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, February 8, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. via Zoom Communication Media Technology and at the Heritage Crossing Community Center, 7715 Heritage Crossing Way, Reunion, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum: Mark Greenstein 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 James Curley District Engineer Alan Scheerer Field Manager Victor Vargas Reunion Security Garrett Huegel Yellowstone Landscape Aura Zelada Artemis Lifestyles Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the February 8, 2024 regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Reunion East Community Development District. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors were present constituting a quorum. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment Period Ms. Adams opened the public comment period. Resident Beth Pappas of 7689 Heritage Crossing Way noted that the sidewalks in back of her property, were moldy and black. Last year, they were cleaned, but according to Artemis, it was the CDD’s responsibility to clean them. Mr. Scheerer assumed that the CDD cleaned them, as they were pressure washing sidewalks in the community. However, they were only pressure washing areas within the footprint of the District. Resident Sara McGowen of 7683 Heritage Crossing Way, the President of Heritage Crossing Condo Association, wanted to work with the CDD on installing speed bumps, due to the amount of speeding and questioned why speed limit signs were posted throughout Reunion, but not in Heritage Crossing. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that the CDD owned the roads in Heritage Crossing and there was a speed limit sign at the entrance, but not multiple ones. Ms. Pappas also wanted to work with the CDD on the removal of raccoons from the pool as well as in the trees. Mr. Dryburgh understood that the trees were the responsibility of either the golf course or the HOA, but not the CDD. Mr. Greenstein appreciated Ms. Pappas bringing these issues to the Board’s attention and offered to work with her on any matters within the CDD’s purview. Mr. Scheerer reported that traps were set for raccoons and a few were relocated. Ms. Wispelwey noted that raccoons were an issue that many homeowners with pools faced. They could be trapped, but new ones would come back. One issue was that their community had an overflow of garbage, which attracted the raccoons and suggested putting netting around the pool as they did not want children in a pool that had raccoon feces, versus spending money on traps. Mr. Goldstein pointed out that raccoons went over the fence and not just under it. Residents witnessed raccoons climbing on the rail, in Palm trees and on the ropes. Mr. Dryburgh asked what they were doing at other projects. Mr. Scheerer stated that they trapped the raccoons, had them removed from the property and released in the wild. Ms. Wispelwey recalled that many owners in Reunion West used screens, which stopped the raccoons. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that the screen was a couple of feet off of the ground in the fence area but would consider anything to remediate the problem. As far as he was concerned, the pressure washing was under control, but questioned the speeding within Heritage Crossing and Seven Eagles. Mr. Scheerer indicated that the Condo Association owned the parking spaces, but the CDD owned the road at Heritage Crossings unlike the road in Seven Eagles which was not owned by the CDD. Mr. Greenstein wanted to look at installing signage and speed bumps. Mr. Scheerer would work with Mr. Curley on including them in the Pavement Management Plan and obtain prices. There being no further comments, Ms. Adams closed the public comment period. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the January 11, 2024 Audit Committee Meeting and Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the January 11, 2024 Audit Committee and Board of Supervisors meetings, a draft of which were included in the agenda package and reviewed by District management staff and District Counsel. The Board had no changes to the minutes. On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Minutes of the January 11, 2024 Audit Committee and Board of Supervisors Meetings were approved as presented. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Review of Amended and Restated Parking Rules Ms. Adams recalled at last month’s meeting, the Board directed staff to schedule a public hearing to amend and restate the Parking Rules at the March 14th meeting, which were included in the agenda package for the Board’s review. It included language that Reunion West added regarding the verge areas as well as the following changes: • Section 5.3, now says, “Parking in the parking spaces located in front of the playground and/or mailbox kiosks, is restricted unless the individual is parked in such parking spaces during their use of the playground and/or mailbox kiosk. Parking for mailbox kiosks is restricted to no more than fifteen (15) minutes and parking for playground use is restricted to no more than sixty (60) minutes. Any cars parked in the mail kiosk and/or playground parking spaces for extended periods of time, including overnight periods of time, including overnight, shall be subject to towing at owner’s expense.” Mr. Dryburgh requested that there be immediate towing. Ms. Adams would review this language. • In Section 5.3.4, there was now language stating that parking was prohibited within 15 feet on either side of the fire hydrant, in accordance with Florida Law, as requested by Ms. Wispelwey. • Section 5.3.5, now states, “Abandoned and/or broken-down vehicles are not permitted to be parked on-street at any time and are subject to towing at the owner’s expense. Any vehicle that has not moved for a period of fourteen (14) days is considered abandoned and subject to being towed at the owner’s expense.” Ms. Adams stated this was the biggest reason for amending the parking rules, in order to give security services, the ability to tow vehicles left on the public roadway for extended periods of time. At last month’s meeting, there was Board consensus for a vehicle being considered abandoned after 14 days, but the timeframe could be reduced or expanded by the Board, up until the time that the Board adopted the parking rules. Mr. Dryburgh preferred to shorten it to five or seven days, as less time was better. Ms. Trucco recalled that another Board approved 72 hours. Ms. Trucco suggested language such as an abandoned vehicle in one which they considered a vehicle that was wrecked, inoperable by evidence of the vegetation underneath it, used solely for storage, partially dismantled, having major invisible parts, incapable of functioning as a vehicle in its present state or incapable of safe operation. Mr. Dryburgh preferred that there be general language, as he was concerned that the more they put into it, the more someone could appeal. If security drove past the same car that had not moved in five days, they should tow it. Mr. Goldstein had no issue with considering a car abandoned after five days. Mr. Greenstein preferred the five- day approach, as 14 days was a long period of time. Ms. Adams would use five days as a working number for the amended and restated rules. Ms. Adams provided parking maps to Mr. Scheerer, the Field Services Manager, who suggested marking an area of roadway as no-parking zones, due to concern regarding the s-curve on Excitement Drive. Mr. Scheerer suggested having no parking zones in front of homes on Excitement Drive from Grand Traverse Parkway to Titian Court, due to complaints from residents about vehicles parked in front of homes on Excitement Drive, between Radiant Street and Gathering Drive. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that people parked in front of homes that faced Hole 9 on the Watson Course. Mr. Dryburgh had issues where the pavement was painted yellow, as residents ignored it and it was hard to get through the street. It would be difficult to enforce, as the rest of the road allowed parking. Mr. Greenstein noted that it would function as a main thoroughfare to get to Liberty Bluff. Ms. Hobbs voiced concern that all of the other roads had no parking for emergency access and for safety reasons, preferred to have no parking around the s- curve. Ms. Wispelwey agreed, as Radiant Street and Titian Court were difficult to drive through when vehicles were parked there. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that there should be no parking on either side of the road, from Titian Court to Radiant Street on Excitement Drive, but once past Radiant Street, going towards Gathering Drive, there was no other place to park. Ms. Adams would leave the map as is, except for prohibiting parking on either side from Radiant Street to Titian Court (the s-curve) on Excitement Drive. Mr. Greenstein asked if there were any additional issues in the area, from a security standpoint. Mr. Vargas noted there was illegal parking exiting Radiant Street, turning onto Excitement Drive. Mr. Goldstein suggested painting yellow marking along the curves, to deter parking. Ms. Adams pointed out in order to make it enforceable for towing, the parking maps must be amended to identify no parking zones. Mr. Goldstein felt that it would be worth amending them, as it was dangerous. Mr. Scheerer stated if the Board wanted to place a no parking sign starting at 7702 Excitement Drive to the corner of Radiant Street, to identify it was a no parking zone, the Board could amend the policy and the map to include this area. Mr. Goldstein felt this was the easiest way. Ms. Adams pointed out it was not unusual to restrict parking on a corner and would amend Sheet 1.01 of the parking maps to make a lot on the corner of Excitement Drive and Radiant Street, a no parking zone. Mr. Goldstein believed that the house coming out of Radiant Street and making a right onto Excitement Drive, should be a no parking zone. Ms. Adams would include this as well as including on Sheet 1.03, a no parking zone where the vegetated median was on Excitement Drive, as part of the s-curve. Mr. Dryburgh asked if any landowners or homeowners complained about problems with parking. Mr. Scheerer indicated the only direction that he received was from the Board to install s-curve signs, which were installed. Ms. Adams pointed out that the Parking Rules and maps were also provided to the Master Association, in order to provide feedback and they had no comments at this time and the direction to staff at this time, was to reduce the number of days to define an abandoned vehicle as one that has not moved within five days. Ms. Adams would make this change and forward the Parking Rules to District Counsel for final review and work with the District Engineer on amending the parking maps as directed. Mr. Dryburgh requested that security have a clear understanding of what the Board was expecting, which was to provide notification to an owner that their car would be towed, so that the owner had a chance to react and an abandoned car could be towed on the sixth day. Ms. Adams noted the rule to state that a vehicle parked n violation of parking rules could be towed at an owner’s expense, so if there was an egregious situation that had an immediate public safety threat, security may call for an immediate tow. Mr. Goldstein pointed out that even if the car had a sticker on it, the tow company would come within an hour. Mr. Vargas pointed out that there were sometimes challenges with getting the tow company to come within an hour. Mr. Dryburgh expected security to act quickly, as in the past, security ticketed a vehicle and then there was a long period of time before it was ticketed again and additional days before it was towed. When a blue sticker was on the car in the morning and it was not towed by Noon, Mr. Dryburgh had an issue with it. Mr. Vargas pointed out that the issue was with the towing company responding, as his staff takes a picture of the vehicle and sends it immediately to the towing company. Mr. Goldstein agreed as he had multiple issues when calling security dispatch. Mr. Vargas would speak to his dispatch staff. Ms. Adams indicated that there was flexibility for implementation if the rules and reiterated stated that improperly parked vehicles are subject towing at the owner’s expense. Mr. Greenstein did not want additional language with a timeframe int eh parking rules, as it could be subject to argument. Ms. Adams would finalize the rules and provide to District Counsel for review. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Engagement of Gray Robinson as Eminent Domain Counsel Ms. Trucco recalled that several months ago, Osceola County presented their plans to the Reunion East and Reunion West CDD Boards on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) I-4 expansion project. As a result, they recommended that Gray Robinson serve as Eminent Domain Counsel, as their firm did not handle eminent domain issues. Mr. Kent Hip was the head of the Eminent Domain Department at Gray Robinson and had over 30 years of experience. Gray Robinson was put on notice by FDOT regarding an eminent domain proceeding for the Old Lake Wilson Road expansion project and in response, submitted a representative authorization with the affected parcels, which Ms. Trucco recommended that the Board approve. The Reunion West CDD Board approved the same authorization for their affected parcels. It was early in the process, but as the proceeding gets closer, additional specifics, such as the acreage that the State was going to take from the CDD, value of the property and amount of damage to remaining property, would be presented to the Board, along with an analysis that Gray Robinson would perform and an offer. The Board would decide whether or not to accept the offer or provide a counter offer and if the parties could not agree on the final amount, the State would initiate an eminent domain proceeding against the CDD. The Statute allows the District to hire and pay eminent domain counsel, as well as any experts. Mr. Goldstein pointed out that the piece that they were taking behind Heritage Crossing was right up to Buildings P and Q. Ms. Trucco indicated that the red line was the parcel boundary and not what they were taking. At this time, all they had were the parcels that they believe may be impacted by this project. Staff recommended that the Board engage Gray Robinson for this proceeding, due to their experience in eminent domain, if there were issues during the initial noticing, processing and the State’s review of the parcels. On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the Engagement Letter with Gray Robinson as Eminent Domain Counsel for the Old Lake Wilson Road expansion project was approved. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Proposals for Seven Eagles Fountain Refurbishment or Replacement A. UCC B. Yellowstone Ms. Adams recalled that this item was a reoccurring item for Board consideration and discussion. Field services staff identified a vendor who was qualified and capable of doing the work and provided proposals from UCC and Yellowstone to either refurbish or replace the two fountains at Linear Park. There was also an option to turn one of the fountains into a planter. During the course of consideration of this project, it was discussed whether or not Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort (Kingwood) should participate by providing funds, as they were a key stakeholder and often rented these facilities from the CDD for weddings or other Kingwood events. Ultimately, the Board delegated authority to Mr. Greenstein to interface with Kingwood. Mr. Greenstein indicated that Mr. Anthony Carll representing Kingwood indicated a willingness to work with the District and as of the last meeting, were willing to share in 50% of the cost, but they needed additional time to obtain proposals from their contractor. However, Mr. Carll could not find a contractor willing to take on the project and expressed a willingness to remove the fountains and redesigns the garden with beds. The Board agreed with the idea that the fountain located closest to The Grand was the “showpiece fountain” and they were willing to do a more dramatic look, if it was feasible. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out that the price would increase and if they could not afford it now and could not find a contractor, their only option was to turn it into a planter. Ms. Wispelwey indicated that they had a contractor and recalled the last time this matter was brought up, it was decided that the CDD would refurbish the fountain closest to The Grand (Fountain #1), as people having weddings take pictures by it, but the fountain closest to the pool (Fountain #2), could be turned into a planter, as it did not provide much value. Mr. Goldstein met with Mr. Carll yesterday regarding another matter and was informed that Mr. Carll was against making Fountain #2 into a planter and wanted to remove the entire fountain and plant flowers to redesign the garden area which Mr. Goldstein agreed with. Ms. Adams asked if the Board wanted Mr. Scheerer to review the different options for fountain #1 that UCC proposed. Ms. Wispelwey preferred to make a decision, as a great deal of valuable Board time was spent on this matter. Mr. Greenstein pointed out an issue that Mr. Barry brought up at the Reunion West CDD meeting regarding the sidewalks along vacant lots, which was on their agenda at least three to four times during the last 15 years. The Reunion West CDD Board agreed that it was something that could benefit the community overall from a safety standpoint and requested that staff take an inventory of all vacant lots that did not have sidewalks and provide a cost to build the sidewalks. Mr. Greenstein asked if the Board wanted to proceed with repairing Fountain #1 and having Kingwood remove and redesign the area for Fountain #2 and turn it into or go back to Kingwood and try to get funding. Mr. Goldstein clarified that he proposed asking Kingwood if they were willing to provide half of the funding. If they did not want to contribute funds, he was in favor of the CDD repairing Fountain #1 and Kingwood install the flowers in Fountain #2. Mr. Greenstein had no issue supporting what Mr. Goldstein was proposing. Ms. Trucco advised if the fountain was financed with CDD bond funds, it could not be demolished, unless the bonds were redeemed or paid off. Ms. Hobbs was in favor of refurbishing the fountain closest to The Grand and looking at demolishing the fountain by the pool, based on whether or not it could be demolished. Ms. Adams suggested an agreement with Kingwood with garden design plans approved by the Board for fountain area #2 if Ms. Trucco determined it could be demolished. Mr. Dryburgh asked if Option #1, to refurbish the fountain was $65,000. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that the cost to refurbish Fountain #1 was $61,000 estimate, for a 10-foot-tall fountain. Mr. Goldstein was in favor of going back to Kingwood to inform them of what the Board would like to do, versus the Board approving the proposal and then demanding that Kingwood pay half for the demolishment of Fountain #2. Ms. Wispelwey agreed. Mr. Greenstein requested that the Board have a plan, but not put it into effect until he spoke to Mr. Carll. Ms. Trucco suggested that the Board delegate authority to Mr. Greenstein to negotiate with Mr. Carll to cover half of the cost for the replacement if fountain #1 and then proceed with the work. Ms. Adams asked if the Board wanted to continue this meeting to take action after discussion with Mr. Carll. Ms. Wispelwey preferred to wait until next month. Ms. Trucco offered to review the indenture to see if fountain #2 was financed with bonds. Mr. Dryburgh requested that Ms. Trucco find out and report to the Board at the next meeting. Ms. Adams asked if UCC was holding the price in their proposal, as it was from several months ago. Mr. Scheerer would find out. There was Board consensus to use UCC to refurbish Fountain #1 and for Mr. Greenstein to negotiate with Mr. Carll to cover half of the cost for the refurbishment of Fountain #1 and for Kingwood to redesign the garden at Fountain #2, subject to District Counsel and the District Engineer confirming that bond funds were not used to finance the fountain and reporting to the Board at the next meeting. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Proposals for Amenity Center Roofing A. Advantage Roofing B. Don Schmidt Roofing C. Springer-Peterson Roofing & Sheet Material Mr. Scheerer obtained proposals from Advantage Roofing (Advantage), Don Schmidt Roofing (Don Schmidt) and Springer-Peterson Roofing & Sheet Material (Springer-Peterson) to replace the roof at the Heritage and Homestead pool houses. Advantage Roofing proposed $7,150 per pool house or $21,450 for all three pool houses, Springer-Peterson proposed $10,961 per pool house or $32,883 for all three pool houses and Don Schmidt Roofing proposed $17,950 or $53,850 for all three pool houses. Ms. Wispelwey questioned how Advantage worked out with the guardhouse roofs. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that Advantage did a great job and the biggest challenge was keeping the Seven Eagles mailroom open, but there were no reports of any issues. Ms. Wispelwey asked if this work would affect the Homestead mail kiosks. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that the mailbox kiosks were the responsibility of the HOA, under an Interlocal Agreement. Ms. Adams clarified that there was a License Agreement because the mailbox kiosks were on CDD property, but it was the responsibility of the HOA to maintain them. Mr. Scheerer recommended the proposal from Advantage Roofing based on the price. On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the proposal from Advantage Roofing to replace the Homestead and Heritage Crossing roofs in the amount of $21,450 was approved. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco reported that she participated in a telephone conference call with general counsel for the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) yesterday, regarding the Traffic Enforcement Agreement. They apologized for the delay as there were some personnel changes. They reviewed the draft and their main concern was with the gate, as it could lead to the misunderstanding that roads were private. Ms. Trucco informed them that the CDD could not infer, imply or in any way concede that these roadways were private, because the CDD was a governmental entity and the financing of those roadways was through public funds. They understood and would be making revisions to the draft Traffic Enforcement Agreement, which Ms. Trucco would bring back to the Board when she received it. It was a productive conversation. An Associate in her office was preparing an inventory of all plats within the CDD for property ownership, which would show what was in the CDD, and what still needed to be conveyed to the CDD. B. Engineer Mr. Curley reported that the pavement management and traffic calming went out for bids and they were starting to receive comments and questions and distributing bid packages as needed. It was being sent to their preferred contractors. They completed the evaluation of bond funds used for The Stables parcel and the amount was $1,418,297. Mr. Greenstein noted this was no surprise. Ms. Wispelwey questioned the next step. Ms. Trucco confirmed that this was the first step and the next step was performing a tax analysis to determine the amount needed to redeem the bonds, whether they must redeem more bonds than the cost of the tax analysis, the amount of bond interest outstanding, the percentage the $1,418,297 represented of the bonds that were issued and whether they reached the 10% of the private use. Ms. Wispelwey questioned whether they knew the size of the parcel. Ms. Adams stated there was an approximation from the Property Appraiser’s website. Mr. Scheerer indicated the parcel was 1.855 acres. Mr. Dryburgh felt that was significant. Mr. Greenstein pointed out from the $1,418,297 that was initially spent was over 20 years and the outstanding balance, from an amortization standpoint, would be significantly less. At the last meeting, the real number that the Board was looking for, was what the property was worth in today’s market and were talking about being able to proceed with obtaining an appraisal on that property without incurring significant costs for the tax analysis. Ms. Trucco was informed that it would cost between $10,000 to $20,000. There was Board consensus for staff to obtain proposals for appraisal services and provide at an upcoming meeting. Regarding the Spine Road and Old Lake Wilson Road improvement, Mr. Curley received a response from the county. They did not have dedicated funding for road construction, which was not starting until Fiscal Year 2027. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out that they could not start construction without obtaining a source and questioned who that likely source was, as it was not the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Mr. Curley did not know. Mr. Greenstein indicated this was referring to creating a turn lane onto Spine Road from Old Lake Wilson Road going south. Mr. Dryburgh noted that the largest expense was moving the bridge. Mr. Goldstein recalled that no money was allocated. Mr. Dryburgh believed that they would be doing the work at one time when they did the expressway in 10 to 12 years. C. Field Manager Updates Mr. Scheerer distributed data collected from the radar display signs, which took some time to compile as it was a Bluetooth based system and he had to go to each device with a laptop and manually download the information. A map of the locations was provided to the Board. The Reunion East speed limit signs started at the I-4 and Tradition Boulevard bridge. There was another one at the traffic circle heading towards the main gate and two were on Excitement Drive, one past Titian Court and the other by the Terraces. They were not able to capture data on one sign on Reunion Boulevard, directly across from the first entrance to Patriots Landing. The following data was collected: • In December, at I-4 and Tradition Boulevard, a total of 76,546 vehicles were recorded. The average weekday speed was 32 mph and 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 38 mph. In January, 62,341 vehicles were recorded, with an average speed of 32 mph to 33 mph and 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 38 mph. • In December, at the traffic circle heading towards the main gate, a total of 64,000 vehicles were recorded. The average weekday speed was 30 mph and 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 27 mph. In January, 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 27 mph. • In December, on Excitement Drive, a total of 23,931 vehicles were recorded, with an average weekday speed of 21 mph and 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 25 mph. In January, 17,800 vehicles were recorded, with everyone being in compliance with the average speed of 21 mph and 85% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 25 mph. • In December, on Excitement Drive and Titian Court, a total of 10,348 vehicles were recorded, with an average weekday speed of between 22 mph and 24 mph and 85% of the vehicles traveling at or below 29 mph or less. In January, there were a total of 8,511 vehicles, with an average speed of 23 mph to 24 mph and 85% of the vehicles traveling at or below 29 mph. Mr. Scheerer pointed out according to Mr. Curley, in the Pavement Management Plan, speed tables were included for Excitement Drive and one or two locations on Reunion Boulevard, similar to Tradition Boulevard over the I-4 bridge and Grand Traverse Parkway in the west. They were obtaining proposals for speed tables, which would be brought back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Greenstein was grateful to have this information, as it was in line with what they thought the numbers would be, especially coming off of the bridge from the water park. Mr. Scheerer felt this was a good location to install a speed table as there were multiple pedestrian crosswalks in that area, but they could not have one on the bridge. At the Reunion West CDD meeting, it was discussed what a herculean effort Mr. Scheerer had to go through to get this data, as it could only be downloadable from each device. Mr. Scheerer pointed out there was one in Reunion East that was non-responsive, which they were still working on, but in Reunion West, two on Grand Traverse Parkway were non-responsive. Mr. Greenstein recalled discussions at the Reunion West CDD meeting about upgrading the system to allow for access from the Cloud to download data. It was an operating expense that they would be able to fund through their normal operating budget. Regarding the action items, Mr. Scheerer reported that they were having some IT issues that they were working on in trying to get the Reunion Village transponder system working. The Seven Eagles Fitness Center signs in Spanish and English, were installed in both Gyms. They were reaching out to another vendor, because the proposal for rubber matting was not yet available. They were working on the janitorial quote. The pressure washing was discussed earlier by Ms. Pappas. They were still pressure washing in the community. The sidewalk replacements were completed and they were now moving into grinding sidewalks that were a quarter inch or less. It would only get more expensive as the community continued to mature with the trees. Regarding the trees, a tree company will be mobilizing to start doing all of the common area CDD trees on Reunion Boulevard, along Grand Traverse Parkway and lifting all of the trees around Seven Eagles and around all of the swimming pools that the CDD maintains. As part of the sign plan, they were obtaining pricing to install the signs in Phases 1 through 3 in Reunion Village. Their Parking Plan was part of the CDD’s Parking Policy for a while and now that the construction was complete, they were going to price the signs, as there was funding on the Capital Items List. D. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items List Ms. Adams presented the Action Items List for Reunion East, which were included in the agenda package. ii. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from January 1, 2023 through January 31, 2024 in the amount of $511,460.99. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Goldstein with all in favor the January Check Register was approved. iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through December 31, 2023, which were for informational purposes. Subsequent to the end of December, the accountant transferred funds to the Repair and Maintenance (R&M) Fund and the Surplus Funds to an interest- bearing account. This was the time of year where the unassigned balance grows, because of the receipt of tax revenues. The maintenance portion of those funds were retained in the General Fund. This year, interest rates were such, that they wanted to take it full advantage of it for the surplus and replacement and maintenance funds. The majority of the on-roll assessments were received and at the end of December, some of the direct bill assessments were received as well. No Board action was required. Mr. Dryburgh asked about the sidewalks. Ms. Adams would add to the Action Items List, an inventory that Mr. Scheerer was performing on all vacant lots in Reunion West and Reunion East, to determine the feasibility of installing sidewalks on vacant lots. They would obtain a number from a service provider, which would be extrapolated by the number of vacant lots, to compare to the budget, to see if this was a project that the Board was interested in obtaining further information on. Mr. Greenstein agreed that they needed to know the potential amount and if it was feasible, legal counsel could look more into it. Ms. Wispelwey pointed that that the CDD maintained the sidewalks, but it was the owner’s responsibility to install them. Ms. Adams confirmed that the property owner/Master Association was responsible for some of the maintenance such as cleaning the sidewalks. However, if there were any structural issues that required grinding or replacing the sidewalks, the CDD would step in and do that work. Mr. Scheerer did an excellent job of ensuring that the sidewalks were evaluated on a regular basis. Ms. Wispelwey had many questions regarding the sidewalks, which she was directed by the HOA to speak to Mr. Scheerer about. Ms. Adams noted that there some staff turnover with the Master Association and encouraged Ms. Wispelwey to speak to Ms. Sandra Lowery who is a top leader. Ms. Trucco suggested that Ms. Wispelwey review their Declaration of Covenants. iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan Ms. Adams presented the Replacement and Maintenance Plan for Fiscal Year 2024, which was a list of the projects approved, in process or completed. It was for informational purposes and reviewed and updated by Mr. Scheerer on an ongoing basis. E. Security Report Mr. Vargas provided the December Security Report under separate cover. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business There being no comments, the next item followed. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests There being no comments, the next item followed. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date – March 14th, 2024 The next meeting was scheduled for March 14, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. TWEFLTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Signature - Tricia Adams Signature - Mark Greenstein Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman