Minutes of Meeting
Rivers Edge, Rivers Edge II and Rivers Edge III Community Development District

A special joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Rivers Edge, Rivers Edge II and Rivers Edge III Community Development Districts was held Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 10:30
a.m. at the RiverTown Amenity Center, 156 Landing Street, St. Johns, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Rivers Edge:
Mac McIntyre	Chairman
Erick Saks	Vice Chairman
Frederick Baron	Supervisor
Robert Cameron	Supervisor

Rivers Edge II:
D. J. Smith	Vice Chairman
Chris Henderson	Supervisor
Jason Thomas	Supervisor
Amber King	Supervisor

Rivers Edge III:
D. J. Smith	Vice Chairman
Chris Henderson	Supervisor
Jason Thomas	Supervisor
Amber King	Supervisor

Also present were:

Jim Perry	District Manager (Rivers Edge II and III)
Marilee Giles	District Manager (Rivers Edge)
Meredith Hammock	District Counsel
Lauren Gentry	District Counsel by telephone
Jason Davidson	Vesta/Amenity Services
Clint Waugh	Vesta/Amenity Services
Jonathan Perry	Vesta/Amenity Services
Dan Fagen	Vesta/Amenity Services
Ryan Stillwell	District Engineer

The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the June 1, 2022 joint special meeting. An audio copy of the proceedings can be obtained by contacting the District Manager.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Mr. Perry called the meeting to order and called the roll.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Audience Comments
There being none, the next item followed.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion Interlocal Agreement and Cost
Share
Mr. Perry stated the cost share and interlocal agreement was originally entered into by the districts in 2019 to share the costs related to the amenities, landscaping and field services. The only thing not shared is the administrative expenses. They stand on their own and are the responsibility of each district.
After actions taken today on landscaping and security, the costs paid by each district pursuant to the interlocal agreement will be recalculated.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Proposals for Landscape and
Irrigation Maintenance Services
Copies of the proposals, a legal review of each proposal, and grading sheets were provided to each board member.
Ms. Hammock gave an overview of the legal sufficiency summary of the proposals and stated there were a few bids with minor variations or deficiencies; however, minor variations can be waived in accordance with the Districts’ policies. A variation is considered minor if it doesn’t give a competitive advantage or disadvantage of a material nature, such as mistakes in math that can be clearly delineated through unit pricing that can be corrected by the board. Bids and proposals cannot be modified or supplemented after opening.
Ms. Gentry stated the initial chart included in the agenda package has been updated slightly based on information that staff has provided. There were some documents missing in the electronic version of the bids but were present in the hard copy version. Brightview did submit a bid bond, Koehn did submit signature pages and notarizations, and United Land Services had the required narrative description.

Mr. Perry stated the current budget between the three districts is $1,868,000.
Ms. Hammock stated that, based on review of the bids received, there were three categories of deficiencies that the Boards could choose to waive per policy: the first being attendance of the pre-bid meeting which two bidders did not attend;, the second being two proposers did not present resumes of their key management personnel; and the third being three proposers failed to use the proper pricing forms, but the information was elsewhere in the bid documents. Ms. Hammock noted that one bidder filled out the grand total sheet incorrectly so only part 1 pricing was used for year one, however there isn’t enough information in the bid to calculate pricing for years 2, 3, and 4 and that is waivable but recommended a point reduction for completeness of bid.

On MOTION by Mr. Baron seconded by Mr. Cameron with all in favor the minor deficiencies were waived for Rivers Edge I.

On MOTION by Mr. Smith seconded by Mr. Henderson with all in favor the minor deficiencies were waived for Rivers Edge II and III.

Mr. Perry reviewed the summation of costs and the point calculations based on the evaluation criteria.
Points on price:
Brightview 20 points on price Down to Earth 20 points on price Duval Landscape 16 points on price Koehn 12 points on price
United Land Services 16 points VerdeGo 17 points Yellowstone 12 points on price

The supervisors discussed and ranked each proposer on the balance of the evaluation criteria and took the following action.

On MOTION by Mr. Baron seconded by Mr. Cameron with all in favor Rivers Edge CDD ranked the proposals as follows: Yellowstone no. 1 with 73 points, VerdeGo no. 2 with 72 points,
Koehn Outdoor no. 3 with 62 points, Duval Landscape no. 4 with 57 points, United Land Services no. 5 with 55 points, and a tie with Brightview and Down to Earth with 51 points for no. 6 and 7.

On MOTION by Mr. Smith seconded by Mr. Thomas with all in favor Rivers Edge 2 and 3 ranked the proposals as follows: Yellowstone no. 1 with 75 points, VerdeGo no. 2 with 72 points,
Koehn Outdoor no. 3 with 62 points, Duval Landscape no. 4 with 57 points, United Land Services no. 5 with 55 points and Down to Earth and Brightview tied with 51 points.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Proposals	for	Security
Services
The board and staff held a shade session to discuss security pursuant to Sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301, Florida Statutes. Following the conclusion of the shade session, the board and staff returned to the public meeting.
Mr. McIntyre left the meeting at this time.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion	of	Other	FY	2023	Budget
Considerations
Mr. Perry stated most of the major cost drivers were discussed already during the meeting.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Vesta Agreement
Mr. Fagen stated there are three items Vesta presented to the Boards for discussion today, and is proposing an amendment to the existing contract: first is a request for additional maintenance hours; second is a request for additional janitorial hours; and lastly, is a request for an increase of fees related to specific services. When Vesta’s prepared its fee schedule, and in subsequent negotiations for increased fees, we projected 12-16 months out assuming the growth would continue at the rate it was growing at the time, but we have seen astronomical growth here, as well as usage. Mr. Fagen indicated that the increased need is the result of a combination of more people, more rooftops, more usage, along with aging facilities, common areas, infrastructure, and aesthetic features that need maintenance. Vesta sees a need for additional techs and part of Mr. Fagen’s job is to be plugged into the frontline staff and meet Vesta’s standards and the standards and expectations of the boards. Mr. Fagen stated these are the resources Vesta needs.
The increased maintenance hours would be for maintaining the facilities and the common grounds. Mr. Fagen stated that half of the time Vesta employees spend is primarily for cleaning the courts and pools and blowing off the sidewalks.  The janitorial staff Vesta subcontracts to

provide janitorial services are available part time, three times a week and specifically are maintaining the restrooms and cleanliness of the interior of both amenities. Mr. Fagen stated that Vesta sees a need for more manpower in janitorial staff specifically. Lastly, Vesta is requesting an increase in some base fees due to extraordinary market pressures that Vesta is seeing. Mr. Fagen stated that Vesta has to maintain a competitive edge, keeping up with the market and attracting and maintaining good talent. Bottom line, Vesta is requesting about a 9% increase in fees.
Mr. Baron stated when you presented your contract you had an increase of 3.5% for FY 23 and janitorial increased from $31,000 to $34,000 per year. Mr. Baron indicated that he would rather see a request for a percentage increase.
Mr. Perry stated District staff will review the budget and let each board know the percentage increase for FY23 and for this proposed increase.
The board took no action on the proposed increase to the Vesta Agreement. The joint meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman