From: Sally Dickson <sed2910@gmail.com>
Date: June 25, 2026 at 6:32:20 PM EDT
To: Tom Christopher <chris67ta@gmail.com>, Janette Gatesy <jsgatesy@aol.com>, Robert Grady <bobcat8120@gmail.com>, Bill Lockhorn <Lockhorn1@comcast.net>, Peggy Lowndes <plownds@comcast.net>, Lars Lundholm The Boltons <lars-a.lundholm@hotmail.com>, Pat Thompson <pat.jc.thompson@gmail.com>, steve.heitzner@universityparkrd.com, steve.swanson@universityparkrd.com, Greg.selep@universityparkrd.com, scott.huebner@universityparkrd.com, Bob Wood
<midlandmich@hotmail.com>, David M <krumpetcove@gmail.com>
Cc: Vivian Carvalho <Carvalhov@pfm.com>, Mark Barnebey
<mbarnebey@blalockwalters.com>
Subject: From the Desk of Sally Dickson

On Monday night, having just returned from being out of town, I reviewed the agenda for the RD Board of Supervisors Special Meeting for the following day, 6/23/26. I was surprised by the item Discussion of the Updated PBM Operating Agreement Approved by UPCAI on May 15, 2026. I read the supporting document in the packet and it prompted me to look online at the UPCAI agenda/minutes from their May 15, 2026 meeting to better understand the context. Except there was no meeting on that date…the date on which their radically changed PBM Operating Agreement was apparently voted on and approved by the UPCAI Board. I also looked at the agendas and minutes from several months prior but found not one reference to this subject. Since I have been attuned to all of the topics covered by the RD Board for years, I am aware that this was never discussed or noted at any of their meetings.

During Tuesday’s meeting, it was apparent that the RD Board first heard of this sometime after June 1, 2026 via an email from the UPCAI attorney to the RD Attorney. I find it odd that the RD Board Chair was not copied on the email. Also strange is that it took from May 15th when the UPCAI changes were approved until June 1 to alert the RD’s attorney.

The letter states that changes have been approved by UPCAI but that they are holding off implementation (for an unspecified amount of time) pending a discussion with UPRD. From a legal perspective, is this nonchalant comment

legally binding in the event something comes up that the PBM Management Committee normally handles (and of course, it already has)? Were the members of the PBM Mgmt Committee advised of these proposed changes so that they could operate appropriately within their stated roles and responsibilities as outlined in the only legal document they have been aware of that was substantially written at turnover?

UPCAI references concerns previously raised by the RD with the FL Ethics Commission regarding having an RD Board member serve on the PBM Management Committee. Receipt of the formal opinion was anticipated on June 5, 2026 during The Ethics Commission’s regular meeting. That result would then guide the RD, along with UPCAI, as to next steps. Apparently, UPCAI decided to hold unannounced meetings in private, well in advance, to create a plan and approve it, regardless of the Ethics outcome. Would it not have been prudent for UPCAI to reach out to the UPRD to set up a meeting to discuss together how this issue might best be resolved in the future should it be deemed necessary? If not prudent, how about professional and collegial, given that UPCAI and UPRD purport to work under a Mutual Cooperation Agreement.

Back in October, 2020, when I submitted my nomination for a seat on the UPRD Board, I wrote: A critical step for the RD is to establish a collaborative relationship with the UPCAI. A review of meeting minutes of both entities suggests a somewhat competitive dynamic that is not in the best interest of our community; nor does it facilitate timely decision making, which slows down our growth potential. We need a Strategic Plan that both entities fully embrace in order for our community to move forward with a vision for enhanced services while maintaining the best of what we have and doing so in a fiscally responsible way.

Admittedly, five and a half years, chock full of pressing issues needing more than full time attention, have passed. We didn’t accomplish this to a great degree, although we took some steps forward as with our first ever joint workshop last July, albeit we focused mostly on issues primarily warranting immediate

attention (such as determining how the RD’s major irrigation system replacement project could mutually benefit the entire UP community).

It is my belief that some members of the UPCAI Board, in this instance, have failed to set aside personal agendas to the detriment of the relationship with UPRD, AND with our Management team and 150+ staff members who will be deeply impacted by the operating agreement that will ultimately guide us into the future.

I recommend that UPCAI clean up any legal questions regarding the changes they have agreed to and the “delayed implementation” so that the community and each entity are abundantly clear about how things will legally move forward for now.

Please begin your long delayed conversation with the UPRD immediately. And please, start with at least an appearance of civility and mutual respect between our two Boards that serve our entire community. The behavior and language exhibited by the UPCAI Board member at Tuesday’s meeting was unprofessional and absurdly juvenile. Sadly, it cast a very unbecoming reflection on the UPCAI Board.

Respectfully,

Sally Dickson UPCC Resident