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, February 8, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. via Zoom Communication Media Technology and at the Heritage Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum: Graham Staley Chairman Sharon Harley Vice Chair Mark Greenstein Assistant Secretary William (Bill) Witcher Assistant Secretary Michael Barry Assistant Secretary Also present were: Tricia Adams District Manager Kristen Trucco District Counsel James Curley District Engineer Alan Scheerer Field Manager Victor Vargas Reunion Security Garrett Huegel Yellowstone Landscape Aura Zelada RW POA Manager, Artemis Lifestyles Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the February 8, 2024 Reunion West Community Development District Board of Supervisors meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors were present. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment Period There being no comments, the next item followed. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the January 11, 2024 Audit Committee Meeting and Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the January 11, 2024 Audit Committee and Board of Supervisors meetings, which were reviewed by District management staff and District Counsel and were included in the agenda package. Mr. Barry recalled on Page 9, it was not Ms. Harley stating that the monuments were dark at night and the lettering on the monuments were faded in several places. On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the Minutes of the January 11, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting were approved as amended. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the Minutes of the January 11, 2024 Audit Committee Meeting were approved as presented. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Engagement of Gray Robinson as Eminent Domain Counsel Ms. Trucco recalled that several months ago, Osceola County presented their plans to the Reunion East and Reunion West CDD Boards and the Reunion West CDD Board hired Gray Robinson to serve as their Eminent Domain Counsel on the I-4 expansion project. Mr. Kent Hip was the head of the Eminent Domain Department and was used by Ms. Jan Carpenter for all of their CDDs. They were put on notice regarding an eminent domain proceeding that was initiated by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the Old Lake Wilson Road expansion project and in response, submitted a representative authorization, which Ms. Trucco recommended that the Board approve. It was early in the process, but as the proceeding gets closer, additional specifics, such as the acreage that the State was going to take from the CDD, value of the property and amount of damage to surrounding property, would be presented to the Board, along with an analysis that Gray Robinson would perform. At that time, the Board would decide whether or not to accept the offer or provide a counter offer and if the parties could not agree on the final number, the State would initiate an eminent domain proceeding. Mr. Witcher questioned the potential cost for Gray Robinson to perform an analysis. Ms. Trucco stated that per the Florida Statutes, the State must pay for any CDD expenses related to the condemnation proceeding and as a result, Gray Robinson agreed to accept the statutory fee that the State must pay for all of the experts. Mr. Witcher asked if the Old Lake Wilson Road expansion was still in the project development and environmental planning stage. Ms. Trucco did not know what stage this project was in but would find out. Mr. Greenstein believed that it was in the evaluation stage and that they would not be moving in this direction if there was no impetus to proceed with the project. Mr. Witcher asked if they planned to install sound barriers, since it was close to the community. Ms. Trucco indicated when Gray Robinson was completed with the analysis, the Board would receive a summary of the parcel that they were looking at. Mr. Staley recalled with the I-4 project, they were specific about needing 3 feet in one location and 5 feet in the other, but with this project there was no specificity. Ms. Trucco confirmed that the images of the parcels that would be impacted by this project, were obtained from the Property Appraiser’s website and not by FDOT and agreed that there needed to be specificity. Mr. Staley pointed out that they were not coming onto their roads and in Reunion East, there was more of an eminent domain issue towards 532. Mr. Greenstein indicated that more of the Reunion East side was parallel to the roadway than the west side. Ms. Harley felt that there was no reason not to approve this request as it was not costing the District any money. On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the Engagement Letter with Gray Robinson as Eminent Domain Counsel for the Old Lake Wilson Road expansion project was approved. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco reported that the revisions to the Security Services Agreement renewal with the Reunion West POA, which was approved at the last meeting, were provided to the attorney for the Reunion West POA. They requested an extension of one month, until the end of February as they need additional time to work through this with their Board and since the Board delegated authority to the Chairman to provide the final sign off and assistance in negotiating the terms of that document, Ms. Adams and the Chairman granted this request. Ms. Trucco had no objection to the extension, as the CDD Board was happy with the services that the POA provided and wished to continue with them. The Reunion West POA attorney submitted responses to their revisions to her, which she would review and by the next meeting, would have further information on the final terms. Ms. Trucco was also working with the Reunion West POA on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the verge areas. Revisions were provided to them and once an agreement was reached, it would be brought back to the Board for final approval. Mr. Staley pointed out that the MOU was non-binding, there was consensus between the two parties and questioned when the MOU would come back to the Board. Ms. Trucco did not know, but the Security Services Agreement renewal was more time sensitive, but she would try to get some feedback on the MOU before the next meeting. Regarding the alleged encroachment on Grand Traverse Parkway with the bocce ball court, Ms. Trucco reported that an associate in her office was performing an inventory of every plat and deed within the CDD boundaries and would try to reach out to the Board before the next meeting. Mr. Witcher asked if the inventory was for the Reunion Encore West POA, Reunion Village, Reunion West and Reunion East. Ms. Trucco explained that they were pulling all of the plats within the Reunion West boundary, including all property that was still being developed, which could be used to address the bocce ball court issue. Mr. Staley recalled two months ago, Ms. Trucco stating that Kingwood’s attorney contacted her. Ms. Trucco confirmed that Kingwood’s attorney contacted her regarding this matter. Mr. Staley pointed out that this issue has been ongoing for two years and wanted to ensure that there was clarity on who owned what property and was not concerned about any encroachments, as long as it was valid and legal encroachment, but preferred to discuss the options privately. Ms. Trucco stated there could be a shade meeting to discuss private matters, but only for current litigation or administrative proceedings, would try to reduce costs on completing the inventory and speak with the Chair and District Manager on how to present this moving forward. Mr. Greenstein appreciated it. Ms. Trucco reported that she participated in a telephone conference call with the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Legal Department yesterday, regarding the Traffic Enforcement Agreement. They apologized for the delay as there were some personnel changes and their concern was with the gates and private verses public status of the roads. She informed them that the CDD could not infer, imply or in any way concede that these roadways were private, because the CDD was a governmental entity and the financing of those roadways was through public funds. The roads are public. Since an officer was allegedly turned away for not providing their license, the Legal Department was including language in the agreement, to ensure that this never happens again. It was a productive conversation and Ms. Trucco was waiting for their revisions to the agreement. Ms. Trucco clarified that under the Statute, the County was arguing they were allowed to require an agreement. It was explained to them that HOAs had private roadways and the CDD’s roads were public and could not be made private, even if they wanted to and the gate was a soft gate. The CDD was not allowed to restrict any member of the public from entering their roadways. Mr. Staley suspected that this issue went beyond Reunion and covered other properties in Osceola County. Ms. Trucco confirmed that it implicated every CDD that they represented in Osceola County. B. Engineer Mr. Curley reported that the pavement management bids were made public and they were receiving responses. Bid packages were being sent to all responders as well as their preferred vendors. In addition, the no parking diagrams were updated with new aerials. Ms. Adams indicated that the Parking Rules that were posted on the Reunion West CDD website, were updated; however, they would not be distributing the new Parking Rules by email, until all of the new signage was installed and the rules could be fully enforced. Once the rules were updated, the agreements with the towing service provider, the Reunion West POA and Master Association would be updated. Mr. Staley recalled in last month’s Reunion East CDD minutes, that there was going to be a public hearing next month to discuss the Parking Rules and voiced concern that there would be two sets of Parking Rules. Ms. Adams explained that the Reunion East CDD rules were updated for Board discussion and consideration at today’s meeting, using parallel language with Reunion West CDD. Mr. Staley did feel that the differences would confuse security or the homeowners and wanted them to be consistent. Mr. Witcher agreed as several large houses were under construction and there may be parking issues with contractors and subcontractors. Ms. Adams noted that the purpose of the public hearing in Reunion East was to set a definition and timeline for abandoned vehicles. Mr. Staley asked if there was an update on the speed tables. Mr. Curley worked with Mr. Scheerer on locations as part of the Request for Proposal (RFP)for road maintenance, there would be two speed tables on Tradition Boulevard between Golden Bear Drive and the guardhouse and at least two along Grand Traverse Parkway. Mr. Greenstein recalled that vendors were supposed to provide a separate cost for the speed tables. Mr. Barry questioned when the bids were expected to be received. Ms. Adams stated that the Board would review the bids at the March meeting. C. Field Manager Updates Mr. Scheerer distributed data collected from the radar display signs, which were Bluetooth and collected vehicle and speed data from all locations, with the exception of Encore Reunion Resort. He was planning to purchase ones that were Cloud based, as data could not be obtained from two signs. The following data was collected: • In December, at 1121 Grand Traverse Parkway, a total of 13,956 vehicles were recorded. The average speed was 23 mph and 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 29 mph. The average daily weekly speed was within the posted 25 mph speed limit. In January, 8,392 vehicles were recorded, the daily and weekly speed was between 22 mph and 23 mph and 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 28 mph. • In December, on Traditions Boulevard, between Golden Bear Drive and the Sinclair Road guard gate, a total of 67,746 vehicles were recorded; however, the posted speed limit was 25 mph and the average speed was 30 mph to 31 mph, with 85% of the vehicles traveling at or below 36 mph. In January, 58,070 vehicles were recorded, with an average speed of 31 mph and 85% of the vehicles traveling at or below 36 mph. • There were no speeding problems in Encore Reunion West, as the average speed on Lasso Drive was 16 mph, with 85% of the vehicles traveling at or below 21 mph. A total of 6,296 vehicles were recorded in January and 7,700 in December. 7,635 vehicles were recorded on Southfield Street and 27,848 vehicles were recorded on Fairfax Drive. The average speed was 20 mph, with 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 25 mph. The Board Members were appreciative of this information as it was helpful. Mr. Scheerer would continue to provide these reports at the Board’s request. Mr. Staley pointed out that this proved that there was no way to build up speed on the roads in Encore Reunion West, which was what the Board suspected, but there was speeding on Grand Traverse Parkway and Traditions Boulevard. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that driving from west to east, the highest speed was on Sandy Ridge Drive past the water park and there was discussion about adding one or two speed tables in this location. Mr. Staley believed that speed tables would irritate the community and may not deter speeding. Mr. Scheerer recalled a study showing that speed tables helped to lower the speed. Ms. Adams would include this report a part of the record of proceeding for this meeting and email copies to Ms. Aura Zelada at the Reunion West POA and Reunion Security for informational purposes. Mr. Greenstein was in favor of purchasing radar display sings that were Cloud based. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that the cost to upgrade the sign was $3,145 each, as there was no easy way to remove the Bluetooth card and include a Cloud based one, but it could be included in the budget for next year. In the meantime, Mr. Scheerer would continue to retrieve the information manually. Mr. Witcher agreed with purchasing the Cloud based ones and seeing what the data looked like after the speed bumps were installed. Mr. Scheerer would obtain prices and provide at an upcoming meeting. Mr. Scheerer reported that a generous offer was received from Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort (Kingwood) to remove the Whitemarsh Mound on Muirfield Loop and was working with Mr. Anthony Carll on the locates. He would work with the contractor prior to the work being completed. Ms. Adams reported that Kingwood signed the agreement and the work would be completed at no cost to the District. Mr. Scheerer was invited to participate in a Zoom meeting with the POA on February 14th, regarding the amenity locations in Encore Reunion West and provided three locations to Ms. Zelada, which were discussed at the last meeting. Ms. Zelada was meeting with her constituents to determine the area, what type of amenity they would like to see and the parking. The tree trimming program commenced, which would encompass mostly Reunion East, but some trees would be trimmed in Reunion West. Mr. Staley pointed out that they were only talking about trimming trees adjacent to CDD property, because there was always an issue about who was responsible for trimming the trees. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that it was only for areas maintained by the CDD. Mr. Staley asked if the HOA was trimming the other trees. Mr. Scheerer replied affirmatively. Mr. Greenstein asked if there was any activity on the sidewalks in Reunion West. Mr. Scheerer recalled that there were some emergency sidewalk repairs, but most of the sidewalks in Reunion West were completed. Most of the activity was in Reunion East and the grinding portion of the work was now commencing. There was a portion of sidewalk at the traffic circle on the Centercourt Ridge side, that had to be re-poured because the contractor hit an irrigation line. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that a number of trees along a cart path coming off of Palmer 14, going up Reunion Boulevard towards the 15th tee box, popped out the sidewalk. Mr. Scheerer felt that it should be handled by Kingwood who was the owner of the golf course. Mr. Greenstein would speak to Mr. Carll about it. Mr. Scheerer predicted spending more money each year on the sidewalks. Mr. Staley asked if the roots were chopped off. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that they cut the roots, which were typically 12 to 14 inches, especially on Gathering Court. They were also addressing truncated domes, the handicapped mats at the end of each pedestrian crosswalk and fixing pavers to bring them to grade. Mr. Staley noted that even if there was a raised sidewalk outside of a home, the CDD would repair it, as it was a public safety issue. Mr. Barry recalled when they called Duke Energy regarding a streetlight, they were responsive within 48 hours; however, an ornament on the top of a light was missing and asked if the CDD owned the streetlight. Mr. Scheerer explained that the CDD leased the streetlights through Duke Energy and OUC and the utility companies were responsible to repair the poles and light fixtures. A report could either be sent to the providers or staff would report it. Mr. Greenstein asked if staff left it up to security to report lights that were out. Mr. Scheerer stated that security did a good job over the last few years, reporting them. Mr. Staley recalled discussion six weeks ago, about the potholes and requesting that the more dangerous ones be filled in until the main roads throughout the community were re-paved. Someone was filling them, but not everywhere. There were some big potholes outside of the water park and crossing Spine Road. Mr. Scheerer heard that part of the road was going to be resurfaced in the next six months, but the Board did not want to spend excess funds to fill potholes. Mr. Staley requested that the potholes be filled. Mr. Greenstein requested a cold patch. Mr. Witcher agreed, as the ones in front of a water park would get larger over the next six months. Mr. Staley questioned the cost for a cold patch. Mr. Scheerer stated that the materials were inexpensive, but not the labor, as they must saw cut it out. Mr. Greenstein believed that it was a minor cost. Mr. Staley was in favor of approving a not-to-exceed amount. Mr. Scheerer would complete the work, using the funds in the budget. Mr. Staley pointed out that there was large pothole outside of the Sinclair Road exit. Mr. Scheerer indicated that the road was owned by Osceola County. Mr. Greenstein questioned the plan for the roadway delineator sticks. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that he met with the contractor when reviewing the Grand Traverse Parkway parking signs and they were gathering all of the material. Mr. Greenstein was surprised at how many were knocked down in the middle of a lane. Mr. Scheerer extended them closer towards Sinclair Road. Mr. Staley picked up four yesterday that were lying in the road. Each stick cost $60 to $70 each, but they did work.. Mr. Scheerer reported that the Capital Improvement Plan was upcoming and Ms. Adams would provide explanations on some roofing projects that were starting in Reunion East. D. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items List Ms. Adams presented the Reunion East CDD and Reunion West Action Items List, which was provided for informational purposes. All items were addressed under the Field Manager’s Report. ii. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from January 1, 2024 through January 31, 2024 in the amount of $1,172,977.63. Board Members were aware of the process of receiving tax revenues from the Osceola County Tax Collector. The portion for CDD maintenance fees, stays in the General Fund and the portion or the debt service fee, was transmitted to the trustee. On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Mr. Witcher with all in favor the January Check Register was approved. iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through December 31, 2023, which were for informational purposes. No Board action was required. As of the end of December, there was a large balance in the Unassigned Fund. Staff was cognizant of managing the cash and all Surplus and Replacement and Maintenance (R&M) Funds, were moved to the State Board of Administration (SBA) account, as it was earning 5.5% interest. According to the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the General Fund, a significant portion of the Tax Roll was received. The Board does a very good job of controlling expenses. Regarding a question of why there was such a large variance between the beginning Fund Balance and the actuals for the Debt Service Funds, Ms. Adams explained that when the budget was adopted, there was a maximum annual debt service reserve requirement in the financials, but not in the budget, except as a budget note stating that it did not include reserves. Mr. Staley questioned why they did not change the practice so that the budget was meaningful. Ms. Adams indicated this was the practice in all CDDs that they managed but would speak to the accountant. Mr. Greenstein asked if there was a statutory reason why it was presented this way. Ms. Adams assumed that the budget note did not carry forward on all of the unaudited financials. They could either carry that note each month or align the practice so they were always recognizing it. In the Adopted Budget, all funds had to be recognized. Mr. Staley did not want to budget for it and to make it uniform, as the budget should predict what the actuals would be. Ms. Adams pointed out that it was not a meaningful number in terms of budgeting, as the Board did not have any ability to direct these funds and recalled mentioning a few months ago, that the interest rate with US Bank had increased to slightly over 5%. iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan Ms. Adams presented the Replacement and Maintenance Plan, which had the Project List for Fiscal Year 2024 and the items deferred from 2023. The Reunion East and Reunion East CDDs had a R&M Fund, which was cost shared between the two CDDs. The Project List was reviewed by Mr. Scheerer each month and Ms. Adams would receive an update on when proposals would be presented to the Boards. Mr. Staley questioned how quickly the roads would be re-striped after the pavement replacement. Ms. Adams indicated that striping was included in the scope, along with the stop bars. E. Security Report Mr. Vargas provided the January Security Report for areas served by the Master Association for the Reunion East and Reunion West CDDs, as well as a report from the Reunion West POA for the Reunion West Encore neighborhood, which were all provided under separate cover. Mr. Staley noted three or four towings per month for all of Reunion, excluding Encore, but for December, Encore towed 54 vehicles and 21 vehicles in January and questioned why. Ms. Adams explained that some drivers did not comply with parking rules, and as a result, their vehicles were towed. Mr. Vargas pointed out that before they tow a vehicle, they knock on doors, to give the owners a chance to move their car before it was towed. Mr. Staley requested that this be monitored, as he felt that Encore had a different more vigorous standard. Ms. Adams felt that there were differences in the composition of certain neighborhoods being more geared towards short term rentals, which created additional parking issues that might need to be addressed more aggressively. Mr. Staley asked if any vehicles were ever towed off of the sidewalk. Mr. Vargas confirmed that they towed vehicles from sidewalks, but they always gave the owner a chance to move the vehicle and most of the time they complied. As long as everyone was happy with how it worked on this side of Sinclair Road, Mr. Staley was satisfied. However, he requested that security monitor what was taking place down Grand Traverse Parkway and Valhalla Terrace, due to the large amount of construction vehicles parked down both sides of the road. Mr. Vargas pointed out that on the west side, Landmark was allowed to park in a lot across the street, so they did not block the street. Mr. Greenstein noted on Golden Bear Drive, there were signs stating that it was private property, meaning owners did not want construction vehicle on those lots. Ms. Harley pointed out that there were no sidewalks. Mr. Staley recalled at an HOA meeting held last year or the year before, the HOA indicated that they did not have the authority to enforce homeowners to install a sidewalk. Mr. Greenstein was surprised that they said that, because it was not their property. Ms. Harley knew of a community that was fully developed and had gaps in their sidewalk. Mr. Staley believed that either Kingwood or the HOA would address this. Ms. Harley recalled that the construction on Grand Traverse Parkway would be completed by February 15th. Mr. Staley noted 50 vehicles parked there because they were rushing to complete the work and thanked Mr. Vargas and his staff for trying to get people to move their cars. Mr. Vargas reported an incident occurring on the east side this morning, where someone was speeding and fell asleep behind the wheel, crashing into a tree. They were able to clear the area by 4:00 a.m. Mr. Staley felt that there was much improvement in the past three years, but questioned why the Reunion West POA were eager to tow vehicles. Ms. Aura Zelada of the Reunion West POA, explained that they take the CDD Parking Rules seriously and were diligent in their enforcement. They were not symathetic to owners parking the wrong way on a street at 2:00 a.m. or parking underneath a No Parking sign. Their process was to first tag with a yellow tag and then a couple of hours later with a red tag, before contacting the towing company. They were familiar with cars parked blocking the sidewalk. They only tow 5% of the time, because the other 95% is spent tagging cars. When people see them, they argue with the guards, but they immediately move their car. In Osceola County, parking against traffic was not permitted. This was a work in progress, but they were working with the vendor and were pleased with the results thus far. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business Ms. Adams reported that Kingwood approached the Reunion East CDD, with a request to convey a wooded area from the District to Kingwood, for the purpose of re-designing the golf club and constructing residential housing. However, before staff provided a recommendation to the Reunion East CDD Board Members, staff requested that Kingwood make a presentation to the Board. Ms. Adams wanted the make this Board aware of it, in case they were ready to present to the Board at the March 14th meeting, but it will not be until the April or May meeting. As a result, they would notice the 1:00 p.m. Reunion East CDD meeting as a workshop, in order for Reunion West CDD Board Members to attend. At this time the Bond Trustee was reviewing legal information. Ms. Harley asked if the wooded area was in back of Twin Eagle Loop. Mr. Greenstein indicated that it was on the east side, off of Watson 17. Ms. Adams confirmed that 100% of the project was within the Reunion East CDD boundaries and there was no direct impact to Reunion West, other than as a stakeholder. Mr. Staley asked if they were taking away a CDD wooded area to build homes. Ms. Adams was not privy to the details and did not want to speak to it, as it was under review with District Counsel, the District Engineer and the Water Management District, but understood that the plan was to redesign the golf course and move the first hole which is why the CDD property was needed. When it looked like the project was feasible, it would be presented to the Board. Mr. Staley compared this to the Crystal Lagoon project, where they removed Hole 1 and built a parking lot. Mr. Witcher noted that it was a huge deal as it would be a massive project, changing Hole 1 and including a lagoon, amphitheater and beach area. There was also an expansion for another high rise. Mr. Greenstein requested that District Counsel briefly explain the document that was entered into with Kingwood, as the Board did not receive any details, noting that the property that would impact the Reunion East CDD, was to add a par 3 that would parallel the fairway of what was currently Watson 17. The Carriage Pointe houses would end at the tee boxes, and there would be a desert area and conservation area at the tree line. At the back of this tree line, they were putting the par 3, which would be parallel to the 17th fairway and would become the 18th hole. It was a small piece of property, the majority of which would occur on property that the golf course already had control over. Ms. Trucco explained that the Board approved a Funding Agreement, that was requested by District staff, in order to pay for CDD staff’s time to complete the review of what was being proposed, which Kingwood agreed to enter into and pay for. Staff was currently reviewing the documents, to determine whether there were any issues from an engineering and legal standpoint. Kingwood may be ready to present a formal proposal to the Board at an upcoming meeting. There was consensus from the Board to schedule a workshop. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests Mr. Barry questioned whether the CDD could construct a sidewalk in front of a lot that was not yet built, if it was for the betterment of the community and there was agreement from the Board. Ms. Adams noted that this is a budgetary issue, because the builder included the installation of the sidewalk in the cost of the home construction and the CDD did not dedicate funds to sidewalk construction. Mr. Greenstein stated they needed to evaluate the feasibility of installing a sidewalk, as it was unclear whether the CDD was responsible for the sidewalk, as it was discussed at the HOA meeting, that the driveway pad/apron was the responsibility of the homeowner and was considered a sidewalk. Mr. Staley recalled that the HOA was responsible for cleaning sidewalks. Mr. Greenstein agreed, as the CDD was responsible for maintaining sidewalks when they were broken, since it was a safety issue. Ms. Harley recalled that a homeowner in Reunion West was served a violation to clean their sidewalk, but no owners in Encore were power washing their sidewalks. Mr. Greenstein noticed homeowners power washing their sidewalks, in order to sell their home. Mr. Greenstein preferred to take an inventory of the vacant lots involved in Reunion East and Reunion West that did not have sidewalks and coming up with an estimate. Mr. Staley estimated 150 vacant lots without a sidewalk and with the price of concrete, a sidewalk could not be installed for less than $10,000. Mr. Scheerer would obtain the locations and provide a rough estimate but felt that $5,000 was reasonable. Ms. Harley suggested identifying ones that had been fenced or utilized by adjacent property. Mr. Scheerer would include all vacant lots, whether or not they had a fence. Ms. Trucco wanted to look at the parcels, because they may not have been conveyed by the developer and if someone owned the lot, they may have legal rights which would inhibit the CDD’s ability to install sidewalks. • Public Comment Period Ms. Adams received a public comment from a Zoom attendee who was not present at the start of the meeting. Resident Kelsey Jenson of Seven Eagles noted that sidewalks were uneven and needed to be power washed; however, the HOA was saying that it was the CDD’s responsibility and vice versa. Mr. Scheerer noted that in Seven Eagles, the sidewalks were the responsibility of the Seven Eagles Condo Association. Mr. Jenson questioned who was responsible for maintaining the park. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that the CDD was responsible for pressure washing the park and the monuments at Seven Eagles Linear Park. Mr. Staley clarified that the CDD power washed the pathways in Linear Park. Mr. Jenson hoped that Reunion would pay for more, as the CDD charged for upkeep of the tennis courts. Ms. Adams pointed out that the CDD did not own the tennis courts nor was the CDD expending funds for tennis court maintenance. Mr. Jenson indicated that guests get to use the tennis courts and their assessments were being increased, which was not fair. Mr. Staley explained that anything owned by the CDD was a public property and could be used by any member of the public. Ms. Adams noted three classifications of users: property owners within the District, registered guests and nonresident member users. Nonresident member users must apply and pay an annual fee in order to enjoy the amenities as CDD amenties were not open to the general public. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date – March 14th, 2024 Ms. Adams stated that the next meeting was scheduled for March 14, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Signature - Tricia Adams Signature - Graham Staley Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman