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, June 12, 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 Grace Montanez Reunion West POA Garrett Huegel Yellowstone Landscape Pete Whitman Yellowstone Landscape Victor Vargas Reunion Security James Salvador Floralawn Casey Francis Floralawn Charles Davis Florida Commercial Care Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the June 12, 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 Ms. Adams opened the public comment period. The following residents addressed the Board: . Mr. Robert Kenny of 7818 Whitemarsh Way, noted that many parking spaces were taken away from residents of Whitemarsh Way and it was also turning into the movie Fast and Furious, with people almost running over his wife when she was trying to get to her car, as there was no walkway. His wife was handicapped and she was forced to walk into the street. He requested a handicapped space and was denied and requested that the parking spaces be returned and include a curb. Mr. Staley was not aware of the speeding on Whitemarsh Way and suggested that Mr. Kenny speak to his neighbors and come back to the Board at the next meeting with some suggestions. However, whatever they do, people were parking on the street, causing a dangerous corner, which was why the Board made changes. Ms. Trucco pointed out that the CDD was subject to Florida Law and as such, must have a public hearing to make changes. Furthermore, the CDD did not have police powers and ticketing for speeding was the jurisdiction of the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office. . Mr. David Kantor of 7810 Whitemarsh Way, was a neighbor of Mr. Kenny’s and witnessed the speeding. If parking was permitted, people would be careful turning the corner. His suggestion was to install a stop sign at the corner of Whitmarsh Way and Muirfield Loop. Mr. Staley indicated that the Board would take this into consideration, but believed that there were probably 50 residents on Muirfield Loop, who did not want a stop sign. Mr. Kantor did not understand why, as the Board removed parking spaces, to make it safer and felt that the Board should put some of the parking spaces back and install a stop sign. Mr. Staley would speak to the interested residents on Whitemarsh Way and come back with some suggestions for the next meeting. Mr. Kantor noted that parking disputes was an ongoing issue with residents and requested that someone act as a mediator. Mr. Staley would consider it. There being no further comments, Ms. Adams closed the public comment period. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the April 10, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the April 10, 2024 Board of Supervisors meeting, which were reviewed by District Counsel and the District Manager and were included in the agenda package. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor the Minutes of the April 10, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting were approved as presented. • Review of Long-Range Plan (Item 5) Ms. Adams reported that the Chairman prepared and would present the Long-Range Plan, as it related to the Repair and Maintenance (R&M) funding prior to the budget discussion. Mr. Staley pointed out that the purpose of the Long-Range Plan was to allow the Board to make decisions about the budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and what they were trying to achieve for years 2027 through 2030. The Board only needed to focus on the first two pages. Mr. Staley provided some suggestions for financial goals: 1) To break even on the General Fund. 2) To have a $500,000 Fund Balance in the General Fund, which was an operational requirement, as the District did not collect assessments for the new FY until the end of the calendar year. 3) To have a $500,000 closing balance on the R&M Fund at the end of every year and to build it up until the end of 2030. Mr. Staley pointed out that he had reduced the R&M Fund balance from the previous $1 million, because assessments must increase considerably in order to get to the $1 million. The second page of the Long-Range Plan includes what would happen with the assessments for 2026 and for the next four years until 2030, in order to achieve the break even on the General Fund, $500,000 working balance in the General Fund and $500,000 R&M balance by the end of 2030. To achieve these goals, they must increase the budget by 15.25% in 2026 and subsequent increases of 5% for three years. In order to do the big pavement project in 2030, they must have another 15.25% increase in 2030. The Board must make a decision on the assessment for 2026 in the next two months, but not the assessment for future years. Mr. Witcher recalled that the Board discussed having a nominal increase of 3% per single-family household and not a 15.25% increase and felt that a 3% increase was more reasonable. Mr. Staley explained on the Tax Bill, there was a $2,500 annual assessment. About a third was for the operating expense and the other two-thirds for debt service. Therefore, this increase only applied to one-third of the amount on the Tax Bill. The proposal for 2026 was a 15.25% increase from $1,001 to $1,150 or $3 per week. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that the Reunion East CDD would follow what was documented today, so that Reunion East and Reunion West should have the same increase, with the shared expenses, as there was a 57%/43% split cost. Mr. Witcher questioned how Reunion Village would affect this overall picture. Ms. Adams confirmed that Reunion Village was now fully platted and all of their assessments were on-roll. Mr. Staley pointed out that a home in Reunion Village had the same operating assessment as a home on Gathering Drive with the exception of the debt service for Reunion Village. Regarding the Long-Range R&M Plan that the Board reviewed at the last workshop, Reunion West needs savings against that plan, in order to hit these targets. If they could not get these savings, they could not hit these targets and assessments must be increased. Mr. Barry liked the plan. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2025-06 Approving the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Budget and Setting a Public Hearing Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2025-06, approving the Proposed Budget for FY 2026 and setting the public hearing for August 14, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. at this location. The Board Members confirmed that they would be in attendance for the public hearing. Each year CDDs in Florida were required to approve a Proposed Budget no later than June 15th. Approval of this resolution also allowed for transmittal of the Proposed Budget to Osceola County, posting it on the District’s website and publishing the legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation in Osceola County. There would be an increase of 15.25% in assessments. The following was highlighted: . “Special Assessments” would increase from $1,780,771 to $2,052,353. “Interest” was $24,000, due to the money market and SBA, which were earning over 5% interest. There was “Rental Income” of $5,714, as certain facilities were rented in Reunion East from time to time, such as Heritage Crossings Community Center. . “Administrative Expenses,” were the costs to operate the District, in accordance with Florida Statutes. For last fiscal year, the amount was $198,171 and would increase in 2026 to $244,036. “Attorney,” increased to $75,000, based on the current tracking and workload for the attorney and there were minor adjustments for “Assessment Administration”, as there was a 3% increase from $7,875 to $8,111. There were also 3% increases for “Information Technology” and “Website Maintenance.” “Insurance” was for Public Officials Liability Insurance and General Liability and was based on estimates from the insurance company. . The narrative was updated each year in accordance with the Proposed Budget and offered an explanation of what comprised the different fees. . Under “Maintenance – Shared Expenses,” there was an Amenity Reciprocity Agreement between Reunion East and West. There was an increase from $1,480,535 to $1,588,031. These were the expenses to maintain the District’s amenities, roadways, stormwater system, entrance gates and streetlights. “Property Insurance” of $52,512, was expected to decrease slightly, due to a rebate that was received from the insurance company based on the property schedule. Mr. Staley questioned why there was a 27% increase in “Security.” Ms. Adams explained that “Security” was based on an agreement with the Reunion Master Association to staff the entrance gate 365 days per year/24 hours per day/7 days per week. There was also roving security patrol and an agreement for non-staff gate monitoring for Carriage Point with Envera. Mr. Barry questioned why “Security” was projected low in spending for this year. Ms. Adams explained that there were some security services that should have been billed to this line item. In addition, Envera bills had been incorrectly coded to gate repairs and was being adjusted to the proper line item. The budgeted amount was the same amount as the prior year. Mr. Staley pointed out that the projection was wrong. Ms. Adams confirmed that the projection was based on projections as of the end of March. Mr. Barry requested that a variant column be added to the budget. Ms. Adams would include it for both Reunion East and Reunion West, for consistency purposes. . “Landscape Maintenance” had an estimated number, due to the RFP being issued. By the time that the budget was adopted, there would be an exact number. They were also anticipating some additional service areas at Reunion Village to be conveyed from the developer to the District. Ms. Adams pointed out when the Board approved this Proposed Budget, they were setting the high watermark or the maximum amount on the assessment, but the Board had the ability to decrease it but not increase it. With an assessment increase, mailed notice to all property owners, was required. . There would be a transfer out of the R&M Fund of $250,000. A balanced budget was presented, with total expenses being equal to total revenue. There were “Total Revenues” of $2,082,067 and “Total Expenditures” of $2,082,067. . The Net Assessment was the amount that goes to the CDD and the Gross Amount was the amount that property owners see on their Tax Bill. . For “Shared Costs,” Reunion East was sharing 57% and Reunion West shared 43%, based on platted lots. For the next meeting, Mr. Staley wanted to see how much of the electric was going to the pool equipment and how much was going to the streetlights. Ms. Adams pointed out that there would be additional streetlights coming online in Reunion Village area. She noted staff asked for estimates from the developer on any streetlights that have not been turned over to the District. . A gross per unit assessment comparison chart was included. Reunion West had multi-family, single-family and golf units. The assessment per unit was identified for FY 2026. They were following the same methodology for assigning maintenance as for assigning debt, with multi-family having 1.5 Equivalent Assessment Units (EAU) and single-family having 2 EAUs. The proposed per unit assessment for multi-family in FY 2026 was $865.49, whereas the current fiscal year amount was $751 and the single-family assessment for FY 2026 was $1,154, which was $1,001 last year, representing a 15% increase. Mr. Greenstein noted that the total cost was on the Tax Bill and asked if it could be explained. The Board only had the ability to assess maintenance fees and the imposition of the debt was assigned at the time that the bond was issued. The Board authorized the collection of it, but that was all the Board did. Ms. Trucco confirmed that the mailed notice indicated what residents were currently paying and what the Board was considering raising it to but believed it did not include the debt service special assessment. However, the Board could request to include a notation in the letter that it did not impact the debt service assessment, which was reflected on the current Tax Bill or something to that effect. Mr. Staley agreed with Mr. Greenstein, as the 2022 debt was $1,527 for 2026, but the amount for the entire Encore community was $2,160. It was hard to explain to residents, as the debt goes by street and sometimes a street could be divided into different pieces. Mr. Greenstein requested that residents be provided with GMS; contact information, if they had any questions. Ms. Trucco indicated that the letter included all of GMS’ information and an explanation of the operation and maintenance (O&M) special assessments and the fact that it was different than the debt service special assessment. . The “Replacement & Maintenance Fund,” was based off of the Reserve Study as a placeholder, versus listing out specific categories or projects and potential expenses based on the project that the Board previously reviewed. . The remaining pages were for each Debt Service Fund. For the Series 2015 Debt Service Fund,” there were interest and principal payments due in November and May 1, based on the Amortization Schedule. The Series 2015 debt retired in 2036. There were 161 single-family units in this assessment area. There were also pages for the Series 2016 debt, which retired in 2046, Series 2017 debt, which retired in 2047, Series 2019 debt, which retired in 2050 and Series 2022 debt, which would retire in 2036. On MOTION by Mr. Staley seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor Resolution 2025-06 Approving the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Budget and Setting a Public Hearing for August 14, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. at this location was adopted. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Review of Long-Range Plan This item was discussed. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Ratification of Amenity Policies Updating Pool Hours of Operations Ms. Adams reported that this was an administrative matter. Once Reunion West developed CDD amenities such as the playground and outdoor fitness center, they were added to the Reunion East Amenity Policies and made them joint Amenity Policies, so there was continuity throughout the District. Either Board could amend the Amenity Policies at any duly noticed Board meeting. Recently the Reunion East CDD Board wanted to review the Amenity Policies relative to the pool operating hours and increase them by opening the pools earlier in the morning. The policy was being provided to the Reunion West CDD Board for ratification. There were no other changes. All of the signs, amenity access and pool lights were updated, in accordance with the new operating hours. On MOTION by Mr. Witcher seconded by Mr. Barry with all in favor updating the Amenity Policies for pool hours of operations was approved. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco reported as far as the litigation matter that they received an answer and counterclaim from the defendants and filed a response. She received some feedback from individual Supervisors, which was communicated to the litigation team. If anyone wanted to discuss it, they recommended reaching out to her and she would schedule a call. The conveyances were still on their radar with the developer as well and they were working with the District Engineer in getting the certificate signed, stating that all of the improvements were properly permitted and approved by the governmental authorities as applicable. They have not heard back from the County on the Acknowledgement and Consent for Traffic Enforcement. Mr. Staley asked if they sent a second copy. Ms. Trucco did not send a second copy, but the County acknowledged that the document related to paid for service only, which they reiterated was not the case and the Board would recall that they sent a response clarifying that this was not the intent, and instead acknowledged consent to the county’s continued jurisdiction for traffic enforcement services, which residents were paying for through their taxes. There has since been no response. Mr. Staley preferred that it sit with them, as the Board did what they needed to do. Regarding the Stables, Ms. Trucco indicated that this was a Reunion East CDD issue; however, she spoke with Bond Counsel and they were working on it. They did have a follow-up request which she understood engineering team was working on, specifically backup for the figures that the engineering team computed for the Stables. They were working on that documentation. Mr. Staley questioned the status of the Bears Den conveyance. Ms. Adams recalled that they were waiting for documentation to be received by Counsel. Ms. Trucco confirmed that there was a requisition and she was waiting for the certification, in order to sign off on it. B. Engineer Mr. Curley reported that the paving project was completed. There were three or four re- paints, which he was comfortable with. Mr. Witcher noted that there was definite improvement and liked the new left-turn lane in front of Tradition Boulevard. C. Field Manager Updates Mr. Scheerer reported No Parking signs were placed along the Pamilla Court traffic circle that was discussed at the last meeting. They did modify the No Parking sign by the access road on Loxahatchee Court in accordance with Parking Rules. It was placed in front of the tree, as opposed to closer to the driveway, because of a potable water line. Flex states at Sinclair Gate were replaced and would be an ongoing maintenance item. Mr. Staley pointed out on Grand Traverse Parkway going to Bears Den, there was a construction traffic only sign, which Mr. Scheerer was supposed to check with Encore on. Mr. Scheerer apologized for not doing this and would handle it. D. District Manager’s Report i. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Registers from April 1, 2025 through April 30, 2025 in the amount of $484,535.71 and May 1, 2025 through May 31, 2025 in the amount of $90,344.33, which were included in the agenda package, along with a detailed check run. Some debt service transfers were made in April to the Trustee and included in the check register. On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Mr. Witcher with all in favor the April and May Check Registers were approved. ii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through March 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. iii. Presentation of Number of Registered Voters: 617 Ms. Adams stated that the District was required annually to present each year on the record, the number of registered voters to the Board. A letter was provided by the Osceola County Supervisor of Elections, confirming as of April 15, 2025, the Reunion West CDD had 617 registered voters. No Board action was required. Mr. Staley noted that the Reunion East CDD had 835 residents, which was a 46/56% split based on platted lots, not voter count. There were commercial properties, which influenced the split of the expenses. E. Security Report Ms. Adams reported that the April and May Security Reports from Reunion Security and the Reunion West POA, were provided to the Board under separate cover. No Board action was required and was for informational purposes. Mr. Vargas reported that things were going well. There were 405 violations. Mr. Staley asked if there was anything that he could share publicly about the incident at the water park. Mr. Vargas indicated that three families got into a fight. Security was able to control the fight until the police arrived, but no one was arrested. Mr. Greenstein felt that they needed to figure out a way to keep people out of the Resident Only lane. Mr. Staley believed that they needed to refresh the road signage and relocate signs. One of the road markings was disappearing by the Resident Only sign. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests Mr. Staley asked if they were going to discuss the email blast system at the workshop. Ms. Adams would discuss it. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Motion to Continue Meeting Following Workshop On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Witcher with all in favor continuing the regular meeting after the workshop was approved. The meeting was recessed at 12:11 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 1:39 p.m. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Review and Ranking of Joint Proposals for Landscape and Irrigation Services A. Continuum/Weber Environmental B. Creative North C. Duval Landscape Maintenance D. FloraLawn E. Florida Commercial Care F. OmegaScapes G. Prince & Sons H. United Land Services I. Yellowstone Landscape On MOTION by Mr. Barry seconded by Ms. Harley with all in favor accepting the ranking of the Landscape Review Committee to rank Yellowstone as the number one ranked firm was approved. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date: July 10, 2025 Ms. Adams stated that the next meeting was scheduled for July 10, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. at this location. TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Mr. Witcher seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Signature - Tricia Adams Signature - Tricia AdamsSignature - Graham Staley Signature - Graham Staley Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman