MINUTES OF MEETING REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

The  regular	meeting  of the  Board  of Supervisors  of the  Reunion		
			
Development District was held	at the		
	Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 1:00 p.m.			
Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, Florida.			

East  Community

Heritage Crossing

Present and constituting a quorum were:			
Carlton Grant	Chairman		
Mark Greenstein	Vice Chairman		
Steven Goldstein	Assistant Secretary		
Don Harding	Assistant Secretary		
John Dryburgh			
	Assistant Secretary		
Also present were:			
George Flint	District Manager		
Andrew d' Ade sky	District Counsel		
Steve Boyd	District Engineer		
Alan Scheerer	Operations Manager		
Daniel Baker	ACP Communities		

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS

Roll Call

Mr. Flint called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS

Public Comment Period

There being none, the next item followed.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS

Approval  of the  Minutes

2018 Meeting

of

the  March  8,

On MOTION by Mr. Harding seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the minutes of the March 8, 2018 meeting were approved as presented.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

Review and Acceptance
Audit

of

Fiscal Year 2017

April 12, 2018

Reunion East CDD

Mr.	Flint stated next is review and acceptance	of the Fiscal Year	2017 annual independent	
audit.  As a governmental entity we are required to have an independent audit performed and you	
selected McDirmit Davis to provide those services.	On page 33 is the management comments	
and you can see the prior year findings and the current year findings are the same and they are	
related to the one series of bonds that is restructured but not fully retired.  As long as those are	
out there we will continue to get these comments, but it is not anything that is necessarily under	
your control at this point.  If you get the same comment three years in a	row you end up getting a	
letter from  the Joint  Legislative  Auditing  Committee  and  they just	want  assurance that the	
District is not in a state of financial emergency and we won't need financial assistance from the	
state.  We have gotten that letter, we responded to it and that is as far as it has gone.  Until we get	
the one issue cleaned up you will continue to see these comments.		
Mr.	Dryburgh asked who is the prior developer who failed to do anything?	
Mr.	Flint responded it was Ginn.			
Mr. Dryburgh asked what is the amount?			
Mr. Flint responded I can get you that number, I don't have it	off the top of my head.	
When we  restructured  these  bonds  there  was  a  total  outstanding  principal  and there  was  a	
negotiation to reduce the burden on some of Ginn developed property to make it be developable	
so then when that burden was reduced, rather than retiring the principal associated with reducing	
the burden it was set aside so that in the future if there are any properties it could be assigned to	
it would still be able to do that.  This is part of the discussion that has been going on with LRA	
and Trustee's Counsel.			
Mr.	d' Adesky stated I will bring that up later.			
Mr.  Dryburgh stated  it ties  into page 3, the  liabilities  increasing  and  deficit changes	
within your financial statements and I'm thinking how does this affect us.	
Mr. Flint stated it is not necessarily affecting us on a day to day basis.  We have this	
principal amount of bonds sitting there unassigned to any specific property, therefore, we are not	
collecting any assessments to repay that debt because it is not assigned to a property.  Therefore,	
the debt is not being paid.			
Mr. Dryburgh asked the steps to getting it assigned to a property are what?  Are steps	
being taken?			

2

April 12,2018

Reunion East CDD

Mr. Flint stated one of the things going on	is the discussion between the Landowner and	
the Trustee.  The Board was involved in that, but	we stepped back because LRA and Trustee's	
Counsel were communicating directly to try	to come up with a resolution to the issue.  Andrew	
can give you an update on where we are with that.		
Mr. d' Adesky stated I was going to	give the update during my report but I can give it	
now.   Subsequently in the last month,  and	I indicated based on last month right before our	
meeting I had an email from Trustee's Counsel saying let's get involved and talk about this.	
Apparently the negotiation did not work out for one reason or another but the Trustee reviewed	
their  assertion  regarding  their  position  that  certain pieces  of property,  which  are  currently	
undeveloped and currently are not encumbered by this bond debt and are developable should be	
assessed this bond debt.  Once again, they haven't reviewed our methodology that we previously	
put out, we had to have that updated because at this point under good  faith they have been	
negotiating for two years now, we hadn't really updated that methodology so we had to bring	
that up to 2018 numbers, the numbers from that were 2016 numbers, which is when we got the	
initial demand letter from the Trustee.  Once again, our methodology was our assessment based	
on a lot of work by Steve Boyd, George Flint, Darrin Mossing from  GMS the methodology	
consultant and ourselves looking at each and every parcel of property and going through and	
reviewing that and developed a methodology based on that, which was essentially the District's	
assessment as of that date.  We updated that, circulated that to all parties, LRA's Counsel and	
Trustee's  Counsel  then  we  had  that  call  with  Trustee's  Counsel  essentially  saying  the	
negotiations for whatever reason did not work so let's move forward with this and once again we	
have been delayed because we were under the understanding that they were negotiating.  The	
District to be clear also has some interest in O&M assessments if there is any property that is	
developable that could be paying O&M assessments, that is a separate issue.  Given that our	
budget process is coming up for the next fiscal year we need to figure out whether or not these	
parcels could be assdsed  O&M.   We  spoke with LRA's  Counsel and  we had a productive	
conversation with them, they renewed lots of their previous arguments as to why the bond debt	
didn't apply.  It will definitely require future conversations regarding the bond debt, but I think	
one of the productive things that came out .of the conversation was, and it was two separate	
conversations, one about the -O&M and they were open to the concept of dealing with the O&M	
separately from the bond debt because there are separate legal issues that apply to each and it is	

3

April 12, 2018	Reunion East COD		
				
extremely complicated.  The bond side is extremely complicated, the O&M	side is much simpler		
so conceptually we might go forward with the O&M, we are getting together the numbers right		
now, we are having GMS assemble the numbers for O&M, we are going	to distribute that to		
everybody, LRA, the Trustee and see if we can move forward on that quicker and have a longer		
resolution on the bonds.			
Mr. Greenstein asked from a materiality standpoint what percentage of the overall debt		
service assessments are represented by this issue?			
Mr.	Flint stated that is a complicated question.			
Mr. d'Adesky stated the Trustee's original letter was 100%, our reply was a fraction.  It is		
still a significant number.			
Mr.	Greenstein stated I'm trying to get a handle on for a summary of the issue.		
Mr.	d' Adesky stated it is about $800,000.  Our methodology was about $800,000 in both		
current and past due assessments.  That is pretty much the price tagline on the bond debt side.		
Mr. Greenstein asked and on a current basis?  It is a small fraction on	the total, isn't it?		
Mr.	Flint stated if we are going to bring that methodology to the Board on an agenda for		
discussion at a future date I suggest we don't have a detailed discussion on the record until we		
get that.  I also want to amend my comments on the audit, the statement that these comments are		
beyond our control is also subject to debate and that is part of what we are talking about with		
Trustee's Counsel.  We have been on hold in addressing these issues because of the good faith		
effort  that  LRA  and  Trustee's  Counsel  were  making  to  try  to  resolve  the  issue  between		
themselves  and bringing  a  solution  back to  us but that  was  not  successful  so  now  we  are		
rekindling the methodology.			
Mr.	d'Adesky stated that is all the detail to be reported right now and the next step is to		
circulate everything to follow-up and have those conversations.			
Mr.	Flint stated the three findings are all directly related to the 2002 and 2005 debt that is		
outstanding and unassigned.  The debt service reserve was depleted as part	of that and we have		
the outstanding principal and interest payments that have not been paid but they are not assigned		
to any specific properties right now.			

On MOTION by Mr. all in favor the Fiscal authorized to transmit

Greenstein seconded by Mr.	Dryburgh with	
Year 2017 audit was accepted and staff was	
the final audit to the State of	Florida.	

4

April 12, 2018	Reunion East CDD		

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS

A.	Attorney

Staff Reports

i.

Update

on

Board Member Ethics Requirements

Mr.	d' Adesky stated	we had a	couple questions come up about	topics of interest and		
when there is a benefit and	when you	should be abstaining from a vote.	The interesting thing		
about CDDs, and this is confusing for some people, is that Landowners	or	Landowner employees		
are allowed to be on the Boards, the statute specifically permits that.  If there is going to be what		
is called, a special private benefit, which could be an increase of stock value, actual money that		
is going to go to that specific			have	to declare a conflict		
		company through doing business they do				
and  abstain  from  that  vote,  fill  out the  paperwork  and  give  it  to  George  to  be  put  in  the		
permanent records and read	at the next meeting in order to  avoid a	violation.   Just like with		
Sunshine and Ethics, everything is self-reported so as District Counsel	we	are not the police and		
try to investigate everybody and figure out what your financial interests are.	We can ask and in		
some cases we have asked to figure out that you don't have an interest in this	entity and it can get		
confusing because sometimes there are entities that seem related but they are separate and they		
don't own interests in other entities.  I	think this came up with the lease issue where we would		
ask folks from Encore is it a separate legal entity and they said yes we don't own an interest in		
City									
Communities who we are signing this lease with and technically there is no violation.  We		
don't go and try to sleuth out do they really have an interest, do they own controlling stock, we		
can't do that and to use our	resources we would spend $10,000 in legal fees just trying to hunt		
that out.  It is a self-reporting system and if some information came up	anybody who hunts out a		
violation of	the Sunshine Law, Ethics or a conflict they can report that to the State and the State		
would take action and start to investigate that.  I put a list of all the things that you can do wrong,		
solicitation	of  gifts,  unauthorized  compensation,  misuse  of	pubHc  position,  disclosure  of		
information,	if we  have  secret  information  for  example  that	we  are  negotiating  and  that  is		
disclosed to somebody and they get a business advantage that is a violation too.  If we were to		
tell somebody who worked for a particular company the District is thinking about doing this, but		
it is still secret and being negotiated as part of a settlement or	something	and they used that to		
buy stock or get some sort of position, that is a violation as well.  There are lots of ways that you		
could potentially cause a conflict and ethics violation.						

5

April 12,2018										Reunion East CDD		
													
Mr.	Harding asked	do the parties involved with regard	to the leasing	of the building,		
should they have abstained from any kind	of decision related to the leasing	of the building?		
Should they have done that?												
Mr.	d' Adesky stated at that time we did ask those	individuals on that Board and the ones		
										
that voted didn't have an interest.  Did one of them declare a conflict?					
Mr.	Greenstein  stated  one  or  two  individuals  had  to	recuse	themselves  from	the		
transaction.													
Mr.	d' Adesky  stated the remainder	of the Board voted	on it.	Because those people		
recused themselves and the	remainder of the Board voted on it that is permissive because the		
					
remainder of the Board didn't have a conflict.  They didn't gain a benefit.					
Mr.	Harding asked any future decisions regarding landscaping, building landscaping, or		
			
leasing from another landscaping company then that should be something that certain people		
shouldn't be involved with.												
Mr.	d' Adesky  stated  if they  are  tied  to		Citicommunities,  because  I	know  it  is  the		
										
particular company that owns the land on which the landscaping building is located and I know		
there are certain entities that for example, Jim Bagley is more invested in, in a certain manner		
Encore entities and I don't know the	employment status	of all the employees that are on Board		
							
currently but it seems like they work for										
				separate legal entities than Jim Bagley's entities. If that		
is the case then	technically they can vote on it.		They may be	related, they may do a lot	of		
								
business together, unless they have a controlling interest, which once again we can't investigate		
that.														
Mr.	Greenstein stated it is a fine line and while we want it	to be pure as the driven snow it		
				
is difficult in the business world to separate folks.	Unfortunately, it is a developer controlled		
									
Board, I sit on at their pleasure, it is not yet elected, maybe with some high-density housing we		
may get to 250 registered voters but it is a tough	situation.  The officers recuse themselves and		
								
the folks on the Board who did participate in that	transaction were probably employees of some		
								
entity in the Encore world.												
Mr.	d' Adesky stated	of some entity.	It looks bad sometimes when	it is the appearance	of		
impropriety and I totally understand that but	otherwise in a lot of	cases nobody would be able	to		
									
vote if only	residents could vote, which is why CDDs exist in the first place, the developer can		

6

April 12, 2018	Reunion East CDD

exercise some amount of control for a certain period of time before it transitions to the people._ If you have any questions call at any time and we are available to answer.

The second issue is there has been a lot of shakeup at the County, Joedel had been there for years in transportation, who left and that is a major shakeup, there have been a lot of politics there. The new person who is in charge of the transportation department, Tawny Olore, came from SunRail and I think she may be in over her head. They said they are having a meeting this week on the 532 funding issue. I called, emailed and did everything I could and could not get through to her but she said she would write me back when this meeting occurs this week.

Mr. Greenstein stated it is the 532 landscape fund.

Mr. d' Adesky stated landscape funding issue. I expressed to everybody involved and at this point because of the internal politics because Dave Tomack is the one we have been working with previously, he is very cooperative, he doesn't have power over this, it was in her sphere so I pushed hi~ as much as I can but she has been unavailable and I haven't been able to get in contact with her, she has been out of town. I don't want to push anymore because if I get too involved in the internal struggle then it may just be a no or something.

B.	Engineer

·Mr. Boyd stated my report is a continuation of Andrew's. Unfortunately, our signal shop drawings have been affected by the same turnover. In the process of Joedel leaving and the new engineer coming on board, approval of the shop drawings by the County got delayed and now that they are back on track they want a Structural Engineer to sign off on the shop drawings. We contacted a Structural Engineer and he is familiar with the signals, his rate is $145 per hour and I would like you to allow us to engage him or engage him directly up to 16 hours, which would cover his review of shop drawings and two site visits during construction. He will do a construction inspection and final certification. He is an independent Structural Engineer who specializes in traffic.

Mr. Harding asked do you see an impact to the schedule?  Are we still looking at May?

Mr. Boyd stated no, we are probably looking at June or July.

Mr. Flint stated I think it would be best if the Structural Engineer would subcontract with the District's Engineer.

7

April 12,2018	Reunion East CDD		

On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the District Engineer was directed to sub-contract a Structural Engineer for up to 16 hours at $145 per hour.

Mr. Greenstein asked the County does not have on staff a Structural Engineer that goes out and reviews these projects and certifies it is structurally sound? Mr. Boyd stated the County will also inspect but I'm anticipating the need to have somebody on our side who can speak to those issues. The fact that this came up in the submittal review I just want to say up to 16 hours, but I want to be able to have him come out to the site and do an inspection and final certification as well.

C.	Manager

	i.	Action Items List		
Mr.	Flint stated the irrigation turnover is on hold.  Mr. Greenstein and	I have a meeting	
with Daniel after this meeting to discuss the MSA.		
Mr.	d' Adesky stated Jan and I looked at it and we sent it over to Bond Counsel to review,	
they need some time and they wanted to schedule a call because conceptually we have to get	
their blessing because it involves facilities that were constructed with bond funds.  We have not	
received their approval yet.		
Mr.	Flint stated signage on Sinclair, Carlton has that update.		
Mr.	Grant stated I want to thank Mr. Scheerer for his time to pick me up and drive me out	
there.   We looked at the location and identified three places, that would be appropriate, they	
would be facing	you as you exit 429 northbound and the other southbound so you get both	
directions  there  and  also  at  the  key  boxes  of 12  we  identified  as  1.0  miles  from  the  429	
intersection to the gate.  What I propose is that we look at the design we have used already for	
the existing signage so it fits into that code and style and matches everything.	I will have our	
marketing team draft up something creative and bring it back to the Board for approval.	
Mr.	Scheerer stated next Tuesday		
		Fausnight will be here and install the no parking signs	
with the arrows in and two other locations internal depending on the width of the cones that are	
there it will have directional arrows going both ways.  I have spoken with John Cruise at security	
as well about enforcing that parking because over the holidays and spring break it was very	

8

April 12, 2018

Reunion East

CDD

congested in that area. He is working on what they can do to better communicate to those folks		
to not park there because it is definitely not a parking space.			
Mr. Harding asked ifwe are allowed to do signage where you can't park why can't we do		
that throughout the	neighborhood where we have heavy congestion?  There is a thing going on in		
			
Carriage Point right now where some people are wanting to park in the street and then Daryl was		
trying to give them notices that they can't and going back and forth and I guess the HOA and		
Gerald backed off because it is CDD roads and they can't tell them not to park	on the road.		
Mr. Flint stated it is the Sheriffs Office that would enforce no parking.	I think they were		
trying to  educate people  and get voluntary compliance but with the  sticker saying notice  of		
violation I think a couple people got calls and we got some phone calls.			
Mr. Goldstein stated you are educating people where there is a fair amount of renters and		
they don't care.  Unless you have something that clearly says no parking and the cops come and		
ticket them that will do much more.			
Mr. Harding stated we went to the Department of Transportation a number of times and		
asked if we could get restrictions as far as parking on one side of the road, etc. and we didn't get		
anywhere because they are public roads.			
Mr. Flint stated the reason on that issue is I don't think the roads were designed to have		
on street parking and Steve advised the Board that because of that we can't really do the alternate		
parking or even parking on one side of the road because the roads are not wide	enough.		
Mr. Boyd stated there are only a few places where parking is specifically provided for		
and that is near the southern end of the east side close to the condos.			
Mr. Harding stated then so long as a car can pass through even if there are cars parked on		
both sides and a car has to wait until the other car comes through then you can't do any kind of		
restrictions.				
Mr. Dryburgh stated I'm hearing that they are not designed for parking, which would be		
enforceable.  If you built a road after submitting it to the State and saying this is a road we are		
building there is obviously no parking because the roads are too narrow.  Just the fact that we		
haven't enforced it we haven't striped it or done anything out of convenience to renters.		
Mr. Flint stated I think the enforcement, specifically writing a ticket the Sheriff's Office		
is going to want us to have signage specific to that.  But the passage of emergency vehicles it		
doesn't matter if there is signage or not, they can write tickets for that.			

9

April 12, 2018

Reunion East

CDD

Mr. Harding stated if cars are parked on both sides as long as one car can get through at a		
time then we can't put up any restrictions.				
Mr. Flint stated no one said we can't put up restrictions, the issue is we can't enforce the		
restrictions.  We rely on the County to do that.				
Mr.	Harding stated so we can put the signs up.			
Mr.	Flint responded yes we just can't write a ticket we would have to get the County to		
do that.							
Mr.	Greenstein stated security could do warnings.		
							
Mr.	Scheerer stated you could put a sign at the	entrance saying no street parking allowed		

rather than lining the entire street with no parking signs.		
Mr.	Dryburgh stated you have to be sensitive that Reunion is a short-term rental paradise		
							
and  looking at it from  the	perspective  of a short-term renter he  doesn't have a key  to the		
				
backdoor to the house.						
Mr.	Goldstein asked what about parking on one side of the street?		
Mr.	Flint stated you have to have 20 feet of	clearance for fire trucks and you can't park		
						
one car and have 20 feet of clearance on that road.				
Mr.	d' Adesky stated they have picked up on enforcement of that in other communities		
that we have noticed they are coming through and checking more for the 20-foot obstruction.		
Mr.	Flint stated if you want to enforce no parking we can put signage up and take steps to		
enable the sheriff to enforce that but keep in mind that means no parking whether it is one side of		
the street or both sides of the street.  We would try to get away with a sign at the entrance to the		
commuriity versus signs throughout.				
Mr.	Greenstein stated the only place where it	is worse when it comes to the parking		
							
problem than Reunion is Celebration and there was a push to prohibit parking on the street and		
they  had  a	big  furor  and  they  abandoned  the  plan  because  it  would  make  things  totally		
unworkable.						
Mr.	d' Adesky stated what	happened after they took that step about a million residents		
					
came in and we had a five hour long Board meeting with people screaming at the Board.  You		
will find people who will come in and say things after you start prohibiting parking.		
Mr.	Boyd stated if you get your inhouse security to put violations on cars when they park		
across from each other that may help alleviate the problem without going to the other extreme.		

10

April 12,2018

Reunion East CDD

Mr.	Goldstein stated security knocked on my door when I had a party and people parked		
across from each other and they calmly						
		suggested they park on one side of the street and further		
down the street.							
Mr.	Flint stated there are a couple management companies managing a lot of short term		
rentals and	if we can get them to hand out	information when they are renting that would be		
					
helpful.								
Mr.	Harding stated we could have David Burman put a notice out to everybody saying if		
you are going to park in the street make sure you are not parked opposite another car.  I will get		
with David and see if he could put something out.				
Mr. Flint stated say they can't block emergency vehicles.			
Mr.	Harding stated I will send him an email.				
Mr.	d' Adesky stated generally we want	to	always focus on what they shouldn't do not		
what they should do because	if we say what they should do it is like signing off like we have		
given a stamp of approval on it.  Focusing on what you shouldn't do is the way to do it.		
Mr.	Harding stated we had a water pump problem at Reunion and I didn't realize the		
			
water pump is on CDD property.  Is that an East issue?  It is in Linear park, the water park and		
the well is on CDD property.  Is that okay?						
Mr.	Scheerer stated the well is an irrigation pump.			
				
Mr.	Boyd stated it recharges, it is one	of the irrigation pumps for the East side.			
Mr.	d' Adesky stated it is not an issue.						
Mr.	Flint stated we have an agreement the	CDD entered into with LRA that they will		
agree to convey that once we resolve the Consumptive Use Permit.			
Mr.	d' Adesky stated this is part of the overall contemplated infrastructure of	the District		
once the issues are resolved it will be taken on	by	the District eventually anyway.	It is not an		
issue.								
Mr.	Harding stated we sent a letter to	the	commissioner on Poinciana Parkway and I		

asked George before the meeting if he had gotten any feedback.			
Mr.	Flint stated I was	contacted by Cliff Tate, with Kimley Hom who was hired by the		
				
Central Florida Expressway and he is involved in the public input process and design process		
and he  indicated  that he  was  instructed  by  CSX to  schedule  some  additional  public  input		
meetings.  Some will be smaller in the SO-person range some will be larger in the 300-person		

11

April 12, 2018	Reunion East CDD		

range and he was reaching out to me surmised that maybe his inquiry and to do with the letter.

Mr. Harding asked you don't not?

to ask about meeting room direction on this additional

know ifhe was speaking on

availability input may

the part of

for those sizes and I have had something

the commissioner or

Mr.	Flint responded no he didn't indicate	it was a result of our letter, but the timing is		
such that it possibly is.	As far as 50 people this room is adequate for 300 people I'm not sure of		
a location here or in ChampionsGate.	I	have  asked the Bella Trae  community  about their		
clubhouse and seating capacity, but I don't know.								
Mr.	Harding stated we met with the HOA the other day and they are going to put out a		
				
position thing	on how we deal with what the	community feels about the possibilities and that		
													
kind of thing.		I wonder if Lubert-Adler is going	to do	something as far as making a statement		
																
relative to the Poinciana Parkway, their concerns about impacts to Reunion.  Is Encore going to		
do the same kind of thing?												
Mr.	Baker stated the process if you are not familiar with, it is kind of mandated. It	has a		
public participation					of	many criteria that they will consider.	I	think		
						component, which is one						
intrinsically the public always feels  like  their input is more material than it really	is.	The		
selection of the alignment, local governments like to have these kinds of toll roads within their		
boundary	because  they  receive  benefit.		If	a	commissioner  in  Osceola  County  serving  an		

Expressway	Authority Board, they would not prefer to have it go through Polk County as an		
					
example.		Because  of	knowing  the  process,  understanding  the  ramifications  of the  various		
					
alignments and	knowing what they prefer, once they whittle it down further, we will probably		
								
weigh in.	It	will be from a large stakeholder position and the options that Kimley Horn	as a		
consultant	to	the Central Florida Expressway Authority postulated are not of equivalent.  Those		
various alignments have a myriad	of different factors in terms of success, the acceptability of		
traffic, their impacts to	Reunion.	Just by virtue	of the	conceptual aerial and the high cost, it		
																
doesn't compute into the real impacts and	acceptability	of any options.  That needs to	play out		
														
and as for our	position, we are going to wait and then weigh	in.				
									
Mr.		Dryburgh stated on Spine Road, the signage is	squashed together.  If you go out to		

where Old Lake Wilson Road is the sign is	swiveled so that Spine does not show up.  Could we		
												
get that corrected?													

12

April 12, 2018	Reunion East CDD		

Mr.								
	Scheerer stated yes, that happens from time to time.			
Mr. Dryburgh stated	sidewalk repair, two people who were walking, fell.  Have we got a		
				
timeframe on when that is going to get replaced?					
Mr.	Scheerer stated it is done.  The CDD portion is, the area we identified as the location		
			
where she fell is complete and was	completed last week.	I talked to the insurance company, I		
						
had it checked and the work is done.							
Mr.	Dryburgh stated it is not this Board's _			golf course  and/or		
				responsibility, it is the			
Reunion so that is a football toss to you then to say be aware of it because	if somebody falls it		
can be a nasty lawsuit.								
Mr.	Grant asked where is this located?						
Mr.	Scheerer stated the sidewalk that	parallels Old Lake Wilson road from Excitement		
						
Drive, Liberty Bluff gate up the edge of the 7 Eagles Condos.			
Mr.	Grant stated that is not sidewalk that is the walking path.			
Mr.	Dryburgh stated yes, the walking path.					
						
Mr.	Grant stated I will take a look at it.						
Mr.	Dryburgh stated it is in really bad shape.					
						
Mr.	Dryburgh stated as it gets closer to					
				summertime we get a lot of kids here and they use		
the water park area, the slides or tennis courts, those structures are extraordinarily hot, kids get		
burned on it every year.  Why can't we throw some sails up, it is not that expensive to put some		
structures up to break the sun and I think we should look into the cost and share that.		
Mr.	Flint stated the water park isn't ours, I don't think the playground is either.		
Mr.	Grant stated it is not.							
Mr.	Dryburgh stated ifwe are shooting for a five-star resort you expect that sort of thing.		
Mr.	Goldstein stated	I don't know if you were	brought into the loop or not but I sent		

some pictures over on some	of what I thought was HOA property, but it is our property, the		
property between the sidewalk and the street.	I have a picture and there is no grass and it has		
been this way for six or eight months, it is weeds.  The feeling is that Yellowstone isn't taking		
care of any of this								
	common area at all on Excitement.					
Mr.	Flint stated if that is an area that had sod previously and it is in that condition now		
through the care of Yellowstone then Yellowstone is going to re-sod that area at their cost.		

13

April

12,

2018

Reunion East CDD

Mr. Goldstein stated this didn't happen over the last month.	I feel like from the HOA		
side I know there are a lot of	complaints about what's going on with Yellowstone and I know		
				
they are making an attempt to fix it, but I feel we are not getting anywhere near the level of		
service that we got in the past in our common areas, in our home areas and maybe it is something		
that needs to be addressed as a group.  I know Yellowstone is involved with the CDD, the HOA,		
the master, everything it is going to take everybody getting together and sitting down and say we		
need to step this up.				
Mr.	Flint stated I think it starts with Mark, we			
		retained and the HOA retained them as a		
consultant and to help manage that contract so we will meet with him and we can have him at		
next month's meeting as well.  They do a monthly report so we need to have them present those		
reports to you at these meetings so everyone is in the loop on this.			
Mr.	Scheerer stated we will get with Yellowstone.			

ii.

Approval

of

Check Register

This item wiH be placed on the next agenda.

iii.

Balance Sheet and Income Statement

A copy

of

the balance sheet and income statement were included in the agenda package.

iv.

Status

of

Direct Bill Assessments

A copy

of

the direct bill assessment report was included in the agenda package.

SIXTH

ORDER

OF

BUSINESS

Other Business

There being none, the next item followed.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Supervisor's Requests

This item taken earlier in the meeting.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Next Meeting Date

14

April 12, 2018

Reunion

East

CDD

On MOTION by Mr. Harding favor the meeting adjourned at

seconded by 2:03 p.m.

Mr. Goldstein with all in

Chairman/Vice Chairman

15