Terry's motion specified the work to be done included all the work as specified by the GM in his presentation for Phase One to the board last week for $207,000. Terry then specified that the pickleball courts had been removed from the $207,000 to get down to $150,000, but neither of the two builders even gave OPA a price for eliminating the courts.

Watch the video and you will see that Terry does not have a clue as to where the $150,000 came from. He at first tells Stevens the numbers are in the bid for the work. Stevens then points out that the numbers Terry references are just item numbers, not costs.

Thompson then tells the board where the number actually came from. He says he used the difference between the two bidders to come up with the $150,000, saying one of the bidders included construction of the courts and other did not. Thompson misled the board. Intentional? Who knows. But he did mislead the board because the very bids Thompson provided the board last week indicate both bidders included four pickleball courts.

Also, look at the $207,000 bid Thompson presented the board last week and note it contains all the site and stormwater work needed for constructing eight pickleball courts -- four now and four at a later date.

So, yes the stormwater mitigation costs are in the $150,000... unless we have all been mislead yet again.

Terry even misleads at the beginning of stating his motion when he says:

"This motion has nothing to do with pickleball courts, only ongoing safety and maintenance."

Given the $150,000 includes costs for stormwater mitigation required for eight future pickleball courts, his statement is absolutely misleading.

I've witnessed many decisions made by board over the last 27 or so years. This has to be one of the worst insofar as the board misleading association members, and even more galling that Terry wanted to do this via email. This current board majority has sunk to new lows when it comes to transparency.

Look at the original bids for Phase One and consider why a contractor with a price $60,000 higher than the low bid was recommended. The reasons given are specious, at best.

If you think this is how OPA should operate, be my guest.

Here's the link to the PDF with the actual RFP analysis.