalate it to get a response. The concern is if it is not being maintained by the city and it is not being maintained by the CDD and there was a storm and something could happen.
Mr. Mitcham stated currently we have nothing in the budget to do that maintenance. We need to know the next step and we need the city to clarify in writing their position.
Mr. Cochran stated prior to that meeting they said they don’t want anything to do with it; they had taken the position in writing we own this and we maintain it and we said can you please inspect and clean these facilities.
Mr. Mitcham stated based on that letter we received that is what was being done. He attended a meeting after the date of that letter that was conflicting to the information that was in that letter. Now we need to clarify what the city’s position is.
Ms. Ott stated the streets are starting to show wear. If the city owns that they have to do the streets and drainage.

Mr. Mitcham stated we conveyed the street.
Mr. Cochran stated one of the conditions of the original development was for the developer to build that road, including the drainage associated with it and that was part of an interlocal agreement between the city and developer. The clear intent in that agreement was for the District to convey 35th Avenue and the drainage structures and I believe we are talking about the same thing. It seemed to be the clear intent for all that to get conveyed from the District to the city. We looked through our files, I looked through the recorded documents and I didn’t do a title search or anything like that but I was never able to find any document that looked like an instrument of conveyance, a bill of sale or a deed or anything going from the District to the city. I’m not clear whether that conveyance was formally effectuated. I know when Louis was managing he looked into that. I think the engineer has looked into it. Nobody has found that instrument so one of the things we did when the city was taking the position that it was ours is Louis sent them a letter asking them, you say it is yours will you provide us with written documentation reflecting the city’s ownership and maintenance responsibility for that. Like the current letter, no response, no documents were provided. That was clearly the intent whether there is a formal instrument that effected that conveyance we haven’t been able to find it. Mr. Mitcham stated there was a discussion a long time ago when Commissioner Washterstrom was elected whether or not we wanted to take ownership of the street because at a certain point we were supposed to convey it over to the city. There were questions about making it a private road. At the end of the day we decided that the best route was to convey the street. I think there is a motion or something regarding the conveyance at one of the meetings and it would be around the time he was commissioner.
If you look up those dates it should be within a year of that.
Mr. Cochran stated if we approved a conveyance that would get implemented. If you paid for a title search it would come up but me searching online and looking through our files, I didn’t find anything.
Mr. Gill stated we have actual minute books and before our next meeting I will check. I will work with Scott and see if we can find anything that details the 35th Street drainage system conveyance.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Acceptance of Check Register
Mr. Gill presented the check register and asked for any questions.

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

Acceptance of Unaudited Financials
Mr. Gill presented the unaudited financials, asked for any questions or comments, and hearing none asked the Board for a motion to accept them.

On MOTION by Mr. Mitcham seconded by Ms. Ott with all in favor, Accepting the Unaudited Financials, was approved.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors Requests
There being no comments, the next item followed.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment
Mr. Gill asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

On MOTION by Mr. Mitcham seconded by Mr. Nathasingh with all in the favor, the meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m.

Secretary / Assistant Secretary

Chairman / Vice Chairman

Certificate Of Completion

Envelope Id: 3E774323-534F-4E36-B98A-A85119D5AAFF	Status: Completed Subject: Oakridge: Complete with Docusign: 8-6-25 Minutes.pdf, Resolution 2026-01.docx, 2024-2025 Performance
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 29	Signatures: 9	Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2	Initials: 0	Ellen Acosta

AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)

1001 Bradford Way
Kingston, TN 37763 eacosta@gmssf.com
IP Address: 162.199.192.217

Record Tracking		
Status: Original
3/6/2026 11:40:52 AM	Holder: Ellen Acosta
eacosta@gmssf.com	Location: DocuSign	
Signer Events	Signature	Timestamp	
Andrew Gill agill@gmssf.com DISTRICT MANAGER	
	Sent: 3/6/2026 12:27:14 PM Resent: 3/9/2026 1:49:47 PM Resent: 3/19/2026 5:07:51 AM	

Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)	Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 2607:fb90:9118:224:5d8a:22c9:6f80:a0a2
Signed using mobile

Viewed: 3/19/2026 6:38:23 AM Signed: 3/19/2026 6:38:38 AM

Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign

Michael J. Pawelczyk mjp@bclmr.com
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)

Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 192.110.170.61

Sent: 3/6/2026 12:27:15 PM Viewed: 3/6/2026 12:52:46 PM Signed: 3/6/2026 12:53:16 PM

Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign

Steven Nathasingh steven@vaxainc.com
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)

Using IP Address: 146.113.179.55	Signed: 3/23/2026 10:36:40 AM	
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign			
In Person Signer Events	Signature	Timestamp	
			
Editor Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Agent Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Intermediary Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Certified Delivery Events	Status	Timestamp	
			
Carbon Copy Events	Status	Timestamp	

Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style

Sent: 3/6/2026 12:27:14 PM Resent: 3/9/2026 1:49:48 PM Resent: 3/19/2026 5:07:52 AM Resent: 3/23/2026 10:14:49 AM Viewed: 3/23/2026 10:35:54 AM

Witness Events	Signature	Timestamp	
			
Notary Events	Signature	Timestamp	
			
Envelope Summary Events	Status	Timestamps	
Envelope Sent	Hashed/Encrypted	3/6/2026 12:27:15 PM	
Certified Delivered	Security Checked	3/23/2026 10:35:54 AM	
Signing Complete	Security Checked	3/23/2026 10:36:40 AM	
Completed	Security Checked	3/23/2026 10:36:40 AM	
Payment Events	Status	Timestamps