MINUTES OF MEETING ROLLING HILLS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Rolling Hills Community Development District was held Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Rolling Hills Amenity Center, 3212 Bradley Creek Parkway, Green Cove Springs, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

David Church	Chairman
Billy Gibbons	Vice Chairman
Helana Cormier	Supervisor
David Bauer	Supervisor
Susan Gibbons	Supervisor

Also present were:

Marilee Giles	District Manager
Katie Buchanan by phone	District Counsel
Freddie Oca	Riverside Management
Keith Hadden	District Engineer
Chad Milton	Ruppert

The following is a summary of the actions taken at the April 8, 2025 regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Rolling Hills Community Development District.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Ms. Giles called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and called roll. Five Board members were present constituting a quorum.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments
Ms. Giles opened the public comment period for agenda items only. She noted there were copies of the agenda provided in the room. She added comments are limited to 3 minutes.

Resident, Ms. Karen Anderson had a question on the discussion of the conservation area and if that could be elaborated on for an idea of what it will be about. Ms. Giles explained this was a concern about some of the conservation areas in the District on the purpose, the intent, and if they will be conveyed over to the District. She added a supervisor has asked this be on the agenda and District council will lead us through the discussion.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the February 11,
2025 Meeting
Ms. Giles presented the minutes from the February 11, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting for approval. She asked if there were any comments, corrections, or changes.
Ms. Cormier stated she has sent a couple of emails for corrections, and it was sent this afternoon. She added one correction was on page 4 of the Engineer’s Report regarding it states LCI and should be LGI. Ms. Cormier stated there was more stuff that wasn’t put in there and added the other is on page 4 under Section B to add her comments about the pond and the St. Johns River Water Management being contacted and after the initial investigation they sent and an email addressing that pond issue and there was nothing in that discussion, and it was something very important. She stated it was very relevant details that should be including in public comments especially after the engineer sent the emails stating it was a problem with the 2 homeowners and my comments should be added to page 4, Section B of the minutes, and page 9 on the video file. She would also like the public comments from Keith Hadden informing the Board and residents that he believed that LGI was responsible for the pond issues to be in there.
She added she wanted the exact comments because she didn’t want to misquote anything, and to add the public comments from the end of the meeting that Keith Hadden made comments and when he stated he was planning to purchase Common Bonds Business Partners, and his response to the affiliation with the bonds, his response to the responsibility of the bridge on Sandridge and other details I may be missing.
She stated she was curious and asked if here was a reason why there is no information in the agenda packet concerning Agenda Item IV in the discussion of the Conservation area. She noted she provided multiple documents to the attorney and the District manager that were all public documents that would be extremely helpful for residents and the other Board members to understand and allow the residents to voice their concerns at the first public comment section on the agenda. She added if they knew the actual problems then they might know what to research,

understand and voice their concern for their neighborhood. She noted the decision the Board makes on this agenda item is extremely important.
Ms. Giles asked Ms. Buchanan on the minutes is there a requirement for the transcriptionist to type them verbatim or is it just minutes are required by Florida statute. Ms. Buchanan replied there is no specific detail required in the meeting minutes or the summary meeting minutes. However, if the supervisor is not comfortable with the contents, they can advocate to have them not adopted until changes are made. She added comments about approving and having a split vote. She added traditionally they provide a summary, but if the Board would like to alter the direction they would need to know to move forward.
Ms. Giles said she can look at her email and forward them to the Board to see if they want to modify the minutes. She added they are a summary of the minutes, and they are not verbatim. She noted she will bring it back to the meeting to see if you want the minutes changed to reflect that.
Ms. Giles stated they will table this item. She added just so the residents know it is tabled for 2 months until you see it again. So, if they get phone calls, complaints or concerns it will be 2 months before they are posted to the website. She noted they will give the Board the opportunity to review before posting.
Ms. Giles noted she can address the concern from Ms. Cormier as we move on during the meeting.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Conservation Areas
Ms. Giles stated staff had a phone call with Ms. Cormier about the conservation areas and before staff conducts extensive research and spends funds on digging into the conservation areas, they thought it be best to bring it back to the Board to see if the Board authorizes the staff to spend funds on that research. She noted it probably is a good idea to do that, but District counsel is a professional service, and it comes at a cost when we work outside our normal agenda items.
Ms. Giles asked Ms. Buchanan if she could introduce this to see if the Board is interested in spending funds. Ms. Buchanan asked Ms. Cormier to assist to make sure the Board gets the full picture. She stated essentially what Ms. Cormier has done is gone through the county approval documents and to cross reference the review of documents for the improvements that were planned as compared to the improvements that were actually installed. She added they agreed that some of

these documents indicated that the conservation easement area was expected to be turned over to the CDD. She noted as we heard at the last meeting the developer has entered into conversation with Mr. Hadden to convey the property to him for some of the wildlife management area. She noted they had worked to try identifying if there is a requirement turning that property over to the CDD. She understood because of the dedicated conservation area easement the CDD’s responsibility would be for the maintenance area.
She stated what we are looking for direction from the Board on is: How much time and energy does the Board want Ms. Buchanan to dedicate time for sorting out if the District should receive, is the Board interested in receiving the area, and making sure the Board understands the process and cost associated for acquisition.
Ms. Cormier stated when she said the developers may convey the land to Mr. Hadden. She noted that Mr. Hadden told us at the last meeting that he was going to purchase a common bonds type of partners, and wouldn’t that be different than just conveying, if he is buying the business.
Ms. Buchanan responded no, but it is relevant to the District whether he acquires the business or whether he acquires the property. Ms. Cormier stated that Mr. Hadden told us at the last meeting he was going to put that in the Hadden family trust, and is he allowed to do that if it is conveyed to him. Ms. Buchanan stated the question is whether he is allowed to take the property at all. If he is allowed to take the property, then he could essentially own it in whatever form or fashion he desires and understanding that the use of the property would be restricted by the conservation easement. She added he can’t’ use it if the easement doesn’t allow.
Ms. Cormier added but the property could be pulled out of the easement or paid to be taken out of the easement and done in whatever way he pleased if paid and worked through all the processes with St. Johns River Water Management, the county commissioners, and whoever else, to do whatever they deem. She stated then he could do whatever he wants. Ms. Buchanan that is possible, but he would have to go through the water management, the county, and everyone would have to agree whether or not that would be feasible or possible. She noted that property has already been essentially pledged and doing other on-site mitigation would be developers’ lawyers. It would not be easy.
Ms. Cormier asked for Ms. Buchanan to explain a little more so that from your standpoint the originally 562 areas was for our intended for our community and the land was the 200 acres was included as ours.

Ms. Cormier reviewed documents and asked if any of the Board members had been emailed the information. She commented on a document filed with the state of Florida of Tallahassee must sign off and the process with the site plan and are all public record documents. She noted the county has addressed some problems with their concerns with the road having the back sections and then approved. She asked Mr. Hadden if he used an attorney. He stated he was not familiar with the document she is referencing and doesn’t have his name on it, and I didn’t send it to the state.
Ms. Cormier continued with review on the process for the plan approval from the county. She referenced a paragraph that stated this property is 562.4-acre tract and discussion in Section D stating for the residents to enjoyment over 200 acres will be retained in its natural state to provide recreation and open space for the residents within the area and will of 56.2 to remain open space, other topics on conveyance of the zoning code. She added recreation and bike trails will be available. She noted there were a lot of details in this section.
She noted after a lot of research she sought outside counsel and paid on her own to understand the engineer working for the developer and working for our CDD, the engineer purchasing the business. She added the city attorney could not give me any more insight and not say more, but the CDD was in compliance, our attorney is not to make sure the developer is in compliance but to make sure the CDD in in compliance.
It was explained how the land was separated during the 1st phase. She reviewed the documents and the conservation land and how it is platted. The land size is shown and how it is supposed to be conveyed to the CDD. She added the other plats are separated and some history was documented. She noted the next phase and Mr. Hadden’s name is all over these documents, and other properties developed by LGI and some to Adams, and other companies. It was not platted, and improvements were made, and other phases and conservation was not.
Ms. Cormier asked for questions.
Ms. Giles asked the Board if they were opening the meeting to public comment. The chair stated they were not.
Ms. Cormier continued the overview. She noted on the last page it actually defines the community with the 562 acres. When the bond 2006 A & B was issued there was the engineers report from Mr. Hadden with the fees and the amounts. $490,000 was supposed to be for the playgrounds or the amenity centers and GMS was considered our financial advisor.

Board member Church asked if this was before or after the bankruptcy. It was noted it was before the bankruptcy. Ms. Cormier stated she was told there was never a bankruptcy, and it never went to the bank for sale, and it happened from the developer. She added GMS has been here from the beginning. She noted there was a lot of information, and she spelled this out to both attorneys. She encouraged to bring the documents and information back to the community and District attorney. She asked for follow up on the bond paperwork. . She noted the community still did not look like it was supposed to and that was money from way back when. She stated she was told she could ask for an audit of that money and wasn’t sure if that could still happen since it was from 2006. She stated and this raises the questions of how this could happen, and all the entities are still here. She stated this is worth having someone review and the land was to be conveyed and should be here for our residents and our community. She added she could not imagine why we would not want this conveyed to us and would like for our attorney to explain why this was not conveyed. She suggested to have the District review and see if the land should be conveyed.
Board member stated he was pretty sure it incorporated the bridge and was concerned about the costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the community, when someone was interested and willing to buy the property and take the liability from the community.
Ms. Giles noted the agenda item is for the discussion of conservation areas, and from Ms. Cormier’s review it appears it has great concern for her as a supervisor. Mr. Bauer stated he personally could not vote on without briefing.
Ms. Giles stated there is not a vote tonight, and the topic is if the Board wanted to engage staff in researching if the area belonged to the District. She noted a lot was unpacked tonight but it appears the one thing she is most concerned about is if the conservation area should belong to the District’s boundaries.
Ms. Cormier stated this information has opened a lot of concerns but is has opened all the other areas. She stated we will just address this one for now.
Ms. Giles asked if this was a topic the Board is interested in having staff research if that conservation area should belong to the District.
Board member stated he could not vote one way or another and needed more time to review all the information. Ms. Giles stated this was just something personal for one supervisor and before staff engages in spending the District’s funds, we need to bring it before the Board. She added the only way to have District counsel research this thoroughly is to have the Board approve allowing

District counsel to research it and once District counsel researches this then they can bring it back before the Board. Tonight a decision will need to be made if the Board wants to pay the costs for our attorney to research this.
Discussion ensued on not wanting to take on the conservation area, wetlands, the easement, due to the bridge, LGI, buildable land, and issues. Mr. Hadden discussed the bridge and his maintenance of it. If the CDD wanted a building, they could have a building on the property. He was willing to take ownership, because of the bridge, and he knew the CDD did not want it. Mr. Hadden knew his family would care for the land for the next 100 years. He explained reasons for his interest, the wetlands, the bridge, and it would be torn down.
Ms. Giles asked if this is what the Board wants staff to look into. She explained it might be worth it to determine to have a report on what the status is or will be on the area. She added she was not clear what else they wanted there and wasn’t sure if you were insinuating that bond funds were mismanaged somehow. She stated if you will clarify what it is you want District counsel to check into because it sounded like you were making accusations that bond funds were not spent correctly by staff. Ms. Cormier stated she would love to know why the $480,000 was not spent on the proper parts.
Ms. Buchanan stated in 2006 when the District issued bonds there were $12,000,000 was deposited into the construction account. So, the District identified the project in 2006 with a value of approximately $34,000,000. It only funded the bonds with the $12,000,000 and when the developer walked away from the project. That obligation and negotiations was simultaneously bought by the CDD bonds. She explained the process of what had happened.
Ms. Cormier wondered what happened to $26,000,000, but again she wanted someone to explain how the money was spent. She stated GMS is the financial advisor and still has them. She would like to request those documents. She added she doesn’t still understand if it is too old, and the process worked, and entrance and outlets and inlet did not get done. She noted the layers of what happened. She was concerned about plans that were done years and anything over 50 acres is a large-scale plan. Other comments were made on what had happened and the CDD jurisdictions. There was concern as to what happened and the plans did not match and did not go to state for approval. Outside Districts ability to control, Districts plan done its part, plans submitted to county, Mr. Hadden approval of plans, laws, we still don’t have everything we should on the design.

Ms. Giles ask what is missing from design, should the conservation area be in the CDD’s name and why are the stub outs not there, and why does our community not look like the state approved.
Other discussion was held on what’s missing was described as the stub outs, change go back to the state, county makes determination, changes can be made, pool tennis courts, building permit approved, last year after May 2024, found documents, requested all public records and I’ve reviewed, and they were not any county records, give the attorney amount not to exceed to see if we can get anywhere, billing, paper trail, we were told there will be another road coming in to alleviate traffic, is the road going to come in, LGI says there will be another road, hire same people involved in what happened, so much missing from the community, we need a paper trail of why the changes, repair of bridge, is Mr. Hadden willing to replace the bridge, and county cannot dictate. Board member asked why we should spend the money on what we can’t control.
Ms. Giles asked the Board if they wanted to pursue.
It was noted Ms. Buchanan is the one to do it and pursue it since she has all the information. Ms. Cormier spoke to county about grants for state access to schools, Common bond partner, what if they decided to sell, selling to another entity they are obligated to compete and some interest because stubs are not there. Other questions were voiced on obligations to another entity, other obligations to complete the project, the discussion of taking the areas out of a conservation area. It was asked how many hours Ms. Buchanan would need. She voiced concerns on how old, timeline, and county documents. Ms. Buchanan stated she was not sure of the time this would take. Ms. Giles asked about a not to exceed amount.
Audience comments on why counsel cannot get this, a paper trail should be in place, the developer concerns, the engineer submits plans, was he able to get computer to work to get the plans, are they submitted same way, conversations with water District, and the roads were not in place. Mr. Hadden states documents have been submitted, the process of submittal, and signed off on.
Ms. Cormier stated she had asked him and asked if he could send records to her. Ms. Giles commented on human error occurred wherever, and documents have been filed at a different level, and it was not going to be completed at one stop.
It was noted that supervisors should state all concerns. After discussion a motion was made for $5,000 to research, does not have to be conveyed at this time. All conservations areas include

the bridge. Ms. Buchanan ask about the amount for research, conversations with the developer and she was worried about process or the end of it all and the conveyances.
Ms. Cormier voiced to give the land to the community like it is supposed to be. Other Board members stated there was confusion on what Ms. Cormier wants out of all of this. It was asked if it had to be conveyed now, or if it was to be conveyed to the District. Ms. Cormier wanted all conservation areas including the bridge, budgets will include the bridge, suspend motor vehicles, and add to insurance.

On MOTION by Mr. Church, seconded by Ms. Cormier, with Mr. Church, Ms. Cormier, Mr. Gibbons, and Ms. Gibbons in favor, and Mr. Bauer opposed, a Not to Exceed of $5,000 for District Counsel to Determine if the Conservation Areas Should Belong to the CDD, was approved 4-1.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Board	Discussion	and	Guidance	for
Preparation of Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Budget
Ms. Giles stated staff is looking for any guidance on the FY 2026 budget. She stated the approval will be at the June 10th meeting and adoption will be at the August 12th meeting. She asked the Board if there was a particular line item for decreases or increases it can be done. She explained the process of taking information on spending from this year and past years looking for a pattern with vendors and using this for development of the new budget. She commented on economy and expecting at 3% increase. She noted if the budget comes in high that’s ok, it can be reduced during the Budget adoption meeting.
Supervisor requested more hours to be added to the lifeguard and deck monitors budget line due to needing a good employee for monitoring. Ms. Giles explained this can be tricky with financials, line items, and funds. He noted an increase to the security line item was needed to include funds for security cameras and surveillance.
Discussion ensued on location of cameras, possibility of a workshop, taking care of some projects, and a great budget season last year.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney

Ms. Buchanan commented on the capital conversation emails from her office and a summary print out on new legislation.

Engineer
Mr. Hadden stated the remaining properties to be given to somebody and cooperations will close. He noted the reaming properties will be sold or given away and he didn’t think the District wanted this property. He discussed corporations not talking to one another, he will step down if the District wishes, not pulling strings to help a developer, invoices reviewed by him and GMS, bond money, HOA, bridge issues, and takeover of bridge. Other topics discussed by Ms. Cormier included bus riders, grants, conveyances, safe walking path is only the bridge, and her spending time to help resolve.

Manager
Ms. Giles reminded the Board of the Form 1 requirement due by July 1st and is online now.

Operations/Amenity Manager
Report
Ms. Giles asked if the Board had any questions. Comments were made on emails regarding the Easter events, work for $3000 on motor, having scooters coming through the areas, the tire tracks, lack of sunlight on the bridge areas, signs for no bikes installed on the bridge, pressure washing costs, quotes for pool and splashpad, exterior paint, repainting splashpad, bathrooms painted, begin painting of inside, and other work on the courts.

Monthly Quality Inspection Report
Mr. Milton stated he wanted to introduce himself discussed issues. Board member Church stated his only concern was the excessive water flowing into the road from sprinkler heads spraying into the road. There were questions on the city and the grasses. It was noted this will be at the District’s costs. Other topics were on construction out front, Bahia, suggestions of a path to break it up, irrigation, and county easements. The sprinkler system will be repaired.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors Requests
Mr. Church had no requests.

Mr. Gibbons stated he had asked Mr. Oca about lighting on the pool deck and the timing. Suggestions were made on vendors coming out and problems with GFI. He asked about the Amenity fencing plan, rental spaces and reservations, gymnasium equipment needed, working with Southeast Equipment for upgrading and limitations with insurance, options for leasing equipment programs, further discussion on insurance policy, types of fitness equipment, suspension updates, violation of suspension and a desire to extend the suspension. Ms. Buchanan made comments on trespassing, paying of fees, minor will not regain access until fine is paid, and all family members are suspended, timeline for 1 year. He wanted to extend the suspension on the 1 minor by sending letter on violation. Ms. Buchanon suggested to address at the next meeting and made recommendations on the wording of the letter. CCSO was contacted on the trespassing issues. Ms. Giles reviewed the motion.

On MOTION by Mr. Gibbons, seconded by Mr. Bauer, with all in favor, to Send Suspension Letter for 6 Additional Months to the Family for a Minor Child, was approved.

Ms. Cormier stated she had addressed the police officer and public records issues. She had spoken with a deputy about redacting, and she asked for an email that it was redacting, and his address is not being released. The deputy did not realize the address was public. Ms. Giles noted they did not put his address on this, they had asked him not to put the address on his invoices, and that he was putting it on the invoice by his own free will. Ms. Giles stated she would call him again and inform him it is not a requirement to put in on the invoice. Ms. Cormier added a question on the bonds and the Common Bonds Capital Partners and dissolve their properties and what happened to the bonds that are sitting out there for the community. She asked if they were being refinanced or is something happening with them. Ms. Buchanan addressed this issue and noting they are locked in, and most things cannot be changed and further explained the process for restructuring the debt. She covered if taxes were not paid and what would happen. Ms. Giles explained the process of distribution was included in the agenda package. She asked for an update on the process for the app installations. The dates for meeting, the sign out front and adding the months. Mr. Oca commented on the process.
Ms. Gibbons commented she had no requests.
Mr. Bauer commented on dump truck, concrete, and tennis court gate latches issues.

