When luxury builder John Neal sold most of the lots available for new homes inside his gated community of University Park, straddling the Sarasota-Manatee line, he next set his eyes on its renowned 27-hole golf course.
With no need for the links and bunkers to help sell houses anymore, and no private operators willing to step in, Neal and his partner notified residents in 2017 of plans to pave over the pristine fairways to make way for nearly 2,000 new homes and four-story condos that could tower above their backyards.
Fearing they had no other choice, homeowners scrambled for options to buy the course and break their country club free of developer control. Known as the community elders, these residents began organizing a new special-purpose government called a recreation district to finance the deal.
The government status opened up $24 million in public bonds that subsidized the cost to all University Park homeowners over three decades. When approved in September 2019, the plan was praised among some circles as an out-of-the-box option they could afford.
But six years later, the deal has fractured the neighborhood, led to soaring fees and triggered lawsuits — with one case now before the state Supreme Court — from opponents who see the bonds as a Trojan horse.
What began as a community effort to save a golf course has turned into a high-stakes dispute over governance, money and trust.
University Park is the latest in a series of power struggles between area residents and their independent special governing districts. Officials across the Suncoast are approving more of these hyper local government boards than ever before, often to help usher in massive new real estate developments.
ALSO READ: Power and profit: Developers gained government status, then got bonds to build big
An ongoing Suncoast Searchlight investigation found development districts in Sarasota, Manatee and DeSoto counties bonded out $2.9 billion in public money during the past five years alone, some fetching new bonds time and again, while dictating the terms for the homeowners paying it all back.
Unlike most special districts initiated by developers to finance roads, sewers and other infrastructure for new communities, the one at University Park took shape decades after — formed by residents themselves to buy and preserve their golf course. Like developer-led special governments, recreation districts also wield the power to levy taxes, take on long-term debt and put liens on those who don’t pay.
A Suncoast Searchlight review of court records, bond documents and appraisal data, along with interviews with homeowners, found a series of missteps and conflicts plaguing the process from the start.
Some residents have long argued they were pressured into overpaying for the golf course, triggering the first round of legal challenges. One appraisal at the time valued the property at $6.2 million “as-is,” yet the district paid $16.8 million to buy it.
The district then failed to meet basic governance requirements after the purchase and never produced proper debt disclosures or followed through on a required five-year development plan, residents contend in their lawsuits.
The governing documents for the first bond series also barred the district from getting more bonds tied to the course in the future. But last year, the board returned to the bond market anyway, floating an additional $21 million to renovate the course and country club — prompting a second legal appeal now under review by the state Supreme Court.
Frustrated by what they see as broken promises and runaway spending, residents have taken their case to local commissioners, state regulators and the courts. They say no one is listening.
“I’m just trying every legal aspect that I can,” said Dean Matt, a University Park homeowner leading the charge against the bond spending. “When you have language that says you can’t issue bonds, why are you even holding a referendum?”
Both the initial and subsequent University Park bond requests were approved through a majority in resident referendums. Supporters say the opposition amounts to a small group who make a lot of noise.
Sally Dickson, chair of the elected board that governs the University Park Recreation District, declined to address the specific allegations raised by Matt and other opponents, citing advice from legal counsel and the pending appeal.
But she questioned Matt’s credibility, calling his legal challenges destructive and his efforts frivolous, adding his actions are dividing neighbors.
“We are looking at every alternative,” Dickson said. “The Supreme Court will decide whether or not we go forward (with the bonds), and that’s where we stand.”
John Neal told Suncoast Searchlight the plan to sell the golf course through a recreation district was a practical solution to a difficult problem — one he says most residents ultimately supported. He defended both the price and the process, emphasizing that the idea came from a desire to preserve the course, not profit from it.
“Our partners didn’t create the district, the homeowners did themselves,” Neal said. “We just had the idea … They had a lot of discussions about it. I understand there will always be some residents that may be unhappy, but by and large, it has worked out for them.”
Neal also pushed back against criticism that he manipulated the deal or backed residents into a corner. He said shutting down the course was a real option — but not one he wanted to take.
“Folks on a golf course, not just at University Park, need to be aware they’re buying homes on a course owned by someone else,” he said. “We had to do something. I could close the course, but I didn’t want to do that. These are my customers.”
Now, dealing with course repairs years later, some fear the district will continue turning to more debt to fund future maintenance.
Despite the ongoing litigation, the district still marched forward with planned renovations, replacing the golf course’s entire irrigation system recently for nearly $6 million.
With the bond money tied up in court, the district turned to an emergency loan, using homeowner assessments as collateral. The move further enraged critics, who said the board was charging ahead without consensus or restraint.
“A group of people who were highly into playing golf, which is not the majority of the community, wanted to live the country club lifestyle and have other people pay for it,” said University Park homeowner Gary Chase, who retired to the area from Virginia 20 years ago. “A very vociferous group decided why should we wait? Let’s buy the developer out now, so we can take over.”
“We are paying interest for 30 years on that money,” he said. “Is this really a good deal? It was the strangest transaction you’ll ever see.”
A new independent special district is born in Manatee County
Tucked behind the bustle of University Parkway, a canopy of palms, blooming magnolias and mossy oaks shade a tranquil road winding half a mile to grand homes painted in shades of beige and white.
Acres of European-style putting greens and sand bunkers snake through the backyards. A pro shop sells golf apparel and gifts, an upscale restaurant overlooks the course, and bright blue courts engulf a tennis and pickleball complex.
In the 1980s, John’s Neal father, prominent area homebuilder Pat Neal, and business partners — including England’s largest manufacturer of children’s clothes — began developing just more than 1,200 homes and a golf course that would debut in 1991 as the luxury University Park community.
For years, a business controlled by Pat Neal operated University Park as a private country club for residents, later selling his share of the course property to his son, and offering memberships to golfers living outside the community.
In a statement emailed to Suncoast Searchlight, Pat Neal said his intent with the development — once considered “way out east” — was to “preserve the environment, build a beautiful community, and have a good golf course.” He said his companies offered to sell the country club to the members between 2001 to 2007, but it didn’t materialize.
“The facts are that with real estate, it lasts a long time, and there is always uncertainty to the neighbors if they do not know what is going to happen in the future,” Pat Neal wrote in the statement.
“We owned a golf course that we wanted to dispose of,” he continued. “I would say the pressure (to buy) was their own, not ours.”
By 2017, John Neal and the remaining partners wanted out of operating the course, too. Homeowners remember the district elders presenting them with professional renderings from the companies of new homes and condos throughout the course property.
Some feared they would just close the course and plunk cows to graze the land like other builders have done to save on taxes while waiting to pave over aging fairways for new homes.
John Neal’s and community members began negotiating plans to transfer control of the 266-acre course and amenities center, along with other common land and ponds, over to residents. Neal also sent residents a letter informing them he would close the club and develop the land should negotiations falter.
The homeowner’s association declaration articles prevented it from buying the course, so it hired Florida economic consultant Hank Fishkind, who suggested creating a new governing district to finance the acquisition.
At the same time, John Neal’s company helped form a planning committee to gather resident support for the plan, according to court records.
To get neighborhood backing, proponents gave presentations warning that home values would plummet if the golf course shut down, documents show. Some residents suspected from the start they were being misled.
“In these orchestrated and well-rehearsed presentations, they would first refer to a report that indicated that the homes in (University Park) would lose 30 to 40% of their value if the golf course ceased to exist,” homeowner Joe Moran wrote in a letter to other residents at the time. “What they did not disclose was that the report had been prepared by a company that Neal had hired and paid.”
Fishkind told Suncoast Searchlight that while recreation districts are unusual in Florida, state statutes provide the option for communities like these.
“The owner wanted to sell the golf course and recreation facility, and the community wanted to acquire them,” Fishkind said. “My role was to give them information, and if they decided to do it, help get the ball rolling.”
Homeowners question mixed appraisal values
The primary sticking point for many residents were negotiations to pay double for the course than they believed it was worth.
The Colorado-based appraisal firm HVS Golf Services issued one “as is” value for the University Park Country Club at $6.2 million, civil court records show.
But the same firm also produced another competing value appraisal for $13.5 million. This time, HVS cited the potential of $47 million should the property be rezoned and redeveloped, as John Neal and his subsidiary said could happen if the deal fell through.
Ultimately, the district paid $16.8 million.
Some homeowners contend they never should have paid more than $8 million, based on a formula that measures club assets and revenues. That’s also closer to the price John Neal paid when he acquired half of the remaining property from his father for $4 million in 2007, according to official deeds.
Residents also argued they overpaid for a deteriorating course, citing appraisals that flagged costly repairs — including the failing irrigation system.
“We were handed a fixer-upper,” University Park homeowner Steve Parkinson said. “We paid twice what the club was worth and had to deal with all these repairs.”
Although residents are paying down the debt, they do not own the course under terms of the contract — the district does, while still charging golf fees to homeowners and others for tee times. Country club initiation fees can cost tens of thousands of dollars, with thousands more in annual dues, according to membership brochures.
John Neal defended the price of the course — and said residents always had the option to walk away.
“That’s very valuable land off University Parkway — one of the most valuable corridors in the Sarasota-Manatee area,” he said. “Buyers always have the choice. They could choose to buy or not.”
First district bonds trigger lawsuit and resident opposition
After residents agreed on the price of the golf course, they turned to Manatee County commissioners, who approved an ordinance establishing the new special district in August 2018.
The newly minted district board then organized a series of neighborhood meetings to drum up support for issuing the bonds to buy the course. Six months later, homeowners voted in favor of the bonds by a margin of 810 to 199.
The district tapped $24 million to pay for the course and associated closing fees. On average, homeowners took on $99 per month in new assessments over the 30-year bond, with the exact amount calculated from each home’s value.
Early supporters of the district cite its creation and bonds as necessary to free their course from developer control, contending the investment was worth the long-term gain.
ALSO READ: Gran Paradiso battle reveals how developers control Florida’s fastest-growing communities
“The object for the homeowners was to get control of the club and club lands and not let it slip into redevelopment,” said John Whyte, a community elder involved in the 2019 bonds “The recreation district was recommended by a team of homeowners as the most obvious and best plan to do that.”
To recognize his role in creating the district, a conference room in the country club was dedicated after Whyte. His name — along with those of the other elders — also appears on a gold plaque that still hangs in the club’s dining room.
But not everyone agreed with them. During the bond validation case, where a judge reviews the district’s legal authority to pursue public bond debt, dozens of homeowners filed pro se motions in an attempt to stop the funding, court records show.
University Park resident Richard Garrett took it a step further. He filed an emergency court injunction alleging the deal most benefited the developers selling the land and not those living there, especially those who do not golf.
In his lawsuit, Garrett argued the initial planning committee, handpicked by John Neal and his associates, discouraged other homeowners from participating or speaking out.
The planning committee also “disseminated false and misleading information” to homeowners to gain support for the petition, misrepresenting details on the assessment amounts, according to the lawsuit.
The district agreed to a settlement after the price was reduced by $225,000. The deal also included a lower interest rate, and the district covered much of Garrett’s legal costs, he said.
“Elderly people living here were being lied to and taken advantage of,” Garrett said. “What bothers me the most is the projections shown to us were never met, and now they want another huge bond on our property without any benefit or ownership.”
University Park seeks more bonds for multi-million dollar upgrades
Part of the framework adopted during the original bonds included language to prohibit the district from fetching more public money in the future.
“Issuer covenants not to issue any other bonds or debt obligations for capital projects secured by non ad valorem assessments,” a section of the document stated.
Yet within years, the district board returned to the public bond market.
In February 2024, the district asked the circuit court to validate another $21 million in public bonds for club enhancements. That includes $6 million to replace the golf course irrigation system, $3.5 million for fitness center renovations and new offices for district staff.
The referendum passed with a 62% community vote. Opponents argue most who voted in favor were retirees, unaware of the long-term ramifications and comfortable enough to just cut checks without bother.
Those new assessments would add up to $34,000 in principal debt for some, with owners paying anywhere from about $900 to nearly $3,000 per year, depending on the value of their homes, for a 30-year term.
“It’s like a kid at Christmas,” said Matt, who paid $1,116 last year in district assessments from the prior bonds. “They just want all of the new stuff and worry about what it will cost later.”
Even Pat Neal balked at the cost.
“I have heard the price they are paying for the new irrigation system, which is ‘over the moon,’” Pat Neal said in his email statement. “For the most part, they are acting like rich homeowners and not cost-effective business people.”
Some residents say the language preventing future debt was added to alleviate outcry amid the first bond series.
The district insists it was just a scrivener’s error and amended the documents last year to strike the language.
The district contended that the language was not intended to be final, calling it an “oversight of all parties involved” in one of its newsletters. Residents say the district threatened to use special assessments instead.
“All involved parties understood that the district retained full authority to issue additional bonds secured by these properties,” the district wrote in a 2024 letter to residents. “While the delay in correcting Section 5.04 was unfortunate, it did not undermine the (district’s) authority to issue the additional bonds.”
Matt said the district never disclosed the true 30-year cost of the bonds. He also points to the initial referendum establishing the district that requires the board to adopt a five-year plan for capital projects. He insists that it was not approved until last year — six years after it was first supposed to adopt one.
A community business advisory group also presented an outline to the district board this month to accomplish club renovations by borrowing just a third of the capital improvement funding tied to the bond request.
That plan instead relies more on operating income and capital dues, calling for higher membership fees, increased golf revenues, and strategic price adjustments for food and beverages to cover the differences.
“Wasn’t this analysis supposed to be done before the (bond) referendum through the five-year plan?” Matt said. “One of the rules was to adopt a five year plan. Seems pretty basic to me, but they didn’t do it.”
Nowhere to turn, homeowners fight back – however they can
Matt, a retired CPA and chief financial officer with a master’s degree in business administration who moved here from Chicago four years ago, has represented the group fighting against the bonds pro se in court.
He presented more than 30 evidentiary exhibits during the case to Circuit Judge Edward Nicholas, who in May 2024 authorized the new bonds.
In a court filing that same month, Matt filed a motion for a new judge, calling Nicholas biased. The filing claims the judge at one point told Matt, “No one is forcing you to stay in University Park, and if you don’t like it, you should move to Myakka.” Nicholas denied the motion.
Matt took the fight to the Manatee County Commission, lambasting the district for “gross unethical misconduct” in hopes to stall a land-use request for club improvements, like increasing the size of the restaurant and recreation facilities. Commissioners unanimously approved the measure earlier this month.
Matt even started a blog to chronicle the dispute and filed complaints to the Florida Bar alleging misconduct by the attorneys representing the district, which were later dismissed as unfounded.
ALSO READ: Florida officials warn: Buyer beware as developer districts spread across the Suncoast
After Matt raised questions about the board, the district took to its own messaging, sending “Fact Focus” newsletter bulletins to residents. These included community letters insisting the board has met all statutory requirements for special districts, including long-term planning and financial projections. Others called the argument that the district was prohibited from securing the 2024 bonds “inaccurate” and “distorted.”
In September, Matt appealed the latest bond up to the Florida Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the case.
Getting no headway with the district, Matt and some of his neighbors formed an activities group — the Legal and Finance Issues Club, where they met to keep down bonding spending.
“I’m not a lawyer,” Matt said, “but I gave it the old college try.”
Josh Salman is a deputy editor/senior investigative reporter for Suncoast Searchlight, a nonprofit newsroom of the Community News Collaborative serving Sarasota, Manatee, and DeSoto counties. Learn more at suncoastsearchlight.org.
