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, January 9, 2025 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
Trudy Hobbs	Vice Chairperson
John Dryburgh	Assistant Secretary
June Wispelwey	Assistant Secretary
Diane Davis	Assistant Secretary

Also present were:

Tricia Adams	District Manager
Kristen Trucco	District Counsel
Steve Boyd	District Engineer
James Curley	District Engineer
Alan Scheerer	Field Manager
Victor Vargas	Reunion Security
Garrett Huegel	Yellowstone Landscape
Pete Whitman	Yellowstone Landscape Residents

The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the January 9, 2025 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 1:11 p.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors were present.

Reunion East CDD		January 9, 2025	
Regular Meeting
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS	
Public Comment Period	Page 2 of 16	

Board:

Ms. Adams opened the public comment period. The following residents addressed the

Mr. Edward Lenard of 7697 Heritage Crossing Way, Unit 301, voiced concern about the dumpster at the Heritage Crossing Community Center (HCCC). It was supposed to be open in the morning, but there was a padlock on the outside gate at 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., which prevented Waste Management and anyone else from getting access. He suggested that the padlock be removed and the gates be opened, as trash accumulated and voiced concern about sidewalks that were raised 6 inches, as it caused a safety hazard, especially one tree on the CDD side, that caused the sidewalk to raise, according to an Engineer’s Report.
Mr. Steven Goldstein, a former Board Member, agreed with Mr. Lenard’s comments regarding the dumpsters and asked if the Board was considering removing the dumpsters at The Stables. He suggested that the Board work with the HOA, to put the dumpsters in a location that could be controlled, such as the back parking lot of the hotel, where there was security. In his opinion, allowing residents to bring alcohol on CDD property, was a bad idea.
Mr. Charles Martin, President of the Seven Eagles Condominium Association, thanked Ms. Adams, Mr. Scheerer, Mr. Vargas and the entire Board for their efforts over this past year and was looking forward to the current year. He thanked Mr. Scheerer and Mr. Vargas for responding to his phone calls but questioned who was responsible for the roadway project and whether there could be an email blast on the status of it. There were speed bumps that needed to be addressed and the advanced warning of approaching speed bumps. Residents were dumping their trash outside the Seven Eagles gate, which cost the association money to dispose of.
Mr. Thomas Farber of 862 Assembly Court, noted that Assembly Court, known as, “The Redheaded Stepchild,” had issues with the Envera gate, as emergency vehicles could not get access and requested residents receive an email regarding the progress with the gate situation.
There being no further comments, Ms. Adams closed the public comment period.

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 3 of 16

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS	Approval of the Minutes of the December
12, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the December 12, 2024 meeting, which were included in the agenda package. A spelling correction provided by Ms. Wispelwey and typos that Mr. Greenstein provided would be incorporated.

On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Ms. Davis with all in favor the Minutes of the December 12, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting were approved as amended.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	District Engineer’s Debriefing on Road
Maintenance Project
Mt. Curley provided a debriefing on the pavement management, including the speed bumps. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Scheerer met with All County Paving on Tuesday, to understand the schedule and show them what needed to be addressed. Ms. Wispelwey asked if there was a State requirement for speed bump height, as there were many comments from the public. Mr. Curley indicated that a 12-foot speed bump, must be 3 inches high from the existing asphalt. Ms. Wispelwey questioned which speed bumps met that specification. Mr. Curley understood that the speed bumps on Excitement Drive, were not high enough and would be out there with the contractor on Friday. Ms. Wispelwey asked if 3 inches was good for sports cars, as residents with sports cars, could not get into Reunion. Mr. Curley recalled that they were installed at 4 inches and the plan was to compact them down to 3 inches. Mr. Dryburgh wanted to meet the State requirements. Mr. Greenstein recalled at the Reunion West CDD meeting, earlier today, there was discussion about speed bumps and the conclusion was that there needed to be uniformity and advanced warning signage, 100 feet prior to the speed bump. However, there must be an unobstructed view of the sign. The purpose of the speed bump was to slow down traffic and therefore, the reasonable speed for a car to go across a speed bump, was 5 to 10 miles-per-hour (mph). However, a high clearance off road type vehicle, could take the full 25 mph without the vehicle reacting negatively. There was also discussion about installing reflective road markings on the speed bumps. Mr. Dryburgh asked if it was possible to extend the reflective marking onto the street, as the approaching speed bump should be seen at night or during the day, since drivers would be looking on the street and not on a sign. Mr. Boyd stated that it was possible, but it was

