Reunion East Community Development District Agenda October 12, 2023 October 5, 2023 Board of Supervisors Reunion East Community Development District Dear Board Members: The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Reunion East Community Development District will be held Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 1:00 PM at the Heritage Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, FL. Zoom Information for Members of the Public: Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81019901423 Dial-in Number: (646) 876-9923 Meeting ID: 810 1990 1423 Following is the advance agenda for the meeting: 1. Roll Call 2. Public Comment Period 3. Approval of Minutes of the September 14, 2023 Board of Supervisors Meeting 4. Consideration of Proposals for Seven Eagles Fountain Refurbishment 5. Consideration of Seven Eagles Pool Renovation A. Spies B. Aqua Blue C. Sundance 6. Consideration of Reunion East Property Conveyance Funding Agreement with Kingwood Reunion Resort 7. Consideration of Resolution 2024-01 Setting a Public Hearing to Establish and Confirm Rates for Irrigation Services. 8. Staff Reports A. Attorney B. Engineer i. Consideration of Bid Documents for Right of Way Repairs ii. Consideration of Universal Pavement Condition Report C. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items ii. Approval of Check Register iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan D. Security Report 9. Other Business 10. Supervisor’s Requests 11. Next Meeting Date: November 9, 2023 12. Adjournment Sincerely, Tricia L. Adams District Manager 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, September 14, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. via Zoom Communication Media Technology and at the Reunion Grande Tower, 7593 Gathering Drive, Meeting Room E, Kissimmee, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum: Mark Greenstein Chairman Steven Goldstein Vice Chairman Trudy Hobbs Assistant Secretary John Dryburgh Assistant Secretary June Wispelwey Assistant Secretary Also present were: Tricia Adams District Manager Kristen Trucco District Counsel Steve Boyd (via Zoom) District Engineer Alan Scheerer Field Manager Garret Huegel Yellowstone Landscape Services Pete Wittman Yellowstone Landscape Services Victor Vargas Reunion Security Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the September 14, 2023 meeting. A copy of the proceedings can be obtained by contacting the District Manager. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call 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 Paul Christensen of 7593 Gathering Drive, Unit 903, recalled at the last meeting, there was discussion regarding the Fitness Center and recommendations were made on signage, additional monitoring and having security monitor the facilities. Yesterday people were dropping weights, causing damage to the floor, no signs were posted and there was no monitoring by security. Ms. Adams stated this item was included on the Action Items List to be discussed under staff reports. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Minutes of the August 10, 2023 Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes from the August 10, 2023 meeting, which were reviewed by District staff. Corrections were submitted by Ms. Wispelwey and Mr. Greenstein, which were incorporated. On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the Minutes of the August 10, 2023 Board of Supervisors Meeting was approved as amended. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Custodial Service Agreement Renewal with Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort Mr. Scheerer met with all vendors in preparation for Fiscal Year 2024 budget. Subsequently, Ms. Haley Hall and Katherine who handle janitorial services at Reunion, provided an updated fee summary schedule, which increased due to the cost of retaining employees and insurance. Currently, the District paid $4,125.33 per month for the Seven Eagles pool and it increased to $6,698.01 per month or from $17 per hour to $22 per hour. For the Homestead, Heritage A & B and Carriage Point pools and Terraces recreation and pool area, they were asking for an overall increase of $630 per month. Over the past several years, there were increases in the amount of $500 or $525 per month. Now they were requesting a flat fee of $719 per month for each of the four pools and $1,054 per month for the Terraces, for a total of $3,930 per month for janitorial services. The scope of services was attached. Mr. Dryburgh felt that the increase for Seven Eagles was significant. Ms. Wispelwey questioned the difference between the Seven Eagles pool and the Terraces. Ms. Hobbs pointed out it included a pavilion, fitness centers, gazebo, hot tub, lap pool and two sets of bathrooms. Mr. Dryburgh questioned the number of cleaning hours. Mr. Scheerer stated they cleaned 16 hours per day, seven days per week. Ms. Wispelwey requested that it be bid out. There was Board consensus for staff to go out for bids for janitorial services and provide proposals at an upcoming meeting. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of All Terrain Proposal for Stormwater System Repairs Ms. Adams presented a proposal for All Terrain Tractor Service, Inc. (All Terrain) for stormwater system repairs, along with a location map of the area in question, which was prepared by the District Engineer. Mr. Boyd noted that All Terrain was the only responsive bidder to repair a stormwater flume that collapsed, due to corrosion, in back of home. This area was not detected during the stormwater inspection earlier in the year as it was at the end of an alley. Mr. Dryburgh voiced concern that there was only one bid. Mr. Scheerer recalled that All Terrain was the same contractor that performed other stormwater work months earlier. On MOTION Mr. Goldstein seconded by Ms. Wispelwey with all in favor the proposal with All Terrain Tractor Service, Inc. for stormwater system repairs in the amount of $15,530 was approved. Mr. Greenstein requested that the work commence as soon as possible, since a homeowner was affected. Ms. Adams stated an agreement would be provided by District Counsel since the work was in the right-of-way. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of License Agreement for Dumpsters at The Stables Ms. Adams recalled ongoing discussion and escalating frustration among Board Members and residents of the District regarding the dumpsters at The Stables, as it attracted wildlife and illegal dumping. There was a current Management Service Agreement (MSA) with Kingwood to manage The Stables, including keeping the dumpster area clean. An appeal was made to Kingwood to assist with the Master Association who facilitated the trash removal in the community. Even after bringing the matter to Kingwood’s attention the situation did not improve. Although the dumpsters were on CDD property, there was no License Agreement with the master Association to have the dumpsters located on District property. Typically, there is a License Agreement with the Master Association for other Association equipment installed on District property. For example, there are license agreements for the Association’s mailboxes. Since the Board discussed a desire for requirements such as pest control services, maintenance of the area and restricted access, an agreement was drafted providing these conditions in the form of a License Agreement for Dumpsters at The Stables. Ms. Trucco noted that the agreement included their standard typical language. Ms. Wispelwey was in favor of it as she received feedback from homeowners regarding the dumpsters. If they did not have the dumpsters, garbage would accumulate in the community. Having this agreement would help with getting a handle on the trash. Mr. Dryburgh felt it was a good idea, but they needed to stop people getting access to them at night and suggested posting a security guard or locking them. Mr. Greenstein recalled that originally there were gates to keep people from accessing the area and suggested re-installing the gates, limiting access from dawn to dusk, to prevent improper dumping and placing a pad under the dumpsters. Mr. Scheerer recalled that the dumpsters were on a pad, but there was also gravel for easy cleanup. Ms. Wispelwey pointed out there were dumpsters on the property that had the same issue. Mr. Dryburgh suggested improving one dumpster to set standards and installing motion activated lights to scare off people and wildlife. Ms. Adams pointed out that the intent of the agreement was to have some elasticity so that the Association could employ different tools to control access and make incremental improvements until they successfully controlled the area. If they were not successful, the Board could terminate the agreement. Ms. Wispelwey hoped to have control of this by December. Mr. Goldstein wanted it to be under control in the next 30 days. Mr. Greenstein agreed. Mr. Scheerer recalled someone picking up all external debris three days per week; however, as soon as the dumpsters were empty, people from rentals and vacation homes filled up the dumpsters and suggested keeping it to household trash. Mr. Dryburgh proposed charging the rental properties for the daily pickups or expanding the number of dumps. Ms. Hobbs proposed having a lid with narrow shoots for normal household trash to resolve the issue. Ms. Wispelwey suggested monitoring on Saturdays and Sundays when the turnover of the rentals occurred. Mr. Greenstein felt that it was the responsibility of the Master Association, wanted to resolve this matter in the next 30 days and having an area that was clean, sanitary and manageable. If they could not control the excessive and improper dumping, the District should revoke the License Agreement. The Board agreed. Ms. Adams recommended that the Board approve the agreement in substantial form, subject to final revisions approved by the Chair. Mr. Greenstein requested that the Board Members provide suggestions to Section B of the agreement within the next week to ten days and forward to the Master Association for approval. Ms. Adams asked if the Board wanted to include a provision for the installation of additional dumpsters during the winter holidays, which was done in the past. Ms. Wispelwey was opposed, due to abuse by rental companies. Mr. Greenstein preferred to leave it out of the agreement. On MOTION Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor approving the License Agreement for dumpsters at The Stables in substantial form and delegation by the Chair to finalize the same was approved. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco provided comments from the Board on the Irrigation Agreement to Kingwood’s attorney and requested additional backup regarding the rates. They were reviewing it and Ms. Trucco hoped to bring it back to the next meeting. The draft Traffic Enforcement agreement with the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department was provided to their attorney and they were in the process of reviewing it. Once there was a response, Ms. Trucco would bring it back to the Board for final approval. B. Engineer Mr. Boyd did not receive the report from Universal Engineering on the core samples that were expected by this date. They should be received in a few days and would be incorporated in the final report. The closing out the site work associated with the gates to Reunion Village was in process. Mr. Boyd left the meeting. C. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items List Ms. Adams presented the Action Items List. Mr. Scheerer was waiting on renderings from Fast Signs for the updated English and Spanish Fitness Center signs in Seven Eagles. Once they were received, the signs would be installed. At the Board and residents request, Mr. Scheerer requested, “Please Do Not Drop Weights” signs and spoke to the Chair about installing a rubber floor under the weights and would provide a proposal from Fitness Services of Florida. At the last meeting, the Board approved Advantage Roofing replacing the Seven Eagles pool and guardhouse roofs. A Notice of Commencement was signed and notarized and repair of the Seven Eagles pool roof would start on October 19th. The pool would be closed a minimum of two weeks and maximum of three weeks, with the exception of the mail room, which they must provide safe access to Seven Eagles residents. They were trying to coordinate the resurfacing of the pool at Seven Eagles with the roof repairs, which was in the allocated in the budget for Fiscal Year 2024 and would provide proposals at the October meeting. Ms. Wispelwey recalled discussion about providing access for Seven Eagles residents to use other facilities for those two to three weeks. Mr. Greenstein spoke to the General Manager (GM) of the resort about this matter in July and would follow up. Some Gyms offered a trial period. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out that the renters would only be at the resort for only several days and would want to exercise and suggested installing a sign indicating the closure of the facility and alternative locations. Mr. Greenstein felt this was a rare occasion as they never had to close the facility for a length of time and would work with the resort. Mr. Scheerer would post temporary signs and work with the resort on the closure. The pool would be closed for two weeks, one week to drain and repair and one week to fill the pool with water and circulate the chemicals. There was a suggestion at the Reunion West CDD meeting to turn the Seven Eagle fountain into a garden planter versus replacement. Mr. Scheerer received a preliminary design from Spies Pools, but it would not compliment the Reunion look and recommended UCC Group who did all of the masonry work for the monument signs at Reunion West; however, it was costly to demo and install one fountain, between $100,000 and $150,000. Mr. Greenstein suggested changing the fountain at the entrance to Seven Eagles to a planter. The Board requested further information. Mr. Greenstein requested that the Master Association put pressure on the Condo Associations to power wash their buildings. ii. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from August 1, 2023 through August 31, 2023 in the amount of $122,198.62. On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the August Check Register was approved. iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through July 31, 2023, which were for informational purposes. The District was over budget on some items. For Fiscal Year 2024, line items were increased based on the current spending track for professional services as well as field costs, due to price increases for labor and supplies. Assessments were fully collected. iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan Ms. Adams presented the Replacement and Maintenance Plan. Some of the estimated dates were pushed into October, to be completed next fiscal year. D. Security Report Mr. Vargas presented the July Security Report, which was provided under separate cover. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business There being no comments, the next item followed. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests There being no comments, the next item followed. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date – October 12, 2023 The next meeting was scheduled for October 12, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. at this location. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman This item will be provided under separate cover FUNDING AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND KINGWOOD ORLANDO REUNION RESORT THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ______ day of October, 2023, by and between: REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a local unit of special-purpose government established pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and located in Osceola County, Florida (the "District"), and KINGWOOD ORLANDO REUNION RESORT, a Georgia limited liability company, whose principal address is 400 Curie Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005 (“Kingwood”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the District was established by Ordinance No. 01-31, adopted by the County Commission of Osceola County, Florida (the “County”), effective as of September 24, 2001, and expanded by Ordinance No. 05-26, adopted by the County on July 18, 2005, for the purpose of planning, financing, constructing, operating and/or maintaining certain infrastructure, including roadways, buffer walls, water facilities, sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, stormwater management facilities, and/or other infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to modify the development plan for the Reunion Resort and Golf Club to convert portions of the project from golf course uses to residential uses on the east side of Davenport Creek and re-route certain golf holes on the east and west sides of Davenport Creek in order to maintain an 18-hole golf course (collectively, referred to herein as the “Project”); and WHEREAS, Developer desires to provide sufficient funds to the District to reimburse the District for any expenditures arising from or related to the District’s review and analysis of the Project, and any related requests from the Developer to finalize their project, including but not limited to legal, engineering, and other consultant fees, filing fees, administrative, and other expenses, if any; and NOW, THEREFORE, based upon good and valuable consideration and mutual covenants of the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. PROVISION OF FUNDS. Developer agrees to reimburse the District for the costs incurred by the District to review and analyze the Project, and to review any related requests from the Developer, including expenses/fees arising from the District’s staff, including legal, engineering, and managerial staff. Developer will make such funds available monthly, within thirty (30) days of a written request by the District. The funds shall be placed in the District's depository as determined by the District. SECTION 2. DISTRICT USE OF FUNDS. The District agrees to use such funds solely for the fees, costs, and other expenditures accruing or accrued in order to review and analyze the Project and to review any related requests from the Developer. The District agrees to use good faith best efforts to proceed with its review in an expeditious manner. The District also agrees to make monthly requests for necessary funds from Developer for reimbursement for services, as described in Section 1 of this Agreement. The District shall not reimburse Developer for funds made available to the District under this Agreement. SECTION 3. DEFAULT. A default by either party under this Agreement shall entitle the other to all remedies available at law or in equity, which may include, but not be limited to, the right of damages, injunctive relief and/or specific performance. SECTION 4. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT. In the event that either party is required to enforce this Agreement by court proceedings or otherwise, then the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for trial, alternative dispute resolution, or appellate proceedings. SECTION 5. AGREEMENT. This instrument shall constitute the final and complete expression of this Agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS. Amendments to and waivers of the provisions contained in this Agreement may be made only by an instrument in writing executed by both parties hereto. SECTION 7. AUTHORIZATION. The execution of this Agreement has been duly authorized by the appropriate body or official of all parties to this Agreement, each party has complied with all the requirements of law, and each party has full power and authority to comply with the terms and provisions of this instrument. SECTION 8. NOTICES. All notices, requests, consents and other communications under this Agreement (“Notices”) shall be in writing and shall be delivered, mailed by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, or overnight delivery service, to the parties, as follows: A. If to the District: Reunion East Community Development District c/o Governmental Management Services – Central Florida, LLC 219 East Livingston Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Attn: District Manager With a copy to: Latham, Luna, Eden & Beaudine, LLP 201 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, Florida 32801 Attn: District Counsel, Jan A. Carpenter, Esq. B. If to Developer: Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort 400 Curie Drive, Alpharette, Georgia 30005 Attn: With a copy to: Attn: Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any Notice shall be deemed received only upon actual delivery at the address set forth in this Agreement. Notices delivered after 5:00 p.m. (at the place of delivery) or on a non-business day, shall be deemed received on the next business day. If any time for giving Notice contained in this Agreement would otherwise expire on a non-business day, the Notice period shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays recognized by the United States government shall not be regarded as business days. Counsel for the parties may deliver Notice on behalf of the parties. Any party or other person to whom Notices are to be sent or copied may notify the other parties and addresses of any change in name or address to which Notices shall be sent by providing the same on five (5) days written notice to the parties and addresses set forth in this Agreement. SECTION 9. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the formal parties to this Agreement and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal party to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or corporation other than the parties to this Agreement any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties to this Agreement and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. SECTION 10. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign this Agreement or any monies to become due hereunder without the prior written approval of the other party. Any purported assignment without such prior written approval shall be null and void. SECTION 11. CONTROLLING LAW. This Agreement and the provisions contained herein shall be construed, interpreted, and controlled according to the laws of the State of Florida. SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Agreement shall be effective after execution by both parties to this Agreement and shall remain in effect unless terminated by either of the parties. SECTION 13. PUBLIC RECORDS. The Developer understands and agrees that all documents of any kind provided to the District in connection with this Agreement may be public records, and, accordingly, Developer agrees to comply with all applicable provisions of Florida law in handling such records, including but not limited to Section 119.0701, Florida Statutes. Developer acknowledges that the designated public records custodian for the District is Governmental Management Services – Central Florida, LLC (“Public Records Custodian”). Among other requirements and to the extent applicable by law, the Developer shall: (1) keep and maintain public records required by the District to perform the service; (2) upon request by the Public Records Custodian, provide the District with the requested public records or allow the records to be inspected or copied within a reasonable time period at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes; (3) ensure that public records which are exempt or confidential, and exempt from public records disclosure requirements, are not disclosed except as authorized by law for the duration of the contract term and following the contract term if the Developer does not transfer the records to the Public Records Custodian of the District; and (4) upon completion of the contract, transfer to the District, at no cost, all public records in Developer’s possession or, alternatively, keep, maintain and meet all applicable requirements for retaining public records pursuant to Florida laws. When such public records are transferred by the Developer, the Developer shall destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. All records stored electronically must be provided to the District in a format that is compatible with Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF formats. IF THE DEVELOPER HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO THE DEVELOPER’S DUTY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CONTRACT, CONTACT THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT 219 EAST LIVINGSTON STREET, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801, TELEPHONE: (407) 839-5524, FAX: (407) 839-1526, OR EMAIL: RECORDREQUEST@GMSCFL.COM. SECTION 14. ARM’S LENGTH TRANSACTION. This Agreement has been negotiated fully between the parties as an arm's length transaction. The parties participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement with the assistance of their respective counsel. In the case of a dispute concerning the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, the parties are each deemed to have drafted, chosen, and selected the language, and doubtful language will not be interpreted or construed against any party. SECTION 15. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Developer agrees that nothing in this Agreement shall constitute or be construed as a waiver of the District's sovereign immunity or limitations on liability contained in section 768.28, Florida Statutes, or other statutes or law. SECTION 16. FOREIGN INFLUENCE. Developer understands that under Section 286.101, Florida Statutes, that Developer must disclose any current or prior interest, any contract with, or any grant or gift from a foreign country of concern as that term is defined within the above referenced statute. SECTION 17. HEADINGS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. The descriptive headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not control nor affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 18. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be an original; however, all such counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Signature and acknowledgment pages, if any, may be detached from the counterparts and attached to a single copy of this document to physically form one document. [Signatures on next page] IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties execute this agreement the day and year first written above. ATTEST: REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ____________________________ _______________________________ Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman, Board of Supervisors WITNESS: KINGWOOD ORLANDO REUNION RESORT a Florida limited liability company _________________________________ Print Name: By: Its: ____________ RESOLUTION NO. 2024-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY, ____________________, 2023 AT 1:00 P.M. AT THE HERITAGE CROSSING COMMUNITY CENTER, 7715 HERITAGE CROSSING WAY, REUNION, FLORIDA 34747, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF RATES FOR IRRIGATION SERVICE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTERS 120 AND 190, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) of the Reunion East Community Development District (the “District”), pursuant to Board action, has determined to establish and confirm the rates collected for irrigation services by Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort, LLC (“Kingwood”) pursuant to the “Irrigation Water System Operating Agreement,” between the District and Kingwood (the “Rates”), and the Board now desires to hold a public hearing to consider the advisability and propriety of said Rates, and also desires to provide notice of said public hearing; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA: 1. That there is hereby declared a public hearing to be held at 1:00 p.m., Thursday, ___________________, 2023, at Heritage Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, Florida 34747, for the purpose of hearing comment and objection to the Rates. Affected parties may appear at that hearing or submit their comments in writing prior to the meeting to the office of the District Manager, 219 East Livingston Street, Orlando, Florida 32801, or at TAdams@gmscfl.com. 2. That the Board also hereby accepts for the purposes of this Resolution, the Rates attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 3. That notice of said hearing shall be advertised in accordance with Chapters 120 and 190 Florida Statutes, and the District Manager is hereby authorized to place said notice in a newspaper of general circulation within Osceola County. 4. That this Resolution shall become effective upon its passage. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE.] SIGNATURE PAGE TO RESOLUTION 2023-13 REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ___________ 2023. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a Florida community development district ATTEST: George Flint Chairman / Vice Chairman Secretary / Assistant Secretary EXHIBIT “A” “Rates” [See attached.] Reunion Resort & Club of Orlando Irrigation Water Fees The Reunion Resort & Club of Orlando Master Homeowner Association (Association) assesses property owners for various costs associated with managing and maintaining the master planned development. These costs include services for landscape and hardscape maintenance, including the cost of irrigation water. The Association budget reflects separate line items for different expense types related to landscape management. Irrigation water costs are allocated by two types of fees: base fees and service area assessments. Base Assessment (Access Fee) The base fee covers the anticipated water required to irrigate the common areas of the community and a uniform unit-based appropriation of water for each development parcel. Each unit owner pays the same base fee. The base fee for 2023 budget year is 34.92 per unit per month. Per the Association budget, this Is reflected under the Utilities category, individual line item - Base Irrigation Water Access Fees. Service Area Assessments (Use Fee) Service area assessments cover the anticipated water required to irrigate specific development parcels beyond the base fee appropriated volume. For units with the lowest anticipated water requirements, there is no service area assessment, since the base fee is intended to cover the water cost for the lowest irrigable area for any unit. Units that are within specific development parcels having greater amounts of irrigable area have higher service area assessments. The service area assessment for irrigation water in the 2023 Association budget year follow: Community Use Fee Carriage Pointe 0.00 Center Court Ridge 0.00 Heritage Crossing 0.00 Homestead 7.90 Liberty Bluff 0.00 Patriots Landing 6.90 Reunion Grande 0.00 Reunion Village 13.00 Seven Eagles 0.00 Spectrum 0.00 Terraces 0.00 Villas at Reunion Square 0.00 tadams@gmscfl.com East CDD 219 East Livingston Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Reference: Limited Pavement Evaluation Reunion East CDD -839-1526 Tradition Boulevard : UES Project No. 0130.2300268.0000 s. Tricia Adams, District Manager UES Report No. 2040487 : Reunion East CDD Tradition Boulevard Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida UES Project No. 0130.2300268.0000 UES Report No. 2040487 UES has completed the limited pavement evaluation at the above referenced site in Osceola County. The following sections present the results of our field exploration program. Ms. Adams: has completed the limited pavement evaluation at the above referenced site in Osceola County. The following sections present the results of our field exploration program. This exploration was performed in general accordance with UES Proposal No. 2025965.v2 dated July 24, 2023, and generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. As such, UES will not be responsible for the performance of any other site improvement designed using the data in this report. was performed in general accordance with UES Proposal No. 2025965.v2 dated July 24, 2023, and generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. As such, UES will not be responsible for the performance of any other site improvement designed using the data in this report. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that you are planning to improve the existing pavement areas located within Reunion West subdivision in Kissimmee, Florida. As requested, UES completed a limited pavement evaluation of the existing pavement conditions and determined the current structural number. Our evaluation consisted of performing seventeen (17) roadway cores as depicted in Appendix A. within Reunion West subdivision in Kissimmee, Florida. As requested, UES completed a limited pavement evaluation of the existing pavement conditions and determined the current structural number. Our evaluation consisted of performing seventeen (17) roadway cores as depicted in Appendix A. 2. FIELD EXPLORATION 2.1 FIELD OBSERVATION UES performed field observations on August 3, 2023 and September 1, 2023 to assess the roadway condition. We observed occasional minor to major cracking within the subject area. We observed several alligator cracking, block cracking, and longitudinal cracking with some patching throughout the subject areas. We also noted areas showing polished asphalt (polished aggregate) due to abrasion. Based on our filed observation, generally, the pavements are in “Fair” to “Poor” conditions. IELD OBSERVATION s on August 3, 2023 and September 1, 2023 to assess the roadway condition. We observed occasional minor to major cracking within the subject area. We observed several alligator cracking, block cracking, and longitudinal cracking with some patching throughout the subject areas. We also noted areas showing polished asphalt (polished aggregate) due to abrasion. Based on our filed observation, generally, the pavements are in “Fair” to “Poor” conditions. 2.2 ROADWAY CORES Reunion East CDD UES Project No. 0130.2300268.0000 Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida UES Report No. 2040487 Our pavement cores were performed on August 2, 2023 and September 1, 2023, at the presented locations in Appendix A. The pavement cores were performed and measured in the field to determine the pavement component thicknesses and general condition of the pavement cores. The locations of the pavement cores are presented in Appendix A. OADWAY CORES The asphalt coring was performed using an electric coring machine. A 6-inch, water cooled, coring drill bit was placed on the pavement and rotated while simultaneously slowly advanced through the asphalt and base to the underlying subgrade soil. The cores were transported to our laboratory for further analysis. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled and patched with asphalt cold patch. The pavement cores were also returned to our Orlando laboratory for inspection. August 2, 2023 and September 1, 2023, at the presented locations in Appendix A. The pavement cores were performed and measured in the field to determine the pavement component thicknesses and general condition of the pavement cores. The locations of the pavement cores are presented in Appendix A. -inch, water cooled, coring drill bit was placed on the pavement and rotated while simultaneously slowly advanced through the asphalt and base to the underlying subgrade soil. The cores were transported to our laboratory for further analysis. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled and patched with asphalt cold patch. The pavement cores were also returned to our Orlando laboratory for inspection. In order to evaluate the subgrade material conditions beneath the pavement, we advanced one (1) hand auger boring at each core locations to depths of 5 feet below the existing roadway surface elevations. Summaries of our findings are presented in appendix B. one (1) hand auger boring at each core locations to depths of 5 feet below the existing roadway surface elevations. Summaries of our findings are presented in appendix B. The hand auger borings were performed in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1452, “Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings”. In this procedure, the borings were advanced beneath the asphalt and concrete core locations by rotating a hand-held bucket type auger until the receiving end of the auger filled with soil. locations by rotating a hand-held bucket type auger until the receiving end of the auger filled with soil. Once the bucket was filled, the auger assembly was removed from the borehole and the sample was retrieved from the bucket, placed in labeled plastic containers, and sealed. After completing the auger borings, the samples obtained from each boring were transported to our laboratory where they were examined by a member of our geotechnical staff. sample was retrieved from the bucket, placed in labeled plastic containers, and sealed. After completing the auger borings, the samples obtained from each boring were transported to our laboratory where they were examined by a member of our geotechnical staff. 3. FINDINGS OF FIELD EXPLORATION 3.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The classifications and descriptions shown are generally based upon visual and tactile characterizations of the recovered soil samples assessment. The results of our exploration, together with pertinent information obtained from the hand auger borings are shown in Appendix B. UBSURFACE CONDITIONS characterizations of the recovered soil samples assessment. The results of our exploration, together with pertinent information obtained from the hand auger borings are shown in Appendix B. Generally, we encountered an asphalt layer followed by limerock base course, and stabilized subgrade. The soils below the pavement section generally consisted of fine sand [SP] or fine sand with silt [SP-SM] at all core/hand auger locations beneath the subbase materials. More detailed soil profiles and thicknesses are presented on Appendix B and Table 1. limerock base course, and stabilized subgrade. The soils below the pavement section generally consisted of fine sand [SP] or fine sand with silt [SP-SM] at all core/hand auger locations beneath the subbase materials. More detailed soil profiles and thicknesses are presented on Appendix B and Table 1. 3.2 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS Based upon the findings of our limited pavement evaluation, and the observed condition of the roadway along the limits explored, it is our opinion that, based on the criteria of Good, Fair, or Poor per the guidelines outlined in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Flexible Pavement Design Manual, the pavements are generally in “Fair” to “Poor” conditions. The bond between the asphalt and limerock base are in good conditions. AVEMENT CORE RESULTS Based upon the findings of our limited pavement evaluation, and the observed condition of the roadway along the limits explored, it is our opinion that, based on the criteria of Good, Fair, or Poor per the guidelines outlined in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Flexible Pavement Design Manual, the pavements are generally in “Fair” to “Poor” conditions. The bond between the asphalt and limerock base are in good conditions. 2 RE-04 Limited Pavement Evaluation Reunion East CDD UES Project No. 0130.2300268.0000 Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida UES Report No. 2040487 Poor the FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual, we estimate the existing pavement section currently has an estimated Structural Number (SN) ranging from 2.2 to 3.6. The pavement section components and corresponding thickness at each core location are summarized in Table I. 2¼ I 12 S RE-05 Fair Pavement 2 Structural Course 8 12 2.9 RE-06 Base Poor 1½ 9½ 12 2.9 RE-07 Fair 2½ 8 12 3.0 -01 RE-08 Poor 2½ 8 12 2.8 -02 RE-09 Poor ½ 2½ ½ 9 12 3.0 -03 RE-10 Poor ½ 3 ½ 9 12 3.0 -04 RE-11 Poor ¼ 3½ 12 12 3.6 -05 RE-12 Poor 3 9 12 3.0 -06 RE-13 Fair ½ 1½ ½ 9 12 3.0 -07 RE-14 Poor ½ 1½ 9 12 2.8 -08 RE-15 Poor ½ 3½ 8 12 2.9 -09 RE-16 Poor ½ 2 8 12 2.7 -10 RE-17 Fair 2 9 12 3.1 -11 Notes: ½ 1. Structural number calculations – Per the FDOT 2022 Flexible Pavement Design Manual: Surface: Asphalt Type SP = 0.44 (new), 0.34 (good), 0.25 (fair), 0.15 (poor) Base: Asphalt Base Course (ABC) Type B-12.5 = 0.30, Limerock (LR) base = 0.18, Recycled Crushed Concrete (RCA) Base = 0.18, 300 psi Soil Cement (SC) Base = 0.15 -12 Subgrade: Stabilized Subgrade = 0.08, Compacted Subgrade = 0.00 2. New typical Osceola County flexible pavement SN: Local Road: 1 ½“ asphalt, 6” RCA or limerock base, & 8” stabilized subgrade . 2.4 Avenue/Boulevard: 2 ½“ asphalt, 8” RCA or limerock base, & 12” stabilized subgrade . 3.5 -13 4. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ½ In our opinion, the existing pavement sections would be classified as “Fair” to “Poor” per the FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual. Based on the condition of the existing asphalt, UES recommends that the existing asphalt layer be milled and resurfaced. 3.0 RE-14 Poor 1½ 9 12 2.8 RE-15 Poor 3½ 8 12 2.9 RE-16 Poor 2 8 12 2.7 RE-17 Fair 2 9 12 3.1 Notes: 1. Structural number calculations – Per the FDOT 2022 Flexible Pavement Design Manual: Surface: Asphalt Type SP = 0.44 (new), 0.34 (good), 0.25 (fair), 0.15 (poor) Base: Asphalt Base Course (ABC) Type B-12.5 = 0.30, Limerock (LR) base = 0.18, Recycled Crushed Concrete (RCA) Base = 0.18, 300 psi Soil Cement (SC) Base = 0.15 Subgrade: Stabilized Subgrade = 0.08, Compacted Subgrade = 0.00 2. New typical Osceola County flexible pavement SN: Local Road: 1 ½“ asphalt, 6” RCA or limerock base, & 8” stabilized subgrade . 2.4 Avenue/Boulevard: 2 ½“ asphalt, 8” RCA or limerock base, & 12” stabilized subgrade . 3.5 4. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS In our opinion, the existing pavement sections would be classified as “Fair” to “Poor” per the FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual. Based on the condition of the existing asphalt, UES recommends that the existing asphalt layer be milled and resurfaced. 3 If exposed, compact the limerock base material to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Verify compaction at a frequency of 1 density test per 10,000 square feet of pavement area. Reunion East CDD UES Project No. 0130.2300268.0000 Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida UES Report No. 2040487 and lack of base failures within the explored areas, as well as to match the current site grading, only surficial milling and resurfacing are required at this time. Our recommended procedures for the asphalt pavement removal and replacement are presented in Section 4.1. 3. anticipate any changes, inform UES so that we may review our recommendations. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction which were not encountered at our core locations, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations. In order to improve the pavement SN to at least 3.0, a minimum of 1½-inches of asphaltic surfacing will be required. AVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT 4. partial removal (milling) and replacement of the asphalt layer throughout the subject property. Note that if a heavy-duty section is required additional milling will likely be required. However, currently we are presenting recommendations to mimic the current sections. Prior to the placement of the asphaltic surfacing, the prime coat will need to be placed on the prepared base course and tack coat on the milled/exposed asphalt layer. . For the new pavements, we recommend that the surfacing consist of FDOT SuperPave (SP) asphaltic concrete. The surface course should consist of FDOT SP-9.5 fine mix for light-duty areas and FDOT SP-12.5 and/or SP-9.5 fine mix for heavy duty areas. The asphalt concrete should be placed within the allowable lift thicknesses for fine Type SP mixes per the latest edition of FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to an average field density of 93 percent of the laboratory maximum density determined from specific gravity (Gmm) methods, with an individual test tolerance of +2 percent and -1.2% of the design Gmm. Specific requirements for the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. expose the underlying base material. . ompact the limerock base material to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Verify compaction at a frequency of 1 density test per 10,000 square feet of pavement area. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one (1) core per 10,000 square feet of placed pavement, or a minimum of two (2) cores per day’s production. . In order to improve the pavement SN to at least 3.0, a minimum of 1½-inches of asphaltic surfacing will be required. 4. Prior to the placement of the asphaltic surfacing, the prime coat will need to be placed on the prepared base course and tack coat on the milled/exposed asphalt layer. For the new pavements, we recommend that the surfacing consist of FDOT SuperPave (SP) asphaltic concrete. The surface course should consist of FDOT SP-9.5 fine mix for light-duty areas and FDOT SP-12.5 and/or SP-9.5 fine mix for heavy duty areas. The asphalt concrete should be placed within the allowable lift thicknesses for fine Type SP mixes per the latest edition of FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to an average field density of 93 percent of the laboratory maximum density determined from specific gravity (Gmm) methods, with an individual test tolerance of +2 percent and -1.2% of the design Gmm. Specific requirements for the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Note: If the Designer (or Contract Documents) limits compaction to the static mode only or lifts are placed one-inch thick, then the average field density should be 92 percent, with an individual test tolerance of + 3 percent, and -1.2% of the design Gmm. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one (1) core per 10,000 square feet of placed pavement, or a minimum of two (2) cores per day’s production. 4 From: To: 0130.2300268.0000 Road No.: Jose Rosario Begin Sta: 8/3/2023End Sta: 1 of 2 Length: Osceola TypeThick-ness (in)TypeThickness (in) Various 12"LR9"stabilization12"1.4% / N28-15.607 W81-35.77722-1/2"LR8-1/2"stabilization12"0.7% / N28-15.629 W81-35.79032-1/2"LR8-1/2"stabilization/ N28-15.607 W81-35.777 12"1.9% / N28-15.731 W81-35.80442-1/4"LR8"stabilization/ N28-15.629 W81-35.790 12"1.2% / N28-15.930 W81-35.77852"LR8"stabilization/ N28-15.731 W81-35.804 12"1.0% / N28-16.188 W81-35.34361-1/2"LR9-1/2"stabilization / N28-15.930 W81-35.778 12"1.2% / N28-16.210 W81-35.19072-1/2"LR8"stabilization/ N28-16.188 W81-35.343 12"0.7% / N28-16.485 W81-35.07582-1/2"LR8"stabilization/ N28-16.210 W81-35.190 12"1.2% / N28-16.789 W81-35.18592-1/2"LR9"stabilization/ N28-16.485 W81-35.075 12"1.6" / N28-16.459 W81-35.79222" to 60" tan sand22" to 60" tan sand23" to 60" tan sand23" to 60" tan sand22" to 60" tan sand/ N28-16.789 W81-35.185 23" to 60" tan sand22" to 60" tan sand22" to 60" tan sand23" to 60" tan sandSee MapSee MapSee MapSee MapSee Map/ N28-16.459 W81-35.792 See Map See MapPavement Coring Reunion East CDD See Map 3"LR0130.2300268.0000 9" Jose Rosario stabilization9/1/202312" 2 of 2 1.2% / N28-16.528 W81-35.451Osceola 131-1/2"LR9"stabilization12"1.3% / N28-16.535 w81-35.450141-1/2"LR9"stabilization12"1.6% / N28-16.541 W81-35.453153-1/2" LR8"stabilization12"1.6% / N28-16.537 W81-35.417162"LR8"stabilization12"0.8% / N28-15.687 W81-35.380172"LR9"stabilization12"0.8% / N28-15.251 W81-35.182Remarks: A=Alligator B=Base BL=Block BR=Branch Cracking OGFC= Open-Graded FC Stress Cracks SL=Single Longitudinal Crack L=Light Cracking M=Moderate Cracking S=Severe Cracking G=Good F=Fair P=Poor ST=Single Transverse Crack LR=Limerock LML=Westbound Merge Lane ABC = Asphalt Base Course SC= Soil Cement RRTL=North or Eastbound Right Turn Lane RLTL=North or Eastbound Left Turn Lane SS=Silty Sand CL=Clay SHM=Shell Mix SubgradeProject: Reunion EastJose Rosario PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND CONDITION DATA SHEETAsphalt0130.2300268.0000Osceola9/1/2023 cross slope / coordinatesBaseBase/ Subgrade material descriptionCore No.LocationSee MapSee MapSee MapSee MapSee MapSee MapSee MapSee Map24" to 60" tan silty sand27" to 60" tan silty sand24" to 60" tan silty sand22" to 60" tan to orange silty sand22" to 60" tan to orange silty sand23" to 60" tan to orange silty sand20" to 60" tan silty sand23" to 60" light brown sand12" 23" to 60" tan to orange silty sand 1.6% / N28-16.537 W81-35.417 16 See Map 2" LR 8" stabilization 12" 20" to 60" tan silty sand 0.8% / N28-15.687 W81-35.380 17 See Map 2" LR 9" stabilization 12" 23" to 60" light brown sand 0.8% / N28-15.251 W81-35.182 Remarks: A=Alligator B=Base BL=Block BR=Branch Cracking OGFC= Open-Graded FC Stress Cracks SL=Single Longitudinal Crack L=Light Cracking M=Moderate Cracking S=Severe Cracking G=Good F=Fair P=Poor ST=Single Transverse Crack LR=Limerock LML=Westbound Merge Lane ABC = Asphalt Base Course SC= Soil Cement RRTL=North or Eastbound Right Turn Lane RLTL=North or Eastbound Left Turn Lane SS=Silty Sand CL=Clay SHM=Shell Mix Reunion East CDD Pavement Coring Reunion East CDD 0130.2300268.0000 completed before important project changes were made. Geotechnical-Engineering Report Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet thespecific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineeringstudy conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs ofa constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering studyis unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely onthis geotechnical-engineering report without first conferringwith the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply this report for any purpose orproject except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full ReportSerious problems have occurred because those relying ona geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Donot rely on an executive summary. Do not read selectedelements only. Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specificfactors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factorsinclude: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-managementpreferences; the general nature of the structure involved, itssize, and configuration; the location of the structure on thesite; and other planned or existing site improvements, such asaccess roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unlessthe geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specificallyindicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineeringreport that was: • not prepared for you; • not prepared for your project; • not prepared for the specific site explored; or• completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existinggeotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changedfrom a parking garage to an office building, or from a light- industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weightof the proposed structure; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineerof project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannotaccept responsibility or liability for problems that occur becausetheir reports do not consider developments of which they werenot informed. Subsurface Conditions Can ChangeA geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions thatexisted at the time the geotechnical engineer performed thestudy. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whoseadequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to thesite; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineerbefore applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could preventmajor problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are ProfessionalOpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at thosepoints where subsurface tests are conducted or samples aretaken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratorydata and then apply their professional judgment to renderan opinion about subsurface conditions throughout thesite. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimessignificantly — from those indicated in your report. Retainingthe geotechnical engineer who developed your report toprovide geotechnical-construction observation is the mosteffective method of managing the risks associated withunanticipated conditions. A Report’s Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation- dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally fromjudgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalizetheir recommendations only by observing actual subsurfaceconditions revealed during construction. The geotechnicalengineer who developed your report cannot assumeresponsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependentrecommendations if that engineer does not perform thegeotechnical-construction observation required to confirm therecommendations’ applicability. A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to MisinterpretationOther design-team members’ misinterpretation ofgeotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnicalengineer confer with appropriate members of the design teamafter submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnicalengineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’splans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpreta geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk byhaving your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid andpreconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnicalconstruction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s LogsGeotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logsbased upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratorydata. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in ageotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Onlyphotographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe theycan make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurfaceconditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors thecomplete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it witha clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, adviseconstructors that the report was not prepared for purposesof bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineerwho prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types ofinformation they need or prefer. A prebid conference can alsobe valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to performadditional study. Only then might you be in a position togive constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financialresponsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome clients, design professionals, and constructors fail torecognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact thanother engineering disciplines. This lack of understandinghas created unrealistic expectations that have led todisappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the riskof such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly includea variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimeslabeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate wheregeotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnicalengineer should respond fully and frankly. Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmentalfindings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., aboutthe likelihood of encountering underground storage tanksor regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmentalproblems have led to numerous project failures. If you have notyet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-managementguidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared forsomeone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to preventsignificant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised forthe express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into acomprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by aprofessional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a smallamount of water or moisture can lead to the development ofsevere mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategiesfocus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressedas part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findingsare conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer incharge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with thegeotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted forthe purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of therecommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself besufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structureinvolved. Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineerfor Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of theGeoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnicalengineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved witha construction project. Confer with you GBC-Membergeotechnical engineer for more information. 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.