From:	muchodeanaero@aol.com
To:	Vivian Carvalho; Kwame Jackson
Subject:	Fw: Clarifications from a review of the June 10 Strategic Planning Meeting Recording
Date:	Friday, June 26, 2026 6:35:02 PM

ALERT: This message is from an external source.BE CAUTIOUS before clicking any link or attachment

Dean Matt
aka MuchoDeanAero aka The Pickleball Pilot 630.248.0646

MuchoDeanAero - aviation adventures and the home of The World Record 48-48-48 Pickleball Challenge

Golf Gear - golf accessories
Gone to Pot Book - cannabis industry non-fiction

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: muchodeanaero@aol.com <muchodeanaero@aol.com>
To: BARBARA SOMMA <barbara.somma@universityparkrd.com>
Cc: Vivian Carvalho <carvalhov@pfm.com>; Mark Barnebey <mbarnebey@blalockwalters.com>; Jim Freedman <jim.freedman@universityparkrd.com>; Ronni Loundy <ronni.loundy@universityparkrd.com>; don.sheets@universityparkrd.com <don.sheets@universityparkrd.com>; Ken Schreder
<ken.schreder@universityparkrd.com>; Steve Heitzner <steve.heitzner@universityparkrd.com>; Scott Huebner <scott.huebner@universityparkrd.com>; Greg Selep <greg.selep@universityparkrd.com>; Steve Swanson <steve.swanson4@universityparkrd.com>; Tom Christopher <chris67ta@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2026 at 09:14:14 AM EDT
Subject: Clarifications from a review of the June 10 Strategic Planning Meeting Recording

Dear Strategic Planning Committee Member Somma:

In the recent Strat Planning Meeting, regarding a discussion regarding Bond Costs, it was mentioned that "project costs have almost doubled." Listen to discussion at 56:54 - 58:56  GMT20260610-
185317_Recording.20260611144401440_2232x1032.mp4

Please read the information below that I sent to the Board earlier this week. The conclusion is that capital project costs have not "doubled."
Rather, the Dickson Administration [knowingly] low-balled the cost of the kitchen project to the residents in its attempted [but prohibited] bond issuance.

In the meeting, Committee Member Selep, disingenuously, stated that the costs

have almost doubled, repeating what was presented at this week's Town Hall.

This statement gives the impression that the appeal has caused a doubling of costs as was planned by UPRD when attempting to issue [prohibited] bonds in February 2024.

This is False. For the avoidance of doubt and to provide absolute clarity on this issue:

In UPRD Board minutes from Q1 2024, it was well known that the Kitchen Project was not going to be started/completed until 2025.

Per the chart below (that was used at this week's Town Hall) the $3,000,000 number that UPRD represented was an impossibility...one that was not addressed by our elected public officials. (The Dickson Administration

purposefully suppressed the updated and more accurate number which should have been used: $4.819 mm).

The $1.819 mm delta should not be attributed to a "doubling" of the cost of the project when the referendum was held in 2024.	Rather, the Dickson Administration [an Administration that you seem to have blindly supported] did not come clean with residents with the true expected cost of the project when it attempted to saddle residents with bond debt in the February 2024 [prohibited] referendum. When raising money, this can be construed as an attempt to defraud.

So, I thought it peculiar and misguided when, in this week's Strat Planning meeting, I believe it was you who asked: "Can we sue Dean Matt?"	Listen at 58:37 - 58:40
- GMT20260610-185317_Recording.20260611144401440_2232x1032.mp4

You may want to check with UPRD counsel (copied herein) but my understanding is that the FL Statutes are very clear on this issue and the answer is "no." I filed a legal appeal as any party with standing in the case is entitled to do. I have good reasons for having another set of eyes take a look at the lower court decision. And, to clarify a statement made by Greg Selep in the meeting: I filed an appeal (as opposed to his statement that "we have been litigated against") to a lower court decision for various reasons as argued in the appeal. If you haven't yet taken the time to understand the issues at hand, please see here:	Case View - Dean K. Matt v. State of Florida, et al. - Florida Appellate Case Information System (If you have any questions, please reach out to me and I'll be happy to walk you through this.)

Back to your question - I'm confused: On what basis do you believe I can be sued? I assume you signed the petition to become a Recreation District. In so doing, didn't you accept the responsibilities and understood and the laws governing becoming a Recreation District? If so, why do you suggest I be sued? In my opinion, your question and underlying inference/insinuation is a statement unbecoming of a UPRD Strat Planning Committee Member. It continues to perpetuate the unwarranted, shameful and public blaming of Dean Matt by UPRD Supervisors and others, negatively and wrongfully impacting my reputation. You seem to have drunk UPRD's Kool-Aid without sound understanding of their responsibilities, obligations, and actions. To date, neither UPRD nor its agents, vendors and vendor's employees and certain residents have not apologized for this misplaced public demonization.

If you find that you cannot "sue Dean Matt" then, may I suggest, as I have

suggested for over a year now, than may that, if you are truly interested in recovering costs on behalf UPRD [and not just continuing to drag my name through the mud and joining the misguided chorus of Dickson, Fetsick, Murphy, Criden, Ludmerer, The Three Amigos and others who have routinely and without accountability or apology have done], you focus your efforts from these more pertinent/responsible sources such as:

UPRD General and Bond Counsel for gross negligence in not steering UPRD and its residents well-clear from potential legal jeopardy by taking, what I deem, are shortcuts which bring into question the validity of the bond issuance process...despite the fact that the lower court validated the bonds (as has been mentioned tirelessly by UPRD and its counsel over the past two years).
PBM [i.e., UPRD's largest vendor] who has allowed its employees to engage in defamatory and censorial actions against residents (Are you OK with this? Or, do you just not want to acknowledge/address this?)
UPRD itself, including certain Supervisors of the Dickson Administration, who have lied and misrepresented to the residents about various items including, but not limited to:
Bond Counsel's readiness to issue the required Legal Opinion Letter stating that UPRD can issue additional bonds
As you may or may not be aware, in a community-wide email dated January 5., 2024 Dickson represented as such; but, the attorneys never issued the legal opinion letter before the February 2024 referendum (i.e., the referendum should have been paused until such opinion letter was received).
Supervisor Murphy's misrepresentation (i.e., "lie") that UPRD was compliant with 2-8-161 of the Charter when it wasn't (and still is not)
That the language of Section 5.04 of the First Supplemental Trust Indenture [i..e, prohibiting additional bonds from being issued] could be ignored
This issue is being reviewed in the FL Supreme Court Case 2024-0990.
And, now, and perhaps most egregious of all misrepresentations, we find that UPRD represented that the kitchen project cost part of the capital plan is $3 mm when that number should have been $4.8 mm (a low-ball of 60%).
The reason is that UPRD used stale numbers when it surely must have known that the kitchen project could not be delivered anywhere near this number!

On this last point, while you apparently accepted the canned responses from the Administration that you supported, those who wanted to make sure that UPRD Supervisors had done their due diligence and were acting in accordance with their fiduciary responsibility and in accordance with OUR CORE VALUES asked the right questions:

How certain are you of these numbers since we don't even have architectural drawings yet?
What will you do if there are cost overruns? Issue yet another bond? Stop construction?

But, instead, we got disingenuous, dismissive and dishonest answers:
We have a 9% contingency in these numbers so no need to worry about this (Criden, UPRD Board Meeting, 2024)
We won't exceed $21 mm. Period. (Dickson, UPRD Board Meeting, 2024)

(Note: I'm not sure if you are truly interested in recovering costs or if you just want to continue your blaming of Dean Matt for actions taken [and not taken] by UPRD leaders).

At no time before or after the referendum were residents told that "The numbers we are using are two years old and there is a significant risk that the actual capital numbers may [materially] exceed these estimates." (Such a disclosure would have affected the results of the [prohibited] referendum. Agree? Maybe fear of the referendum not passing is why this information was suppressed from the residents? This is why when raising money or trying to saddle taxpayers with debt that ALL risks and material issues must be accurate and fully disclosed...something that the Dickson Administration, time and time again, swept under the rug.) This lack of disclosure and misrepresentation of material risks when raising money is unconscionable and unlawful. Did our attorneys review the Town Hall presentations and representations made and not made therein?

Fast forward to today: We should all be thankful that this project has been stopped and that the Supervisors (Dickson, Criden, Ludmerer, Murphy) who led us down this path are no longer on the Board. We could be sitting here with unfinished construction in process and no funds to complete. Of course, had UPRD been compliant with maintaining a Five-Year Plan (as required by 2-8-161 of the Charter) it and residents would be aware of this.

The good news is that we now have an experienced industry consultant, new Board Members and raised awareness in the community into the processes and lack of due diligence of the Dickson Administration's flawed attempt to cram through a capital plan for which required due diligence was not performed.	[And don't get me started on our "elders" negotiating a deal that is costing us over $20 mm for assets valued appraised at $6.2 mm (an appraisal which, by the way, was suppressed from residents by John Whyte and Bob Wood). This fact has also been swept under the rug by most residents and ignored as another root cause as to why UPRD finds itself in the financial position it is now: severely lacking in adequate capital reserves. Yes...believe it or not, overpaying by $15+ mm actually does cause problems!]

I bring all of this to your attention so that you carefully consider the root causes and egregious and unlawful actions of the Dickson Administration that you supported instead of just reciting your tired old line of "blaming Dean Matt" for UPRD's problems.	You have held this view for many years starting with your question at the first candidate forum for the 2025 election: "What are we going to do about the [white] elephant in the room: the Dean Matt Issue." (January 9, 2025) You jump to the conclusion that a lawful appeal is the problem as opposed to the unlawful actions of UPRD's leaders. In my opinion, this is just lazy, sophomoric thinking that this community could do without.

Many residents who are familiar with the Board's actions over the past two and a half years know that I've worked tirelessly to try to shine a light and head-off short-cuts by the Board and have offered countless suggestions that were ignored by the Dickson Administration and its agents which would have avoided the costly path it has pursued and that you have endorsed. Many residents, like you a) either haven't dug deep into the root causes for UPRD's current issues, or b) have dug deep and studied the issues but refuse to acknowledge that the people they support are the root cause of these issues, find it convenient to continue to blame Dean Matt instead of the Dickson Administration and its agents and employees. As a Strategic Planning Committee Member, we expect you to be on top of these issues and solutions instead of just spouting comments like "Can we sue Dean Matt?" in Public Committee Meetings.

We're trying to change behavior and raise awareness so as to avoid the sins of the past. Please be part of that change instead of perpetuating your sour grapes and defending the indefensible. The train is leaving the station...please hop on board.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. – John Adams

I am hopeful that the current Board understands the gravity of misrepresentations made by these previous Supervisors (i.e. public officials) and strives to be sure that it properly and lawfully conducts its business affairs, abides by OUR CORE VALUES, and manages its attorneys, vendors, and vendor's employees appropriately to steer UPRD well-clear from these purposeful, egregious mistakes of the past.

Please join with us in making sure the responsible parties are held accountable for their actions. Place blame where blame belongs...not where it is socially

convenient.

Regards,

Dean Matt
aka MuchoDeanAero aka The Pickleball Pilot 630.248.0646

MuchoDeanAero - aviation adventures and the home of The World Record 48-48-48 Pickleball Challenge

Golf Gear - golf accessories
Gone to Pot Book - cannabis industry non-fiction

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: muchodeanaero@aol.com <muchodeanaero@aol.com>
To: Vivian Carvalho <carvalhov@pfm.com>
Cc: Steve Heitzner <steve.heitzner@universityparkrd.com>; Scott Huebner
<scott.huebner@universityparkrd.com>; Greg Selep <greg.selep@universityparkrd.com>; Steve Swanson <steve.swanson4@universityparkrd.com>; dick.crouch@universityparkrd.com
<dick.crouch@universityparkrd.com>; Mark Barnebey <mbarnebey@blalockwalters.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 03:38:11 PM EDT
Subject: Point of my question on the Town Hall

Respectfully:

Based on information presented today, I think the 2024 referendum was based on KNOWINGLY FALSE information.

From TOWN HALL slides: Here we are told in the Town Halls for the 2024 referendum that the cost for kitchen would be $3mm, knowing that the kitchen was not to be started/completed until 2025

I remember asking many times about cost overruns and is this enough.

The answer from the Dickson Administration (Murphy, Dickson, Ludmerer) said, effectively: "Not a problem. We have a 9% contingency." I expressed concern and doubt that 9% was enough citing my experience with a project at Our Lady of The Angels Church. Dickson Administration again, assured, "not a problem."

Today, we learned that a project that residents were assured could be completed for $3 mm should have been advertised at $4.819 mm...a 60% increase! In other words: $1.819 mm of the increase from $3mm is from the Dickson Administration representing to residents that they can build this kitchen for $3 mm when that was impossible.

When you send out the summary of Q&A to residents, I believe residents are owed an explanation and apology.

Conclusions:

Residents were 100% correct to question UPRD at the time of the referendum
If an accurate, honest answer was provided (instead of using 3-year old stale numbers) this, too, would have affected the results of the referendum. [For the avoidance of doubt, I did not even argue this purposeful distortion of reality in the Supreme Court brief but will add this ammunition to my Tier II Litigation complaint.]
A Five-Year Plan would have caught this and prevented the Dickson Administration from lowballing Kitchen Costs by 60%.
Fetsick and the Dickson Administration spent more time defending a plan that didn't (and still doesn't) exist rather than developing a plan as required by 2-8-161 of the Charter.
We don't know what else is low balled...but we can suspect that the Activity Center and the Health Club are similarly disingenuous numbers. These projects would not have started until 2026/2027 at the earliest!
I pressed Sally that the bond was only $21 mm and what will we do if the capital plan exceeds that estimate? What will you do? Float a third bond?
Her answer was "We will not exceed $21 mm"

We now know there wasn't any thought in her statement...just virtue signaling.
Good thing this is all paused now while we await accurate numbers, input from SCS and definite plans and resident buy in at a specific cost before we proceed forward.

Other:

Overall, the presentation, especially Steve Heitzner's opening comments, was straightforward and the explanations were well thought out.

There was no mention of an assessment to golfers as discussed. Seems to me that this presentation was a great time to have done this...especially when Dick talked about inability to complete planned Front 9 and mid-nine capital projects.

The presentation, again, assumed that the Activity Center and the Fitness Center are a fait accompli	without any consideration of cost or what we can afford or
input from SCS. In light of the Dickson Administration's bogus numbers, I hope THIS administration puts pencil to paper, completes the 5-Year Plan and determine if the benefits from any planned capital improvements are worth the cost of the project. (The presentation assumes this. but you need to conduct
proper due diligence and act as fiduciaries and provide support for this assertion. So far, over two years have passed and no such support. Just statements without support. And now we see that the statements and entire referendum were sold to residents with bogus numbers!

Residents are right to have questioned the Dickson Administration and deserve accurate, honest answers...not opinions. Having spent some time with Steve Heitzner, I am confident that he understands this perspective and hope that the entire UPRD Board takes this to heart.

Regards,

Dean Matt
aka MuchoDeanAero aka The Pickleball Pilot 630.248.0646

MuchoDeanAero - aviation adventures and the home of The World Record 48-48-48 Pickleball Challenge

Golf Gear - golf accessories
Gone to Pot Book - cannabis industry non-fiction