From:	muchodeanaero@aol.com
To:	Vivian Carvalho; Kwame Jackson; Steve Heitzner; Scott Huebner; Steve Swanson; Greg Selep
Cc:	Miami; Rob Schlingmann; Michelle Cocita; Robert C. Gang; Marisa Powers; Fred Moore; Kevin Plenzler; Brent Wilder
Subject:	Public Records Request
Date:	Saturday, August 15, 2026 6:06:30 AM

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

Note: For the avoidance of doubt, this correspondence must be included in the "Correspondence to the UPRD Board/District Staff" reports and section on the website.
Blalock's Fred Moore and UPRD's Steve Heitzner recently are on record (telling me personally and stating in UPRD public meetings) that consulting firm SCS is working on "enhancing" or "improving" the current Five-Year Plan for new Projects. They said this in acknowledgement that UPRD is not in compliance with its obligations under 2-8-161 of the Charter and as-if letting me (and residents know) that compliance is being worked on that it somehow mitigates the responsibility to MAINTAIN such required plan at ALL TIMES.
For the record: Developing the REQUIRED PLAN after saddling residents with $44 mm of debt (for which no required due diligence has been done) is unethical, unlawful, and unconscionable. REsidents derive no comfort that SCS is looking into a Five-Year Plan now when it should have been in place AND MAINTAINED since 2018. You know this, I know this, and you know I know this.
This action exposes you and UPRD and its residents to criminal and civil liability for those involved. There are regulatory agencies looking into your actions as we speak.
Yet...you continue?
I found these representations to be strange:
UPRD and its attorneys are on record through Previous Public Records Requests Responses having shown UPRD to be out of compliance with Section 2-8-161 of the charter in that there is no Five-Year Plan for new Projects. It is understood that this requirement is in place to protect residents from moving ahead with projects without due diligence being done...as is the case here.
Not at the time of the January 2024 referendum (Note: As a reminder: worse than not having the required Five-Year Plan for new Projects per Charter Section 2-8-161, Supervisor Murphy lied about UPRD being in compliance with this requirement before the January referendum.) As a result:
Residents were purposefully misinformed (i.e. a scheme to defraud)
Neither UPRD or its attorneys corrected this misinformation before the referendum nor any time since.
No compliant plan has been put forth since.
Not now while UPRD and its attorneys and financial professionals are still attempting to issue bonds...bonds for which the underlying projects have not been shown to be needed, are risk-tolerable, or wise investments due to lack

of said Five-Year Plan.

Yet, UPRD and Powers and Gang and PFM, et al are proceeding AS IF UPRD is in compliance with Section 2-8-161 of the Charter.
This is unlawful and ass-backwards. Without the due diligence required in Section 2-8-161, UPRD Board Members and residents are not assured of the impact of implementing $21 mm of capital projects saddling residents with $44 mm of debt burden.
Completion risk: No assurance that the projects can be completed in the proposed budget
A budget that was already seriously debunked in Steve Heitzner's June Town Hall presentation in which he presented slides showing that the $3 mm kitchen project's numbers were obtained in 2022 - 2 years before the referendum and 4 years before the projected completion date in 2026. His same slide showed that with inflation, the 2026 completion cost of the project in 2026 was $5mm!

This has NOTHING to do with project delay or scope creep. It has everything to do with:
Low-balled, stale numbers
A UPRD Board and attorneys who are more giddy and intent on starting projects without doing their fiduciary duty to protect residents and

adherence with the protections afforded by Section 2-8-161 of the Charter
Thank goodness the process has been paused. We'd be here with half-completed projects and no money to finish them. Just like the irrigation project.
And this, my friends, is why the Five-Year Plan for new Projects SHALL BE MAINTAINED. UPRD and Barnebey agreed to this in 2018. Why aren't you honoring this commitment. You can't pick and choose what parts of the Charter you want to abide by.
Property Value Risk: UPRD has represented over and over, without support, that these projects will enhance property values. There has been no verification/analysis as to if this statement considers the debt burden placed on properties. This omission is significant and obviously the results are profound.
How much debt can our properties absorb before property values are forever negatively impacted?
In the extreme, a million-dollar home with $1 mm of debt burden heaped on it by UPRD would deem the property worthless. Who would buy that house?
The fact that we haven't maxed-out debt burden to home value (as in the extreme example above) doesn't mean that we don't need to understand this requirement.
Certainly, nothing in Kevin Plenzler's bizzar-o, absurd and irrelevant analysis does anything to clarify. He just knows that Judge Nicholas will accept this non-sensical analysis and doubles down that UPRD Board Supervisors don't want to open a can of worms so he takes the path of least resistance and never explains how he reaches his conclusion. More shameful is that our Board doesn't inquire either for fear of putting a wrench in the spoke of a bond issuance rather than doing the RIGHT and LAWFUL thing and getting answers for residents and themselves in their role of stewards and fiduciaries:

Steve, Scott, Steve, Greg - are you listening? Or are you purposefully looking the other way and not acting as fiduciaries and, as such, participating in this scheme to defraud UPRD residents? You haven't sought a legal opinion as suggested from our attorneys for them to opine that "YES...UPRD IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH 2-8-161."
In so doing you will have fulfilled your fiduciary responsibility to residents.
In so doing, the legal risk will be shifted away from a) you as officers and, potentially, personally, and b) UPRD residents and to the attorneys and PFM where it belongs.

Why aren't you doing this? Why haven't you done this a year ago?
Not doing so and continuing to look the other way doesn't make the problem go away and doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities. It only makes the problem bigger (i.e., your knowledge of this and doing nothing to investigate and cure on behalf of residents) in regulatory investigations. You know: Who knew about this. When did they know about this? And, what did they do about this?
What have UPRD's attorneys said about this? Remember...these are the same attorneys who allowed Dickson to state to residents on January 5, 2024, that, effectively, "nothing to see here" when she represented that UPRD's attorneys were OK with the Section 5.04 language:

and then attached this BOGUS OPINION letter as, somehow, evidence that the attorneys were OK to hold the referendum with the language prohibiting additional bonds from being issued:

Then, less than a week later attorney Gang did a 180. He went into the UPRD Board meeting only 4 days from the referendum and told the Board that he couldn't issue the required opinion letter unless and until the prohibitive language was cured:

Residents were never notified of a correction to Dickson's previous statement before they voted in the 1/16/2024 referendum.
Will Gang, Powers, UPRD halt the August 24, 2026 equalization hearing? Will they decide and wake-up, with just days to go, (as they did in January 2024) that they can't continue to risk their livelihoods to pursue this bond issuance while fully knowledgeable about its client not being in compliance with a sacred obligation to residents and itself: TO

DEMONSTRATE IT DID PROPER, REQUIRED DUE DILIGENCE ON a $44 MM DEBT BURDEN
IT IS IMPOSING ON RESIDENTS? Will residents at large be told that there is no compliant Five-Year Plan? Or, will they find out in court and in downstream investigations? Will they disclose the lack of compliance to its downstream bond partners (Trustees, underwriters, investors, etc?) [In a quick review of the PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT in the August 11, 2026 UPRD Board Meeting, I saw no such disclosures for non-compliance or the open investigations].
As I suggested earlier, at a minimum you should check to see if this purposeful dodge of responsibility is covered by UPRD's D&O policy [you know...the new and improved higher limit policy which was recently enhanced by Dickson and Fetsick without Board approval]

Public Records Request:
Please provide the Five-year plan provided to consulting firm SCS from which they are "enhancing" or "improving" as represented by Attorney Moore and UPRD Chair Heitzner.
I want to see what was provided to them, because no such compliant Five-Year plan was provided to me.
Please provide the relevant instructions or contractual agreement [i.e., scope of work, timeframe, amount paid, deliverables, etc.] as it relates to "enhancing" or "improving" the Five -Year Plan for new Projects.
If there is no such specific scope of work, then we'll conclude that not only is UPRD not-compliant with Section 2-8-161 of the Charter [nor has it been compliant in the past, despite misrepresentations from Supervisor Murphy and at other times by UPRD] but that UPRD has not authorized anyone to work on the plan [i.e., for instance, we know that UPRD hasn't even asked/required its own Finance Committee to work on this deficient obligation] required in 2-8-161 to become compliant and that this is yet another purposeful misrepresentation by UPRD to residents in its scheme to deceive.
Thank you,

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