MINUTES OF MEETING			
	REUNION EAST				
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT		
The Regular Meeting	of the  Board of Supervisors	of the	Reunion  East  Community		
					
Development District was held on Thursday,	2016 at 2:00 p.m. at the Heritage		
	December 8,			
Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, Florida.		
Present and constituting a quorum were:				
Carlton Grant	Chairman				
Mark Greenstein	Vice-Chairman			
Steven Goldstein	Assistant Treasurer			
John Dryburgh	Assistant Secretary by phone		
Don Harding			
	Assistant Secretary by phone		
Also present were:					
George Flint	District Manager			
Jan Carpenter	District Counsel			
Andrew d'Adesky	District Counsel			
Steve Boyd	District Engineer by phone		
Alan Scheerer	Field Manager			
Daniel Baker	ACP Communities			
Vivek Babbar	Straley & Robin by phone		
Rob Stulz	Yellowstone				
Mark Yahn	Sunscape Consulting			

FIRST

ORDER

OF

BUSINESS

Roll Call

Mr.

Flint called the meeting to order, and roll call was taken.

SECOND

ORDER

OF

BUSINESS

Public Comment Period

There not being any, the next item as followed.

TIDRD ORDER OF BUSINESS

A.	Election of Officers

Organizational Matters

Mr.

Flint:

I did swear in

Mr.

Dryburgh and Mr.

Goldstein

prior

to

last months meeting

and they took office on November 22, 2016 per Chapter 190.

It

is not necessary to swear them

in

at

this point.  Chapter 190 provides that every time there is an election the Board is required

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December

Page

8, 2

2016 of 17

to elect officers and this is done by Resolution and we have included that in your agenda. At a minimum, you would need to do this every two years after each election.

B.

Consideration

of

Resolution 2017-02 Electing Officers

Mr. Flint:  The officers are	Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer,		
				
Secretary, and Assistant  Secretaries.   The Chairman and Vice Chairman are required to be		
members of the Board and the other						
		officers are not required to be Board members.  Prior to the		
election I think Mr. Grant was Vice Chairman, Mr. Harding and Mr.	Greenstein	were	Assistant		
								
Secretaries and because Mr. Dryburgh and Mr. Goldstein	weren't on the Board they were not		
					
designated as an officer.  Ariel Lovera is the District Accountant and was designated as the		
Treasurer and I was designated as the Secretary.  We can take these	offices individually if the		
						
Board wants to or if there is a member of the						
		Board that wants to make a motion to elect a slate		
of								
officers we could handle it in one motion.						
Mr. Greenstein:  I would	nominate Carlton Grant as Chairman, Mark Greenstein as Vice		
			
Chairman, Ariel Lovera as Treasurer, Steven Goldstein as Assistant Treasurer, George Flint as		
Secretary, Mr. Harding and Mr.								
Dryburgh as Assistant Secretaries.					

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, all in favor, Resolution 2017-02 approved.

seconded by Mr. Goldstein, with electing the slate of officers was

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Approval

November

of 10,

the	Minutes

2016 Meeting

of

the

Mr.	Flint:	These  are	included  in your  agenda packet.		
					
additions, or corrections we can address those at this time.		
	On MOTION by Mr.	Greenstein, seconded by Mr.		
	all					
		in favor, the minutes of the November 10, 2016		
	approved.				

If there

Harding,

meeting

are  any  deletions,

with were

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Discussion of Extension to Services Agreement (MSA)

Management

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 3

2016 of 17

Mr.	Flint:  District	
for not getting this to you	
this issue.		

Counsel has handed out the latest	
	version of this and I do apologize	
sooner.  There were	emails circulating as	
	recent as this morning on	

Mr. Harding:		Daniel Baker and I have had conversations as recently as today and we		
									
have basically agreed that there are a few words that we may	want to fine tune in the MSA.  The		
																				
basic MSA was	revised by the two	of us with inputs from	Andrew,  our Attorney.  We are		

basically		in	agreement  with  the  overall  document  that  meets  both  parties'  basic  needs		
					
requirements.	I	would like to	make a motion that we approve it	as the	latest version that has		

come out, with the stipulation that	Mr.																	
											Baker and I, along with Daniel's help will make a few		
minor adjustments in	terms of the wording.	We	changed the contract				a four-year term		
														
																						terms to			
contract eliminating the automatic renewal clause that was in prior, especially since you and our		
Attorney have	pointed out that the contract can	be	terminated by either party with or without		

cause upon 90	days notification.	We	have	added some Management Company responsibilities		
														
further defining them within the	MSA and tried to make sure that there is an oversight to some		
											
extent either during operation hours or after operation hours.  We've got some language in there		
that says that the Management	Company will	go ahead and post times	as to	when the facility		
													
will be open and to make sure people	are aware of that.  It also includes		who	to contact in case		
of any issues	relative to the facilities.	We've also eliminated					the financial reporting		
																			some of				
that really isn't necessary																					
							since there are no fees															
													involved from either						
																						party.  Those are some of		
the basic	things that we did and	we tried to	simplify it to some extent.		I				
									
																								believe Mr. Baker is		
there and	we	are basically in pretty	much agreement and we would like the Board to approve		
												
with the stipulation that him and I and	Andrew	do	a little fine tuning to a few of	the words.		
																
Mr.	d'Adesky:	Thank you Don that was		a	very  good	explanation.	The  language		

difference from the copies that I	handed out, which	I	have also	distributed to	Mr. Baker, Mr.		
																							
Harding, and District Staff, is really just in																	
											section 5.D.i. on page 2.	There are really just one or		
																								
two words that might be changed in that last paragraph but that			is the only section in		
																					really				
which there would be a minor change.																		
Mr.	Greenstein:	You can't fix it now?																
																							
Mr.	d' Adesky:		I think it is something that	needs to be discussed.						
																				
Mr.	Greenstein:  How big	of	an issue	is	it?															

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December

Page

8, 4

2016 of 17

		Mr.		d' Adesky:	It is a	difference between how we are going to word the monitoring		
														
requirement and whether or not we are going to use the language that is provided, which is more		
permissive language versus insures that implies a guarantee.									
		Ms. Carpenter:  Is Don okay with you finalizing it today or does he want to be involved?		
		Mr.		d'																	
					Adesky:  We do need to get this done because this will expire.			
		Mr.		Greenstein:	When	something is this close you want to get it done.	I am willing to		
														
take five minutes to address that change, make the change, pen and ink it, and lets vote on it.  Is		
that something that is doable Daniel?										
		Mr.		Baker:  The intent		of this language and the addition		of	it is that the CDD Board		
members in Reunion	understand that if it is intended for a discrete population of	people and our		
											
goal is to limit the users and to	make sure that the users are	actually in authorized areas under		
																	
conducts that we  established and we have  the  ability  to  restrict trespassing and take  other		
measures to make sure that everybody complies with those	terms.		In the sense	of establishing		
																			
and introducing the	notion of what is new of limitation of users, the	document provides us the		

ability	to	define who  those  are,  give us authority  to  give		access to those  people, and take		
																	
measures to	enforce that.  We are going to do that through	posting signage and staffing and		

properly securing the facilities.  The language is intended to restrict, limit, and give us authority		
to implement and	enforce those policies of both parties.									
															
		Mr.	Greenstein:  The way I received that information is that we are putting into writing		
						
the	procedure that came about as result of the imposition of the non-resident user fee, which		
			
was not in	existence.	It	may have been in existence	of the time of the previous agreement, but		
								
not from the original agreement.  This is just bringing it up to speed	administratively because of		
																				
the fact that		we do have the non-										
												resident user fee, which somewhat controls that everyone pays		
their fair share if they are going to use the facility and they are not within our normal scope of		
authorized users.  Is there a specific sentence that we need to look at?				
		Mr.		d' Adesky:	Yes  and  I will  read  it to  you  and  it  is  on page  2.	It says,  "The		
Management  Company  may  provide  access  to  CDD  facilities  by  property  owners  guests,		
employees, and so on."  The party really wanted to change that to	something like, "shall ensure		
																		
access	providing to only these members."  It is a may	versus ensure language.			

		Mr.	Harding:	Maybe make efforts to ensure.										
																	
		Mr.	d' Adesky:	It	might be, "will make its best efforts to provide access only to these		
												
members."																				

Reunion East COD

Regular Meeting

December

Page

8, 5

2016 of 17

Mr. Harding:  That will work for me.				
Mr. d' Adesky:  Or, "reasonable efforts."				
Mr. Harding:  That would be good.				
Mr. d' Adesky:  Daniel agreed to that.				
Mr.	Harding:  My only concern was trying to make sure that there was some sort of		
Management responsibility by the Management Company during non-operating hours and that		
is kind of a						
	concern.  The liability and people coming in at 4:00 a.m. and people swimming in		
the pool and making sure some of that stuff does not happen.			
Mr.	d'Adesky:	It does say on the top of page 3	that	the Management Company will		
							
secure  the  CDD  facility  during  periods  of inoperation.	If	that  is  in there  then they  have		
guaranteed to secure it.	If we change that language, which Mr. Baker agreed to, ~e should be		
good.  It is	changed in the official version here and once again it .will read, "The Management		
			
Company shall make its best efforts to provide access to CDD facilities by ... " and then the		
same language.						
	On MOTION by Mr.	Greenstein, seconded by	Mr. Harding, with		
						
	all in favor, the Extension to the Management Services Agreement		
	was approved, as amended.				

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Discussion

Community

of Center

Heritage	Crossing

Lease Agreement

Mr. Flint:  Originally they entered into an agreement with the District to lease half of		
this building and then that lease was	amended two times.  One, it amended to basically take ¾		
				
of this building because they were	occupying that space behind this wall  back here so we		
				
amended the lease to recognize their use of that	additional space.  Then it was amended and the		
					
term was extended through	December 31, 2017	so	that was the second amendment.  They now		
					
have vacated this building and they no  longer are using it for the purposes they originally		
intended to use it for.  They do have a lease that goes through the end of this next calendar year		
and there is not really a provision in here for early	termination of	that lease.  Representatives of		
							
the lessee are asking if there was any possibility of getting out of	the lease early have contacted		
me.  I said that there was really no provision in here			
				and if they wanted to get out of the lease		
early they could prepay the						
	remaining balance on that lease through the end of the term but I		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 6

2016 of 17

told them I could always bring it to the Board.   That is why it is on here, and they aren't	
currently using the  space and I know there has  been discussions with the Resort about the	
possibility of either sub-leasing it from them and I don't know that those have been fruitful for	
one reason or another and I wasn't involved in those discussions to know that.	If you do	
nothing they need to continue to pay through the end	of 2017.  I don't know if the Resort has	
any  intention or desire to  utilize this space that we	could terminate  one  lease and execute	
another one.							
Mr. Grant:  I can speak on behalf of the Resort and because of the short-term nature of	
the agreement; it wouldn't be a productive use for the Resort for banquets, catering, etc.  When	
typically doing that business and planning it	12,	24, 36 months in advance and having a long-	
term commitment of space available it would	be	a lease that we end up paying with	no business	
on the books to generate revenue from.  The Resorts position on it would be it doesn't make	
sense currently.							
Mr. d' Adesky:	To elicit some comment on this, we did have to look at this lease for	
private use analysis because it is private use	of a public facility that was built using bond money	
and there are certain limitations on that.  That is the reason why we can't enter into a long-term	
lease for example, we can't enter into a one 99-year lease because that use would exceed our	
threshold.							
Mr. Flint:  This Board would have discretion	to extend that one year to three years or	
whatever would be reasonable.						
Ms. Carpenter:	If there was a proposal for a longer term we can go back to Tax Counsel	
and have them look at the actual numbers to	see if there is enough room for a longer term.	
Mr. Greenstein:	Does the fact that	it would be with a different entity enter into that	

decision? Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. facilities in Mr. Mr.

Carpenter:  No it is generally a private use analysis.			
Greenstein:  Viewing from the tax-exempt standpoint?		
Flint:  Yes.			
Greenstein:   There  is  a requirement in the  lease	I	believe that they return the	
the condition it was in when they took it, right?			
Flint:  Yes and they will have to do that.			
Greenstein:  I still haven't had an opportunity to walk through there.	

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,	2016	
Page 7	of 17	

	Mr.	Flint:	They still have 12 months left on the lease.	There is a provision in there that		
															
they have to	continue	to use it for the purpose intended.						
											
	Ms.	Carpenter:  Yes and there was some talk of using it for				
														storage and that would not		
be permissive.														
	Mr. d' Adesky:  They would have to follow that same lease and they would really need a		
modification of a lease.											
	Mr.	Goldstein:  What is the legal use	of it described as?						
	Ms. Carpenter:  It is pretty specific related to sales in this area.				
	Mr.	d' Adesky:	Does  it	concern  the  Board  originally just  to  have  a	use  that  was		
												
consistent with the	Community and not  something that  is  completely  outside	or foreign to		
									
Reunion?																	
	Mr.	Greenstein:	I think										
								without any additional scenarios to consider I would think that		
the status quo is to be maintained	unless some other proposal is provided.				
													
	Mr.	Flint:	It says the tenant should use the						
												premises only for a Real Estate Sales Office		
dedicated	strictly to the sale of real property	within the Reunion development.			

	Ms.	Carpenter:	Or if they have some other type of proposal I'm	sure the Board would		
							
entertain it.																
Mr.	Flint:	I will let them know that the issue was brought up and	at this point no action		
has been taken.  It	could come forward on a future agenda if they have a proposal, sub-lessee, or		
if the Resort expresses an interest in the use	of the						
												space.  One item that was not on the agenda		
and Alan,	I	don't know if you brought any back	up on it, but the	Reunion West meeting was		
																
canceled.	One of	the items on the Reunion West	meeting was the street tree plan.  Last year I		
														
think Mr.	Greenstein	worked on that issue with Alan and with Austin Outdoors and tried to		
									
come  up	with  a	proposed  street  tree  plan  for  Reunion  West  to  help  landscape  the  major		
roadways.	In Fiscal												
						Year 2016 we did an initial phase of that street tree plan.  Those costs are		
treated, as shared costs between Reunion East and West just like the shared costs with the work		
that was just	done on the										
								entrance and down Reunion Boulevard.  That item should have been		
on both	agendas but we had it on	Reunion West	agenda.  I know there is a desire to get moving		

forward  with that  but unfortunately  Reunion  West  had  an  issue	where  three	of the  Board		
																	
members	were  not  available.	I  did  talk  with  the  Chairman  for  Reunion  West  and  he		
acknowledged that the plan has been presented and both Boards have adopted  budgets that		
include that next phase	of the street plan and that he would have no				
														objection in the ·event that		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December

Page

8, 8

2016 of 17

Reunion East voted today to move forward.  Then Reunion West could ratify that action at their		
meeting next month.  The next phase is approximately			be split on the		
					$62,000 and that would			
cost share									
	arrangement and it is about 2/3 Reunion East and 1/3	Reunion West.  The reason I		
									
am		not being on the								
bringing it up									
		agenda is because there is a	desire based on	feedback from		
									
the Community in Reunion West to try and get moving			I am bringing		
					forward with that project.			
it up for Board discussion at this point.							
Mr.		you							
	Greenstein:  I appreciate								
			clarifying the cost sharing arrangement for the project.		
I have had discussions with Alan Scheerer about as you stated the previous action that has been		
taken.  The plan itself has been approved by both						
				Boards, it is just the fine tuning of this last		
iteration.	If we had a West meeting today it							
			would have been on that agenda for clarification		
purposes.	I think the West Board has approved it and I would like to see it move forward.		
Mr. Flint:  We do need to take public comment since this was not on the agenda.		
	On	MOTION by Mr.	Greenstein,	seconded by Mr. Harding, with		

	all in favor, the Street Tree Plan for	completion		of the proposed		
	West side landscaping was approved.					

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

A.	Attorney

Staff Reports

Mr. d'	I have an update on the horse stables and we were asked to look at the		
	Adesky:			
reasonableness  of·the	offer of	$100,000  in  cash and possible public use  for  Alan  or other		
					
individuals  for  office  space.   Looking  at  the  Requisitions  it  looks  like  depending  on  the		
allocations somewhere between $1.1 million and $1.5 million was spent on the horse stables.  I		
will leave it to the judgment of the	Board as to whether that is a reasonable offer at $100,000		
						
and how you desire for us to proceed from here.  This has been an open item for a while and it		
looks like in the past, we have talked about getting a consultant to look at this and see what		
public use might come out of it.				
Mr.	Greenstein:  What were the annual maintenance projections?		
			
Mr.	d' Adesky~	About $22,000 a year.		
Mr.	Flint:  It is $22,497.				
Mr.	d' Adesky:	We can table it if you want to think about it but this is an item that we		
have had around for a while now.			
Mr.	Harding:  I do not think that is a sufficient offer myself.		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December

Page

8, 9

2016 of 17

Mr. Greenstein:  Thank you.  Obviously the number is not going to move.  The offer that	
is made is insufficient and I say that we decline it.	
On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. Goldstein, with	
all in favor, to decline offer for horse stables.	
Mr. Harding:  I think we should find a firm to look at various alternatives for what we	
could do with the stables.  What are we going to do with it?  Maybe there is some firm that	
could look and decide and I think at least get some bids for a firm to take a look at it.	
Mr. Dryburgh:  As a group we should decide what we are willing to accept as a use for	
that property.		
Mr. Harding:  I was just	saying that the facility needs to be looked at in terms of what	
has to be done to make it usable.	I think we need to have an engineering firm or marketing firm	
to come in and take a look and let us know what they would propose to do.	
Mr. Flint:  I have worked with architectural firms that have started out by doing a Needs	
Analysis.  They prepare a survey instrument and survey the Community and this is when you	
are looking at amenities overall and what the desires of the Community are.  Then with that	
needs Analysis you would look at the facility and you would probably have to have a Structural	
Analysis done to see what could be done with it.  It would have to be done in conjunction with	
some sort of Needs Analysis and then merging those two together to see if you could come up	
with if it is cost effective and reasonable.  The value may be even greater with nothing on that	
piece of land.		
Mr. Greenstein:  The land alone is worth more than that.  I don't know what the size of	
the property is.		
Mr. d' Adesky:  The parcel itself kind of swoops out beyond that so if we were talking	
about  selling  it,  even though  we  are  not,  then we  would  see  if we wanted to  carve  out  a	
boundary and look into a conservation and maintenance perspective.	
Mr. Greenstein:   Along the lines of what Don was saying about determining what it	
would take to get the building up to code for people to inhabit it, I know there are lots of people	
in the Community who are into arts and crafts, pottery, and into various types of things and that	
concept might work with that building.  I have no idea what it would take to make it habitable.	
It had to pass some level of code in order to be constructed.	

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 10

2016 of 17

Ms.	Carpenter:  Perhaps it sounds like what you want is a proposal for an engineer to go	
look at the structure and see what it would take to turn it into some type of usable facility for the	
District.						
Mr.	Greenstein:	Right.  I would think that the code is different for a daytime use only	
facility versus an overnight residence code requirement.		
Ms.	Carpenter:	Why don't we direct Staff to see if we can find someone that would be	
willing to do proposals and have them for when budget season starts and see	if it is something	
we can build into the budget for next year.		
Mr.	Baker:	The architect that designed the building would be the best person to opine	
on the conformance of the building.		
Mr.	Flint:	There has been some of that analysis already done, hasn't it Daniel?  Not by	
the District.						
Mr.	Greenstein:	I know individuals who drive a pretty good distance	to get to facilities	
to enjoy their passion whether it is pottery, art, or painting.		
Mr.	Flint:  A fitness center possibly.		
Mr.	Harding:	The other thing to look at would be what is the cost to	tear it down and	
limiting some of the annual maintenance of $22,000 a year for ever.  That is another thing we	
should be looking at	if it doesn't make sense to do anything with it then what is the cost of	
tearing it down and maybe we can save ourselves some money over the years.		
Mr.	Flint:	We do have an obligation because we issued tax-exempt bonds to maintain	
that facility.						
Ms.	Carpenter:	I think the direction would be direct Staff and if any of the Board	
members have ideas and begin talking to people and gathering proposals.   Also talk to the	
developer or architect and see if we can find people to give proposals so we can come up with a	
plan or a more formal investigation to make it a usable asset.		
Mr. Goldstein:  We should look into what the land is worth too.		
Mr.	Greenstein:	The big issue that kept coming up when we looked at it for any years	
was the access to 532, or lack there of.  We require some modifications in order to provide for	
access.  I think we have direction as to how we are going to move on this.		
Mr. Flint:  We can even do it sooner.		

i.

Status

of

Unexchanged 2002A and 2005 Bonds Assessments

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 11

2016 of I 7

Mr.	d'Adesky:  We don't anticipate any adoption action at this meeting but we would		
			
like that to play it out to allow for responses and discussion between the parties.			
Ms. Carpenter:	I	don't know how much history you recall, but the Board received the		
demand from Trustee's Counsel, who was to be on the phone today.  LRA a few months ago		
sent a  letter		submitting  their  legal  analysis  of why  they	didn't  think  it  was  merit  to  the		

Assessment letter in the demand.  The District								
											Board asked us to hold off a little bit and see if		
the. parties could come to an	agreement and for a while there was no communication among the		
											
parties and it appeared that they were at a stand still.  We've done some substantial research to		
look at positions for the District to take and should there be litigation and what position would		
be best to protect the District.  The									
										District does have an obligation to assess property that needs		
to be																			
assessed under the indenture,	the contract with the bondholders.  We do need to		
										which is			
go						if	it is the right thing	to do legally.  We have done quite a bit of research		
forward and do that					
and because there is not any	litigation filed,	we can't have a closed	session under the law.  We		

can only have something that is not in the Sunshine where everyone can hear what is being		
discussed because there was no litigation filed.  Right now the optimistic and the good news is		
that LRA's lawyers have spoken with the Trustee's Counsel and it appears that they are going to		
have some further discussions	whether those	are fruitful, which we all hope for.  If they are not,		
													
the District could be faced with looking at litigation from one side or the other or responding to		
meet in the middle.	I	think what we would like is the	Board to give authority to one of	the		
																
Board members to be able to help direct the Staff and	Counsel in the event we need to file or		
														
respond to						take any other action so we are not						
litigation or		suddenly stuck with a lawsuit.			
																	
Mr. Flint:  Once a	lawsuit is filed the Board has the ability to meet in the shade and then		
										
you can talk legal strategy as a Board.  At this point we are obviously at a disadvantage because		
your discussion has to be	public and you have the other parties here.				
											
Ms. Carpenter:  LRA is here and Trustee's Counsel is on the	phone so we can't tell you		
																		
what we think	would	be	the best strategy to protect the District from litigation or to avoid it.		
							
We are hoping we don;.t need to but it is a very big issue so each party has a pretty big interest		
in having it go their way.  The District also has to face the other claims, which again are hard to		
discuss in public	because we don't want to give any party an idea of which positions we think		
						
would be best to take.															
Mr. d'	Adesky:  The reason why we ask for								
											delegation of one Board member just so we		
could take quick action on this because there are filing	deadlines and response deadlines.	If		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 12

2016 of 17

something was to come up whether or not it is us		
		needing to file or to respond, we need to do		
that in a timely fashlon and sometimes we cancel meetings.		
Ms. Carpenter:  Any action will come back before the Board.		
Mr. Greenstein:	I will do it.			
Ms. Carpenter:  That makes sense because normally we would say the Chairman but		
since the Chairman may have some	affiliations with one of the		
		parties then we need a resident		
Board member.  Any action that would be taken would come back to the Board for ratification		
and just about 99% of what the lawyers do can be changed if there ever was a strong feeling of		
the Board one way or the other.  We need to be prepared because we are hoping thls is going to		
be resolved.				
On		Goldstein,		
MOTION by Mr.			
in		seconded by Mr. Harding, with all		
favor, to delegate authority to Mr. Greenstein to direct Staff to		
respond to and/or file litigation or take other actions to protect the		
interests	of the District in this		
		assessment matter was approved.		

B.

Engineer

Mr.	Boyd:	I	have some	information from  Scott Leftwich, which he had previously		
								
provided  a	proposal	of	$25,000  to  do  the  final  design.	I	asked  him  about getting  some		
								
construction costs for us and he doesn't have	anything exact yet.  He said that ifwe have to start		
									
from scratch we would be in the $150,000 to $200,000 range, which was quite a bit higher than		
I anticipated.  He doesn't have a	number for me if we just				
									wanted to buy new mast arms and		
replace everything that is there.  I am still							
						hopeful that could be done and I did talk to him about		
that and he is												
	working on that but he doesn't have a number for me on what it would cost if we		
are just purchasing new mast arms and then putting in the signal from there.  Since it would cost		
$150,000 from scratch including bases and poles	I trunk we are going to be substantially less		
than that if it is just mast arms and signal heads.	I think the	number I thought out previously		
												
was in the $75,000 range and that is still what I would expect it run.		
Mr.	Greenstein:  The	sooner you can get us a number it	would be appreciated because		

we want to go for something that is theoretical to real.					

Mr.	I can have those real numbers from him by the time we meet in January and		
Boyd:			
they could be on the agenda for you to take some		
	action if you want to move forward at that		
point.			

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 13

2016 of 17

Mr. Harding:	Especially when the owners see the signals go up and down the road for		
							
the Communities that are being built there.									
Mr. Greenstein:  Exactly.											
Mr. Boyd:		I will	continue to work with him on that and get some more solid cost data		
									
for you for January.														
Mr. Flint:  The proposal from Leftwich would that apply if we didn't have to start from		
scratch?																		
Mr. Boyd:  The $25,000 was the deed to do it like we want to do it.  When I was talking		
with him he																	
	hasn't given us a proposal for the entire signal yet so I am hoping it would be part		
of that $150,000 to $200,000.											
Mr. Harding:	Wasn't there some money set aside for this project in the 2017 budget?		
							
Mr. Flint:		We had money for the Warrant Study and I don't know that we put money in		
there for the actual	construction.  We had money to do the							
											Warrant Study, which came back and		
indicated that we've met the thresholds  warning  a	signal but we  didn't budget the capital		
expense.																		
Mr.	Greenstein:	Who are the main vendors in	signalization of intersections?	I only		

heard Leftwich mentioned.											
Mr.	Boyd:	There is a big one called TCD and I think they did the	I-4 signal and there		
																		
are a couple others.  TCD is the one that	comes to my	mind immediately.				
														
Mr.	Flint:  Leftwich is not a contractor that constructs he	is a	transportation engineer that		
																
does the design.	If we were to	actually move forward with it we	would want to get formal		

proposals.	Greenstein:   The  County basically grandfathered the  existing  equipment that is		
Mr.			
																		
installed provided.		I	am		assuming that we need to	formalize that aspect	of it and hopefully		
											
based on that we can	go													
					forward with the proposal for what it	would take	to complete it using		
															
the existing																	
	equipment and get a little closer to reality.									
Mr.	Flint:	Steve you will come back with more definitive information in January?			
					
Mr.	Boyd:			Yes.  He just needed some more time to get that number on the mast arm		
solution.  It is a strange situation and he was having trouble on	getting someone to give him a		
															
number.																		

C.

District Manager's Report

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 14

2016 of 17

i.

Action Items List

Mr.	Flint:	On the Reunion East agenda we have the irrigation issue.	Is there anything		
					
new on that, Daniel?							
Mr. Baker:  No, the permit continues to be in process by the Water Management District.		
Mr.	Flint:  That turnover	of irrigation and					
					interface with Toho is	of wrapped up in		
						kind			
the water use permit renewal process that the permit holder is currently going through.  We will		
keep this on here and again we are not						
				actively involved at this point in that issue although we		
ultimately	will  be	involved.   The  proposed  signage  policy  was  an	item  that  Mr.	Harding		
									
previously requested and it was	placed on hold pending the transition	of the Board.	I don't		
								
know at this point								
		if there is any direction from the					
					Board on that issue going forward.			
Mr.	Harding:	I am going to make a proposal during the next meeting, which regards to		
				
the signage policy for the Board to consider.						
Mr.	Flint:	If	that is the case then I will	make a note to add that as a business item on the		

action items list.									

ii.

Approval

of

the Check Register

Mr. Flint:  You have the check	of			
		register for the month				
			November for the General Fund,		
Renewal  and  Replacement  Maintenance  Fund,  and  Payroll	totaling  in  the  amount  of		
						
$487,321.80.  If there are any					
	questions we can discuss it.  Mark Yahn is here and I want to give		
him an opportunity to address the	Board if he wants to.				
						
Mr.	Yahn:  The work that was approved at the Board meeting two months ago has been		
			
completed.  Yellowstone has executed their work along Reunion Boulevard very well and we		
made some minor adjustments that were all cost neutral.  The tree work has been done that was		
approved and the Dade palm restoration also was done.  There was one tree that was lapping		
around the center traffic circle and that was done last Monday.	It is complete and hopefully it		
meets with everyone's expectations.				
Mr.						
Greenstein:  I actually got some questions from residents relative to the small area on		
either side	of the circle that is kind of a traffic				
		divider right before you go over the bridge there		
is a little triangular piece there.  There were bushes in there	previously and now there are some		
					
low plantings and they were questioning why we took out the bushes.		
Mr.	Yahn:   The answer is parsoni juniper, which is meant to be a free flowing plant,		
			
which should be hand pruned and they were being edged very sharply,		
				which isn't a natural cut		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 15

2016 of 17

for that plant.	It was alive but it was in a very	unnatural form so other plants have been put		
											
there that grows along the ground and it is supposed to edged sharply				
											along the curb.  If it gets		
run over it is pretty resilient to	almost anything.	It is so small so it was	a fairly inexpensive		
									
element of the work that you approved.		It	looks a little sparse right		but as it grows next		
											now			
Spring it should look pretty nice.										
Mr.	Greenstein:	They											
				thought it had to do with visibility or other issues but it was the		
health of the plant and replace it with										
					something that is more appropriate.				
Mr. Harding:  Another landscape issue I wanted to address to is				
											coming in the back gate		
off of Old Lake Wilson Road, I am not sure	how much remains CDD				
											property versus the Resort		
Golf Course														
	property but to the left going into the gates it seems like there is a dirt path there		
open and	some		of the property owners	have been concerned	about it.	I	am not sure if it is		

															
Resort				will get with Alan Scheerer to see what he thinks about it as far as that		
property and I			
area is concerned and maybe come back.										
Mr.  Flint:	We  own some of that	right-of-way right along the  road  and there is un-		

irrigated Bahia that we mow	if you want to get with						
				but		Alan we can look at that.		

On MOTION by Mr.	Greenstein, seconded by		
			
all in favor, the Check		
approved.	Register in the amount		

Mr. Goldstein, of $487,321.80

with was

iii.

Balance Sheet and Income Statement

Mr.	Flint:	You have the unaudited financial statements for October.  There is no action		
				
required and if you have any questions we can discuss those.	In October and early part	of		
November	you really have no revenue side of your financials	because the assessment revenue		
					
has not							
come in but we have					
		more than adequate operating reserves to cover that period.			

iv.

Status

of

Direct Bill Assessments

Mr. Flint:	Citicommunities and	EHOF have not paid their		
				
				November 1, 2016 payment.		
We are following  up on	those and I did have  some email exchange with Jason who is the		
				
Assessment Administrator earlier	We are going to need to pursue payment on those.		
		today.			
Mr.						
Greenstein:  Legally is there a late payment penalty?		
Mr.						
Flint:  The Board can impose penalties and interest.  There is a statutory and it is 1%		
per month.  I will follow up with them.	I think	gotten the EHOF		
			we've			
				payments and I think		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 16

2016 of 17

the only one we don't have is the Citicommunities payment. This schedule needs to be updated.

It

is

an

issue

of

posting

on

EHOF.

EIGHTH

ORDER

OF BUSINESS

Other Business

Mr.	Flint:	At  the  Master  Association  meeting  there  was  the  question	of Heritage		
Crossing.   One of the pools has a spa and the other one has	a kiddie pool.	In	the past the		
residents that live in proximity to the pool that does not have a spa have expressed interest in		
either the kiddie pool being retrofitted or a new spa being constructed.  When this issue came up		
previously Alan went out and got a price so that we would have an order of magnitude.			
Mr.	Dryburgh:	Did we go out to two or three contractors or just one?					
Mr.	Flint:	We went out to one but it is one that we have done a lot of work with.  If we		
are going to move forward with anything we would get more than one proposal but	for purposes		
of an order	of magnitude we	went out and got one price because we really just wanted to get a		
feel for what range of	dollars	we are talking about.						
Mr.	Dryburgh:	The pricing was around $80,000 and	I don't know what the Board's		
thoughts are but you	can't use the child's pool because it is not heated.					
Mr.	Scheerer:	You can't use the kiddie pool anyways for spa purposes.	The kids can		
use it but you don't	heat 6 inches of water.  Based on the conversation and the email that was		
circulated within the last few days I have actually reached out to Davenport Post Pools as well.		
I have a meeting set up	with them next Thursday at 9:30 a.m.	Davenport Post is the contract		
that built both Heritage A and B pools.  We went to All Seasons Pools and they built the pool		
and spa for another District that we manage and they are doing a lot of the pools	on	the other		
portion of Reunion West.	We are just looking for a dollar amount just to see where	we were.		
Davenport Post and Lakeland will be here next week and I will meet with them and I am going		
to try to at least get	one	more vendor.  We will try to get at least get three quotes and this is a		
·start to finish job	in	a	new	location at Heritage Crossing pool A.  I talked to the Eason brothers		
in Orlando	who	is  also	a	big  pool  manufacturer  and  they  told me  that  it makes  no  sense		
financially to try	and remove the kiddie pool.  I haven't looked at that but I am listening to the		
people that do this								area that we		
		professionally and that is what they're telling me.  We have an			
think will work and	if this pool is approved and it is something that the Board wants to do		
understand that it	was	nothing that was contemplated in the 2017 budget.  If it is something that		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

December 8,

Page 17

2016 of 17

you want to	do the recommendations	
a good spot.		
Mr. Flint:  Who is responsible	
equipment?		

are that we look for a new location and we think we have

for making sure that the clocks are working on the safety

Mr.				
Scheerer:  We do and Yellowstone is our pool		
		provider so they make sure all of the		
safety equipment is good to go.  Those atomic clocks are going to be something that we will		
address at some point.				
Mr. Flint:  If there is any	maintenance issues Alan is your guy.		
			
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor's Request		
There not being any, the next item as followed.		
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Meeting Date		

January

12,

2017.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

There being no further business,

On all

MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 3:03

Mr. p.m.

Goldstein, with

~
Secretary/ Assistant Secretary

-.......-.-