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, April 10, 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 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 Shaianne Berry Reunion West POA Grace Montanez Reunion West POA 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 April 10, 2025 Reunion West Community Development District Board of Supervisors meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 11:01 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 March 13, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the March 13, 2024, Board of Supervisors meeting, which were reviewed by District Counsel and the District Manager. Mr. Barry indicated on Page 7, in the middle of the first paragraph, it stated that he was concerned about the impact to the residents. He wondered about it but was not concerned about it and requested that Ms. Adams change, “voiced concern” to “questioned.” On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor the Minutes of the March 13, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting were approved as amended. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Amend and Restate Parking Rules A. Open Public Hearing On MOTION by Ms. Harley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Public Hearing to Amend and Restate the Parking Rules was opened. B. Public Comment No members of the public were present. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Witcher with all in favor the Public Hearing to Amend and Restate the Parking Rules was closed. C. Consideration of Resolution 2025-05 Adopting the Amended and Restated Parking Rules Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2025-05 Adopting the Amended and Restated Parking Rules, which was included in the agenda package. At the time that the Board set the public hearing, they reviewed the proposed verbiage but recommended no changes. According to the Reunion West POA Manager and Reunion Security, they had no recommended changes. The Board reviewed the rules section by section and were familiar with the updates, with the primary intention to ensure that the parking rules were parallel with the Reunion East parking rules, so that there was uniformity throughout the community. The only correction was to the parking map and Mr. Curley worked with her on the exhibit, the standards for parking on Whitemarsh Way. Several years ago, Board Members looked at Loxahatchee Court, which was a cul-de-sac. Typically, culs-de-sac were always no parking zones, but because this cul-de-sac was not a typical one, as an alley connected to it, there was a reason to consider additional parking on the one side of the cul-de-sac. The Board approved that change, but in the course of revising maps from time to time, it got reverted to the original no parking zone. Therefore, the only change to the parking map, was to include this change. There were complaints from residents that people who lived on nearby streets were parking their vehicles on the Loxahatchee Court, but it was a public road, with parking on a first come/first serve basis. Mr. Staley understood that parking was allowed on the right-hand side, with the exception of this access road, but questioned why they only allowed parking for the two homes on the righthand side and not the left. Ms. Adams recalled when it was reviewed a few years ago, the purpose of allowing parking on one side, was to keep with the Reunion standard, where parking was allowed on one side, but not the other. However, if Board Members wanted to allow parking on the entire cul-de-sac, the map could be amended. Mr. Staley did not see the need for it and simply wanted logic for why they were doing so. The logic was there, as the no parking was on the lefthand side and it would give garbage trucks an opportunity to turn in the cul-de-sac, without having to go over a narrow access road. However, one neighbor noted that some people were abusing the parking and blocking the access road. Ms. Adams suggested adding to the red zone, to ensure that parking did not block the access road. Mr. Staley felt that the logic made sense, but did not want to move the No Parking sign to the other side of the access road and preferred to monitor it and take action in the future. Ms. Adams asked if the Board wanted to add another red dot where the access road was located, to provide clarity. Mr. Scheerer suggested moving the line to the edge of the driveway. Mr. Greenstein suggested installing a Do Not Block Access sign in the alley. Mr. Scheerer offered to place a standard sign saying, “Please Do Not Block Driveway,” to the right of the accessway. Mr. Staley said that moving the No Park sign to the right-hand side, was the easiest thing to do. Mr. Scheerer agreed, as they would not need another sign, since the arrow already pointed to the left. Mr. Greenstein felt that signage was more impactful than the maps. Ms. Trucco wanted to ensure that they were not going too far into the development tract and to stop where the original plat stopped, so it did not exceed further than they were permitted to. Regarding how far down Whitemarsh Way the CDD had jurisdiction, Mr. Greenstein believed that it was past the comfort station, where their original paving job stopped, and the developer owned the rest. Ms. Trucco would work with Mr. Curley on adjusting the map to reduce the redline further into the future development tract, so that the CDD was not exceeding their jurisdiction. Mr. Staley requested language for vehicles being used for business, as various people from time-to-time, were running car rental businesses out of their homes and parking their cars in the street for many days, which the roads were not designed for. Ms. Harley recalled that the resident who Mr. Staley was referring to, moved their vehicles. Ms. Trucco noted including language for vehicles for business use, but questioned how security would distinguish between a personal and commercial vehicle, from an enforceability standard. Mr. Vargas indicated that they marked the tires of vehicles parked on Whitemarsh Way, but when the No Parking signs were installed, the resident moved them to Loxahatchee Road. The issue was that the resident worked the system and rotated the cars every five to six days and he and his team were ensuring that the vehicle was not considered abandoned. Mr. Staley requested that security continue to monitor the situation. Ms. Trucco asked if the number of days the vehicle should be parked in the road should be reduced. Mr. Vargas felt what the Board was doing was correct, but suggested sending a letter to the resident that was breaking this rule. Mr. Staley pointed out that this process would only work if there was a community spirit to comply with the rules, but if there was no community spirit or goodwill, the rules would not work. Mr. Barry felt that they must determine whether or not the vehicle was being used for a rental car business and including language in the rule for this purpose. Mr. Staley pointed out that someone informed him that a car rental business was being run out of a specific resident’s home. Ms. Trucco recommended that the Board direct her to write a letter to the owner and including a copy of the rules, since the CDD now had Parking and Towing Rules that prohibited this. Ms. Harley agreed, as it would satisfy the residents that were having the issue and something was being done. Mr. Staley would also continue to monitor the situation, but did not want the letter to be sent, as there was not enough information. Mr. Staley noted a typo on the bottom of Page 19, which would be corrected by Ms. Adams. Regarding the map on Page 24, he was asked by a resident in Whitemarsh Way to extend the No Parking further down Whitemarsh Way, as the resident could not park in front of their home. Mr. Staley had sympathy for the resident, but they could not make rules specifically for individual homeowners, as this was a public right-of-way and people could park as they wished. In addition, there was never any No Parking signs in the horseshoe shaped island in Palmilla and Mr. Staley recommended drawing a red line around it. Mr. Scheerer would draw a circle around the green median and only allow for one-sided parking. Mr. Barry requested that a small sliver of Twin Eagles Loop on the right side of Grand Traverse Parkway, be removed. There was Board consensus to make this change. Mr. Greenstein MOVED to adopt Resolution 2025-05 Adopting the Amended and Restated Rules effective April 10, 2025 subject to staff execution and Mr. Witcher seconded the motion Mr. Staley noticed that the Reunion East CDD was revisiting their parking rules today and asked if they were proposing any changes that this CDD should consider. Ms. Adams confirmed that there were concerns about Excitement Drive, as vehicles were going through there rapidly and rather than restricting parking to one side of the roadway, the Board may want to consider restricting parking on both sides of the roadway. There were no changes to the verbiage of the parking rules at this time and the primary changes would be to the No Parking Zones on Excitement Drive. Mr. Greenstein assumed that the changes in the highlighted areas in the Reunion West CDD document, incorporated the language in this document. Ms. Adams confirmed that this was the case, as the last time that the Reunion East CDD rules were updated, the definition of abandoned vehicles was tightened up. Some other requests by the Reunion East CDD were all incorporated, so that the language would be parallel. Mr. Staley confirmed that other than the maps, all of the policies and procedures were the same. On VOICE VOTE with all in favor Resolution 2025-05 Adopting the Amended and Restated Rules effective April 10, 2025 subject to staff execution was adopted. Mr. Staley recalled that the construction in Bears Den was now complete, because for the past month or so, the Grand Traverse Parkway gate and main gates were now closed and it looked like a private community. However, there was a ‘Construction Traffic Only’ sign at the Bears Den exit and requested that it be removed, as it confused people. D. Close Public Hearing This item was discussed. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco provided the status of the requisition that the Board previously approved subject to staff sign off. In March she reached out to the developer for assistance with identifying the location of those stormwater improvements that they were requesting a requisition for and followed up again this morning. They were reaching out to their engineer record in order to get the as-built plans, which would then be reviewed by Mr. Curley and Mr. Boyd, before she would have District staff sign-off on the requisitions. As soon as she received them, she would forward them to the engineers. Mr. Witcher requested an update on the litigation, in order to understand why no action was appropriate. Ms. Trucco indicated that there was no update, as they were waiting for the judge’s action, but offered to speak to Mr. Witcher outside of the meeting. Mr. Staley asked if there was a reply from the Sheriff regarding the Traffic Enforcement Agreement. Ms. Trucco confirmed that there was a reply from the Sheriff office. However, there may have been a misunderstanding, as they responded that their understanding of the acknowledgement and consent of the CDD related to payment for patrols under a separate agreement, which she clarified was not the intent nor was that expressly stated in the acknowledgement and consent, and that it was only intended for general traffic control. She would keep the Board updated. B. Engineer Mr. Curley reported that the paving was close to completion. The vendor was onsite on Monday and yesterday, restriping. When he was onsite, he made a comprehensive map of what they needed to redo but needed to go back and look at what they did, which would either be this weekend or next. Ms. Adams would provide an update to the Board when she received it. Mr. Staley pointed out that everyone was happy with the striping that Fausnight did, as it looked much better. C. Field Manager Updates Mr. Scheerer reported that the striping and replacement of poles from galvanized to the round 3-inch black powder coated poles, were all complete and looked good. Mr. Greenstein questioned when the poles were completed, as he did not notice them. Mr. Scheerer reported that they did striping in one day and the poles the next day, approximately the 2nd and 3rd of April, but there was an issue on Excitement Drive, where a vehicle was parked. Two pieces were not completed, but the vendor would be back to complete it. The flex stakes coming in off of Sinclair Road, were replaced, but it would be a constant monitoring and maintenance item, as within a week, a couple more were down. There were minor gate repairs, a fence repair in a couple of locations in Encore Reunion West and an asphalt repair on Desert Mountain for a small depression. He received an email from Mr. William Barber in Encore Reunion West about a sidewalk concern, which staff would look at. They were continuing to monitor the lighting on all of the entry signs, which at this time, all seemed to be working. Mr. Vargas and his team were working on all the street light outage reports. Mr. Staley pointed out that the lights at the monuments on the west side were being maintaining by staff but questioned whether they had the same lights on the east side. Mr. Scheerer indicated that they did not maintain the monuments on the east side, as they were maintained by the POA. Mr. Greenstein recalled that the islands were Master Association HOA property, but anytime there was any work done on the monument, he wondered if the CDD took care of it. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that he never did any work on the monuments in Reunion East. Mr. Scheerer recalled that this CDD paid for the monuments on the west side, which was why the CDD was maintaining them, similar to the playground off of Euston Drive and the dog park, which were owned by someone else. Mr. Greenstein appreciated Mr. Scheerer bringing up this matter and requested that there be equivalent lighting. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that not all of the monuments had lights, such as in Patriots Landing and Liberty Bluff, because electric was not available. None of the Seven Eagles monuments had lighting, as it was a significant expense to do directional boring, obtain a permit and perform ongoing maintenance. D. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items List Ms. Adams presented the Action Items List, which was included in the agenda package. Ms. Adams reported that the Action Items List was updated as of the publication of the agenda package. However, subsequent to the publication, an email was received from Ms. Montanez, reporting that the POA for Reunion West met yesterday and they reviewed the current form of the proposed legal agreement for the easement, in order to install the CDD playground on the Association parcel. Ultimately, because of the POA’s lack of ability to terminate the agreement at any time and because there was concern that property owners who live nearby the proposed playground location, may not want a playground nearby their home, they respectfully declined to enter into an agreement with the Reunion West CDD regarding an easement for the playground. The Association left the door open, if there any CDD property that could be identified they would welcome the CDD taking on the project to install the playground. Mr. Staley was disappointed to hear this. Ms. Montanez reported that the termination clause was more important to the POA Board, and voiced concern if it caused many issues, they could not terminate it. Mr. Staley asked if the POA Board would reconsider, if the termination could be sorted out. Ms. Montanez believed that they could reconsider it. Mr. Staley was surprised that they did not come back with a counteroffer for a different termination clause. Ms. Montanez confirmed that there was back and forth discussion between the POA and CDD attorneys, regarding the termination clause and the POA accepted the POA attorney’s advice that the termination clause was not satisfactory. Ms. Adams pointed out that the CDD may not want to invest significant funds into something that could be terminated at any time and then they would have playground equipment to uninstall and to store somewhere. Ms. Trucco noted counsel for the POA indicated a concern about the termination and Ms. Trucco responded with a request that all the comments be sent to her, including language being requested. She noted that no counteroffer was brought to her attention, but if the POA wanted to submit a request for a License Agreement, wherein the POA would have the right to terminate it, or edits on the draft License Agreement provided, those would be brought back to the Board. Ms. Adams would update the Replacement and Maintenance (R&M) Project List and the projected spending, in accordance with this decision and remove this item from the Action Items List. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that there was no other CDD land to build a playground on. Regarding other items on the Action Items List, Ms. Adams reported that monitoring nearby projects and the road improvement project on Old Lake Wilson Road, were ongoing. The response received from the Osceola County Sheriff's Office, was discussed previously. The feasibility of additional parking on Whitemarsh Way was discussed and the District Engineer provided a diagram that was circulated to the Board. If there was no objection from the Board, Ms. Adams would remove this item from the Action Items List, since it was an R&M project to be discussed at a later time. The additional center striping was ongoing, as the plan was to close out the milling and resurfacing project first, to see if any other improvements were needed. Mr. Staley wanted to have community communication for the Reunion Village and Davenport Creek Bridge Project, as they were one community and people on the west side did not know what was going on. Ms. Adams pointed out that it was close to being operational. It would be an access-controlled gate to deter pass through traffic from using Reunion Village as a shortcut. All of the wiring was completed. Ms. Adams reported that meter application and installation of the meter were pending, but Mr. Scheerer was monitoring and managing the project on a regular basis. Mr. Scheerer indicated that the west side of the project was complete and they were applying for a meter. OUC came out and were going to tie into the transformer that was approved originally, but OUC said that they could not use that transformer. Yesterday, an email was received from Guardian regarding the process to get an additional transformer location. Once they could tap into the transformer, OUC would run a wire. He also emailed IT, to get the internet into place, now that the electrical racks were installed, so Mr. Vargas could merge the current access cards and transponders into this gate and once that was completed, they would run a test. Hopefully, this would be completed in the next 30 days. Mr. Staley felt that the gates looked professional. Mr. Scheerer reported that an arm and safety bollards for the gate on the west side, were added, so the knuckle extended out into the sidewalk, so as people drive their golf carts or bicycles, they did not get hurt. Mr. Staley asked if the RFID transponder issue which was pending legal work to verify the guardhouse ownership was related to the other ownership issues. Ms. Adams confirmed that it was a completely separate issue. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that this was a challenging project, and it was a surprise to have a legal issue regarding whether they could continue to operate it the way that they operated it from Day 1. Ms. Trucco was working on it but noted that progress on this was out of their control, to a large extent, as it involved third parties. Mr. Greenstein would have further discussions outside of the meeting, as to the logical steps that they could take. Mr. Staley asked if there were any bookings at the Heritage Crossings Community Center (HCCC) in the last month, now that the Amenity Policy was in place. Ms. Adams confirmed that there was one booking at The Cove for a resident activity, but no revenue was associated with it. The next priority was developing marketing materials, to promote the rental of the HCCC and internally looking at the impact to the budget for management of the rental calendar. She met with Mr. Paul Barnett, the new Reunion Resort Rental and Marketing Manager, who was cordial and collaborative with some specific requests to share any photographs or former marketing prospectus for the HCCC. They also discussed the current positioning for Reunion Resort and if there was any consideration to add the HCCC to the marketing prospectus, which they were evaluating internally. Of note, Reunion Resort recently decided not to market or book any weddings, as their marketing emphasis was on golf retreats, golf groups and corporate events. Internally, CDD staff was evaluating what was needed to manage tours of the facility, as well as calendar rentals, collect fees and deposits and other room rental operations. Ms. Adams had been in communication with an event planner, who had seen the facility, to determine her ability to market the facility. This lead was not positive, but they provided them with another contact, so they could come up with the best marketing strategy and incorporate it into the Proposed Budget for next year. Ms. Harley was surprised that Reunion Resort would not be marketing for weddings. Ms. Adams pointed out that Heritage Crossings Community Center was a beautiful, clean venue, but the décor was dated, and the kitchen was not functional. Mr. Staley was eager to do something with this facility or to get rid of it. Ms. Adams was working with Ms. Wispelwey of the Reunion East CDD Board, who had a strong background in event rental and management. Ms. Harley recalled that Reunion Resort was always popular for weddings and did not see why this venue could not be as popular. Ms. Adams pointed out once they get the rental program shaped up more, they would let people know that there was an opportunity to rent the facility, but in the meantime, there were some referrals from Reunion Resort. Mr. Greenstein noted that this was the best year ever for golf operations and rounds played. Linear Park was also a beautiful location, which they improved by refurbishing the fountain, but was open to taking any suggestions to make it even more beautiful. Ms. Adams recalled that the Board issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for landscape and irrigation maintenance, which was provided to 12 potential proposers and one RFP addendum was issued. Proposals are due this month and scheduled to be opened at the end of this month in their downtown office. Once the proposals were received, an electronic copy would be provided to all Board Members for review. Last month, there was also authorization from the Board to have a designated Landscape Proposal Review Committee and Mr. Bill Witcher confirmed his availability to attend two meetings in May where the landscape Proposal Review Committee would be reviewing and ranking the proposals. Mr. Witcher requested a copy of the RFP, which Ms. Adams would provide to the entire committee. There was likely to be one more addendum. There would also be a joint workshop in June between the Reunion East and Reunion West CDDs, for both Boards to review the proposals, rank them, determine whether to accept the ranking from the Landscape Proposal Review Committee and take action to approve the landscape service provider. She thanked Mr. Scheerer for being engaged during the entire process. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that six proposers reviewed the property thus far and one more was coming next week. Ms. Adams indicated that it was a busy schedule but was running smoothly. Ms. Adams recalled that Amazon requested installing proposed equipment on CDD property, in order to allow expedited entrance to the community, in order to deliver packages. Ultimately, Amazon would like to have the Board consider a License Agreement for the equipment to be installed at only one location, the Sinclair Gate. Ms. Adams provided Amazon a sample form of agreement used for the Reunion West POA equipment. Amazon was amenable to the terms. If the Board was interested, there would be an authorization for District Counsel to prepare the form of the License Agreement and provide to the Board at the next meeting, but if not, she would inform Amazon to continue to obtain access through the guest gate. Mr. Staley questioned Mr. Vargas’ opinion. Ms. Adams indicated that Mr. Vargas felt it was unnecessary, because the gate was staffed. According to Amazon, it was faster to go through the Sinclair Gate using their access equipment. Mr. Staley felt that it was more complex to mess with the current system and preferred to deny this request. There was Board consensus to deny this request. ii. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from March 1, 2025 through March 31, 2025 in the amount of $638,529.64, which was included in the agenda package, along with a detailed check run. Transfers to US Bank were comprised of debt service fees remitted to the Trustee. On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the March Check Register was approved. iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through February 28, 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. Total expenditures year-to-date for administrative and maintenance, were $1,119,546, but actual spending overall was $1,096,782, which was on par with the overall budget. These items were being reviewed for the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026, which would be provided at the next meeting and some increases would need to be made for gate maintenance and other line items, where expenses were continuing to increase. Mr. Staley recalled that the Heritage Crossing expenses would be merged into this budget. Ms. Adams confirmed that this was the case. Mr. Staley asked if they would receive the budget in May, see it again in June and adopt at the August meeting. Ms. Adams confirmed that this was the case, but when they approved the Proposed Budget in May, they were setting a cap on the assessment, which could be lowered when the budget was adopted, but not increased. Because maintenance fees would be increased for FY 26, to ensure that there was adequate R&M funding, a mailed notice was required to be sent to all property owners. Mr. Staley indicated that he was providing the Long-Rang Plan at the May meeting. iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan Ms. Adams presented the R&M Plan, which was included in the agenda package. It included the proposed Project List for FY 2025, which was discussed by Board Members from the Reunion East and Reunion West CDDs and was for informational purposes. It would be updated each month. It was not impactful for Reunion West, but The Terraces pool was scheduled to be resurfaced in mid-April. Mr. Scheerer reported that notices were placed on the pool gate and bathrooms, informing people utilizing the pool, that it would be closed starting on Monday. E. Security Report Ms. Adams reported that the March 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 provided for informational purposes. Mr. Vargas reported that everything was going well and they were getting ready for the Easter and Passover holidays. Mr. Staley recalled there was a significant accident on Sunday on the corner of Spine and Old Lake Wilson Roads. Mr. Vargas indicated that it was caused by people exiting and entering the Resort. Mr. Staley hoped that a traffic light was installed at this intersection, as there would be four lanes on Old Lake Wilson Road at some point. Mr. Greenstein wanted there to be a practical way to install one, prior to the road widening and hoped that these accidents, caused the County to consider a light, as people should not be making a left from Spine Road onto Old Lake Wilson Road during certain hours of the day, because it was unsafe. Mr. Staley noticed many sidewalk violations in Mr. Vargas’ report, which was good to see security handling, but recalled three to four months ago discussing people blocking driveways and asked if there were any issues. Mr. Vargas noted no such issues. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business There being no comments, the next item followed. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests Mr. Barry questioned the next steps on the potential discussion of combining the Reunion West and Reunion East CDDs. Mr. Staley recalled running out of time at the workshop. Ms. Adams would include it as an agenda item on the June workshop agenda and include an outline of the steps, which District Counsel previously distributed, as well as an estimated annual cost savings that management prepared. Mr. Staley questioned whether they were required to have minutes taken at the workshop meeting. Ms. Adams indicated they were required to record the meeting, and the agenda is available on the website. Mr. Staley did not see the need to take minutes, as no Board action was taken. Mr. Staley asked if they started to think about the CDD dedicated email blast system. Ms. Adams confirmed that she had obtained a cost, which would be included as part of the Proposed Budget discussion. It was a minimal expense. If both CDDs wanted to use it, it would be an opt-in system on the District’s website and immediately available to use, if both CDDs wanted to. Mr. Staley would like to have it available to start marketing ideas. Mr. Greenstein agreed, as long as they could piggyback Artemis and utilize it to discuss Master Association events, meetings, etc. Ms. Adams pointed out that any members of the public could opt-in to receive CDD information. Through the information released through the Associations or social media, they may be able to hyperlink something to make it easier, to the extent that the Associations or social media postings allowed for it. Mr. Staley recalled that there were two Facebook groups in Reunion, which had more than 1,000 members and spoke to the two administrators this week. They offered to take direct email notices from Ms. Adams. Ms. Adams provided them with the notice for this meeting and another one was sent this week regarding the pool closure at The Terraces. When they market the new CDD dedicated system, Mr. Staley wanted to use these methods to communicate once every two weeks for a month or two. Ms. Adams would report on ongoing user numbers, so Board Members had an idea of how many residents were utilizing it. Besides ensuring that everyone knows what was going on, Mr. Greenstein wanted to dispel rumors and misstatements. Ms. Adams appreciated the positive outlook. In some other CDDs, almost everyone opted in to the CDD electronic mail system. However, in the communities that had Nextdoor or Facebook, there was still misinformation and misunderstandings. She hoped that CDD messaging helped people who wanted to have the correct information and facts. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date: May 8, 2025 Ms. Adams stated that the next meeting was scheduled for May 8, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. at this location. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Ms. Harley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman