Reunion East Community Development District Agenda June 13, 2024 June 6, 2024 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, June 13, 2024 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 May 9, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting 4. Notice of Termination of Management Services Agreement with Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort 5. Consideration of Letter Regarding Debt Assessment for Bonds 6. Consideration of Easement Variance Agreement on Radiant Drive for Lots 303 and 304 7. Consideration of Resolution 2024-05 Approving Entering into a Contract with All County Paving, Inc. to Provide Paving and Related Services 8. Consideration of Resolution 2024-06 Approving the Proposed Fiscal Year 2025 Budget and Setting a Public Hearing 9. Staff Reports A. Attorney i. Memorandum Regarding Recently Enacted Legislation – ADDED B. Engineer C. Field Manager Updates D. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items ii. Approval of Check Register iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan v. Reminder of Form 1 Filing Requirement Deadline – July 1, 2024 E. Security Report 10. Other Business 11. Supervisor’s Requests A. Discussion of Future Meeting Times 12. Next Meeting Date: July 11, 2024 13. Adjournment Sincerely, 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, May 9, 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 Pete Whitman Yellowstone Landscape Graham Staley Reunion East CDD Board Member Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the May 9, 2024 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 1:10 p.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors were present. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment Period There being no comments, the next item followed. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the April 11 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the April 11, 2024 Board of Supervisors meeting, a draft of which were included in the agenda package. Corrections were received from Supervisor Greenstein on Page 9 of 16, clarifying the language in the motion for the Chairman to provide a counteroffer for the easement access and correcting a dollar amount on Page 4. On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the Minutes of the April 11, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meetings were approved as amended. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Sign Installation Request from The Crescent at Reunion Ms. Adams received a request from the developer of The Crescent at Reunion, to install signage, which was included in the agenda package, along with the proposed signage locations, verbiage, layout and design of the sign. District Counsel reviewed the signage and was concerned that it could be construed as commercial. There was a recommendation from the Reunion West CDD Board to simplify the signage, to include the logo, address and directional arrows, in order to conform to other signage that had been approved for CDD right-of-way (ROW), including the white posts with the end caps, an arch across the top and inclusion of the Reunion logo. The Reunion West CDD Board deferred this item, as a revision would be provided at the next meeting for Board consideration and Ms. Adams questioned whether this CDD Board wanted to do the same. There was Board consensus to defer this item. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2024-04 Relating to the 2024 General Election and Qualifying Period Procedure Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2024-04, memorializing a General Election in November of 2024 for Seat 2, currently held by Mr. Steve Goldstein and Seat 4, currently held by Mr. John Dryburgh. The CDD was required by Statute to announce on the record, the qualifying period, which was from Noon on June 10, 2024 through Noon on June 14, 2024, which was stated on Exhibit A attached to the resolution. There was also contact information for the Osceola County Supervisor of Elections office, who would facilitate the election and could answer any questions regarding qualifying for the election. In order to qualify, the individual must be at least 18 years old, a citizen of the United States and State of Florida, registered to vote in Osceola County and reside within the Reunion East CDD boundaries. Ms. Adams recalled at the Reunion West CDD meeting, Board Members considered a similar resolution and at that time, directed staff to send out a message via electronic mail, notifying residents of the Reunion West CDD, which seats would be up for election at the General Election, the qualifying period, and declarations from the two Board Members, whose seats were up for election, of their intention to qualify. The notice was subject to final approval by District Counsel. Mr. Dryburgh asked if they ever did this before and if not, why they were doing it now. Ms. Adams confirmed it was never done before, as it was not required by Florida Statutes, but it was being considered for continuity between Reunion East and Reunion West. Reunion West was doing it in the spirit of communication and transparency, in order to be as informative as possible. Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Dryburgh had no issue declaring on the record about their intention to run and both declared their intention to run. Mr. Greenstein felt that it was the right thing to do, as they were one community and there was one process. Mr. Goldstein questioned why they were spending money to do something that they were not required to do. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that there was no cost to do so, as it was sent out by e-blast. There was Board consensus for staff to send out a parallel announcement to what Reunion West CDD did, notifying stakeholders about the upcoming election and qualification period. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in favor Resolution 2024-04 Relating to the 2024 General Election and Qualifying Procedure was approved. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2024-05 Approving Entering into a Contract with All County Paving Inc. to Provide Paving and Related Services Ms. Trucco presented Resolution 2024-05, Approving Entering into a Contract with All County Paving Inc. (All County), to provide paving and related services, which was included in the agenda package. This related to the public bidding process under Chapter 190, that the CDD was required to follow for certain contracts that exceeded $195,000. There was a Request for a Proposal (RFP), for the roadways that Mr. Curley and Mr. Goldstein were working on. The Board was advised at the last Board meeting, that no responsive bids were received, in response to the RFP. As a result, Ms. Trucco reviewed the CDD's adopted Rules of Procedure, which state that the Board was permitted to take whatever steps were reasonably necessary, in order to proceed with the procurement of a service contract, if no responsive bids were received through the public bidding process, which occurred here. Therefore, the District was not required, at this time, to piggyback off of another contract with a government agency, even though there was an option to do so. The purpose of this resolution was to allow the CDD to enter into a contract with All County Paving, which Mr. Curley was working with, under the original plan to piggyback off of their contract. The Reunion West CDD Board received the same resolution and tabled it until they were able to obtain additional details regarding speed tables. Mr. Curley indicated that the Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) amount in the proposal was high, in order to keep everything organized within the community and provide the least amount of disruption as possible within the community, by providing additional flaggers to direct traffic. It was high, but this was what needed to happen. The unit price for asphalt and milling, was close to the engineers estimate of $18 per linear foot, which was the majority of the cost. The pavement marking cost did increase, since it was for a double yellow line and thermoplastic. At first, they were just going to paint it, but there must also be thermoplastic to maintain traffic through that area. The cost for speed tables was $9,800 each. Ms. Adams recalled that the Reunion West CDD Board requested that the District Engineer provide a detailed exhibit in the next agenda package, including locations for each speed table. Ms. Wispelwey pointed out there were several locations that were optional and for a cost of almost $10,000, they may not need any speed tables. Mr. Goldstein questioned the type of speed table for $9,800. Mr. Curley confirmed that it was an asphalt speed table that would be built into the road. Mr. Goldstein suggested installing screwed down speed tables. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that using bolts on the road would compromise the integrity of the asphalt, which would require patching at some point. Mr. Goldstein respected Mr. Scheerer’s opinion but felt that there needed to be further discussion before they spent money on speed tables. Ms. Adams pointed out this was the reason that the Reunion West CDD Board preferred to have a detailed discussion regarding the speed tables, because they were completely optional. Another item that the Reunion West CDD Board discussed was not having speed tables at the golf cart crossings and only at locations where there was the buildup of speed. Mr. Goldstein felt this made sense. Mr. Dryburgh asked if they could have speed tables on both sides of Reunion Boulevard, one concrete and the other bolted. Ms. Adams confirmed that this was not a recommendation from staff, as far as the integrity of the roadway; however, it was always an option, if the Board decided not to put in speed tables as part of the pavement maintenance work and consider it at a future time. The Board wanted to know the cost difference, locations, how often they would need to be replaced and the length. Mr. Scheerer anticipated the speed tables lasting a few years and would go from one edge of the asphalt to the other, give or take a few inches. Mr. Goldstein requested a ballpark number before the Board made a decision. Mr. Curley offered to go back to All County Paving and obtaining a better price. Mr. Greenstein questioned why other contractors did not submit bids. Mr. Curley explained that it was due to the location and the size of the contract. Ms. Wispelwey questioned the amount budgeted for this project. Ms. Adams confirmed that the estimated amount for pavement management and traffic calming was $500,000 for the fiscal year, but the proposed amount was $903,086.71, which was the Reunion East portion. The Reunion West portion with all of the speed tables, was $235,838. The proposals were higher than what was anticipated last year, when a placeholder was included in the budget, but there was some scope escalation with additional pavement markings and traffic calming. However, the District had funding available to proceed. Ms. Wispelwey felt that the Board should be doing their due diligence and questioned whether the proposal included paver work, as there were some locations where the pavers degraded over time. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that there were pavers at the crosswalks on Spine Road, on Grand Traverse Parkway and on Gathering Drive, but it was not included in the proposal. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that it must be separately contracted for but recalled an immediate paver repair at Spine Road and Tradition Boulevard. Mr. Scheerer noted they were repaired as needed. This item was deferred to the June meeting and Mr. Curley would include a negotiated proposal and exhibits identifying each section and speed table locations. Ms. Wispelwey requested it prior to the meeting. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco was continuing to work on the Traffic Enforcement Agreement with the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), regarding some of the terms and provided a draft to the OCSD. It was made clear to them that staff had no authority to approve the agreement, on behalf of the CDD and it must come back to the Board for their review and approval. Mr. Goldstein requested a copy of what was sent to OCSD. Ms. Trucco explained that someone was issued a ticket and complained about it, because the roads were owned by the CDD and there were other issues where people called the Sheriff’s Department and were informed that they did not have traffic enforcement ability within the jurisdiction of the CDD, because the roads were mistakenly thought to be private. At one point, staff thought that there was a communication issue with the Sheriff’s Department and there were multiple efforts to try to talk to them and make them understand that these were public roadways owned by the CDD within both Reunion West and East. In addition, there were Federal Laws, stating that if the CDD, as a government, were issuing tax exempt bonds and financing properties such as the roadways, they could not restrict the public from using it. As a result, this influenced the Board to direct staff to enter into the Traffic Enforcement Agreement with the Sheriff’s Department, because they said that they would not provide those services, if that agreement wasn't entered into. Mr. Goldstein pointed out that the Board never intended for there to be an agreement and wanted to find out why the Sheriff’s Department was not doing their job, as residents pay taxes and their roads were public. Ms. Trucco explained in their initial conversations with the Sheriff’s Department, because the county did not own the roadways, they cited a Statute in Florida Law, whereby an agreement could be entered into between the county, the Sheriff’s Department and the Special District, meaning the CDD, in order for traffic enforcement services to be provided. Therefore, they required an agreement, in order to provide these services. Ms. Wispelwey questioned why this CDD was the first CDD to do this. Ms. Adams confirmed that this was not the first CDD in the State of Florida to do this, as three other Districts that she managed, recently required a Traffic Enforcement Agreement. The CDD had the same limited powers with or without the agreement, but having a Traffic Enforcement Agreement memorialized traffic enforcement powers and helped the law enforcement team feel more comfortable. Mr. Dryburgh was frustrated that every time they heard something from the police, they had another reason why they could not finalize the Traffic Enforcement Agreement and questioned what major objections they had. Mr. Dryburgh asked if the CDD could provide them with a letter granting them access to provide enforcement and issue tickets versus having this agreement. Ms. Trucco understood that OCSD would not provide any services unless the Traffic Enforcement Agreement was entered into. Mr. Goldstein asked if the Board was able to specify what they were going to enforce. Ms. Trucco confirmed that it was for traffic enforcement, because the CDD did not have police powers. The Law only gives the CDD the right to adopt Parking and Towing Rules, which the CDD adopted, but did not have the authority to stop someone driving under the influence or speeding. Ms. Adams recalled that a Lieutenant from OCSD, attended a CDD meeting, at the request of the Board and ultimately the Sheriff’s Office stated that they preferred to have an agreement. Mr. Dryburgh believed that until they had an agreement, requiring them to come into the community to provide enforcement, OCSD would ignore them. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that the CDD operated for 15 years with nothing in writing and over the years, they had some flagrant violations of speeding. However, innocent people got ticketed and not the major violators. The CDD was in a unique situation, because it was a Special District and not an unincorporated county, which was why OCSD required an agreement. Mr. Goldstein suggested finding out why Margaritaville was forced to open their gates. Ms. Adams explained that the Margaritaville gates were managed by an association and the logistics evolved. Ms. Hobbs pointed out whether or not they had this agreement, the police could request the guards to open the gate. Ms. Adams explained that it did not change the powers that the CDD had, nor the powers of the OCSD and only memorialized the language in the Florida Statutes that OCSD could patrol and enforce traffic on public roadways, including roadways that were maintained by the Reunion East and West CDDs. Ms. Wispelwey felt that the CDD was not high on OCSD’s priority list and this was a complicated issue that the Board needed to discuss, as there was already pushback from people living in the community, who were concerned that it would impact their rental properties and their ability to drive golf carts. Mr. Goldstein agreed, as people who had golf carts, that were not street legal, would be upset. Mr. Greenstein noted they were operating in a controlled, safe, comfortable manner, until OCSD tried to disrupt things by asking for this agreement and suggested changing the language, as it was considered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), explaining the rules of the road. Ms. Trucco clarified her statement that this agreement was needed and would confirm with OCSD, that they would not provide traffic enforcement services without this agreement. Ms. Wispelwey questioned whether OCSD would actually provide enforcement, because they were told that they did not have the staff. Mr. Greenstein believed that they were doing this as a way to support their staffing levels. Ms. Trucco recalled that there were also a liability and indemnification issues, for the CDD being responsible for the signage and re-paving. As a first step, Ms. Trucco wanted to clarify with OCSD whether without this agreement, they would not provide traffic enforcement services. As far as golf carts on roads owned by the CDD, Ms. Trucco advised that the CDD did not have the authority to decide whether or not to allow it and deferred to the county, as there was a State Statute whereby county or municipalities must designate the roads permissible for golf cart use. Mr. Greenstein asked if golf carts were included in the Traffic Enforcement Agreement. Ms. Trucco confirmed it was not included and Mr. Greenstein requested that it not be in there, as the Board could decide when to call in for police enforcement to monitor traffic; however, it would not just be for traffic enforcement, which would expose the CDD to other issues. Ms. Adams explained that what was reported by the Sheriff’s Office on the record, was that they prioritize traffic enforcement based on accident and crash reports; however, CDDs did not have a high volume of accident or crash reports. However, there was an ability to engage law enforcement for enhanced traffic enforcement, but this was not the purpose of this agreement, as the purpose was for the Sheriff’s Office to be in agreement that these were public roads and they had law enforcement powers, including traffic enforcement. Mr. Goldstein was concerned because the last version of the agreement that he reviewed, stated that it enforced all Florida Laws, including golf carts. Mr. Dryburgh recommended postponing this matter until the Board reviewed the Traffic Enforcement Agreement. There was Board consensus for District Counsel to provide a draft of the agreement to the Board as soon as possible and confirm with OCSD whether they would provide traffic enforcement services without the agreement. Ms. Trucco reported that the Inventory Review Project was proceeding and requested a motion to allow staff to perform legal research on some related issues. On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Ms. Wispelwey with all in favor authorization for staff to provide additional legal research on the Inventory Review Project was approved. B. Engineer Ms. Adams asked if Mr. Curley had anything to report, such as updates regarding the Davenport Creek Bridge Project. Mr. Curley confirmed that it was still in permitting. C. Field Manager Updates 1. Access to Reunion Village/Davenport Creek Bridge: Still in permitting. Mr. Scheerer presented the Action Items List, which was included in the agenda package and reported on the following: 2. Pavement Management & Traffic Calming: Discussed. 3. Seven Eagles Fountain Replacement: UCC Group was working on the design for the proposal approved by the Board at a prior meeting. He was trying to obtain a construction schedule and once received, would provide it to the Board. 4. RFID & Transponder at Reunion Village Gate: Waiting for the ownership issue of the guardhouse to be resolved, in order to apply for a permanent address of the gatehouse. Then the internet could be installed. 5. Seven Eagles Fitness Center Mats: There was a change with the salesperson. A proposal would be provided to the Board at a later date for up-to-date fitness equipment. There was a request for a bicep/triceps machine and leg press. Ms. Wispelwey asked if Mr. Scheerer spoke to Kingwood about using the Reunion equipment that was in the basement. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that he spoke to Kingwood, but they had plans for it. 6. Heritage Crossing Pool B Renovation: Completed. The roof project at the Homestead pool house was starting on May 20th. There would be a temporary closure at the entrance, while the roof tiles were stripped and once that was completed, the pool would be re-open. A pre-construction meeting was scheduled next week with Advantage Roofing to discuss the timeline. Once Homestead was completed, they would proceed to the Heritage A and B pools. 7. Reunion Village Signs: Delivered. They would be installed and then Mr. Vargas could perform parking enforcement for Phases 1 through 3 in Reunion Village. The signs approved for Excitement Drive were being powder coated and once completed, they would be installed. Ms. Adams reported that Ms. Hobbs accompanied Mr. Mike Barry from the Reunion West CDD Board, to meet with Mr. Carll, a representative of Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort (KORR), the HOA Master association and the Preferred Builder Program, to get feedback regarding the potential of the CDD undertaking the installation of sidewalks. Ms. Hobbs reported that Mr. Carll was supportive of the concept of the CDD installing sidewalks on main roads, such as Excitement Drive and Gathering Drive, but not the smaller inner roads. In addition, if a builder was building on the lot, the builder would be required to repair or replace the sidewalk, if they damaged it. Ms. Wispelwey voiced concern that they were talking about installing sod on either side, but there would be no irrigation system to water it. Mr. Goldstein pointed out that Bahia did not require water and would be better than dirt to hold the sidewalk in. Mr. Dryburgh had an issue with Mr. Carll only wanting sidewalks on selected streets, because the basis for installing sidewalks, was for people who used wheelchairs. Mr. Greenstein thanked Ms. Hobbs for participating in this project and reporting on it, as it was similar to what Mr. Barry reported at the Reunion West CDD meeting. The comment regarding underdeveloped areas or less densely populated areas, pertained more to the west side and the plan was to identify the lots that made the most sense to install a sidewalk, like on Gathering Drive, where there were six vacant lots, versus along Grand Traverse Parkway on the west side, that had large parcels of undeveloped property. Mr. Greenstein was appreciative that Ms. Hobbs and Mr. Barry