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, June 12, 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 by Zoom 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 Garrett Huegel Yellowstone Landscape Pete Whitman Yellowstone Landscape Victor Vargas Reunion Security James Salvador Floralawn Casey Francis Floralawn Charles Davis Florida Commercial Care Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the June 12, 2025 Reunion East Community Development District Board of Supervisors meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Ms. Adams called the meeting to order at 1:53 p.m. and called the roll. All Supervisors were present. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comment Period Ms. Adams opened the public comment period. Mr. John De Groot of 7776 Somersworth Drive, Reunion Village, recalled discussion about having alternative spots for the mailboxes and proposed having two different sets of mailboxes; one on Marlowe Place and the other on Greenfield Loop and Somersworth Drive, where they could not fit a home on the corner because of the water retention area. It would be easier for homeowners to walk to their mailbox, as it was close to all of the homes and easier to park and turn around. Either way, the Post Office had to approve the suggestions, but it would save money, as they would just need to install pads. Mr. Scheerer recalled that they were not allowed to put anything on utility easements. Ms. Adams indicated that the Board directed the District Engineer to explore the feasibility. Mr. De Groot pointed out that the mailboxes would not be in the way of powerlines and would be on a side street. He also suggested that Security check if the umbrellas at the Seven Eagles pool were closed, so they did not have to continually replace them. Mr. Steven Goldstein, a former Board Member, appreciated that the Board was looking into two Boards merging, but did not think that most people on the east side would want to merge, as the east side would assume more liability if they merged with the west side. Furthermore, residents on the east side purchased their homes on the east side because the west side was not developed and suggested having a joint meeting every third month. Mr. Graham Staley, of 1113 Grand Traverse Parkway, Chairman of the Reunion West CDD, pointed out that merging was all about a better use of scale and not about shifting debt responsibilities from the west to the east, which was discussed at length during the Reunion West meeting. He asserted there was no special benefit for Reunion West CDD if there is a merger. There being no further comments, Ms. Adams closed the public comment period. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the April 10, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting Ms. Adams presented the minutes of the April 10, 2025 meeting, which were reviewed by District Counsel and the District Manager and were included in the agenda package. Non- substantive corrections were received from Ms. Davis and Mr. Greenstein. On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the Minutes of the April 10, 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting were approved as amended. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Review and Ranking of Joint Proposals for Landscape and Irrigation Services A. Continuum/Weber Environmental B. Creative North C. Duval Landscape Maintenance D. FloraLawn E. Florida Commercial Care F. Helping Hand Lawn Care G. OmegaScapes H. Prince & Sons I. United Land Services J. Yellowstone Landscape On MOTION by Ms. Davis seconded by Ms. Wispelwey with all in favor accepting the ranking of the Landscape Review Committee to rank Yellowstone Landscape as the number one ranked firm was approved. Ms. Wispelwey thanked the Landscape Review Committee for all of their hard work. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Review of Current Parking Rules and Parking Maps This item was discussed later in the meeting. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2025-06 Setting a Public Hearing to Amend and Restate the Parking Rules This item was discussed later in the meeting. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2025-07 Approving the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Budget and Setting a Public Hearing Ms. Adams presented Resolution 2025-07 approving the proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and setting the public hearing for August 14, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. at this location, which was included in the agenda package. Approval of this resolution approved the proposed budget, which commenced on October 1, 2025 and ended on September 30, 2026 and set the assessment cap for next FY. The Board had the ability to reduce the assessment cap, but not increase it, beyond what was approved in the Proposed Budget. Approval of the Resolution also set the public hearing, which three Board Members confirmed that they would attend and allowed for transmittal of the proposed budget to Osceola County, posting it on the District’s website and publishing the legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation in Osceola County. There would be an increase of 15% in assessments. Ms. Adams advised there was no assessment increase since 2020; however, between 2020 and 2025, there were inflationary indexes of up to 9% per year. All of those costs were offset by recognizing some of the surplus funds that were built up in the General Fund. Last year, the budget was subsidized by $1,079,183, by recognizing surplus cash and were projecting even more this year, to pay for the increased expenses. The expense increases were primarily due to materials and labor, but assessments were not increased to match increased expenses. Therefore, what they were proposing this year, is that the Board consider balancing the budget and increasing assessments to match the current expenses, including the transfer out to the Repair and Maintenance (R&M) Fund, in accordance with the Reserve Study. The following was highlighted: . Under “Revenues”, there was “Interest” of $36,000 and “Rental Income” of $6,000. . “Administrative Expenses,” were the costs to operate the District, in accordance with Florida Statutes and the Trust Indenture. “Attorney,” increased to $100,000, based on the current assigned projects and workload and there were minor adjustments for “Assessment Administration”, as there was a 3% increase from $7,875 to $8,111. There were also 3% increases for “Information Technology” and “Website Maintenance.” “Insurance” was for Public Officials Liability Insurance and General Liability and was based on an estimate from the insurance company. It was expected to increase to $20,571. Overall, the adopted amount was $234,912, the CDD was projected to spend $240,511 and it would increase in 2026 to $262,653, based on spending. . Under “Maintenance – Shared Expenses,” there was an Amenity Reciprocity Agreement with the Reunion West CDD. Shared expenses increased from $1,962,569 to $2,105,065. These were anticipated increases in the expenses to maintain the District’s amenities, roadways, stormwater system, entrance gates and streetlights. “Landscape Maintenance” had an estimated number, due to the RFP being issued. By the time that the budget was adopted, there would be an exact number, which would be slightly less than what was proposed, because they did not have a turnover date for the remaining Reunion Village common areas. Based on new development, there was an increase in streetlights. . There would be a transfer out to the R&M Fund of $400,000. Although it was less than the current FY, it was in accordance with the Reserve Study. . For “Shared Costs,” Reunion East was sharing 57% and Reunion West shared 43%, based on platted lots and the Interlocal Agreement. . A gross per unit assessment comparison chart was included. Reunion East had commercial property at Reunion Village, multi-family and single-family. This CDD historically used the assessment methodology for debt and applied it to maintenance. This year there would be a correction, as some Spectrum condos had been incorrectly assessed and were being moved to multi-family commensurate with the debt assessment methodology and other similar products throughout Reunion East CDD. For FY 2026, there was a per unit expense in the number of units and the Equivalent Assessment Units (EAU). For commercial properties, the total EAU was 751.39 and the gross per unit assessment was $557.23 per unit, $835.84 per unit for multi-family and $1,114.46 for the single-family. Ms. Wispelwey questioned their record of spending less than what was budgeted. Ms. Adams felt that the Board budgeted conservatively and did a great job controlling expenses. However, they did not want to budget so close to the bone to where they did not have funding to operate the District. Ms. Wispelwey pointed out that it was not a small increase and would generate a great deal of discussion. Therefore, they needed to take a closer look at the budget. Ms. Adams noted the significant increased expenses would be with the electric streetlights and landscape services. Pool and fountain maintenance had the largest increase, because of pool chemicals. Mr. Greenstein felt that they needed to remind themselves, that they had the next two months to scrub the budget and make adjustments. In the past, they transferred $900,000 in the R&M Fund and this year, they could only transfer in $400,000. Ms. Wispelwey noted many cases where they had increases that they should not have increased, such as roads and sidewalks. Typically, they underspent their budget and there may be some areas where they would underspend again. She wanted people to understand that the Board reviewed this budget and had not increased it in five years, but many costs were increasing. Ms. Adams wanted the Board to consider, when there was an assessment increase, a mailed notice was required. GMS recommended that the Board consider that the increase would last for a three-to-five-year interval, because of the expense of the mailed notice. However, the Board could reduce the proposed assessment this year and look at another assessment increase next year. That was a policy decision that was up to the Board. Ms. Wispelwey questioned the action taken by the Reunion West CDD. Mr. Greenstein indicated that they recognized an established need to increase assessments in order to build reserves and suggested that the Board take a similar approach, by having a smaller increase this year and get people in the mindset that it would increase after a year and absorb the cost, as the cost of doing business. Ms. Adams pointed out that the Board could decrease the reserve transfer out or the money could stay in the General Fund. Mr. Greenstein suggested specifically addressing this issue as pay as you go at the next meeting, versus the five-year plan approach, as the CDD lived off of conservative budgeting for five years and using surplus funds to keep assessments level and reducing the increase down to a more palatable amount. Ms. Adams pointed out that the Board was setting the cap and could decrease this amount at the public hearing but not increase it. In addition, they should look at the overall value for the assessments. Ms. Wispelwey felt that this was a large increase. Mr. Greenstein did not want to prolong the meeting with detailed budget analysis and discussion, as they could adjust it between now and August. . There was a detailed narrative that was updated each year in accordance with the Proposed Budget and offered an explanation of what comprised the different line items. There are pages for the “Replacement & Maintenance Fund,” showing the transfer in, as well as a spending plan, based on the Project List that the Board previously reviewed. . The remaining pages were for each Debt Service Fund. The interest and principal payments due in November and May 1, were based on the Amortization Schedules. On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Ms. Davis with all in favor Resolution 2025-07 Approving the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 Budget and Setting a Public Hearing for August 14, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. at this location was adopted. • Review of Current Parking Rules and Parking Maps (Item 5) • Consideration of Resolution 2025-06 Setting a Public Hearing to Amend and Restate the Parking Rules Ms. Adams presented a copy of the current Parking Rules and parking maps, which were included in the agenda package. Ms. Davis voiced concerns with safety in two locations but appreciated the maps. In order to have consistency with other roads with similar traffic volume and patterns, the roads that come in from the main boulevard, there were never cars parked along there. There were also no Parking Rules from Gathering Drive to the S-curve on Excitement Drive. It may be advantageous to not have parking on those sides, but there were other options to consider such an unloading zone, to have more safety around speed tables. In addition, there were parking spaces on one side of Excitement Drive coming off of Euston Drive, all the way to Old Lake Wilson Road, but people were still parking on the opposite side. There needed to be some consistency of safety in use of the roads, especially on main thoroughfares, as the east side did not have the consistency on multiple spaces. Mr. Adams recalled discussion at the last meeting regarding revising the parking maps, but the Board wanted additional time to review Excitement Drive, to get a feel for the issues that were impacted by parking. Ms. Wispelwey pointed out that there should be no parking by the speed bump on Excitement Drive. Ms. Adams indicated that it was discussed by the Board, but a rule hearing was never set. Mr. Greenstein recalled that there were supposed to be hash marks where the no parking started and because it was subject to tow, they must go through the rulemaking process. At the last meeting, the Board discussed looking at these areas and coming up with a comprehensive list of what they wanted to do and schedule the public hearing. Ms. Davis requested a map with colors. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that there were no houses on Reunion Boulevard, but the issue was on the other side. In addition, Gathering Drive was wide in places, but it narrowed in places, due to the location of the storm sewers. However, the developer decided to carve out parking spaces, to get cars away from the flow of traffic, because there were no houses on the golf course side. He assumed that Ms. Davis wanted no parking on the other side of the street. Ms. Davis wanted no parking on similar streets such as Excitement Drive, where there was parking on one side but not the other. Mr. Greenstein voiced concern with having to come up with locations that take away parking, especially on Excitement Drive from Gathering Drive to Radiant Street. Ms. Wispelwey traveled on Excitement Drive when she was going to the grocery store and agreed with Ms. Davis, as people were parking their cars in front of their house. It was similar to what was occurring on Gathering Drive between Excitement Drive and Sparkling Court. If someone on Excitement Drive had four cars, there was no parking in the back. Ms. Davis was concerned that parking was limited. Mr. Greenstein pointed out whether they were making one change or 15 changes, there must be a public hearing. Ms. Adams confirmed that the public hearing would be in August and at that time, the Board could prohibit parking around all speed bumps. In the meantime, Ms. Davis would coordinate either with Mr. Curley or Mr. Scheerer and provide revised parking maps at next month’s meeting. Ms. Adams would verify with Mr. Vargas’ team on anything that needed to be updated and request that Mr. Curley bring back maps for the last phases of Reunion Village, although it would not be enforced until all signs were installed. On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor Resolution 2025-06 Setting a Public Hearing for August 14, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. at this location to Amend and Restate the Parking Rules was adopted. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Proposal from United Fire Protection for Seven Eagles Mr. Scheerer presented a proposal from United Fire for Seven Eagles, which was included in the agenda package. It was to perform multiple inspections as required. There were two or three components, one of which was fire alarm testing and monitoring, as they were required to have annual inspections, at a cost of $400. The monitoring cost, to notify emergency services was $450 annually. Four inspections were required for the fire sprinkler systems. The annual one was scheduled in June and September, December and March for the semiannual at a cost of $1,450 annually. Two backflows were associated with Seven Eagles, one for the potable water system and the other for the fire sprinkler system, which was $100 annually. Lastly, there were the annual inspections for the five extinguishers. The total cost of the proposal was $2,600 annually. This was the company that provided all of the alarm monitoring and inspections for the Stables and all of the backflow inspections. Ms. Adams confirmed that this expenditure was included in the budget and was an administrative matter. Mr. Scheerer indicated that the vendor was currently doing the inspections, but they needed a formalized agreement. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Wispelwey with all in favor Proposal from United Fire for Seven Eagles in the amount of $2,600 annually was approved. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Preventative Maintenance Agreement Renewal with Fitness Services of Florida Mr. Scheerer presented a Presentative Maintenance Agreement with Fitness Services of Florida, which was included in the agenda package. They currently maintained all of the equipment and this was for the renewal. The price of $7,800 annually, included all of the equipment and two site visits monthly. The equipment list was updated to include six new treadmills, abductor and leg press and the removal of one recumbent and upright bike. Ms. Adams indicated that staff recommended approval, since this was a popular Fitness Center. On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Ms. Davis with all in favor the Preventative Maintenance Agreement renewal with Fitness Services of Florida in the amount of $7,800 per year was approved. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Proposals for Dog Waste Stations A. ProPet Distributors (DOGIPOT) B. Yellowstone Landscape Mr. Scheerer presented proposals from ProPet Distributors (ProPet) and Yellowstone Landscape (Yellowstone) for dog waste stations, which was included in the agenda package. ProPet provided a cost of $463.50 for their popular pet waste station, DOGIPOT. Yellowstone provided a cost of $100 per month, which included getting rid of the waste, providing the bags and servicing each station. No stations were identified at this time, but it was discussed. There was one dog park in the east and some pet bags in Patriots Landing, which was supposedly maintained by the HOA, but there were no trash cans in this location. A Resident pointed out that people were putting their bags in the trash at the mailbox kiosk. Ms. Adams indicated that this expenditure was not budgeted, but they could include a certain amount of dog stations if the Board chose to do so. The maintenance that was proposed, was for once-a-week service. Ms. Wispelwey lived at the end of a street where many people walked their dogs and there were no issues. Mr. Dryburgh felt that there needed to be a mechanism for people to have bags for dogs, but the Board was overly thinking it. Mr. Greenstein asked if this was the responsibility of the Master Association. Mr. Dryburgh indicated it involved everyone, not just the CDD. Mr. Greenstein recommended tabling this matter, as they did not have a major problem. Mr. Dryburgh agreed. • Field Manager Updates (Item 12C) Mr. Scheerer reported that the Heritage Crossing Pool A and B decks were painted. He did a walk through on Monday and they did a good job; however, there were some punchlist items that they were supposed to be working on today. Once completed, the contractor would be paid. There was an emergency AC repair at the main guardhouse. Franks Air responded quickly and installed a brand-new unit and the AC was now up and running. They were asked to add lock boxes to the thermostat area. TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports A. Attorney Ms. Trucco recalled that the Board was okay with the alternate route for the cell tower, which was proposed by Rowstar, but wanted it listed as a secondary route in the event that the initial route became unusable. She added that the Board previously wanted 24-hour notice and someone to be out there before and after usage in order to confirm any damage because they were going to be going over sod. Rowstar said when the tower was being built and when the new equipment was being added, they did not think it would be an issue and would provide 24-hour notice but felt it would not be practical for them to be able to give 24-hour notice every time after construction, for example when a regular sized pickup truck goes to the tower site to do routine maintenance. She had not responded to Rowstar, as they had not had a Board meeting since she received Rowstar’s response. If it was the case that the Board wanted to proceed, she felt that staff needed to be extra diligent with overseeing that area and photographing any damage, if Rowstar proceeded with the alternative route. Ms. Davis questioned how often they anticipate a truck going over there. Ms. Trucco would obtain a schedule. Mr. Greenstein pointed out that the overall agreements put liability on them. Ms. Trucco confirmed that there was indemnification language i. Update on Eminent Domain Matter in the agreement. Mr. Greenstein recommended that CDD staff do their own periodic review and keep anyone from accessing the area. Ms. Trucco reported since the last Board meeting there was a meeting with the eminent domain counsel, which Ms. Carpenter attended. There was a discussion about potential eminent domain parcels that would be impacted by the expansion of I-4. During their review, they noticed that many of the parcels named in the initial notice from FDOT appeared to implicate the CDD because they fall within the boundary of the CDD but the CDD was not actually the owner. One such piece was time sensitive, for a parcel against I-4, which the CDD was put on notice about because it falls within the CDD's boundary. A notice of establishment of the CDD was reported which showed on the title work last week. However, the CDD did not have an ownership interest in that parcel. Nonetheless, they checked with the District Engineer to find out if the CDD had any infrastructure underneath the parcel that the CDD needed an access easement over, but they confirmed by looking at the plans, that there was no CDD infrastructure under it, so the CDD had no objection to it. Ms. Carpenter also asked FDOT to provide a map for the other parcels, which they agreed to do. At this time, they were waiting for the map and would keep the Board updated on how that progressed. Mr. Greenstein asked if she had any contact regarding access to the guardhouse for the ownership of roadway at Reunion Village. Ms. Trucco confirmed she had not heard anything further. The CDD did not own the piece of roadway tract under the guardhouse. She spoke with counsel for Kingwood, who believed that they had an interest in that guardhouse, because of a recorded declaration. He felt that the developer and his client needed to talk. She had not taken any other action at this point in time but this would be discussed under an agenda item on a future agenda. Mr. Greenstein was hoping that they would see the light and make a move, because everything having to do with the access gates over the bridge, was in place except for the power, but questioned whether there was any connection between any relationship between guardhouse internet access and those gates. Mr. Scheerer confirmed that the new gates would have internet access. Mr. Greenstein questioned why it was not completed, as he wanted to have control over them, in order for this location to operate the same way as the other locations. Mr. Scheerer stated they were waiting on the utility to provide the meters. Mr. Greenstein wanted this matter to be resolved. B. Engineer There being no comments, the next item followed. C. Field Manager Updates This item was discussed. D. District Manager’s Report i. Approval of Check Register ii. Balance Sheet and Income Statement iii. Presentation of Number of Registered Voters - 835 Ms. Adams presented the Check Registers from April 1, 2025 through April 30, 2025 in the amount of $499,818.29 and May 1, 2025 through May 31, 2025 in the amount of $275,620.25, which were included in the agenda package, along with a detailed check run. On MOTION by Mr. Greenstein seconded by Ms. Hobbs with all in favor the April and May Check Registers were approved. Ms. Adams presented the Unaudited Financial Statements through March 31, 2025, which were included in the agenda package. They were for informational purposes. Ms. Adams stated that the District was required annually to present each year on the record, the number of registered voters to the Board. A letter was provided by the Osceola County Supervisor of Elections, confirming as of April 15, 2025, the Reunion East CDD had 835 registered voters. No Board action was required. Ms. Wispelwey asked if this number increased or decreased. Ms. Adams reported in 2024, there were 709 registered voters, whereas in 2025 there were 835 registered voters, for an increase of 124. E. Security Report Ms. Adams provided under separate cover, the April and May Security Reports from Reunion Security and the Reunion West POA. Mr. Victor Vargas, Director of Reunion Security, reported an issue with many teenagers on the property that were causing graffiti damage at The Terraces bathroom. Ms. Wispelwey questioned one incident that involved a shooting across the street, as Reunion was mentioned in the report. Ms. Adams explained that it occurred after a prom that was held at Reunion. Mr. Vargas pointed out that some guests from the prom went to the party across the street when the shooting occurred. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Other Business There being no comments, the next item followed. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests A. Discussion of Heritage Crossing – Member Usage Proposal *Mr. Dryburgh left the meeting at this time. Ms. Adams received a request from Ms. Davis to add a discussion of Heritage Crossing member usage proposal. Ms. Davis was on the website and noticed that the hours for Heritage Crossing were incorrect. Ms. Adams confirmed that the website was updated as well as the Facebook pages. Ms. Davis wanted to see what they could do to increase the membership and was thinking about encouraging people to sign up by facilitating activity. Ms. Adams felt that they were getting there. Mr. Scheerer reported that he received a call from Banquet Services, asking if the CDD would be interested in 200 chairs. Staff had no objection, as long as there was no objection from the Board. Ms. Adams pointed out that next month, there would be a proposal for rental management services. Mr. Scheerer planned to clean the chairs, as they had cloth backs. Ms. Davis liked what Mr. Scheerer did with the small space, as it was well organized and asked if there could be a 30 x30 or 30x40 space for a gym area with a mirror and brand-new equipment or stretch area, so people can work out and have some connectedness. Mr. Greenstein thought many times about having a Fitness Center on the other side of the wall but recalled they ran into Health Code issues. Once they had an agreement with the management company to market that facility, they may provide some ideas. In his opinion, this building had far more utility value than the debt that was encumbered, as well as the Stables, which was why they were looking into a leasing opinion, in order to cover expenses. FIFTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Next Meeting Date: July 10, 2025 The next meeting was scheduled for July 10, 2025. SIXTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment On MOTION by Ms. Hobbs seconded by Mr. Greenstein with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. Signature - Tricia Adams Signature - Tricia AdamsSignature - Mark Greenstein Signature - Mark Greenstein Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Vice Chairman