MINUTES OF MEETING REUNION WEST
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Reunion West Community Development District was held on Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. at Heritage Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, FL.

Present and constituting a quorum:

Mark Greenstein David Burman
Sharon Harley by phone
Graham Staley Michael Mancke

Also present were:

Tricia Adams Kristen Trucco Steve Boyd Alan Scheerer Victor Vargas Clif Tate Conroy Jacobs Mike Smith

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS

Chairman
Vice Chairman Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

District Manager District Counsel
Boyd Civil Engineering Field Operations Manager Reunion Security KimleyHom
Osceola County Transportation Yellowstone

Roll Call

Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. and called the roll. Five Board members were in attendance constituting a quorum.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment Period
Ms. Adams: Board members, we are expecting staff from Kimley-Hom to be here today. They are going to be doing a presentation on the Sinclair Road extension road improvement project. That item is scheduled as number 12 on your agenda today. They will be here in a half hour and will be setting up for their presentation while the meeting is in progress. Board members, just so you are aware, the Reunion East Board members have been notified about that road project presentation. That meeting time has been noticed as a workshop for Reunion East CDD so that

they can come in, participate, ask questions, and we don't have to be concerned about violations of Sunshine Law since that has been noticed as a workshop with a 7-day notice. I just wanted to make you aware of those items before we get started. Mr. Chairman, would you like for me to open the public comment period?
Mr. Greenstein: Yes, please.
Ms. Adams: We do have a public comment period scheduled on the agenda. This is an opportunity for any members of the public to make a comment regarding anything that is scheduled to be discussed today or even anything that is not on the agenda. Would any members of the public like to address the Board? If you could please state your frrst and last name as well as your address for the record.
David Glasser (917 Desert Mountain Court): I have four or five points. Do you want me to go over them all?
Ms. Adams: This is a time for public comments to the Board of Supervisors. It is not a question-and-answer session, but often times your questions will be answered during the course of Board business.
Mr. Glasser: In regards to point 'D' in the agenda, parking violations and vehicles towed. This is an ongoing problem of visitors parking at random, anywhere, day and or night. I have photographs. First of all, I took this at 10:43 this morning. The trees are growing so nicely across the face of the 'no parking' signs. The poles are visible, but the signage is not. I think that is the first thing that needs to be done. The signs need to be readable. My own personal belief is that the signs are too high when people are in their cars and the cars are down low. The signs need to be lower. There are cars that park across the sidewalk constantly. Not only do they park across the sidewalk, but they park across the sidewalk and halfway into the road. I have photographs of that. I am not sure that the patrol department and the speeds that they travel on the road, are actually watching what goes on. I would ask that the staff makes sure they don't travel at those speeds and that they look at what is going on. The reason why I say that is each month of the year for the last two years, our water bill has been between $50 and $52 a month. With the exception of May of last year, it was $755 and the year before was $550. We happened to be in South Africa during those two months. May of this year and May of last year. I have a photograph on here from my camera that I took the other day of a subcontractor working on the property 916 Desert Mountain, next to us, enjoying the fruits of the neighbor's water on that side of the property that they were working on. Again, it is all part of how one manages the freedom that these subcontractors have.

The only people that have any say in the matter must be the patrol because if a homeowner goes to interfere, it seems to develop into a bit of a fight. I would like to raise the issue about additional dumpster facilities. I must tell you, the house next to us, which has not been particularly heavily occupied, seems each week to have five or six bags of trash. I have stopped picking up stuff in the neighborhood. Next to us, everybody is using the dumpster next to it to throw their paper plates, their food, and their wrappings. It is a pigsty. It is not only the dumpster. It is how people manage those people working. We have nine houses going up on our street at the moment. If you know what the traffic is like and you know what the volume of people is like, particularly the guy who drives that little front-end loader, it is quite ridiculous. The trash is mounting in the street. The trash is an ongoing and large problem. The proposals from Yellowstone on the Sinclair Gate tree installation, as you drive into Reunion in the resident's portion, the keyhole is on your left­ hand side. Right underneath that is a hedge that protrudes into the road. In order to not scratch your car you have to drive further away and really stretch out to get to that card reader. I am asking Yellowstone, or if somebody can ask Yellowstone please, to trim that hedge back so it does not scratch your car as you drive through. Those are the points that I brought.
Ms. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Glasser. Are there any other members of the public who would like to make a statement to the Board? Seeing none, we will move onto the next item. Board members, for today's meeting we have moved the agenda a little bit compared to what you are accustomed to seeing. Staff reports have been moved up in order to accommodate the Kimley­ Hom presentation and the attendance by the Reunion East Board members.

TIDRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Presentation of Memorandum on Wastewater Services and Stormwater Management (Added)
Ms. Adams: Under staff reports, our first staff report is from Kristen.
Ms. Trucco: Thanks, Tricia. Good morning, Board of Supervisors. What I have to report today and present to you all is the memorandum that was included in your updated agenda.
Ms. Adams: Yes. Under Tab A.
Ms. Trucco: Perfect. It is under Tab A. This involves a new law that was enacted and went into effect July 1st of this year. It requires all cities, counties, and special Districts, which would include the COD to prepare a need analysis report, which includes a 20-year projection regarding our wastewater systems and our storm water system as well. We have compiled this memo,

attached to it is the actual bill and the corresponding statute. Our recommendation after speaking to a couple of our District engineers, is that we're recommending that the Board directs Steve and his team to take a look at these requirements and prepare for the Board hopefully sometime before January 1st a proposal detailing the cost to prepare the report and also GMS may need to work in conjunction with them to provide some reports and information docwnents regarding those systems that we can complete these reports. GMS may also incur additional costs. Our direction is to ask GMS and Steve and his team to come up with proposals to bring back to the Board for the Board to formally approve them. We are not up against a deadline. This report's due with the county June 30th of 2022, but we want to make you aware of it as quickly as possible and give Steve enough time to take a look at the requirements. I've provided this memorandwn to him right now and give him an opportunity if he needs outside vendors or something like that to assist in preparing the report for the District. Hopefully, he'll be in a position to let us know before January 1st, we're thinking, so that we can get ahead of the deadline here to submit it to the county. That would be our recommendation regarding this new law and if you have any questions, I can try to answer them now. Otherwise, that is about my only report for this Board. We've been working with Alan regarding the gas utility easement and he's had a pre-construction meeting with their team. I believe he'll probably give you an update.
Ms. Adams: We have it on the action item.
Ms. Trucco: We will just wait for that then. That's moving along well. That's my only report for the Board. There are no other legal updates, which is good news.
Ms. Adams: Any questions for Kristen?
Mr. Greenstein: I'll just make a comment that since it's something that is affecting all special Districts, I would think that with GMS having as many CDDs as they have, there could be, hopefully, a sharing of ideas, a uniform approach to the exercise. If there's anything tied into an insurance aspect then EGIS our insurer, who insures virtually all CDDs in Florida, we hope they would have some input to it so that hopefully it will be done in a very efficient way as we've done in the past when we've had to respond to new legislation. It would be a structured approach and it if there's something unique about a District, fine, you note it, but this should be almost a boilerplate type of plan to address this, so it doesn't become burdensome and costly. There will be costs, there's always cost, but hopefully we can contain them.

Ms. Trucco: You are right. It's required of every single CDD in the state so, hopefully, we'll have a streamlined approach that engineering firms and GMS is taking to prepare these reports.
Mr. Burman: Reunion doesn't deal with wastewater just storm waters when we are talking
about Reunion.
Ms. Trucco: Yes, in particular for Reunion Districts.
Mr. Burman: I was asking the engineer, but hasn't most of the state already? Ms. Trucco: Exactly.
Ms. Adams: It's just compiling it.
Ms. Trucco: That's what other District engineers have said to us. That they actually have many of these items already. I'm not sure if this District specifically does, we will have to wait for Steve.
Mr. Boyd: In this case, there may be some data collection required because the actual system was designed and permitted by Bowyer-Singleton and Associates, which was acquired by Dewberry a few years ago. The principle of the firm is still there with Dewberry and the other sources online we can recover all of the original permits in Water Management District. It's just sometimes with their online record keeping, the right documents aren't put in the right place. There'll be a little bit of data collection involved, but we're confident that we'll be able to collect them together.
Mr. Staley: I have a question, how definite are the bounderies of East and West CDDs?
Could they expand over the next 20 years?
Ms. Adams: A District can expand or contract. That's not expected for Reunion East CDD or for Reunion West CDD. The boundaries are pretty defined and we anticipate them to stay where they are.
Ms. Trucco: We also have a duty to update it every five years to account for potential expansion or contraction of the District.
Ms. Adams: Any other questions for Kristen on the memorandum or any other legal matters the Board would like to discuss? Alright.

Engineer
Ms. Adams: The next is engineer and we have Steve with us this morning.

Mr. Boyd: Thank you. The main item I have is the playground and fitness stations which are later in the agenda so I can defer them to that time.
Ms. Adams: That sounds good. Any questions for Steve at this time? Hearing none we will move to the next item.

District Manager's Report
Action Items List
Ms. Adams: Under District Manager's Report, I do have a couple of notes for the Board. You might have seen some earth being moved around at the Whitemarsh Way cul de sac area. There is some active residential development in that area. We are expecting a re-plat of that area. We've reached out to Kingwood and requested that we do receive a copy of the re-plat so that it can be reviewed by staff prior to being submitted to the county. It will be known as The Cove at Whitemarsh Way, with 22 residential units. I believe that information has been widely understood among residents here at Reunion.
Mr. Staley: That's not true. Based on what I see from social media, I think people are asking questions.
Ms. Adams: It is 22 residential units that are planned at this time. There is no re-plat that has been reviewed or received by the District at this time.
Mr. Staley: That is going to be Kingwood developing those 22, is it? Ms. Adams: Yes. Correct.
Mr. Greenstein: I think that the first "public announcement" about this, was at last month's CDD meeting when it came up in discussion.
Mr. Staley: I had raised it a couple times, yes.
Mr. Greenstein: We knew but officially when they said 22 platted lots, they were talking about, well, I am not going to repeat this again. I now realize where I got the information from. It would be considered hearsay.
Ms. Adams: Well, as a result of Board discussion and Board inquiry I did reach out to Anthony Carll and he's been helpful and communicative. Alan has also been monitoring the construction as it impacts the storm water system. We have received copies of permits and other pertinent data.
Mr. Staley: In general, what does the CDD have to pay for that development in general?

Ms. Adams: The CDD has already laid the infrastructure for the roads and the storm water systems. The actual residential lot development that's on Kingwood, there's no expense that the CDD would potentially incur.
Mr. Staley: Street lights?
Ms. Adams: That could be the case. We'll take a look at that. We'll have to take a look at the plat notes and that will be informative. The other thing I've been meaning to mention for a couple of meetings, we have had some requests from residents who appreciated the time during COVID when the governor allowed for virtual meetings and the CDD was holding meetings via Zoom. They appreciated that because they could attend from remote locations. There's been a request for continued remote access to the meetings. I wanted to make Board members aware that I have spoken to the IT staff here at Reunion. We do not have Wi-Fi service in this building at this time in order to have the Zoom platform, which is simple to facilitate for remote access. It may require some additional expense. I wanted to check in with the Board and determine if you were interested in pursuing that as an option, understanding that there could be additional expense involved. Right now, as it stands for Florida governments, the governments are required to meet in quorum. You have to have three Board members physically present in order to have a meeting. There's no allowance for virtual meetings at this time, but if the Board wants to allow remote or virtual access for members of the public, that's really at the discretion of the Board.
Mr. Staley: I think anything which allows greater participation by owners and residents is welcomed. Absolutely.
Mr. Greenstein: As far as the building goes, the use of facility, it is under an MSA and I would hope we can speak with Kingwood and figure out a plan. Maybe a shared cost or we could see what the amount is.
Ms. Adams: Understood.
Mr. Greenstein: We are not talking about a CapEx item here. In fact they probably have routers laying around. We can put it to use. We really only need to focus on this room.
Ms. Adams: We'll investigate that and see how far we can get, but the key will be to have quality Wi-Fi access in order to have a Zoom meeting that has steady access and is not a negative experience for those who are accessing from a remote location. We'll check into that. Then the next item under District Manager's Report, we're moving to the agenda. Included in your agenda packet under Tab Bis the action item list. This includes the action items for both Reunion East and Reunion West. Moving down to page 4 is where the start of the Reunion West items are. The

first item is the status of the development of the recreational parcels on Grand Traverse Parkway and Valhalla Terrace. Steve has some information and detailed proposals for Board consideration. We'll get to it a little bit later in the agenda. The next item is the encore transition at Reunion West. We are still working through a few situations at that property. One of the things that you'll see a little bit later on in the agenda is the proposed security amendment and that's related to the fair share of expense for Encore households and we'll lay that out compared to what other areas of Reunion are paying through the CDD for security services. We'll talk through that. Next for the refunding of the 2004-1 special assessment bonds, we had tentatively scheduled to kick off the process for the bond refunding at your November 11th meeting. I believe I heard from two Board members yesterday that it's possible that the HOA has scheduled an annual meeting that has a direct conflict with your November 11th meeting, so before we adjourn today, we'll talk about if we want to reschedule the November meeting or how we want to handle that and if we want to delay the kick-off for the bond refunding to your December meeting. That's an option as well. The parking rules for Encore Reunion West, those rules have been adopted, but the signage has not yet been installed. We're getting feedback from security regarding the current situation as well as the POA manager for that vicinity. There is a note in here, and this is not a CDD matter per se, but staff has been asked to just keep this on that action item list which is monitoring the elevation development which is nearby Reunion. I believe this is that development that is almost parallel with Grand Traverse Parkway. There is an application for high density residential housing under review with Osceola County, I did include the permit information if any Board members would like to see detail on that proposed development and the status with Osceola County. The Sinclair gate has been an ongoing priority for the Board of Supervisors to get better flow of traffic at that location. I believe that our District engineer is in consistent communication with Osceola County regarding a possible permanent maintenance of traffic on Sinclair Road for emergency situations. In the meantime, on District property, there's been additional traffic control devices such as traffic cones and additional signage, with the goal being to sequester visitor traffic into the visitor lane, and resident traffic into resident lane in order to expedite traffic to the best extent possible. Since your last meeting, the permanent sign that is installed as you turn the curve has been relocated. Alan relocated that. Do you have any remarks regarding signage?
Mr. Scheerer: We relocated then we increased the temporary signage to a larger sign, a larger font and a reflective material, and we placed those in strategic locations coming in off of

Sinclair and Tradition Boulevard, I would have to defer the securities as to whether or not those traffic measures have improved.
Mr. Greenstein: We had talked about the additional signs, the minis. Mr. Scheerer: Yeah, those were in place.
Mr. Greenstein: Because at night, no one's going to see them. Mr. Scheerer: They are reflective now.
Mr. Greenstein: They are reflective? Mr. Scheerer: Yes.
Mr. Greenstein: I'll have to give it a night vision test. Mr. Scheerer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Greenstein: Okay.
Mr. Scheerer: We have increased size of the signs from the standard sized sign, to a much larger sign and it's all made out of reflective material.
Mr. Greenstein: I'm just curious, when was that change made? Ms. Adams: A couple of weeks ago, maybe.
Mr. Scheerer: Two, three weeks ago.
Mr. Greenstein: That was during a period of time that I didn't know what was going on.
I'll go back and check.
Mr. Scheerer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Greenstein: Thank you. Mr. Scheerer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Staley: Is there anything else we should be doing? Because this is only a temporary solution. Can it stand the test of time, what we're doing at the moment?
Mr. Scheerer: I would refer to Victor on that. Obviously, with whatever is going to go on at Sinclair we're hoping for that extension. There may be some impacts on that. That's not our property which is why we have the temporary signage. The property that we do own on Tradition is why we moved the actual permanent sign a lot closer. The only thing that may help out is if the county allows us to create two lanes at the turn immediately, but with the cross hatching in that location, we were told by the county that we had to have that. I think it's good because it gives people a chance to get acclimated before they have to split. I'm not seeing any issues personally, but Victor will have to speak to the flow of traffic, I don't know if there's anything more permanent that we can do on Sinclair Road, as we don't own the road unless we get permission

from county. We will have to see how that road widening project is. If it comes down to one lane, which is great for us, but if they expand that to two lanes, that may pose some challenges for us.
Ms. Adams: Board members, as long as there's consensus on this matter we'll continue to leave the cones in place. If at a future time over the course of the next few months it looks like this is effective and that there's not going to be changes in a nearby roadway that impact us, if the Board wants to transition from the temporary cones to a more permanent installed delineator between the lanes we can come up with some suggestions by working with our District engineer and then can present that to the Board. I would speculate that would be sometime in the next calendar year.
Mr. Greenstein: I think the cones have been effective. I think it pushes people over. We are learning the delineation. Let just see what comes out of the Sinclair Road extension and then we can probably project what our future needs might be.
Ms. Adams: Absolutely. The next item was something that was discussed back at your July meeting and it's been on the action item list for a couple of months. Staff, or Alan, identified several parcels that could be considered. Ultimately, Board members felt that that parcel nearby the Sinclair gate was the one that was most viable. At our last meeting, when David was in attendance, and I believe that was the August meeting, he was going to evaluate on behalf of the Homeowner's Association and communicate with other stakeholders because the role of the District would be to allow a licensing agreement with the HOA or another private entity in order to designate that area as a dumpster area. That's where we are. It's also called out as a separate agenda item, but we can certainly take that information from Supervisor Burman right now.
Mr. Burman: It has just been informal conversations so far, but nobody has been directly opposed to it. It's a budget issue. Obviously, they have to add that to the budget in a big year already. But yeah, there's no opposition to it, ifwe decide to go that route.
Ms. Adams: Did it appear that there was an appetite with the HOA and other private stakeholders to fund the improvements that would be required such as fencing, vegetation, and dumpsters?
Mr. Burman: Depending on the expense, obviously, there's a lot to do there. There's curb cuts and engineering and things that have to be done to make it a proper access to that parcel. It can get very expensive, so, they don't want to make any commitments, because $100,000 is a different a discussion.
Ms. Adams: I think it's a $100,000 discussion.

Mr. Burman: For sure.
Ms. Adams: Yeah. I think we need to calibrate it that way. Is it viable?
Mr. Burman: Yeah. Is that a fair assumption? I didn't want to give any estimates but I knew it was going to be six figures, just not sure how much.
Mr. Mancke: What would the scope include again?
Mr. Burman: We are talking about this parcel by Sinclair gate and you need a way in and another curb cut to get out onto the road. That's another question, will the county even allow such a thing? There's going to be new striping and MOT in that area to get in and out of the parcel, a fence, a big landscaping, but the biggest part is paving and then access.
Mr. Mancke: That's significant yes.
Mr. Greenstein: The Sinclair road extension project is smack dab in the middle of this. I think we really can't evaluate the feasibility of this until we know what to do and we want to construct.
Mr. Burman: One concern a lot of people had was that we can landscape it pretty good, but in the end is going to be a garbage dumpster at the entry to Reunion. Everybody is going to know it is there. Trash is going to blow out that area it's going to be a problem.
Mr. Staley: At the breakfast last week, Anthony Carll mentioned this to us, because he knows how fascinated I am with dumpsters and trash. I'm not sure who is funding it, but he said he was looking to propose to purchase more trash taxis to address the problem Mr. Glasser is talking about, and to tour the neighborhood on a regular basis collecting bin fulls of rubbish that we have lying on the street. That's a good move. But I didn't have chance to ask him where they're going to take it to. Because it has got to go somewhere. I thought it would have to go off site.
Mr. Burman: They take it off site. Mr. Greenstein: They take it off site. Mr. Staley: Not to the dumpsite?
Mr. Burman: No. To the landfill on 17. Ms. Harley: They take it off site.
Ms. Adams: Yes. Supervisor Harley was just saying they take it off site to the dump or landfill.
Mr. Staley: That would be a far better solution than building it next to the entrance gate. I think that this initiative is a good one and we should encourage it.

Mr. Bunn.an: Well, we know that that's a separate discussion. The issue of having a trash taxi that should go around the community and collect trash has been on our agenda for 15 years. The question is, how is it going to get paid for with an HOA expense. So $25 a month basically is what it costs per owner to have that happen. So today there hasn't been any support for that. There just hasn't been, we brought it up numerous times. The overall survey that we got back from owners was that they don't want to pay that. Maybe we're getting to the point where it's necessary that the owners will support it. Maybe we'll try it on a survey, but for at least six times in 15 years, we tried it and everyone said, absolutely not.
Mr. Staley: I've been here fifteen years. Ms. Harley: How much is it? Sorry.
Ms. Adams: How much is it?
Mr. Burman: $25 per month, per homeowner. Ms. Harley: Right.
Mr. Burman: I understand the reason why there's an opposition to equity. Are you going to pay $25 a month when you're not causing a problem? That's the fundamental question, and so that's the question in a community like Reunion, where we're trying to serve all masters. We have people living here, renting here, investing here, vacationing here, seasonally living here. It's going to be a challenge, and so here's the inequity.
Mr. Staley: Obviously, a lot of residents and owners would want the covenants changing
to assess the properties that are rented, not full-time residents. That is what people might be asking for, and I think that's something that you need to consider because changing the covenants is not easy to do.
Mr. Bunn.an: It's not easy to do, but the other problem is you can't create separate classes
of owners that way.
Mr. Staley: That's what I was getting at.
Mr. Bunn.an: I will say that Kingwood is a lot more decisive at what they do. If they decide to do it, they're going to do. Again, I always wanted to get buy-in and that sort of thing. I'm not pointing any fingers at anybody, but if Kingwood decides to make this change, they decide it's worth it, they're probably not even going to survey the owners. They're just going to approve the budget and circulate it.

Mr. Staley: Well, trash is, I would say, one of the top two issues for the community. You've got an HOA general meeting coming up in four weeks' time, it is a great opportunity to present that. There's a possibility. Let's see what happens.
Mr. Greenstein: The other thing we talked about the last meeting, again, which is really a master item, but is tangentially related because as you say, Graham, the trash ends up on our streets, is more frequent pickup. If everyone could get used to the fact that maybe a trash can sitting for an hour or two before the owner gets back or the property manager gets around to putting it out of the way, you're going to see a can for pick up virtually five or six days a week. Right now we have four days a week. We have Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday. So we thought we talked about in our current contract with the county, it was a very insignificant amount per month to add additional pick-ups.
Mr. Staley: It's certainly a combination of both things.
Mr. Greenstein: Yeah, I think anything that we can do from a service angle rather than a facility angle we should employ before we decide that we need additional facilities to handle it, because it's a six-figure project.
Mr. Burman: Both the county and trash taxi option takes it offsite. We don't need a facility for that.
Mr. Staley: We have to push for or should I say support the HOA and Kingwood in that initiative, because I think Desert Mountain is by far the worst road that we have here in Reunion, from my experience, because of all the construction and because of the nature of the properties down there for whatever reason. We have a lot of issues down that street. Mr. Glasser's right. So we've got to try to support whatever the HOA is doing, but I know it's going to be a challenge to get people to buy into it.
Mr. Burman: So one thing that's just happened, it may not be directly related, but the new parcel at Reunion Village along 1-4, the county will not pick up trash there, at least as of today. They want a central facility there. The reason they say is because they declare it as a short-term rental resort, as all Reunions are exactly that. We're negotiating with them now to treat the Reunion village as they treat every place else. But it may also present an opportunity for us to start talking about our greater needs in the broader resort. So that's ongoing right now.
Mr. Staley: I know it's not a solution but this is encouraging conversation. Mr. Greenstein: I think it's a step in the right direction.
Mr. Staley: Yeah.

Ms. Adams: We'll keep this item on the action item list with the hopes that it's solved with Homeowner's Association and with other private stakeholder solutions, but we will continue to monitor the situation regarding the trash in Reunion and that parcel has no immediate use other than being on hold. This is actually a time for Board discussion. This is not a public comment period at this time, but I'll be happy to talk with you after the meeting's over, Mr. Glasser. The next item on the action item list is the five-year R&M capital plan. We are going to be adding a capital project tracking list for fiscal year 2022 to Board member reports that you review each month. Alan and I will be coordinating on that for this current fiscal year, now that the fiscal year is underway. Later on in the agenda, you're going to see a revised agreement presented for consideration regarding Reunion West Property Owners Association, and I'll provide some additional background at the time that that's presented. Then that last item for a Reunion West action items is the monitoring of that TECO gas line that the Board recently approved. TECO's increasing the width of that gas pipe in order to ensure that those who are serviced at the end of the line are getting adequate service. They did have some service issues last winter. They do have an appetite to get the project in and get it going. Their construction manager is in direct communication with Alan. As Kristen said, there's been a pre-con meeting and there is back and forth communication. So when we know the project start date and the anticipated length of the project, we'll be conveying that to residents so that they can be on the lookout for changes and traffic pattern, construction workers, etc., for that whole scope of that project. Do you have any comments on the scope of the project and what areas you see as being most impacted based on your initial meeting?
Mr. Scheerer: Sure. So the construction will start at the end of Palmilla Court and it will actually bore under Tradition Boulevard to the Bear's Den side. Basically from the back of the sidewalk to the curb is where the gas pipes will go.So they're going to directional bore based on my conversations in the field with TECO and the contractor. They're going to directional bore as much as they can. So you'll see what's called a pothole. They will start on one end, bore as much as they can, and it may come up between the sidewalk and the curb, then they have to remove sidewalk panels. Once they do all that, those sidewalk panels will be temporarily poured on the asphalt until the project is complete. This is going to run all the way down to the I-4 bridge. The Bear's Den will have to get in contact with probably Debbie or something that looks like our artificial turf that they have between the sidewalk and curb, will have to come up. The contractor will replace everything and work with prospective owners, like with the artificial turf, how they

have it, and how it goes in. I know Mike was there. He's going to do the locates for all the irrigation. The other pump utilities will be performed on the contract itself. Some the challenges that you can expect to see is where do they stage all this equipment? They're going to look to put it in the road. So we will have to document the conditions of the road. They're going to have the appropriate number of flag persons out there to direct traffic. We do have a center lane and turn lane. I think it's wide enough to accommodate for the most part. One of the concerns I added in the meeting is where they're going to stage equipment, because they have to directional bore under I-4. So the golf course has property on that side of the I-4 bridge. We own the bridge. We have the expense associated with the bridge. So I'm waiting on some additional information on the staging of equipment and how they plan to execute that, and they understand that they may have to engage with Kingwood and the owner of the golf course. I'm just concerned with the fact that we own the bridge and how that may affect us with respect to the bridge. The estimated length of the project is about 5,800 feet of pipe. The contractor tells me he could do approximately 200 feet a day. He's not sure that he can delay the project until after the holidays because there was some pressure concerns, and I think TECO wants to try to do their best to get that under control before the winter months set in. I do not have a construction schedule yet. The contractor hadn't received all the documents from TECO and all the requirements and all the easements and everything he needs. I did talk to him. He's been very responsive, very available anytime I call him, and we have obviously each other's contact information and as soon as I get the information, I'll give it to Tricia who can send it out to the Board and staff. They're looking at an estimate of 35 to 40 days for the project length, and then they'll have to come back and remediate sod and sidewalks and stuff like that.
Mr. Greenstein: Alan, when the pipe gets across I-4 onto the east side, where's it going?
It connects in along I-4?
Mr. Scheerer: It's somewhere on the opposite side ofl-4. I don't have those plans. Mr. Greenstein: Okay so east is not affected by the project.
Mr. Scheerer: I don't believe that the east District will be affected by this project. Like I said, the concern is, you've got all this directional boring equipment. Where are you going to put it? Whose property is it going to be on? Does it affect us? But I don't have that information.
Mr. Greenstein: Obviously, the pipe size and the overall project isn't as big, let's just say, as when they put in Sable Trail along Sinclair Road. It was off the roadway, it was basically in fields and in forested areas, so it didn't really impact traffic. Well, again, as much information as

we can out and provide to folks, and hopefully security can work with and observe what the flag people are doing and how they are controlling traffic to make the impact as minimal as possible on traffic going through there, but it's going to be an issue.
Mr. Scheerer: I will be here as often as necessary to see what's going on. I know Victor's team is very responsive and they will be available as well, but I don't have any further information at this time. The day we had a recon meeting was the contractors first day seeing the site.
Mr. Staley: I have been thinking about this. It's a question for legal. Can we say no to this? Mr. Greenstein: No, I don't think so.
Ms. Adams: You already said yes last month.
Ms. Trucco: In addition, it's for a public purpose and it's with a state agency. If we said no, they could potentially proceed with either a domain claim or condemn the properties.
Mr. Staley: What I understand is this is not for the benefit of Reunion at all. This is to benefit some other community somewhere else. The down the line benefit, as you said, who is down the line? I don't know what down the line means.
Ms. Adams: I believe this is intended to benefit Reunion property owners who utilize the gas service.
Mr. Staley: On the west side? Ms. Adams: Yes.
Mr. Greenstein: Yeah. We've got a bigger pipe coming across through there.
Mr. Staley: So that pipeline goes to the 1-4 and then that puts more gas into the pipes to Grand Traverse section.
Ms. Adams: When Duke initially reached out in January, they indicated that this would benefit the Reunion residents who are receiving gas service and not getting that full pressure.
Mr. Scheerer: So the pressure drop issue that they have been experiencing, they're not getting enough pressure to supply the gas to homes, I don't know which homes within the community, but it's not uncommon to see them upgrade pipes.
Mr. Staley: The last meeting I thought it was a 24-inch pipe. You know how wide the pipe

is?

Mr. Burman: It's four or six inch pipe.
Mr. Scheerer: At the end of Palmilla, which is elevated, they're going to go straight across

the street and then right down between the sidewalk before the 1-4 bridge.
Mr. Staley: I'm sorry, that is a long way.

Mr. Scheerer: It's 5,800 feet.
Mr. Staley: They go underground without digging.
Mr. Scheerer: No, that's not what I said. I said that they're going to have potholes where they have the directional bores. We've got a pipe sticking up either between the sidewalk and the curb or they may have to remove some sidewalk pads so they can't go 5,000 feet all in one direction. They have to go about 200 feet at time is what the contractor told us. So you're going to see potholes throughout Tradition Boulevard between the guard house and the I-4 bridge.
Mr. Staley: So there's a good chance this is going to start before Thanksgiving and go on through Christmas based on what you said.
Mr. Scheerer: It depends on how quickly the gentleman gets his information. I did ask if they can hold off until after the first year. That is TECO's fault.
Ms. Trucco: I can reach out to the attorney this afternoon and express if it's the Board's wishes that they wait until after January for this to start.
Mr. Staley: I'm just concerned that the community was just starting to come back to life again, and people are traveling again to come and see their homes for the first time in two years. They are going to see a hell of a mess, excuse my language. It's going to be a mess.
Ms. Trucco: Yeah.
Mr. Staley: Alan knows what he's talking about. He knows exactly what it's going to look like. There's going to be mud everywhere, it's going to be a disaster.
Ms. Trucco: Yeah, I'll certainly reach out this afternoon for follow-up and express our desire to start after January 1st, if at all possible. Also, just one recommendation, Alan, you have seen where they're proposing to do the construction. Perhaps we could go take some quick photographs before they come out.
Mr. Scheerer: What we'll do is we'll video the entire easement. Ms. Trucco: Great.
Mr. Scheerer: We actually walk the whole thing. Before they get started, I will photo­ document it or video document the current condition prior to the construction and then in all fairness, I've never not seen this work performed and then the repairs restored to alike or a better condition.
Mr. Scheerer: I did request if they could hold off to until January I, but the contractor is going to start within the timeframe unless Kristen can reach out to their legal and say hey, we would rather do this in January.

Mr. Staley: I'd rather do it in June, July to be honest.
Ms. Adams: Well, I think the key is to get it done before the cold weather really sets in because it was the cold weather last year that exacerbated the pressure issues.
Mr. Staley: I don't want to sound concerned but I am concerned.
Ms. Trucco: Understandable and I'll make sure that Tricia also copied on that correspondence too, okay?
Mr. Greenstein: Graham, when this issue first came up, I raised issues relative similar to what you are raising. As far as can we really control this? Can we look for an alternative approach, can we tell them no? They have an easement. They put the line in in the first place. They have basically, in perpetuity, an easement over that property. If they were bad neighbors, if they were bad business, they can just come in there one day and start doing their thing. They are co-operative and they have to control it properly, but I think your proposal to start at January l, and get it done like from January 1 to February 15th or something like that is a lot more palatable than having a dug-up Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Ms. Adams: One other note on the action item list before we go back to the agenda, I skipped over the Duke's street light conversion. They are actively in process of converting those HPS street lights to LED. Residents may see crews in overnight over the course of the next few days but this work is in process at this time. Any questions on the action item list?

Approval of Check Register
Ms. Adams: The next item on the agenda is approval of check register. Included in your agenda packet under Tab C, number two is a summary of your check run from September 1st to September 30th, 2021. The detailed check register is included in your agenda packet. The total amount is a $183,160.80. This item does require a Board action. We're seeking a motion to approve.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Burman, the Check Register, was approved.

Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Ms. Adams: The next item under tab three are your unaudited financials through the month of August. It includes your cash balance sheet as well as a summary of spending compared to pro­ rated budget through the end of August. The fiscal year ended September 30th. Your September

financials will be in the next agenda packet, and that will be a good snapshot of your overall year. You'll see on page two, if you look at your total expenditures, your pro-rated budget is at $1.2 million and your actuals are at $1.1 million so this Board has been doing a good job of controlling expenses. No action is required. Any questions or comments on the August financials?
Mr. Staley: Just one question on page 16 receivables. I meant to ask this before, there is no reference here as to what the outstanding receivables are, it's just showing what we've actually just seen in terms of assessment.
Ms. Adams: So if you look at your budgeted for revenues, your budgeted amount was
$1,297,331. That includes your fees that go to the county as well as discount fees, the collection fees for Osceola County as well as the discount fees. Your actuals are in excess of your budgeted amount, so you're fully collected for the fiscal year. When you see from your general fund after the first of the year, you'll start to see those transfers to the trustee. That's your general fund, the debt service portion of the moneys that were collected from the county, those get transferred to a special account. Then those payments are made on the 1st of November and the 1st of May typically.
Mr. Staley: Could we have next year, perhaps a single line that shows what has still not been paid?
Ms. Adams: Each month we show how much has been collected compared to the budget, and we do keep an eye on that. Typically, you'll see that if there's any taxes that are outstanding in June, Osceola County will sell the tax certificates. We anticipate always and we keep a close eye on this that by July you should be fully collected.
Mr. Staley: Okay. It's more of questions I should be asking in February, March of who has to get paid?
Ms. Adams: There's an incentive for residents and property owners to pay their tax bill early in order to get the biggest discount then I believe it might be March 31st, that's the final time they can pay it without a discount and then they go into a more of a collection mode and those tax certificates eventually go up for sale.
Mr. Staley: So the answer to the question is six months? Okay. Ms. Adams: Yeah.
Mr. Staley: Thanks.
Ms. Adams: You'll start to see revenues start to come in around the end of November, and then December and January are when a bulk of the revenues come in for the fiscal year. That does

include your operations and maintenance assessments as well as debt service. You'll see those big transfers out to the debt service accounts and we monitor the receivables. Any other question, or discussion about your unaudited financials?

Security Report
41 Parking Violations and 2 Vehicles Towed
Ms. Adams: The next item on the agenda is security reports. Transmitted under separate cover to all Board members was information regarding the 41 parking violations and two vehicle towing's that occurred during the month of September. Any questions or comments for security? Our director of security, Victor Vargas, is in attendance at this meeting.
Mr. Staley: If the Chairman agrees I think we ought to let Victor speak on some of Mr.
Glasser's points.
Mr. Greenstein: Exactly.
Ms. Adams: Yeah. Victor, you may have been here at the beginning of the meeting during public comment, there was some questions regarding parking enforcement, perhaps the visiting traffic didn't understand the parking regulations also concerns about people parking over sidewalks. Would you like to speak to some of those concerns and how they can be addressed and if a resident sees something like that what they should do?
Mr. Vargas: Yes. We have officers, their responsibility is to find the owner of the vehicle. If they cannot find the owner, a violation is placed on the vehicle, we use a yellow tag and place it on the vehicle. They're given approximately an hour, an hour and a half. The patrol continues the route, and when they come back if the vehicle is still in the same location, we contact the towing company. The towing company takes approximately 30 minutes and 45 minutes to get onto the property and then the vehicle gets towed. Regarding vehicle blocking the side walk, we put a violation on the vehicle.
Mr. Greenstein: Have you found with the modification to the warning tag where we put the statutory reference on there to show them that they're in violation of state law when they've blocked the sidewalk, that it has had any impact? Do you find we have fewer people blocking sidewalks now than before?
Mr. Vargas: Yes, I have noticed it has gone down. Mr. Greenstein: Okay.

Mr. Burman: You mentioned that you see a violation, you go try and make contact with the owner of the car. How many times does it get resolved before you even get to this violation thing, is it a lot more or fewer or what do you think?
Mr. Vargas: A lot of times it's fewer.
Mr. Staley: What's your policy regarding in-house service vehicles who park alongside the road? As in air conditioning service people or pool cleaning people. Most violations that I see are the people who are here just servicing the home whether it be property management companies or pool companies, what do your people do? It seems that that problem is not getting any better. People are still parking along the side.
Ms. Adams: Supervisor Staley, let me actually check into the actual parking rules that the Board has adopted. I believe there may be some provision for service vehicles. Let me check into the actual rules the way they're written because I seem to recall something regarding the ability of service vehicles while they're servicing a residential property or Reunion property to be parked. Before we move too far into that being perceived as a violation, let me get clarification on that.
Mr. Staley: I think Mr. Glasser raised the point about contractors using water hose spickets on the sides of homes. Again, I'm not sure, that's part of your brief, but I don't know if you can speak to that. Do your officers pay attention to what contractors are doing or not?
Mr. Vargas: Yeah, they do. I mean, a lot of the time they're using your water from your own house. It is better for you all to contact us and address those concerns and we can send somebody to speak to them.
Mr. Staley: Okay, it's an issue when people are not there of course if they are away from home for long periods.
Mr. Vargas: Ifwe notice that in advance, we will try to make contact.
Mr. Staley: I think again I'm supposed to address Mr. Glasser I think we've got to be more in the community coming together to help each other out. See something, say something.
Mr. Burman: So we get reports that the HOA can't control. That's not an HOA issue, but it is for the feature builder program. We get those reports that those builders get fined when they get notice of what happens. They have security deposit, every one of them does, we deduct that fine from their deposit. But as a practical matter, a spicket lock works pretty well. It's not always builders. We've encountered owners, using their neighbor's water as much as builders. So it's good to lock up your outdoor spickets if you can.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the September
9, 2021 Meeting
Ms. Adams: The next item on the agenda is approval of your meeting minutes from September 9th, 2021. A draft of the meeting minutes was included in the agenda packet. I have received some non-substantial corrections from Supervisor Staley. So any of the approval would be subject to incorporation of these corrections.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Staley, with all in favor, the Minutes of the September 9, 2021 Meeting, were approved as amended to include Supervisor corrections.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Agreement with Grau &
Associates to Provide Auditing Services for the Fiscal Year 2021
Ms. Adams: The next item on the agenda is your annual audit. Earlier, the Reunion West Community Development District Board of Supervisors appointed yourselves as an audit committee, you met and initially selected proposal criteria and eventually selected a proposal for audit services. The audit is required for compliance with Florida statutes and the audit committee selected Grau & Associates, which the Board subsequently ratified. There is a proposal for your audit for Fiscal Year 2021 included in your agenda packet right in the middle of page 4, it notes that the fee for the audit will be $7,400. We are seeking a motion to approve.
Mr. Greenstein: I see the clause they have; can we do this? They are basically proposing to locking our fee of $7,500 and $7,600 respectively for 22 and 23 ifwe book them. So what can we legally do?
Ms. Adams: Well, just to be clear, when the audit committee selected Grau & Associates for your audit, it was for a multi-year services and they bid it with the escalating audit fees and then the Board later approved that selection as well. So we have a multi-year agreement, but each year you'll see the engagement letter that's presented from Grau & Associates, and that's in accordance with their initial proposal. So we do anticipate the fee going up by a $100 each year, but every year the Board will actually have to approve the engagement letter. Again, this is a statutory compliance issue. We are required to have an annual independent audit.
Mr. Greenstein: Absolutely.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Staley, with all in favor, the Agreement with Grau and Associates to Provide Auditing Services for the Fiscal Year 2021, was approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Feasibility of Additional
Dumpster	Facilities	(Requested	by Supervisor Staley)
Ms. Adams: We've already discussed item number 6 under your action items list.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Agreement	with
Applied Aquatic Management Inc. for Aquatic Plant Management
Ms. Adams: The next item is consideration of an agreement with Applied Aquatic for Aquatic Plant Management. This Board has seen a service agreement with Applied Aquatic over the course of the past seven or eight years. This is to service the nuisance vegetations on the storm water pond owned by the District. This agreement includes a legal addendum that has been prepared by District counsel in favor of the District. It provides protections for the District, the ability to cancel the agreement with a 30 day without cause. It also includes the new E-Verify language on point number 18 to comply with the E-Verify system that went into law earlier this calendar year. Attached as an exhibit is the service agreement from Applied Aquatic. What's notable about this 12-month agreement is that there is no increase in terms. The total annual cost is just $1,584.
Mr. Staley: Just quick question. Ms. Adams: Sure.
Mr. Staley: What about mosquito control. They don't deal with that, do they? Ms. Adams: No. Is it the county in Osceola County that does mosquito control? Mr. Burman: No, the HOA handles it here.
Mr. Burman: Well they treat the ponds on as needed. They trap larvae count, and they'll put the biscuits, they call biscuits, in there when they find the count type. They're not allowed to spray chemicals; it has to be justified whatever they do.
Ms. Adams: Good question. So we have a motion from Supervisor Burman and a second from Supervisor Greenstein to approve the 12-month agreement with Applied Aquatic. Any further discussion?

On MOTION by Mr. Burman, seconded by Mr. Greenstein, with all in favor, the Agreement with Applied Aquatic Management Inc. for Aquatic Plant Management, was approved.

EIGHTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion of Proposals from Yellowstone
Landscape	for	Sinclair	Gate	Tree Installation
Ms. Adams: The next item, item number 8, is included in your agenda package. This is consideration of different proposals for a landscape enhancement. The Board has a service agreement with Yellowstone to provide landscape services. Alan, Yellowstone, and Supervisor Harley met at the site area and considered different options. As a result of their conversation, Yellowstone prepared several different options for the Board to consider. If you look at tab 8, the first item is a map of the proposed site location on Tradition Boulevard. You'll see there's some areas that are dotted in red. There are several different options for the Board to consider. We organized these from point of view of price point. The least expensive option is the option that is presented first. This is an option for 28 Sabal palms at $23,516. The next option is 28 Magnolia at $31,516. The next option is for Ribbon palms. You'll notice that both the other Palm option and the Ribbon palms where it says eight feet of CT, that's clear trunk. That speaks to the height of the palm. The next option is for 28 oak trees, and that's the most expensive option at $47,516. The next diagram, or the next sheet that you see are photographs of the different options. Sometimes with these generational photographs, it's a little bit hard to translate what you're seeing, but what Yellowstone was doing was trying to give you a point of comparison compared to a normal person's height. You can see from that first picture where a person is standing, that those oak trees are already mature oaks. These are not little saplings that you're considering. You see the height of the magnolias compared to a grown man, and the height and the two different palms. Alan, can you help us identify which is the Ribbon Palm and which is the other?
Mr. Scheerer: I'll have Mike do that. Ms. Adams: Mike. Yes.
Mr. Scheerer: I think we're going to remove the oak tree option because the gas line easement is on that side, and the oak tree has running roots, and we don't believe from speaking with the contractor that it would be wise that we put something like that into the ground. We would like to stay with the palm option and we did not have that information at the time these proposals were submitted for consideration by the Board.

Ms. Adams: Sounds good.
Mr. Scheerer: Palm Trees or Magnolias.
Ms. Adams: Did you see how this was laid out in the agenda packet, Mike? So you can help to identify which is the Ribbon Palm?
Mr. Smith: Yes. The second picture on the top is the Sabal and the picture on the bottom
is the Ribbon.
Ms. Adams: Got it.
Mr. Scheerer: The Board can digest this, I think, and we can probably get you some better photos, because we can't even begin this work until after the gas line has been replaced.
Mr. Greenstein: Exactly.
Mr. Scheerer: We have the whole one side of the road that is going to be dug up, so until they're done with that work.
Ms. Adams: No, and that being said, if the Board has an appetite for this project and is ready to take action today to approve one of the three options that Yellowstone would recommend, either the Palm option or the Magnolia option, we can tee this project up and have it on hold.
Ms. Harley: Did they recommend one of the particular palms? Sorry, I couldn't hear.
Ms. Adams: Are you asking if Yellowstone or if Alan recommends the Sabal palms or the Ribbon palms?
Ms. Harley: Yeah, did Alan say which of the palms?
Ms. Adams: Oak trees we are taking off the table as an option because of the way that the roots grow horizontally and could interfere with nearby utilities.
Ms. Harley: Either the of palms are okay?
Ms. Adams: I think it's really more of an aesthetic preference is what I'm hearing. That they're only recommending trees that are appropriate for the area and can be maintained and look vibrant and healthy. So it's really just a preference, do Board members prefer the look of the Ribbon palms, the Sabal palms, or the Magnolia? There are also budget considerations. This would be a capital project and there is a cost difference. The Sabal palm option is $23,500 rounded and the Magnolias are a little bit more at $31,500, and then the Ribbon palms are a little bit more expensive at $35,900.
Mr. Burman: I have a quick question. Mike, I know Sabal palms grow everywhere and they don't need any work, do Ribbon palms have any sort of special requirements, fertility, or any susceptible bugs?

Mr. Smith: So that's why I like the Ribbon palms and that's why I said the Ribbon palm rather than the Queen palm. Queen palms are very high maintenance, they get diseases. Ribbon palms are much less maintenance, they don't get sick as easy, and they are the nicer tree.
Mr. Burman: Are these regular sized Magnolias? Mr. Smith: They're a good size.
Mr. Staley: I'm not sure if we are the delaying the final decision, but I recommend we make that decision so the team can get started.
Ms. Adams: Do you have a motion to approve one of the proposals supervisors Staley? Mr. Staley: I think I prefer the Ribbons, simply because they're less maintenance.
Ms. Harley: I think with the Magnolias as well, you do quite often and you see on the resort where one just doesn't take, and then that one looks ugly compared to the others. I think the Ribbon palm would be my vote.

On MOTION by Ms. Harley, seconded by Mr. Burman, with all in favor, the Proposal from Yellowstone Landscape for Sinclair Gate Tree Installation with 28 Ribbon Palms at $35,916.44, was approved.

Ms. Adams: We will tee this project up, but have it on hold until the appropriate time when nearby utility construction has been completed.
Mr. Greenstein: It will be very pretty.

NINTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Landscape/Grounds
Maintenance Agreement Extension with Yellowstone Landscape-Southeast, LLC (Added)
Ms. Adams: The next item on your agenda is consideration of the landscape grounds maintenance agreement extension with Yellowstone landscape. This is item number 9. It is included in your agenda packet. Board members, you often see these service agreements like pond, landscape, etc. Oftentimes these services agreements coincide with the fiscal year. So it's often this time a year that you'll see multiple agreements. This is simply a 12-month extension to the current agreement that is in place. This was prepared by District counsel and there's no change to any of the terms other than extending the agreement for an additional year through the next fiscal year that ends September 30th, 2022. We would be seeking a motion to approve.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Staley, with all in favor, the Landscape/Grounds Maintenance Agreement Extension with Yellowstone Landscape-Southeast, LLC, was approved.

Mr. Staley: At this point, could we ask Mike ifhe could trim the edge next to the Sinclair gate, the one that Mr. Glasser has questions about?
Ms. Adams: Alan was taking notes during public comments.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Addendum to Security
Services Provider Agreement with Reunion West Property Owner's Association, Inc.
Ms. Adams: The next item on the agenda is consideration of an addendum to our security services provider agreement with Reunion West Property Owners Association. Earlier this calendar year, the Board entered into a security service agreement with Reunion West Property Owners Association, and this was for the association to provide security services for the entrance gate at Encore including both sides. They have the remote monitoring system with Envera and they also have an entrance gate that is staffed 24/7. They now utilize Reunion's security to provide those security services. Initially, the agreement was entered into with no compensation. Staff was recently approached by the Property Owner's Association over at Reunion West asking if the Board would consider funding this agreement at a similar rate that other Reunion areas are funded by the CDD. If you look at your adopted budget for the upcoming fiscal year, you will see that there is an amount that is dedicated to security services. That amount for this Reunion West Board of Supervisors, is $65,150 and that is based on your shared expense, and based on your proportion of your platted lots with Reunion  East  and Reunion  West.  Overall,  there  is an agreement for
$140,000 to staff and provide roving Security Patrol at the areas in Reunion, excluding Reunion West Encore area. That area covers about 3,968 platted lots. The area that we're talking about that this agreement  would cover  is 774  lots. Using  that  same cost  per lot, that  amount  would be
$27,308 annually. What the Board is considering today is an agreement addendum with the Reunion West Property Owners Association that there is an exchange where the District is providing a portion of the total amount required to fund security and the Board would be considering  with this agreement  $27,308 annually. The way that it works for the other areas in

Reunion, we receive an invoice once a year for that total amount of $140,000 and we divide that by 12 and provide 12 payments back to Reunion Resort for that.
Mr. Burman: Does the Reunion West POA understand that calculation?
Ms. Adams: I told them that we would look at the number of platted lots within that area compared to other areas of Reunion and look at what that same fair share would be and I'd be happy to provide additional information if it would be helpful for the POA or staff in that area.
Mr. Staley: Here in what I call main Reunion the HOA is absorbing some of the cost and the CDD absorbs.
Ms. Adams: Well, you would have to say the same thing is definitely true for this area because you're talking about two staffed entrances plus roving patrol. If you're talking about staffed entrances, 24/7, 365, $27,308 is just a portion of what it costs to fund security.
Mr. Burman: Security expense at Reunion West is a much higher percentage of their costs than it is here. It's probably 35 or 40 percent.
Mr. Greenstein: This agreement executes basically your documents. What was discussed at the previous meeting when the representative of the POA was here.
Ms. Adams: Yes. Exactly. I didn't have numbers last month but Mr. Chairman, you bring up a good point. Before we expended staff resources on this and engaged District Counsel to write up an agreement, we did want to get feedback from the Board that this was the correct direction to go in terms of a fair share of security funding being allocated to Reunion West Encore. Those calculations were made and District Counsel worked on the agreement addendum.
Mr. Greenstein: The methodology, is it fair to say it's the same as what we're using here?
Mr. Burman: Our previous interactions with that Board have been unproductive when they're done as shock, it would be better feed them this information first rather than us just talking about it today.
Ms. Adams: Just to be clear, I believe you may not have been here last month, Supervisor Burman, but we did have Angela Tirado, who was representing the POA staff. She came and formally made that request that the Board consider funding a share that would be equal to what's funded in other areas of Reunion.
Mr. Burman: They haven't seen this document.
Ms. Adams: They have not seen this documentation in terms of the compensation, but this document is very familiar to them. We have an agreement in place. What's different about this is the compensation. The current agreement contemplates no funding.

Mr. Burman: The only reason I am bringing all of this up is to say that if we approve this today and then they have some push-back issue with it, it might be better to have them understand it first.
Ms. Adams: Well, we have a current agreement in place for zero dollars. Mr. Burman: Yeah, I get it. You know, HOA Boards do what they do.
Mr. Greenstein: Now, I am not going to opine on some other bit of information that may come to our attention that may alter this, but absent anything unusual that would cause the CDD to reconsider the methodology, I think it's fine for us to approve this because obviously, it is a bilateral document. If they don't sign it, they don't get their money and we just keep pushing zero and they can discuss it again or try to get us to change the methodology.
Mr. Staley: Let me just go back to what we talked about earlier. The POA have now agreed on the no parking rules for Encore Reunion, is that correct?
Ms. Adams: Well, as you might recall from discussion at last month's meeting, there was a little bit of confusion from staff. There had been some transition with the POA manager, but now the staff understand and are in receipt of a copy of the parking rules that were adopted for that area, including the parking maps. They understand that in order to enforce the parking violations and to tow vehicles, that that signage must be installed.
Mr. Staley: So that's all communicated with the POA.
Ms. Adams: Correct. Well, the information has been exchanged. Mr. Staley: Okay.
Ms. Adams: I haven't received follow-up questions.
Mr. Staley: This ultimately embrace the supervision of the parking regulations as well.
That is the spirit of this. It should embrace the full solution for the parking.
Ms. Adams: Yes. You bring up a good point because enforcement of parking violations is one of the tasks that security is charged with. You're absolutely correct.
Mr. Staley: So then, you're charging parking enforcement which is fine.
Ms. Adams: Yeah. The key is we just need to have the signage in place to be in compliance with Florida statutes before vehicles are towed.
Mr. Staley: That's been going on for too long. We have the responsibility to finalize that. Ms. Adams: Understood.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Burman, with all in favor, the Addendum to Security Services Provider Agreement with Reunion West Property Owner's Association, Inc., was approved.

ELEVENTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of
Playground	and/or Center

Proposals		for Outdoor	Fitness

Ms. Adams: The next item is consideration of proposals for playground and outdoor fitness station. Included in your agenda packet under Tab 11 are various proposals that our District Engineer has been working with manufacture install groups and I have some handout·s as well. I'm going to tum the floor over to the District Engineer to present these proposals.
Mr. Boyd: Certainly, so in the last meeting you had requested us to request the bid from American Parks which previously provided some equipment at Reunion East. At the same time we were asked to ask Playtopia to update their bid. What Tricia's handing out is I just quickly, this wasn't even in the agenda, I'll just quickly do a side-by-side comparison on the numbers. Playtopia didn't include images of all of their fitness station equipment. They sent that yesterday, and that's what that is. Basically, each of the pieces of the equipment picture leads you to the piece of equipment they're proposing. The one big difference was that we had requested a vote for a trash can and bench on both. I didn't realize it when they first came in but American did not include that item whereas Playtopia provided a slide of steel option and a recycled plastic wood type option. Other than that, the bids are fairly equivalent. It's a single play station shaped structure and on the fitness station area, it's eight pieces of static workout equipment. We attempted to make it simpler with the summary that I just handed out.
Mr. Staley: How about the swing set?
Mr. Boyd: We decided to remove the swing set and also the spinning piece. One of them had been attached to the image in the email. The swing set and the circle rotary piece aren't included.
Mr. Staley: Nothing included? Mr. Boyd: They are not included.
Mr. Staley: Not included this time?
Mr. Boyd: They are not included in the bid at this time. It's just the play, the stationary playset equipment that has the slides and the climbing wall.

Mr. Staley: In the last meeting, Sharon made a good point. The swing set is a nice alternative for younger children if parents are down there, the swing set is a nice alternative. I was a bit concerned about the danger of swings flying back and forth.
Mr. Greenstein: Any use of equipment by young children requires parental supervision. Without parental supervision I agree a swing does bring in another level of potential problem, we don't have swings anywhere in Reunion, do we? In any other playgrounds, whether it's in the Villas or the dog park playground. Sharon, any particular opinion on swings and no swings?
Ms. Harley: I like swings for little ones. Yes, we will have signage up, parents have to be responsible. But I think I like it for the little ones.
Mr. Staley: Just to say one last thing. American is the company that built the previous one. I really like Playtopia. The equipment looks more fun, though not for me, but for young children, my grandkids I think would enjoy that more than the American one. It looks good quality. I also like the Playtopia images which we just got today. They are all static, nothing moves. I think it's correct that nothing moves there. They look very basic and very simple and very functional. Also I think Playtopia has the photograph of the swing set which looks quite attractive alongside their playset. I am leaning towards Playtopia, there's not a huge amount of difference. In fact, Playtopia is probably cheaper.
Mr. Greenstein: But we'd have to add swings to it.
Mr. Staley: We would have to add swing sets to it but I don't think that's a huge figure.
Mr. Greenstein: The key issue which you pointed out is that we can put a swing set far enough away from the other area that kids aren't going to run off the main playground area and get into the path of a moving swing.
Mr. Staley: I'm conscious that we're perhaps doing too much, but at the same time we only get a chance to do this once.
Ms. Adams: Board members last month, the layout and design did include a swing set. We are confident that there is room for that. I believe that the District Engineer is researching right now to see if we can get an estimated cost, and that way the Board can approve with a not to exceed including the swing set.
Mr. Staley: I'm just voicing my opinion on which I prefer. Mr. Greenstein: The main thing is the location.
Mr. Greenstein: Why don't we put together a motion to approve the Playtopia configuration to include a swing set with a not to exceed of.

Ms. Adams: And then just one point of clarification on the motion, Mr. Chairman. It looks like there's a couple of different options for bench and trash can in terms of fabrication. Is that powder coated stainless steel or?
Mr. Boyd: Yes, the powder coated stainless steel. Ms. Adams: Okay.
Mr. Staley: That would be one I would recommend.
Ms. Adams: We like option 1 with the powder coated stainless steel. It looks like the option 1 total here is $86,200. Ifwe are adding $3,000 or $4,000 for a swing, do we just want to set a not to exceed of $100,000 in order to allow for any variance from the time we placed the order?
Mr. Staley: Just some clarification, it says bench and trash can. The price is there, $2,700, includes the bench and the trash can.
Mr. Boyd: That's correct.
Mr. Staley: It's good. It's a lot less that we thought it might be.

On MOTION by Mancke, seconded by Mr. Burman, with all in favor, the Playtopia Proposal for Playground with a Not-To-Exceed Amount of $100,000, that Included a Swing Option, Steel Powder Coated Bench and Trash Can, was approved.

Ms. Adams: The District is tax-exempt; we'll make sure that tax-exempt order is in place. The agreement will also be subject to District counsel reviewing and making sure that terms are favorable for the District. The other item for consideration is the Grand Traverse Parkway parcel where the Board has been considering an outdoor fitness station. Steve, do you want to walk the Board through these two options?
Mr. Staley: We just approved that.
Ms. Adams: No, we just did the playground.
Mr. Boyd: So it is a similar situation, there are eight pieces of equipment I believe. The American included a couple pieces that did have some movement whereas Playtopia is all static.
Ms. Adams: Does the Board prefer the Playtopia option or the American option for the fitness stations?
Mr. Staley: For simplicity, I would say we stick with Playtopia. No more turning back.

Ms. Adams: I'm going to ask just for confirmation's sake, but the Board would also confirm that you want this stainless-steel powder coated bench and trash can for that location. It looks like the total for that, we want to do and not to exceed $25,000.
Mr. Greenstein: Sounds go·od.
Ms. Adams: All right. Do we have a motion to approve the Playtopia proposal for fitness station not to exceed 25,000 with the steel option for bench and trash cans?

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Staley, with all in favor, the Playtopia Proposal for Outdoor Fitness Center with a Not-To-Exceed Amount of $25,000 that Included a Steel Powder Coated Bench and Trash Can, was approved.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Sinclair	Road	Extension	Road
Improvement Project Presentation
Ms. Adams: Board members, we are down to item number 12, which is presentation of the Sinclair Road Extension Project. This is a project that goes from Tradition Boulevard in Reunion all the way over to Bella Citta at Champions Gate. I believe that Clif Tate is here from Kimley-Horn.
Mr. Tate: Yes.
Ms. Adams: Good afternoon. Mr. Tate: Good afternoon.
Ms. Adams: Is it afternoon?
Mr. Greenstein: Yes, it is. It's 12:35.
Ms. Adams: Mr. Tate, we also have some Board members from Reunion East Board of Supervisors, who are in the audience.
Mr. Tate: Thank you very much for allowing us to come to a meeting here. I am ClifTate with Kimley-Horn and Associates we're the consultant firm who is doing the work and that would be James Taylor, and then with Conroy Jacobs as the county project manager. So I just wanted to go through a short presentation. Just the agenda, just some quick introductions so you all can get a little information on the project history, the objectives, and process we're following the study area that we're looking at, some potential alignments, just to get your thoughts on, the schedule and then our contact information if you want to follow up with us. Then there's some time at the end to answer any questions that you may have. To mention, these are the folks that are here from
the county  and from Kimley Hom. Just to give you information  about the project's history, this

road is originally identified as the development of the original DRI, the development regional impact that was done for Reunion. The alignment has changed a little bit since it was originally envisioned and it has been included in Osceola County's comprehensive plan, as well as metropolitan Orlando, which is the regional planning agency for this area. The study area gets a little washed out here but I think you're familiar with it. The purpose and need for this project are really to provide the system linkage. We think it will provide a good connection for 429 over to US 27 and that's going to improve mobility while the residents are at one end and commercial on the other, as well as just giving them some different options to travel around the area. The study objective for this is a very traditional type study for any roadway improvement or transportation improvement where we reevaluate the social, the environmental, the physical, and the cultural impacts that this development will have. From a steady process standpoint, we're doing the engineering to evaluate that into those environments and we'll go to look at different alternatives and the end product of this will be a recommendation of a preferred alternative that at this point in time it would go into design and eventually get constructed. This is the study area that extends from up here at Sinclair Road where it connects in with the Tradition Boulevard. Then would fall into the West and then South, come back in and connect to Bella Citta. These are a couple of different potential alignments that we've identified and these are more just to get your reaction, to get your thoughts. We've looked at two different alignments, both of them are based on a 35 mile per hour design speed, which is based on the context sensitive situation that we have here. There's a yellow alignment which actually runs along the north side of the Reunion property. So it cuts to the comer here into Reunion and then goes down to the west side of Reunion property. There is a Florida gas transmission gas line that goes through this, represented by this red line. The orange line comes actually further to the south and it stays as much as possible within Reunion property. It is just on the south side of the property land here and runs down the west side of the Reunion property and crosses the gas line, then swings out and crosses through here. All these were expected to include sidewalks. That's what we're looking at right now and just while that's up there on the screen, any comments or questions about that?
Mr. Staley: Full transparency I live roughly where your gas pipeline marker is. So yes, I have a strong preference, that would be for the yellow obviously to move further away from Reunion.
Mr. Tate: So we looked at all these, and we looked at the social, and the impact to the residents through here. It's also the environmental side, one of the downsides of the yellow line

is it has to cross as a little bit longer wetlands so those are some of the things that you'll see as we go through this study. We'll have a meeting that will present the alternatives. I think that is on the schedule for May or June of next year. But at that point, we will create a matrix which will have the impacts of the different alternatives and we'll look at what are the social impacts, what are the environmental impacts and then just compare them to try to pick a preferred alternative.
Mr. Staley: You said the orange one cuts on to the Reunion property?
Mr. Tate: Yeah. This goes back to the original DRl. lfyou look at the property lines here, you can see what the assumed line was going to be here. The trouble with it is a really tight curb right there. This is not safe from the speed standpoint so what we're doing is again looking at a 35 mile per hour design speed where it can go. So it was originally expected to stay completely within Reunion, more consistent with the orange. So this, the orange is what was originally anticipated or close to what's observed or anticipated. The orange is more similar to what was in the DRI, and what was anticipated.
Mr. Greenstein: I think what would be greatly helpful for us would be a Google Earth view or a view where you could actually see the proximity of the roadway to Reunion property when you say because when you talk to most folks about this Sinclair Road Extension, one would think it would be around the perimeter. So I ask that question, does either alignment actually encroach or enter Reunion property or is it on the perimeter of the Reunion property?
Mr. Tate: The orange line stays primarily within Reunion. Mr. Mancke: What exactly does that mean? Please be clearer.
Mr. Tate: The only area that is outside of Reunion is this comer right here and so where you have Sinclair and Tradition. The original alignment stayed all in Reunion, and it curved like this and went around and so right now the only portion of the orange that's not within Reunion property is this corner right here. That parcel there. Usually, there's no easy answer to that. Anytime anybody's building a road, even widening the road it is not easy. It is going to have impacts.
Mr. Staley: I know the golf course is a major consideration for you. Just so everyone else understands, both of those go very close to number 8, you're literally able to throw a tennis ball onto the road from the green and as you come around, it is probably even closer to number 7.
Mr. Tate: They run right beside.
Mr. Staley: Yeah. Right beside. I mean, you can actually see where the road will go, it's cleared already. You can see where it goes.

Mr. Greenstein: What we're talking about is at the end of Desert Mountain? Mr. Staley: Yes.
Mr. Greenstein: Right. We have the open field. I said the open field but it is basically, I guess it's unofficial storm water management. It really isn't because I think it's Kingwood owned property back at the end of Desert Mountain. There is a home, right? At one time that home did not have a fence surrounding it, but subsequently with Reunion development, they fenced it in. I'm assuming they are smack dab in the middle of that alignment.
Mr. Staley: That's right.
Mr. Tate: Yeah. As I recall it, the orange one is very close and then the yellow goes through.
Mr. Staley: I think Kingwood would have a strong view as well, because in-between those two, where the bulge is towards the bottom, I believe Kingwood own property in there. They would not be able to develop that so easily if you followed the orange route or at all.
Mr. Tate: So you're talking about this property? We would be taking into consideration any known land developments in there.
Mr. Greenstein: So basically there are only two alignments.
Mr. Tate: This is what we have, now. One of the things we thought about is that we have two and they could switch, they're the same location and follow this same line here and here. The yellow goes south of there or the orange can go this way. Usually we will look at the alternatives and then after our meeting where we get public input, we may adjust them and usually the public has some good ideas.
Mr. Staley: How you can control the speed here? I mean, you say it's a 35, this is never going to be a 35.
Mr. Tate: Well, the curves are designed in such a way to where that that would be more comfortable for people to drive. It is really difficult to control once you get to the straighter lines, but through the curves, they can be used to help.
Mr. Burman: There would be designated areas you need storm water ponds as well.
Mr. Tate: Yeah. We will be looking for some pond sites that we'll be coordinating with Reunion for. Back in 2005 or something, there was a concept plan that was developed, and it identified some potential ponds. We would like to coordinate with Reunion to see if there's an option. Would it be coordinated with you?
Ms. Adams: Yes.

Mr. Tate: Okay.
Mr. Staley: For people who don't both know the area, the link from the I-4 to the 27, is a massive need.
Mr. Tate: Well, if you're aware, there's maintenance on the interchange and they're also adding lanes. Then there's also a parkway extension that is being studied right now that would help a lot in this area.
Ms. Adams: Yeah.
Mr. Tate: The county has been looking to make improvements. I-42 is being improved.
Mr. Staley: You talked about the elevation development, I'm not sure. I think the elevation development is here.
Mr. Tate: Yes.
Ms. Adams: Yeah.
Mr. Tate: Yeah. Actually, Kimley-Horn is working with that. Mr. Greenstein: Amazing.
Mr. Tate: We can send copies of the presentation.
Ms. Adams: Yeah. Please send me a copy and I'll distribute to all the Board members. We can post it on the website for residents.
Mr. Greenstein: Yeah.
Mr. Staley: Is this something that can be shared with the community at this time?
Mr. Tate: Absolutely, sure. Yeah, this is all public information. We've got a website. The county has a good website where we have all the projects listed and you can get a lot of good information and we'll be updating that throughout the study process. 1bis is the study schedule. We just started in September. We're collecting data, collecting information, reaching out to the stakeholders like you guys to find out, and let you know what we're doing and to get your input. We'll be developing some alternatives. As I mentioned, we'll have an alternatives meeting sometime next year between the end of May and beginning of June. We expect that the study will be completed probably in September or October, so it's about four months later. Then after that, the expectation is that whatever the preferred alternative is, that will go into design.
Mr. Staley: Typically, how long does it take to construct something like this, based on that time frame?
Mr. Tate: With the right acquisition, it can take anywhere from a year to two years. So it just really depends. Are you asking when it will be finished?

Mr. Staley: Start to finish?
Mr. Jacobs: We're definitely going to have two years around the acquisition between the time it takes to do the study and the time it takes for the final design and then determine the impacts and then engage those property owners' acquired property and then following that, the process to pay the contractor. So I would say two years to start and then another two years to a year and a half to finish the project.
Mr. Tate: Then, this is my contact information, and Conroy's contact information as well as the project website. The website is osceola.org/go.sinclairroad. That's pretty much everything that we wanted to cover and we'll be glad to answer any questions that you have or take any comments that you have. Well, thank you very much for your time.
Ms. Adams: Thank you.
Mr. Greenstein: Yes. Thank you. Ms. Adams: Appreciate it.
Mr. Tate: We'll be coordinating.
Ms. Adams: Yeah. We'll get the presentation out to Board members so you have a copy for your records. Then we can post it on the District website for residents to view.
Mr. Tate: Thanks, again. Ms. Adams: Thank you. Mr. Greenstein: Thank you.

TIDRTEENTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business
Ms. Adams: Any other business or Supervisor's requests?

FOURTEENTH  ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor's Requests
Ms. Adams: Any other supervisor requests? Seeing none,

FIFTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Meeting Date.
Ms. Adams: Board members, before we adjourn, we do have other business and supervisor requests. But we also need to discuss how we want to handle your November 11th meeting. Your next meeting is scheduled November 11th at 11:00 AM. The only item that I'm aware of for that meeting at this time is the kickoff for your bond refunding. We did plan to have the underwriter in attendance. That meeting can remain the way that it's been scheduled and noticed.

Mr. Staley: The problem with that is it is going to clash with the HOA meeting. Residents will have to make a choice as to which meeting, they attend. Is there a way to make the west meeting come after the east meeting? By 1:00 I think the HOA meeting should be finished.
Ms. Adams: Yes, we can do that. Is two o'clock safe? Mr. Staley: I think 2:30.
Mr. Greenstein: Maybe 2:30. Ms. Adams: Say, 2:30?
Mr. Greenstein: Yes. We definitely want to avoid the conflict. We want ourselves, as well as residents, to be able to participate to whatever extent they want to with HOA activities that morning. So ifwe start off with the east meeting, scheduled at 1:00, and then we'll do 2:30.
Ms. Adams: So November, 11th at 2:30 we'll reschedule your November meeting. Mr. Greenstein: That's the simplest thing to do.
Ms. Adams: Okay. That makes sense. Any other business or supervisor requests? Your next meeting is scheduled November 11th at 2:30. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

SIXTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Staley, with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned.

There being no further business, Ms. Adams called for a motion to adjourn.

'

\t!:::i: /i ary

A!a11'1