MINUTES OF MEETING BRADBURY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Bradbury Community Development District was held on Thursday, June 25, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. at the Offices of PRIME Community Management, 375 Avenue A SE, Winter Haven, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum:

Bobbie Shockley	Chairperson
Lindsey Roden by Zoom	Vice Chairperson
Jessica Spencer	Assistant Secretary
Kristin Cassidy	Assistant Secretary Also present were:
Jill Burns	District Manager, GMS
Roy Van Wyk	District Counsel, Kilinski Van Wyk Megan Birnholz-Couture by Zoom	District Counsel, Kilinski Van Wyk Chace Arrington by Zoom	District Engineer, Dewberry
Joey Duncan by Zoom	District Engineer, Dewberry
Joel Blanco	Field Manager, GMS
Matt Fisher	Field Manager, GMS
Christine Wells	District Manager, GMS

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Ms. Burns called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. and called roll. Three Supervisors were in attendance in-person constituting a quorum, and one Supervisor attended via Zoom

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment Period
There were no members of the public present and no members joining via Zoom.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the April 23, 2026
Board of Supervisors Meeting
Ms. Burns presented the minutes from the April 23, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting and asked for any questions, comments, or corrections. The Board made no changes to the minutes.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, the Minutes of the April 23, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting, were approved.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion Regarding Policy for Pavilion Area
at Amenity Center
Ms. Burns opened the discussion regarding a policy for the pavilion area at the amenity facility and stated that Board feedback was needed because the pavilion had been added after the existing amenity rules were adopted. She explained that the area includes a counter setup and covered pavilion, and residents had already used the space while bringing in more guests than permitted under the current guest policy. She noted that the pavilion is not fenced, locked, staffed, or separately controlled by card access, so the District does not currently have a practical way to restrict the area, reserve it, or enforce exclusive use. She outlined possible options, including allowing food in the area, installing fencing and access controls if rentals were desired, or leaving the space open on a first-come, first-served basis while continuing to prohibit events that exceed guest limits.
Ms. Burns continued by explaining that the pavilion gives the impression that it may be used for events, but because it is tied to the pool deck, guest-limit concerns apply. She stated that although the District could theoretically allow the pavilion to be rented, the lack of staffing and access control would make enforcement difficult. She explained that if residents paid to reserve the area and bring additional guests, there would be no reliable way to remove others or control access as there would be with a rental room that uses card access or a code. She stated that the District could leave the area as it is and continue to say events are not permitted, while allowing residents to use it on a first-come, first-served basis if they remain within the household guest limit.
A Board member suggested that the District could post a maximum number of people for the pavilion area and issue violations or fines if residents exceeded the limit. Ms. Burns responded that violations could be handled as amenity violations through warning letters but reiterated that the new pavilion area may have created confusion because residents may think birthday parties or similar events are allowed even though the rules do not permit them. She expressed concern that residents may question why the pavilion exists if it cannot be used for events. She noted that residents had asked whether they could bring food or plug-in cooking equipment, such as an

electric grill, and stated that residents had already been told open flames and barbecues were not allowed.
A Board member asked how parties would be handled and stated that the pavilion appears to look like a space where a party could be held. Ms. Burns responded that the issue is not merely whether the space looks suitable for a gathering, but that it is not reservable, and multiple residents could show up on the same day expecting to use it. She explained that if the District charged a rental fee, there would need to be someone present to verify the reservation and enforce use of the space. She stated that, if the Board wanted to use the pavilion as a rental area, the recommendation would be to install fencing and key-card access; otherwise, the area should remain open on a first-come, first-served basis with guest limits still applying because it remains part of the pool area.
The Board asked whether written restrictions or signs might deter improper use, even if enforcement would be difficult. Ms. Burns suggested adding a pavilion section to the policy stating that the pavilion is available to residents on a first-come, first-served basis, that guest limits always apply, and that the area is not reservable for parties but is available for resident use.
Mr. Van Wyk asked whether the change should be considered a policy or a rule and noted that, if the pavilion is a large, shared amenity, the District should ensure all residents can use it rather than allowing one group to exclude others.
Ms. Burns responded that the current rules do not include the pavilion because the area did not exist when the rules were adopted. She also described a prior incident in which residents used the pavilion for what appeared to be a baby shower or gender reveal, brought decorations, cleaned up afterward, but appeared to have more guests than allowed. She explained that no violation was sent because the policy was not clear and stated that clearer guidance was needed.
The Board and staff discussed how staffing would work if residents wanted to rent the pavilion and the potential that residents could pay a fee to have the area staffed if they wanted to rent it. Ms. Burns responded that staffing or security could potentially be required if the area were rented, particularly if security was already present at certain times. The Board suggested a lifeguard or similar authority figure might be needed if parties were allowed, especially because children would likely be present.
Ms. Burns confirmed that the limit applies per household and stated that each household is allowed up to four guests. She explained that bringing a few relatives would be permitted, but bringing 15 to 20 additional people for a child’s birthday party would not be allowed. She stated

that the guest limit exists because of pool capacity concerns, and allowing several households to host parties at the same time could result in an excessive number of people at the pool.
Mr. Van Wyk stated that the District should add pavilion language to the existing policies and indicated that this was the appropriate approach. Ms. Burns agreed and stated that the policy should clarify that food is allowed in the pavilion area, the area is available for resident use, guest limits and all other amenity rules apply, speakers are not allowed, and the space is not reservable. She stated that these restrictions would address the main concerns about party-style setups.
Mr. Van Wyk confirmed that no hearing would be required if the change was only a policy matter. He clarified that the area would be referred to as a pavilion or picnic area. Ms. Burns agreed and noted that similar policies may also be needed for other communities with comparable pavilion or picnic areas, including Hamilton Bluff, Wynnstone, Eden Hills, and Cascades. She explained that freestanding pavilions not connected to a pool deck may be treated differently because they do not raise the same pool-capacity concerns. She stated that those areas are generally open for resident use on a first-come, first-served basis, are not reservable, and residents may use them for gatherings as long as they do not restrict others from using the shared space. She concluded that written policies would be brought forward for similar locations, specifically noting Cascades and Wynnstone.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, Direction for Staff to Add Policies as Outlined, was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Presentation of Arbitrage Rebate Report for
Series 2023 Project Bonds
Ms. Burns stated that the next agenda item was the presentation of the arbitrage rebate report for the Series 2023 project bonds. She explained that page 4 of the report showed a negative arbitrage amount and advised that the District is required under the Internal Revenue Code to demonstrate that it does not earn more interest than it pays on the bonds. She stated that if the District did earn more interest than it paid, tax liabilities could result. She noted that the report confirmed the District did not have those tax liabilities and indicated that the item was being presented for acceptance by motion.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, Accepting the Arbitrage Rebate Report for Series 2023 Project Bonds, was approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Ratification of Amended Pool Maintenance
Services Agreement
Ms. Burns presented the ratification of the amended pool maintenance services agreement. She explained that the amendment was for a $50 per month fuel surcharge that would remain in effect through the end of the current fiscal year.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, the Amended Pool Maintenance Services Agreement, was ratified.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Ratification of Plant Replacement Agreement
Additional Services Order (ASO)
Ms. Burns stated that the Board was considering ratification of a plant replacement agreement and additional services order. She explained that the agreement related to plants damaged during the freeze. She reminded the Board that, at the prior meeting, the original replacement quote exceeded the budget, so the Board directed the field team to revise the scope by narrowing the work to high-visibility areas and removing some plants so the project would stay within budget. She stated that the revised work was completed, the Chair authorized the amount outside of the meeting so the planting could move forward, and the Board was now being asked to ratify the service order.

On MOTION by Ms. Spencer, seconded by Ms. Shockley, with all in favor, the Plant Replacement Agreement Additional Services Order (ASO), was ratified.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
There being no comments, the next item followed.

Engineer
There being no comments, the next item followed.

Field Manager’s Report
Presentation of Letter from Landscape Maintenance Vendor (Prince and Sons) Regarding Fuel Charge Invoicing
Mr. Blanco reported that the foxtail palms previously approved outside of the meeting had been installed inside the amenity area, and that the approved entrance plantings were scheduled to be installed before July 4. He stated that the shaded pavilion area had been completed, with surrounding landscaping still pending, and several minor areas had been serviced before the summer rains through the removal of trash and vegetation. He noted that the dry ponds were being monitored, the Phase 2 walking plantings had recovered and looked good, and trimming around certain minor areas was being explored. He asked whether the Board wanted signage for the pavilion and suggested simple signs stating that food should remain in the pavilion area, parties are not allowed, and the pavilion is available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Ms. Burns agreed that signage should probably be installed and clarified that the signs should state that the pavilion is not reservable and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. She directed Mr. Blanco to prepare a mock-up of the proposed signage and send it over for review so the matter could move forward.
Mr. Van Wyk stated that a sign should be placed at the pavilion, supporting the recommendation to add signage to clarify the rules for residents. Mr. Blanco added that the Board also needed to consider a fuel surcharge for Prince and Sons. He explained that the surcharge was standard and consistent with those used in other districts, and that it would remain in effect through the end of the fiscal year.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, the Letter from Landscape Maintenance Vendor (Prince and Sons) Regarding Fuel Charge Invoicing, was approved.

District Manager’s Report
Approval of Check Register
Ms. Burns presented the check register which is included in the agenda package for review.
She offered to answer any questions on the invoices.

On MOTION by Ms. Shockley, seconded by Ms. Spencer, with all in favor, the Check Register, was approved.

Balance Sheet & Income Statement
Ms. Burns noted the financial statements are included in the agenda package for review through the month of May. There is no action necessary.

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

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor’s	Requests	and	Audience
Comments
There being no comments, the next item followed.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

Secretary/Assistant Secretary

Ms. Burns asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

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

Chairman/Vice Chairman