During the board meeting on Tuesday the question was asked about how the $150,000 number in Tom Terry’s motion was determined.

At some point the GM said the $150,000 came about due to the difference in two proposals he received for doing Phase One. Terra Firma submitted a bid of $207,000; Rayne’s submitted a bid of $142,370.

The GM recommended the $207,000 bid in his report last week.

At the meeting on Tuesday this week, the GM said the $150,000 in the Terry motion was derived by comparing the two bids he submitted to the board last week. The GM said specifically that the difference in the two bids was due to one contractor including construction of four pickleball courts and the other not including construction of the four pickleball courts.

It appears to me the GM’s statement to the board on Tuesday was incorrect.

Page 3 of The RFP Analysis submitted by the GM to the board last week clearly indicates both bids include construction of the four pickleball courts.

The only difference is that Raynes did not include, per the analysis, “fencing, painting, posts, nets not specified.”

Beyond that, one must wonder if the GM even asked if those items were included and just not specified.

Then the analysis references the initial RFP with the high price, and make it sound like a positive that Terra Firma had joined with Harkins and that costs for the new bid in Phase 1 were in line with that original high proposal.

Based on the GM’s language in the analysis report, one must also wonder if the analysis was properly and professionally done, and whether or not Raynes would have been the better choice.

I believe the board acted in a manner inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibility.

Regards,

Joe Reynolds