MINUTES OF MEETING NORTH POWERLINE ROAD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Powerline Road Community Development District was held on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. at the Holiday Inn – Winter Haven, 200 Cypress Gardens Boulevard, Winter Haven, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum:
Bobbie Shockley	Chairperson
Alexis Diaz	Vice Chairperson
Jessica Spencer	Assistant Secretary
Mauricio Gatica	Assistant Secretary
Lindsey Roden (via Zoom)	Assistant Secretary Also present were:
Jill Burns	District Manager, GMS
Savannah Hancock	District Counsel, Kilinski Van Wyk
Marshall Tindall	Field Manager, GMS

The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the September 24, 2025, North Powerline Road Community Development District’s Regular Board of Supervisor’s Meeting.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Ms. Burns called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. and called the roll. A quorum was present.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment Period (Public Comments are
limited to (3) minutes each)
Ms. Burns opened the public comment period. There being no comments, the public comment period was closed.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the July 23, 2025
Board of Supervisors Meeting

Ms. Burns presented the minutes of the July 23, 2025, Board of Supervisors meeting, which were included in the agenda package. There were no comments or corrections.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, the Minutes of the July 23, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting, were approved as presented.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Hearing
Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Amended and Restated Rules Relating to Parking Enforcement
Ms. Burns stated that this public hearing was advertised in the paper as required by Florida Statutes.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Ms. Shockley, with all in favor, Opening the Public Hearing, was approved.

Consideration of Resolution 2025-19 Adopting Amended and Restated Rules Relating to Parking and Parking Enforcement (amended parking map to be provided under separate cover)
Ms. Burns presented Resolution 2025-19 Adopting the Amended and Restated Rules Relating to Parking and Parking Enforcement, which was included in the agenda package. The CDD currently had parking restrictions in Phases 1 and 2, in place. However, several resident complaints were received, that people were parking in the parking spots at the mailboxes long- term or overnight, preventing people from utilizing those spaces as they were intended, which was to pull up, get their mail and leave. People were also blocking the roadways, because parking spots were not available. This resolution would designate all of those parking areas as five-minute parking. Resident (Lucretia Grant, 1706 Tree Shade Drive) noted that people park there to utilize the pool and questioned how to determine who was using the pool. Ms. Burns indicated that these were the parking spots in the roadway tract by the mailboxes approaching Penguin Drive, that were near Phase 3 and not the parking that shares the amenity lot.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, Resolution 2025-19 Adopting the Amended and Restated Rules Relating to Parking and Parking Enforcement to include five- minute parking only at the mailboxes, was approved.

Ms. Burns reported that the map would identify those parking spaces as five-minute parking only.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Ms. Shockley, with all in favor, Closing the Public Hearing, was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Presentation	of	Memo	Regarding
Amendments to District Rules of Procedure
A. Consideration of Resolution 2025-20 Setting a Public Hearing on the Adoption of Amended and Restated Rules of Procedure for the District
Ms. Burns presented a memorandum regarding amendments to the District Rules of Procedure, as well as Resolution 2025-20 Setting a Public Hearing on the Adoption of Amended and Restated Rules of Procedure for the District. Ms. Hancock reported that during this past legislative session, which concluded in early May, the legislature made a few changes to the statutes that help govern CDD processes. The Rules of Procedure that were adopted when a District was created, basically governs the processes for going out for Request for Proposals (RFP), for something like landscaping or engineering and this procedure just goes through the rules and updates them to be compliant with the new law. The biggest change that was probably the most impactful, would be the notices of rule development and rulemaking. These notices used to be published 29 days and 28 days prior to the public hearing. However, the change in the legislature now puts that at 35 days and 28 days. It must be published in a newspaper of general circulation, which in Polk County, The Lakeland Ledger was frequently used, as well as any other type of local paper. Therefore, when a public hearing was scheduled during Board meetings, it must be done two months ahead of time.
Ms. Hancock indicated that another change was for competitive purchases, if there was a public works project, as defined in the Statute, as an activity that was paid for any local or State appropriated fund. It would consist of the construction, maintenance, repair, renovation, remodeling or improvement of a building, road, street, sewer, storm drain, water system, site development, irrigation system, reclamation project and gas or electrical distribution system. When going through the criteria, they would no longer be able to consider the amount of work that a particular company has done with the State or the local government. For example, they used to

consider a contractor who has done $15 million worth work with the State this year, but now they could no longer consider that. They also did some clean up items the Rules of Procedure, defining business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ms. Burns noted that the date of the public hearing was November 12, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., at the new meeting location.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, Resolution 2025-20 Setting a Public Hearing on the Adoption of Amended and Restated Rules of Procedure for the District for November 12, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at PRIME Community Management, 375 Avenue A SE, Winter Haven, Florida, was approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration   of   Resolution   2025-21
Spending Authorization Resolution
Ms. Burns presented Resolution 2025-21 Spending Authority Resolution, which was included in the agenda package. This was an administrative resolution, that sets spending limits for the Chair or Vice Chair in their absence, along with the District Manager outside of a meeting, in the event that items needed to be approved. With this resolution, the District Manager was authorized to approve expenses up to $2,500, the Chair or Vice Chair, may approve expenses over
$10,000 and the District Manager or Chair may jointly authorize expenses up to $25,000. This would be in the event of a hurricane or any emergency situation.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded Ms. Shockley, with all in favor Resolution 2025-21 Confirming Authorization to Pay Invoices for Work Previously Approved; Authorizing the Chair or Vice Chair of the Board of Supervisors and the District Manager to Enter into Time Sensitive and Emergency Contracts and Disburse Funds for the Payment of Certain Expenses Without Prior Approval of the Board of Supervisors; Providing for a Monetary Threshold and Providing for the Repeal of Prior Spending Authorizations; Providing for an Effective Date, was approved.

*Ms. Roden joined the meeting at this time.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Resolution	2025-22
Amending the Meeting Location for Fiscal Year 2026 Board Meetings

Ms. Burns presented Resolution 2025-22 Amending the Meeting Location for Fiscal Year 2026, which was included in the agenda package. It changed the meeting location to PRIME Community Management, 375 Avenue A SE, Winter Haven, Florida, as more residents were attending in person and this location was bigger and had more space. This starts next month.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded Ms. Shockley, with all in favor, Resolution 2025-22 Amending the Meeting Location for Fiscal Year 2026 to PRIME Community Management, 375 Avenue A SE, Winter Haven, Florida, was approved.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Ratification of License Agreement with Horse
Creek at Crosswinds Phase 1 HOA for HOA Events
Ms. Burns presented a License Agreement with Horse Creek at Crosswinds Phase 1 HOA for HOA Events, which was included in the agenda package. This was due to an email that was received from the HOA Manager, stating that the HOA wanted to do some community events on CDD property, in the grass areas outside of field or in the CDD parking lot. This was a blanket agreement with the HOA, authorizing the HOA to hold community events on CDD property and outlines those provisions. There was a form that they could fill out for each individual event. The first one was a Trunk or Treat Halloween event. This would give staff the ability to approve those HOA events, rather than doing an agreement each time. Ms. Hancock pointed out that it required the HOA to hold special insurance for events that included bounce houses or dropping Easter eggs from a helicopter.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, the License Agreement with Horse Creek at Crosswinds Phase 1 HOA for HOA Events, was ratified.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Ms. Hancock reminded the Board about the four hours of ethics training that was required to be completed by December 31st. It was once per calendar year. Once the Supervisor completed the training, they should email staff, as there was no tracking system and it was self-reporting. It

would reset on January 1st. Ms. Spencer questioned where the videos were. Ms. Hancock would provide the link.

B. Engineer
Ms. Burns reported that the engineer was not present today, as there was nothing engineering related.

C. Field Manager’s Report (to be provided under separate cover)
Mr. Tindall presented the Field Manager’s Report, which was provided under separate cover. There were a couple of small contracts with a note to follow through with them. Everything was fine with the amenity. Everything was neat and tidy, as they enter the off-season. They planned to do some furniture cleaning, in the next month or so, since it was past the busy season and there was some mildew on back of a few of the chairs that were in shadier spots. There was an issue with the playground fences, that they were working on for some time. This was the third Account Manager that they had with Fence Outlet. Initially everything seemed good, but they hit a hiccup with the survey. They wanted to do both fences at the same time, which he did not have an issue with, but it took some time to do the surveying. Eventually they did and did not have to pay for it, which was good. However, the second Account Manager backed down on the price and decided to do a small increase, but then he found out that they left Fence Outlet. The third Account Manager adjusted the two prices. The aluminum went up, but then he decreased the price on the vinyl fence and the net change was $260. The original vinyl fence was $6,855 and the new price was $6,380. The price for the aluminum went from $6,474 to $7,175 and the increase overall was $226. As a result, they issued two new contracts, which were provided to the Board. They would just need to adjust the exhibit and the agreement, assuming that the Board still wanted to deal with this vendor. He would push them to get this done in 30 days or less, but if they failed to do so, they must reevaluate whether they should be the vendor, unless they provided a hard date within a reasonable period. However, another fence vendor was more expensive and therefore, Fence Outlet, was the cheapest vendor around. If the Board was amenable to these two changes, Mr. Tindall recommended pushing Fence Outlet and if they were unable to meet these prices with the third Account Manager, they would move past it and get another fence vendor.
Ms. Shockley asked if these were in budget. Mr. Tindall confirmed that the change was
$226, which was a minor amount overall and the bigger issue was getting them to execute the

contracts, at this point. Ms. Spencer asked if they could make the approval contingent on a 30-day timeframe. Mr. Tindall felt that they could do so. Ms. Shockley asked if they signed the agreement. Mr. Tindall confirmed that everything was in place, but they informed him that there was a small price change and did not hear anything further. A Resident questioned what the fence was for. Mr. Tindall indicated that one was for the Phase 4 playground in Deer Run, which would separate the playground from a private lot and the other was an aluminum fence around the playground at the pool. The price difference was $226 for the two projects. They were able to reduce the vinyl fence, but the aluminum price for the material increased. Ms. Burns pointed out that this would be an update to the existing contract. Mr. Gatica asked if they could get more vendors. Ms. Burns stated it was up to the Board. Mr. Tindall recommended ensuring that the contracts were signed within 30 days or less. Ms. Burns indicated if they did not sign it, they would bring quotes back at the next meeting. Mr. Gatica questioned the expectation to start the work and if the price would increase. Mr. Tindall stated that he would need to finalize the contract execution, at this point and would have them sign it within two weeks. Ms. Hancock pointed out that the agreement provided that no amendments could occur without something written and approved by both parties.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gatica, with all in favor, the updated fence proposal with Fence Outlet for a price increase of $226, was approved.

Mr. Tindall reported that the landscape vendor has everything mowed in detail and there was nothing out of the ordinary. There were sod repairs that were approved at the last meeting. They sloped the edge of the sod behind the home and would monitor it, to ensure that no other areas needed to be addressed at this time. They still had some grading work to do, which was approved at the last meeting and would monitor it and bring an update at the next meeting. There was some dissatisfaction with the fountain nozzle. If the Board was unhappy with it, they could try to refund it. The vendor said that they would take that nozzle back and switch it back out. It does tighten the cone up and push it more vertical. The fountain probably needs to be serviced. The existing contract was $1,800 per year for a monthly service. The existing vendor was the aquatics vendor; however, they were not an approved vendor and could not provide this service. The company that installed the fountain, could provide this service for $165. Ms. Shockley asked if the issue was that the water was not shooting up high enough. Mr. Tindall recalled that the

fountain that was installed was 1.5 horsepower, which was .5 horsepower more than the original fountain. However, the overall cone lacked invisibility from the road, with the growing hedges and recessed nature of the pond. To rectify it, the vendor who installed the fountain could install a different nozzle that would have a tighter cone, to provide more vertical volume for $600. However, if the Board was unhappy with it, they would install the original nozzle. Ms. Spencer pointed out that it looked like the same height. Mr. Tindall felt that the overall height was still limited by the overall horsepower. Ms. Shockley noted that it looked a little higher. Mr. Gatica did not see it until he was into the curb. Mr. Tindall would talk to the vendor to see if they could pull the nozzle, replace the original one and provide a refund. Ms. Burns suggested that the Board look at the nozzle and discuss this further at the next meeting.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Ms. Shockley, with all in favor, terminating the existing fountain maintenance, was approved.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Ms. Shockley, with all in favor, one-time fountain maintenance in an amount not-to-exceed
$200, was approved.

Mr. Tindall provided some general site items and discussion on the hog issues. They had a water flush valve issue. There were a number throughout the community, that were installed at the edge of the road near pond shoulders. That valve dumps a large amount of water to clean the line and over time, especially if there was stress, it erodes into the sod in the ground and opens up a valley down to the pond. As a result, they installed drains with timber framing and additional gravel, to run most of that water directly to the pond, so that it did not get worse. As far as the hogs, he was in communication with the vendor that was doing the hog trapping. He did not see any additional activity, so that activity was stopped at two months after the approval. They would continue to monitor the site to see if anything new shows up. There were no additional reports since the seven hogs were trapped. Mr. Tindall received a renewal from the pool vendor, requesting a 4% increase, which was forecasted previously when the budget was approved. It would start in October and the new monthly total was $2,830.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Ms. Shockley, with all in favor, renewal of the pool vendor in the amount of $2,830, was approved.

Mr. Tindall asked if the Board wanted to limit the parking at Phase 4, as there were multiple spaces, but it was abutting a playground and dog park. There were five spaces total but questioned whether the Board wanted to limit it to three spaces. Ms. Burns recommended re-opening the public hearing on the adoption of the Amended and Restated Rules relating to parking enforcement.

On MOTION by Mr. Diaz, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, Re-Opening the Public Hearing, was approved.

Mr. Tindall reported that there were three areas for parking at the mailboxes, which was a good location. However, the only one that he was uncertain of, was the one in Phase 4, as it was pull out parking for the playground and dog park. He suggested limiting the amount of pull-out parking for the mailboxes. Ms. Shockley questioned what they approved for the five-minute parking. Ms. Spencer recalled that originally it was all mailbox parking. Mr. Diaz did not want to have overnight parking and preferred to have five-minute parking for the mailboxes and the playground should be until Midnight, the same as Phase 1. Mr. Tindall asked if there should be five-minute parking in half of those spaces, if the mailbox parking was the same as the playground. Mr. Diaz was amenable to having two parking spaces for five-minute parking for the mailboxes and three for the playground and pool. There was Board consensus. Mr. Tindall would shift the two mailbox parking spaces to the sidewalk pad, so he could place a sign in the grass, as opposed to installing them in the sidewalk. Ms. Burns clarified that there would be one five-minute parking spot at the pool and all of the Phase 3 roadway tracts would service that mailbox and two of the parking spots in Phase 4, would service the mailbox and playground.
Ms. Burns opened the floor to public comments on the proposed mailbox parking. A Resident questioned the mailbox parking. Ms. Burns indicated that there were three separate ones: one in Phase 1, one in Phase 3 and one in Phase 4. A Resident questioned who would enforce it. Ms. Burns explained that it would be through the towing vendor, if they see a car was there for more than five minutes. The Resident asked if anyone in the community that notices a car parked

there for more than an hour, should call. Ms. Burns replied affirmatively. A Resident asked if the spot would be for someone to get their mail and come back out. Ms. Burns pointed out that one spot was reserved, but they were welcome to park in any of the other spots to get their mail, but this policy was designating this parking spot for five-minute parking only. However, if someone was in this spot, residents were welcome to park in any of the other spots to get their mail. There were no other comments.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Diaz, with all in favor, Resolution 2025-19 Adopting the Amended and Restated Rules Relating to Parking and Parking Enforcement to include five- minute parking only at the mailboxes, was approved as amended.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Diaz, with all in favor, Closing the Public Hearing, was approved.

Mr. Tindall recommended that the District Engineer review the item that Mr. Diaz had mentioned, the intersection stop sign at Tiny Flower and Cool Summer Lane, as there was currently one stop sign at that location. There was some discussion to reintroduce parking along Tiny Flower and asked if there must be a separate hearing for that. Ms. Burns indicated that the District Engineer could look at the stop sign, as this was not really a parking issue, but if it was for a multi way stop, they may need approval from the city. Mr. Diaz explained that he wanted a stop sign there, because from Tiny Flower, when driving from Cool Summer Lane, cars could not be seen coming up the right side. Ms. Burns pointed out that there was no on-street parking upon entering the community, unless designated and the issue was having a policy to have signage. Ms. Hancock stated based on all of the Districts that they represent, it was best to have it consistent throughout the community and suggested obtaining feedback from their towing vendor, as this was more than just installing signs and trying it out. Ms. Burns felt that there would be a risk of towing vendors improperly towing vehicles, as there may be different policies for different areas. There would also be confusion from residents, the more variation that they do, as residents would be upset for being improperly towed. However, in order to do so, they must have a public hearing and redo the rules, in order to install the signs. Mr. Diaz pointed out that all he was trying to do, was to find a solution, but felt that the tow vendor was not doing their job. Ms. Burns stated that the tow vendor could be

changed at any time, but if they terminate it, there could be some downtime. Mr. Diaz pointed out that he was trying to avoid any safety issues.
Ms. Hancock advised that legally they could not make a change like that, without going through another public hearing and it would not be until December. At the next meeting, the Board could set the public hearing for December. Because there were more residents than usual, she pointed out that the only thing that the CDD could do, was tow. They could not put stickers or ticket cars. If the Board wanted, she could bring back a policy to say that no parking was allowed, except for Friday at 5:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and go through the public hearing process. Ms. Burns asked if it was only for this area or for all of the phases. Mr. Diaz preferred to do it for all of the phases, as people were knocking on his door about parking and speeding. Ms. Burns recalled that it was discussed at the last public hearing, when the Phase 2 parking was added, about redoing the entire policy to allow for no on-street parking and ultimately the Board decided to go with this policy. However, if the Board wanted to change from the existing policy, they would need to do another public hearing. Ms. Spencer asked if Mr. Diaz wanted to change the overnight parking. Mr. Diaz wanted to have no overnight parking. Ms. Burns recommended that the Board think about the type of policy that they wanted, review what they were actually proposing and add it to a future discussion. After further discussion, there was Board consensus for District Counsel to provide a policy for no overnight street parking from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., unless it was on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night, to the next meeting.

D. District Manager’s Report
Approval of Amenity Policy Clarification Regarding Access Card Insurance
Ms. Burns recalled that the Board previously discussed having insurance for the bridge between Phases 1 and 2. The value of that bridge as constructed, was about $2 million. The Board previously decided to add that to the policy for the upcoming year, but the cost would be $14,826 to do that. Since this was not a bridge that has traffic that goes underneath it and there was no likelihood of it getting hit, the Board ultimately decided not to put the bridge on the policy and questioned whether the Board wanted to keep it the same or include it. Mr. Gatica questioned the life expectancy of the bridge. Ms. Burns would ask the District Engineer. Mr. Tindall pointed out that it was a concrete and steel structure and was basically new, as it was installed three years ago. In addition, it was concrete, not asphalt. It was not a short-term bridge. Discussion ensued and there was Board consensus to not include it. Ms. Burns requested that the Board amend the

Amenity Policy to say that residents must register for access before receiving a card and must provide their deed and lease, as the current policy stated that residents would be provided with a card upon closing.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, amending the Amenity Policy to say residents must register for access before receiving a card and must provide their deed and lease, was approved.

Approval of Check Register
Ms. Burns presented the Check Register for July 8, 2025 to September 12, 2025 in the amount of $131,374.83, which was included in the agenda package.

On MOTION by Mr. Diaz, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor the, Check Register for July 8, 2025 to September 12, 2025 in the amount of $131,374.83, was approved.

Balance Sheet & Income Statement
Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through August 31, 2025, which were included in the agenda package.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business
There being no comments, the next item followed.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors	Requests	and	Audience
Comments
Supervisors Requests
Mr. Diaz apologized for being late to the meeting, but his wife was almost due, and they had a scare this morning and asked if they removed the black fence. Ms. Burns confirmed that it was removed.

Audience Comments
Resident (Aimee) voiced concern about getting rid of overnight street parking, except on weekends, as they had no guest parking and they had guests that stay more than just on weekends.

A Resident who lived in Horse Creek questioned where the new roads were going. Ms. Burns pointed out that this was not a CDD project. It was for the Powerline Road extension, which was a county project. The Resident asked if it was possible to have some type of light at the entrance of Horse Creek, because there was no light coming down 17. Ms. Burns confirmed that this was a county project, as it was on a county road and outside of the community, but they could light the entrance monument. Discussion ensued and Mr. Tindall was asked to look into some options and bring back to the next meeting. A Resident voiced concern about the speeding and the consideration of speed bumps, as there were speed bumps that were meant for shallow roads. Several communities in Davenport were using them and they were effective. Ms. Hancock explained that any speed bump installation, must go through the District Engineer, as it must be constructed to certain standards and must be approved by the county. They must also redo the Development Plan to include speed bumps on roads. Ms. Burns believed so, as they were not part of the original traffic plan and would include it on the next agenda for Board consideration. A Resident (Danae) asked if the CDD was in charge of cleaning light posts throughout the community. Ms. Burns indicated that the light poles were owned and maintained by the utility provider.

Secretary / Assistant Secretary

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Diaz, with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

	

Chairman / Vice Chairman