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, August 15, 2024 at 2:00 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 

 Trudy Hobbs Vice Chair 

 John Dryburgh Assistant Secretary 

 June Wispelwey Assistant Secretary 

 Diane Davis Assistant Secretary 

 

 

 Also present were: 

 

 

 Tricia Adams District Manager 

 Kristen Trucco District Counsel 

 James Curley District Engineer 

 Alan Scheerer Field Manager 

 Pete Whitman Yellowstone Landscape 

 Zory Ramos Reunion Security 

 Residents 

 

 The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the August 15, 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 2:03 p.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors 
were present. 

 

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment Period 

Ms. Adams opened the public comment period. Resident Steve Goldstein of 1532 Euston 
Drive requested speed tables on Euston Drive, as people were cutting through to go out the back 


gate, versus going around the circle on Excitement Drive. In 30 minutes, there were 45 cars, cutting 
through in the middle of the day, driving 40 miles-per-hour (MPH), which Mr. Scheerer witnessed. 
Resident Jill Mulhere of 1211 Radiant Street agreed and requested speed tables on Radiant Street. 
There being no further comments, Ms. Adams closed the public comment period. 

 

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the July 11, 
2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting 

 Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the July 11, 2024 Board of Supervisors meeting, a 
draft of which were included in the agenda package. Minor corrections were received from Ms. 
Wispelwey and Mr. Greenstein prior to the meeting, which would be incorporated. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in 
favor the Minutes of the July 11, 2024 Board of Supervisors 
Meetings were approved as amended. 

 

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in 
favor the public hearing on the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2025 
budget and imposition of special assessments was opened. 

 

 There were no public comments. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all 
in favor the public hearing on the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2025 
budget and imposition of special assessments was closed. 

 

A. Consideration of Resolution 2024-08 Adopting the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget 
and Relating to the Annual Appropriations 


Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2024-08, Adopting the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget, 
starting October 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025. The Board was required by Statute, to 
approve a Proposed Budget by June 15th of each calendar year and set a public hearing 60 days 
from the date that the Proposed Budget was approved. As memorialized in the resolution, the 
Proposed Budget was provided to the local government, posted on the District’s website, in 


advance of today’s public hearing and the public hearing had been set and noticed in accordance 
with Florida Statutes. The resolution also identified appropriations for the General and Debt 
Service Funds and provided a provision in case the budget needed to be amended for FY 2025. 
Attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A, was the Proposed Budget for 2025. There was a 
substantive change to the budget related to the operation of the Heritage Crossings Community 
Center (HCCC), as the Board recently received a termination letter from Kingwood Orlando 
Reunion Resort (KORR), terminating the Management Services Agreement (MSA) for the HCCC 
and The Stables by October 1st. As a result, the CDD would be directly managing the HCCC and 
The Stables, which impacted the budget. Ms. Adams highlighted the following regarding the FY 
2025 budget: 

. The budget was updated with financials, as of the end of June 30th. 
. All property was platted and were now be billed on the Osceola County property 
Tax Bill. 
. There was no proposed assessment increase, due to Revenues of $3,118,035, 
Interest of $24,000, Rental Income of $6,000 and Carry Forward Surplus of 
$1,079,183, due to the Board controlling expenses and spending under budget. 
. For Administrative Expenditures, the amount proposed for FY 2025 was $219,912. 


Mr. Dryburgh questioned whether Attorney should be increased, due to the increase in 
activity for this year and next year. Ms. Trucco felt that $60,000 was sufficient through this fiscal 
year. Ms. Adams pointed out that the Transfer Out – R&M Fund could be reduced to increase 
Attorney, in order to balance the budget without increasing assessments. Discussion ensued and 
there was Board consensus to increase Attorney’s Fees to $75,000. 

. The shared costs between the two Districts, increased slightly for Reunion East, 
because of additional units that were platted. For FY 2025, the Reunion East CDD 
was responsible for 57% and the Reunion West CDD was responsible for 43% of 
the shared costs. The increases in proposed costs were due to increases in utility 
services and as a result of feedback from the Board and the CDD taking over the 
operations of HCCC. 
. The Board approved $9,100 for Management Services Agreement, but the CDD 
would no longer be paying this amount and it was zeroed out. A new section was 
added to the budget for the HCCC, based on historical information, from the CDD 



operating the HCCC in the past and KORR providing 12 months of recent utility 
bills for electric, water and sewer, gas, trash services, cleaning, pest control, 
operating supplies and Repairs & Maintenance (R&M). A proposal was provided 
by Yellowstone for landscape maintenance at HCCC and The Stables. The total 
amount of this line item was $100,403. 


Ms. Wispelwey questioned what trash services would be provided. Ms. Adams stated that 
there was a dumpster, which the District was not required to have. There was a working list of 
transition items that she and Mr. Scheerer were working through and this item would be included, 
for the Board to discuss whether or not to continue trash services. Mr. Dryburgh felt that the Board 
should look at whether a dumpster was needed at HCCC and The Stables. Ms. Adams pointed out 
that the CDD did not pay for The Stables dumpster, but there was a License Agreement with the 
Master Association, which the Board could revoke. Ms. Wispelwey suggested asking Heritage 
Crossing HOA if they were interested in the dumpster. Ms. Adams would contact them and if they 
were interested, there could be a License Agreement. 

. According to the Gross Per Unit Assessment Chart, the District had revenues from 
having commercial, hotel/condo, multi-family, single-family and golf units 
assessments. There was no proposed change in the gross amount per unit for FY 
2025, but the number of units increased. 
. For the R&M Fund, rather than having categories of projects, there were separate 
R&M Project Lists. The Board reviewed the proposed FY 25 Project List and 
provided feedback at the July meeting. 
. The remainder of the budget was the Debt Service Fund, listing the bonds that were 
issued, which were Series 2015A and 2021. It included interest and principal 
payments that were due in November and May, based on Amortization Schedules. 
The amounts were imposed at the time that the bonds were issued and the Board 
did not have the ability to change the debt assessment level, but authorized 
collection. 


Mr. Greenstein appreciated Ms. Adams explaining the budget in detail, noting that the 
District had strong reserves, which allowed the District to undertake large upcoming projects, such 
as the roadway paving. Ms. Adams pointed out that the Board did an excellent job of controlling 
expenses. 


 

On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in 
favor Resolution 2024-08 Adopting the Proposed Fiscal Year 2025 
Budget as amended, increasing Attorney’s Fees to $75,000 and 
reducing the Transfer Out in the R&M Fund to balance the budget 
and Relating to the Annual Appropriations was adopted. 

 

B. Consideration of Resolution 2024-09 Imposing Special Assessments and 
Certifying an Assessment Roll 


Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2024-09, authorizing the collection of O&M and debt 
service fees on the Tax Roll, which was the funding mechanism for the budget. Attached to the 
resolution as exhibits, was the Proposed Budget and Tax Roll. The Tax Roll identified every parcel 
within the Reunion East CDD and the amounts for O&M and debt service fees, in the non-ad-
valorem section. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out that many residents informed him in the last 30 to 60 
days, how excited they were that the bonds would be paid off in the future and they would privatize 
the roads. However, the CDD could never privatize the roads and the CDD would continue to be 
responsible for maintenance and must have a fund set aside for maintenance. Ms. Adams 
confirmed that the roads were owned by the Reunion East CDD and they were required to have 
public roadways. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Wispelwey with 
all in favor Resolution 2023-09 Imposing Special Assessments and 
Certifying an Assessment Roll was adopted. 

 

FIFTH 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. Adams reported that the Board had this item on several agenda, but had not yet adopted 
the resolution, which authorized District Counsel to prepare the form of agreement with All County 
Paving Inc. (All County). Attached to the resolution, was the Road Resurfacing Project Bid Form, 
which included the detailed scope. At last month’s meeting, the Chairman recommended having a 
field evaluation of the proposed speed table locations and as a result, the Board directed the District 
Engineer and Field Manager to mark these locations, so that Board Members could review them 
and provide feedback to the District Engineer. Mr. Curley noted that changes were made. Mr. 


Scheerer indicated that the larger change was in areas where there were drain inlets, so the speed 
tables were moved in one direction or another. There was also a request for additional speed tables. 
Ms. Hobbs preferred to have radar signs on the roads where speed tables were requested, to get a 
better understanding if there was an issue. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that radar signs were on 
Reunion Boulevard, Excitement Drive by The Terraces, but not on interior roads like Radiant 
Street and Euston Drive. However, funding was allocated in the FY 2025 budget for new radar 
signs, and the radar display signs could be relocated at the direction of the Board. 

Ms. Davis felt that the speed table placement looked good, especially the water park, but 
there needed to be re-stripping and felt that three speed tables on Grand Traverse Parkway, was 
overkill. She was more concerned about Excitement Drive by the straightaway, due to the amount 
of speeding and drivers cutting the curve and going onto oncoming traffic, before Corolla Court. 
Ms. Wispelwey preferred moving the speed table down further or having a second one between 
Corolla Court and Old Lake Wilson Road, which was what they discussed at the last meeting. Ms. 
Hobbs liked the speed table by the golf cart crossing. Mr. Dryburgh asked if there was a radar sign 
gathering information on vehicle speeds. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that there was a radar sign 
coming from Old Lake Wilson Road. However, the last time there was an evaluation, there was 
not a speeding issue, with the exception of Tradition Boulevard in Reunion West. He offered to 
pull the data for the radar sign on Excitement Drive by The Terraces and asked if the Board wanted 
him to relocate the second radar sign to Radiant Street. Mr. Dryburgh recommended obtaining the 
data now and then coming back to the Board with the information. 

Ms. Adams recalled that the initial plan was to look at the segments of roadway that were 
only scheduled for milling and resurfacing and determine whether speed humps should be installed 
at that time. However, based on direction from the Board, other areas were identified as priorities 
for traffic calming, which were the proposed locations on the map. The Board had the option of 
focusing on the areas that were being milled and resurfaced and waiting five years for the next 
milling and resurfacing, to address those other areas for traffic calming. But if it was a priority, the 
Board could direct speed tables to be installed at the same time as the other roadwork. Ms. 
Wispelwey felt that they were ready now. Mr. Greenstein recalled that he requested that the 
locations be marked, because Board Members were having difficulty visualizing the locations and 
believed that installing speed tables independent of a resurfacing should be on the table, because 
the work could be completed by All County while they were onsite and the cost would be less. Ms. 


Adams agreed they would save on mobilization but there is a per unit speed table cost. Mr. 
Dryburgh questioned what would happen if they installed a speed table and then resurfaced the 
road five years later. Mr. Curley would find out. Ms. Davis pointed out that both locations for 
speed tables on Excitement Drive were sinking, due to heavy construction and a tree that was 
impacting the road. Ms. Adams indicated these were all pavement management issues, but at this 
time, staff needed direction from the Board on the resolution, scope and whether staff should 
pursue the agreement. There was Board consensus for Mr. Curley to update the maps, highlighting 
the areas that were scheduled for milling and resurfacing. 

Ms. Adams asked the Board to confirm they wanted additional data on vehicle speeding, 
what areas were scheduled for milling and resurfacing, and what would happen to a speed table 
that was installed when a road was milled and resurfaced five years later? Mr. Dryburgh questioned 
the amount of each speed table. Ms. Adams indicated that each speed table was $9,800, according 
to the bid documents. Ms. Davis questioned why there was a speed table on Reunion Boulevard, 
by the S-curve, as no one was living on either side of the golf course and the preserve. Ms. 
Wispelwey explained that it was there because it was a straightaway. Mr. Greenstein pointed out 
that whatever they did not accomplish in this first go around, they would do the second time 
around. Mr. Dryburgh was in favor of approving the work now, with the understanding that 
additional information would be provided. Ms. Adams requested that the Board adopt the 
resolution with the scope and speed table locations as presented and any changes would be 
considered when there was additional information. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Davis with all in 
favor Resolution 2024-05 Approving Entering into a Contract with 
All County Paving Inc. to Provide Paving and Related Services was 
adopted. 

 

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Sign Installation Request 
from The Crescent at Reunion 

 Ms. Adams reported that a new project was underway at the Reunion East CDD, The 
Crescent at Reunion and the developer submitted a request for directional signage. Feedback was 
provided by the Board, to have white posts with the decorative caps, an arched sign, to be 
consistent with other Reunion signs and have the Reunion palm motif, to create a sense of 
cohesiveness throughout the community. That feedback, as well as the adopted Reunion East CDD 


Sign Policy, was provided to the developer and they submitted a new layout and design, which 
was included in the agenda package, along with the proposed sign locations. Three of the locations 
were in the Reunion East CDD. If the Board approved the installation of these signs, a License 
Agreement would be prepared by District Counsel, whereby the CDD would be providing the land, 
but the vendor would be responsible for installation, maintenance and indemnifying the District 
for any adverse impact. The Reunion West CDD Board wanted this CDD Board to move in tandem 
with the Reunion East CDD and delegated final approval to Mr. Greenstein, knowing that he would 
be at this meeting. Mr. Greenstein confirmed that the Reunion West CDD Board wanted a joint 
decision, noting The Resort signage had a green background with white palms and The Crescent 
had a green palm with a white background. Ms. Adams recalled that both motifs were depicted 
throughout the District. Mr. Greenstein was in favor of The Crescent signage, as it was temporary. 
Mr. Dryburgh questioned the number of lots. Ms. Adams would confirm the number of units and 
provide later in the meeting and requested that any approval be subject to District Counsel 
preparing the form of agreement with all of the protections for the District. Ms. Trucco asked if 
the Board wanted the term in the agreement to be two years or have an effective date after they do 
their walk through. Mr. Dryburgh preferred to have a term. Ms. Trucco would include a two-year 
term, with a 30-day termination provision. 

 

On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in 
favor approving the sign installation request from The Crescent at 
Reunion as stated above was approved. 

 

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adoption of District Goals and Objectives 

Ms. Adams recalled at a prior meeting, District Counsel discussed HB 7013, which was 
passed in the last Legislative session, requiring CDDs to adopt annual goals and objectives by 
October 1st and subsequent reporting requirements in December of 2025, on whether or not the 
District met those goals and objectives. The District management team reviewed the new law and 
all of the requirements and provided recommended goals and objectives, in accordance with the 
new law, which was included in the agenda package. The specifications that the Statutes required 
were: 1) Community Communication and Engagement, 2) Infrastructure and Facilities 
Maintenance and 3) Financial Transparency and Accountability. A Reporting Form for those goals 
and objectives was also provided, and the District management team suggested goals such as 


public meetings compliance under Community Communication and Engagement, for at least three 
regular Board of Supervisor meetings per year. Since this was a new Law that the CDD was 
required to comply with, the District management team recognized that Districts would not want 
to create additional expenses, at this time and made the goals and objectives as generic as possible. 
However, if the Board wanted to come up with other goals, she recommended doing so in FY 
2026. Mr. Greenstein recalled that the Reunion West CDD Board made some changes. Ms. Adams 
indicated instead of holding three regular Board meetings per year, the Reunion West CDD Board 
changed it to six meetings per year. There was Board consensus to hold six meetings per year. Ms. 
Adams pointed out the other change was related to the Annual Financial Audit per statutory 
requirements, under Goal 3.3, to stated that the audit would be in compliance and there were no 
findings. Ms. Wispelwey was concerned about that change. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that the 
purpose was to have a realistic goal that had flexibility and not to get a perfect score. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Davis with all in 
favor the District’s goals and objectives were approved as amended, 
to hold six Board meetings per year. 

 

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Ratification of Agreement with Life 
Fitness, LLC for Exercise Equipment 

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Ratification of Agreement with Advantage 
Roofing, Inc. for Seven Eagles Railing 

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Ratification of Agreement with Access 
Control Systems, LLC. for Cloud Services 

Ms. Adams presented agreements from Life Fitness, LLC for exercise equipment, from 
Advantage Roofing for the Seven Eagles railing and from Access Control Systems, LLC. for cloud 
services, which were included in the agenda package. The proposals for Life Fitness and 
Advantage Roofing were already approved by the Board, but a form of agreement was not 
presented at the time that the proposal was approved. The agreement for Access Control Systems 
was entered into, because the District was required to upgrade the system. Mr. Scheerer explained 
that several months ago, there was a software change to upgrade from an RS to PDK system, which 
required a cloud-based hosting system. With this type of system, Mr. Vargas’ team could remove 
and upload information to each gate. For six locations, the monthly cost was $72, which would be 
allocated in next year’s budget. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out that the gate was still not operating 


correctly. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that all of the gates were working as planned, but during the 
migration of the information, some information had not been transferred, resulting in a transponder 
not working at one gate, but working at other gates. Emails were sent to homeowners, informing 
them to contact security if they had an issue with their transponders. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out 
that his transponder did not work today. Ms. Adams believed that there may have been an overall 
system issue and was informed by Mr. Greenstein, about a typo on the Guardian Access Solutions 
proposal, which stated, “Cloud fees for five (6) access points.” Ms. Trucco noted a typo in the 
agreement, which she would correct. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all 
in favor the Agreements with Life Fitness, LLC. for exercise 
equipment, with Advantage Roofing, Inc. for the Seven Eagles 
railing and with Access Control Systems, LLC. for cloud services 
were ratified. 

 

ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports 

A. Attorney 


Ms. Trucco reported that other than drafting the agreements that the Board just ratified, the 
only other item that they were working on since the last Board meeting, was to track down the plat 
for the Reunion Village guardhouse, in order for GMS to get access control installed. It was taking 
some time to obtain it, as it needed to be conveyed to the CDD according to the county, which 
they were requesting from the Master HOA. They were tracking it and would provide an update 
at the next meeting. 

 

B. Engineer 


Mr. Curley reported that a proposal was received for the Spine Road gate installation and 
was meeting next week with Guardian Access System to review everything that they needed and 
discuss how everything would tie in together. Mr. Greenstein asked if this was the contractor that 
was completing the directional bore. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that one proposal was for a 
directional bore and the second quote would have a different scope. They received the mechanical 
permit but had not heard anything regarding the electrical permit. 

 

C. Field Manager Updates 



Mr. Scheerer reported that the bridge collapsed on Old Lake Wilson Road and thanked the 
security team for stepping up, as Florida Highway Patrol had to divert traffic from the Spine Road 
gate. They were directing cars at the intersection of Spine Road and Tradition Boulevard, to go 
out to Sinclair Road, instead of having them come through all of Reunion. The fountain 
refurbishment was proceeding. The contractor was onsite today with the blaster, which had baking 
soda to try to remove any of the grit and grind. They already ran all of the plumbing and were 
waiting for the electrical and plumbing inspections. The pad was poured and the pumps were 
placed on them. Staff would continue to monitor it. After the fountain refurbishment was 
completed, there would be landscaping refurbishments at the Seven Eagles flagpole. Yellowstone 
was looking at some new ideas for interior landscaping, as there were older Boxwoods, Azaleas 
and Roses that were starting to fail. Ms. Wispelwey noted that the new landscaping looked good. 
Mr. Scheerer was working with Ms. Adams on the janitorial bids. A quote was received from 
Gallagher Construction for the sidewalk project, which was more than anticipated and was a per 
square foot price, not linear foot price and it was not broken out between the two CDDs. Staff 
estimated $354,000 for both Reunion East and West for just the priority sidewalks and Gallagher 
proposed $396,000. However, it included grading and sodding. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that staff 
estimated $21 per linear foot and Gallagher estimated $22 per square foot. 

Ms. Wispelwey questioned the value of The Stables. Ms. Adams reported that the appraiser 
reported he was almost ready to circulate a draft. Mr. Greenstein recalled replacing the flooring in 
the Fitness Center at the same time that the equipment would be replaced, so that they could 
reconfigure the room and questioned what type of flooring was being installed. Mr. Scheerer 
indicated it would be rubber felt, which were in most commercial Fitness Centers. Mr. Greenstein 
questioned what was dented. Mr. Scheerer explained that the vinyl flooring was dented from 
people dropping 50-pound dumbbells onto it. Only one area was being saw cut out, which was in 
front of the mirror in the dumbbell section. The price was reasonable from a company that installed 
flooring in another CDD in Orlando and did a good job. The material was ordered and would be 
stored when it was delivered. When the fitness equipment was removed, the Gym would be closed 
for at least 48 hours, in order to remove the existing flooring, glue it, and allow the glue to set. 
Then everything would be replaced and rearranged accordingly. Mr. Greenstein recalled that the 
last time the facility was closed, it was for 72 hours. Mr. Scheerer reported that the equipment was 
ordered and was 8 to 12 weeks out and the installation would be coordinated within a time frame 


where there not many people visiting. Ms. Hobbs requested that the HOA send out a notice and 
post a notice on the Gym. Mr. Scheerer indicated as soon as they had the exact date, signage would 
be posted at the entry gate to the pool and on the Gym door. Ms. Davis suggested posting a notice 
in Out & About, which was sent to all members. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that every property 
owner should have an email filed with Artemis, as they had the highest level of communication. 

Mr. Dryburgh questioned why there were some unassigned action items, such as the Old 
Lake Wilson Road Improvement Project. Ms. Adams explained that the links were provided for 
monitoring purposes, as the Action Items List was available to the public. Ms. Adams pointed out 
that Osceola County updated their website. Ms. Davis questioned whether the Old Lake Wilson 
Trail that goes from Excitement Drive, along the golf course to the green, was golf course property. 
Ms. Wispelwey stated not according to The Resort. Mr. Scheerer asked if it was a golf cart path. 
Ms. Wispelwey confirmed that it was a walking path. Mr. Greenstein noted it needed to be 
repaired, as there was broken concrete, which was deteriorating, due to standing water. The golf 
course made improvements in a number of areas, but not this area, as it was not impacting play. 
Mr. Scheerer confirmed that this path was owned by KORR, the CDD only owned a small portion 
by the exit gate and the golf course owned the sidewalk and the cart path. 

 

D. District Manager’s Report 
i. Action Items List 


Ms. Adams presented the Action Items List, which was included in the agenda package. 
Most of these items were discussed. In response to Mr. Dryburgh’s question about the number of 
units in the Crescent Project, it was reported two years ago, when the project was in the planning 
stages, there were 102 planned units. 

 

ii. Approval of Check Register 


Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from June 1, 2024 through June 30, 2024 in the 
amount of $177,834.16, which was included in the agenda package, along with a detailed register. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all 
in favor the June Check Register was approved as presented. 

 

iii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement 



Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through June 30, 2024, which 
was included in the agenda package. It was for informational purposes and no Board action was 
required. The District was fully collected on their assessments, as of the end of June. However, a 
small amount was pending on the direct billed assessments, which has now been received. On the 
prorated budget compared to the actual spending to date, in instances where they were running 
over budget for administrative expenses, for projects that the Board approved, they were addressed 
for FY 2025. For maintenance shared expenses, there were some overages that have been 
monitored and were being corrected with the FY 2025 budget. 

 

iv. Replacement and Maintenance Plan 


Ms. Adams presented the R&M Plan, which was included in the agenda package and was 
for informational purposes. This was the Project List for FY 2025 and was comprised of items that 
were included in the Reserve Study, based on replacement dates of infrastructure and assets that 
the District owned. It included items previously approved by the Board, but not yet paid for, some 
of which were underway. The Project List for FY 2025 was discussed at last month's meeting and 
based on Board direction, several items were deferred to future fiscal years. The estimate from Mr. 
Scheerer on the sidewalk installations for vacant lots, was received subsequent to the public of the 
budget and once received, this line item would be adjusted. 

 

v. Approval of Fiscal Year 2025 Meeting Dates 


Ms. Adams presented the Fiscal Year 2025 meeting schedule, which was consistent with 
the prior year’s meeting schedule, on the second Thursday of each month at 1:00 p.m. at the HCCC. 

 

On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in 
favor the Fiscal Year 2025 meeting schedule as presented was 
approved. 

 

E. Security Report 


Ms. Adams introduced Ms. Zory Ramos, of Reunion Security, who provided the June 
Security Report. As a courtesy, the Reunion West POA Security Report was also provided. No 
Board action was required and it was for informational purposes. Mr. Greenstein asked if the 
security upgrade was completed and if anyone contacted security. Ms. Ramos confirmed that the 
upgrade was completed and that no one called the office. Mr. Greenstein appreciated Ms. Ramos 


and Mr. Victor Vargas informing the Board when something was occurring and felt that they were 
doing a good job. However, there needed to be better communication with residents, as many 
people were upset when they could not get through the Spine Road gate, but it was temporary and 
more people were upset when their Proximity Cards and RFID transponders did not work and they 
had to wait 15 to 20 seconds for the guard to open the gate. 

 

TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business 

There being no comments, the next item followed. 

 

THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests 

There being no comments, the next item followed. 

 

FOURTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date: September 12, 2024 

The next meeting was scheduled for September 12, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. 

 

FIFTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Wispelwey with 
all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Signature - Tricia Adams
Signature - Mark Greenstein


 

 

 

 

 

 

Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman