MINUTES OF MEETING

UNIVERSITY PARK RECREATION DISTRICT CONTINUED BOARD OF SUPERVISOR’S MEETING
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. University Park Country 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 Curtis Nickerson	Director of Properties & Facilities - Country Club John Fetsick	Director of Finance - Country Club
Rico Alacala	Club Operations Director – Country Club Various Members of the General Public	(present and via Zoom)

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Organization Matters

Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Mr. Case. Ms. Carvalho called the roll. Those in attendance are outlined above.

Public Comments

Mr. Case proceeds to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Case opened the public comments.
Ms. Deborah Van Brunt commented that the registration system is a great idea. The Election Chair has a considerable amount of responsibility. She specified if the Statue does not change keep option voting by mail, in-person, and electronically if allowed by the law. Ms. Van Brunt reiterated that the District should consider 45 days versus 30 days

for the General Elections to ensure enough time for owners and residents to cast mail-in ballots.

In response to Ms. Van Brunt’s comments, Mr. Barnebey stated no specific documentation stating whether it is the Election Chair’s responsibility to determine who votes.

The Zoom audience presented no comments. The public comment period was closed.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Report Matters

District Counsel – No report. District Manager – No report.
General Manager & Director of Finance – No report.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Administrative Matters

Consideration of Proposed Resolution 2021-16, Statutory and Charter Amendments

Mr. Barnebey provided the timeline and process for Charter and Statutory changes between the District, County, and Legislation.

Mr. Ludmerer suggested attempting to identify and coordinate with Interests outside of the District that may have reason to support the Legislation of the Charter Change (reach out to the County Commissioner and other Stakeholders, neighboring Recreation Districts for their thoughts and comments). He states that the Charter was primarily drafted by Hopping Green & Sams and suggested reaching out to them when the agreed-upon markup is approved.

Mr. Barnebey stated the District might have to wait to get a response from County officials. If the Charter changes are not approved, Mr. Barnebey will return to the Board for alternatives options with County recommendations. It would be ideal to start interacting with the Legislation regarding statutory changes to meet with the local delegation. The meetings will be held one-on-one with one Senator and four State

Representatives. If no changes are necessary, the District will move forward with changes approved at today’s meeting.

Every fall, there is a Public Hearing meeting by the Manatee Legislation Delegation; the District or District Counsel will participate, assuming the changes will be listed on the County Commissioners agenda. Following the Public Hearing proposal for revised changes in January 2022, the Legislation will become active.

Mr. DiPaolo pointed out the Charter Amendments have no impact on the Statutory changes.

Ms. Pagano asked if there was a way to poll the residents and conduct a survey before going to the County.

Mr. Ludmerer suggested notifying the community regarding the critical points of the Charter to keep them aware of the changes. A newsletter correspondence was presented as a form of communication to the community.

Mr. DiPaolo anticipates that there will be difficulty with the County and getting on the agenda. Mr. Barnebey replied, stating he does not expect any significant challenges with getting on the agenda.

Ms. Van Brunt wanted to point out the elections' utilization for the Charter Referendum changes of the Manatee Election Cycle, which saves money and time.

A discussion took place further reviewing the statutory and charter changes.

Mr. Ludmerer commented on Section 2-8-153. – Elections: Board of Supervisors; regarding the non-residential lot owners, residential lot owners, and residents for more clarification in the definition qualifying the corporations and change the time process.

It was mentioned that non-residential owners are not voting in the Election.

Mr. Mantia raised a question regarding how many residents in the community are non- residential lot owners. The Board is not sure of the exact amount of non-residential lot owners.

Mr. Barnebey outlined the changes:

Definition of Residential lot owners.
Clarification of Corporation's involvement in the Election.
Extension of registration deadline from 30 to 45 days.
Clarification of Residential Election Chair.
Owners only vote; residents are allowed to vote with a proxy from the homeowner.
Voting options: by mail, in-person, and electronically.

Identifying another Board Member to be designated to sign checks in the absence of the Treasurer.

A motion to accept changes of the Charter and Statutory Amendments, as amended.

ON MOTION by Mr. DiPaolo, seconded by Ms. Dickson, with all in favor, the Board approved Resolution 2021-16, Statutory and Charter Amendments, as amended.

Discussion of Restaurant Updates

Mr. Fetsick provided an overview of the first meeting that occurred with the Lifestyle Advisory Group and Ms. Lisa Briggs. He commented that the first meeting was a collaborative discussion and added Ms. Briggs is excellent at getting the Group’s ideas. Mr. DiPaolo stated the second meeting was a more definitive decision about specific areas such as the bar, roof, veranda area and expansion. Bill Gallo was not present at the second meeting, and concerns were raised about his interest in this project as an architect.

Highlights from Club Design Group:

Created vision statement specifically for renovations of the restaurant, not for the District.
The vision statement is posted on the District website.

Mr. Fetsick presented a few pictures of vision drawings for directional purposes.

Lisa Briggs of Club Design Group has been identified as the designer, and Bill Gallo of Gallo Architect has been identified as the architect of the restaurant renovations. The next Lifestyle Advisory Group meeting will be on Tuesday, August 3, 2021.

A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the restaurant renovations.

Mr. Barnebey stated that the District does not have a contract with the Architect. Mr. DiPaolo stated that he is to provide a contract this week for consideration.
Mr. Ludmerer stated Ms. Briggs uses different architects based on the scope of work and environment. He is concerned there may be a potential conflict of interest between Peter Pizzi and Bill Gallo as they have a long-term friendship. Mr. Case and Mr. DiPaolo commented if there is no financial interest in the project, there should not be a problem. Mr. Ludmerer accepted Mr. Case and Mr. DiPaolo's comments.
Mr. DiPaolo stated the extension has no impact on the roof. A question was posed to Mr. DiPaolo regarding how much space was gained under the roof; Mr. DiPaolo responded two-thirds was gained under the roof.

Mr. Case commented that a decision was made not to change the elevation. Mr. DiPaolo added there is no input or plan to change the elevation. Mr. DiPaolo stated there will be an option to expand on the other side; he further explained the option with the Pro-Shop.

Mr. Ludmerer stated he would like to know how much seating will be gained after the restaurant's renovation. The current seating capacity is 125. After the renovations, the restaurant is to gain seating in multiple areas in the building. Mr. Whyte recommended getting data from the Lifestyle Advisory Group and present the data to the Board.

Mr. Case expressed his concern with multiple service bars and space. Ms. Van Brunt added she is interested in adding more space and questioned if there is any protected space. Mr. Case responded, stating that there will be indoor space utilization in conjunction with outdoor space. Ms. Pagano asked if there will be any screens; the answer is yes, for rain and shade purposes.

In-person public comments were opened.

Ms. Ronni Loundy commented the suggestions of the Lifestyle Advisory Group and Vision Drawings are not the same. She further expressed that she believes the District is off track with vision drawings and asked why the District is not listening to the professionals.

Ms. Van Brunt seconded Ms. Loundy’s comment on the vision drawings not matching the suggestions of the advisory group. She was under the impression that the Lifestyle Advisory Group’s purpose was for space and not furniture.

Ms. Mary Jane Sanacore stated she would like to see the site map of the expansion areas.

Mr. Fetsick stated the advisory group is a preliminary meeting for the purpose of identifying the usage of space and function.

The Board agreed presenting a summary of the Lifestyle Advisory Group meetings will be beneficial in decision making regarding the renovation of restaurants.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor Requests

There were no Supervisor Requests.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

Mr. Case requested a motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:38 p.m.

ON MOTION by Mr. DiPaolo, seconded by Ms. Pagano, with all in favor, the Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Board of Supervisors' Meeting for University Park Recreation District was adjourned at 3:38 p.m.

 IL	
Secretary / Assistant Secretary

6 I P a g e