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 4 of 16
not per the standard. Ms. Wispelwey questioned the color of the markings. Mr. Boyd pointed out that reflective white markers would stand out better than yellow markings. Ms. Wispelwey requested that the markings be placed on both sides of the road.
Mr. Greenstein preferred to have a traffic control device, that was uniform, so people had the ability to control and react to it. Regarding the comment during the public comment period, about why they did not have speed bumps on all of the roads, the Board responded to the need to repair the roads where needed; a third of which needed work now, a third would need work in the next five years and the remaining third, five years after that, if ever. The paving job was done well, but there was some tar on the brick crosswalks, which would be removed; however, there were some management of traffic issues, which they would learn from. Mr. Dryburgh questioned the quality of the striping. Mr. Boyd agreed that it was not acceptable and would be repainted. Payment would be withheld until the pavement markings were satisfactory. Ms. Davis recalled requesting that S-Curves on Excitement Drive be marked. Ms. Wispelwey understood that it was part of the project and requested that major roads be marked, if they were having someone correct the lines. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that there was no center line on Excitement Drive, as it was a residential roadway. Mr. Boyd confirmed that individual subdivision streets did not have striping. Ms. Adams pointed out that the District Engineer could review and deem whether an area should have center lines. There was Board consensus for the District Engineer to identify S-Curves that would benefit from center striping and bring back recommended locations to the Board. Ms. Davis reported that contractors were parking on the wrong side of the road, which narrowed the street, especially on Excitement Drive in front of The Grand. Ms. Trucco recalled that it was covered in the current Parking Rules. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out that Security did not enforce it, even though the CDD rules stated that no parking was allowed and there were No Parking signs and felt that this should be revisited by Mr. Vargas’s staff. Mr. Curley reported that All County Paving was onsite today, removing stains. The speed bump would be raised on Friday and there would be repairs. Punchlist items would be completed on Monday. Ms. Adams recalled that the Reunion West CDD requested an additional notification from the CDD to all property owners, regarding workers on the property over the next 10 days, correcting the punch list items. Mr. Dryburgh asked if the HOA had the ability to send two emails per household, as spouses and partners should receive the same information. Mr. Greenstein was informed that the database had room for two email addresses and the issue was implementation, as each property owner would have to go onto the Artemis website

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 5 of 16
and provide the information for their spouse. Ms. Trucco suggested sending an email informing people that they could add an additional person. Ms. Adams would bring this to Association staff’s attention, to keep it separate from CDD communication, so there was no confusion.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Public Hearing for Rule Amendment
Open Public Hearing

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Mr. Dryburgh with all in favor the Public Hearing to Amend the Rules to Consider Rental Fees for Reunion East CDD Amenities was opened.

Public Comment
Ms. Adams recalled that for each public hearing, they are required to have a public comment period, which could occur now or after the Special Events Policy was presented. However, before the Board takes any action, there must be a public comment period. There was discussion with Mr. Greenstein regarding the Special Events Policy, which was included in the agenda package. These policiesare being revisited by the Board as a result of Kingwood Orlando Reunion Resort (KORR) cancelling the Management Service Agreement (MSA) for the HCCC. As a result, some changes needed to be made related to the rental fees as well as food and beverage service at the HCCC. The Board needed to have discussion about the rental fees, because Reunion property owners pay operations and maintenance (O&M) assessments to maintain the facilities. The Board may want to consider a reduced rental fee for property owners within the District, as well as other qualified classifications of users, comparted to what would be charged to the general public. Furthermore, these were special circumstances where somebody applied to rent the facility and wanted alcohol to be served. There was discussion with the Chairman, that instead of closing the public hearing, the Board had the option to continue it to the February meeting and allow additional time to refine the policies. Mr. Greenstein preferred to hear public comment after the Board discussed the Special Events Policy.
Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2025-05 Adopting the Amended Special Events Policy, which was included in the agenda package. The draft of the Special Events Policy, which were originally adopted in 2021 and were subsequently amended in 2023, were attached to the resolution. They were created because Board Members understood that from time-to-time, property owners or members of the public, may want to rent Reunion East CDD amenities for their

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 6 of 16
own private use. There were formatting changes related to punctuation, grammar or definitions. Language was added under, “Requirements for Use of District Property and Application Process.” In addition, there was discussion about 50 or fewer people utilizing the HCCC for a game night or other small activity, not paying a rental fee. Mr. Dryburgh questioned who would verify that the people renting the facility, were attending the event. Ms. Adams indicated that it would be based on the honor system. The applicant would ensure that the event was in accordance with the Special Events Policy, provide their insurance and agree to indemnify the CDD. Mr. Greenstein wanted all property owners in Reunion to utilize it for free, as long as it was a community event and any fees required for security, set up or cleanup, would be evaluated. If a third-party private group wanted to use the facility, they must pay a fee. Mr. Dryburgh voiced concern that the facility was open to anyone, especially non-residents, when attending an event. Ms. Trucco suggested having an attendant that was paid hourly through GMS or hire Reunion Security. Ms. Adams would provide different options for a security fee, either through law enforcement or Reunion Security.
Ms. Davis noticed inconsistencies in the policy and felt that 50 or fewer residents in attendance, paying no rental fee, was too low. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that the idea was for property owners to utilize the HCCC for free, as long as it was for a community event, but were not saying that it should be lower than 50 residents. Ms. Adams suggested that the Board keep in mind, that there direct expenses related to events having a certain number of people, such as a room setup and cleanup fee of $300, which would be charged by the janitorial service. Ms. Trucco recommended tailoring the policy, so the public could have the option to pay a proportionate fee, such as $100, for rental of the gym or pool, as the facilities benefitted the residents. Mr. Greenstein would take this under advisement. Ms. Adams presented a fee schedule, which was included in the policy and recommended only making certain facilities available to rent by members of the public, as in the past, there was discussion on whether the Board wanted to only have residents or non- residents paying the non-user fee, to rent the pool areas. The proposed fee for HCCC, to rent half of the ballroom, was $1,000 for a non-resident and $500 for residents. For rental of the full ballroom, non-residents would pay $1,500 and residents would pay $750. In addition to collecting a rental fee, there would be a damage deposit and fees for security, setup and cleanup. Reunion Security offered to provide security on an hourly basis, with a minimum of four hours. The security, setup, and cleanup fees would be based on the event.

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 7 of 16
Ms. Wispelwey asked if the fees were competitive with other facilities. Ms. Adams provided a comparison of their fees to other facilities. Reunion Grand charged $3,000 to rent Ballroom D and $6,000 for Ballrooms D and E. The Marina Banquet Hall at the City of St. Cloud charged $1,600 and the nearby Delta Hotel by Marriott charged $500 to $6,000, depending on if rooms were blocked and if there was food and beverage service. The Orlando Venetian ballroom had a fixed expense of $1,695, but it did not have the ambiance that the HCCC had. The Anastasia Ballroom in Central Florida charged $1,520, which had ample parking, a nice room to rent and tables and chairs, but did not have the ambiance of Reunion. Ms. Wispelwey proposed that the Board have a vision for the HCCC, but felt that their fees were too high, as any event with 50 or 100 people, must have a caterer and decorations. Ms. Adams agreed that special events were expensive, but the proposed fees for renting the half or full ballroom, were commensurate with other facilities in the area and even those that were not as nice as Reunion. Ms. Wispelwey preferred starting with a lower fee of $100 to $200 and then increasing it and charging a deposit. Mr. Dryburgh clarified that if there was a community event, applicants must pay for security. Ms. Trucco advised that there was no legal requirement to have security, but believed it was in the best interest of the CDD to have it and the Board could decide whether to incur the cost or not. Once there was direction from the Board, it should be reviewed by their insurance carrier to confirm whether the carrier has any recommendations. Mr. Greenstein asked if there were any public comments. The following residents addressed the Board:
Ms. Michele Van Tuyl of 7401 Gathering Court, did not want to pay $500 for an event that some non-residents attended as well as people using the pool facilities, leaving trash and asked whether a short-term renter would have to pay the non- resident user fee. Ms. Adams confirmed that guests were not considered property owners or non-resident users. Ms. Van Tuyl hoped that there was sign-up sheet and that it would be posted at all times, so residents would know when the facility was available and suggested that staff contact The Villages, to see how they handle their events. Mr. Greenstein recalled that under the MSA, renters received an access pass to all CDD facilities, but since the MSA was no longer in affect, this was something that the Board needed to consider.
Mr. Graham Staley, of 1113 Grand Traverse Parkway and Chairman of the Reunion West CDD, agreed with Ms. Wispelwey’s suggestion of having a vision, as it was

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 8 of 16
never discussed and suggested scheduling a workshop to discuss it, as the CDD did not have the competency to run this facility and should sell it. Ms. Davis recalled suggesting at the last meeting that the Board needed to look at the mission of the HCCC. Mr. Dryburgh proposed having a joint meeting with the Reunion West CDD to discuss all of the facilities that the CDDs were paying for and if there was agreement to continue to maintain it. Mr. Greenstein agreed with everything being said, but the CDD inherited the HCCC. It was built by the developer with public tax-exempt funds. However, the community was lacking in social activities, due to changes in direction by the resort and the HCCC was a practical place for the Board to meet and to bring in revenue and reduce expenses. Ms. Adams recalled that the CDD was focused on the infrastructure and not creating activities, lifestyles and special events. Planning special events would be a change in direction compared to the past. Irrespective of the vision, rental fees needed to be set, due to the change in the MSA, as there were persistent inquiries for renting the facility.
Mr. Steven Goldstein, a Resident and former Board Member, 100% agreed with Mr. Staley, as the Board had no idea how to run a facility like this and not spend an hour trying to set rates, when they did not even know how to utilize the facility. It would not be free for a resident to rent the facility, as it would cost $800 for the setup and tear down fees. Mr. Greenstein indicated that there would be administrative fees, but it would not amount to $800 and all that the Board was trying to do, was to establish a policy to allow the CDD to administer a program. It was a lovely space that had utilities, unlike The Stables, which was uninhabitable and not air conditioned. No decision was being made today, but if it was used by residents, there should not be any additional fees.
Mr. Charles Martin of Seven Eagles asked if the MSA was terminated and if residents had the right to rent the Seven Eagles Pool Pavilion. Ms. Adams confirmed that the MSA was terminated and members of the public were entitled to rent the Seven Eagles Pool Pavilion, if it was for a private event through the application process. Mr. Martin noted that the Seven Eagles Pool Pavilion was used more frequently than Linear Park and generating revenue, but every time it was rented, residents could not use the pool. By reviewing the revenue being generated, they

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 9 of 16
would have a good idea of what to do with these facilities. Ms. Adams pointed out that the CDD was a government. All of the CDD amenities had an expense to operate which were paid for by generating revenue from assessments. Rental income did not fully offset the expense of the amenity. The amenities were operated for the benefit of patrons of the CDD.
Mr. Edward Lenard of 7697 Heritage Crossing Way, Unit 301, felt that it was a good idea to create revenue, but a dumpster would be necessary.
There were no other public comments and Ms. Adams reported that she met with District Counsel earlier this week, to review the Alcohol Amenity Policies at other Districts that had amenity facilities. The Board needed to consider whether alcoholic beverages could be sold or dispensed by an authorized contractor at Seven Eagles, if someone who rented the HCCC, could hire a caterer with a liquor license to provide liquor at an event or if resident could bring own bottle (BYOB). Ms. Trucco pointed out that the majority of the CDDs that she worked with, did not have a BYOB policy and did not recommend one but to incorporate the insurance carrier’s recommendations if the Board decided to move forward with a BYOB policy. Ms. Adams confirmed that staff did not recommend having a BYOB policy. Mr. Dryburgh did not know of any reason to have a BYOB policy. There was Board consensus not to have one.

On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor continuing the Public Hearing to Amend the Rules to Consider Rental Fees for Reunion East CDD Amenities to the February 13, 2025 meeting was approved.

Consideration of Resolution 2025-05 Adopting the Amended Special Events Policy
Close Public Hearing
These items were discussed.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Consideration of Revised Amenity Use
Policy
Ms. Adams reported that as a result of the cancellation of the MSA, there were administrative changes to the Amenity Use Policy, that governed the use of CDD amenities for Reunion East and Reunion West, which was included in the agenda package. The only changes

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 10 of 16
were the removal of Reunion Resort as the Amenity Manager and the fee information for renting the HCCC, since all of the fees would be included into one document. Mr. Greenstein recommended approval, as it was updated based on the termination of the MSA and approved by the Reunion West CDD as presented.

On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in favor the Revised Amenity Use Policy was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Review of Reunion Resort and Club of
Orlando Master Association, Inc. Termination of Dumpster License Agreement - ADDED
Ms. Adams requested that the Board consider termination of the Reunion Resort and Club of Orlando Master Association, Inc. Dumpster License Agreement. During the public comment period, it was erroneously brought up that the CDD maintained, controlled or rented dumpsters, but that is not the case, as the CDD did not have any dumpsters anywhere in Reunion. Any dumpsters that were in the community, were affiliated with the Master Association or other Association. There was a long-standing License Agreement with the Master Association for two dumpsters at The Stables; however, a notice was received from the Association terminating the License Agreement and as of February 1st, the dumpsters would be removed from the Stables. As a result of this communication, Ms. Adams contacted Mr. John Kingsley to find out if they would be sending out a notice to Reunion residents and the short-term rental managers, to notify them that this would no longer be a dumping location and informed her that they would be sending out a notice on Monday. Since garbage was being generated at the CDD amenities, she was brainstorming with Mr. Scheerer on different options, such as opportunities with their current custodial service, but they did not offer that service and scheduled a meeting with a waste management company, to discuss having a discrete and secure dumpster at an undetermined location. They were also exploring opportunities with other Reunion stakeholders, to determine if they would allow for trash disposal. Unless there was an objection, she would work with the Chairman, to determine if anything needed to happen before the next meeting. Mr. Dryburgh questioned who controlled the dumpster mentioned by the resident, at the start of the meeting. Ms. Adams indicated that Reunion Resort rented the dumpster, but they were now pulling it out.

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 11 of 16
Ms. Wispelwey recalled that the Board wanted to ask Heritage Crossing if they wanted that dumpster. Ms. Adams spoke to the Association and was informed that that they did not want to maintain the dumpster. Mr. Dryburgh pointed out that the CDD was not controlling this dumpster and did not lock it. Ms. Adams clarified that Reunion Resort controlled the dumpster abutting the HCCC and the Master Association controlled the one at The Stables. She was also discussing with Mr. Scheerer, ways to secure the dumpster at The Stables property, to deter illegal dumping and keep the area from becoming unsightly. Ms. Hobbs asked if they could install a gate to prevent access. Ms. Adams indicated that it was a restricted area. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that there was a gate that was locked, which he or his staff would only have access to. Ms. Hobbs hoped that was enough. Mr. Dryburgh voiced concern that once the dumpster was pulled out and the structure was knocked down, people would throw their trash on the ground. Ms. Wispelwey recalled that they did not have to remove the entire structure. Mr. Scheerer pointed out that the gates could be removed, but there were electrical components for the HCCC, to the left of the structure. However, they could leave the right-side wall, so homeowners abutting it, did not have to look into it. Ms. Wispelwey believed that they may need a dumpster, eventually. Mr. Greenstein indicated if they needed a dumpster, they would consider one and the Board would do whatever they could, to try to come up with a proper solution, just like entering into the License Agreement with the Association, to put dumpsters on The Stables property. The Master Association did not want to deal with the cleanup, but once the community was advised that the dumpster was no longer there, hopefully the Master Association would find an alternate location for a Resort wide dumpster area. Ms. Adams indicated that no Board action was required and would keep the Board updated.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Staff Reports
Attorney
Ms. Trucco reported that she received a response from Bond Counsel about The Stables. Their tax team was proceeding with the analysis, but their price increased from $13,000 to $26,000, for 10 to 20 hours of research. Ms. Davis questioned why it increased. Ms. Trucco explained that most attorney’s fees increase annually. Mr. Greenstein wanted to show that were serious about disposing of The Stables.

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 12 of 16

Ms. Hobbs MOVED to approve Bond Counsel performing a tax analysis for The Stables parcel in the amount of $26,000 and Mr. Greenstein seconded the motion

Ms. Wispelwey questioned whether they needed to obtain another quote. Ms. Trucco did not recommend it, as Bond Counsel was the most familiar with the assessments and the bonds for this CDD and handled the issuances so they had familiarity already. Mr. Greenstein felt that they had no choice. Ms. Trucco recalled that Greenberg Traurig performed a tax analysis for free on the roadways, but a different Bond Counsel or Tax Attorney may need to get inundated on the specifics of the CDD at an expense, versus the current Bond Counsel, who was part of the bond issuance and already were familiar.

On VOICE VOTE with all in favor Bond Counsel performing a tax analysis for The Stables parcel in the amount of $26,000 was approved.

Ms. Trucco would obtain a time estimate and bring it back to the Board. The hope was for the CDD to recover the cost for the tax analysis from the sale of The Stables. The Acknowledgement Regarding Traffic Control Jurisdiction, was sent to counsel at the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office and was told that the assistant attorney would contact her. She would inform the Board of any advancements, but there have been none thus far. Regarding the Rowstar, LLC/Vertical Bridge easement request for the cell tower, Ms. Trucco was working on the Option and Access Easement Agreement. There were multiple calls and lots of negotiations for this item. It was not yet resolved, as there needed to be permission from the Tohopekaliga Water Authority (TWA), but they were still under the $10,000 approval by the Board. She would keep the Board updated, as this was still in process. It was brought to Rowstar’s attention that the adjacent roadway tract must be accessed, in order to access the cell tower and she was working with counsel for developer and Master Association on that conveyance. A parcel declaration was recorded, but counsel for the Master Association wanted a Tri Party Agreement. It would be brought back to the Board once finalized, but Ms. Trucco requested direction from the Board for permission for her to proceed. There was Board consensus to proceed and Ms. Trucco would bring the agreement back to the Board.

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 13 of 16
Engineer
Mr. Boyd reported that Kingwood recently updated the rezoning for the Resort, but could not proceed with the Development Plan, until it was approved by the CDD. A number of entitlements were unchanged, but there were many more entitlements on the table. They were developing a World Showcase Promenade in front of The Grand and on the driving range. However, before they could proceed, they must have CDD approval on modification to a portion of the conservation easement, but was informed last year, by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), that the permit could not proceed until the county agreed with it. There are also other stormwater ponds that would be affected. In the meantime, Mr. Boyd was providing the same notice that was provided to the SFWMD, to Ms. Trucco and Ms. Adams, as well as the County. He was monitoring the situation and would report on this further at the next meeting. Ms. Wispelwey asked if Kingwood could change their plans for the golf course. Mr. Boyd indicated that Kingwood could modify the golf course on properties that they owned, without involving the CDD, but the largest issue, was the plan that was on the table, required a portion of the conservation easement that the CDD owned.

Field Manager Updates
Mr. Scheerer reported that the pressure washing was ongoing, but the areas that they already pressure washed, looked good. They were asked to pressure wash the HCCC and The Stables. Mulch and annuals were installed, but some items on the Action Items List, were not completed, such as the equipment for the Seven Eagles Fitness Center, as one treadmill from Life Fitness had not been delivered. They were withholding payment until it was delivered and installed. A flush valve was replaced in a Carriage Pointe restroom. A speed sign was installed on Euston Drive, at the request of a Board Member and Mr. Goldstein and he shared the report with them. From November 11, 2024 to January 5, 2025, there were 2,159 vehicles and the average speed was 18 mph. The new fountains still looked good at Seven Eagles and was looking better every day. At the Carriage Pointe gates, there was a problem with the SOS for the Envera System. It was corrected the next day and was continually monitored; however, there was a Knox Lock Key, which was exclusive to fire rescue and law enforcement. Based on some of the pavement management work at the resident only gate off of Excitement Drive and S. Old Lake Wilson Road, the gates locked, due to failures in the battery backup and a couple of operators and had to be opened manually. An inventory was taken of all of the battery backups to gates that were not

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 14 of 16
manned and the battery backups at the Carriage Pointe gate and resident only gate at Excitement Drive and S. Old Lake Wilson Road, were tested and were in good shape.

Action Items List (Item 8Di)
Mr. Scheerer presented the Action Items List, which was included in the agenda package and reported on the following:
Access to Reunion Village/Davenport Creek Bridge: On hold due to the holidays, but crews should be back out next week
Pavement Management & Traffic Calming: Discussed.
RFID & Transponder at Reunion Village Gate: The Internet needed to be transferred to the CDD.
Seven Eagles Fitness Center Mats & Equipment: Discussed.
Mr. Greenstein recalled during the public comment period, there was a question about whether the Heritage Crossing sidewalks were CDD sidewalks. Mr. Scheerer indicated that according to Ms. Sarah McGowen and Ms. Pappas, on the Heritage Crossing Board, the sidewalk was owned by the Condo Association and not the CDD. He provided them with the name of the CDD sidewalk contractor, Mr. Chet Barry, explaining that they typically pulled the sidewalk, cut the roots, installed the root barrier and repoured the sidewalk. Ms. Hobbs questioned the status of the signs at the entrances for the private gate entry. Mr. Scheerer stated that he was speaking to the vendor. There was a request for some landscaping by the sign and the Board was thanked for their hard work with the paving and dealing with their concerns and with issues from contractors, as there was a significant decrease in complaints. Ms. Davis thanked Mr. Scheerer for the Fitness Room equipment and noted that Mr. Victor Vargas did an excellent job in the last couple of weeks. A child was on the veranda at The Grand, dropping grass everywhere and Mr. Vargas was immediately out there, assessing the situation.

District Manager’s Report
Action Items List
This item was discussed.

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 15 of 16
Approval of Check Register
Ms. Adams presented the Check Register from December 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 in the amount of $3,340,601.96 for the General and Repair and Maintenance Funds, which was included in the agenda package, along with a detailed check run. There were some large transmittals to US Bank of over $1 million for CDD debt assessments that were received and transmitted to the trustee for interest and principal payments.

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

Balance Sheet and Income Statement
Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through November 30, 2024, which were included in the agenda package for informational purposes.

Replacement and Maintenance Plan
Ms. Adams presented the R&M Plan, which was included in the agenda package for informational purposes.

Security Report
Ms. Adams provided under separate cover, the December Security Report from Reunion Security and the Reunion West POA. No Board action was required and was for informational purposes.

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: February 13, 2025
The next meeting was scheduled for February 13, 2025.

Reunion East CDD	January 9, 2025
Regular Meeting	Page 16 of 16
TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS	Adjournment

On MOTION by Mr. Dryburgh seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chairman/Vice Chairman