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, September 12, 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 Aura Zelada Reunion West POA Manager, Artemis Lifestyles Garrett Huegel Yellowstone Landscape Pete Whitman Yellowstone Landscape Victor Vargas Reunion Security Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the September 12, 2024 Reunion West Community Development District Board of Supervisors meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 11:01 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 August 8, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the August 8, 2024 Board of Supervisors meetings, which were reviewed by District Management staff, District Counsel and the Chairman. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the Minutes of the August 8, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting were approved as presented. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of Long-Range Planning Mr. Staley presented a Long-Range Financial Plan for 2026 through 2029, that he prepared. No decision needed to be made by the Board today, as the figures for 2024 were only projections and would not be finalized for two months. Historically, the District always did slightly better than what was projected and as they moved through 2025, there would be budget variances such as including additional funds for legal and custodial expenses on the east side, which this CDD must fund. Mr. Staley recommended that a community wide Capital Plan, be prepared at the end of February, for Board review at the March meeting, in order to set next year’s budget and proposed: 1) Managing gross assessments and expenditures (including transfers to the Repair and Maintenance (R&M) Fund, to achieve an approximate annual break-even in the General Fund from 2026 to 2029 and 2) Maintaining a General Fund balance of no less than $500,000 at the end of each year 2026-2029. The purpose of having a General Fund balance at the end of each year, was to pay expenses in the final quarter of the year, before assessments were received. Mr. Staley felt that it was a working assumption that could be changed in the upcoming months and further proposed building up the R&M Fund to at least $1 million by the end of 2029 by achieving transfers from the General Fund and managing R&M expenditures. Reunion East has a $2.5 million General Fund Reserve and $3.5 million R&M Reserve; however, the CDD shared 43% of the shared expenses with the Reunion East CDD. Therefore, they needed to build up the reserves over the next few years, as the roadway resurfacing was imminent in the next 18 months. Mr. Staley stated that he based his assumptions on the gross maintenance assessment of $1,000 per resident for this year. In addition, there would be an inflationary increase of 4% going forward, for the remainder of the five years, which Mr. Barry proposed. In addition, with the additional funds for legal and custodial expenses, in order to have $1 million in the R&M Fund and $500,000 in the General Fund, there must be a 20% increase next year and a 5% increase thereafter. Mr. Staley would bring this back to the Board at the end of December, as he would have the 2024 figures and recommended communicating their plans to residents, explaining why the increases are necessary. Mr. Greenstein felt that a 15% increase in assessments was a minimal amount. Mr. Witcher thanked Mr. Staley for going through this exercise, as it made things easier to understand. Mr. Barry appreciated Mr. Staley presenting this Long-Range Financial Plan, as it was a great exercise, but questioned whether the Board had to decide on the increase by next March. Ms. Adams stated that the Board needed to decide when the Proposed Budget was approved, likely in May, as it would include a proposed assessment amount that would be noticed in the letter to property owners. There would be a workshop in March, to discuss the Long-Range Plan and updated Reserve Study. Any infrastructure that was added, such as the Playgrounds and outdoor Fitness Center on Grand Traverse Parkway, would be included, along with the estimated useful life. Mr. Staley questioned whether it was reasonable to have a Five-Year Capital Plan, presented at the February meeting. Ms. Adams felt that was reasonable. Mr. Barry felt that it was helpful to have a high-level overview. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Contract Renewals Ms. Adams reported that the Service Agreements for aquatic vegetation management and landscape maintenance, were up for renewal, which Mr. Scheerer would present. She noted action taken by the Board today, would include District Counsel preparing of the legal agreement, with protections and indemnifications and allow for execution of the agreement by the Chairman. The Aquatic Vegetation Management Agreement was for two ponds and Applied Aquatic was requesting a 3% increase. This year was the fifth year of renewing the agreement with Yellowstone and Ms. Adams would work on the bid documents with Mr. Scheerer, which would be presented to the Board, in the first quarter of 2025 for approval. There was a separate agreement with Creative North for the Reunion West Encore neighborhood. Mr. Staley questioned whether Creative North’s contract expired at the end of 2025. Mr. Scheerer stated their contract was from October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025, for all of Reunion East and West and the property would be part of the RFP process. A. Consideration of Aquatic Vegetation Management Agreement Renewal with Applied Aquatic Management, Inc. Mr. Scheerer presented an Aquatic Vegetation Management Agreement renewal with Applied Aquatic Management, Inc., which runs from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. They were the District’s service provider for a number of years, providing for the management of submersed vegetation, immersed floating algae, shoreline grasses in the Grand Traverse pond and the wet pond in Encore Reunion West. They requested a 3% increase, which was included in the 2025 budget. Mr. Staley questioned whether it included the pond on Golden Bear Drive. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that this pond was an irrigation pond that was not maintained by the CDD. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Witcher with all in favor the Aquatic Vegetation Management Agreement renewal with Applied Aquatic Management, Inc. was approved. B. Consideration of Landscape/Grounds Maintenance Services Agreement Renewal with Yellowstone Landscape Mr. Scheerer presented a Landscape/Grounds Maintenance Services Agreement renewal with Yellowstone and introduced Mr. Pete Whitman of Yellowstone, who was present. The fee summary schedule encompassed the east and west sides of Reunion. Ms. Adams noted that there was a separate Service Agreement for Heritage Crossing, for budgeting purposes, as the District was taking over the maintenance as of October 1st. Mr. Scheerer noted two phases left in Reunion Village to be landscaped. Mr. Greenstein questioned whether there was an Interlocal Agreement for landscaping or if it was based on jurisdiction. Ms. Adams indicated that each CDD had their own agreements, but there were shared costs, based on an Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Greenstein stated that for services provided by Yellowstone, Reunion East was responsible for paying $647,750.52 and Reunion West was responsible for paying $130,313.54. Mr. Staley preferred that it be split, because all residents benefited but landscape services should be included in the discussions for next year’s budget. Ms. Adams confirmed that for FY 2025, $1.1 million was budgeted for all areas of landscape services, with Reunion East paying $665,000 and Reunion West paying $502,000 and recommended scheduling a joint meeting for both Boards to review the proposals together. Mr. Greenstein agreed. On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the Landscape/Grounds Maintenance Services Agreement renewal with Yellowstone Landscape was approved. C. Consideration of Landscape/Grounds Maintenance Services Agreement Renewal with Creative North Mr. Scheerer presented a Landscape/Grounds Maintenance Services Agreement renewal with Creative North, for maintenance of landscaping in Encore Reunion West. They did a good job, were responsive, there was no increase for the next fiscal year and Mr. Scheerer had no concerns. A map was included with their areas of responsibility. Mr. Greenstein questioned whether Creative North was maintaining any residential land in Encore Reunion West. Ms. Adams confirmed that the HOA had a different landscape provider for the residential property. Ms. Aura Zelada of the Reunion West POA, reported that in June of 2023, the HOA terminated Florida Commercial Care (FCC) and hired Weber Environmental and the HOA Board just renewed their contract for FY 2025. They were more expensive than FCC, but provided good quality landscaping and were extremely receptive. Mr. Staley requested that FCC and Weber Environmental be included in the RFP process. On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Landscape/Grounds Maintenance Services Agreement renewal with Creative North was approved. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Agreement for Pavement Maintenance Ms. Adams reported that since the last meeting, District Counsel was working on preparing the agreement with All County Paving, but it was not completed, as she was waiting for some additional information. Ms. Trucco explained that this agreement was for the road resurfacing, re- striping and speed table installation project. Mr. Curley was working with Mr. Boyd to finalize the details, such as the scope of service, map of the speed tables and the costs. Ms. Trucco pointed out that there were blanks in the agreement, as she needed input from the Board, such as the number of days to reach substantial completion in Paragraph 3. Mr. Curley was informed that there would be a 5% to 10% increase, but he preferred a 2.5% to 5% increase, since a 5% increase on a $1.2 million project, was $60,000. In addition, they would need 30 days to mobilize, have a pre- construction meeting and eight weeks from start to finish. Ms. Trucco questioned whether the Board wanted to delay this project, as there would be eight weeks of construction, during the holiday season. Mr. Witcher did not want construction during the holidays, as many people would be visiting during the holidays and the snowbirds would return. Ms. Adams voiced concern about delaying this project until after the holidays, as the peak season for the snowbirds was in January and there may be a material increase that would add to the expense. Mr. Staley proposed speaking to the contractor about decreasing mobilization from 30 days to three weeks. Ms. Adams suggested delegating authority to the Chairman to approve the final form of the agreement and the final amount. Mr. Staley understood there would be a 5% increase. Mr. Greenstein recalled contracts in the past, where there was a reduction in the fee, for not completing the work by a certain timeframe. Ms. Trucco indicated if the contractor did not complete the project by a certain timeframe, the District had certain remedies under the Prompt Payment Act, which could include a potential reduction. Mr. Staley proposed that the Board agree to the 5%, subject to completion of the work by December 13th. Mr. Witcher felt that the 5% was reasonable, but requested that Mr. Curley negotiate with the contractor and a penalty be applied if they did not complete the work within a certain timeframe. Mr. Curley would take this back to the contractor. At the