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, August 10, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. via Zoom Communication Media Technology and at Heritage Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum: Graham Staley Chairman Michael Barry Assistant Secretary Mark Greenstein Assistant Secretary William (Bill) Witcher Assistant Secretary Also present were: Tricia Adams District Manager Kristen Trucco District Counsel Steve Boyd (via Zoom) Boyd Civil Engineering Alan Scheerer Field Manager Aura Zelada Reunion West POA Garrett Huegel Yellowstone Landscape Services Pete Wittman Yellowstone Landscape Services Victor Vargas Reunion Security Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the August 10, 2023 Reunion West Community Development District Board of Supervisors meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 11:02 a.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors were present with the exception of Ms. Harley. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment Period There being none, the next item followed. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing A. Open Public Hearing On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor the public hearing on the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024 budget was opened. B. Presentation of Fiscal Year 2024 Proposed Budget Ms. Adams presented the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, which starts on October 1, 2023 and ends on September 30, 2024. Ms. Adams highlighted the following: . Since the time the proposed budget was reviewed, there were no substantive changes to Revenues. For Fiscal Year 2024, $1,961,127, was proposed, with the majority in Special Assessment - Tax Collector. The CDD fee on the Tax Bill was $1,760,063. There was Carry Forward Surplus in order to balance the budget. The purpose was to identify funds to transfer to the Replacement & Maintenance (R&M) Fund. . “Administrative Expenses” was $178,060. There were no changes. . Field Expenses were refined based on recent history. There were no substantive changes. . Shared Costs were in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement between the Reunion West CDD and Reunion East CDD and based on platted lots. . Irrigation System Operations was included in the Proposed Budget, but removed from the Adopted Budget as it was owned by the Reunion East CDD. . There was a Transfer Out – R&M Fund of $400,000. . The Proposed Assessment for Fiscal Year 2024 was the same as the prior year. Mr. Staley questioned the allocation for Security costs. Ms. Adams noted there were security services with the Reunion Resort and Club Master Association in the amount of $160,800, based on a separate security agreement to service all areas of Reunion except for the Reunion West CDD Encore neighborhood, $27,308 for the Reunion West POA and $15,360 for Carriage Pointe. . R&M Fund was based on the Fiscal Year 2024 Project List and was the same percentage of the maintenance cost for the General Fund, with 56% of the cost borne by Reunion East and 44% by Reunion West. Mr. Staley explained that the Project List had no relationship to the tables and requested including the project list in the monthly management accounts. . There was debt service for the Series 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2022 bonds. Principal and interest payments were due in November and May, based on an Amortization Schedule. An analysis of the assessment areas affiliated with the various bond issues was provided to the Board. In the 2015 assessment area, there were 161 single-family homes. Mr. Staley asked if the R&M pavement amount of $400,000 was the actual amount. Ms. Adams explained that it was an estimate. Updates since the project list was previously presented included a request from Reunion East to add benches and concrete pads, if suitable locations could be found and an increase in the signage stipend, due to the number of faded traffic enforcement signs. Mr. Staley noted that the two totals on the Project List for Reunion East and Reunion West did not add up to $975,000. Ms. Adams would verify the formulas. Mr. Barry asked if the roadway improvements were consistent with what was needed next year. Ms. Adams pointed out that there would be further analysis by the District Engineer, based on the geotechnical testing that was recently approved. A scope for right of way repairs would be developed and it would go out for competitive bids. If the milling and resurfacing cost was higher than what was budgeted, the Board could spend more than what was budgeted or remove projects from the Project List. Mr. Greenstein concurred as items were projected low. Mr. Boyd had no issue with the $400,000 allocated for Fiscal Year 2024 for the priority roadwork; however, it should be evaluated for Reunion East when the core samples were received. C. Public Comments Regarding Budget and Special Assessments Ms. Aura Zelada, the Community Association Manager for the Reunion West POA, requested a breakdown as 774 homes would be contributing $775,000 to the budget. On Page 11, under Security, based on the amount being paid to the POA on a monthly basis of $2,276, Ms. Zelada questioned the amount collected from the owners and how it was being spent. Mr. Staley understood that it was not allocated on a community-by-community basis. The money came into the CDD and the expenditures were combined with the two CDDs. The Reunion West CDD neighborhood paid 44% of the shared expenses. In her community, they specified what the money was going towards. Ms. Adams explained that a proportionate share was paid by the Reunion West CDD Encore neighborhood for the administrative section and the field expenses went towards the CDD roads and common areas, stormwater system, sidewalk maintenance and street sign maintenance, etc. Residents questioned the Operation & Maintenance (O&M) for single-family homes, which was part of the CDD fee. When property owners received their property Tax Bill, it combined both parts of the CDD fee into one line in the non-ad valorem section. Along with the O&M fee that property owners were paying to the CDD, they were also paying their debt service fee. Mr. Greenstein understood that there would be one total number on the Tax Bill. Ms. Adams explained that property owners would see the aggregated number of the O&M and debt service fees. The debt service fee paid down the bond that was issued to generate funds to construct the infrastructure, gatehouses, entrance gates, roadways and stormwater system, etc. Ms. Trucco pointed out that the O&M assessment was separate from the debt service and could change year to year, but they could pull the Assessment Roll to determine how much each parcel was paying for debt service in the Encore neighborhood. Mr. Staley requested a table showing each address by plat. Ms. Adams confirmed that this information was on the Osceola County website. Mr. Greenstein wanted Ms. Zelada’s constituents to understand that they were part of the Reunion West CDD and there was an Interlocal Agreement with Reunion East allowing Reunion West residents to use Reunion East amenities. There is an interlocal agreement allowing for reciprocal amenity access and cost sharing for the maintenance of the amenities between Reunion East and Reunion West CDDs. Mr. Staley pointed out the debt service was $2,030, which was two-thirds of the total assessment and it was difficult to split every expense between Encore and the rest of the CDD. Mr. Greenstein felt that any costs incurred within the Reunion East and West CDDs was fairly divided by all of the units since everyone benefitted. Mr. Staley believed that the $400,000 allocated for Fiscal Year 2024 for the priority roadwork was light, but they could spend more next year if needed. Mr. Greenstein agreed. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Witcher with all in favor the public hearing on the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024 budget was closed. D. Consideration of Resolution 2023-08 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget and Relating to the Annual Appropriations Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2023-08 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. E. Consideration of Resolution 2023-09 Imposing Special Assessments and Certifying an Assessment Roll Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2023-09 Imposing Special Assessments and Certifying an Assessment Roll, which was the funding mechanism for the budget and authorizing the imposition and collection of maintenance fees and the collection debt service fees. A copy of the Tax Roll which would be attached as an exhibit was available for review. On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor Resolution 2023-08 Adopting the Proposed Fiscal Year 2024 Budget and Relating to the Annual Appropriations was adopted. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor Resolution 2023-09 Imposing Special Assessments and Certifying an Assessment Roll was adopted. F. Close Public Hearing This item was discussed. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the July 13, 2023 Board of Supervisors Meeting and May 11, 2023 Workshop Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the June 8, 2023 Board of Supervisors and May 11, 2023 workshop meetings. Corrections were received from Mr. Staley, which were incorporated. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Staley with all in favor the Minutes of the July 13, 2023 Board of Supervisors and May 11, 2023 Workshop Meetings were approved as amended. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Yellowstone Proposals for Landscape Enhancement at Neighborhood Monuments Mr. Scheerer presented a proposal Yellowstone Landscape (Yellowstone) to modify the landscaping at all neighborhood monuments in Reunion West in the amount of $8,321.59. At the request of the Board, Yellowstone provided several renderings, which were included in the agenda package and provided the following options: . Option 1: Dwarf Ixora and Podocarpus. . Option 2: Croton Mammy and Podocarpus. . Option 3: Blue Daze and Podocarpus. Provide low ground cover. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that none of the options would affect the price. Podocarpus would be placed on either side of the columns, but there would be no landscaping around light fixtures. Mr. Barry questioned the hardiest plants out of the flowering plants. Mr. Wittman explained that Dwarf Ixoras were hardier than Crotons, which were sensitive to frost and drought issues. With Ixoras, frost may just burn tips of the plants, which could be pruned off. Blue Daze were pretty, but when they get wet, they wilt. The hardiest plants were Trinettes or Dwarf Ixoras. Mr. Staley questioned how long Ixoras stay in bloom. Mr. Scheerer favored Ixoras for year-round cover as they were in bloom all year long. Mr. Greenstein did not want the same color everywhere. Mr. Barry preferred Blue Daze, which lasted in all types of conditions. Mr. Scheerer had one in his yard and it looked good when it bloomed. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Staley with all in favor the proposal with Yellowstone for landscape enhancement at neighborhood monuments with Option #3 in the amount of $8,321.59 was approved. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Review and Acceptance of Pavement Management Report Mr. Boyd presented the Pavement Management Plan, which was the same form as the one provided last month. Tables 2, 3 and 4 were the priority areas. Once core samples were returned, recommended courses of action could be taken. The worst areas were Desert Mountain Court, due to potholes exposing the base. Spot repairs needed to be made next to the curb as there was a gap between the original asphalt and the patch, due to water intrusion. A full re-paving of Desert Mountain Court should be included in the 2025 to 2030 Plan. Major resurfacing was needed in the outbound Lane of Tradition Boulevard, approaching the gate on Sinclair Road, due to surface asphalt was starting to ravel. Most of the roads in the CDD could be scheduled for future work on a long-term basis. Core samples were underway. He did not anticipate having to repave all of Desert Mountain Court, but the outside side of Tradition Boulevard from east of the gate down to Sinclair Road should be repaved. Mr. Staley asked about the striping. Mr. Boyd recommended re-striping of all of Tradition Boulevard as the current striping was barely visible. Mr. Barry felt that the striping at intersections, crosswalks and stop signs were a priority. M. Boyd noted there were no internal crosswalks, but there were stop bars within subdivisions that needed some work, but they were not a high priority and could be deferred until those roads were resurfaced. Ms. Adams recalled in the Fiscal Year 2024 Preliminary Project List, $35,000 was allocated for stop bars, crosswalks and other necessary pavement markings, but staff had to get clarification on the centerline markings. Mr. Staley requested that Mr. Boyd look at the stretch of road from Grand Traverse Parkway to Tradition Boulevard and if clear yellow lines were needed for the new homes outside the boundaries of Bears Den. Mr. Greenstein felt the vast majority of roadways were in good condition, but striping was necessary on Tradition Boulevard and preferred that the roadwork be completed before the striping. On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Pavement Management Report was approved. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Proposals for Sign Post Updates A. Fausnight B. Onsite Industries Mr. Scheerer presented proposals from Fausnight Stripe & Line (Fausnight) and Onsite Industries (Onsight) for sign post updates. It was being presented to both Boards and was an R&M project that would affect the shared expenses for the R&M Fund. A map of the neighborhoods and the locations of the signs was provided by Fausnight. The proposal from Fausnight was in the amount of $47,225 for 36 signs galvanized sign posts to be shared between Reunion East and Reunion West. Onsite proposed $44,663 for 32 signs as they missed the golf cart crossing signs on Grand Traverse Parkway. Mr. Greenstein questioned why there were two proposals as the first one was for intersections that were the most visible. Mr. Staley believed that one proposal was for the speed limit, stop and pedestrian signs and the other was for street signs. Mr. Scheerer pointed out from Tradition Boulevard and the water park area, there were galvanized signs. Mr. Greenstein questioned what was budgeted for this year. Mr. Staley recalled that $45,000 was budgeted.. Mr. Greenstein questioned Mr. Scheerer’s vendor recommendation and what was standard. Mr. Scheerer felt that Fausnight would be quicker than Onsite and the standard was the golf finial with back plates and 3-inch fluted poles with the base. Discussion ensued. On MOTION Mr. Witcher seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the proposal with Fausnight Stripe & Line for sign posts in the amount of $47,225 was approved. Ms. Adams presented a map of the signs and an aerial review of Whitemarsh Way. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2023-10 Setting a Public Hearing to Impose Special Assessments Ms. Adams stated in analyzing the Assessment Roll for Reunion West, it was found that a parcel that was previously platted as golf was now platted as 22 residential units, which should be subject to the same annual maintenance fees that other single-family homes pay. In accordance with Florida Statutes, this required a special public hearing and 28/29-day notice. Resolution 2023- 07 sets the public hearing. After it was advertised, a letter would be sent to the landowner, Kingwood. There was not sufficient time to put them on the Tax Roll this year, but Kingwood could be direct billed a one-time payment in the first operating quarter of the new fiscal year, which they agreed with. Mr. Staley preferred to direct bill Kingwood, but questioned when fees are assessed for new development. Ms. Trucco explained that before the District could levy O&M assessments, it must go through this process, but after the public hearing, the District would officially start charging this fee to Kingwood. Ms. Trucco requested that the letter state that the District was direct billing them for this fiscal year and moving forward, they would utilize the uniform method of collection. On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor Resolution 2023-10 Setting a Public Hearing to Impose Special Assessments for September 14, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. at this location was adopted as amended. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco participated in a conference call with the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department as their position was that the CDD needed to enter into an agreement with Osceola County to provide traffic enforcement services in the CDD. There was no statutory authority to require CDDs to enter into an agreement with the county to provide traffic enforcement services. The CDD roadways were financed with CDD bond funds and were public and there were concerns about security asking for IDs and whether this made the roads private. During the conference call, there was some new information from the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department regarding an agreement from the Reunion East and West CDDs for traffic enforcement services. There were liability issues based on an obligation and duty to ensure that the signage was compliant with all current rules and regulations and whether they had a duty to notify certain individuals that the roadways were damaged or needed to be repaired or replaced. Osceola County was asking for an agreement to show that they had the jurisdiction to write tickets and the CDD acknowledging that they did not have a duty to maintain the roadways and signage. Mr. Greenstein asked if there was a distinction between a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provided an understanding between two parties. Ms. Trucco noted no difference. Mr. Witcher preferred having a document to give clear authority to the Sheriff’s Office to enforce traffic laws and issue citations. Mr. Staley asked if Encore and Reunion Village were included in the agreement. Ms. Trucco confirmed that all public roadways were included, but not alleys and parking lots. Mr. Staley did not want to enter into something that did not include Bears Den. Ms. Trucco explained that the agreement only applied to roadways that the CDD owned and there would be documents clearly specifying what the CDD owned and what was public. As a precautionary measure, it was worth amending the document to specify that the roadways owned by the CDD were public and they could not restrict any member of the public from accessing them. There was no objection from the Board. Mr. Staley wanted to communicate this to the community in a low-key way, as residents were blaming Security for not turning people away at the gates. Ms. Trucco explained that Security could ask for identification, but if they refused to provide it, they could not be turned away. Ms. Witcher wanted to inform the public that there was now an agreement and an Osceola County Sheriff was going to be enforcing but could not restrict access. Ms. Trucco would provide a document at the next meeting. Ms. Trucco would follow up with Reunion West POA’s attorney regarding the verge areas. Mr. Staley questioned the irrigation matter with Kingwood, which was on the Reunion East CDD agenda. Ms. Trucco received approval from Reunion East’s bond counsel and Kingwood on the Irrigation Operating Agreement and it was now ready for the Board to consider and was a good viable option. Mr. Staley requested that Ms. Trucco circulate the link for the ethics training. Ms. Trucco stated it was on the Florida Commission of Ethics website. B. Engineer There being none, the next item followed. C. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items List Ms. Adams presented the Action Items List. ii. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from July 1, 2023 through July 31, 2023 in the amount of $44,855.50. On MOTION by Mr. Witcher seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor the July Check Register was approved. iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through June 30, 2023, which were for informational purposes. Mr. Staley noted on the special assessment receipts, gross assessments were $4.896 million and net assessments were $4.602 million and questioned whether they collected more than was billed. Ms. Adams explained that the amount billed assumed that everyone paid their taxes early to receive the full discount. If they paid their taxes later, they did not receive a discount so more was collected. iv. Consideration of Series 2019 Requisition 9 Ms. Adams presented Requisition No. 9 with Government Management Services for construction accounting services in the amount of $3,500. Mr. Staley asked if this was an annual charge. Ms. Adams explained that it was an annual charge in accordance with the Trust Indenture. On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Series 2019 Requisition 9 was approved. v. Replacement and Maintenance Plan Ms. Adams presented the Replacement and Maintenance Plan. vi. Approval of Fiscal Year 2024 Meeting Dates Ms. Adams presented the Fiscal Year 2024 meeting schedule, which was consistent with the prior year’s meeting schedule, the second Thursday of each month at 11:00 a.m. at this location. The Chairman had the discretion to cancel meetings if there were no time sensitive agenda matters. On MOTION by Mr. Witcher seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Fiscal Year 2024 meeting schedule as presented was approved. D. Security Report Mr. Victor Vargas, the head of Reunion Security presented the July Security Report, which was emailed to the Board prior to the meeting. The report included the monthly security notes and other security tasks, parking enforcement, number of parking violations and towed vehicles. Mr. Barry asked if they were stopping people from shooting off fireworks. Mr. Vargas stated that his team were addressing fireworks the second they noticed them. Mr. Staley questioned why Mr. Vargas was no longer circulating the Encore neighborhood report. Mr. Vargas provided one to the Encore HOA, but would circulate it to the Board. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business Mr. Staley questioned the status of the Whitemarsh mound. Mr. Scheerer explained that the gas company was researching what they could do to lower it. Mr. Staley was committed to doing something. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that there was an 18-inch gas line running through the easement. Mr. Witcher noted that the Magnolia and Red Elm trees at the Fitness Center looked sparse and wanted to add trees on both sides of the verge between the sidewalk and the street to balance everything out. Mr. Scheerer recalled that five trees were removed and two were replaced. Mr. Staley requested that Mr. Scheerer look into it. Mr. Scheerer would work with Mr. Witcher. Mr. Staley asked if the blue street signs complied with the State Statute. Ms. Trucco indicated that it would be addressed in the agreement. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests Mr. Greenstein spoke with Mr. David Burman and Mr. Anthony Carll regarding the pros and cons about The Stables and why Reunion East gave them the license to place dumpsters there. This item would be discussed further at the Reunion East CDD meeting. Regardless of where the dumpsters were placed, there was common interest between Reunion West and Reunion East. Mr. Greenstein would advise the Board on what Reunion East discussed and what the Reunion East CDD Board decided to do. Mr. Witcher stated there was a large dumpster on Twin Eagles Loop, east of property that Kingwood owned. Mr. Staley said he would contact the HOA again. TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date – September 14th, 2023 The next meeting was scheduled for September 14, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Witcher with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Signature - Tricia Adams Signature - Graham Staley Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman