MINUTES OF MEETING INDIGO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Indigo Community Development District was held Friday, March 27, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. in the Fairfield by Marriott Daytona Beach, 1820 Checkered Flag Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Mark McCommon	Chairman
Kevin Kilian	Vice Chairman
Ron Brown	Assistant Secretary
Ron Byrne	Assistant Secretary

Also Present were:

Jeremy LeBrun	District Manager
Katie Buchanan	District Counsel by telephone
Brett Witte	District Engineer by telephone
Kurt von der Osten	Field Operations Manager
Jamie Rountree	Team Rountree
Daniel Zaremba	Dream Finders Homes by telephone

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

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

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the January 28,
2026 Meeting

On MOTION by Mr. Kilian seconded by Mr. Byrne with all in favor the minutes of the January 28, 2026 meeting were approved as presented.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Amended Lease Agreement
with NST

Mr. LeBrun stated at the last meeting, the board approved that lease agreement to help facilitate getting rid of those floating islands. Counsel reviewed it and was able to get additional wording that further strengthened that commitment from them to make sure that is going to be part of it and those credits will be guaranteed.
Ms. Buchanan stated all of us feel a little more comfortable that the real incentives for you to undertake this process, meaning the extra funding and assistance relating to removing the Beesmats is now in plain sight and written into the agreement and should give us more comfort and stability on the path forward.
Mr. Kilian asked did we ever get a number for the cost to remove the Beesmats? Mr. von der Osten stated no.
Mr. Kilian asked did they get the city and St. Johns approval on it yet? Mr. von der Osten stated I would think not.
Ms. Buchanan stated technically it will be our responsibility and Brett understands that, but they have agreed to offer their assistance where necessary, which is how it is drafted, but they are not going to sign the permit for us, Brett will file it with their assistance. I don’t think we have begun that process pending the approval of this agreement.
Mr. Kilian stated I think we previously agreed to up to $50,000 of the first agreement to accommodate the removal of the mats. Do we have any idea as to whether that would be enough?
Mr. von der Osten stated removal is just pull them straight out. Every time they perform service they pull them out of the water.
Mr. LeBrun stated part of that is the credits will be given to help offset that. It is added protection, counsel has met with the chair and the chair has signed this so we can keep the process going. We are looking to ratify those added protections.

On MOTION by Mr. McCommon seconded by Mr. Kilian with all in favor the amended lease agreement with NST was ratified.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion	of	Engineer’s	Report	and
Development	Agreement	with	Dream Finder’s Homes
Mr. LeBrun stated you have the initial engineer’s report for that new proposed development from Dream Finder’s and Daniel is on the phone to answer any questions.

Ms. Buchanan stated I think it is important to note that Dream Finder’s put this together trying to accomplish what Dream Finder’s took away from the meeting as to what we want. I think the concerns that Brett or Kurt may raise today are things we are looking at as resolvable issues, we just want to have the conversation with Dream Finder’s and we want to get your feedback as well.
Mr. Witte stated most of mine were just in going through the plat in the report and the plans and there seemed to be inconsistencies between the dedications, being dedicated to the HOA, the city or district. Just stuff the needs to be cleaned up. We can go through it item by item but I don’t think it is anything that can’t get cleaned up upon review and revisions.
Ms. Buchanan stated maybe if we go through the report starting on page 37 of my pdf file, the introduction just describes the neighborhood. 265.17 acres and is anticipated to include 348 units. It would include infrastructure like roadways, utilities and stormwater management as well as a community amenity center. It gives an update on where they are with their permitting and what permitting is required. It identifies the benefit with the improvements to be constructed would provide to the district. Dry retention areas and maintenance of stormwater detention area. I think it is proposed here that while the district could potentially pay for the construction of it and would be required to own it if they pay for the construction we own it and the HOA would sign an agreement with the district that it will be responsible for the oversight, funding and operation and maintenance of those ponds going forward. Alternatively, if there is enough project costs elsewhere the district may not be required to fund it all. A lot of this comes down to the numbers meaning that if the size of the bond is low enough that they can be covered some of those offsite improvements that we will discuss later so they don’t need the district to fund any of these other things. If the proposed financing model is more expensive than the cost of Dunn Avenue for things that would come over to the district they would look for a partnership with the district on the district’s owning these improvements, thus making them eligible for financing but understanding that the HOA will also be responsible for the operation and maintenance of those things, except for the amenity. There is no concept of the CDD taking ownership of the amenity, because that was always anticipated to be private.
Mr. Zaremba stated you summed it up pretty well. Our goal is to not burden the CDD with any additional operations and maintenance costs and take that to the HOA as much as possible. As previously mentioned, we found some inconsistencies between the plat and civil plans, but I

think that is something we can work through as we work through any civil plan modifications or plat modifications that are needed. The biggest things are the roadways being owned by the county or city and HOA managing the maintenance of the other systems. We don’t want to necessarily put any maintenance costs back into the district if possible. Our goal is to get approval so we can issue bonds to make our development a little nicer and help us out financially.
Mr. Kilian asked what is the CDD’s exposure?
Ms. Buchanan stated at the end of the day if the district funds and takes ownership of an improvement then ultimately the district will be required to maintain it if someone is failing to perform their contractual obligations. The district does not provide any other guarantee from a financial standpoint to bondholders. The bonds are secured by special assessments, which are secured only by the lands which they encumber. The district’s general fund account money is safe and other property owners are protected.
Mr. McCommon stated Kurt brought up the dry retention areas and the look of the retention areas we have had elsewhere. I know there are dry retention areas now that were originally weren’t there but I think we were told at the last meeting that there were going to be and they would be laid out. Kurt, have you looked at these in terms of where they are located and what will be the visual part of it. That was the concern brought up at the last meeting.
Mr. von der Osten stated there are five dry retention areas in this proposed subdivision, similar to Preserve Phase B. It is going to be a problem for the association in this instance because everything is being conveyed and the maintenance responsibility would be the HOA not the CDD, but it is still a problem for the neighborhood. It is very unsightly and they do not function very well. I want to convey that concern to Dream Finder’s that they are going to run into some headaches.
Mr. Kilian asked from an aesthetic standpoint is there a way they could put vinyl fencing or something that blocks the view of it from the roads or wherever else. It is the HOA and not our problem, but we hear the complaints.
Mr. von der Osten stated if we decide the CDD to assist in maintaining the lakes like we do in other communities we would now be on the hook and those areas do require special treatment. You treat those very different than your typical stormwater area. I’m not sure that Dream Finder’s is aware that the district does assist with those stormwater lakes. Vinyl fences are not allowed.

Mr. McCommon asked does Dream Finder’s have any history on mitigation or aesthetic improvement on these dry retention areas?
Mr. Zaremba stated I’m not aware of any other scenario that we have at the moment with dry retention areas. My understanding is this is more of a Central Florida thing. I’m sure we can put a fence around it if there is a concern.
Mr. Kilian stated as far as the CDD board is concerned it is somewhat irrelevant if we are not responsible for it, but when your homeowners come in and have issues of the unsightliness of them and the fact there are five of them.
Mr. von der Osten stated you just don’t place them in prominent locations.
Mr. Zaremba stated our goal is to build and sell homes. We want to help the potential buyer as much as we can so I’m happy to put a fence around those if there is a concern.
Mr. von der Osten stated I can forward some pictures so he knows what is going on. Mr. McCommon asked what exactly are we approving today?
Ms. Buchanan stated essentially if you are comfortable with the report then you would approve of us going ahead and finalizing the developer agreement that you saw at your last board meeting. It goes through and identifies and incorporates their report that is the agreed upon plan, the district then agrees to issue bonds to support that plan and the developer agrees to either acknowledge that any costs related to the neighborhood that are assessed would be assessed just on their particular neighborhood or they make alternate arrangements to remove those costs out of the fees rather than funding them directly by the HOA.
Mr. McCommon asked what is your feeling as it sits?
Ms. Buchanan stated I don’t have any legal concerns. You have the ability to support this bond issuance but you don’t have any assets that would directly be impacted by the issuance or any potential default that came from it. I think the question for your practical consideration is, do you feel comfortable with what is being proposed and by that I mean do you feel a little bit more like you understand things and feel like you have a better sense of what improvements are being proposed, perhaps compared to what we did at the Preserve. These CDDs are designed to provide payment for infrastructure; that is their purpose.
Mr. von der Osten asked do we know if this is going to be part of the master association? Ms. Buchanan stated I do not know.

Mr. McCommon stated I think the last time one of the gentleman from Dream Finder’s was here he expressed an interest in ensuring continuity between the neighborhoods and they would do whatever was necessary aesthetically and monument sign-wise and I think if we make part of the contingency that they are part of that master association that would assure some of the continuity. Ms. Buchanan asked do we have the ability to confirm they will be accepted by the master association if you want to add that as a condition? We don’t control that board and they would
have to approve that change.
Mr. von der Osten stated all the surrounding neighborhoods are part of the master association. It would require a supplemental filing, that way it is committed to the master association and part of the LPGA International Community. As we see in Timber Creek that is not part of the master association we have no say about any maintenance issues being taken care of or architectural consistency with the community. We have no say over that because it is not enjoined by all the supplemental declarations. Being a part of the CDD it seems logical that they be part of the master association and sub-association, just like all the other neighborhoods that we have. The fee per house is $80 a year.
Mr. McCommon asked Brett, what is your thought on that?
Mr. Zaremba asked are all the communities part of the master association? Mr. von der Osten stated yes.
Mr. Zaremba stated I think that is fine, our intention would be to join the master HOA. I assume there are ARB approvals required. I would have to dig in a little bit to the master association documents but I think we would be fine with the contingency that we join the master association.
Ms. Buchanan stated assuming that wouldn’t work just because I want to be clear on the conversation, whether you join or not I believe you have committed to colors and other conditions that would be imposed. You are matching the esthetics.
Mr. Zaremba stated right.
Mr. McCommon stated I may be misunderstanding this but every development within LPGA is part of the master.
Mr. von der Osten stated yes.
Mr. McCommon stated it has to be done. I don’t think we can allow them not to be part of the master.

Ms. Buchanan stated maybe I’m not understanding but typically those documents are recorded against the property so that already exists. Is that not how it works here?
Mr. von der Osten stated no, in this particular section of the district, the southwest quadrant much of that land was never committed to the master association. As each parcel was developed a document was recorded that would commit the neighborhood to the association. I don’t believe this section ever was. We would need to research it or see if it is on the title work but an instance of Lennar and the Preserve there is a 2-page supplemental document recorded that committed them to the covenants and restrictions of the master association. My understanding is the INA Parcel is under the same conditions, that it would need the same document filed to be a member of the association. That is all we are asking here. The requirements of the association are really minimal, the sub-association basically runs the neighborhood. It does need to have an agreement that that one document would be filed.
Mr. Kilian stated I think that needs to be a requirement, I don’t think it is up to them to decide. I don’t think we should be allowing Dream Finder’s to determine whether they join or not join. Everyone else is part of it, I think it needs to be consistent. That has to be part of the deal.
Ms. Buchanan stated I have a little heartburn because that is not the districts legal responsibility or authority to enforce. We have nothing under Chapter 190 that allows us to consider community appearance or things like that in our decision. I’m not saying we can’t try to get that commitment from Dream Finder’s but I want to be cautious about limiting our documents to what we have control over so that is things like signage and landscaping and not individual landscaping on lots but the landscaping in connection with signing and streets. We don’t have authority to regulate things that happen within the four corners of the lots.
Mr. McCommon asked can Daniel have the understanding that our expectation is that they will be a part of the master?
Ms. Buchanan stated sure. We can certainly limit it too, this is all our expectations.
Mr. von der Osten stated I can share the documents with Daniel. I guess with this bond offering Dunn Avenue extension is included. As far as the Dunn Avenue right of way there is really no landscaping in the right of way that the CDD would be responsible for or signage.
Ms. Buchanan stated we got distracted but why don’t we finish going through the engineer’s report because we talked about the stormwater ponds but the next big item on the engineer’s report is the Dunn Avenue improvements and that is an extension of water sewer and

right of way that while the district could fund assuming it is required by the city, county or state as part of the development obligations associated with the project. It doesn’t seem like the district would have long term maintenance responsibility connected with it. That would be turned over if I’m not mistaken.
Mr. Zaremba stated my understanding is that we would build Dunn Avenue extension, the county will own it as well as the maintenance obligation of it. We also have the right in the right of way capacity reservation agreement to put in enhanced landscaping as long as we maintain responsibility for maintenance of it.
Ms. Buchanan stated after Dunn Avenue there was signage and it says the design theme will be coordinated with the CDD to make sure it maintains cohesive and consistent appearance throughout the community and conform with local regulations. We can add local regulations and relevant community guidelines. I wanted us to walk through the whole report. If you have any questions about the project now is the time. The ownership and maintenance chart contemplates that the district would have minimal ownership. We will probably change the master stormwater to CDD-HOA just to allow for the concept if it is necessary for the CDD to construct it from a funding perspective, it is authorized but the HOA would likely be the maintenance entity for it. That chart goes through and gives a better sense of how things shake out. Other than stormwater, do we have other costs for right of way?
Mr. Zaremba stated my understanding of the capital improvement plan that comes subsequent to this, we are in the planning phase right now. We are in the investigative period.
Ms. Buchanan stated just to recap, Daniel came to the last meeting and asked for an agreement in concept and my opinion is you gave that to him but you wanted more information so we brought back this report to give you some comfort on their plans and now I think you let us know how you feel about it. Does this give you the comfort that you need, that you understand what the partnership would entail.
Mr. McCommon stated I am. Mr. Kilian stated I think so.
Mr. von der Osten stated while there is no upgraded landscaping in the right of way for the CDD to maintain, that could change but there is a 50-foot landscape buffer on each side of Dunn Avenue extension, Dunn Avenue and the back of the neighborhood and it is not a natural buffer it is a landscape buffer that is the responsibility of the HOA. It would not be like other areas we

