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, March 13, 2025 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 by Zoom	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
Katie O’Rourke	District Manager
Shaianne Berry	Reunion West POA
Grace Montanez	Reunion West POA Manager
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 March 13, 2025 Reunion West Community Development District Board of Supervisors meeting.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call
Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m. and called the roll. All five Supervisors were in attendance and a quorum was established.

Reunion West CDD		March 13, 2025	
Regular Meeting
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	
Public Comment Period	Page 2 of 9	
There being no comments, the next item followed.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the February
13, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the February 13, 2024 Board of Supervisors meeting, which were reviewed by District Counsel and the District Manager and were included in the agenda package. Mr. Staley noted on Page 3 of 17, “White Marshall” should be, “Whitemarsh Way.” Ms. Adams would incorporate this change.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the Minutes of the February 13, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting were approved as amended.

Ms. Adams pointed out that adjustments were made to your regular agenda; in order to accommodate today’s workshop, such as moving staff reports to this portion of the meeting.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
There being no comments, the next item followed.

Engineer
Mr. Curley reported that speed bump warning signs had not moved, but they were looking at the striping, as the reflectiveness was not correct, which he spoke to All County Paving about. They agreed it was not correct and were working on a resolution. Mr. Staley asked if this meant that they did not need to do the progressive striping discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Curley did not believe that it would solve the issue, as the warning striping was still at the speed table, at this point, but if the Board wanted more advance warning, they could have progressive striping, on the regular road, prior to the speed bump. Ms. Adams pointed out that a schematic was included in the agenda package for advanced warning markings for speed humps, which Mr. Curley distributed to the Board at the last meeting. A proposal for this type of warning striping would be considered by the Board later in the meeting. Mr. Staley preferred reflective paint on all of them, to have a consistent approach to those markings.  Ms. Witcher, who was on vacation in Hawaii, noticed

Reunion West CDD	March 13, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 3 of 9
speed humps throughout resort community, having reflective paint prior to the speed humps, which looked good and worked well and felt that was something that the Board should be considering. Mr. Greenstein recalled that the original scope did not include warning markings for the humps, which was something that they needed to think about prior to the project and they could not hold the contractor accountable for.
Mr. Greenstein felt that Mr. Witcher had a good point, as they were considered graduated markers and that it was a good idea to lock on what they wanted. Ms. Adams pointed out that there was a proposal from Fausnight for this type of speed hump warning striping. The Field Operations Manager took the scope provided by the District Engineer and submitted it to Fausnight, the vendor that the District previously used. Mr. Greenstein hoped to discuss items like this jointly with the Reunion East CDD Board at a workshop meeting. Mr. Staley suggested having a one-hour Reunion West CDD Board meeting, joint meeting and Reunion East CDD Board meeting. Ms. Adams indicated instead of adjourning this meeting, the Board would make a motion to continue the meeting after the joint workshop and then call this meeting back to order after adjourning the joint workshop, in order to take Board action on items discussed at the workshop. Ms. Adams reported that the proposal from Fausnight, which was included in the agenda package, was for the warning striping, which the Board requested and included upgraded sign posts. The current warning sign post, was galvanized U-Channel, which was not the typical of design standards throughout Reunion. Typically round black power coated posts were used for speed limit and stop signs. Mr. Greenstein recalled that the back of their parking signs was not powder coated and most traffic signs were stainless or galvanized steel on the back. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that it would cost another $300 to $400 to produce a black back plate and offered to spray paint them. This item would be discussed after the joint meeting. Mr. Staley noted that there were only 11 markings and signs on the proposal, when there were actually 12 speed table locations, six in Reunion East and six in Reunion West. This would be discussed at the workshop.

Field Manager Updates
Mr. Scheerer reported that they were monitoring the monument sign lights in Reunion West. They were upgraded to a 30-watt light and were making minor adjustments when needed. He was happy that the Supervisors liked them. They were also doing some maintenance on the

Reunion West CDD	March 13, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 4 of 9
guardhouse, changing filters and doing some work on the gates, as closed loops needed to be installed. At this time, staff was working hard to prepare the budgets and for the hurricane seasons.

District Manager’s Report
Approval of Check Register
Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from February 1, 2025 through February 28, 2025 in the amount of $181,799.64, which was included in the agenda package, along with a detailed check run.

On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the February Check Register was approved.

Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through January 31, 2025, which were included in the agenda package. No Board action was required, as this was for informational purposes and included the Combined Balance Sheet. The District was 85% collected as of the end of January. On the administrative portion of the budget, pro-rated expenses were at $70,614 and the actual spending was $76,445. Some line items may be adjusted going into Fiscal Year 2026, based on the current environment. For field expenses, some of the overage in landscaping was based on the application of mulch being billed one time a year and the Heritage Crossings Community Center (HCCC) landscape contract was being billed under field expenses. Moving forward into Fiscal Year 2026, the HCCC expense would be budgeted with the general expenses. Mr. Staley pointed out that the landscaping line item was favorable by $15,000, with no expenses and asked if this was the only line item that needed clarification for the Heritage Crossings expenses. Ms. Adams explained that staff was conservative when the budget was adopted and there was an allowance in case the Board wanted to have a dumpster at this location; however, it was deemed not necessary. Therefore, the $17,200 expense would not need to be accounted for next fiscal year, as well was the cleaning contract, as the selected vendor was under budget. The capital reserve transfer for this current year, of $379,435, from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund, had taken place.
Mr. Staley asked if it would cost $35,000 to $36,000 to maintain HCCC; $7,000 year to date, which was spent for HCCC, times three, which equated to $21,000, plus $15,000 for

Reunion West CDD	March 13, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 5 of 9
landscaping. Ms. Adams replied affirmatively, but could not guarantee it, until they were through the entire year. Mr. Staley pointed out it was a big difference from the $75,000 budgeted amount and since the CDD was paying 43%, the HCCC would be less than originally thought. Ms. Adams confirmed that there would be less maintenance budget impact than originally contemplated, but it did not include any capital projects or significant replacements, that might need to be considered. Regarding the budget, Ms. Adams did not have anything to bring to the Board’s attention and advised staff monitored the month-to-month revenue and spending.

Presentation of Series 2022 Arbitrage Rebate Calculation Report
Ms. Adams presented the Arbitrage Rebate Calculation Report prepared by AMTEC for the Series 2022 tax exempt bond, due to a regulation by the Internal Revenue Service, to determine if the District was earning more interest than what they were paying. If there was an arbitrage issue, the IRS could impose a financial penalty. These reports were run annually, to understand if there was an issue. No rebate liability existed.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor the Series 2022 Arbitrage Rebate Calculation Report was accepted.

Security Report
Ms. Adams reported that the February Security Reports from Reunion Security and the Reunion West POA, were provided to the Board under separate cover. No Board action was required and the report was for informational purposes. Mr. Victor Vargas, Director of Reunion Security and Ms. Grace Montanez, Association Manager of the Reunion West POA, were present.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor’s Requests
Mr. Staley recalled at the last meeting, the Bears Den conveyance was discussed, but not finalized, because further work was needed from the District Engineer and asked if the matter was resolved. Ms. Trucco confirmed that it was not yet resolved and it was being worked on. The last requisition that was prepared, included a portion of the stormwater system. Her office had drafted conveyance documents, but the Board requested documentation showing the location of the stormwater improvements that would be conveyed to the CDD.  The District Engineer was

Reunion West CDD	March 13, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 6 of 9
supposed to provide a map or plans with highlighting to indicate the location of the improvements being requisitioned, in order to process the requestion and she would send a follow up email. Ms. Adams confirmed that GMS was holding the requisition until all documents were received. Mr. Staley questioned whether there would be 11 or 12 speed table sign posts and markings. Mr. Scheerer believed that there were 11 speed bumps. Mr. Staley indicated that there were 12 speed tables; one by the Terraces, two by the S-Curve, one outside of the water park and two on Reunion Boulevard, along with six on the west side. Mr. Curley agreed. Mr. Scheerer would email the contractor the corrected number.
Mr. Staley asked if there was a public hearing in April on the parking rules. Ms. Adams confirmed that there was a public hearing in April to amend and restate the parking rules, with the goal of keeping them the same as the Reunion East parking rules and address any other parking zones necessary. Mr. Barry asked if there could be one big CDD, versus two separate CDDs. Ms. Adams recalled that there was statutory provision to merge two CDDs into one CDD and GMS worked with Districts who successfully merged. There were legal memorandums provided by District Counsel that provided an overview of the process. The benefit was to have efficiency and provide cost savings with professional fees, but the downside would be less representation, as there were currently 10 elected officials and if they were merged, there would only be five elected officials. Mr. Staley recalled that this matter was discussed two or three years ago and a proposal was presented to both Boards. The Reunion West CDD Board was in favor of merging, but the Reunion East CDD Board Members felt that the issues were different and were concerned that Board Members would lose their position. Mr. Staley felt that this was a good suggestion, as he preferred to have one CDD and there would be joint issues, as development was completed on both sides. Ms. Adams pointed out that the Reunion East CDD Board composition had changed between that time and now and this was perhaps the time to reintroduce the topic, to see if there was interest. However, in order to merge, there must be complete interest by both Boards and it was an expensive process, estimated around $140,000, but after a merger, there were administrative cost savings each year.
Ms. Trucco explained that Chapter 190 provided a process where two or more Districts could merge, by filing a petition with a county for the merger of two Community Development Districts and that certain criteria is required to be met, such as that the existing debt must be assumed by each CDD; however, the debt service was already in place related to the bonds. There

Reunion West CDD	March 13, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 7 of 9
would then be a hearing process through the county, whereby the petition would likely first be placed on a consent agenda and then there would be a public hearing. If approved, two Board Members would be elected from each District and one Member at large. Mr. Staley noted the benefit that there would be more interest from the community, as there would be less confusion and only be one proposal from a vendor, versus two and cost savings of $40,000 to $50,000 in professional fees. Ms. Adams confirmed from a business perspective, there were cost savings and efficiencies that would be realized from merging. Mr. Barry questioned the impact to residents. Ms. Adams indicated that due to the spirit and cooperation of this CDD and a current cost share arrangement through an Interlocal Agreement, there would be no impact to residents, other than some cost savings. Mr. Staley suggested that this matter be discussed at the joint workshop under Other Business. Ms. Adams would make note of it. Mr. Greenstein recalled when this issue was discussed, he was the Chairman of both CDD Boards. The feedback that he received from the Reunion East CDD Board, was not to merge and consider at a later date, as Reunion West was just accomplishing public election representation. However, he was in favor of merging then and now, as administratively, there was much to be gained by it. On the debt service side, the obligation would remain with one CDD, but it was a bookkeeping item and the question was whether there was an option to change their Assessment Methodology or a simple rollover of the Assessment Methodology. There was also a difference in reserves between the Reunion East and West CDDs, as some people felt that the Reunion East CDD was financially stronger than the Reunion West CDD. In addition, there was a possibility to curtail or forestall any assessment changes for the west side, if they merge with the east.
Ms. Adams clarified that the debt assessment was established when the bond was issued and could not be changed, as the assessment areas would remain the same, but the Boards could consider the methodology for the maintenance assessment, which could change, as it was currently established by an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). The methodology that was used for maintenance of the District, was the same methodology used for the debt assessment. Probably 90% of Districts use the same methodology for the maintenance fee assessment as the debt assessment, but sometimes it was an equalized assessment, depending on the District. Mr. Staley pointed out that it would be difficult to keep the Assessment Methodologies separate with the two CDDs, as there must be bookkeeping to understand the needs. Mr. Staley felt that it was useful to have a conversation, to see if there was any interest in spending time considering all of the

ramifications over the next six 12 months. Ms. Adams cautioned that this was not a quick process, as filing the petition with the county and the county reviewing it, was at least a 12-month process.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Motion to Continue Meeting Following
Workshop

On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor continuing the Board of Supervisors meeting following the workshop was approved.

*The meeting was recessed at 11:55 a.m.
*The meeting was reconvened at 1:27 p.m.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Speed Bump Warning
Striping and Upgraded Sign Posts
This item was previously discussed.

On MOTION by Ms. Harley seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor the proposal for speed bump warning striping and an upgrade sign posts in the amount of $25,000 as amended, to include 12 locations was approved.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Request for Proposals for
Landscape Services
This item was discussed at the workshop.

On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Request for Proposal for landscape services in substantial form was approved.

On MOTION by Ms. Harley seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor the appointment of Mr. Bill Witcher to the Landscape Evaluation Committee for the purpose of evaluating the submittals for landscape services was approved.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Meeting Date: April 10, 2025
The next meeting was scheduled for April 10, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. at this location.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

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

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman