Indoor Pool Commentary
by Joe Reynolds

OPA Director Reid Sterrett wants an indoor pool in Ocean Pines, but he does not want the lot owners of Ocean Pines to have any say in the matter. In fact, Sterrett wants lot owners to know as little as possible about his motion prior to a board vote.

Sterrett also thinks every lot owner should subsidize his pool to the tune of about $130,000 per year, based on losses and money costs projected by Acting General Manager Glenn Duffy, Recreation & Parks staff, and the Budget & Finance Committee.

Staff operational numbers for the covered pool are as follows:

Operational costs for 8 months -- $177,624.56

Estimated income for 8 months  -- $128,475.00

Operating Loss  -- $49,149.56

Note that the costs do not include cost of money (interest and or principle) to build the enclosure or any additions to the replacement reserves (depreciation). The idea may be to borrow the money from OPA's own replacement reserves. Any yearly payback to cover the $925,000 construction cost must be added to the above loss. This will be another $80,000 per year. Toss in depreciation and other possible expenses, and the overall loss climbs to a staggering $130,000.00 per year -- for openers.

No breakdown on the operational cost and income numbers is yet available, although one key component of staff-projected income is a supposition that 25% of all current pool members would purchase a covered pool membership at around $500 per year.

It is difficult to believe Reid Sterrett will make his motion based on the above loss numbers as projected by OPA staff. Therefore, expect to see Sterrett offer alternative numbers, probably artificially and arbitrarily inflated to show a break-even or small profit. Also expect to hear talk of using an imaginary $100,000 overall Aquatics "profit" thrown into the mix, something already mentioned in a local paper. This so-called "profit" or "surplus" does not include costs of depreciation on the existing pool system infrastructure, and other non-allocated expenses. Depreciation is a true cost to Association members as it is included as a part of the assessment. Aquatics may make a profit, but it is not in the $100,000 range.

Another item mentioned in a local paper, and likely to be thrown out by Sterrett, is increasing the rates for summer use on some premise that the pool enclosure would allow summer use on rainy days.

Sterrett is working overtime with a gigantic shoe horn trying to fit this size 12 project into a size 6 shoe.

It appears Sterrett wants this project at any cost, and the lot owners footing the bill are the least of his concerns in a push to accomplish what he claims is a "campaign promise." Sterrett's handling of this is unfortunate, a clear case of his walk not matching his talk when it comes to being open and above board with Association members.

The Board will vote on this tomorrow night during a 6 PM meeting at the Country Club. Association members know little or nothing about the final design, any alternative designs, or business plan. Sterrett apparently likes it that way. What a pity. 

Aside from the above issues, this entire process looks like yet another example of Association members not having access to all the information needed for any informed public comment on issues prior to a board vote.

Hopefully more thoughtful and fiscally responsible board members will prevail and reject Sterrett's steamroller approach to spending Association-member dollars without a complete vetting of all information and a Town Hall meeting on the issue.