were able to get Kingwood to buy into the concept and pointed out that the next step was for the Board to identify the locations. Ms. Trucco explained that this was part of the inventory discussion, which they would take a closer look at, but as an administrative step, there was no issue with identifying the lots that the Board was interested in installing sidewalks. There was discussion about the cost, but once the lots were identified, they would be better able to determine which stakeholders to reach out to, in order to ensure that the construction of the sidewalk did not interfere with an agreement that existed. Mr. Goldstein offered to identify the lots. Ms. Adams recalled that Reunion West CDD Board authorized Mr. Barry to continue working with Ms. Hobbs, but the Board could designate any Supervisor they chose. Mr. Goldstein preferred that Mr. Barry and Ms. Trucco handle it. Mr. Dryburgh recalled that there was an agreement with the Preferred Builders. Ms. Adams stated that Mr. Carll had suggested including language in the agreement with the builders, when it was renewed in November, reflecting that the builders would be responsible for any damages to the sidewalks. Other points that were discussed by the Reunion West CDD Board, was including a placeholder on Replacement and Maintenance (R&M) Project List for Fiscal Year 2025. Ms. Wispelwey asked if they were going enforce some of the other requirements, such as installing sidewalks on lots on the east side that had no sidewalks, as property owners developed recreational activity, such as a pool or pavers, on land that they owned. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that it would be a special situation, that may get shifted from the CDD’s responsibility to the property owner and should be discussed with the Master Association. Ms. Trucco advised that the CDD did not have jurisdiction over private property. Ms. Wispelwey felt that the Master Association should require the property owners to install the sidewalk. Ms. Trucco stated it would be helpful to identify those lots. Mr. Goldstein would provide a list. D. District Manager’s Report i. Action Items List This item was discussed. ii. Approval of Check Register Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from April 1, 2024 through April 30, 2024 in the amount of $570,978.13, which was included in the agenda package, along with a detailed register. On MOTION by Mr. Goldstein seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the April Check Register was approved as presented. iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through March 31, 2024, which was included in the agenda package. It was for informational purposes and no Board action was required. Mr. Dryburgh voiced concern about the CDD being a target for fraud, as there was money sitting in various banks and someone who was sophisticated enough, would figure out how to access those funds. Ms. Adams explained that CDDs were required to deposit funds with a public depository that had statutory protections, which was different than FDIC insurance. The vulnerability for fraud was with check theft and additional safeguards were put into place for positive pay fraud protection services, so that checks presented had an additional approval step. In addition, GMS accounting and the accounts payable team, made some changes to the way that checks were mailed to vendors, so they were not subject to mail theft. Mr. Dryburgh was concerned about people accessing accounts electronically and asked if the institutions that held the funds, were insured, should theft occur. Ms. Adams confirmed that public depository accounts had additional safeguards as required by Florida Statutes for Florida governments, a stronger guarantee than FDIC. Ms. Trucco stated there were protections and would research this matter further and bring it back to the Board. iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan Ms. Adams presented the R&M Plan, which was included in the agenda package and were for informational purposes. It was a Project List, that was approved by the Board in conjunction with the current budget. The Field Manager provided an update regarding the fitness equipment and all of the other items were either marked in process or completed. Mr. Greenstein asked if it would be updated with the Fiscal Year 2025 budget. Ms. Adams explained that when the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2025 was reviewed, it would include spending projections for the R&M Fund. v. Presentation of Number of Registered Voters: 709 Ms. Adams stated that the District was required to present each year on the record, the number of registered voters. A letter was provided by the Osceola County Supervisor of Elections, confirming as of April 15, 2024, the Reunion East CDD had 709 registered voters. No Board action was required. Mr. Dryburgh asked if it was fairly consistent with last year's number. Ms. Adams confirmed that last year, there were 718 registered voters, for a loss of nine voters. Mr. Greenstein recalled on the west side they lost 12 voters. V. Security Report Mr. Vargas provided the April Security Reports from Reunion Security, representing all areas of the Master Association regarding security matters. A report was also provided from the Reunion West POA for the Encore neighborhood. Mr. Goldstein spoke with Mr. Vargas about the guards at all of the different gates, as his concern was that the guards were not acknowledging residents and guests, opening the gate, not looking up from their computer screens or requesting ID. The CDD was paying for the guards to greet people, open and close the gates and check IDs. Disney guards would never be sitting down at a guard gate. They were always standing and greeting people. However, there was one guard, when Mr. Goldstein entered the community on a Saturday night, that stood up and greeted him and requested that this guard train the other guards. They should either be paying for security and getting security at those gates or leave the gates open. Ms. Wispelwey agreed, as many times she did not see a guard at the Sinclair Gate, when driving through the gate at 7:40 a.m. Mr. Vargas felt that he had a great team and as soon as he was notified that a guard was not doing their job, they were put on notice. Mr. Goldstein pointed out this morning, when he drove through the gate, the guard never stood up. Mr. Vargas stated it should be reported to him. Mr. Goldstein felt that he should not have to do that. Mr. Dryburgh walked to the guardhouse two or three times a week for exercise and at least two-thirds of the time, the guard was on their phone and when someone showed up, they opened the gate. Mr. Vargas pointed out that most of the vehicles had decals that opened the gate. Mr. Goldstein noted that the gates on Spine Road were wide open, the other day. Mr. Vargas advised that there were gate issues in the last couple of weeks, due to an upgrade to the system; however, anytime there was an issue, he handled it. Mr. Goldstein estimated that 50% of the time that he comes through the gates, the guards were not doing their jobs. Mr. Vargas requested that any issues be reported to him and not the guards. Mr. Dryburgh questioned what the computer on their desk was used for. Mr. Vargas stated it was used to process vehicles. Mr. Dryburgh asked if they had access to the internet. Mr. Vargas confirmed that there was no access to the internet. Mr. Dryburgh noted that was a good decision; however, the building that was hit by a truck unloading equipment for an event, needed to be repaired. Mr. Vargas was contacting the owner of the truck to get them to pay for the repairs. Mr. Scheerer explained that it would go through the insurance of the truck driver. Anytime that they had an accident, security was diligent in providing an accurate report with Driver’s License numbers and insurance cards and their vendor was immediately contacted in order to make repairs. When it was repaired, the invoice was sent to their insurance company. Mr. Scheerer felt that Mr. Vargas’ team did a great job on their incident reports and never had a problem recovering money for repairs. The clearance bar sign was immediately repaired. It was 10 feet high, but the clearance bar was at 9 feet for a reason. Mr. Goldstein agreed that Mr. Vargas’ team did a great job with the resort, overall and his only issue was with the guards at the entrance gates. 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 – June 13, 2024 Ms. Adams announced that the next meeting was scheduled for June 13, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. and questioned whether there would be a quorum, as the Proposed Budget would be presented. The Board confirmed that there would be a quorum. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Ms. Wispelwey seconded by Mr. Goldstein with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman 8390 Championsgate Blvd. Ste 304 Championsgate, Florida 33896 March 12, 2024 Ms Edie Waddell Landmark Custom Homes RE: Preliminary Architectural Review Application Homestead Lot 303/304 – 7450 Gathering Ct. ARCHITECTURAL: Preliminary approved with Conditions PARKING - Approved Dear Edie Please be advised that the Architectural Review Committee for the Reunion Resort and Club of Orlando Master Association has reviewed and preliminarily approved the architectural elements as submitted. Construction of the above improvement may not commence until the following is submitted: SUBMIT FOR FINAL APPROVAL: • Please submit your fee of $1750 payable to Reunion Featured builders. • Please submit the signed and executed forms: Residential Purchase Contract; Royalty Fee Agreement; Golf course/Swimming Pool Acknowledgement; Pest Control: Final survey Requirements and Landscape/Irrigation Approval Process form • Please submit copy of construction contract • Please submit dumpster company and phone number • Please submit pool plan, when applicable. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at Davidb@aegiscms.com or Nancy Derrick at nancyderrick57@yahoo.com or call 407-925-4123. Sincerely, Reunion Resort and Club of Orlando Master Association David L. Burman, AMS® PCAM® Community Association Manager • Crystal Bowen5/3/2024, 12:46:43 PM Changed issue to NOT ACCEPTED status. In regards to CDP01-0003, Lot 304 is an alley lot, not a golf lot. While reviewing the site plan, the side entry garage onto Radiant Street does not appear to meet the intent of the Reunion PD. The alley lots are intended to have rear loaded garages. The adjacent property in which the driveway encroaches (along Radiant St) is platted as Tract 2 and owned by Reunion East CDD. Before this permit can be reviewed further we will need a letter from the Reunion CDD and/or HOA approving the layout of the home, access and encroachment of Tract 2 being different than the approved typical alley layout per Micro CDP01-0003 and Macro CDP00-0103. Please also show the distance to the property line on both sides of the garage. Comments from Osceola County Permit For lot 303-304 7450 Gathering Drive RESOLUTION 2024-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPROVING ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH ALL COUNTY PAVING, INC. TO PROVIDE PAVING AND RELATED SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTING ADMINSITRATIVE ACTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Reunion East Community Development District ("District") is a local unit of special purpose government created and existing pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and located in Osceola County, Florida; WHEREAS, Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, authorizes the District to adopt rules and procedures to govern the administration of the District and to adopt resolutions as may be necessary for the conduct of District business; WHEREAS, Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and the District’s previously adopted Rules of Procedure (collectively referred to herein as the “Rules”) require the District to follow a procedure, which includes satisfying an advertising requirement, in order to procure contracts for certain services; WHEREAS, the District is seeking paving services for a number of roadways within the District’s boundaries (“Paving Services”); WHEREAS, after completing the requirements set forth in the Rules to procure bids from companies to complete the Paving Services, the District received zero responsive bids; WHEREAS, the Rules permit the District to take whatever steps are reasonably necessary in order to proceed with the procurement of a contract for services in the event the District receives no responsive bids after completing the procurement requirements set forth in the Rules; WHEREAS, the District’s Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) deems it to be in the best interests of the District to approve the District entering into a contract with All County Paving, Inc. to complete the Pavement Services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: SECTION 1. The Board acknowledges that the District received no responsive bids after completing the procurement process set forth in the Rules for obtaining bids for a contract for the Pavement Services. The Board deems it to be in the best interests of the District to approve the District entering into a contract with All County Paving, Inc. to complete the Pavement Services. SECTION 2. The Board authorizes the District’s Staff to take the measures necessary to effectuate the contract with All County Paving, Inc. for completion of the Pavement Services, and authorizes the Board’s Chairman or Vice Chairman to execute such contract. SECTION 3. In the event any section or part of this Resolution is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the validity, force and effect of any other section or part of this Resolution shall not thereby Resolution 2024-05 Approving Pavement Services Contractor Reunion East Community Development District be affected or impaired unless it clearly appears that such other section or part of this Resolution is wholly or necessarily dependent upon the section or part so held to be invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon its passage and shall remain in effect unless rescinded or repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2024. ATTEST: REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Print Name: Tricia Adams Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman RESOLUTION 2024-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET(S) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW; ADDRESSING TRANSMITTAL, POSTING AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS; ADDRESSING SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the District Manager has heretofore prepared and submitted to the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) of the Reunion East Community Development District (“District”) prior to June 15, 2024, proposed budget(s) (“Proposed Budget”) for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, and ending September 30, 2025 (“Fiscal Year 2024/2025”); and WHEREAS, the Board has considered the Proposed Budget and desires to set the required public hearing thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: 1. PROPOSED BUDGET APPROVED. The Proposed Budget prepared by the District Manager for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved as the basis for conducting a public hearing to adopt said Proposed Budget. 2. SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING. A public hearing on said approved Proposed Budget is hereby declared and set for the following date, hour and location: DATE: August 15, 2024 HOUR: 2:00 p.m. LOCATION: Heritage Crossing Community Center 7715 Heritage Crossing Way Reunion, FL 34747 3. TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED BUDGET TO LOCAL GENERAL PURPOSE GOVERNMENT(S). The District Manager is hereby directed to submit a copy of the Proposed Budget to the local general-purpose governments at least 60 days prior to the hearing set above. 4. POSTING OF PROPOSED BUDGET. In accordance with Section 189.016, Florida Statutes, the District’s Secretary is further directed to post the approved Proposed Budget on the District’s website at least two days before the budget hearing date as set forth in Section 2 and shall remain on the website for at least 45 days. 5. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE. Notice of this public hearing shall be published in the manner prescribed in Florida law. 6. SEVERABILITY. The invalidity or unenforceability of any one or more provisions of this Resolution shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Resolution, or any part thereof. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2024. ATTEST: REUNION EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT _____________________________ Secretary / Assistant Secretary Chair/Vice Chair, Board of Supervisors Exhibit A: Proposed Budget MICHAEL J. BEAUDINE JAN ALBANESE CARPENTER DANIEL H. COULTOFF SARAH M. DINON JENNIFER S. EDEN DOROTHY F. GREEN BRUCE D. KNAPP PETER G. LATHAM 201 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1400 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 POST OFFICE BOX 3353 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802 TELEPHONE: (407) 481-5800 FACSIMILE: (407) 481-5801 WWW.LATHAMLUNA.COM JAY E. LAZAROVICH MARC L. LEVINE JUSTIN M. LUNA LORI T. MILVAIN BENJAMIN R. TAYLOR CHRISTINA Y. TAYLOR KRISTEN E. TRUCCO DANIEL A. VELASQUEZ To: CDD Board of Supervisors From: District Counsel (Jan Albanese Carpenter, Esq., Jay E. Lazarovich, Esq. and Kristen E. Trucco, Esq.) Re: Recently Enacted Legislation (2024) Date: May 31, 2024 We are providing you with information about new legislation which affects special districts in the State of Florida. House Bill (“HB”) 7013 was recently signed into law and will go into effect July 1, 2024. HB 7013 creates a requirement for special districts, including community development districts (“CDDs”), to prepare and publish a report of goals/objectives, performance measurement standards for such goals/objectives and the results of such goals/objectives. Specifically, by October 1, 2024, or by the end of the first full fiscal year after the establishment of a special district, whichever is later, “each special district must establish goals and objectives for each program and activity undertaken by the district, as well as performance measures and standards to determine if the district’s goals and objectives are being achieved.” By December 1 of each year thereafter (beginning December 1, 2025), an annual report must be prepared and published on the district’s website describing the goals and objectives achieved or failed to be achieved, as well as the performance measures and standards used by the district to make that determination. District Managers should prepare draft goals/objectives and performance measures and standards for review and adoption by CDD boards at or before the CDD’s September board meeting. Boards may ultimately decide to tailor those goals and objectives, as well as the measurement standards for each goal, to their specific CDD. HB 7013 also repealed Section 190.047, Florida Statutes, which, among other things, required CDDs to hold a referendum at a general election on the question of whether to incorporate after certain requirements were met by the CDD. Effective July 1, 2024, CDDs will no longer be required to conduct such a referendum. HB 7013 added a number of other provisions that are applicable to special districts. However, CDDs were specifically excluded from those provisions in the text of the new legislation. More detail on the new provisions that do not apply to CDDs is available upon request. Please feel free to contact the District Manager or our office should you have any questions on this new legislation or any other CDD requirements. Thank you. Reunion East Action Items Meeting Assigned Action Item Assigned To Status Comments 2/13/20 Access to Reunion Village/Davenport Creek Bridge Boyd/Scheerer In Process Meyer construction portion of project completed July 2023. ACT/Guardian agreement executed. Project is still in permitting with Osceola County as of 06.05.2024. Pavement Management & Traffic Calming Boyd In Process Traffic calming locations to be presented to BOS 06.13.2024. 1/9/23 Seven Eagles Fountain Replacement Scheerer In Process BOS approved proposal March 2024 for fountain refurbishment at fountain #1. UCC Agreement executed and work is pending scheduling. Garden redesign for fountain #2 approved. Agreement cancelled by KORR. 5/22/23 RFID & Transponder at Reunion Village Gate Scheerer In Process Approved 07.13.2023; RFID/prox card reader installed - transponder reader installed - dataline needs troubleshooting but pending legal work to verify ownership of guard house. 6/8/23 Determine Best Use of The Stables Parcel In Process Consultative appraisal in process. 8/10/23 Seven Eagles Fitness Center Mats Scheerer In Process Flooring proposal not yet received. 9/14/23 Bid Amenity Janitorial Scheerer In Process Proposals to be reviewed at future meeting. 10/12/23 Confirm Intersection Design and Timing for OLWR & Spine Rd Intersection Improvement with OC Curley In Process 10/12/23 KORR petition to consider property conveyance from RE to KORR Trucco, Boyd In Process Developer funding agreement in place, request under review. 12/14/23 Vertical Bridge for Access Easement to FDOT Parcel for Cell Tower Trucco, Boyd In Process Developer funding agreement approved. Offer reviewed 04.11.2024. 3/14/24 Amended and Restated Reunion East Parking Rules In Process Parking Rules Amended 03.14.2024. Finalized Rules with Updated Maps to be Posted. Amended Towing Agreement executed 04.24.2024 and Security Agreement pending execution. No Parking Signs required. 12/14/23 Review Property Ownership in Accordance with Development Plan Trucco In Process 2/8/24 Inventory of residential lots where sidewalk installation is pending Scheerer In Process Provided for Board review 04.11.2024. Meeting Assigned Action Item Assigned To Status Comments 1/13/22 Monitor Residential/ Industrial/Commercial Development Nearby Reunion https://permits.osceola.org/CitizenA ccess/Default.aspx Parcel Numbers: 282527000000600000 51.02 acres 332527000000500000 52.55 acres 3325273160000A0090 19.04 acres 12/9/21 Monitor Sinclair Road Extension Project www.Osceola.org/go/sinclair road Reunion West Action Items Monitor Old Lake Wilson Road Improvement Project www.improveoldlakewilsonroad.co m Pavement Management & Traffic Calming Boyd In Process Agreement to be presented to BOS 05.02.2024 8/10/23 Traffic Enforcement Agreement with OC (RE and RW) Trucco In Process 8/10/23 Update Security Service Provider Agreements (RE and RW) Trucco In Process Pending execution. 8/10/23 Whitemarsh Mound Scheerer Completed Site work completed sod pending 05.03.2024; determine feasibility of improvements. 10/12/23 Parking Rules Amended December 2023 Adams/Trucco/ Scheerer In Process Rule Hearing held 12.14.2023. Amended Rules finalized and published. Towing Service Agreement Amendment executed. Security Agreements amendment completed but needs execution. Parking Signs need to be installed. 12/14/23 Review Property Ownership in Accordance with Development Plan Trucco In Process 12/14/23 Review CDD Property to Determine if a New CDD Amenity can be Constructed in RWCDD Encore Neighborhood Scheerer In Process RWPOA Association Manager prefer a playground on RWPOA parcel at Fairfax and Southfield. Budgeted in R & M for FY2025. 2/8/24 Inventory of residential lots where sidewalk installation is pending Scheerer In Process Provided for Board review at April meeting.