OCEAN PINES—The Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors at its Nov. 20 meeting approved a funding increase to accommodate additional costs associated with installing the equipment in the new the Yacht Club kitchen, two guidance proposals relating to the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget, and conducted a first reading of a proposal related to investment guidance for certain operating and reserve funds.
The board approved a funding request of no more than $456,000 for new Yacht Club kitchen equipment.
“It is understood with the approval of this motion that there are no expected additional funding requests needed to complete the Yacht Club project,” Vice President Sharyn O’Hare read from the proposal.
In response to a question from Director Dan Stachurski about the “no expected additional funding requests” language in the proposal, OPA General Manager Bob Thompson confirmed that other components that might require additional funding during the project had been addressed. The kitchen equipment installation was the single biggest piece of the project remaining, he said.
“I believe that we have covered everything,” Thompson said, “I don’t see any surprises coming.”
Thompson had advised the board the costs budgeted for transferring kitchen equipment from the old Yacht Club to the new club, which is currently under construction, would have to be sharply increased because many pieces of the equipment were in significant states of disrepair. Moreover, during an earlier work session, the consultant designing the new kitchen told the board that discussions with a county health inspector made clear that the existing equipment, if reused, would not likely pass inspection.
Director Marty Clarke, who voted against the proposal, took exception to the board’s reliance on the same contractor who he said underestimated the cost of the kitchen equipment installation by 300 percent in the first place. President Tom Terry acknowledged that he, too, was unhappy about having to vote for the additional funding, but said the alternative was “telling the county that you can’t tell us we can’t use the equipment,” he said. “I don’t want to go down that road.”
The board approved a proposal by Director Bill Cordwell that outlines the input the board will provide to the OPA general manager relating to the development of the fiscal year budget. The guidance will focus primarily on the capital budget, operating budget and Internal Revenue Service assessment stemming from the OPA Beach Club parking operations.
The board also gave its approval to a proposal that put its imprimatur on an official offer from the Budget and Finance Committee to shift the timing of input from the committee to the general manager forward to include budget preparation assistance, starting next year.
The approval came over the objections of Thompson, who called it “a confusing document,” in response to a question from Stachurski, who asked why the proposal is needed to change the current budget guidance system if the outcome was to arrive at the same result as previous years’ budget processes.
Pointing out that last year management and the committee seemed to hit a “very good” milestone in terms of the level of cooperation between the two parties, Thompson said the measure was unnecessary and could put him in an unreasonable position, by making him appear uncooperative if he exercised the option not to accept the committee’s input. He called it a “no-win situation for me.”
Committee Chairman Dennis Hudson, who was in attendance earlier during the nearly three-hour meeting was not in the room when the proposal came up for discussion. In his absence, Terry explained the proposal would merely give Thompson access to the committee members to help with time-consuming tasks during budget development, and said the committee was a resource not currently available to the general manager until after the January presentation of the budget — after much of the legwork had to be done by staff.
Cordwell agreed with Terry’s assessment, noting the discretionary nature of the proposal. “This is just saying the help is out there. If you need it utilize it, and these folks are ready, willing to help if necessary.”
Thompson held firm with his objection to the proposal, which he said was already addressed in the OPA By-laws and would confuse the issue and make him seem to be pushing away help by people who typically had helped him in the past. Appearing to be straining to maintain deference to the board, he advised, “We’re creating a motion, on top of resolutions, on top of by-laws. It doesn’t make sense.” He added, “I just want to do it by the rulebook.”
Cordwell offered a first reading of a proposal to establish guidelines for the possible investment of OPA operating and reserve funds, for the amounts in the checking accounts of those funds that exceed what is federally insured. Clarke expressed concern with risks associated with investing the money, stating he would rather to put the money in an insured non-interest-bearing escrow account than repeat investment proposals that have failed in the past.
The proposal should be discussed at the December meeting and work session.
The board approved a funding request of no more than $456,000 for new Yacht Club kitchen equipment.
“It is understood with the approval of this motion that there are no expected additional funding requests needed to complete the Yacht Club project,” Vice President Sharyn O’Hare read from the proposal.
In response to a question from Director Dan Stachurski about the “no expected additional funding requests” language in the proposal, OPA General Manager Bob Thompson confirmed that other components that might require additional funding during the project had been addressed. The kitchen equipment installation was the single biggest piece of the project remaining, he said.
“I believe that we have covered everything,” Thompson said, “I don’t see any surprises coming.”
Thompson had advised the board the costs budgeted for transferring kitchen equipment from the old Yacht Club to the new club, which is currently under construction, would have to be sharply increased because many pieces of the equipment were in significant states of disrepair. Moreover, during an earlier work session, the consultant designing the new kitchen told the board that discussions with a county health inspector made clear that the existing equipment, if reused, would not likely pass inspection.
Director Marty Clarke, who voted against the proposal, took exception to the board’s reliance on the same contractor who he said underestimated the cost of the kitchen equipment installation by 300 percent in the first place. President Tom Terry acknowledged that he, too, was unhappy about having to vote for the additional funding, but said the alternative was “telling the county that you can’t tell us we can’t use the equipment,” he said. “I don’t want to go down that road.”
The board approved a proposal by Director Bill Cordwell that outlines the input the board will provide to the OPA general manager relating to the development of the fiscal year budget. The guidance will focus primarily on the capital budget, operating budget and Internal Revenue Service assessment stemming from the OPA Beach Club parking operations.
The board also gave its approval to a proposal that put its imprimatur on an official offer from the Budget and Finance Committee to shift the timing of input from the committee to the general manager forward to include budget preparation assistance, starting next year.
The approval came over the objections of Thompson, who called it “a confusing document,” in response to a question from Stachurski, who asked why the proposal is needed to change the current budget guidance system if the outcome was to arrive at the same result as previous years’ budget processes.
Pointing out that last year management and the committee seemed to hit a “very good” milestone in terms of the level of cooperation between the two parties, Thompson said the measure was unnecessary and could put him in an unreasonable position, by making him appear uncooperative if he exercised the option not to accept the committee’s input. He called it a “no-win situation for me.”
Committee Chairman Dennis Hudson, who was in attendance earlier during the nearly three-hour meeting was not in the room when the proposal came up for discussion. In his absence, Terry explained the proposal would merely give Thompson access to the committee members to help with time-consuming tasks during budget development, and said the committee was a resource not currently available to the general manager until after the January presentation of the budget — after much of the legwork had to be done by staff.
Cordwell agreed with Terry’s assessment, noting the discretionary nature of the proposal. “This is just saying the help is out there. If you need it utilize it, and these folks are ready, willing to help if necessary.”
Thompson held firm with his objection to the proposal, which he said was already addressed in the OPA By-laws and would confuse the issue and make him seem to be pushing away help by people who typically had helped him in the past. Appearing to be straining to maintain deference to the board, he advised, “We’re creating a motion, on top of resolutions, on top of by-laws. It doesn’t make sense.” He added, “I just want to do it by the rulebook.”
Cordwell offered a first reading of a proposal to establish guidelines for the possible investment of OPA operating and reserve funds, for the amounts in the checking accounts of those funds that exceed what is federally insured. Clarke expressed concern with risks associated with investing the money, stating he would rather to put the money in an insured non-interest-bearing escrow account than repeat investment proposals that have failed in the past.
The proposal should be discussed at the December meeting and work session.