(April 7, 2016) In response to a special OPA Board meeting about the Manklin Meadows Racquet Center expansion, Director Dave Stevens emailed the Gazette a statement last Tuesday.
That statement ran on page two of the March 31 issue of the paper. Stevens also forwarded his comments to several other directors, who, in return, emailed comments of their own, addressing the March 29 special meeting in Ocean Pines.
Cheryl Jacobs:
“In response to the Dave Stevens email … I am in complete disagreement with what he has stated and it does not in any way represent my understanding of what was approved.
“I believe if you polled all the Directors, there wouldn’t be one that would ever vote for an expenditure of $750,000 for the Manklin Sports Project. I know for certain that I wouldn’t.
“I understand that Mr. Terry feels he made a commitment to the combined racquet sports members for additional courts, but that was when the cost was to be $250,000. Mr. Herrick has a vested interest in gaining additional Platform Tennis courts, just as the Pickle Ball members want additional courts.
“I don’t know how the Tennis members will feel, but I believe the alternative suggested by Mr. Herrick, which I could support, may be as close to achieving what all three racquet sports members wanted, in the only fiscally responsible manner possible.
“From my perspective, moving the playground, changing the parking lot, providing fencing and changing the entrance to the garden was in no way intended to move forward on the original plan.”
Tom Herrick:
“As individual Directors, I am sure we all have our own ‘perspective’ of what may or may not occur. That to me seems to be the problem. To approve any project and allocate association funds, without knowing exactly what is going to be done, is fiscally irresponsible to our membership.
“The motion presented by Tom Terry and subsequently approved by a slim majority of the Board is based on the bids already received for Phase 1 of the total Manklin Creek Project. To say this ‘was in no way intended to move forward on the original plan’ is disingenuous at best.
“Before any project in this community is approved by the Board, it should be defined in scope and detail with bids received accordingly. Only at that time, would I be able to approve or disapprove a project and commit association funds utilizing my best judgment with facts to support my position.”
Stevens also directly addressed Jacobs in the email thread between the directors, and the Gazette.
“Cheryl
The problem is that we do not have a specific proposal for what you suggest will be done. Look at the Terra Firma proposal carefully. Tell me what line items are included and which are to be taken out. Tell me whether we are removing the trees in the area that was designated in the Master Plan as pickle ball courts and if so why?
“Pickle ball courts represent, by far the largest amount of impervious surface introduced into that area under the master plan. Do you believe that the SWM mitigation work contained in the proposal is still valid if those surfaces are not put in? Lets bring in Soule and find out.
The motion that passed says ‘move forward,’ but what does that mean if we do not have a valid proposal in front of us? Do we get to see the final revision before it is signed? Will we get the answers to the questions that have been asked?
“However much you and Tom and Bill claim it is so this is not about moving the playground. Relocating a new playground is not even in this bid. It is about whether we are unnecessarily expending a large amount of money on something we do not need.
“You keep inferring that those of us who want these details are obstructing progress and that you just want to get things done. At some point you should think about where the blame for delay really belongs.”
That statement ran on page two of the March 31 issue of the paper. Stevens also forwarded his comments to several other directors, who, in return, emailed comments of their own, addressing the March 29 special meeting in Ocean Pines.
Cheryl Jacobs:
“In response to the Dave Stevens email … I am in complete disagreement with what he has stated and it does not in any way represent my understanding of what was approved.
“I believe if you polled all the Directors, there wouldn’t be one that would ever vote for an expenditure of $750,000 for the Manklin Sports Project. I know for certain that I wouldn’t.
“I understand that Mr. Terry feels he made a commitment to the combined racquet sports members for additional courts, but that was when the cost was to be $250,000. Mr. Herrick has a vested interest in gaining additional Platform Tennis courts, just as the Pickle Ball members want additional courts.
“I don’t know how the Tennis members will feel, but I believe the alternative suggested by Mr. Herrick, which I could support, may be as close to achieving what all three racquet sports members wanted, in the only fiscally responsible manner possible.
“From my perspective, moving the playground, changing the parking lot, providing fencing and changing the entrance to the garden was in no way intended to move forward on the original plan.”
Tom Herrick:
“As individual Directors, I am sure we all have our own ‘perspective’ of what may or may not occur. That to me seems to be the problem. To approve any project and allocate association funds, without knowing exactly what is going to be done, is fiscally irresponsible to our membership.
“The motion presented by Tom Terry and subsequently approved by a slim majority of the Board is based on the bids already received for Phase 1 of the total Manklin Creek Project. To say this ‘was in no way intended to move forward on the original plan’ is disingenuous at best.
“Before any project in this community is approved by the Board, it should be defined in scope and detail with bids received accordingly. Only at that time, would I be able to approve or disapprove a project and commit association funds utilizing my best judgment with facts to support my position.”
Stevens also directly addressed Jacobs in the email thread between the directors, and the Gazette.
“Cheryl
The problem is that we do not have a specific proposal for what you suggest will be done. Look at the Terra Firma proposal carefully. Tell me what line items are included and which are to be taken out. Tell me whether we are removing the trees in the area that was designated in the Master Plan as pickle ball courts and if so why?
“Pickle ball courts represent, by far the largest amount of impervious surface introduced into that area under the master plan. Do you believe that the SWM mitigation work contained in the proposal is still valid if those surfaces are not put in? Lets bring in Soule and find out.
The motion that passed says ‘move forward,’ but what does that mean if we do not have a valid proposal in front of us? Do we get to see the final revision before it is signed? Will we get the answers to the questions that have been asked?
“However much you and Tom and Bill claim it is so this is not about moving the playground. Relocating a new playground is not even in this bid. It is about whether we are unnecessarily expending a large amount of money on something we do not need.
“You keep inferring that those of us who want these details are obstructing progress and that you just want to get things done. At some point you should think about where the blame for delay really belongs.”