know that just a natural buffer was left, there is some landscaping on HOA property just outside the Dunn Avenue right of way on both sides.
Mr. Zaremba stated we are looking to do some enhanced landscaping plans potentially all the way to LPGA, nothing has been done.
Mr. LeBrun asked is there a specific action or motion you are looking for?
Ms. Buchanan stated I think a motion to authorize the development agreement incorporating the engineer’s plan with any revisions discussed today and delegate final authority to the chairman to execute that development agreement.

On MOTION by Mr. Kilian seconded by Mr. Byrne with all in favor the development agreement incorporating the engineer’s report with any revisions discussed today was approved and the chairman was authorized to execute the final agreement.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
District Counsel
Ms. Buchanan stated the sovereign immunity cap did increase this year and we are waiting to see if that has any impact on your annual insurance premium. There was a bill passed which allows for a committee of residents within a CDD to work with the supervisor of elections and ultimately undergo a complex process to remove board members for very specific reasons. It is not an easy process but it is something that could happen.

District Engineer
There being none, the next item followed.

District Manager
Mr. LeBrun stated at the May meeting we will bring the proposed budget.

Field Operational Manager
Mr. von der Osten stated we have been taking action on the Jubilee lakes on the CDD side. We did some clearing to create better access for spray treatment and we did proceed with the

backpack, walking, hand spraying. Ideally this will take care if any issues. We did nothing on the HOA side.
Lennar is still completing the punch list they have from Brett in the Preserve Phase B. My last conversation with Lennar was they had retained a contractor to work on the punch list items.
I have a proposal from Team Rountree, one for the palms on Tournament Drive to remove the ones that are dead or destroyed by the storm, but they would be replaced with a shorter version and it is for 8 palms for $6,100. Included in this is pressure washing the sidewalks, where we have mildew and mold problems for $4,750.
Mr. LeBrun stated we have a line item in the budget for pressure washing for $10,000. We are over the landscape contingency line item, we are under other lines such as repairs and we are trending $8,000 to the good on the repair side and underspent in other line items as well.

On MOTION by Mr. Kilian seconded by Mr. McCommon with all in favor the two proposals from Team Rountree were approved as outlined.

Mr. Rountree stated three years ago we stared a soil amendment and sod replacement program. We are currently at the end this fiscal year. I wanted to get it on the radar to renew as part of the new budget before budget season got here. I will get with the supplier to find out if there is a significant change in cost. We have not on the sod but with sulfur being a fertilizer product that could have gone up.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Financial Statements as of September 30, 2025
A copy of the financials was included in the agenda package.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Check Register

On MOTION by Mr. Brown seconded by Mr. Byrne with all in favor the check register was approved.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business
There being none, the next item followed.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisors Requests and Public Comments
Mr. Kilian stated driving into the neighborhood at the main entrance the right-hand fountain grate was sitting off to the side.
Mr. Rountree stated it takes two people and he didn’t have the help so he had to wait until the helper got here.
Mr. Shackleford stated we have signage that is up, one between Phase A and Phase B for the site work contractor. It is a rather large sign advertising his company. He is not working there and it is still sitting there on CDD property.
Mr. von der Osten stated we can request that he remove it. They are finished with construction.
Mr. Shackleford asked is the right of way between the two phases, is that CDD property?
Ther are Lennar flags that are up everywhere. When do they have to come down?
Mr. von der Osten stated they have rights in their agreements and declarations as far as sales ability and basically he is selling out they can have the flags up.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Scheduled Meeting – Wednesday, May
20, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. at the Fairfield by Marriott Daytona Beach, 1820 Checkered Flag Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Florida
Mr. LeBrun stated the next scheduled meeting is May 20, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. in the same location.

On MOTION by Mr. McCommon seconded by Mr. Brown with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 1:56 p.m.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman