Title: 03-18-2026
Keywords: TCPDF

University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors

University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors March 18, 2026

1904 Manatee Ave. W Suite 300
Bradenton, FL 34205

941-344-6099
admin@libertycourtreportingfl.com

UNIVERSITY PARK RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SPECIAL MEETING AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION MEETING RE: Case No. SC2024-0990

DATE: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 TIME: Commencing at 1:30 p.m.
LOCATION: University Park Community Association 8301 The Park Boulevard
University Park, Florida 34201
APPEARANCES: Steve Heitzner, Chairperson
Sally Dickson, Vice-Chairperson Gregory Selep, Board Secretary Steve Swanson, Treasurer
Vivian Carvalho, District Manager
MARK P. BARNEBEY, ESQ. FRED E. MOORE, ESQ.
Blalock Walters
802 11th Street West Bradenton, Florida 34205

Proceedings were taken before:
Michelle Parks, CVR Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
MR. HEITZNER: So I'm opening up the shade meeting for University Park Recreation District, and I am turning it over to Mark Barnebey.
MR. BARNEBEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a special meeting, a shade meeting, in regard to an attorney-client session in regard to an appeal which is Dean Matt versus University Park Recreation District, Supreme Court Case 2024-0090, lower case is 2024-CA-00252.
This is a meeting that will be held under the attorney-client session provisions available under Florida Sunshine Law section 286.011(8) of Florida Statutes. This is being held today on Wednesday, March 18th, 2026, at -- at 1:30 p.m., and we have opened in public. And it's expected to last approximately 90 minutes at the request of the attorney for the District.
We will be handling this meeting in the business offices located at 8301 The Park Boulevard, University Park, Florida 34201, and this meeting will commence, as we talked about, in open meeting, and then move into attorney-client session limited in attendance to the District's attorneys on this matter, Mark Barnebey and Fred Moore,

district manager Vivian Carvalho, and we will meet
in private with the board of supervisors of the
District, Sally Dixon, Steve Heitzner, Scott
Huebner [sic], Greg Selep, and Steve Swanson.
And we have a court reporter present as well.
This -- and -- and the court reporter will be to
transcribe the full proceedings, which will be made
a part of the public record for release at the
conclusion of the litigation for the purposes of
discussing two things: settlement negotiations or
strategies sessions relating to litigation
expenditures in the following court case, and
that's the Dean Matt versus University Park
Recreation District that was referenced before.
At the conclusion of this private session, the
private session when we go into that, this meeting
will then re-open in public to see if there's any
action taken at that time.
Any questions?
MS. DICKSON: Yes. You mentioned just before
that last part that for -- you said that the
contents of these meetings remain confidential
until the litigation is over.
MR. BARNEBEY: Correct.
MS. DICKSON: But then, you said something

1 | about settlement negotiations. | Does -- is the --
2 | are the contents -- | | | |
3 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Yeah. | | |
4 | MS. DICKSON: | -- of these meetings open before
5	the settlement negotiations?
6 | MR. BARNEBEY: | No. | No. | The -- we can only
7 | talk about settlement negotiations -- |
8 | MS. DICKSON: | Okay. | | |
9 | MR. BARNEBEY: | -- or strategy suggestions --
10	strategy sessions related to litigation
11 | expenditures. | | | |
12 | MS. DICKSON: | Okay. | | |
13 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Okay? | All right. | Everything
14 | will remain private until the case is over one way
15	or the other, but once the case is over, all of

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

these discussions become public eventually.
MS. DICKSON: By recording?
MR. BARNEBEY: They'll be transcribed.
MS. DICKSON: Transcribed. So every utterance?
MR. BARNEBEY: Correct. Correct.
MR. SWANSON: Is there anything related to this topic that is off limits to ask or comment on?
MR. BARNEBEY: There's a number of things. If
it doesn't fall into one of those two categories I

just mentioned, it's going to be off limits to talk
about.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: And --
MR. HEITZNER: But related to these two topics
that he said, there's nothing off limits.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: That's correct. Correct.
Okay.
MS. CARVALHO: And before you go into the
session, just let the record reflect that Scott
Huebner is not present at this meeting today.
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes. I will -- all the board
members are here, but you are correct, Scott
Huebner is not in attendance today.
There is no members of the public here, so I
think we can now go into private session,
Mr. Chairman. So do you want to go into private
session?
MR. HEITZNER: Like, formally open it?
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes, please.
MR. HEITZNER: Okay. So we're now opening the
private session to talk about, I guess, settlement
strategies and whether or not there are any --
we've had this conversation before, but here we are

almost a year later.
(The public portion of the meeting was closed
and the private attorney-client shade meeting
commenced at 1:35 p.m. as follows:)
MR. HEITZNER: Is there anything anybody wants
to bring up that we think we ought to --
MR. SELEP: Well, Steve -- Steve and I were
not part --
MR. BARNEBEY: That's correct.
MR. SELEP: -- so we maybe --
MR. BARNEBEY: We need some -- we need some
background.
MR. SWANSON: Maybe a refresher on what --
MR. SELEP: -- was discussed --
MR. SWANSON: -- what was discussed or offered
and where that sits.
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay. Let me say two things
before I turn it over to Fred and let Fred handle
that, and so you can get you a little -- a little
more background about the history of the case. I
know we talked a little bit about that, but not
each individually. But -- and certainly in public
we've talked a little bit about it as well.
I want to remind you again, this is being
transcribed, and therefore don't say something we

might not appreciate down the road, okay?
Having said that --
MR. SWANSON: This happens to be a lot, so
I'll try my best.
MR. BARNEBEY: I've -- I have been -- I have
been in meetings where -- not with this group, but
with other groups where I went, "Oh, that's
interesting to say that here."
The second -- the second thing I will note is
only talk one at a time because we are having this
transcribed, and I know the court reporter needs
help to make sure that people aren't talking over
one another, okay?
And with that, I'm going to turn it over to
Fred, and kind of get a background and where we're
at, and what our thoughts are.
MR. MOORE: So we'll go all the way back.
There was a referendum to go ahead and try to bond
the -- the set-off. We had a bond validation
hearing in April of '24. There was only one person
or group, that being Dean Matt, that appeared and
challenged the validation proceedings.
We put forth the evidence on behalf of the
district. Mr. Matt put forth additional evidence,
and the court ruled, agreeing that the bond should

be validated.
Mr. Matt then did several post-judgment
related motions, that being a motion for rehearing,
attempted to disqualify the judge, and eventually
when those were denied, filed a notice of appeal
timely. And that was in early to mid June of '24.
And then, we started the process of the Supreme
Court appeal.
The briefings were completed in December of
'24, and now the briefs sit there at the Supreme
Court. Mr. Matt requested on two different
instances oral argument. The Supreme Court has not
ruled on that, though we did file, related to his
request within his brief, to strike the oral
argument requests. He filed the proper way, and
there's a motion -- or not a motion -- there's an
order denying our motion to strike. So as we sit
here, there may or may not be oral arguments, and
we're just waiting on direction from the Supreme
Court.
The next thing that would happen would either
be an order detailing what oral arguments are, or a
decision from the court.
MR. SWANSON: Can I ask a question?
MR. MOORE: Yes.

MR. SWANSON: Can you explain the oral
argument component? What does that really mean?
MR. MOORE: It means we go up to Tallahassee,
Mr. Matt will be at a table, I'll be at a table,
and based on our briefs -- he would go first. He's
the plaintiff -- or the appellant, I should say.
And he would start going through his brief and all
the reasons why the judgment should be overturned.
I find that he will not get very far before
one of the several Supreme Court justices start
peppering questions. He has 15 minutes to make his
argument, to answer the questions. Then we would
have our chance to go forward and say why we
believe the trial court was right.
Again, I'd start to get peppered with
questions, and at the conclusion of our time, the
court would recess, and at some point --
MR. SWANSON: He requested the oral arguments?
MR. MOORE: He requested the oral arguments.
MR. SWANSON: Would that not be in our favor
for the most part? I mean, wouldn't you think that
that -- since this was already kicked by the lower
court, would this not be in our favor, or is that
not a good approach?
MR. MOORE: As an appellee, it -- we're

already sitting in a better position because a
decision is already in our favor, so I don't think
it has...
MR. SWANSON: It wouldn't speed things up.
MR. MOORE: It wouldn't -- and we don't have
any control over it.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. MOORE: It is completely discretionary on
either the District Court of Appeal or in the
Supreme Court. It's generally granted in the
District Court of Appeal. I think it's much less
granted in Supreme Court.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: And I just want to note, just
in case you don't understand. I know you're not
familiar with the system. There will be no
evidence presented at that trial. It's all
arguments, legal arguments at the hearing --
MR. SWANSON: But they could rule --
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes. Oh, yes.
MR. SWANSON: -- right then and there.
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes. In fact, they could rule
on it right -- today -- I mean, tomorrow if they
wanted.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.

MR. MOORE: It's unlikely that they would,
from the bench, rule, because they would go back
and would have to sort of discuss it amongst
themselves, unless they've already discussed some
of it beforehand. I have never seen an appellate
court say, "Okay, yeah. I'm going to rule in your
favor," like a trial court would.
I have seen it where -- you used to go to
Lakeland for the DCA, and I've seen it where you go
and you argue, and what's called "per curiam
affirmed" beats you back to the office. So they're
pretty -- can be pretty quick on it. And not
literally beating you back, but it's within that
week, you -- you get the decision.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. MOORE: It's possible that it could be
fairly quick afterwards.
I will say, for your question, Sally, we've
gotten a lot of questions on the timing of things,
so I did go back and look at, roughly, the last
five years of bond cases. There weren't too many,
but it seems that the average right now is about
two years.
MS. DICKSON: Oh.
MR. HEITZNER: Which is consistent with what

I've heard from a bunch of different attorneys that
I've talked to.
MR. SWANSON: Okay. Thank you.
MS. DICKSON: My question is, when we first
went to the circuit court and we got -- the judge
ruled in our favor, Dean Matt went back with
whatever complaints or arguments or whatever he
went back with, did we -- was that considered an
appeal, or was there an appeal by him to the
Circuit Court that we then got a second approval,
or -- it's always been my impression that it was --
it was ruled in our favor twice at the Circuit
Court level.
MR. MOORE: He -- it's not an appeal, but it
was a motion for rehearing suggesting that the
judge got it wrong, either based on the evidence or
based on the law, and the judge denied that
request.
So really, all that does is -- it stays the
time with which he has to file a notice of appeal,
because you have 30 days from the date the
judgment's rendered. If a motion for rehearing is
filed within the first 15 days, it stays that
period of time to file the notice of appeal, and
that's why he had until roughly June -- I think it

was 15th-ish -- to go ahead and do the notice of
appeal.
MR. HEITZNER: So I think it would be helpful
now for these guys -- so we had a shade meeting,
the last time we had a shade meeting, and there
were -- there were some -- at that point, you had
met with, I think, Dean Matt, and there was a -- a
list of items that he wanted in order for us -- for
him to drop the suit and to settle. It would
probably be -- I mean, you guys have heard this
anecdotally. It might be good to hear it from the
horse's mouth.
MR. BARNEBEY: And maybe one thing before we
get to that. I don't know how familiar they are
with -- everyone -- just to refresh some
recollection, what are the three primary issues
that Dean Matt has raised in front of the Supreme
Court?
MR. MOORE: The primary issues that are on
appeal are, one related to the valuation of the
bond amount versus the property, and the benefit
that the properties get based on the bond.
The second is, what I've heard referred to a
couple of different ways with this 504 issue from
the original bond indenture, which has some

ambiguity as to whether or not the district could
bond off other debt. And I would -- and our
position is, is that is a collateral issue with
regards to issuing a bond. For bonds to be issued,
if first have to prove that we as its agency have a
legal right to issue bonds, and then, having to do
with the valuation process. Those are the two
primary factors.
And so it's our position as a district that
whether or not the bondholders would agree, based
on the contract, to allow us to issue another bond
is between the district and the bondholders, and
not whether or not the district has a legal right
to issue bonds.
And if it's a collateral issue, it's not
appropriate to challenge it within the bond
validation proceedings. That's not to say that
there wasn't another mechanism such as declaratory
judgment action that Mr. Matt could have
proceeded -- proceeded with to challenge the right.
But then, at the same, we the district, with
the bondholders, can't always amend a contract, and
that's essentially what happened was, to clarify
the ambiguity, that was done around the time of the
bond validation hearing.

We did not raise at the bond validation
hearing a lot of facts about what was going on
there because we weren't trying to -- to muddy the
waters at all, and we simply stuck with "It's a
collateral issue. It's a contractual arrangement
between us and -- and the bondholders."
And then, the third primary argument he has is
related to due process. He doesn't believe that
the judge was fair to him because he told him if he
doesn't like living in a community with HOAs and
districts, he should go live in a community such as
Myakka.
MS. DICKSON: I want to put something in
simple terms, if these are the correct simple
terms. His argument on the -- on the -- the -- the
value or --
MR. HEITZNER: Valuation. Bond valuation.
MS. DICKSON: Okay. So his objection, if I am
understanding it correctly, is he looked at the
cost -- he looked at the bond with all the interest
and felt that, just like with a mortgage, we should
have sat there and -- just like no one does with a
mortgage -- and figured out that at the end of
30 years the -- the actual dollar amount was going
to be something like 44 million -- or I don't even

remember what it was -- which, of course, is
unrealistic. But he felt that that was the way
that it should have been positioned, if I remember
correctly.
MR. BARNEBEY: That was one of his issues.
His other -- other issue tied -- by the way, it's a
21 million-dollar bond --
MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- just so everybody knows.
But I think with interest, it comes to about
37 million total over the whole bond, but it's a 21
billion-dollar bond.
The second -- the second part -- the other
thing I think that he had -- he had complaints
about was that he did not think that PFM Financial,
who was our expert witness on this, had provided --
I'll put it nicely -- enough information to testify
that there was a benefit to the residents for
issuing a bond. Simple as that.
And so, they -- but obviously, we felt that
they adequately did that. The court -- the lower
court obviously thought that too.
So -- so -- but those were -- those were the
primary reasons that, based on his -- his appeal to
the Supreme Court, what his concerns were.

Did I miss anything?
MR. MOORE: No.
MR. SWANSON: So just to recap. So it was
valuation of the bond amount, there was the
504 issue, and due process because the judge told
him, basically, "If you don't like living there,
move." Those are the three -- those are the three
issues?
MR. BARNEBEY: Those are the three issues on
appeal, yes.
MR. MOORE: Yes. And due process is not just
"you should move." It was -- he had put in
several, I don't know if it was videos or audio
files, and the judge said he would listen to it
because Mr. Matt did not have anything prepared to
go ahead and actually put it on and play it there.
And then, ultimately, when we got to the end,
based on what the judge had heard to date -- and we
had the meeting minutes, whereas these were
recordings of those meetings -- he went ahead and
ruled. And so he doesn't believe he got a fair
shake because the judge, while saying he would
listen to the things, went ahead and ruled without
listening to it.
MS. DICKSON: Which is not unacceptable?

MR. MOORE: Which is not unacceptable. If
we've met our burden, that should be sufficient.
And then, the judge had an opportunity to listen to
it related to the rehearing, and did not grant the
relief he was seeking, and now here we are on
appeal.
MR. HEITZNER: So how do -- how do you
quantify value? So whether it's 21 million dollars
or -- you said 37 million? He's been saying it's
44 million.
MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. HEITZNER: That -- you know, value means a
lot of different things. Value comes in many
different forms, right? It comes in intangible
things like enjoyment. It comes, you know --
MR. SELEP: Member satisfaction.
MR. HEITZNER: -- member satisfaction, you
know, et cetera, et cetera. So how -- how, in that
case, would value be --
MR. MOORE: It's the benefit to the
properties, essentially.
MR. HEITZNER: Benefit to the real estate
values?
MR. MOORE: Correct. Well, Mr. Matt doesn't
think that's the case because he thinks the real

estate values, you know, over time they're -- have
been increasing in this area, you know, multiple,
multiple -- multiplied, so he doesn't think that --
that was one of his positions was PFM did not
calculate it that way because they're looking at it
strictly from the fact that the property values are
increasing year over year. But that's not taking
into account whether the district facilities are
part of why it's increasing year over year, so it's
that benefit to the properties.
MR. HEITZNER: And how would you prove that --
how would you prove that there is or isn't value?
MR. MOORE: We would prove it by having an
expert such as PFM come in and do the calculations
based on -- and I think they did it right. There
is not a lot of detailed case law. It's kind of a
"we know it when we see it" type of
decision-making, and so there aren't a lot of cases
that say specifically "you must follow this exact
pattern."
Part of it is is the benefit can be different.
I don't think it has to always be monetary. I
think there is "what is the benefit to the bond to
the properties within the district" that is --
MR. SWANSON: But his contention is primarily

that, correct?
MR. MOORE: His contention is we calculated it
wrong because we're simply basing it on the fact
that the values of each of the properties here are
increasing, and increased because of the amenities.
MS. CARVALHO: And -- and may I add that the
assessment methodology was the same one, tied --
the allocation and the actual ERU was tied to the
2019 -- so the same way the 2019 bonds were issued
is how this assessment methodology was going to be
done. A 50/50.
MR. MOORE: Certainly think the converse is,
if the district doesn't maintain its facilities,
the value of the property is going to decrease.
MS. CARVALHO: Decrease.
MR. HEITZNER: Plenty of examples of that
around here.
MR. SELEP: And there's liability in that
case.
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes, all of those things.
MR. MOORE: All right. So --
MR. SELEP: Hang on. One second. I'm sorry.
So just to be clear. All three of his contentions
have already been ruled on once, so...
MR. MOORE: Every one of his contentions --

and within the three, there are little
sub-branches, but that's the high level -- it's
been ruled on by the trial court, so there is a
final judgment. It's a final decision that he has
one opportunity to let an appellate court look at,
and that's the Supreme Court.
And the reasons the Supreme Court is a -- they
try to have it expedited by not having to go
through the -- the district court.
MR. BARNEBEY: Some are -- some are more
expedited than others.
MR. SELEP: Expedited in quotes.
MR. HEITZNER: All right. So we had a
meeting. The board had a meeting, and the board
agreed that Rusty and Fred would go meet with Dean
Matt; is that correct?
MR. MOORE: Well, going back a little bit
more, Mr. Matt had reached out. I had a meeting
with him with just the two of us, and it quickly
went sideways, and he wanted to focus on things
that were not related to the bond. And I tried to
let him know, "That might be an appropriate
conversation for Mark, because he represents the
district. You know, my focus is the bond, the bond
validation proceedings."

So that's what I focused on, and some of these
other things, I can't really opine on. I'm not
going to opine on. And so, it became apparent to
me that it didn't seem like a deal would be able to
be had.
I think I brought that back to you all, and
then Mr. Piersons did say, "I think I can, you
know, figure it out."
So then, Mr. Piersons, myself, and Mr. Matt
had a meeting where I got four points of what
Mr. Matt appeared to be willing to settle at, and
it was very, you know, lacking in detail. It was:
Mr. Matt becomes the board ombudsman for
governance, there's a business plan initiative
that's put in place, there's an apology to the
residents and Mr. Matt, and let the bond fall as it
may.
We were, during the discussion, able to flesh
out that he would be willing to dismiss the appeal
if we were able to come up with the other points.
This ombudsman position was not easy to consider --
think about, so it took some time.
I then put together a more full bullet point
list, which I provided, I think, at the last shade
meeting that -- trying to spell out what this

ombudsman was, what the business plan might look
like, the apology aspect of it, which is kind of
one of those win-win type of apologies. Not that
anyone did anything wrong, but we're moving
forward, we're working together.
And then, the last piece being the dismissal
and release of all claims, because one thing
Mr. Matt likes to do -- and we can't really get too
far into this -- is talk about all the other claims
that he has and is going to bring.
But to date, we don't know what those really
are in any specific detail, so we really can't
negotiate or discuss that. And it's certainly not
appropriate for us to address those today, because
they're not a part of any settlement offer from him
related to this deal, this transaction, this
appeal.
MR. SELEP: So, Fred, let me back you up just
a step. So he has threatened other litigation --
MR. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SELEP: -- but in this settlement, we
could word it to where no other litigation would be
appropriate?
MR. MOORE: Yes. Up to the day it's signed.
So right after he signs it, let's say, it's 2:00

right now, he signs it today at 2:00. At 2:01 he
could make a public records request, and if it's
not complied with within five days, he would be
back threatening a lawsuit for the -- could be
back.
MR. SWANSON: A lawsuit because the public
records request wasn't fulfilled in time?
MR. MOORE: That would be -- that's
something --
MR. HEITZNER: That's an example.
MR. SWANSON: Basically, he could bring any
lawsuit he wants after that is signed.
MR. MOORE: No. He can't have -- it'd be
based on, if it's mutual general release, as of the
date it's signed into the past, he can't raise any
of those facts. Those aren't -- there aren't any
claims that exist as of the day he signed. They
all go away.
But any claim that comes about based on new
facts, and the public records is just the easiest
claim --
MS. CARVALHO: Is the example.
MR. HEITZNER: So this is -- this is our point
then. If we reach a settlement with Dean Matt, the
very next day, he can file a new lawsuit?

MR. SELEP: Based on --
MR. MOORE: Not necessarily the very next day,
but within a period of time, new facts --
MR. HEITZNER: I'm just trying to --
MR. SWANSON: Yeah. He can file a new
lawsuit, but it cannot be anything related to the
bond, anything related to financing these capital
projects, or any of that; is that correct? That --
that is a dead-and-done issue. He can bring
something else up just to be an annoying human, but
that doesn't necessarily mean he can block what
we're trying to accomplish with the bond.
MR. MOORE: Could not do anything with the
bond, but that does not mean that he could not then
say that what you're now going to spend the money
on at the club is an appropriate expenditure. He
could then file some form of action. I've not
looked at it and thought up "what kind of things
could he bring?"
MR. SWANSON: Sure. Sure.
MR. MOORE: But, yes, he could say, "You're
not using the proceeds appropriately, so I think
you've breached your fiduciary obligations," or
some other issue, and file suit.
MR. SWANSON: And then, we go back into the --

to the lower court again? We go back to Manatee
County. We'd sit through that whole --
MR. MOORE: It would go back. It would be a
fresh new lawsuit.
MR. SWANSON: And everything would stop
because he filed this lawsuit?
MR. SELEP: Not necessarily.
MR. SWANSON: We could continue along -- let's
just say we started building out something. Let's
say the -- let's say, hypothetically, we receive
the bond money.
MR. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SWANSON: We start on the kitchen.
MR. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SWANSON: He files a lawsuit saying we're
not using the proceeds appropriately. Does that
stop all that construction and all that work?
MR. MOORE: No. Unless, as part of that, he
seeks a temporary injunction.
MR. SWANSON: So, yes?
MR. MOORE: Well, in order to seek a temporary
injunction, he has got to not just show that he's
likely to win, but there's irreparable harm, and he
would then also have to post a bond in order for
the injunction to be put in place to stop the work.

MR. SWANSON: So -- but the irreparable harm,
is that not subjective based upon who's -- who's
interpreting irreparable harm? So a judge in
Manatee County could say, "Yes, I agree with
Mr. Matt. That is irreparable harm. Stop what
you're doing."
So now what we've got is a torn up kitchen and
caution tape everywhere, and we're -- right? I
mean, potentially. I'm not trying to be a negative
Nelly here. I'm just trying to understand the --
My conversations and my understanding of this
guy is he's just looking to do this kind of stuff
constantly. Yeah, and it's on the record. I get
it. But I'm just trying to figure out what our
options are.
I can see him trying to navigate every little
nook and cranny humanly possible. There's no
rationale behind it, but he seems to like doing
these things.
MR. MOORE: I think he can. I think that the
fact that the bond issuance lists out a lot of
these things, I think it would be very difficult
for him to show irreparable harm --
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. MOORE: -- and for a court to grant --

MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. MOORE: -- a temporary injunction.
And in that instance, let's just say, we know
construction prices are going up, you know,
10 percent every year. We would then put on
evidence to show, "Here's our damages because of
the delay in this construction. Here's the amount
of attorney's fees it's going to cost for us to get
this injunction dropped."
And then, he would have to post a bond based
on that evidence we presented of 100,000, of
200,000 dollars --
MR. SWANSON: There it is.
MR. MOORE: -- or the injunction is not in
place.
MR. HEITZNER: Which is what I asked could we
do for this particular case.
MR. BARNEBEY: Right. Yes.
MS. DICKSON: Require a bond?
MR. HEITZNER: Require him to post bond?
MR. MOORE: And the answer is -- is no.
Because it doesn't -- that -- different type of --
of bond then the injunction bond.
MR. HEITZNER: How?
MR. MOORE: Well, typically, the bond in a --

in a appeal -- supersedeas bond is -- we won, and
we won a money judgment of 100,000 dollars. We
would be able to collect that 100,000 dollars, even
though he's appealing the decision, unless he posts
a bond. And that bond serves to protect us so that
he doesn't dissipate his assets or do something to
where we can't collect that -- that judgment.
Because it's not an injunction we have here,
but the reason the -- or the Legislature's
reasoning then, if we go straight to the Supreme
Court, is to give it that finale and give it as --
as quickly as the Supreme Court will allow it to
go.
MS. DICKSON: I have a question. Dean Matt
has previously held up two folders and said, "I
have two other lawsuits waiting in the wings,
crispy and extra crispy."
We don't know what the contents are. We don't
know what the purpose is. So he could literally go
ahead with those. We don't even know what, but he
has threatened that, and he has in his hands.
Unless -- and again, trying to list every
eventuality is going to be an exercise -- an
absolute waste of time, in my opinion.
But he must disclose what "crispy" and "extra

crispy" are, and have it covered by any agreement
we have that he can't -- we'd have to have some
proof of what these lawsuits are that he claims are
ready to go.
MR. MOORE: Well, if we're getting a release,
it doesn't matter really what they are. It's --
it -- those claims are released. I will say
that --
MR. BARNEBEY: As of the -- as of the date
of -- of the release.
MR. MOORE: Right.
MS. DICKSON: That he can't do anything.
MR. BARNEBEY: Can't do --
MS. DICKSON: But if we don't know what's in
them --
MR. BARNEBEY: It doesn't matter.
MR. MOORE: It doesn't matter.
MR. BARNEBEY: He can't -- he can't sue us
based on anything that predated the date of the
settlement.
MR. MOORE: The release --
MS. DICKSON: Okay. But -- but he could have
these two lawsuits, go change the date to
tomorrow --
MR. SWANSON: But he has to produce evidence

that says it happened after --
MR. BARNEBEY: Yeah. That's correct.
MR. SWANSON: -- July 15th, or whatever.
MS. DICKSON: Oh, okay. That the offense
happened?
MR. BARNEBEY: That's right.
MR. SELEP: Correct.
MS. DICKSON: No, not really. He can never go
back in time --
MR. BARNEBEY: He cannot --
MS. DICKSON: -- and say, "I just found
something in a public records request that goes
back to May 2024, but since such and such, and I
know that to be false," and he's never brought it
up before, can he do that?
MR. MOORE: No. If it is a fact or claim that
was before -- predates the release. Because the
releases would be drafted broad enough to where
it's "all known/unknown, liquidated/unliquidated
claims."
MS. DICKSON: Oh. Oh.
MR. MOORE: So that it just makes sure it's a
clean start. And a lot of times people always
laugh at us, you know, "From the beginning of
time" --

MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. MOORE: -- "until, you know, the date of
the execution of the agreement," is a lot of the
language used so everything --
MR. HEITZNER: Anything that occurred in that
timeframe prior to the release is exempt?
MR. MOORE: That -- yeah. Anything that gives
rise to that claim, that claim is gone.
MS. DICKSON: Oh, okay. So --
MR. HEITZNER: Well, when you say "gives rise
to that claim," what does that mean?
MR. MOORE: So -- and let's just say it's
something that has nothing to do with the bond. It
doesn't matter if it has to do. It's a general
release. It's any claim that exists as of the
date --
MR. HEITZNER: So whatever offense he thinks
occurred, if it occurred before the releases, it's
exempt?
MR. MOORE: Right. Let's say that someone --
I'm not going to say anything because this is being
recorded -- but someone says something, a
defamatory statement yesterday and he signs a
release, you can't use that. But a day after the
release, someone says the exact same statement,

then you've got the --
MR. HEITZNER: Okay.
MR. MOORE: -- the claim.
MS. DICKSON: So -- so, in effect, we're
always held hostage?
MR. MOORE: Well --
MS. DICKSON: I guess by anybody, but I -- but
just -- I don't know.
MR. HEITZNER: Yeah.
MS. DICKSON: It's -- it's sort of like
blackmail.
MR. MOORE: I wouldn't necessarily say that,
but he -- the release --
MR. SWANSON: He's an expert with leverage.
He knows how to leverage to get what he wants.
MR. MOORE: He knows how to leverage out of
lots of things just spinning some yarn and telling
people, "Hey, I have this yarn here. I -- I can go
after you."
Yes. But that doesn't mean that it's a valid
or viable claim. I will say the "crispy" and
"extra crispy," the clock is ticking. So there's
nothing that prevents him from filing it. Just --
just because this bond appeals thing, he has the
absolute right to file these other claims if they

exist. And if they exist, the statute of
limitations is running.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. SELEP: The key -- the key is, if I -- if
I understand this correctly, we can't -- we've
opened the door. He's run through it. Whether we
agree we've opened the door a crack or we threw the
door wide open, he's run through the door, and now
he's -- now he's in. If we settle and we get -- we
get the agreement, okay? Don't open the door
again.
MR. MOORE: Well, that's easier said than
done.
MR. SWANSON: Well, as far as defamatory
statements go, that's an easier one to control than
whether or not he thinks we're not using the bond
funds in the appropriate manner, right? He doesn't
like that idea at all of spending the money.
MR. HEITZNER: That's not what he says.
MR. SWANSON: Yeah. So the conversation you
had that he outlined his terms, so to speak...
MR. MOORE: Well, what I should have said, I
believe that Mr. Piersons, after speaking with
Mr. Matt, created the first bullet point list.
MS. DICKSON: How do you -- how do you know

that that's Mr. Piersons?
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, it's got -- I don't know.
I think --
MR. SWANSON: Those are his notes?
MR. MOORE: Those are my notes.
MR. SWANSON: Those are your notes.
MR. MOORE: Right here. It was given to me at
the meeting with Mr. Piersons and Mr. Matt after
his discussion for me to more fully flesh this out,
talk. And then, I then took a month or two to then
put together the more thoughtful, and here's kind
of the makeup of how these four points could
actually work.
MS. DICKSON: Can -- can I -- I just want to
make a point. Dean has publicly stated in any
number of his screeds that go out, whether it's his
legal and finance notes, or it's a regular, you
know, attack email, and numerous times he has said,
"I generously made offers," and he's listed these
things as conditions, "and they were not taken up,
and now it's too late. It is off the table."
So my question is -- let's take him at his
word and say that, if that's the case, what is the
point of mediation? What are we mediating if he's
not willing to do any of this stuff now? What --

what is mediation going to cost us? What is
mediation potentially going to get us? Because I
think that's the big thing on the table.
People heard the word "mediation," and said,
"Well, aren't we going to do something?" You know,
our -- our community. And we have to decide: Is
mediation a viable exercise, or it is a waste of
money and time, and to what degree can we
communicate that to the community so that they
understand?
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, the second -- the second
question is -- is outside of the --
MR. MOORE: I'm going to -- I'm on my phone to
look up my last email to him where I think I told
him we're not able to come to terms. I've had no
communication to him since then, so I'm just going
to --
MS. DICKSON: Okay.
MR. MOORE: So I'm not being rude.
MS. DICKSON: No, no. No, that's fine.
MR. SWANSON: You're on Draft Kings, I
noticed.
MR. BARNEBEY: Let me -- as is always the
case, and remember that reason we have the shade
meetings is to talk about settlement negotiations,

potentially, and -- and litigation expenditures,
and strategy relating to litigation expenditures.
The -- it's always -- there's always some
benefit to settling the matter if we can -- if we
can do that. I mean, we don't know what the
court's going to say in this case. And to some
extent, we won't get certainty of that -- that
answer if we can settle the matter.
As you recall, last time we talked about
potentially settling, and -- or at that point,
could not come up with a list of things they wanted
so we could settle it. And so --
And, you know, the uncertainty is something
that we -- that is always the reason why you want
to potentially settle, because as -- as you know,
probably from watching the news, sometimes even our
Supreme Court of United States can't agree -- the
nine justices can't agree on what the law should
be. So you don't always know where that answer's
going to come out.
If we can come up with a settlement that we
can live with, then there is an advantage to us
for -- to do that.
Now, having said all of that, and as was
noted, we couldn't -- we did not come up with one

last time. And I don't know, even if we propose
something at this point, whether or not he'd take
it.
But, we've got two new board members, and so
we -- we think it's important to at least have this
discussion to make sure -- to see if there's
something that you all want to consider and talk
about to perhaps propose to --
MR. SWANSON: So -- so let's take -- let's
just assume he's still open to this, okay? What
does any of that even mean? What does that mean?
What does a -- what does a public apology mean?
We're sorry that somebody said you were deranged?
MR. MOORE: I mean --
MR. SWANSON: I mean, I -- is that really what
we're looking for, or does he need to articulate
that in some meaningful way so that we can make
sure that when, you know, i's are dotted and t's
are crossed, is that -- is that what we need to do?
MR. MOORE: I mean, the apology's probably the
hardest part.
MR. SWANSON: I just picked one --
MR. MOORE: Right. Right. With Mr. Matt --
because I think you can always come up with
language that is an apology/non-apology that works

University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors
| | | | | 39
1 | for both people, you know? |
2 | "We're here. | | We were all serving the best
3 | interest, and we appreciate Mr. Matt's diligence.
4 | And, you know, what- -- whatever, yada, yada, |
5 | yada." | | | |
6 | And then, he signs off on it and it's done.
7 | MR. SWANSON: | | Right. | |
8 | MR. MOORE: | But then, we have the other issue
9 | of the ombudsman, which was we already have our
10 | meetings in the public. | You already have audits.
11 | MR. HEITZNER: | Well, I think -- I think -- I
12 | think we're okay with having governance and |
13 | ombudsman, it's just not going to be him. |
14 | MR. MOORE: | Right. | And that was one of his
15	things is he wanted to be this ombudsman person.
16 | MR. SWANSON: | | What does that even mean? | I

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

mean, I know what an ombudsman is, but --
MR. HEITZNER: For him to be an ombudsman MR. SWANSON: I know. What's he --
MR. HEITZNER: He wants to govern the boa MR. SWANSON: In what way?
MS. DICKSON: Either serve on a governanc committee. He's -- his throwing around of ombudsman is just him --
MR. SWANSON: Sure. It's just -- it's hi

.

rd.

e

m,

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

1	yes.
2

MS. DICKSON: -- you know, it's about an

individual. But I think if we had a governance
committee, he would want to be on it. And I think
that's a whole other discussion.
MR. HEITZNER: That's a whole other
discussion --
MS. DICKSON: And that's not something we're
opposed to.
MR. HEITZNER: -- and it's not him -- he
can't -- he can't appoint himself to a governance
committee.
A governance committee would be selected by
the board based on candidates that would be
interested in serving on a committee like that,
that we have all of their resumes and et cetera,
and then the board -- the board would individually
vote on the candidates, which is what we did for
strategic planning and the finance committee.
We would vote on that committee. We wouldn't
have a separate process for Dean Matt. It would be
the same process that we used before, like we
talked about in the last -- in the last board
meeting.
MR. SELEP: Right. For the opening and the

strategy meeting.
MR. SWANSON: So we have a board to manage the
board?
MR. HEITZNER: It's not unusual -- I wouldn't
say -- it's not entirely unusual to have a
governance committee outside of the board, and in
some cases, it's actually a benefit to the board.
The board still makes the decisions.
MR. SWANSON: No, no. Agreed. Agreed. But
this is -- for an entity like this, it doesn't make
a ton of sense.
MR. BARNEBEY: It would be --
MR. SWANSON: In Marriott, yes, maybe. But
here? I mean, it's -- that's a little overkill for
what we're trying to do.
MR. HEITZNER: It's not unusual for a club, is
my point.
MR. SWANSON: Okay. See, I didn't know that.
MR. HEITZNER: It's not unusual -- it is not
unusual for a club to have a governance committee.
In fact, Heron Glen, who we are often compared to
by a former board member, has a governance
committee.
MR. SELEP: Our HOA's got a governance
committee.

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

MR. HEITZNER: My -- my club in Bethesda,
Maryland, has a governance committee.
MR. SWANSON: So I'm -- it's -- it's how he
wants it to work is the -- is the contention I'm
trying to get to.
MR. HEITZNER: Yeah.
MR. SELEP: True -- true, Steve. But it's a
negotiation. We could propose a grievance [sic]
committee. We would accept applications for the
grievance committee.
MR. SWANSON: Grievance or governance?
MR. SELEP: I'm sorry. Governance.
Governance.
MR. SWANSON: It's a Freudian slip. A
Freudian slip. I know what you meant.
MR. SELEP: And then, he is welcome to submit
his resume.
MR. HEITZNER: Yeah. Exactly.
MS. DICKSON: That will not mean that once the
selections are made --
MR. SWANSON: That you made the cut.
MS. DICKSON: He will -- he will then be, you
know, putting out there the discrimination hand.
MR. SWANSON: That would have to be called out
in here. Said, "This is the approach and the

process we would take, and he would have to be
voted on," kind of a deal.
MR. SELEP: And it's, by the way, the same
process we've used for the other two committees.
It had -- we need to do a better job at documenting
that, maybe.
MR. SWANSON: Do we think he, as an absolute,

8 | that | he wants to be part of that? Because he knows
9 | that | if we --
10 | | MS. DICKSON: He's waivered.
11 | | MR. SWANSON: -- propose -- has he?
12 | | MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
13 | | MR. SWANSON: Because I was going to say, he
knows that if he proposes, and we say "the process
is this," that the board decides who's on this

governance committee, he may not make
MR. SELEP: We don't know that.

the cut. If he's the

only -- if he's the only guy to submit, then he
won't make the cut. You know, trying to recruit
for those kinds of -- even -- even -- you know,
even the two committees we've put in place,
recruiting for those committees is not easy now.

So -- so that would be -- that would
to negotiate.

be one point

As far as the business plan initiative goes,

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

that's already started. We have the strategic
planning committee. We're trying to hire a
consultant as part of the deliverables for that
consultant is a plan.
MS. DICKSON: His reference to the business
planning was actually in support of a board member
who was supporting that original business planning
advisory group that was not appointed by the board
that did not report to the board, and that put
forth a business plan before we even had a
strategic plan.
And we did go through it, and we did comment
and deliberate on it, and found certain elements of
it that we thought were appropriate, and they have
now been passed on for the strategic planning
committee to look at.
But his specific reference to the business
planning group was to the specific group that met
for a couple of years, changed people that were
involved, et cetera. It was -- it was not a
continuous process. They presented something, and
the board has already dealt with it, so...
MR. SELEP: Well, and just for the two of you,
I was on that original committee. They changed
directions, okay, midstream. It was run by Rusty.

It was originally -- it was originally more like
the current strategy committee --
MS. DICKSON: Right.
MR. SELEP: -- it -- that was in place. It
then -- they couldn't get the work done. Primarily
because of two people, Rusty being one of them.
And I know this will be on the record. They
couldn't get the work done, and the bond went
ahead. And then, it stopped because the board
didn't have enough capacity to do both -- both
things, okay?
When it reconvened, it reconvened with a
completely different direction. Two of us opted
out and said, "This is just not a good use of time
because you guys can't come to a conclusion," okay?
They made, in my opinion, two fatal mistakes.
One, they didn't follow the mutual cooperation
agreement. They went down a path of basically
trying to find a different way to find -- fund the
bond that was financially irresponsible. But they
presented it anyway.
And the HOA and the chair counsel went nuts
and just machine-gunned it down. And rightfully
so. They didn't -- they didn't do the due
diligence. They didn't follow -- they didn't

follow the mutual cooperation agreement, and it
face planted, okay?
This board, the board, then reconvened the
strategy committee, and rightfully so. There
should be a strategy before you have a business
plan, okay? But they're kind of going hand in
hand, hence the need -- the need to hire a
consultant.
So from my perspective, I think we could -- we
could rightfully say to Mr. Matt, "We've got a
business plan initiative in place right now."
We're -- we're going to come out of the
strategic planning with a three- to five-year plan,
all right? And that would coincide and align with
the current business development -- not business
development, project development plan and we would
be in align.
So that leaves the apology, if we think we
could sell that. So we sell a -- a new committee.
We sell the strategic plan as the strategic plan
would develop the business plan, okay? And that
leaves the apology.
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, I'm going to come back to
governance, but if we can --
MR. SWANSON: I was going to say something

about the apology, just really quick. I -- I had
heard that if there was an apology, it wasn't just
an apology, it was an admission of guilt of
everything that he's stated the board and board
members have done all along in his contention. Is
that an accurate...
Or can it -- or -- or could it be only to say,
you know, "We're -- we're" -- even though this is
ridiculous because he's just as defamatory as
everybody else, "sorry for anything that was said
to you that was defamatory."
Is that an admission of guilt to apologize for
that?
MR. MOORE: I don't know if it's an admission
of guilt, and I don't know if it matters if it is
if there's a release that's part of that, but I
will -- I'll read what I had come up with. It was
never presented to him.
MR. SWANSON: Well, I -- but hold that thought
for a quick second. The reason I think it's
important is because, legally, it doesn't really
matter. There's a release. But everybody that's
on the board lives in this community and has to
face all the people that basically will walk up to
them in the cafe and go, "Dean was right."

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

That's a big de

8 | MR. | HEITZNER: | I highly doubt that's it.
9 | MR. | SWANSON: | You think it's way more?
10 | MS. | DICKSON: | No --
11 | MR. | HEITZNER: | I think it's way more than
12 | that. |
13 | MR. | SWANSON: | Yes.

14

MS. DICKSON:
you know this, but lying, of
number of things apologize for, as
MR. SWANSON:
of --
MR. SELEP:
you've --
MR. SWANSON: MR. MOORE:
think, there was a

Because understand -- and I know

15 | | we've been accused of fraud, of
16 | | ation, of corruption, of any
17 | | at there is no way that we will
18 | | r as I'm concerned.
19 | | I mean, that's -- that's kind
20 | |
21 | | ed -- Fred, read -- read what
22 | |
23 | | Yes, I apologize. I'm sorry.
24 | | d that's okay. And what I
25 | | -- if there's a defamatory

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

statement, UPRD did not make a defamatory
statement.
MS. DICKSON: That's correct.
MR. MOORE: It would really be any
individual's own desire to say, "Maybe I stepped
over the line," to make it because it comes from
the individual. UPRD didn't make a -- a statement.
But the --
MR. BARNEBEY: And -- and let me ask this
question, though. And if have a settlement, it
would just be with UPRD, okay? Right?
MR. MOORE: Yes. I generally try to make my
releases, you know, "The entity, the officers, the
directors, the agent's, insurers," and so, I
mean --
MR. SELEP: As broad as you can make it.
MR. MOORE: How broad does -- does he allow
versus how much does he narrow it down and knock
it -- knock it down.
MR. BARNEBEY: I'll let -- I'll let you read
it.
MR. MOORE: Okay. And that's not to say,
though, that if you were clearly outside of your
scope as a supervisor, we include "supervisor".
That release may not apply because it wasn't in

your role as -- as supervisor.
So my apologies that tried to -- to fit the
round hole was, "UPRD and Dean Matt acknowledge
that each have done what they thought was in the
best interest of the University Park community in
their public comments and actions: UPRD, in seeking
to improve and maintain world-class facilities and
bond expenditures, and Dean Matt in seeking fiscal
restraint and thoughtful consideration of necessary
improvements.
"UPRD and Dean Matt recognize that moving
forward constructively is in everyone's best
interest. And accordingly, UPRD and Dean Matt
commit to a collaborative and respectful neighborly
and working relationship going forward."
MR. SELEP: I love it.
MS. DICKSON: Wow.
MR. SWANSON: That's...
MR. MOORE: Aspirational?
MR. SWANSON: Well -- but that's -- he would
need to approve that?
MR. MOORE: He would have --
MR. SWANSON: I think everybody here just
went, "Fine. We're good with that." But I don't
know that -- but he has to say that that's okay.

MR. BARNEBEY: Well, we'd have to present it
to him, and he may not say, "That's okay."
MR. SWANSON: Right.
MR. BARNEBEY: But he may.
MR. SWANSON: Right.
MR. SELEP: So -- so I vote -- I want to jump
up a level here before -- and I know we're going to
need to dive in the weeds on these -- on these
three pieces and come to an agreement.
Let -- let's -- there's two possible outcomes.
We propose the committee, the apology, the business
plan initiative, and he says yes, we're good to go.
You're going to write an absolutely brilliant
piece, and he goes away, at least for now, okay?
He says no. No, okay? Can we go public that
we -- we made an offer, here's what we offered, and
Dean Matt has refused?
MR. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SELEP: Perfect.
MR. SWANSON: Because the litigation is -- at
that point, I mean -- well, it's still -- but this
information that we come to in here, we can
publicly share that?
MS. DICKSON: We can share it in a board
meeting.

MR. BARNEBEY: I would think we would --
MS. DICKSON: It's on the record.
MR. SWANSON: I mean, it's on the record.
MR. MOORE: What I think we would want to do
is -- and that's what I tried originally by
expanding his four bullet points, is come up with
exactly what we want. We know that's what we want
here.
Then, we would come out of the shade, and we
would adopt this as the proposal that we're going
to -- it would be done in the sunshine. He would
be, and everyone would be aware of, "you all are
willing to settle under these terms."
MR. HEITZNER: So did you -- did you just say
that the negotiation with him would be in a
board -- a board meeting?
MR. MOORE: No. What I'm saying is if we -- I
don't know that we could negotiate with him. We
know what he somewhat wanted. I think we take what
he wanted, what is it we're willing to -- to give
within his -- his parameters, and you would then
vote on it.
Or we would leave here today saying, "This is
what we want, Fred. Kind of massage it and go
negotiate these with Mr. Matt."

And it would then be me coming back to another
shade meeting to say, "Here's what he's agreeable
to." Versus we come up and say, "Here's what we're
willing to do."
We then, would vote on that outside of the
shade and then present it to him. And he could
negotiate it from there. He could say, "Well,
you've almost got it, Fred. But I need this change
and that change." And then, we would go back into
the shade and say, "Are these changes we're able to
live with?"
MR. HEITZNER: And so, to Sally's earlier
point that he says all this is off the table. So
before we go back and tell him how we're willing
to --
MR. SWANSON: Work with him.
MR. HEITZNER: -- work with him on these three
things, and he says, "Well, those aren't the three
things anymore. It's this, this, and this." Do we
want to find out if this still stands before we go
back?
MR. BARNEBEY: We -- we could do that. And
that would be the normal way I would expect us to
do it. I would say, we get consensus as -- not
necessarily go public, because I -- because we

don't have an agreement in total. Get a consensus
as to what -- if you want to make a proposal to
him, in some format, and be pretty specific about
what that is. And then say, "Here. The board's
interested in doing this, and we'll settle under
these general terms."
Go back to him, and then come back and -- just
depending on what he says, come back in the shade
meeting to either approve it or not approve -- you
know, discuss what he's proposing.
MS. DICKSON: I believe it will get more into
the weeds, and so I'm just going to give this as a
hypothetical. He says, "Okay. I'm with this. But
I want a -- a very specific change to be made, and
I want the" -- what's the value to the homeowner?
MS. CARVALHO: Assessment methodology.
MS. DICKSON: Yeah -- "I want the assessment
methodology changed publicly, and -- so that people
hear it the way I see it, and that it's 44 million
or 37 million," or whatever the case may be.
And our response would be, "Well, first of
all, we can't just randomly change it." Then we
have to change the entire bond resolution, right?
We would have --
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes.

MS. DICKSON:
done.
MR. BARNEBEY:
back to --
MS. DICKSON:

-- whatever -- so that can't be

And we -- we would have to go

And we -- exactly. Then people

would need to vote based on knowing that. So just
to get into the point of, when you get into the
nitty-gritty of the things that he's going to
demand, we're not going to be able to say yes to
those.
MR. HEITZNER: Right. Because I think what
he's saying is, you know, "If -- if I bought my
house for 2 million dollars. I took out a
mortgage. At the end of my 30 years, my house cost
me 17 million. Is my -- should my property taxes
be based on 17 million, or should it be based on
2 million?"
I mean, that's his logic.
MS. DICKSON: But that logic would have to --
MR. HEITZNER: And the world doesn't work that
way.
MS. DICKSON: Right, it doesn't. But to even
entertain that, we have to scrap the whole original
bond --
MR. SWANSON: And that would be a nonstarter.

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

I mean, it would have to be.
MR. MOORE: The only way you can really work
within some of that would be, "Do we need
21 million dollars, or do we need 12 million
dollars?"
And so, despite having a 21-million-dollar
bond validation, there could be an agreement -- and
I'll look to you to confirm this, Mark -- we're
only going to use 15 million dollars, and then that
would be it.
MR. SELEP: Well, but based on --
MS. DICKSON: We're not going to agree to that
either.
MR. MOORE: We're not going to agree to that
because, I mean, we have no idea what's going on
with the costs.
MR. SELEP: But, Fred, this is going to be a
face-to-face, right? We don't -- at this moment,
we're only speculating what he comes back with. I
mean, at that -- and let's use Sally's example. He
comes back and says, "Well, I want the bond
validation changed."
MR. SWANSON: "I'm good with the other two,
but this one I want to change."
MR. SELEP: But you would be able to say,

"That's not realistic. It's already -- we're --
from a financial standpoint, from a due diligence
standpoint, we're not going back to the beginning
on the bond."
And that's already -- the validation's already
been ruled on by the court twice. So the -- that's
a nonstarter. If he came back with that.
MR. BARNEBEY: I mean, I will note that at
least in the four items that he's mentioned before,
that was not one of them.
MR. SELEP: Right.
MR. BARNEBEY: So -- so we don't know what he
would accept at this point, frankly. And -- if
anything.
MR. SELEP: But there's only one way to find
out.
MR. BARNEBEY: Only one way to find out.
MS. DICKSON: Oh, yeah. Ask him.
MR. SWANSON: And that would be you and him
with a court reporter?
MR. MOORE: No court reporter. It would be --
it could just be me taking this and emailing it to
him and saying, "We had a shade meeting. There's
now a consensus to continue on the discussion we
had left off on with your four points. Here's how

we fleshed it out a little bit more. Are these
still workable, knowing that there's a consensus
that we can work within this framework?"
And then, he tweaks it, makes some changes, or
he says, "No. I -- I need five, six, and seven."
And then, at that point in time, I say, "Well,
I don't know if I have a consensus on five, six,
and seven because they weren't on the table at the
time, so I'll have to go back into the shade
and" --
MR. HEITZNER: So would it -- because, you
know, you're dealing with somebody that likes to
hide behind their screen, right, and just type --
type away. So I wouldn't advise to send him our
plan.
Maybe you send him, "Hey, the board has
discussed -- has met based on input they got from
the community during the election process. We got
some input. Are you guys going to try to settle?
"The board has regrouped and discussed these
points that you previously brought up. Are -- and
we -- are you -- are these the points, and do you
want -- and if so, we'd like to meet with you and
flesh it out."
Then, he can come back and say, "No, those

aren't the points."
Versus -- I'd rather -- I don't want to give
him the opportunity to just tear apart the things
in writing. I'd rather do that face-to-face. I
think that should be done face-to-face.
MR. MOORE: I mean, it's probably -- I don't
have a problem any way we -- I just -- I do think
the time that I have met with him, it's gone best
when there was someone else there that he -- maybe,
you know, like Mr. Piersons, him being there I
think kept him a little -- kept Mr. Matt a little
more focused.
They had talked it over several times. I had
then met to see, "All right. How do we deal with
the legal aspect of it?"
Because when I met with him by myself, it was
all over the -- we weren't actually getting to
this. We were all over the board about the crispy
and extra crispy, you know, what advice Mark had
been providing the District, issues with Mr. Gang,
and things that weren't really what he was trying
to settle.
MR. HEITZNER: Well -- so Mr. Piersons is off
the table, so --
MR. MOORE: Well, I'm not suggesting him being

with him, but it might be --
MR. SWANSON: You're saying he needs to have a
handler there to keep him focused?
MR. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SWANSON: Somebody that he trusts?
MS. DICKSON: Oh, yeah.
MR. MOORE: I think so.
MR. HEITZNER: I don't know who that would be
on the board right now, but --
MS. DICKSON: Well, does it have to be a board
member?
MR. MOORE: It doesn't have to. Or someone on
the board that at least he doesn't mistrust.
MR. HEITZNER: So what Sally said --
MR. BARNEBEY: Let me back up for a second.
Normally, I would say that's true. But remember,
we've got --
MS. DICKSON: This isn't normal.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- you know, this is a shade
meeting, and the discussion of the terms in here
are confidential. So having somebody outside the
board --
MS. DICKSON: Oh.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- being involved would be a
potential -- I would think, would be a potential

issue for us.
MS. DICKSON: Why was a board member on that
in the first place?
MR. BARNEBEY: Oh, you mean, Rusty?
MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. BARNEBEY: Rusty volunteered to say, "I'll
meet with him," and I think he said -- if you
recall, he said, "I had a good relationship with
Dean Matt, and I think we should -- we should
continue our discussions about possible
settlement."
MS. DICKSON: It was very important.
MR. BARNEBEY: Yeah. And that's why.
MR. MOORE: And -- and no one in here could
prevent anyone else from in here -- well, other
than me -- from going and communicating with
Mr. Matt.
MS. DICKSON: Right.
MR. MOORE: So if -- if Sally wanted to, and
he was willing to go sit down and talk to each
other, and say, "What can we do?" You have that
right to do so. And I think that's what
Mr. Piersons did.
They seemed to -- he seemed to get Mr. Matt on
track to "what can we really do to settle the bond,

because the whole reason we're here is the bond is
going to be issued unless the Supreme Court says
it's not. And so we just want to put everything
else to bed."
And so Rusty thought he could do that. He was
able to meet with him, came up with the bullet
points. We had a fairly nice conversation over
coffee, the three of us. And then I took that back
and took some time to put it together.
And then, we talked over these four things,
and we didn't get the consensus presented.
MR. HEITZNER: So let's talk about the value
of discussing assessments.
So if we -- if the bond isn't approved, or if
the bond isn't approved in time, there are going to
be assessments, which was -- is clearly within our
rights to do. Does that enter into the negotiation
with him? Does -- because we're going to make it
public, right?
The negotiation's going to -- we're going
to -- "The board has tried to settle this. This is
what we've offered. And if Mr. Matt doesn't agree
to this, we're going to have to" -- I -- I -- can
we place the burden on him, the assessment burden
on him publically if we enter into this

negotiation?
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, I think, obviously, if --
well, let me put it this way. I think that
discussion will likely come up if -- if we cannot
reach a settlement with them, and I think, to some
extent, it's already come up. And I don't want to
get -- I don't want to get too far afield here.
I mean, if there are improvements that you're
going to make, obviously, we've already talked --
we've already had the 5-million-dollar loan that we
have to do an assessment on. We would have to do
an assessment on it if the bond is not issued.
There are other things, such as the kitchen,
you've talked about doing. So, obviously, those
are things that conceivably will have to be an
assessment. You have not made a decision on those
yet.
But -- but I think certainly, in discussions
with Mr. Matt, I think that point can be made to
him. And certainly in the public, you know, if we
get to that point, and -- and we've tried to
settle, and we're going to have to go this other
direction if -- if -- because he won't agree to --
MR. HEITZNER: I'm just trying to avoid the --
the -- the feeling in the community that -- that

the board wants these assessments.
MR. SWANSON: The only reason we're doing it
is because we don't have the bond funds.
MR. HEITZNER: But people don't understand
that.
MS. DICKSON: You're right. You're right,
they don't. And even though that's precisely what
I said at the end of the last meeting, how many
people were listening? So --
MR. BARNEBEY: Right.
MS. DICKSON: -- we don't have --
MR. BARNEBEY: That's -- that's -- how we deal
with the public perception is something we need to
talk about in a different setting.
MS. DICKSON: Okay.
MR. SELEP: But -- but put -- but put in
different -- slightly different terms. The point
is there's a deadline, Mr. Matt, to these
negotiations. And the deadline is August because
we have to make a decision. And if we -- if --
when -- the minute we make a decision to assess,
this is all off the table because it makes no -- it
doesn't make any -- there's no point to it anymore.
MR. BARNEBEY: That deadline is probably more
uncertain than that. I think it's -- if the

| University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors
| 65
1 | Supreme Court rules, deadlines over.
2 | MR. SELEP: Right.
3 | MS. DICKSON: No. But it --
4 | MR. SELEP: Yeah, true.
5 | MR. BARNEBEY: Right. And that could be
6 | tomorrow.
7 | MS. DICKSON: But that -- but -- but the
8 | deadline you're talking about is the
9 | hard-and-fast --
10 | MR. BARNEBEY: But clearly our --
11 | MS. DICKSON: -- on the assessment.
12 | MR. BARNEBEY: -- the main deadline would
13 | be -- would be the assessment.
14 | MR. HEITZNER: "If the bond hasn't yet been
15 | approved" --
16 | MS. DICKSON: All right.
17 | MR. HEITZNER: -- "and we don't agree to these
18 | things with you, Dean Matt, on this date, we're

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

going to have to assess the homeowners."
MR. BARNEBEY: That's correct. That's what Greg's saying.
MR. SWANSON: Well, and the first one is for the irrigation --
MR. HEITZNER: Right. To pay off that loan.
MS. DICKSON: Yeah. And the second one is the

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

kitchen.
MR. SWANSON: This is a question -- and I
don't know if -- somebody can answer this. When we
do an assessment -- and this is more about the
assessment -- when we do an assessment, what's the
guarantee of payment? Is that going to the --
MR. HEITZNER: Property tax.
MR. SWANSON: It goes into the property tax?
Okay.
MS. DICKSON: Yes. For that reason.
MR. SWANSON: Perfect. Perfect.
MR. SELEP: We have -- we have two options.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. SELEP: Right? The one option would be
you make the decision in August to get on the tax
roll for 2027. In which case, the County does the
collection process for us.
MR. SWANSON: Perfect.
MR. SELEP: The other option would be we -- we
assess. And we've done that. We -- we did that --
we did that in the past.
MR. SWANSON: Yeah.
MR. SELEP: It becomes part of your club bill,
right? But then, the collection burden is on us.
MR. SWANSON: And if people don't pay, we have

nothing other than it has to be we put a lien on
your home --
MS. DICKSON: Yes.
MR. SWANSON: -- which would be zero goodwill
in the community.
MS. DICKSON: And we spend money on all the
legal fees and all that.
MR. SWANSON: Right.
MR. SELEP: Well, and it puts an accounting
burden on our group, and --
MR. HEITZNER: Yeah.
MR. SELEP: -- blah, blah, blah.
MR. BARNEBEY: All right. So I want to get us
back focused.
MR. SELEP: Thank you.
MR. BARNEBEY: The -- so -- and I want to come
back. Before we -- we get too -- too far afield as
to what we want to do, what -- because in my
practices, as a local government attorney over
42 years, I've never had a local government with a
governance committee. So what does that mean, and
what do we think it means as opposed to what
Mr. Matt might think it means? What -- what do we
think that ought to --
MR. SWANSON: That was my question.

| University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors
| 68
1 | MR. HEITZNER: I think that -- so we -- we
2 | can -- I can give you a whole bunch of articles.
3 | I've been researching on this. And -- but I think
4 | we've got to -- I mean, first, I think -- the plan
5 | would have been to have a -- have somebody
6 | responsible for figuring that out.
7 | MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
8 | MR. HEITZNER: And then, having the board
9 | discuss and debate, and land on what a governance
10 | committee would look like if we were to put on in
11 | place.
12 | MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
13 | MR. HEITZNER: So, yes, that's a little
14 | cart-before-the-horse, but that's kind of where we
15 | are. That's kind of where we are. But there
16 | are -- there are a number of examples out there.
17 | And there's a lot of articles that have been
18 | written about it through different -- actually,
19 | what's the name of the strategic -- the consultants

20
21
22
23
24
25

that we're looking to --
MS. DICKSON: McMann Group. MR. HEITZNER: Not McMann --MS. CARVALHO: No.
MS. DICKSON: Oh, the other one's FCS.
MR. HEITZNER: FCS has a lot of feedback on

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

this, in particular.
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
MR. HEITZNER: Maybe we use FCS -- FCS is who
helps us develop that charter, and et cetera.
MS. DICKSON: Good point.
MR. SELEP: And I think you could -- I think
we could word that -- I think we could word that in
the proposal to Matt. I mean, it's -- you know, I
just -- I just AI'd it.
"Volunteer groups appointed by the board to
research, manage, and advise on specific community
matters, ensuring effective operations in
compliance with government documents."
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
MR. SELEP: And then, use -- and say that
will -- we would make that part of the deliverables
from the consultant that we hire for the strategic
planning group.
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay. Just trying to get --
MR. SELEP: You're trying to get your head
wrapped around it. I know.
MR. BARNEBEY: I'm trying to get my head
wrapped around it because I -- having watched Dean
Matt, he's going to have a specific thought about
that --

MR. SWANSON: Oh, yeah.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- as sure as I'm sitting here.
MR. SWANSON: I guarantee you.
MR. BARNEBEY: And that doesn't mean we
shouldn't do it -- we shouldn't propose it, but --
MR. HEITZNER: But his -- his --
MR. BARNEBEY: But we're going to have to come
to some solutions.
MR. SELEP: We don't know what it's like to
necessarily --
MR. HEITZNER: It may be okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: Yeah, it may be. I agree.
MR. HEITZNER: You know, the only thing that
he can't -- you know, he just can't appoint
himself, because that's not the process.
MR. BARNEBEY: No. Right. Understood.
Understood.
All right. So that gets us to the question
of: All right. Do you want us to make a proposal,
kind of a little more detailed with the detail you
just provided -- and if you can provide that to
Fred, that'd be great. And propose -- say we can
agree to -- let's talk. Say, "A governance
committee, you're not going to be automatically
appointed. You can apply" --

MR. HEITZNER: Well, I don't think we have to
say that. I think we just have to say "a
governance committee." We don't have to -- unless
he -- unless he says. If he says, "But I want to
be the" --
MS. DICKSON: Ombudsman.
MR. HEITZNER: -- "I want to be the ombudsman,
or I want to be the leader of that committee."
Say, "The board has a process for committees that
report to the board. It would have to follow that
process."
MR. SWANSON: That's been in place. That's
not just a new process.
MR. HEITZNER: Right.
MR. BARNEBEY: Right. Okay.
MR. HEITZNER: So but -- but I don't know how
much detail. Like, going back to my original point
is, do you want to find out first if these items
are still --
MR. BARNEBEY: Right.
MR. HEITZNER: -- relevant?
MR. BARNEBEY: I don't know that we have to
provide a lot of detail at this point. I'm just
trying to -- I think there's going to be more
detail about it, I'll just put it that way.

MR. SELEP: I think -- I think we go
forward -- I think we go forward with this and let
him push back.
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
MR. SWANSON: Yeah. Give him something to
react to.
MS. DICKSON: Yeah, I agree. I mean, this
isn't mediation. This is --
MR. SWANSON: Negotiation.
MS. DICKSON: -- negotiations.
MR. SELEP: This is negotiation.
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
MR. SWANSON: How quickly can you do this?
MR. MOORE: I mean, I can call him tomorrow,
email him tomorrow. I mean, is the leverage with
the assessments in this offer, though, because you
still have to have a meeting where you would vote
to levy these assessments?
MR. HEITZNER: We've already done it.
MR. MOORE: Oh, you already have done it?
MR. HEITZNER: Yeah.
MR. MOORE: Okay. Because I was going to say,
is if we haven't done it, any three of you could
change your mind when it's time to, and really,
there isn't any leverage to it unless it's, "This

is what's happening unless."
MR. HEITZNER: It was the previous board that
voted this?
MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. SWANSON: Previous board.
MR. HEITZNER: If no action is taken at this
point, you are doing assessments --
MR. SELEP: We're doing an assessment.
MS. DICKSON: So what we could do, and
probably should do, and I was kind of hoping we
might have been able to do it at the last meeting
when I made the statement, is have a motion that
confirm -- affirms what we're saying.
Which, by the way, we talked about the
assessments back in the original presentation of
the capital improvement plan, so it is all in
writing. Amounts may change.
So -- but I think we ought to take a motion of
the existing board members so that the new board
members are included that we are affirming that
this is our direction as it has been all along, and
that has been affirmed in the past.
MR. SELEP: I'd wait for that.
MS. DICKSON: Wait...
MR. SELEP: I'd -- I'd -- I'd wait until we're

ready to present the kitchen design, and the
finance committee's ready to present their -- their
findings, and I think they're called. So they're
supposed to present to us by the -- at the end of
the month.
MS. DICKSON: 31st.
MR. SELEP: Right. So -- and I think there's
a -- there's a -- there's a socialization process
that we would -- we would do with the -- with the
community, and then we vote. That --
MS. DICKSON: I understand.
MR. SELEP: That's my opinion.
MR. BARNEBEY: Now, just to make sure it's all
clear.
MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. BARNEBEY: We're talking about the
5-million-dollar bond -- the 5-million-dollar
loan --
MS. DICKSON: Yep.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- for the irrigation
improvements only that we have -- we've agreed
to --
MR. SELEP: At this -- at this time.
MR. BARNEBEY: At this time.
MR. SELEP: We could come back in a second

vote and say, "It's 5 million dollars for the
irrigation and 5 million dollars for the kitchen,
and we're going to go assess 10 million dollars."
MR. HEITZNER: We just don't have the kitchen
costs yet.
MS. DICKSON: Right. Correct. We don't.
It's -- mine's more the concept that assessments
are the -- are going to be the alternative. But
you're right, because they're going to come back
and give us all the alternative funding. That's a
very good point.
MR. SELEP: My point would be to put it out --
put it out there in a -- in a live meeting with --
with the public, and socialize it there.
MS. DICKSON: And then, follow it up --
MR. SELEP: And then follow it up with a vote.
MS. DICKSON: With a -- yeah. And then, make
a -- not a fact focus, but one of the things that
we put out periodically. Haven't for quite some
time because there's not really been anything to
put out, but affirming all of that.
MR. SWANSON: It sounds like we have a plan
here. How much of this -- Scott wasn't here today.
Does it matter because we have the majority of the
board?

MR. BARNEBEY: I -- I will tell you, I've
talked to Scott -- yeah. No, it doesn't matter.
If you have a majority --
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- if there's a consensus by
the board, then that's -- we'll move forward with
that.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: Obviously, you know, when it
comes back -- I mean, I always prefer to have Scott
here, but if it comes back, he can -- he can vote
against it if he wants to.
And -- but he indicated that -- that -- to me
at least, informally, that he would agree with
whatever the board moved forward with. I think
he'd like to see it resolved.
MR. SWANSON: Sure.
MR. BARNEBEY: And that was about as far as
that went. He didn't have any -- I asked him --
actually asked him if he had any specific things he
was looking for. He did not indicate anything
along that line.
All right. So propose governance committee.
We'll work out the details on that later, see if
that -- if that works. We already have a strategic

planning committee and a finance committee. Is
there anything along that line beyond saying we're
going to continue to have the strategic planning
and finance committee to advise us on strategic
planning and finance matters?
MR. SELEP: Yes.
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
MR. SELEP: So the strategic planning
committee, with the help of a consultant --
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
MS. DICKSON: Maybe. Maybe not. That -- we
could also rule that out, so let's not say that.
MR. SELEP: Yeah, that's a fair point. So the
strategic planning committee will -- will continue
to work on the -- on a three- to five-year business
plan.
MR. BARNEBEY: Probably going to be a
five-year business plan given what your charter
says. Just --
MR. SELEP: Yeah. That's -- that's fair too.
So five-year business plan. I was thinking about
the capital projects.
MR. BARNEBEY: Understood.
MR. HEITZNER: Actually, it should be five to
ten, but we'll just say five.

MR. BARNEBEY: Well, at a minimum, five.
Okay. That's fine.
MR. SELEP: And then, is -- I guess it's --
well, it would have to be. The strategic planning
team would also work to develop the -- help the
governance committee define tasks and
responsibilities.
MR. HEITZNER: Well, why don't we say --
MR. SELEP: Yeah, help me.
MR. HEITZNER: Why don't we just say that the
board will work to develop -- to -- you know, to
develop and implement a governance committee, and
how we do that is to be determined. I mean, I
don't know that we -- we just can't commit to
something.
MR. SWANSON: Well, let me ask this question
then. If it wasn't for what we're talking about
here, would we even be proposing that?
MR. HEITZNER: Yes.
MR. SWANSON: Yes?
MR. HEITZNER: I -- well, let me put it this
way. I would be proposing it to you all, and then
we could decide, but I intend --
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. HEITZNER: -- I intend to -- I had

intended to propose that in our meeting on March
31st.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. HEITZNER: Now --
MR. SWANSON: Then it had nothing to do
with --
MR. HEITZNER: It had nothing to do with this.
MR. SELEP: So -- so can I back this up a
second? Sorry.
MS. DICKSON: It's okay.
MR. SELEP: We -- we took the consult out of
play here, and I think the consultant -- having the
third-party consultant in this mix is critical for
the -- with the Dean Matt conversation. Is there
any chance that we would not vote, the four of
us -- and Scott's not here -- that we would vote
not to hire a consultant?
MS. DICKSON: I believe there is because we
haven't seen the ultimate cost, and we haven't --
and we really haven't, at this point, negotiated
what they're going to do or not, and whether or not
any of these companies are going to say, "Oh, no.
We're not going to accept your survey results. We
have to do our" -- whatever they may do.
I think we could look at it and go, "This is a

huge amount of money, and do we really want to do
this and dive into it to this extent?" I don't --
you know, as opposed to --
MR. SELEP: Okay. But we just built a case
for the consultant, both on governance and on
strategic planning and a business plan. We just
built a case, so if it's not -- if it's not this
RFP --
MS. DICKSON: Yeah. I hear you.
MR. SELEP: -- it's -- then it's another RFP
that we write, and say, "Okay. We're going to go
bring a third party in to help -- to help define
the governance and help define the business plan.
We don't do any surveys. We don't do any of that.
We're going to go focus on these two pieces."
Because I think it gives us. I think it gives
us --
MS. DICKSON: Yeah. Well, it definitely gives
us credibility.
MR. SELEP: Exactly.
MS. DICKSON: No question about it. I'm just
saying, there's no guarantee.
MR. SWANSON: I have a feeling that these --
these companies would love to have this piece of
business, and they'll negotiate with us in good

faith on what we want to have.
MR. HEITZNER: Even if we come down to just,
"These are the two things that we want you to do."
MR. SELEP: Yes, absolutely.
MR. HEITZNER: And that brings the cost --
MR. SWANSON: Right. "Here's what we want to
get done. We don't want -- we want to do this. We
want to add this. We want to take this out."
And they're going to go, "Okay."
MS. DICKSON: And remember, we are at the
point where we did agree that number one is SCS,
and that we are going to now start to negotiate,
and that, frankly, is going to happen. And the
next meeting is March 30th, and they are actually
going to be present at that meeting with the
strategic planning group, so the negotiation will
be happening in public.
MR. SELEP: Then I propose that we put the
consulting piece back into this argument.
MR. BARNEBEY: Okay.
MR. SELEP: Okay? That we would -- we'll
bring -- we're going to hire a consultant to help
the development of the five-year plan, and help to
develop the definition, rules, and responsibilities
for the governance. And that was in SBC's quote

already, so...
MS. DICKSON: That was what? I'm sorry.
MR. SELEP: That was in their quote already.
MS. DICKSON: Yes.
MR. SWANSON: Question. This is going back to
what was said a little bit earlier around the
Supreme Court. And it's been 18 months, right,
since they've had that in their hands?
MR. HEITZNER: 20.
MR. SWANSON: 20, okay.
MR. HEITZNER: It's been a long time.
MR. SWANSON: Okay. So it's been -- it's over
18 months. And so, are these things usually -- two
years is kind of a limit to be able to have
something happen with them? Is that kind of the
deal? So we're looking at four months potentially
or give or take? Likelihood?
MR. MOORE: It seemed to me when I looked at
the decisions and looked at when the final judgment
was rendered, they were all roughly about two
years. Not all, but a majority of them were
roughly two years.
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. MOORE: Give or take two months on either
side.

MS. DICKSON: We had a call, the three of
us -- probably a month and a half, two months
ago -- and I asked you if we could -- that we had
nothing to lose by sending a communication to the
Supreme Court letting them know what this is doing
to our community.
And I had asked you, Mark, if you would draft
something, let me look at it, and that we send it
out, which is basically asking for an expedited
hearing, or resolution, or whatever you call it,
and here are the reasons why.
And my point was, we don't have anything to
lose by telling them. You know, it may impact or
not impact their decision, but they need to know
the extent to which this is really effecting us.
And I haven't seen anything, and I believe we
should do that.
MR. HEITZNER: So what -- so what some
attorneys have told me is, nobody will read the
letter. And --
MS. DICKSON: Then we've got nothing to lose.
MR. HEITZNER: -- so -- yeah. I guess there's
nothing to lose, but from what I've heard from
multiple sources is it won't get us anywhere.
But --

MS. DICKSON: And I heard, actually, from
someone else who said that they work in the
appellate field, and they are in Florida, who said,
"You can certainly ask for an expedited hearing."
Or what would you call it? Expedited hearing,
or resolution?
MR. MOORE: Expedited decision, resolution.
Because we don't know if there's going to be oral
argument.
MS. DICKSON: You're right. We don't know.
But we just -- how does it harm us to ask? I don't
believe it does. So if they don't read it, they
don't read it, but at least it's an effort.
MR. HEITZNER: Is there any harm?
MR. SWANSON: Is it going to irritate
somebody?
MR. MOORE: I -- I'm -- I'm guessing and I'm
looking in the crystal ball that I don't have. I'm
always hesitant to push a judge to make a decision,
just because I don't want them to be rushed or to
be upset and delay it even further.
I -- I've talked to a number of people,
appellate attorneys in Tallahassee, around the
state, and they all seem to say the same thing of,
"I don't know that I would do it. It doesn't seem

like it would be at all helpful."
But, you know, if you're thinking about --
you're at that stage, you know, let us know, and
we'll, you know, help you figure out what the best
way to approach it is.
And most of the time, it's -- and I don't
really want to say -- I'm using the wrong language
here -- but a back-channel way of doing it. So
it's not really writing something and doing it.
It's kind of going to the clerk and -- someone that
has a connection to the clerk and being like,
"What's going on?"
And perhaps nothing ever happens and things
just happen, or perhaps there is something that --
conversation that's happening when the clerk is
going to whichever justice it's assigned to saying,
you know, "Oh, this has been sitting here for --
for two years."
MS. DICKSON: Well, have we exhausted the back
channeling, because I don't feel like we've done
much of anything other than calling the clerk.
I've called the clerk and had two conversations.
MR. HEITZNER: We did hire an attorney at
one -- and appellate attorney at one point to --
MR. MOORE: We hired him, and he actually --

he just changed firms, so we had him do an amended
notice of appearance, so we have something that's
hit the file within the last week and a half. So
there is paper that's been generated.
And yes, I am -- for another government client
a long time ago, I was dealing with a Tallahassee
attorney. That firm does a lot of appellate work.
And he reached out to a friend -- a professor of
his at Florida State who was involved with the
Supreme Court, and he got a lot of advice from
them. And he's the one who said, "If you're
thinking about doing something, feel free to reach
back out to me," and I can see what he can do.
But at that time, it was -- I would just keep
waiting.
MR. SELEP: Here's the key. August is the
key. The minute -- the minute we assess, and the
minute we assess for two pieces, whether -- so the
irrigation and the kitchen, we're down the
assessment path. It makes no sense to go back to a
bond.
MS. DICKSON: Correct.
MR. SELEP: So -- and it -- at that point in
time, Dean Matt's off the table. Don't care, okay?
And the bond is off the table, and we're going to

assess.
MR. BARNEBEY: All right.
MR. HEITZNER: So I'll go back. I'll --
I'll -- these are good conversations. August is
the date?
MR. SWANSON: August 1st?
MS. DICKSON: Yes. Assume August 1st.
MR. MOORE: I mean, I can go reach out to Dean
Matt and say, "We've got four months to figure this
out, unless the Supreme Court rules before then.
Otherwise, you might win, but you really lose
because everyone's going to have to pay the money
right now."
MS. DICKSON: Including you.
MR. SWANSON: And they're going to know why,
which has already been made public.
MS. DICKSON: Well --
MR. SWANSON: You and I said this a million
times already --
MR. SELEP: Well, but I'm talking about making
it public --
MR. SWANSON: Absolutely.
MR. SELEP: -- like he's never seen before. I
mean, it's -- it's time to bring the community on
board.

MR. BARNEBEY: Okay. So let me go back to
where we're at. So we're -- so the grievance
committee, we're willing to look at potentially --
MR. HEITZNER: Governance.
MR. BARNEBEY: Governance.
MR. SELEP: Governance.
MR. SWANSON: I think we're all right the
first time now.
MR. BARNEBEY: The governance committee --
MR. SELEP: I'm not the only one.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- I'm sorry -- and the board
will work to -- to -- to create a governance
committee, and we -- get some -- just see if that's
of interest to him still. We're -- instead of the
business plan --
MR. MOORE: Well, let me stop you right there.
You read something from AI, and this is kind of
what my initial workout was:
"A committee consisting of X number of members
that serves as an impartial body responsible for
addressing concerns, resolving conflicts, and
promoting fair practices within UPRD."
And I continue on a lot more, but that's
really simple.
MR. SELEP: Yeah, I like it.

MR. BARNEBEY: At least, it will start the
discussion.
MR. SELEP: Yep. Okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: All right. We've already
talked about the strategic planning committee will
continue to work on the five-year business plan,
and we're going to hire a consultant to develop a
five-year plan, and work to define the governance
committee responsibilities.
The apology. You heard the apology. It's
probably not the right word, but --
MR. MOORE: I call it mutual acknowledgment.
MR. BARNEBEY: Mutual acknowledgment that Fred
had proposed.
MR. HEITZNER: I call it "save face."
MR. BARNEBEY: There you go. That's good.
Save face announcement by both parties, I assume
that's generally okay to --
MS. DICKSON: Uh-huh.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- at least discuss with him,
and then, obviously, the dismissal and release as
well by the parties.
MR. MOORE: I put that one down as "no
assessments."
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes. Okay. Anything else you

want us to talk to him about?
MR. SWANSON: We don't -- is it that the
responsibilities of the governance committee is
going to be to establish -- we're not going forward
with saying this is exactly what it is?
MR. HEITZNER: We said in here that we're
going to work with whatever consultant it is --
MR. SWANSON: To come up with that, okay.
MS. DICKSON: Yes. Okay. Yeah. And we're
not -- yeah. We're certainly not asking him for,
"Give us an outline of how you want this to -- to
look."
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, he may --
MR. SELEP: He may have ideas.
MR. BARNEBEY: He may have some ideas. We'll
take his ideas --

MR. SWANSON:
MS. DICKSON:
MR. SWANSON:
consultant.
MS. DICKSON:
it, sure.

We'll take his ideas --I'm sure he does.
-- and we'll give them to the

Yeah. They'll take a look at

MR. BARNEBEY: So -- we'll see.
MR. SELEP: So, Mark, one last thing. Is this
a -- let's -- I want to talk about the process for

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

ten seconds. So Fred's going to draft. Do we need
to do a review before we send it?
MR. BARNEBEY: I think -- well, that's up to
you all, of course. I do think that -- I don't
know if we're going to send him anything. I think
we're going to talk to him about these things.
MR. MOORE: I think I'm probably going to send
him an email that simply says, "You may be aware we
had a shade meeting. There seems to be a consensus
to see if there's a desire to settle. I'd like to
schedule a call with you in the next two days."
MR. SELEP: Or meet with you in --
face-to-face.
MR. MOORE: Yeah. "Call or meet with you to
go over the old points."
And then, if he says no, then it's no. If he
says yes, then --
MR. SELEP: Okay. So --
MR. MOORE: -- we're going to talk about those
points and try to flesh him out more. Be like,
"This is it, right? Because I've got consensus on
these four points."
MR. HEITZNER: Right. So we need to schedule
a shade meeting, since we have to do that in
advance?

MR. BARNEBEY: Not yet, because if he says
no --
MR. MOORE: Give me five days.
MR. SWANSON: Should we pick a date and just
kill it if he doesn't -- if he says no?
MR. BARNEBEY: You can do that.
MS. DICKSON: So -- yeah. So if he says no,
and we meet again, then we've got a lot of work to
do communications-wise --
MR. HEITZNER: Yes.
MS. DICKSON: -- on not waiting any longer on
really hitting hard on, "Here's the calendar of
events coming up."
MR. HEITZNER: Yeah. Exactly.
MR. SELEP: Well, also if he says no, then I
think we need to have -- we need to have another
discussion about what other -- what other legal
actions we have.
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, we'll -- we're going to
stay out of that right now.
MS. DICKSON: Oh, okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: But -- but, yes, that's a fair
question.
Okay. That's fine. We can --
MR. SELEP: So I have one more question for

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

Fred. So you're going to meet --
MR. MOORE: I'm going to reach out.
MR. SELEP: And hopefully -- hopefully
negotiate a meeting.
MR. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SELEP: Okay. Who's in that meeting?
MS. DICKSON: Oh, good question.
MR. MOORE: I'm open to suggestions. I mean,
it could just be me and Mr. Matt. But if the
conversation I have is as a lot of them go, then
I -- but -- but saying I'm willing, then yes, I
would want somebody. But who, I don't know.
MR. SELEP: No?
MS. DICKSON: I don't know that you want
somebody who's on the --
MR. HEITZNER: Hit list?
MR. SELEP: We're all on the hit list.
MS. DICKSON: -- that's one way -- you left
off one letter, but yes.
MR. SWANSON: I'll do it. I'll do it.
MR. HEITZNER: I'll do it.
MS. DICKSON: Oh, I think you might be on the
list too.
MR. SELEP: We're all on the list.
MR. HEITZNER: Actually, you're on it more

than I am.
MS. CARVALHO:
MR. SWANSON:
so...
MR. HEITZNER:
Sally.
MS. DICKSON:

What about Scott?
Well, you know, we're BIC's

Well, I would not suggest

Oh, God no.

MR. SELEP: Sally's off the table. It's got
to be one of the two of you, I think.

10 | MS. | DICKSON: | One | of the two of who?
11 | MR. | SELEP: | Scott | -- one of the Steves.
12 | MS. | DICKSON: | Why | are you off the list?
13 | MR. | SELEP: | I can | be on the list, I suppose.
I -- I've been on his hit list -- we've all been on
his list. I guess it doesn't --
MS. DICKSON: Well, you're right. Well, all
but --
MR. BARNEBEY: Some more than others, so...
MR. SELEP: Well, I'm on his hit list because
I challenged him from the chair counsel when he
tried to take over the chair counsel meeting to run
for election. And then he ran, and he dropped out.
MR. SWANSON: Anybody that doesn't agree with
him is on his hit list.
MS. DICKSON: Yes. Exactly.

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

MR. SELEP: Correct.
MR. SWANSON: It's really the degree of which
you're on it.
MR. SELEP: Pick a guy. Pick the guy you
like. Doesn't matter.
MR. SWANSON: Should we try to pick a date for
a shade meeting, just in -- I just --
MR. BARNEBEY: Yeah. That's fine. Well, part
of that will just depend on scheduling, and I've
got some scheduling challenges coming up, so...
MR. MOORE: Well, why don't we -- I'll know
more when I reach out to him in the next several
days, and then I'll --
MR. HEITZNER: Why don't you get his feedback?
That will probably help us determine who's best
suited to meet with you.
MR. SELEP: That's a good point.
MR. MOORE: Okay.
MR. SWANSON: And then, at that point, if you
are going to meet with him, then we can try to pick
a shade meeting, a date for a shade meeting.
MS. CARVALHO: Yeah. We're going to have to
give -- between seven to ten days prior to that
date for advertisement.
MR. BARNEBEY: And I'll announce it here when

we get done. So --
MR. SWANSON: Okay.
MR. BARNEBEY: -- when we open it back up.
But -- all right. Well, but -- I assume that that
meeting would be after Fred has had a
conversation -- Fred and --
MR. SWANSON: The shade meeting?
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes.
MR. SWANSON: Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I was
just trying to get -- to get ahead of that.
MR. BARNEBEY: Yeah.
MR. SWANSON: Because I know how quickly time
can get away from us.
MR. SELEP: It might -- it might also be after
we've had the face-to-face, if we can get him --
MR. MOORE: I think we reach out. If there's
an interest in the dialogue, I get that set up
fairly quick with whomever we think at that point
in time is going to be the best, and as I'm
scheduling that meeting, we'll go ahead and get a
shade meeting on the books.
MS. CARVALHO: So, because the board can't
communicate when you get that settled, shouldn't
the board consider at this time now, first person,
second person so then you can proceed accordingly?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MR. MOORE: You can do it that way, or you can just tell me that whoever I decide's going to be the best person, I'm going to say, "You're it."
But I'm going to do it with consultation with Mark. That's up to you. But --
MS. DICKSON: I think --
MR. MOORE: But I'm fairly certain it's not going to be Sally. I think it's gonna be one of the three sitting here.

10 | | MR. | SELEP: All right. I don't care.
11 | | MR. | HEITZNER: I'm okay, too.
12 | | MR. | SWANSON: Doesn't matter.
13 | | MR. | BARNEBEY: Okay. Then we'll pick somebody
14 | and | -- |
15 | | MS. | CARVALHO: Okay.
16 | | MS. | DICKSON: Yes. Any -- any of the -- any

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

of the three.
MR. MOORE: And I might ask him, in my discussion with Dean, "Is there someone on the board that you work with best?"
MR. SELEP: That's brilliant. MS. DICKSON: I wouldn't.
MR. MOORE: I'm not telling --MR. SWANSON: Except for Sally.
MR. MOORE: -- I'm not saying that --

MR. SWANSON: Well, no, I mean, I would never
ask you to go do that.
MR. MOORE: Yeah. Well, if he says Sally, I
say, "No. Is there someone else" --
MR. SWANSON: She's unavailable.
MR. MOORE: Right. But this way, it kind of
lets him give a little bit of the direction. A
little buy-in. But it doesn't mean we have to do
it.
MR. SWANSON: Sure.
MR. HEITZNER: He's going to tell you he wants
Scott Huebner there.
MR. MOORE: You think so?
MS. DICKSON: Oh, absolutely.
MR. MOORE: Okay.
MR. SWANSON: They're compatriots.
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, aside from Scott, just
because -- I mean, I -- not because Scott couldn't
do a good job, but because, you've got to get by
him by the -- from the entire board. I think
someone other than Scott would be the most
appropriate person to get that ultimate buy-in
from --
MR. SELEP: Well, and unfortunately, scott
couldn't be here to hear this entire conversation.

1
2
3
4
5
6

There's no way to ca

7 | MS. | DICKSON: | You are?
8 | MR. | BARNEBEY: | Yes, because he's on the board.
9 | MS. | DICKSON: | Oh, okay.
10 | MR. | SWANSON: | And can he read the transcripts?
11 | MR. | BARNEBEY: | Yes, once it's finished.
12 | MR. | HEITZNER: | Well --
13 | MR. SWANSON: | You mean you would send the
14 | transcripts out to | him?
15 | MR. BARNEBEY: | No.
16 | MS. DICKSON: | No.
17 | MR. HEITZNER: | No.
18 | MR. BARNEBEY: | No. He could come to the
19 | office. |
20 | MR. SWANSON: | Come to the office. Okay. Very
21 | well. |
22 | MR. BARNEBEY: | We'd sit with him, make sure he
23 | doesn't, like, take
24 | stuff. |
25 | Okay. I'm loo

University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors
| | | | 100
1 | like, the week of the 15th. | Like, 15th or 16th is
2 | my suggestion. | | |
3 | MR. HEITZNER: | Of April? |
4 | MR. SWANSON: | | April? |
5 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Uh-huh. |
6 | MR. SWANSON: | | Are you looking --
7 | MR. SELEP: | For a shade meeting?
8 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Yes, sir. |
9 | MR. SWANSON: | | That's a month.
10 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Well, I'm out from 26th through
11 | the 6th, so that's a factor. |
12 | MR. SWANSON: | | Okay. |
13 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Now, it could be before then.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

We could go like the 8th or 9th.
MR. HEITZNER: The sooner the better. MR. SWANSON: I --
MR. BARNEBEY: That's fine. MS. DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. SWANSON: I agree with that. MR. BARNEBEY: Let's get this --
MR. SELEP: Is this something -- Fred, is this something you could manage?
MR. MOORE: I would probably have Marissa maybe come with --
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, the shade -- the shade

1
2
3

meeting -- well, Ma

4 | the board meeting. | Do we want to have a shade
5 | before? |
6 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Well, we can do that.
7 | MR. HEITZNER: | Yes.
8 | MR. BARNEBEY: | We could do that.
9 | MS. DICKSON: | Oh, that's a good idea.
10 | MR. SWANSON: | Thursday the 9th?
11 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Oh, I'm teaching a course that
12 | morning from 11:00 | to 12:00.
13 | MS. CARVALHO: | Oh, April 10th?
14 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Yes.
15 | MR. HEITZNER: | What -- how about the 8th?
16 | MS. CARVALHO: | How about the 9th?
17 | MR. BARNEBEY: | 8th is fine in the afternoon
18 | for me, and the 9th
19 | well. |
20 | MR. SWANSON: | The 8th at 2:00?
21 | MR. BARNEBEY: | Yeah. Now, there is a
22 | strategic planning | committee meeting somewhere
23 | here. |
24 | MS. DICKSON: | 8th.
25 | MR. BARNEBEY: | On the 8th. Is that here?

Where is that at?
MS. DICKSON: Here.
MS. CARVALHO: That's at the Zoom --
MR. SELEP: It's here at 3:00.
MR. BARNEBEY: It's in the Zoom room? Okay.
MS. DICKSON: Yes.
MR. BARNEBEY: We can -- we can have meetings
at the same time. That doesn't prevent what we're
doing. All right. You want to do it on the 8th?
MR. SELEP: Or we could do -- we could do the
8th at 1:00 and be done by 3:00.
MR. BARNEBEY: Yeah. Yeah. If we do it by

13 | 1:30, we | should be fine.
14 | MS. | CARVALHO: I won't be here if --
15 | MR. | BARNEBEY: What?
16 | MS. | CARVALHO: I have other projects. Huh?
17 | MR. | BARNEBEY: Kwame? Could Kwame attend?
18 | MS. | DICKSON: Do you need to be here?
19 | MR. | BARNEBEY: Well, that's --
20 | MS. | CARVALHO: Yeah. Do I need to be here?
21 | MR. | BARNEBEY: No.
22 | MR. | SELEP: I'd like to have you here, but...
23 | MS. | CARVALHO: So the 9th, I would be able to
24 | be here, | if you guys can do the 9th.
25 | MS. | DICKSON: I have a question. On -- are we

University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors
| | | 103
1 | allowed to do it in the other room and have it
2 | recorded and -- | |
3 | MR. BARNEBEY: | No, we cannot.
4 | MS. DICKSON: | No, okay.
5 | MR. BARNEBEY: | I mean, we can have it in the
6 | other room -- | |
7 | MS. DICKSON: | Yeah.
8 | MR. BARNEBEY: | -- but it would be like we're
9 | doing here. | |
10 | MS. DICKSON: | Could a -- could Kwame Zoom in?
11 | MR. BARNEBEY: | No.
12 | MR. SELEP: | No. |

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

MS. DICKSON: MR. HEITZNER: MS. CARVALHO: MR. HEITZNER: MS. CARVALHO:
recorder's off fro MR. SELEP:
the day of the 9th MR. SWANSON: MS. DICKSON: MR. HEITZNER: MS. CARVALHO:
4:00?

No, okay.
You can do the 9th? Yeah, I can do the 9th. What about the 9th?
Yeah. Like, right now, the m my standpoint.
I can do the 9th, any time during is fine.
2:00 to 4:00.
I can do it. I can.
You can do the 9th, 2:00 to

MR. HEITZNER: I can. I can, yeah.
MR. BARNEBEY: I'm good with that from -- any
time from -- in the afternoon is fine with me.
MR. MOORE: I should be. I'm at a deposition
in the morning, and let me just see who's taking
it.
MS. CARVALHO: So, once we confirm that, Mark,
if you could kind of walk the board through what
the process is when we leave the shade meeting, and
what will be discussed in the Board of Supervisors
meeting when we go back into the meeting.
MR. MOORE: I think that that would work.
MR. HEITZNER: You mean, today?
MS. CARVALHO: Today. Today.
MR. BARNEBEY: Well, that's going to be pretty
simple in this case.
MS. CARVALHO: Yeah.
MR. BARNEBEY: At this point, we'll go back
into public. We will close -- officially close the
shade meeting, and then we'll -- and then I'll
say -- I'm going to say, "At this point, we have no
actions to be taken at this time," and we're done
that quickly.
MS. CARVALHO: And then -- do -- does [sic]
the board going to announce this shade meeting?

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

MR. BARNEBEY: Oh. In this case -- thank
you -- in this, I'm going to announce the next
shade meeting.
MS. CARVALHO: Okay. Let me know when you're
ready.
MR. BARNEBEY: I'll read that. Okay. Anybody
else before we finish up with the closed session?
Okay. Back in public session, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HEITZNER: We have just completed the
shade meeting, and we're going to close that
portion and open -- and we've opened up into a
public meeting. Public meeting?
MR. BARNEBEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
(The private attorney-client portion of the
meeting was concluded, and the public portion of
the meeting continued at 3:15 p.m. as follows:)
MR. BARNEBEY: At this point, we have no other
action to take at this time other than the board
has requested a -- a follow-up shade meeting. That
shade meeting would be held under the
attorney-clients provisions under Florida Law --
Sunshine Law section 286.011(8) on April the 9th at
2:00 p.m., and lasting approximately 90 minutes.
And that's at our request as your district counsel.
The -- that meeting will be held here in the

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

| University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors
| 106
1 | business offices at 8301 The Park Boulevard,
2 | University Park; and the meeting will commence in
3 | an open session, as we did today, and then move
4 | into an attorney-client session limited in
5 | attendance to the district attorney's, Mark
6 | Barnebey and Fred Moore, district manager Vivian
7 | Carvalho, and the Board of Supervisors of the
8 | district, Sally Dixon, Steve Heitzner, Scott
9 | Huebner, and Greg Selep, and Steve Swanson, as well
10 | as a court reporter who will transcribe the full
11 | proceedings and remain part of the public record
12 | for release at the conclusion of the litigation for
13 | the purpose, again, of discussing settlement
14 | negotiations or strategy sessions related to
15 | litigation expenditures in the court case of Dean
16 | Matt versus University Park Recreation District
17 | SC-2024-0990. And at the conclusion of the private
18 | portion of that meeting, the meeting shall be
19 | opened -- reopened to the public.

20
21
22
23
24
25

And that is all I have today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HEITZNER: All right. Motion to close the meeting.
MS. DICKSON: So moved.
MR. HEITZNER: Second?

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

MR. SWANSON: Second.
MR. HEITZNER: All in favor?
(Unanimous ayes.)
(The special meeting and attorney-client session meeting
was concluded at 3:17 p.m.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

University Park Recreation District Board of Supervisors
108

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER
2
STATE OF FLORIDA
3
COUNTY OF SARASOTA
4
I, Michelle Parks, Certified Verbatim Reporter, do
hereby certify that I was authorized to and did
stenographically report the University Park Recreation
District Board of Supervisors Special Meeting and
Attorney-client Session Meeting regarding Case No.
SC2024-0990, and that the foregoing transcript is a true
record of my stenographic notes. 12
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,
employee, or attorney, or counsel of any of the parties,
nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
financially interested in the action. 18
DATED this 8th day of April, 2026 at Sarasota
County, Florida.
21
22
23

24
Michelle Parks, CVR
25

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205

Liberty Court Reporting
1904 Manatee Avenue W., Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205