Duffy speaks candidly
By Bob Lassahn
On Monday The Courier was provided an opportunity to sit down and talk with Ocean Pines Association (OPA) Board President and Acting General Manager Glenn Duffy. In general the purpose was to look at the current issues fueling dissention between the OPA board and some of its more vocal association members. Mr. Duffy spoke candidly on the status of several high profile projects that have fueled the debate and special board meetings scheduled to more fully address them.

To set the tone for the conversation Mr. Duffy came from behind his desk, sat at a small table and simply stated “I’m yours, what do you need?” Once the topics were laid out he moved at his own pace and began to update the projects before the board. He commented at one point that he felt more comfortable with a discussion rather than just a series of questions.

The background information on the following topics is provided only to clarify the issues and cause for debate. It is not comprehensive in nature.

Environmental Control Committee (ECC)/Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

Over a period of several months an Ad Hoc ARC Guidelines Committee chaired by former board member Skip Carey undertook an intense review of existing ARC Guidelines and suggested changes to update the document to more appropriately reflect the current needs of Ocean Pines. Mr. Carey conducted his meetings in an open forum and gleaned substantial input from interested residents as the committee considered each section of the guidelines. The document was then submitted to the board for consideration.
Subsequently the sitting ECC Committee members conducted a review of the Ad Hoc Committee’s work and drafted their own version of an update. The document was submitted to the board, and without substantial review, was “accepted in principal” by the board and forwarded to legal counsel for review. The passage of the ECC version without consideration of the ad hoc recommendations created an immediate outcry from many in the community.

An ad hoc committee chaired by former board member Joe Shanno then undertook a review of ARC procedures. Mr. Shanno operated under the same procedures as Mr. Carey, accepting public comments and attempting to establish procedural guidelines that the community deemed acceptable. This document has not been subjected to review and has not been acted upon.

A special meeting of the board has been scheduled for July 13 to address both ARC Procedures and ARC Guidelines. The meeting will be open and public comments will be allowed.

Mr. Duffy stated that an opinion from legal counsel indicates that the board has in fact voted to adopt the ARC Guidelines submitted by the ECC, but a “motion to reconsider” might bring the Ad Hoc version back for a more thorough review. He expressed the opinion that some of the issues in the documents have not been adequately discussed and the board should take a closer look. He holds out hope that a final set of documents covering both procedures and guidelines might emerge from that meeting.

Community Center
The issues surrounding the effort to construct a new community center have been “hot button” for many individuals in the community. When cost increases drove the final figure far above the amount stated in the referendum, charges of negligence to outright skullduggery quickly emerged. The twists and turns involving a request from legal counsel to “define” the terminology of the referendum, what was, or was not included with the building, speculation about what design changes were taking place to bring costs more in line and numerous other issues have caused considerable anxiety with property owners.

On July 27 many of the burning questions may finally be answered when the board convenes to vote on the community center bids. Board member and project “point man” Dan Stachurski has been working with several potential vendors on a package design/build concept in an attempt to deliver the specified square footage and appropriate aesthetics specified in the referendum. The original estimate of approximately $3.9 million contained in the referendum had escalated to more than $6 million when the board did a “reality check” in the spring of 2006.

The cost increase was likely fueled by numerous factors including increased material costs in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and a volatile construction bidding climate in the region. Worcester County experienced a similar cost increase with the Ocean City Library project. But suspicion surrounds many aspects of the endeavor and some individuals remain convinced the board intentionally “low balled” the cost to push the referendum through.

Mr. Duffy has no insight as to what the bids will actually produce or any individual board member’s reaction to what is finally laid on the table. He says that something in the range of $4.5 million to $5 million might prove acceptable to some board members. The price is not going to go down and there are board members who see the successful community center referendum as a mandate to accomplish the project, but then adds “not at any cost.” If the bids exceed the $5 million figure the possibility of acceptance becomes a huge question mark.

Sports Core Pool Enclosure
The pool enclosure project started life as a feasibility study proposed by board member Reid Sterrett exploring the possibility of constructing an enclosure for the Swim and Racquet Club pool. The project quickly morphed and soon became an initiative to cover the Sports Core Pool with a proposal brokered by a local developer at a cost of $929,000, a figure that placed it just under the threshold where a referendum would be required.

With the expense not included in the current budget, lacking any specifics on operational costs or even what the enclosure might look like, some property owners quickly reacted negatively. Comments ranged from ill timed and ill conceived to outright foolhardy.

At the June 14 OPA board meeting Mr. Sterrett introduced a motion “to construct a 4-season pool enclosure at the Sports Core Pool by accepting the quote of $929,000 from Structure Unlimited” and tasked OPA to explore financing and depreciation, potential usage and user fees. The motion passed by a 4-2 margin.

In spite of the wording of the motion Mr. Sterrett stated that the pool enclosure was not a done deal and there will be another vote before proceeding with construction. The assurance did little to relieve the members hotly opposed to rushing the project forward.

Mr. Duffy states that the board will meet on August 3 to review cost information and other data developed on the pool enclosure. OPA staff is now gathering the information and Mr. Duffy does not appear overly optimistic about what has been gleaned to date. He also says he has concerns regarding financing options to pay for the project.

Mr. Duffy says that there will be another vote and if someone wishes to assert that the measure is already passed, a “motion to reconsider” should get it back on the table.

Swim and Racquet Club Marina
Mr. Duffy met with Charlie Herpen on June 6 to explore the possibility of a compromise on the proposed marina. Mr. Herpen led the successful petition drive to bring the issue to referendum. Mr. Duffy held out some hope that a compromise could be developed for inclusion when the question is put before the membership, but at this time none is expected. A referendum will be developed.

Bylaws
The Bylaws have been revised and are now undergoing legal review. Upon return a final “clean up” will be conducted and they will be placed into a referendum question for the membership. Mr. Duffy said the biggest problem with this initiative is the property owners have a lot of information to read and it is important for them to do so.

Mr. Duffy states the Bylaws and the Marina referenda might be combined into a single mailing, but that remains uncertain.

While the information provided by Mr. Duffy certainly does not answer all of the questions currently embroiling OPA in debate, it does give some reasonable timeline for resolution and might help to reduce speculation about the status of some issues.

Send an Email Letter to Courier Editor - be sure to include your telephone number.