MINUTES OF MEETING REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Development District was held on Thursday, March 16, 2017 at Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion,

Reunion  East Community

2:00  p.m.  at  the  Heritage

Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Carlton Grant	Chairman

Mark Greenstein	Vice-Chairman

Steven Goldstein	Assistant Treasurer

John Dryburgh ·	Assistant Secretary

Don Harding	Assistant Secretary

Also present were:

George Flint	District Manager

Andrew d' Adesky	District Counsel

Steve Boyd	District Engineer

Alan Scheerer	Field Manager

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.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS

Approval of the

9,  2017 Meeting

Minutes

of

the February

Mr.

Flint: Are there any additions, deletions,

or

corrections to those minutes?

On MOTION in favor, the approved.

by Mr. Harding, minutes of the

seconded by Mr. Dryburgh, with all February 9, 2017 meeting were

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

		March 16, 2017	
		Page 2 of 12	
Discussion	of	Estoppel  Request  from	
Armstrong Reunion, LLC	

Mr.	d'Adesky: We received an Estoppel Request from Armstrong Reunion, LLC which		
is an entity that we entered into an agreement with several years ago. Since Publix bought out		
Armstrong, they are just looking to receive an Estoppel that states our compliance with the		
maintenance agreement that they recorded. Their obligations under the maintenance agreement		
are limited to maintaining that retaining wall that is across the street. I drove by it today and it		
looks fine,	I did not see any structural deficiencies with the retaining wall. That is really the		
only ongoing maintenance	responsibility they have. I don't see any issue with giving them an		
				
Estoppel. We can just say that they are in compliance and also write in there a reminder that		
they have the ongoing maintenance responsibility for the retaining wall. Other than that, they		
are in compliance, the rest of the stuff is maintained by us.			
Mr.	Goldstein: So, we will have no responsibility for the retaining wall?		
Mr.	d' Ade sky: No, it will still be their ongoing responsibility.			
Mr.  Flint:  When they began developing that commercial parcel and they had to put		
retaining walls in, the position that the CDD took at the time said that we were maintaining the		
landscaping but we weren't going to take on any responsibility for the retaining wall. There was		
an agreement entered into where they took on the obligation to the extent that	if there was ever		
an issue with the retaining wall they were responsible for that. Now because of	the sale, they are		
calling it an Estoppel which is a little unusual because it is not a typical Estoppel, they are		
asking for	a letter basically saying the current owner is in compliance with that agreement.		
From our perspective, they are. Issuing this letter doesn't really impact the discussion about		
future cost sharing. We are not compromising.			
Mr.	Greenstein: There is a premature cutoff in Osceola. I saw a very close call. There is		
a driveway pad that they cut in for future _use, they did not measure the amount of the roadway		
going up that hill. If you take your eyes off the road for a split second, expecting you are going		
to be going straight up a ramp, you will barrel into reflective posts because it goes nowhere.		
Mr.	Harding: Haven't we done that twice?			
Mr.	d' Adesky: I've taken that tum also.			
Mr.	Greenstein: I've heard so many people that have done that.			
Mr.	d'Adesky: It looks like an entrance, especially at night.			
Mr.	Greenstein: Are we vulnerable in that area?			

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March 16,

Page 3

2017 of 12

	Mr.	d'Adesky: That is the County's	responsibility, and it is their duty to control that		
					
intersection.					
	Mr.	Greenstein: From an engineering standpoint,	we	should have done this years ago,		
unless they are going to do something with that like open it	up. They have to close it on the		
right.							
	Mr.	Harding: It is my understanding that it .is going to be an active entrance at some		
point,	although if plans change and it is no longer going	to be an entrance it needs to be taken		
				
out.							
	Mr.	Greenstein: It has been there for a long ti:rp.e.	I only brought it up because I almost		
							
saw an accident happen.					
		On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by	Mr. Harding, with		
		all in favor, the Estoppel Request to Armstrong Reunion, LLC was		
		approved.					

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Consideration

Environmental

of Resource

Transfer
Permits

of

	Mr.	Boyd:  In  your  agenda  package,  there	is  a	specific  notice  from  the  Water		
										
Management District about a permit that needs to be transferred to the operating entity. That		
facility	is the	maintenance facility, and it drains to a dry bottom pond adjacent to County road		
					
532.  It	was	actually  built by	the	District  as  a	drainage  facility  for  the  pond  and  a  future		

development track. This is one	of	several permits we	received notices about from the Water		
									
Management  District.  They  claim  to  be  missing  paperwork  certifying  that  the  project  is		
complete and that the CDD now maintains the facilities. Several years ago, when these facilities		
were actually completed, the CDD did start assuming	maintenance responsibilities for those.		
									
The issue is, the District says they are missing the paperwork that says that is the case. I'm		
confident that these have all been						
				completed and are in order. We are going to go through them		
one by one and get the District any					
					paperwork that they are missing. The next meeting I'll be		
bringing the Board a list of permits that need followed up on.			

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

A.	Attorney

Staff Reports

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March 16,

Page 4

201	7	
of 12	

	Mr.	d' Adesky: We don't have too much to report on, obviously, there has been nothing		
occurred from the trustee regarding the negotiations of settlement. I know	that we intended to		
talk about the right-of-way maintenance  and I will say that I did have  a	look and did some		
research. I was informed of this ahead of time, and did look at the Interlocal Agreement, a local		
agreement that we have with the County involving right_;of-way maintenance.	It was backdated		
to the	establishment of the CDD, so it expires in 5 years and we would have	to renegotiate it		
				
then. It does contain a 60 day out. So, if we ever wanted to pull out of it we would give 60 day		
notice and pull out if we want to. The County could require us to pull up	everything we have		
there currently and lay down sod.  It is a very old agreement and simply written.  It doesn't		
contemplate pulling out from a portion of it, it is either all out or all in. That is the status of the		
Interlocal as of date. I sent a message to Boyd, the DRI has been rescinded.				
	Mr. Boyd: The DRI has not been rescinded.				
	Mr.	d' Adesky: It has not, okay. But, that is the agreement we have in place		
	Mr. Goldstein: According to what Alan was telling me, to maintain that median and both		
sides of Road 532 is roughly $170,000 a year. The CDD and homeowners are paying for that.		
What I would propose if there is a way to do it, is to go O\,\t to the other developments and other		
property owners along Road 532 and say "pay your fair share." The center median is almost		
$104,000, the north Reunion side is $41,000, and the south Reunion side is $27,000. The other		
suggestion, made by a homeowner, if no one is going to contribute we should just pay for the		
maintenance of the property in front  of the entrance way and somehow segregate that off. I		
think it is something we should be concerned with, since we are spending all that money.		
	Mr. Harding: We irrigate that too, is that cost in there?				
	Mr. Scheerer: No, that is just the landscape cost.				
	Mr.	Harding: We irrigate that too?				
	Mr.	Scheerer: Yes, all of it.				
	Mr.	Harding: The reason I'm asking is because the irrigation is a real problem. We are		
flooding the road every night. I see people swerving to not get into the water, and that could		
cause a major accident. We would be liable because we are spraying it right across road in the		
middle of the night, every night.				
	Mr.  Scheerer: It shouldn't be sprayed in the middle of the road every night.  I'm not		
saying that the system is perfect. These are mechanical rotors and sometimes they get off track.		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March 16,

Page 5

2017 of 12

Yellowstone does go through the system, it is not intentional for the rotors to road.

be

aimed at the

Mr. Harding: It is going east from I-4, and it is near the Fire Station. Mr. Greenstein: That's something we can work with Yellowstone on? Mr. Scheerer: Yes, their guys do regular wet checks here in the community. I've experienced the same thing even during the day. Mr. Goldstein: As far as maintaining that property out there, granted I would hate to see it go bad, how does it benefit us Reunion owners? I understand why the developer wanted an attraction for Reunion coming up 532, but what purpose does it serve the owners? Mr. Dryburgh: One thing you need to consider when you start talking about cutting your expenses is that no one else is going to step up to it. You have a direct impact on the value of your house. First time someone sees Championsgate and it is well maintained with nice cut grass and plants, then they see Reunion's landscaping is overrun, overgrown, not maintained or watered properly, they will have an attitude about Reunion. They will think Reunion has financial problems and I'm not sure that's how you want to go. Mr. Grant: I agree with that. Mr. Dryburgh: You either have to get cooperation or suck it up and pay it. Mr. Harding: Isn't it shared between the Districts? Mr. Scheerer: Yes, it is a shared cost between the East and West Reunion. Jan and I had discussed this, pending Board direction and where to go with this. We did think if we were going to pursue this we could start a conversation with the County and talk with them about trying to get some of those users tied in and participating.

Mr. Dryburgh: The key would be to get the County on board with this. We can't directly approach this property and Polk County and get anywhere. If we got with Osceola County and maybe during the development approval process that issue can be addressed and we can look at cost sharing. Mr. Harding: There are already people in the process of developing on that road right now. You're saying there is nothing we can do about those guys? Mr. Scheerer: No, we're just saying it would need to be done through the County. Mr. Harding: Is that Polk County? Mr. Goldstein: Yes, that's Polk County.

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March 16,

Page 6

2017 of 12

Mr.	Scheerer: Our interlocal is with Osceola County so they are the entity that would be		
replacing the portions of that in a local agreement.				
Mr.	Greenstein: Just for clarity, I agree with what Mr. Dryburgh stated so well. I think		
the 532 was beautified by the developer to provide that well-kept, above normal standard look		
that makes a difference when people come in. It's	like the streetscape for Reunion includes the		
532 median and that's why it was developed that way.		
Mr.	Goldstein: That's all the way from 14	to	Old Lake Wilson Road, both sides of the		
road and the median.				
Mr.	Greenstein: I understand that. From 532 to 14 to the wetlands, close to where the		
Landscape Contract building is, that area there will probably be commercially developed. That		
is almost expendable. When it does finally get developed, it will not be part of Reunion even		
though it is Reunion East CDD. Whether we reduce the area, the length of 532, that we cover		
through this	arrangement,  we can look at that.  I do  agree now that the  Polk side is  being		
				
developed, even though the area on the comer Polk side that has our landscaping is Osceola		
County. The actual line is about 20 feet in. That is why they have the agreement on the other		
matter because the roadway is Osceola.				
Mr.	Scheerer: The other agreement was recorded in the Polk County.		
Mr.	Goldstein: If we do anything, I think we should take the action with the County to		
solicit the other developments and				
		homeowners along 532 from 14 to Old Lake Wilson to see if		
we can get them to contribute.				
Mr.	Scheerer: I think that is the best course	of	action.		
Mr.	Goldstein: Then we can go from there.	It	is covered by our inter local agreement by		
the East and West. It is a shared cost, it isn't just the East that's paying for it. That's not the key		
point though, it's that we have viable development going on and benefiting from what we have		
done. If we	can go to the County and get them to approach the other entities and get some		
financial relief that would be great. We could also look at narrowing the scope of what we are		
doing based upon the future development of the fire department property.		
Mr.	Scheerer: We don't need any action.				

B.

Engineer

Mr. Boyd:  I have two items.  One is a follow up on a brief report I provided for the		
Reunion signal. I've been promised plans in about three weeks. We did confirm that the existing		
development	to	left of here has an access on 532 that does not have a signal associated with it.		

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March 16,

Page 7

2017 of 12

Mr. Harding: What do you mean?					
Mr. Boyd: They have an entrance, but they don't have a signal.				
Mr. Harding: Is there a gap where they are making a left-hand turn?		
Mr. Boyd: They are adding one.					
Mr.		Harding:  So, they are turning in front of	all that traffic going 60 miles an hour. It		
doesn't sound like they are thinking long term.					
Mr.	Flint: At the West meeting, we were led to believe that they are going forth to the		
County with a proposal for signalization of that intersection.  What Steve found out was that		
they're not going to the County. They just went to the County for designation of the turn lane.		
As you said, it is very close to the 14 intersection. When you are coming east from 14, you go		
around 118	th	of a mile, and it lines up with the cutoff for the fire department. There's an opening		
					
in the median so they just want	to control the turning.					
Mr.		Boyd:  Whether it is signalized or not is a decision for the County. It is based on		
traffic numbers, if the numbers warrant a signal then they will require a signal. If the traffic		
numbers  show the  signal  is not warranted,  they  won't allow one.  What we  want from  the		
exercise here,  the  signal  at  Reunion is now warranted.  Originally, it	wasn't warranted.  The		
warrant numbers are based on	how many trips are coming in and out	of	the development, not		
how many trips are coming down the primary road.	If Osceola C01;1nty	is going to require a		
signal at that location, the trips they count require it.	l questioned the County Engineer about it		
and the engineer said a signal is not proposed at that location.				
Mr.		Greenstein: If they start building those units, you get 300 to 600 people in there,		
they are going to start having issues.					
Mr.	Harding: When we	put one in you're going to have an issue anyway because signals		
are going to be backing up.						
Mr.	Greenstein: They'll	be synchronized with Old Lake Wilson Road.		
Mr. Harding: l just see a disaster coming in the next few years.				
Mr. Boyd: The other item l have to report on, last month you asked me to investigate		
feasibility	of a gatehouse at the end gated entrance.	I've got a sketch here. Dimensionally, it		
does appear that a gatehouse would work. If it were positioned right in front of the gate. The		
one problem with that, is if someone were to get to the gate, and not be allowed access, there's		
no way to turn around at that point. There is no room to put one further back where they could		
make the U-turn.						

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March 16,

Page 8

2017 of 12

Mr. Mr. turnaround.

Dryburgh: We do that at the back gate now, there's no place to do a U-tum. Scheerer: There's a turn around, just like this one, and the gatehouse is after that

	Mr. Boyd: Also, you can man and monitor a gate, but access can't be denied.	
	Mr.	Harding: We know that.	
	Mr.	Boyd:  From that standpoint, this would  still be functional.  You would have the	
ability to monitor and control the gate from this location. If this is going to be manned, there is a	
sewer in the road that is not too far away. We use a packaged pump station that would pump to	
a 1½	or 2-inch line that would pump to that manhole. That's fairly simple, and there is a water	
line on the other side of the road so you could get a water line to it fairly simply. If a gatehouse	
were	to be configured as shown, it could be done.	
	Mr.	Goldstein: The cost?	
	Mr.	Boyd: To get utilities to it you're looking around $25,000 to $30,000. I don't know	
the cost of	the gate house because it is an architectural element, but I would assume that would	
be  at  least $50,000  to  build  the  structure.  Another  several  thousand to  tie  it into  the  gate	
electronically. You're looking at around a $75,000 budget for the entire project.	
	Mr.	Goldstein: Of course, you have the recurring costs.	
	Mr.	Scheerer: I would say closer to $100,000.	
	Mr.	Harding: When do we need someone there? We need them in the morning hours and	
at night. What time at night do we need someone there, 11 :00 p.m., 1 :00 a.m.?	
	Mr. Dryburgh: Probably midnight.	
	Mr.	Goldstein: Well why don't we get it costed out.	
	Mr.	Boyd: We'll need to get an architect to draw that up for us.	
	Mr.	Harding: Could we look at the prospect of having better signage when people drive	
up to	the gate?	
	Mr.	Goldstein: Alan and I toured that yesterday, and we are talking about putting a fairly	
large sign there telling people this is residence only and main gate entrance.	
	Mr.	Harding: It needs to say permanent residence or property owners.	
	Mr.	Boyd: We're going to get a proposal for the architect. Steve can do the civil part of	
it, tying it into the sewer.	
	Mr.	Dryburgh: You would handle the electric.	
	Mr.	Goldstein: In the meantime, we could put the sign up.	

Reunion East COD

Regular Meeting

March 16,

. Page 9

2017 of 12

Mr. everybody Mr. Mr. Mr. to that?

Scheerer: Yes, we will work on the sign. We will draw something up and make sure is okay with it and then we will have the sign installed. Do we want I or 2 there? Goldstein: One big one. We need to put it where you can't miss it. Scheerer: I'll get that all together. Greenstein: The guardhouse on Spline, how would the proposed building compare

Mr.	Harding: I would envision it being that size or even smaller.	
Mr.	Scheerer: That's a pretty big building, probably twice the size of a guard shack.	
Mr.	Goldstein: It's an adequate size.	
Mr.	Greenstein: It has to blend in with the other guard shacks.	
Mr.	Harding: We could get some technology that actually takes pictures of license plates	
as the cars go through. Let's add some security in there where even if a guy is not there, a guard	
at the other location could check it.	
Mr.	Goldstein: The technology we have here is already in place, other than being able to	
open the gates.	
Mr.	Scheerer: All the gates are recorded now.	
Mr.	Harding: I think a lot of people don't see the signs, because I never see that sign.	
Mr.	Greenstein: The signs are bad. That sign has to be at least 6 or 7 years old.	
Mr.	Flint: We will get a proposal, at the April meeting we will bring back a proposal	
from the architect and a work authorization for the engineer. We will have that approved in	
April.		

C.

District Manager's Report

i.	Action Items List

Mr. Flint: There is nothing new on the irrigation turnover. I haven't received a recent update from LRA. Signalization, Steve provided an update on that. The horse stables, with the help of the POA we sent out the survey per the Board's direction at the last meeting. There are no results back yet to share with the Board. We will put that on the April agenda and we can talk about the survey results. Mr. Goldstein: I wonder if we could have the resort put something out to the members making sure they respond to the survey. Mr. Scheerer: We can do that.

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March

Page

16, 10

2017 ofl2

Mr. Flint: We will send a follow up with a due date on it. There are no updates on the	
spa at Heritage Crossing.	If the Board is not interested in moving forward with this we can take	
it off the action items list.			
Mr.	Harding: I'm	okay with that.		
Mr.	Goldstein: We need security more than we need a spa.		
Mr. Flint: Okay, item 5 we have handled for the time being. Item 6	we just talked about,	
we will come back at the April meeting with work authorization for the engineer and a proposal	
from the architect.			
Mr. Harding: Going back to the horse stables, a couple residents mentioned that many of	
the condo owners don't have the ability to wash their cars. They were wondering if we could	
throw that on as an option.		
Mr.	Greenstein: On the survey under other, they can write in carwash.	
Mr. Flint: I'm going to add the allocation of the 532 landscape cost to the action items	
list. On google earth, Alan inventoried all the signs. Each one of these yellow pins is a sign and	
you can click on the pin and it pulls up a picture of the sign.		
Mr. Greenstein: Can you give us the link?		
Mr. Flint: I'll email it to you.		
Mr.	Scheerer:  There's one  on the  corner I missed,  it was  in between the inside and	
outside of the CDD property. Those are all the signs within Reunion from the main entrance.	
Mr.	Goldstein:  A  number  of the  signs  are  resort  signs,  some  are  very  good  and	
professional  signs.  Some	of the other ones  are  kind  of unprofessional.	I  want the  resort to	
probably replace those with a more professional type sign. I think a lot of	the homeowners are	
complaining about that.			
Mr.	Scheerer: If you look at a Reunion directional sign, a lot of these signs are two sided	
signs  that  give  direction  throughout  the  community.  There's  some  like  these  "New Home	
Available" signs.			
Mr.	Goldstein: The restaurant sign could be replaced by the other.		
Mr.	Grant: I would be more than happy to pay to upgrade those.		
Mr.	Goldstein: In our signage policy, we've said we will allow people 60 days for the .	
signs. The signs cannot be advertisements, they can only be directional. But what do we do as	
far as putting a note out to some of the other major entities.		
Mr.	Flint: We are still talking about the POA adopting a sign standard.	

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March

Page

16, 11

2017 of 12

Mr.	Goldstein: So	just wait for that to happen?				
													
Mr.	Flint: I exchanged some emails with David earlier today and he's hoping that within		
the next 30 days the POA will adopt that sign standard. Once that sign standard is adopted, the		
CDD  can point to that	as	being the	standard that we want on CDD property.  When we're		
									
reviewing the	inventory	of	signage, we've got the design	standard and our policy. We can issue		

out letters to the people that own the signs and let them know they need to be upgraded because		
the design is not consistent or they need to be removed because they are not directional.		
Mr.	Harding: The	condos have open house signs on the street today over there. They		
													
pulled the  signs on the home side but couldn't touch the ones on the terraces  side because		
technically that is	not their property.							
Mr.	Flint:	If they're on private property then it's a POA issue.		
Mr.	Greenstein: As part of the POA review, because I am on the Architectural Control		
													
Board,  at our last meeting with the feature	builders we  gave them the  heads  up  about the		
										
signage  policy  review.  There  are  standards  for  signs  from  a	real  estate  perspective  in the		
covenants and guidelines package for the feature	builders. We	were looking at that and told		
												
them that we were going to reissue them. It's	all tying together.			
Mr.	Goldstein: To	that point, Mark, the last time I talked to David he was waiting for the		
													
guidelines from you?										
Mr.	Greenstein: Correct.							
Mr. Boyd:	It would be best for the CDD and the Master Association to get the current		
information rather than the outdated information.					
Mr.	Dryburgh: One last signage issue, we were talking about having a sign out on of the		
													
median of 532 or on the opposite side, indicating	Reunion Resort this way. I guess we have to		
											
talk to the County in regards to that.							
Mr.	Scheerer: We	would need to create the sign and show them what size it would be		
													
and what it would look like, and where we would put it. Then we would need to submit for a		
sign													
application. If there's a concept anyone has in mind or how you would like to see it, we		
could probably work with Steve on that.						

ii.

Approval

of

the

Check

Register

Mr. Flint: We can discuss any questions about the check register for the month February.·

of

Reunion East CDD

Regular Meeting

March

Page

16, 12

2017 of 12

On

MOTION by Mr.

Harding,

seconded by Mr.

Goldstein,

with

all

in favor, the Check Register for the month approved.

of

February

was

iii.

Balance Sheet and Income Statement

Mr.

Flint:

If

there are any questions we can discuss them now.

iv.

Status

of

Direct Bill Assessments

Mr.

Flint:

Ifthere

are any

questions

we

can

discuss them now.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Other Business	
Mr. Flint:  Any other business?		
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor's Request	
There not being any, the next item as followed.	
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Meeting Date	
April 13, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.		
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment	
There being no further business,		

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein, seconded by Mr. in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.

Grant,

with

all

Secretary

I

Assistant

Secretary

ChairmanNice- Chairman