University Park Recreation District

Consideration of the Minutes of the April 9, 2021 Continuation of the Board of Supervisors Meeting

MINUTES OF MEETING

UNIVERSITY PARK RECREATION DISTRICT CONTINUED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. University Park Varsity Club
7671 The Park Blvd, University Park, FL 32401

Board Members present at roll call:
James Case	Chairperson
Steve Ludmerer	Vice Chairperson
Sally Dickson	Assistant Secretary
Karen Pagano	2nd Vice Chairperson
Bill DiPaolo	Treasurer

Also, Present:
Vivian Carvalho	District Manager - PFM Group Consulting LLC
Venessa Ripoll	Assistant District Manager-PFM Group Consulting LLC (via phone)
Mark Barnebey	District Counsel- Blalock Walters Law Firm Laurie Evans	General Manager- Country Club
Curtis Nickerson	Director of Properties & Facilities- Country Club John Fetsick	Director of Finance- Country Club
Rico Alcala	Director of Operations- Country Club Various Members of the General Public

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Mr. Case.	Ms. Carvalho notated that quorum was confirmed to proceed with the Board of Supervisors Continued Meeting.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Business Matters Public Comments
Mr. Case provided opening remarks and provided an overview of the items accomplished at the last meeting.

Public comments will be taken during the public hearing and at the end of the meeting.

Public Hearing on Adopting Revised Rules of Procedure Pertaining	Membership Categories and Amounts
Presentation	of	the Membership Categories and Amounts
Public Comments and Testimony
Board Comments

Ms. Case requested a motion to reconvene the Public Hearing.

ON MOTION by Ms. Dickson, seconded by Ms. Pagano, with all in favor, the Board reconvened the Public Hearing.

Ms. Evans provided introductory comments and thanked everyone for the comments and feedback. The Membership Plan was revised. The UPCC is trying to drive operational surplus to begin to build required maintenance and capital replacement reserves. She explained the items that would be covered under such a reserve. Feedback showed the UPCC needed to address the following concerns;
Single Membership
Retain Food & Beverage
Added Pickleball Access Pass
Revised Pricing Structure

Mr. Fetsick provided some comments regarding the funding needs and the reasons for the operational surplus.

He discussed the bond which included a construction fund totaled $4,200,000.00.
$1,500,000.00 has been spent on infrastructure renovations of the golf course holes #1-9 and this summer holes #10-18 will be renovated. It also funded HVAC and roof replacements, ad-hoc kitchen equipment. This is not for ongoing day to day maintenance of the Club. The Construction funds were to be used for capital infrastructure needs of Club only. He stated the $2,700,000.00 is remaining in the Construction Fund of the Bond and this is how the UPCC will pay for Phase 1 Improvements of the Master Plan.

M. Fetsick next discussed the PPP Loan PBM was able to receive in 2020. The forgiveness application has been filed. If the PPP Loan is forgiven, PBM may forgive any

monies advanced to UPCC. If that happens, the Country Club may have an opportunity to use any operating surplus and earmark it to support the Phase 1 Improvement Project.

When the bond construction fund proceeds are spent the UPCC will use the revenue from capital reserves that may be generated from the new membership plan. To do so, the Country Club must generate operational surplus for annual ongoing capital replacement reserves. Additional phases of the Master Plan then need to be considered and financing options for them need to be, in addition to normal capital reserves.

Capital Reserve replacements and ongoing repairs should be covered out of operational capital reserves. Current operations support today but do not build reserves for the future. It does not support ongoing future needs of the Club. Emergency reserve funds need to be considered for unexpected losses. A bond may be necessary but it not an answer for capital replacement reserves. It is not financially responsible to fund annual ongoing reserve needs with long term debt. There was a promise made 36 months ago that the UPCC would not expect to do an immediate bond or assessment. The new Membership Dues Structure will satisfy operational needs, short term capital reserve needs of the Club. He explained the bond process.

Mr. Fetsick mentioned a bond may need to be considered for future large Capital Improvements, for example Phase 2 of the Master Plan. He discussed the Membership Plan Presentation.

Mr. Fetsick reminded the Board and public about the Mission, Vision, and Core Values of the Club. The Membership structure has not changed he recommended 6 Membership Categories be reduced to 3. Eliminating the following categories;
Jr. Executive Membership
Sport Membership
Twilight Tennis Membership

Mr. Fetsick recommended the following categories
Full Membership
$500.00 Social Access Pass required for Spouses/Partners
Racquet Membership
$500.00 Social Access Pass required for Spouses/Partners
Social Resident Membership
Family Membership- anyone with a Spouse/Partner in the same home
Single- only for single individuals

Mr. Fetsick presented the following updated Prices:
Full Membership
a) Family- $9,250.00
b) Single- $7,000.00

Racquet Membership
a) Family- $4,000.00
b) Single- $3,000.00
Social Resident Membership
a) Family- $1,000.00
b) Single - $750.00

Mr. Fetsick discussed the flexibility of the Membership Plan with three membership categories the UPCC is providing especially for social members. A number of passes can be added on an a la cart basis to the Membership as follows:
Fitness Center Pass
Twilight Racquets Pass
Pickleball Pass
Players Golf Card Pass
Annual Range Pass
Each Amenity was added as an a la cart option. He discussed flexible options for the Social Membership.

Mr. Fetsick stated when creating a due structure it is important to understand competition. The competitive considerations have evolved. The Planning Committee previously used private Clubs that were priced well above UPCC. Feedback was taken into consideration and the competitive considerations was changed. The District dues structure is now between Meadows and Palm Aire and Waterleaf and Rosedale. He is confident University Park County Club provides a superior product to Waterleaf and Rosedale and where it sits with recommended pricing is exactly where they should be.

Mr. Fetsick discussed initiation fees. The UPCC needs to build reserves for the future and reestablish and rebrand the County Club within the Market. These fees impact new members. No current members are impacted with these new dues.

He recommended an increase to the following initiation fees:
1. Full Membership $7,500.00
2. Racquet $2,000.00 3. Social $1,000.00

Mr. Fetsick discussed trail fees have not changed for several years and remained flat even through cart fees have increased. It is recommended to increase proportionately between resident and non-resident members.

Mr. Fetsick stated the feedback for the Food & Beverage minimum was overwhelming. The UPCC will retain the Food & Beverage minimum. All members will receive a 20% discount on a la cart dining. Over time menu proves will increase 20% which will ensure

members today will spend the same amount but increase the revenue through non- member spending.

Mr. Fetsick discussed the estimated financial impact. He outlined the Calendar 2020 results, the worst case, most likely case, and best-case scenario for this new Membership dues structure.

In a worst-case scenario 10 full members resign, 10 racquets members resign, and 50 social. In a most likely case 5 full members resign, 5 racquet members resign, and 25 social members resign. In a best-case scenario no additional attrition is assumed. Ms. Evans provided comments on attrition. Even in a worst case scenario the Club can run the Operations of the Club and support the funding of the RD Budget costs which are the costs associated with the Recreation District Budget and generate Capital of $220,000.00. This is all attributed to initiation fees.

In a most likely case scenario, the Club can be net neutral and generate Capital of
$495,000.00. It is attributed to initiation fees plus outside golf fees. The Club can allocate 10% of outside golf to generate an additional $200,000.00 of Capital. The Club would have an operational net neutral, function operations, and generate almost $500,000.00 of Capital.

In a best case scenario, the Club can generate operational surplus of $154,000.00 and generate Capital of $575,000.00. This is attributed to initiation fees of $350,000.00 and 10% of outside golf to generate an additional $225,000.00.

Compared to the prior financial impact the Club dues are not as aggressive but the Club can still generate additional Capital and run operations for the Club.

Mr. Case provided feedback that the Club is comparing its 2022 numbers to the competitions 2021 numbers so the UPCC comparison is likely significantly better than it is depicted. Ms. Evans noted the UPCC was comparing itself to private clubs and received feedback that members would like to see a competitive comparison to clubs that were more similar to the UPCC.

Mr. Case asked about the estimated financial impact. Mr. Fetsick said the UPCC took about a $300,000.00 hit by rolling back memberships from levels presented earlier. Ms. Fetsick noted there will be cost increases to the operations of the Club.

Mr. Ludmerer provided positive comments about the plan. It aligns with the Mission and Vision of the Club. It is competitive. The revised fee structure responds to the HOA concerns on Resident Membership and mitigates sharp increases. It begins to address the need for a Capital Ledger to address the long term operating and capital reserves

necessary to move the UPCC forward. He provided feedback about the estimated financial impact.

Another Board member commented the UPCC will need to look at additional funding sources. Mr. Fetsick stated he will be undertaking a Capital Study and look into the near- term capital needs for the Club and list all the properly, plant and equipment on site, identify the useful life, and replacement value. They are confident in the recommendations today and the Capital Ledger they present in a year will support what they are recommending today.

Ms. Pagano praised Ms. Evans and Mr. Fetsick on their presentation. Ms. Dickson echoed Ms. Pagano. She noted there continues to be feedback from Full Members who are single and she is disappointed the percentage they will be paying compared to a family is still in the 75% range. She would like to try to find a way to lower single membership fees. Mr. Fetsick noted the UPCC is right at or below most of the ratios of its competition.

Mr. Case opened the floor for public comments.

Mr. Brooks provided feedback about the flexibility. He asked which other Clubs are paying
$1,000.00 RD fee to own the Club and was it taken into account. Mr. Fetsick stated other communities have a range of other charges including CDD charges and it is a burden they are carrying that we are not. Mr. Ludmerer commented on CDD dues of other communities in the area. Mr. Fetsick is looking at what it cost to live in University Park Recreation District.

Mr. Charlesworth thanked the Chair and RD Board. He is currently a sports member and asked if social members will be able to get advanced booking time as compare with the General public. Ms. Evans stated it will remain the same as it is now for a sports member who adds on a Golf Players Card or receive a 10% discount. The Club will take their tee times within the same timeframe as a current sports member. An 18-hole pass was created as well as a 9 hole player’s card pass. A discussion took place regarding the various add on options. Mr. Charlesworth added if there will be summer memberships any longer. Ms. Evans stated that will be a question for some time after the Summer Membership Program ends.

Mr. Klein asked how the $750.00 pickleball fee was calculated. Mr. Fetsick based the fee on playing 3 days per week for 50 weeks which is $5.00 per session. The UPCC has an investment in building pickleball and the program and facilities planned to provide will be similar to the Mission, Vision, and Core Values.

Mr. Klein asked if Mr. Fetsick considered the impact of the $750.00 on the ability to attract current members and future homeowners and did that impact the thinking about Food & Beverages associated with socialization following pickleball. Ms. Evans responded to his

question. It was priced based on the experience the Club thought it would be providing its members and not trying to compete with a public facility. Adding on the cost of Food & Beverage is part of the cost of membership.

Mr. John V. commented on the element of operational expense control. He asked to hear how the Club will reduce expenses. Mr. DiPaolo noted it’s the position of the Board not to get into the specifics of operations. The performance of the Club is far outpacing the budget that was originally approved. All the expenses are reviewed and brought to the attention of management for appropriate action. Mr. Ludmerer noted he sat in meetings with Ms. Evans and Mr. Neal, and Mr. Varrah in management of the Club. He noted Mr. Neal did not spend a penny more than necessary. When the UPRD inherited the Club, expenses were very well controlled. Club Benchmarking LLC has noted that the maximum expense improvement that any club can achieve is 7%, such that a 20% improvement results in 1.4% savings. Club management should deal at that level and meet budget. The real focus must be on member value. Ms. Evans commented on expenses. It is part of the day to day business. It has been a challenging year and certain expenses are not inline with the line item budget but these are extraordinary expenses related to COVID testing, sanitation supplies, cost of goods, etc.

Ms. Dickson asked about flexible options and sees no reference to croquet. Ms. Evans commented anyone can play croquet as a social member or any other class of membership. The Club chose not to make an adjustment in the long standing policy regarding croquet. It would be for the Board to decide if a change was needed if the Club eventually gets a full size croquet court.

Mr. Pearson thanked the Board for their work. He questions the trail fee. A 25% increase is proposed and asked for the thought process behind the increase. Mr. Fetsick noted the trail fee had not been adjusted in many years. Cart fees have increased and the trail fee stayed static. The shift of the number of rounds from a member has greatly increased. As Member rounds increase the cost per round for the trail fee decreases. This increase is in reaction to getting the trail fee in line with competition and more balance from a Member and Club value perspective. Mr. Pearson does not see a big advantage as a member to pay a trail fee.

Ms. Wyatt thanked the Board. She provided feedback about the Membership categories in the Bylaws. How are the new definitions of memberships will translate to the bylaws and how it will impact the rules and regulations going forward. She asked if pickleball will be included with the definition of Full Membership. Ms. Evans responded yes and the UPCAI will be redoing all the bylaw documents this summer. Ms. Wyatt asked about the corporate membership Ms. Evans stated 20 years ago the UPCC had two corporate memberships. It was cost prohibitive and difficult to manage. Ms. Wyatt asked who is responsible for making changes to the bylaws. Ms. Evans stated it is the UPCAI that is

responsible of changing the Governing Documents and Bylaws of the HOA. The UPRD is looking into amending the Charter that governs the Recreation District.

Ms. Edwards had a question regarding the dining 20% discount for Members. If someone is dining with a non-member and they pick up the check do they get the 20% discount. Ms. Evans said yes. Ms. Edward thanked the Board.

Mr. Brian S. had a question regarding membership attrition and the numbers on the financial impact slide. Mr. Fetsick wanted to represent additional attrition the Club may see or feel because of the increased dues. In general the Club membership is static or better but he wanted to represent worst, likely, and best case scenarios as examples. Mr. Brian S. encouraged Mr. Fetsick to create a 5- year plan. Mr. Fetsick noted the membership is pretty full. The Club wants to get a few members but there will not be a dramatic increase. He expects the membership will continue to be stable.

Ms. Damm stated she is disappointed that the Club is ignoring the single full members who have no way to share the experience with others but they are still paying 76% of the Family dues and the trail fee will be 80%. She noted she cannot share her golf cart with anyone and use it only when she can play. She commented the trail fee should be 50% or to let her continue at the old rate.

Ms. Becky S. thanked the Club for responding to her email concerns. She asked about the ideal number of full memberships for a Club to be sustainable. A lengthy discussion took place. There are currently around 300 full memberships and with the consideration of public play the District is operating at approximately 500 Membership. As the District adds full memberships there are less available times for public golf. The numbers that were provided to the UPCC in 2004 suggested 600 Full Memberships would be 100% capacity. That was when the UPCC was attempting to take the Club private.

Ms. Becky S. asked if current Full Members who live outside the community pay a non- resident trail fee that is more expensive than a regular trail fee. Ms. Evans said yes. Mr. Fetsick noted it is being increased. Ms. Becky S. doesn’t understand the rational for a non- resident member to have to pay any extra usage fee.

Ms. Kris Pizzi. thanked the Board. She asked how many tennis players the court can support in a full day and will outside play be considered for tennis. Mr. Ludmerer stated in most cases, the Club allows outside play as guests but there is not a lot of outside play. Schools and other groups have been invited to use the courts in the afternoon when there may be time available. Ms. Evans discussed the tennis program.

Dr. Marquet thanked the Board. He provided feedback regarding taking into consideration Article 17 of the HOA CCR. There are some restrictions about changing the Resident Social Membership fees. Mr. Case remerged that article and early on in the process it was

discussed by Mr. Fetsick and Ms. Evans about factoring in those considerations under the CCR regarding how to adjust the rates consistent with CCR requirements. They have been adjusted. Mr. Fetsick responded to the CCR requirements and did the calculation as required and worked with Mr. Whyte and Mr. Lockhorn and the HOA to ensure the increases were within those constraints. The dues recommending are below those limits. Dr. Marquet. asked the Board to get the HOA to change Article 17 of the HOA CCR.

Mr. Ludmerer provided comments about the Mutual Cooperation Agreement. Dr Marquet stated the Memorandum of Agreement does not supersede the CCR.

Mr. Ruben asked about the monthly Operations Recovery Surcharge. Ms. Evans noted that is to be discussed next on the agenda.

Ms. B.K. M. thanked the Board. She commented the residents pay taxes through the property tax for the RD. Those non-resident members do not pay that tax so she feels there should be something done to make it more equitable because they are still enjoying the same Amenities of the residents. Ms. Evans stated they do pay a non-resident trail fee. She noted this topic may be something to discuss for next year. Ms. Fetsick noted the investment in bonds will yield a higher sales price in the home if it is sold. Ms. Evans noted increasing fees for non-resident members could cause the Club to lose them.

Mr. Jaffe asked about the reciprocal agreement the Club previously has with other clubs. Ms. Evans stated a number of years ago Bird Key Yacht Club ended the agreement they were overextended in the number of members they had, and it was not to the benefit of the UPCC. They chose not to continue the reciprocal agreement with UPCC. The same thing happened with Sarasota Yacht Club. Long Boat Key Club chose not to participate in a reciprocal agreement this summer either. Mr. Jaffe had another question about that agreement and Ms. Evans asked him to call her offline so she can explain it to him.

Ms. Gail Klein proposed pickleball be an amenity to social users. She does not think the current players would be willing to pay the $750.00 fee for pickleball. A discussion took place regarding offering different options for pickleball.

Mr. Case closed the Public Hearing.

Consideration of Resolution 2021- 11, Adopting Revised Rules of Procedure Pertaining
Membership Categories and Amounts

The Board reviewed Resolution 2021-11. There is a rule attached to the Resolution which was amended. The effective date of the rule is January 1, 2022. The current fees continue until that date.

ON MOTION by Mr. Ludmerer, seconded by Mr. DiPaolo, with all in favor, the Board approved Resolution 2021-11, Adopting Revised Rules of Procedure Pertaining Membership Categories and Amounts.

Consideration of Resolution 2021- 12, Regarding Terminating of Additional Operation
Recovery Surcharge

Ms. Evans stated the Management Team for UPCC feels confident the financial position is such and the performance up to now is adequate enough to recommend the Board suspend the Additional Operation Recovery Surcharge beginning June 1, 2021.

ON MOTION by Mr. Case, seconded by Mr. Ludmerer, with all in favor, the Board approved Resolution 2021-12, Regarding Terminating the Operation Recovery Surcharge.

The meeting recessed at 11:42 a.m. and reconvened at 11:52 a.m.

Ms. Case provided some comments on the Master Plan. It is a guide and framework for the UPCC. There is no commitment to put pickleball in any specific location and there won’t be until the UPCC has reviewed appropriate sites and cost estimates. Mr. Case opened the floor for public comments regarding the Master Plan.

Ms. Van Brunt provided feedback about placement of pickleball and discussed of a petition from over 275 residents. She asked if any Board Member would vote against doing a site- specific study before building pickleball. Mr. Ludmerer thinks parcel L should be a consideration for pickleball. Mr. Case stated Parcel L is not an option per the approval of

the Master Plan by the Board. Ms. Van Brunt asked the Board if they would rescind their vote to exclude Parcel L for consideration for pickleball site. A lengthy discussion took place about the placement of the pickleball. Other residents stated Parcel L should be included in the study for the appropriate pickleball sites and cost estimates. Mr. Ludmerer noted he was surprised when over 275 people raised their hand asking for reconsideration of Parcel L as a location for pickleball. Mr. Ludmerer provided comments about Parcel L and its use as the location of pickleball.

Mr. Charlesworth provided feedback about the noise disturbance with pickleball. He asked the reasons for the Board’s decision. Mr. Case stated it is the most expensive option and it will take a long time to implement. Sound is also an issue. A lengthy discussion took place. Disagreements arose regarding the removal of a location for optional pickleball. Mr. Charlesworth noted there may be opportunities to sample different locations for pickleball in the for the community to put minds at ease and help with decision making.

Mr. DiPaolo discussed the noise levels of pickleball. Mr. DiPaolo asserted that research studies that have been done similar with the UPCC the decibel level of pickleball is 60-70 decibels. The Manatee County code for noise is 60-65 decibels. The mitigation affects indicated with one level of material the UPCC can reduce noise levels by 10 decibels and reduce what is heard by approximately 50%. He went on to say the Board is bound to abide by the Mission, Vision and Core Values. Which state the commitment to preserving the natural landscape considering the environmental impact of Board decisions. He doesn’t think the District needs experts to tell the UPCC that the best location for pickleball is the Tennis Court area. He does not agree Parcel L is a good location based on the UPCC Core Values.

Mr. Whyte provided feedback about pickleball. He noted there are opposing facts and he would like to see the facts gathered and a decision made based on the facts. The Board received feedback from residents and members in support of Parcel L as a location of pickleball. A urged the Board to listen to the feedback before putting themselves in a position to exclude Parcel L as an option to evaluate. Mr. Whyte offered the Board the following 6 criteria.
Best Pickleball experience
Most cost-effective solution
Least impact on other Club activities
Best noise mitigation
Most positive impact of the Club canvas
Best protection for natural environment

None of the locations are ideal but the UPCC needs an agreed way to evaluate, so the residents and members support the Board. He requested the Board reinclude Parcel L for evaluation.

A homeowner stated if pickleball is located in Parcel L the noise while individuals are eating will not be a problem. There will not be pickleball noise at lunch or dinner.

Mr. Carlin provided feedback about croquet. it is a growing sport. If the UPCC has a good croquet court it would have more members and people joining. He requested the Board focus on croquet.

Ms. Carol Shabe provided feedback about seeking professional opinions before making a decision on location of pickleball. She asked the Board to reconsider their decision and put Parcel L back into consideration. She thanked the Board for everything they have done.

Mr. Conroy sent a letter to the Board expressing thoughts and concerns about the work underway on the Club Master Plan. He thanked the Board Members who responded directly. He requested his letter become part of the public record. He discussed the history of the UPRD. It was an army of volunteer residents who got the UPRD where it is today. The UPRD is now close to realizing one of the many opportunities generated by the collective work, the opportunity to refresh the Club. Most residents he spoke with are excited about the themes and concepts presented in the Master Plan. There are concerns that the Board took a premature vote to eliminate the development of Parcel L. The decision was made in direct conflict with recommendations by the chosen Master Planner and the official statement from the UPCAI Board. The Board seemed to have also closed down the opportunity to bring in additional expert testimony.

Mr. Conroy also discussed the timetable. An incremental approach to implementation to draw the final plan out several years and compromise much of the campus. Leaking out additional funding by raising member rates and fees might be justified in the short term but long term it is an exercise in mediocrity and will erode support with a majority of loyal members. He discussed a supplementary bond issue in this favorable bond market might provide affordable funding at a cost of a few 100 additional dollars per year per resident. He requested the Board to investigate this when they have a finalized plan and total cost estimate. The UPCC needs leadership the most from this Board by listening to leading experts and residents that bring individual expertise.

Mr. Gio Cantarella discussed the fact that the Board heard from 250 residents and the UPCAI. He stated all the residents want are the facts, which is what the petition signed by 250 plus residents requested. He urged the Board to be receptive to expert facts on all the elements of the Master Plan, and not individual opinions. The Master Plan should be regularly reviewed and updated as it evolves. He requested the Board to rescind the hold on Parcel L and get the facts.

Ms. Kris Pizzi asked the Board to save the natural beauty of Parcel L. Once they cut down the natural oak trees that area can never recover. If pickleball doesn’t pan out to be everything the UPCC thinks it is, those trees are gone forever.

Ms. Joyce stated if the Board gets an expert to come in will it be a pickleball expert, a construction expert, a noise abatement expert, an environmental expert, or risk management expert.

Mr. Ludmerer stated the Board has heard the views of the community and the UPCAI. The Board would look for an expert who has built the pickleball courts in a wide variety of environments. It would include someone who converted a tennis court or converted a treed area and worked on areas of questionable drainage to come in and give the UPCC an estimate and include Parcel L.

Mr. Ludmerer asked the Board Members why they object to that expertise in making their decision. Mr. DiPaolo stated he spent 100s of hours and find no valid reason for using Parcel L based on other options that are available. It is 4 ½ acres of unspoiled property and no real reason to use it. The UPRD had 1,200 households vote over a year ago to go into debt for 30 years for the sole purpose of stopping development and he does not understand why there is a need to develop 4 ½ acres when the UPCC has other options. It offers no sound, aesthetic, or safety advantage.

Mr. Ludmerer thinks the information that would come from an expert is valuable and the Board owes it to the community to assess the opinion before making a final decision. Mr. Case stated he would never support this and thinks an expert would say the most viable place for pickleball would be to remove some of the tennis courts. He noted an expert would inform the Board the best location for pickleball. Mr. Ludmerer would like to see Parcel L included in that evaluation.

Mr. Bonder stated 276 people are for Parcel L to be considered for development. That is only 10% of the population. He believes Parcel L should be left the way it is. It is a sound issue for the community across the water.

Mr. Case stated the Board will use the best resources it can to evaluate sites which may be appropriate for pickleball in this campus. Mr. Case directed Ms. Evans to develop RFPs based on the available locations for pickleball which the Board discussed and the guidance from the Contractors who respond the RFPs. Ms. Evans will do an RFP process and ask the Contractors to make recommendations for pickleball courts at University Park. She will list the available locations that could potentially be used for pickleball.

Mr. Barnebey noted there are a lot of potential options for the placement of pickleball. Doing an RFP for the contractors at this point is not an appropriate next step. He thinks Fawley Bryant should look at this issue in more detail given the range of options or another

expert. The Contractors are not the proper people to make a decision for the location of pickleball. The number of people that have spoken in this meeting and petition is significant. All the comments are legitimate. He does not think it will sway anyone if the Board puts in Parcel L to look at. It does not hurt to include Parcel L. the Board should consider looking at the overall plan.

Ms. Evans will reach out to experts to determine the process to do a study and report back at the next meeting. Mr. Case stated he thinks that is appropriate. Ms. Evans asked if all possible locations could be used for the study including Parcel L as part of the study. She noted it does not mean the Board will choose Parcel L. Ms. Evans stated Mr. Whyte provided an outlined of criteria to review the information on the study possible locations for pickleball.

A homeowner stated if the study comes back with Parcel L as the most viable option for pickleball this Board still has that location eliminated. She asked if that stands. Ms. Carvalho stated the Board would have to address that decision at that point. Mr. Case stated the Board does not have to rescind the vote on the Master Plan. If motion was made to locate the Pickleball Court on Parcel L and a majority of the Board voted for it, it would be the result.

Mr. Barnebey noted the UPRD had a $1,000.00 assessment two years ago. He reported to the Board regarding the outstanding assessment. The Dowdell’s did pay the District and for their $1,000.00 assessment their payoff was $6,301.60 despite his best efforts to get them to pay well before any of that would have accrued. There is one unpaid assessment. Mr. Lester has still not paid the assessment. Mr. Lester was foreclosed on but the UPRD is still in negotiations with them. Mr. Barnebey is moving forward to set a hearing on the motion to compel the assessment to get paid. Mr. Barnebey left the meeting. Ms. Carvalho will keep him informed on any actions taken during the remainder
 of the meeting.	

Monthly	Board	of	Supervisors Report

Mr. Case discussed the Mutual Cooperation Agreement between UPRD and UPCAI. He clarified they are two different Board with separate autonomous obligations.

He had no update regarding the Dog Park. There was no preferred site for the Dog Park. Ms. Peggy Lowndes stated there is one promising location, but she is not ready to provide that information.

Ms. Dickson stated the Marketing Group are in the process of putting together steps to deliver a marketing plan. The group is meeting tomorrow, and she is presenting a Marketing Positioning Statement for the UPRD. She outlined it includes who the RD

serves, what they offer, how they offer it, why they do what they do, and what sets the UPRD apart. The Mission, Vision and Core Values answer all of those questions. She presented her UPCC statement. Mr. Ludmerer provided feedback. Ms. Carvalho requested a copy of her UPCC marketing statement.

Mr. DiPaolo provided an update of the Financial Group. The Finance Group explored other options for raising Capital. The Commission for the Finance Group expires now and he sees no reason to renew it until the UPRD gets a little further down the road where the District can be more definitive in its plans to start that again. The Finance Group is officially over on May 1, 2021. Ms. Carvalho stated the Finance Group could advertise to extend through May. The Financial Group has been working on the budget and may have to opportunity to meet next Tuesday and review the highlights of the Budget. Mr. DiPaolo will work with Mr. Barnebey this week on a number of areas and hope to have a draft of the Charter ready for consideration at the May meeting for the Board to review and discuss. The UPRD may be able to pursue other income opportunities that may require statutory changes. He will be able to report on those next month.

Ms. Pagano received photos and content that is being developed for the website revamp. A suggestion was made to include an area on the website for important current issues. Ms. Pagano noted a few months ago she implemented a search feature. Mr. Case suggested important information to be placed in an area easy to access. Ms. Carvalho noted the website has a section of highlighted information. Ms. Pagano and the Board can determine the Master Plan or the topic of the pickleball. Ms. Pagano stated the District can’t put anything on the site until it’s in its final form. Ms. Carvalho stated the minutes will not go on the website until they have been approved by the Board at the next meeting. If anyone wants to see a draft of the minutes prior to Board approval they need to contact the District Manager office. A lengthy discussion took place regarding how to make information easier to find. A common landing page is being created that will link the UPCC, UPCAI, and UPRD so the public can have one place to access the various websites. The Friday Email came into existence to communicate important topics. The Emails that residents respond to are the singular emails that are sent regarding a specific event. There is a lot of information now due to the pickleball issue and the Master Plan.

Mr. Ludmerer had no new items to discuss.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business Staff Reports
District Counsel- Mr. Barnebey provided his report earlier, prior to leaving the meeting.

District Engineer- Not Present.

District Manager- Ms. Carvalho stated the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022 will be considered at the May meeting.

General Manager & Director of Finance Report

Management Discussion & Analysis Report

Ms. Evans provided her report. The Food & Beverage Team is working hard to reinvent themselves now that the impact of COVID-19 is diminishing. They are discussing and plan to bring back a Sunday Buffet for Mother’s Day. A COVID-19 safe event is being planned. The next step is to bring back Sunday Buffets each Sunday and Monday Buffets.

Golf revenue continues to be beyond anything they expected now the UPCC is into the Summer Membership Season. The UPCC sells out every day which is why the Club dropped the surcharge.

Ms. Evans was concerned about increasing the price of Summer Membership, but it is already outpacing the total number of Summer Membership sales from 2018. Last year was a record-breaking year with 235 Summer Memberships. The UPCC is in excess of 175 Summer Memberships thus far as of April 15, 2021.

Mr. Ludmerer asked if the UPCC was planning anything for Memorial Day. Ms. Evans stated the Club will likely have a buffet. If anyone is uncomfortable eating at the buffet they will be allowed to go in advance or staff can put together a to-go box to take home.

Mr. Fetsick reported golf operations continue to be very strong. The restaurant is doing the best within the constraints of COVID-19. A la cart dining and special event have been strong offset by the lack of banquet events and buffets. The P&L continues to pace as it has over the last couple of months. He is working on the UPCC Budget and gotten great input from Department Heads and staff and moving forward to complete the Budget in advance of the May meeting. The Audit is ongoing, and he has a call today at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the audit. Park Boulevard Management got the PPP Loan and has successfully filed an application for forgiveness. Mr. Case asked about the Audit. He asked if the UPRD could have the audit completed by June 30, 2021. Mr. Fetsick stated the UPRD must have it completed by June 30, 2021. Ms. Carvalho explained the Audit has to be filed with the State before June 30, 2021.

Mr. Fetsick presented Payment Authorizations #43-45. These are standard monthly operating expenses for the Recreation District. He discussed the Annual Trustee Fee paid to US Bank. It was not included in the budget and it will go against the contingency, but it

is an expense that will continue for the life of the bond and is a percentage of the debt remaining. He will ensure it is included in the budget going forward.

ON MOTION by Mr. Ludmerer, seconded by Ms. Pagano, with all in favor, the Board ratified Payment Authorizations #43-45.

Ms. Evans discussed the status of Phase 1 Improvements. The UPCC has an RFP developed for the Grille and Restaurant projects. Ms. Carvalho made adjustments to the dates. Ms. Carvalho asked if the goal is to consider the RFP at the May meeting. Ms. Evans and Ms. Carvalho will discuss this outside of the meeting. The goal is to give two weeks for a response and if the District were to proceed now they do not have that timeframe.

Mr. Ludmerer stated Mr. Case noted the expansion and widening of the cart path as an expansion of Phase 1 and it was not part of the Phase 1 the Board approved. The Board may need to modify that if they want to include it as a priority. Pickleball was in the Phase 1 priority. Mr. Case will review that.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor Requests

Ms. Evans stated information was shared that she was potentially resigning. She clarified that she has no plans to resign effective today or tomorrow however it is important to know that she has made the decision to retire and she will be retiring close to the end of the year. She does not have a date certain. PBM will conduct a search for her replacement which will take place quickly and there will be ample time to find the right person.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

Mr. Case requested a motion to adjourn the meeting at 1:30 p.m.

ON MOTION by Ms. Dickson, seconded by Mr. Ludmerer, with all in favor, the Friday, April 20, 2021 Continued Board of Supervisors’ Meeting for University Park Recreation District was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Secretary / Assistant Secretary