Mr. Gibbons asked if they had a point of contact with the county regarding the road being developed and a road to have access to it and the timeline. Ms. Buchanan will investigate for more information.
Ms. Cormier made another commented on the road that was already conveyed to the county from the part Common Bonds owns and if Mr. Hadden knew if and when the other would be conveyed. Mr. Hadden stated he did not know about the south section portion.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments
Ms. Giles asked for audience comments.
Resident (Richard) commented on rocks sections and if something will be built or grasses could be added. Another commented on the grass and if it could be Bahia versus St. Augustine. Discussion ensued on the area, locations, irrigation, easement, conveyances, and it was noted the CDD will not add St. Augustine grass since it was not owned by the CDD, or there was not a way to maintain.
Resident (Jennifer) commented on when the neighbors left the sidewalk was destroyed and if there was a plan to correct. It was noted that was a demolition crew between the sidewalk and the grass area was destroyed.
Resident (Sharon) asked about the residents to have a map on platted land that could be built on. Further discussion ensued on potential for building on, the storage building, survey, map with highlights on what areas could potentially be built on, LGI issues, the original engineering plan, pond area, connection of areas of the land, new streets, developed area, specific areas, bypass, conveyance possibility around the pond, name change of an area, design change of the pond, condition of the pond water, wetlands, and Board approval being required on any structures.
Ms. Giles asked Ms. Buchanan if this was public record, and it was noted it was unsure if the CDD had any documents on this topic. She added a survey could be done. Mr. Hadden noted his surveys contain this information. Other topics included LGI repair job, engineering involvement, water flowing issues, repairs on erosion and sod, stormwater system, sprinkler issues, pond is not losing water, no way water can come out of the lake, exploration with Davenport, email response on violation on the permit, opened another issue, email issues was minimized, pond evaluation, and Ms. Giles stated the email will be forwarded to all Board members.

Resident asked about parking on the road possibility and enforcements. Comments were made on addressing future development on building of roads, lack of entrances to Rolling Hills, there is an entitlement of 29 more homes can be built, and LGI would have to be worked with for this. Other topics were parking, and company cars in driveways is an HOA issue.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Reports
Balance Sheet & Income Statement
Ms. Giles presented the balance sheet and income statement for February 28, 2025.

Assessment Receipt Schedule
Ms. Giles referenced the assessment receipt reflecting 97% collected.

Check Register
Ms. Giles presented the check register for $ 1,092,687.81. This is for January and February and the ACH for both months. She noted it is higher than normal. It includes some of the capital reserve projects but you will also see it includes an SBA account transfer of $850,000 transferred to your SBA account. She noted this is where we park funds because if grows at 4.5% interest. She added we can transfer as needed from that account. Some of that includes taxes. Ms. Gibbons had a question about $70,000 in capital project fund. Ms. Giles stated she will verify if it’s related to a bond. A $88,647 and was from capital reserve projects.

On MOTION by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Gibbons, with all in favor, the Check Register, was approved 5-0

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Schedule Meeting: June 10, 2025 @ 6:00
p.m. at the Rolling Hills Amenity Center
Ms. Giles stated the next meeting is scheduled for June 10, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. at this location. It was noted the Board did not have to have a special workshop regarding the budget, it looked good. She added the higher number for taxes.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment
Ms. Giles asked for a motion to adjourn.

On MOTION by Ms. Cormier, seconded by Mr. Church, with all in favor, the meeting adjourned.

	
Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman