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, March 10, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. via Zoom Communication Media Technology and at the Heritage Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum:

Mark Greenstein Steven Goldstein Trudy Hobbs John Dryburgh Dr. Tom McKean

Chairman
Vice Chairman Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

Also present were:

Tricia Adams Kristen Trucco Steve Boys Alan Scheerer Victor Vargas Mike Smith Doug Reed Ramon Breton
Stephanie Underwood Henry Pinzon
Rax Jung Doug Zang EmamEmam Graham Staley Sharon Harley Residents

District Manager District Counsel District Engineer Field Manager Reunion Security Yellowstone
Reynolds, Smith & Hills KimleyHom
FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT
Reunion West CDD Board Member Reunion West CDD Board Member

The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the March 10, 2022 meeting. A copy of the proceedings can be obtained by contacting the District Manager.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS	Roll Call

March 10, 2022
Page 2 of17

Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors were present.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Comment Period
Resident Lisa Whitsell of Excitement Drive contacted the HOA about leaves on streets and sidewalks and was told that the CDD handled it. This item would be discussed under Staff Reports.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS

Central Florida Expressway Presentation on Proposed Poinciana Parkway and Western Beltway Improvements

Mr. Doug Reed, Consultant Team Project Manager of Reynolds, Smith & Hills (RS&H) representing the Florida Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) provided a slide presentation and highlighted the following:
A Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study was prepared for Poinciana Parkway to identify and evaluate alternatives from County Road (CR) 532 north to 1-4 and State Road (SR) 429 interchange. The purpose was to address future traffic demands, complete the missing link in the southern beltway, improve connectivity, reduce travel times, relieve congestion on 1-4, U.S. 27 and CR 532 and enhance evacuation and safety.
There would be a new six lane expressway that was expandable to eight lanes from CR 532 to north ofl-4 to complete the missing link from CR 532 to north of the 1- 4 and SR 429 interchange.
There was a major Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) facility south of the 1-4 interchange on Old Lake Wilson Road that they must avoid and other utilities that would need to be relocated.
The project would begin at CR 532 where the Central Florida Expressway (CFX) ends and the FTE segment begins. This project would remove the temporary CFX ramps to and from the south, elevate Poinciana Parkway over CR. 532 and add new ramps to the north.
Alternative 1: Separates the northbound and southbound Poinciana Parkway lanes to create a bifurcated mainline around the facility, includes ramp connections to 1-

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March l O, 2022 Page 3 ofl7

4 and removes existing flyover ramps. New flyover ramps would reach four levels high in two locations. Did not include a connection between Sinclair Road and Poinciana Parkway.
Alternative 2: Offers the same connections as Alternative 1, but keeps the northbound and southbound mainline lanes west of the FGT facility with the only ramp connections at 1-4 east of the facility, replaces the existing flyovers and creates four level bridges. Keeps the existing connections between Sinclair Road and 1-4 and SR 429 including express lane connections. Did not include the connection between Sinclair Road and Poinciana Parkway, had less Right-of-Way (ROW) and wetland impacts and requires one additional four-level bridge.
Both alternatives connected to Sinclair Road. The existing Sinclair Road ramps would be reconstructed to access either SR 429 to and from the north or 1-4. Had anticipated impacts to protected species and habitats and improved traffic operations and safety. The main difference between the two alternatives was the bifurcation of Poinciana Parkway. The total cost of the Poinciana Parkway extension ranged from $1.438 to $1.453 billion.
There was a public information meeting on February 22nd and February 24th. The comment period extends through today and they would take comments at any time throughout the study. The most common comment or question was about traffic noise. FDOT follows a prescribed Federal and State process to evaluate noise when an existing roadway was widened or re-aligned or when a new roadway was proposed. There would be an analysis to identify the location of potential noise walls.
They will be recommending a preferred alternative in the next couple of months, which would then be refined and presented at the public hearing tentatively scheduled for the end of this year, with the study completion by Summer, 2023.

Discussion ensued and the Board addressed the following:
Mr. Greenstein asked if there would be any access to SR 429 from Sinclair Road. Mr. Reed stated from Sinclair Road, SR 429 could be accessed from the north or 1-

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 4 of 17

4 east or west. Mr. Greenstein asked which alternative had less impact on Carriage Pointe. Mr. Reed referred to the evaluation matrix.
Mr. Dryburgh was unhappy about the interchange being four levels high, as Reunion residents would be seeing ramps from their backyard. In his opinion, this was the only option that had the most impact on residents and was a convenient choice. Mr. Reed offered to do view analysis and provide renderings. Mr. Henry Pinzon of FDOT stated that Mr. Dryburgh's point was taken, but the location was selected because it would have the most impact to 1-4 and the most benefit. Mr. Graham Staley, Reunion West CDD Board Member believed that the four-level highway would be 90 feet. Mr. Reed noted the highest one currently was 80 feet.
Mr. McKeon asked how they determined how much of the ROW they would need to purchase. Mr. Pinzon stated they must establish a need to provide the ROW. Mr. Dryburgh questioned how wide the ROW would be. Ms. Stephanie Underwood of FDOT replied whatever was necessary based on the footprint. Right now, the need was for the footprint of the roadway, but ifthere was not much land left, they would purchase other land. Nothing was funded beyond this study.
Mr. Goldstein questioned how many years they were away from construction. Ms. Underwood stated two years for PD&E, two years for design, two years for ROW acquisition and several years for construction. They must also go through the Federal funding process. Ideally, it was a total of 10 years.
Mr. Dryburgh asked how many cars per hour were anticipated during daytime hours. Mr. Emam Emam of FDOT estimated 20,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Dryburgh felt this would have a huge impact to Reunion and Celebration.

Mr. Greenstein addressed the following.
Understood the plan was to create a beltway around Orlando and was a collection of roadways, not one continuous roadway. It would be ideal if this was in a less populated area, but unfortunately, Reunion was landlocked with many utilities and pipelines, a lot of roadways, main roads and express lanes, so there was choice, but there was no other way to connect to all of the roadways.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 5 of 17

Questioned the average height of the roadway that would extend parallel to Reunion's eastern boundary from CR 532 when it was running through wetlands and behind Reunion before SR 429. Mr. Emam stated in this area, the intent was to be 5 feet above the existing ground to be able to get it out of the water. The first level was around 25 to 30 feet high. The next level was around 60 feet and the top was around 85 feet. The highest elevations were in the middle of the interchange. Mr. Dryburgh asked how high the current bridge was. Mr. Eman stated 45 to 50 feet high.
The tree line off of the golf course and homes along Gathering Drive were 5 feet at grade and should not be able to see the roadway. In his opinion, Carriage Pointe residents would be the most affected. Mr. Eman stated that there would be a buffer. Mr. Greenstein felt that the view could be mitigated. Mr. Staley asked why it was so close to Reunion. Mr. Eman explained if it was moved, it would go through the center of Celebration and would not allow the turnpike to connect it.
The presentation material said, "North of SR 429" not "To SR 429 interchange." Mr. Reed explained that it was north of the 1-4 SR 429 interchange.
Felt that the presentation was very effective, but there was some frustration with the alternatives. The government wanted to connect to SR 429 and 1-4 and anything they could do to mitigate the impact was the key to an area where the CDD had assets, just north of the Carriage Pointe entrance.

Ms. Adams opened the floor for audience comments. Resident Dorothy Reynolds asked what option the Board would choose. Mr. Greenstein stated that the Board needed to work with FDOT to get distinction on what the alternatives meant as far as impacts to Reunion. Ms. Adams noted that the purpose of the presentation was to hear comments on the design from the Board and residents. The Board did not have to endorse one of the proposed alignments but needed to work with the authoritative resources on the project impacts to see how to mitigate the noise and visual impacts to the best extent possible. Mr. Straley preferred Alternative I, splitting the highway to push some of the noise outside of Reunion. A resident voiced concern about the noise and suggested having sound barriers that displayed art. Mr. Reed stated there was an aesthetics package that included landscaping and walls. Mr. Doug Zang of FDOT stated that a noise study was

Reunion East COD Regular Meeting

March I 0, 2022
Page 6 ofl7

performed once the preferred alternative was selected. The noise model looked at future year conditions for all of the homes constructed or for homes that had building permits at the time the PD&E process was completed. Mr. Emam noted during the design phase they would have a public information meeting. Ms. Adams thanked all participants for attending. A copy of this presentation would be posted on the website and incorporated in the District's records.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of Minutes of the February 10,
2022 Meeting

On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the Minutes of the February 10, 2022 Meeting as presented were approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Access Control Proposal
for Carriage Pointe
Mr. Scheerer presented a proposal from Access Control Technologies, which would work with the new Envera system approved by the Board and included the RFID and access card readers. Ms. Adams stated the cost for the base system was $14,675. The District did not direct purchase the access cards or transponders. Those were facilitated through Reunion Security. Mr. Dryburgh asked if their current system tied into this system. Mr. Scheerer replied affirmatively.

Dr. McKeon MOVED to approve the proposal with Access Control Technologies for access control for Carriage Pointe in the amount of
$14,675 and Ms. Hobbs seconded the motion.

Mr. Greenstein pointed out that this was a budgetary proposal and final configuration could impact the price.

On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the proposal with Access Control Technologies for access control for Carriage Pointe in the amount of
$14,675 was approved.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 7 of 17

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Enhanced	Traffic
Enforcement
Ms. Adams stated at the Board's request, Staff obtained a proposal for off-duty or enhanced traffic enforcement and based on a minimum shift of four hours, the total cost was $390; $260 in trooper fees, $65 in mileage fees and $65 in coordination fees. Mr. Goldstein felt that money could be better spent internally and since a meeting was scheduled for next week with Kingwood, they should look at other alternatives.
Mr. Dryburgh suggested installing speed bumps. Mr. Straley asked if they were allowed to put speed bumps on county roads. Ms. Adams stated they did have the ability for traffic calming devices on all interior roadways owned by the CDD, but not on county roads. Mr. Straley noted that cones were placed on Sinclair Road and asked if it belonged to the county. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that Sinclair Road belonged to the county, but where cones were placed belonged to the CDD. Mr. Greenstein noted at the Reunion West meeting, Mr. Scheerer and the District Engineer were asked to bring back proposals for how to make a permanent delineation between lanes to give residents unimpeeded access. Mr. Dryburgh asked if there was a minimum amount of time between putting a sticker on a car and towing. Mr. Vargas reported as soon as there was a violation, they would affix the tow sticker and call the towing company. Mr. Dryburgh asked how long they waited between the first sticker and contacting the towing company. Mr. Vargas replied an hour. Mr. Dryburgh voiced concern about vehicles parking on sidewalks. Mr. Greenstein stated that legal counsel advised at the last Reunion West CDD meeting that it was a violation of State law to park on the sidewalk and even though it was CDD property, they could not tow. The Reunion West CDD Board agreed if it was CDD property, such as the driveway apron, the resident's property line ended at the sidewalk and wanted their parking and towing guidelines to apply to all CDD property. At next month's Reunion West CDD meeting, District Counsel was providing a recommendation on how to amend the Policies and Procedures to include parking on sidewalks as a towable offense. Ms. Adams would bring back information at the next meeting for this Board regarding traffic calming devices.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of  Proposals	for  Plant
Removal and Sod Installation on CR 532
Ms. Adams stated at the Board's request to be relieved of maintenance responsibilities on the south side of CR 532, District Counsel communicated with the county regarding amending the

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March l O, 2022 Page 8 of17

existing agreement. The county finally responded requiring the District to uninstall landscape and irrigation improvements. Based on those parameters, Mr. Scheerer met with Yellowstone to obtain proposals. The District would be saving $28,000 for the first 12-month period because the Yellowstone contract would be reduced. Mr. Scheerer presented two proposals; one removing the plant material between the sidewalk and the curb, disposing of the plant material and installing unirrigated Bahia for $29,479.92 and the second to remove the Zoysia grass, all remaining plant material on the south side and re-grade unirrigated Bahia for $42,827. Ms. Trucco offered to approach the county with a less expensive option. Mr. Dryburgh preferred the less expensive option and asked if the irrigation could be turned off versus digging up the pipes. Mr. Scheerer confirmed there was a plan for the irrigation and the county only wanted the District to only remove the plant beds and irrigation, which was in the first proposal. Mr. Greenstein stated that money was an issue, but the county specified exactly what the District needed to do and it did not include replacing existing grasses. If they came back to the Board, they would deal with it.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the proposal from Yellowstone for plant material removal on CR 532 in the amount of $29,479.92 was approved.

Ms. Adams reported that District Counsel was working on the agreement addendum with Yellowstone and they needed an effective date. With this approval, Mr. Scheerer would start the removal. Ms. Trucco stated that the amendment to the Interlocal Agreement was previously approved and the county executed it. It must now go before the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the original terms.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration  of Easement  Agreement
with TECO for Reunion Village Tract OS-
4
Ms. Adams reported that Tampa Electric Company (TECO) contacted the District regarding an easement that they needed. They provided a proposed agreement, which was reviewed by District Counsel. TECO incorporated almost all of District Counsel's comments. Ms. Trucco was satisfied with the form of the agreement presented in the agenda package, although she wanted to review more closely with what they were objecting to.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March l 0, 2022
Page 9 ofl7

Mr. Goldstein MOVED to approve the Easement Agreement with TECO for Reunion Village Tract OS-4 was approved in substantial form subject to final execution and Dr. McKeon seconded the motion.

Mr. Greenstein asked if there would be any impacts. Ms. Adams stated that the parcel was reviewed by the Field Operations Manager and there was no impact to the District.

On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the Easement Agreement with TECO for Reunion Village Tract OS-4 was approved in substantial form subject to final execution was approved.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration	of	Resolution	2022-06
Property Conveyance
Ms. Adams reported that Osceola County has been working with the developer, Encore regarding some development permits for Spectrum Phase 2, near the water park. They required an authorized agent of the District to sign off on the permit application as part of the permitting process. There was no impact to the stormwater system or to the District, but their Development Plan required a small sliver of District property. A construction agreement as part of this resolution would be brought back to the Board at a future time. Initially, the plan was to present the resolution to the Board today, but staff was not at that point. District Counsel and the District Engineer conferred with the developer's representative, Mr. Rick Feather regarding the status. Ms. Trucco advised that this would require a re-platting and conveyance of property and requested a legal description for the exact sliver of District property. A title report was also requested to ensure no liens or encumbrances as well as the drafting of a temporary construction and access easement. Ms. Trucco did not want to present the resolution while there was uncertainty about the exact property being transferred. Ms. Adams noted that Encore agreed to bear 100% of the professional costs associated with this project. The District would pay professional staff and seek reimbursement from Encore. Mr. Boyd reported that this was for Spectrum Phase 2, which was south of Tradition. There were some CDD lands dedicated previously with the plan based on the Development Plan, but the ponds were never built. They just need to be incorporated in the new plan. They were asking for authorization to submit the permit application at this time and the CDD

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 10 of 17

needed to sign the agent authorization. He had no objection allowing the permit to move forward. The land issue would be dealt with before the final plat was approved.

On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor authorization for staff to execute the Osceola County agent authorization for Encore to permit for Spectrum Phase 2 was approved.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Cell Tower Easement
Agreement with Vertical Bridge
Ms. Adams stated a diagram of the Reunion Village property with the proposed cell tower on the south side ofl-4 was provided to the Board. The parcel was owned by DOT and had an electronic billboard. They wanted the District to enter into an Easement Agreement. She did not want Kimley Hom, representing the private interest in this matter, to put together a design proposal and related documentation if this was not something that the Board wanted to consider. Mr. Greenstein preferred that they find another place. Mr. Goldstein agreed as it was unfair to the residents who purchased houses there.

On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Mr. Goldstein with all in favor the request by DOT for the District to enter into a Cell Tower Easement Agreement was denied.

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Discussion Regarding Possible Merger of
Reunion East and Reunion West Community Development Districts
Ms. Adams noted a mechanism where Districts had the ability merge into one CDD. The benefit would be continuity across the property as well as cost savings. If the Board was interested in exploring this project, they would direct legal counsel to bring back a memorandum outlining all of the salient points on the merger and District Staff would provide an estimated cost savings as well as any other pertinent information. Mr. Goldstein asked how this would affect their seats. Ms. Adams explained that each CDD in Florida was comprised of five seats and if the Districts were to merge into one CDD, it would be a five-member Board, with two members from each District and one at-large seat. Mr. Dryburgh was not in favor of having a person on the Board that did not live in Reunion. Mr. Goldstein agreed.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March l O, 2022 Page 11 of 17

Mr. Greenstein stated that the Reunion West CDD Board asked their attorney to provide a memorandum explaining the steps for merging and potential impacts since two seats were open for General Election in November and recommended that this Board authorize the same. Once they had the document, they could make an informed decision. Mr. Goldstein questioned the cost savings. Ms. Trucco estimated between $75,000 to $100,000 per year. Ms. Hobbs asked about other CDDs of similar size that merged. Ms. Trucco would look at Celebration and Poinciana who considered merging at some point. Ms. Adams stated the salient points for the Board to consider were the economy and efficiencies of operating one District and cohesiveness. Reunion West CDD gave direction to staff to look into this further and if this Board did not wish to, there was no reason for Reunion West to proceed as it takes two Districts to agree to become one. Mr. Goldstein did not see why they needed to change something that was working fine right now. Ms. Adams recommended that the Board consider not so much where they were today, but where Reunion could be in the future. Mr. Greenstein felt that this was something that they should plan for and consider as they moved forward. Mr. Greenstein recommended that District Counsel provide a legal memorandum and District Staff provide estimated cost savings to the Board at the next meeting.

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Series 2021 Requisition
#4 (ADDED)

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Dr. McKeon with all in favor Requisition #4 for Series 2021 to be paid out of the bond funds was approved.

THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Amenity Access Control
at Seven Eagles Functional Fitness Center (ADDED)
Ms. Adams stated that staff was working with Reunion Resort regarding the installation of an RFID reader on the door of the Functional Fitness Center at Seven Eagles. It provided better security than a numerical keypad as it tracked the name of the user. Mr. Vargas provided a proposal with All Sorts Engineering for labor and materials in the amount of $2,100 and an estimated amount for the equipment that was compatible with the existing RFID readers. However, this was from a previous project and there may be some increases. Mr. Vargas was waiting for the vendor

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 12 of 17

to contact him. Ms. Adams suggested that the Board approve a not-to-exceed of $6,000 to provide for any material increases. The Fitness Center was currently closed for the installation of equipment and would not be open until it was properly secured or monitored.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in favor the proposals for access control at the Seven Eagles Functional Fitness Center in a not-to-exceed amount of $6,000 was approved.

Mr. Goldstein asked how long it would be until they received the cameras. Mr. Vargas was waiting for a quote.

FOURTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Attorney

Staff Reports

Ms. Trucco was looking into a precedent amending the Parking and Towing Rules for the towing of vehicles parked over sidewalks and aprons and amending the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Goldstein asked if the District could tow from the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street. Ms. Trucco would see if it was specified in the rules. Mr. Goldstein wanted it clear on what Mr. Vargas and his team could take action on. Ms. Trucco would follow up with Encore on the future potential conveyance related to the Spectrum property.

Engineer
Mr. Boyd provided a handout for The Village gates with conceptual cost estimates for two options. Option #1 was an in/out gate on both ends of the bridge, which was the cleanest option because of controlling access to the bridge before anyone getting to it. On the north side, someone could tum around or back up into the villa parcel and go the other way. On the south side, there was enough room for a u-tum. Option #2 was a gate at the south end of the bridge only. The problem with this option was if a truck came down the bridge and ignored any signage, they could not tum around. Providing an additional driveway would provide room for a truck to back up and make a three point tum, but they must cross the other lane of traffic to do so. If the intent was to avoid people coming from The Villages into Reunion, they must control access of that gate, but if they were already in Reunion and were trying to get out onto CR 532, they did not need to restrict the outbound. It could just be a gate that opened automatically. It would be much less expensive

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 13 ofl7

to do the one gate to keep non-residential traffic from accessing and recommended making it a free exit.
Mr. Greenstein stated that the purpose was to provide access to and from Reunion Proper resident only and to avoid pass through traffic, but this was tight because of the lift station and retention pond, which had a steep drop. Mr. Boyd stated that the gate would avoid having to encroach on the pond. They would take advantage of the extra CDD land on the east side of the road south of the lift station and the gate would be off center. Mr. Greenstein asked if traffic attempting to come through the gate to access the bridge would have a way of exiting with Option #1 on the Reunion Village side. Mr. Boyd stated it would allow for a car to make au-turn after the control pad, but anything larger than a car would have to back up to the first subdivision street. Mr. Greenstein preferred Option#1 with the signage, "Access Limited, " "No Commercial Traffic" or "Residential Only" like Liberty Bluff and paid out of the Repair and Maintenance (R&M) Fund. There were sufficient funds as they managed reserves well.

Mr. Dryburgh MOVED to approve Option #1 for access control at Davenport Creek Bridge 5 in the amount of $349,474 to be paid out of the Repair and Maintenance Fund and Mr. Greenstein seconded the motion.

Ms. Adams asked for audience comments as this item was not included on the agenda. Resident Lisa Whitsell of Excitement Drive agreed with Option #1 but requested multiple bids. Ms. Adams stated this was just a project estimate and would go out for construction bids. Encore said that they would provide a bid and there may be some efficiencies because they were doing Spectrum Phase 2. Mr. Dryburgh was fine with Encore providing a bid, but wanted some type of access over the bridge, so trucks could back up.

On VOICE VOTE with all in favor Option #1 for access control at Davenport Creek Bridge in the amount of$349,474 to be paid for out of the Repair and Maintenance Fund was approved.

*Supervisor McKean left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Boyd was working on the stormwater assessment, which would be discussed at the next meeting.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 14 ofl7

District Manager's Report
Ms. Adams reported that the "No Parking" signs were installed at Carriage Pointe and property owners received an electronic mail message and security delivered door-to-door notices after the signs were installed. Staff was monitoring feedback and minor corrections may need to be made at a future time. Ms. Adams recommended that Board Members consider summary meeting minutes. There was Board consensus for management to provide summary minutes.

Action Items List
Mr. Dryburgh asked about the security cameras at the Reunion Village gates. Ms. Adams stated that the proposal was approved by the Board on February 10th and District Counsel prepared a legal agreement, which has been fully executed by all parties. Mr. Vargas was told that the cameras would be installed in 15 to 20 days. Mr. Goldstein asked if there was a proposal on the playground dog park camera. Mr. Vargas replied no.
In response to the resident's question if all of the sidewalks were CDD sidewalks, Ms. Adams stated that while many of the sidewalks belonged to the CDD some of the sidewalks were owned and maintained by HOAs. Mr. Scheerer was overseeing maintenance of the sidewalks and could answer any questions regarding any segment. Resident Lisa Whitsell of Excitement Drive noted that people were walking in the street instead of on sidewalks. Mr. Greenstein stated the Board looked at this issue many times and recognized the need, but they could not do anything about it.

Approval of Check Register
Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from February 1, 2022 through February 28, 2022 in the amount of $237,925.46.

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

Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through January 31, 2022, which were provided for informational purposes.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 15 of17

Status of Direct Bill Assessments
Ms. Adams reported one account was in arrears with their November and February payments and staff was conferring with District Counsel regarding the collection. Mr. Dryburgh questioned the number of delinquent accounts. Mr. Greenstein stated they were new accounts, mainly the commercial property in Reunion Village. Ms. Adams noted in the future these would be assessed on the Tax Bills since the lots were platted. At this point, the delinquent owners received communication three times from District management staff, four times in two of the cases because they responded. They were made aware that this was escalating to the next level and District Counsel was being provided with all of the details necessary to prepare correspondence with the property owners or agents ofrecord. Mr. Greenstein noted that EHOF paid in November, but not in February. Ms. Adams stated they were not concerned about EHOF because of their communication.

Replacement and Maintenance Plan
Ms. Adams presented a summary to the R&M Plan, which was included in the agenda package. Some costs would be updated as a few proposals or invoices were received for some of these projects. Mr. Scheerer reported that the pressure washing and painting of the pergolas and buildings would be starting in Heritage Crossing Pool "A" on Wednesday. Two weeks were allocated for each pooL The Carriage Pointe fence was installed. The contractor would be out tomorrow to make a couple of minor modifications to the lock. He met with Allied Roofing for the Seven Eagles roof and planned to bring proposals to the Board in a few months. The sidewalk grinding started next week starting with areas identified on the west side. Mr. Dryburgh wanted all residents to be aware of who to contact regarding broken sidewalks.

Security Report
140 Parking Violations
Ms. Adams reported that the Board received notification regarding 140 vehicle incidents.

Discussion of Security Staff Procedures for Greeting Residents
Ms. Adams reported that Supervisor Goldstein had been communicating with her to coordinate with security and Reunion Resort regarding security staff procedures. Mr. Vargas stated

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 16 of17

when they hired new officers, they train them to greet every vehicle accessing the gates. Mr. Dryburgh questioned how often a homeowner should see a security vehicle drive by. Mr. Vargas stated that they patrol from the east to the west, but for the last three weeks, two vehicles were broken down and a guest service was being used to patrol the community. Mr. Dryburgh questioned the normal frequency if there were no issues. Mr. Vargas estimated between 30 to 40 minutes.

FIFTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
There being none, the next item followed.

SIXTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
There being none, the next item followed.

SEVENTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Other Business

Supervisor's Requests

Next Meeting Date-April 14th, 2022

Ms. Adams stated that the next meeting was on April 14, 2022 at l :00 p.m.

Audience Comments
Resident Lisa Whitsell of Excitement Drive voiced concern about the Carriage Pointe access control system. Mr. Scheerer explained there would be three separate systems; an Envera system where visitors must be recognized before the remote officer would open the gate, a card system and an e-pass sticker system. Ms. Whitsell stated that transponders were not working on Old Lake Wilson Road. Mr. Greenstein noted there were times that the system was down because someone knocked the gate down, but it was an individual card authorization issue. Ms. Whitsell reported lights were out in Center Court Ridge and The Villas. Mr. Scheerer stated that the CDD did not manage those areas as well as Sandy Ridge, Whisper Way, Cabana Court and Sunset View. All lights on CDD roadways were upgraded to LEDs. Security was responsible for tagging lights that were out and forwarded to the utility.

EIGHTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

Reunion East CDD Regular Meeting

March 10, 2022
Page 17 of 17

Chairman/Vice Chaitman