request of Mr. Staley, Ms. Trucco would include in Paragraph 3, “The contractor would complete the project by December 13th” and remove, “Excluding Federal holidays.” There was Board consensus to delegate authority to the Chairman to provide the final sign off. Mr. Greenstein questioned whether the contractor would have a Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Plan. Mr. Curley indicated that he planned to request a MOT from the contractor, as well as a start date, at the pre-construction meeting. Ms. Adams pointed out that along with the District Engineer and contractor, security and Mr. Scheerer, would also attend the pre-construction meeting and a schedule would be prepared for electronic messaging purposes to notify stakeholders of road construction zones. If needed, door notices would be placed on the affected residents’ doors, in advance of when the work was scheduled to occur. Mr. Curley confirmed that All County understood the type of community and the scope of the work. Ms. Adams questioned whether a message board was included with the MOT on upcoming road closures. Mr. Curley would verify. Mr. Staley questioned whether the work could start at 7:00 a.m. Ms. Adams stated it depends on the County Noise Ordinance. Mr. Scheerer believed that there was a 7:00 a.m. start time. Mr. Staley requested that staff circulate the Communication Plan to both CDD Boards, prior to the next meeting, as the next meeting was one week prior to the start of the project. Ms. Adams offered to provide sample notices from other CDDs, but the plan was to have electronic messaging distributed to stakeholders following the precon meeting and door notices if needed. Ms. Trucco requested feedback from the Board on Paragraph 6c, on the contractor performing the work within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and the project ending on December 13th. Ms. Adams cautioned the Board about tying the contractor’s hands to complete their work during the day, as there could be material delivery delays. Mr. Staley preferred to leave the language as stated. Ms. Trucco would add language on providing notice, at the direction of the District. On MOTION Mr. Barry seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Agreement for Pavement Maintenance in substantial final form, subject to staff execution and delegating authority to the Chairman to provide final execution of the terms was approved. Mr. Staley requested that communication be sent to residents at least twice and have it Facebook friendly. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney There being no comments, the next item followed. B. Engineer There being no comments, the next item followed. C. Field Manager Updates Mr. Scheerer reported that the neighborhood monuments were soft washed, over the last week to ten days. Mr. Staley reported a light that was out on Whitemarsh Way, which turned out to be an underground electrical issue, that they were working with the utility on and would review the remainder of the lights, to ensure that they were operating. A fountain on Golden Bear Drive was not working last night and it turned out to be a breaker trip, probably from the weather. It was working fine now. Last week, someone hit a golf ball through the bathroom window of the Sinclair guardhouse. Mr. Chet Berry looked at it and determined that it was safe enough to keep the water out. Towards November or December, the guardhouses would be pressure washed and all monuments and sidewalks that the CDD maintained, would be cleaned. Mr. Staley questioned the status of the Encore playground. Mr. Scheerer stated that revised proposals for the Encore playground, would be provided to the Board at the October meeting. Mr. Staley noted inconsistencies on the No Parking map, as there were no yellow markings on Whitemarsh Way, turning onto Tradition Boulevard, going towards Sinclair Road, at the intersection of Whitemarsh Way and Muirfield Loop, coming from the Tradition Boulevard and No Parking just past the first left turn from Muirfield Loop to Whitemarsh Way. Mr. Scheerer offered to add additional signs. Mr. Staley requested that the curbs be painted yellow, that there be another sign pointing back to Tradition Boulevard and homeowners be notified. Ms. Adams would notify the homeowners when Mr. Scheerer was getting ready to install the signs. D. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items List Mr. Scheerer presented the Action Items List, which was included in the agenda package. The Encore Reunion West playground was in process. He reached out to their prior contractor and the contractor that did the Grand Traverse playground and would provide updated proposals for October and discuss how to proceed with the sidewalk project, once they were in 2025. ii. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from August 1, 2024 through August 31, 2024, in the amount of $66,610.21, which was included in the agenda package, along with a detailed check run. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the August Check Register was approved. iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through July 31, 2024, which were for informational purposes. The District was fully collected and staff was monitoring line- item overages. No Board action was required. iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan Ms. Adams presented the R&M Plan. Starting at the October meeting, there would be an additional column with an estimated completion date for projects in process or when the Board would expect to see a proposal. Typically, there were not many R&M projects the first quarter of the fiscal year and the District was focusing on pavement management, the playground and would continuously track the sidewalk project. There was not much else in the last quarter and there were some dates in January or thereafter for some of these projects. Mr. Staley voiced concern that the sidewalk project would remain on the Action Items List and nothing would happen. Ms. Adams pointed out that staff recognized the importance of the sidewalk project and planned to meet with District Counsel after the Reunion East CDD meeting, to discuss the notice that would be distributed to the Preferred Builders and whether a notice should be sent to property owners as a courtesy. Mr. Staley suggested that Mr. Barry could answer any questions, since he was working with Kingwood and was the facilitator for the annual Preferred Builders meeting, which would be held in November. Ms. Adams was waiting for a response from Mr. Anthony Carll of Kingwood as to when the Builders’ meeting would occur and would include Mr. Barry in her communications. Mr. Barry indicated that two issues needed to be addressed, before they could proceed. There were no issues on the east side, but on the west side, there was disagreement on the ownership on some of the properties. Ms. Adams noted out that she discussed the project with Counsel and believed they had the approval to proceed. Mr. Barry felt that any communication would be early at this stage. Ms. Adams confirmed the only time sensitive component, was the Preferred Builders annual meeting; however, the Board needed to approve an agreement at the October meeting and notify property owners that there would be a sidewalk installed in front of their residential lot in 2025. Ms. Trucco questioned whether there was an identified requirement for a sidewalk to be constructed within a certain amount of time, because there was a potential risk of damage if the sidewalk was installed and a home was built there. Mr. Greenstein would speak to Ms. Trucco outside of the meeting, as he was on the ARB. Ms. Adams reported that subsequent to last month’s meeting, she received confirmation in writing from the District Engineer, that no permit was required to install the sidewalk. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that there was a proposal for $390,000 from Dehlinger Construction to grade and sod. No action was taken by the Board. v. Presentation of Series 2016, 2017 and 2019 Arbitrage Rebate Calculation Reports Ms. Adams presented the Arbitrage Rebate Calculation Reports prepared by AMTEC for the Series 2016, 2017 and 2019 bonds, which were required, due to an IRS requirement, to determine if the District was earning more interest than what they were paying on the tax exempt bonds. All reports indicated no arbitrage issues. On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Series 2016, 2017 and 2019 Arbitrage Rebate Calculation Reports were accepted. Mr. Staley appreciated the detail of the reports but preferred to have a one-page summary of the rebate computations. E. Security Report Ms. Adams provided under separate cover, the August Security Reports from Reunion Security and the Reunion West POA. No Board action was required and it was for informational purposes. Mr. Victor Vargas of Reunion Security and Ms. Aura Zelada of the Reunion West POA, were present to answer questions. Mr. Greenstein questioned why yesterday, there were helicopters and a Deputy’s car behind the security office. Mr. Vargas explained that there was a domestic dispute between two females in Reunion Village, resulting in a stabbing. Ms. Adams pointed out that it was a law enforcement matter and not a CDD matter. Mr. Staley requested that the officers provide more detail in their logs, as officers only reported parked vehicles with no resolution. Mr. Vargas would double check future logs before providing them to the Board. Ms. Adams pointed out that Reunion Security provided a report regarding the stabbing incident this morning, but she did not yet forward it to the Board. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business There being no comments, the next item followed. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests Mr. Staley asked if there were new developments regarding The Stables. Ms. Adams reported that an appraisal was received on Tuesday, but was not fully reviewed by staff; however, it was forwarded to the Reunion East CDD Board of Supervisors for review. It would be the decision of the Reunion East CDD Board, if they wanted to utilize the building as overflow storage or to repurpose it for amenity use. If they wanted to sell the parcel, there was debt that would have to be retired and there must be an analysis from bond counsel. Ms. Trucco clarified that the bond counsel analysis was necessary, because if it was sold, it would be considered a private use of bond financed property and there was an IRS provision that no more than 10% of a bond issuance could be used for a private use. At a prior meeting, the Reunion East CDD Board, directed staff to obtain a quote from bond counsel, who quoted an estimated 10-20 hours of work at the cost of $10,000 to $20,000. The Board decided to proceed with obtaining the appraisal and the next step was to obtain an analysis from bond counsel, on the amount of bonds that needed to be redeemed. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that the Board would only approve an analysis, if they truly believed that there was no meaningful repurposing of that building and disposing of it was the last resort. Mr. Staley questioned whether he could show the parking maps to the Reunion West CDD Board Members, after this meeting. Ms. Adams recommended showing it to the Board during the Reunion West CDD Board meeting and it would be added to the record of proceedings. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date: October 10, 2024 Ms. Adams announced that the next meeting was scheduled for October 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. at this location. ELEVENTH 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