MINUTES OF MEETING
DEER RUN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The May 28, 2025 regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Deer Run Community Development District was reconvened Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. at the Island Club, 501 Grand Reserve Drive, Bunnell, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Gary Garner	Chairman
Franklin Gates	Vice Chairman
Barbara DeSantis	Supervisor
Gary Masten	Supervisor

Also present were:

Jim Oliver	District Manager
Katie Buchanan	District Counsel by telephone
Matt Biagetti	GMS
Several Residents

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Garner called the meeting to order and called the roll.
Mr. Oliver stated this is my first continued meeting I have had with this district and a continued meeting is such that on May 28th we had a complete meeting, we pulled one item out of the agenda to bring to this continued meeting so we wouldn’t have to notice it again. Tonight we handle this item, once you rank the proposals and make a decision to award a contract unless there are some supervisor comments, we will adjourn the meeting. Before you have too much discussion on a board level we will still have public comment if there is any just regarding this item

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comments
Mr. Sanchez stated apples to apples oranges to oranges the reason why in case we need to change companies. I reviewed all 11 companies and I don’t see any company that offers me a

better product, they are all the same. This is a big community with a lot of stuff around to navigate. At least we have a company that has been doing it for a long time, I don’t see any problems with it to change it. The money is the same. If someone can explain the reason, I would say sometimes it is better to have the one you know. Same thing happened when we changed management company, then we rehired the old company and all we did was lose money. Now, we are going to do the same thing and it is going to cost us money.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration  of  Landscape  Maintenance
Proposals
Mr. Garner stated I think this was a good drill for the board to go through especially those who never dealt with contracts. I read every proposal at least three times and some of them six. I visited sites these different companies did and saw the product. I made calls then graded them. The one I ranked the highest was priced out of the running. I broke it down to four companies, my first pick was Brightview, second was Down to Earth, then VerdeGo and Yellowstone. I went through the proposals again and went to more sites and ended up with VerdeGo. They are one of the cheapest but what they produce and what the community would get, to me for the dollar that is my opinion.
Mr. Gates stated I had a top three, VerdeGo, Bland then Yellowstone.
Mr. Masten stated I had Yellowstone no. 1 with a score of 94.52, VerdeGo no. 2 with a score of 93, and The Greenery at no. 3 with a score of 92.26.
Ms. DeSantis stated I looked at how many times a week they came, how many workers, the price and I have Brightview with 97, Yellowstone with 96 and VerdeGo with 94.
Mr. Oliver stated can I confirm that everyone scored the pricing points correctly. The board confirmed they scored the pricing correctly.
Mr. Oliver stated here is what I calculated. Bland 16.54 points, Brightview 19, Corey Enterprises 15, Down to Earth 18, Duval 17.5, The Greenery 16.26, Lawn Crafters 19.5, Ruppert
14, United Land Services 13, VerdeGo 20 and Yellowstone 18.5.
As you have gone through the discussion so far we see that Brightview is actually the top ranked firm and your top threes, two is different VerdeGo got the top vote for 1 and Yellowstone the top vote for 1. You look at the two spots below that. It may be that we need to know what your total scores are for that.
Mr. Garner stated Yellowstone 91, VerdeGo 91 and Brightview 91.

Mr. Gates stated Yellowstone 94, VerdeGo 98 and I didn’t pick Brightview but my score for them was 88.
Ms. DeSantis stated Yellowstone 96, VerdeGo 94 and Brightview 97.
After discussion, the board ranked the contractors as follows: Brightview 91, 88, 86.75, 97, 316.75 or 362.75.  VerdeGo 91, 98, 93, 94 or 382. Yellowstone 91, 94, 94.52 and 96 or
375.52.
Mr. Oliver stated right now your top two are VerdeGo at 376 and Yellowstone at 375.52. Mr. Masten stated given the closeness of these I don’t think we should round up or down.
We are talking about a half point.
Ms. Buchanan stated another option when you have a score this close, the board can talk about the categories and potentially decide to adjust. No one has to adjust, you are entitled to your own scores but if you are faced with scoring one of two options sometimes you can reevaluate your numbers and think this change makes sense given these two choices.
Mr. Gates stated it is so close and I don’t a problem with Yellowstone, I would just stick with Yellowstone.
Mr. Oliver stated you heard Katy you can still talk about this. We know for one thing, it is down to two vendors.

On MOTION by Mr. Masten seconded by Mr. Gates with all in favor the contract was awarded to Yellowstone.

Ms. Buchanan stated this was publicly noticed so there are protest rights and that means you have to rank all nine. We can’t just award, we have to actually have no. 2 and no. 3 and you have given a lot of thought for of the top three and that is great because that is typically where any protest would come from so we will need to figure out a way to rank 4 to 9.
Mr. Oliver stated you could adopt Gary Masten’s ranking of all the firms because he ranked all of them.
Ms. Buchanan stated I’m very comfortable with that. Mr. Oliver asked do we need to read that into the record?
Ms. Buchanan stated yes and our firm will send out notices to each of the firms that proposed.

Mr. Oliver read into the record, the scoring on all the firms as follows: Yellowstone 94.52, VerdeGo 93, Greenery 92.26, - to be filled in

On MOTION by Mr. Garner seconded by Mr. Gates with all in favor the board adopted the rankings on all vendors provided by Gary Masten.

Mr. Oliver stated it is the incumbent so there is no transition but Katey will prepare the agreement.
Mr. Garner asked can we talk about the park? We aren’t going to take any action. How close are we to having the park turned over and what do we need to do to prepare?
Mr. Oliver stated I would have Rich as well as the engineer do a full inspection to make sure you are not accepting a pig in a poke if there were any underlying issues they were concerned about.
Mr. Garner stated my biggest concern is liability. That will be turned over to us before Phase 6 is completed. There are a lot of residents who don’t want it. I feel that the board has no option.
Mr. Masten asked what happens if we say we are not taking it?
Mr. Oliver stated I have not run into that. Katey have you run into a case where an improvement was not accepted by a district?
Ms. Buchanan stated no. Most of the time this relates back to agreements between the district and the developer that were entered into at the time the bonds were issued so it is a very old agreement between the district and the developer and there were developer members on the board at the time and that is not unusual. We are going to build a project and we are going to pay for it with bonds and what we don’t have in bonds we will pay for it out of pocket and in exchange for all of that the district agrees to take it and be the maintenance responsibility for it. It is called a completion agreement and acquisition agreement and they date back to 2018 when the bonds were issued. If it is not in good condition then I don’t think you have to take it. It would just be a bigger conflict if you just don’t want it. That is something you would have to look at hiring counsel to evaluate.
Mr. Garner stated whether we want it or not it will eventually be ours. Correct?

Ms. Buchanan stated the reality is if the district said we are not going to take it and Horton said we are going to sue the district to compel you to take it under these agreements or we are going to give it to the HOA that I assume they still control. Then it is still a responsibility of the people in the community. The CDD is the better option out of the two to manage it.
Mr. Oliver stated you would want to inspect it before you accept it.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor’s Requests
Mr. Masten stated so there is a record of it, this is for the benefit of the gentleman in the back of the room complaining about irrigation. I agreed at that meeting to reach out to the head of infrastructure for the City of Bunnell. I spent an hour with him today and he is more than willing to come to a meeting and we targeted the August meeting. If we get a big enough crowd we may have to move it to the chambers of the new Bunnell City Hall. I have the irrigation set up with eight zones and I found out today there are irrigation valves in each of the phases. We might be in a position to turn off a phase. He has the as-builts and he and I will ride around in July and mark these valves.
Mr. Oliver stated that was a very productive hour. Since you are having a budget hearing that night and Justin’s presentation we might want to pick an alternate site and start working on that.
Mr. Masten asked should we put out an email blast to try to gauge people’s interest because I don’t want to move it if we don’t have to.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comments
There being none, the next item followed.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting – July 23, 2025 at
6:30 p.m. at the Island Club

On MOTION by Ms. DeSantis seconded by Mr. Masten with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman