Board facing major decision on Community Hall
commentary by Joe Reynolds

On July 2, 2008 the Community Hall Task Force presented a recommendation to the OPA Board.

The recommendation was to accept a proposal from Lehman Construction Services that would have an estimated total cost, including contingencies, of about $1.75 million. The building would be increased by around 2200 SF and include a gym/multipurpose room. In essence the old building would be completely torn down and a new, slightly larger building put in its place.

No board decision was made today.

This approach is a departure from prior board discussion of a rehab of the Community Hall. The Task Force included costs for the rehab as originally discussed by the board. Those costs indicate the original rehab idea, as presented by Bill Rakow and Marty Clarke, could be done slightly under the $1.3 million referendum trigger.

The new building project, as recommended by the Task Force, would provide a much nicer facility than a straight rehab of the old building, and at what appears to be a very favorable cost. The board is now faced with a decision: go for the new, larger building with a gym and put the project out to referendum for approval by the lot owners, or go with the original idea of a complete rehab of the existing building without going to referendum.

Despite the belief of many that the new building approach would pass in a referendum vote, OPA cannot overlook the very real prospect such a referendum could fail. Despite prior committee studies indicating a need for about 30,000 SF of meeting space, the recent Zogby International demographic survey indicated only about 16% of respondents use or plan to use meeting space. Also, 86% of respondents were over age of 50; 64% over age of 60.

If the board decided to go with the new building and the referendum fails, it would cost association members about $60,000, and then moving forward with a $1.3 million rehab without referendum.

Based on board discussion at the meeting, it appears the intent is to make a decision on what approach to take within the next 30 days or so.

The new building approach is clearly the best approach, but the board must consider the political ramifications and the prospects of rejection by association members. While the original rehab might be very possible to do without a referendum and still comply with the current by-laws, we would end up with a completely refurbished building, inside and out. On the other hand, the new building would provide an additional 2200 SF of space and a raised, sloped roof for gym area.

Some in the community might scream bloody murder, but the board should consider ways to comply with the by-laws and proceed with the new building approach without a referendum, and be totally upfront with how they are doing so and their reasons for doing so. For example, the project could be contracted out in stages, just as projects on the golf course are now done. Work on the Community Hall has been put off for too long. It is time to do something and it should be done right.

It should also be noted the Task Force provided the board with only one bid on the new building approach. The board should insist on another bid if it decides to go this route.

Compliance with the by-laws may also hinge on whether association members approve the proposed by-laws changes this August. The existing by-laws state: "To include in any annual charge amounts necessary to fund capital expenditures, but in the event any single capital expenditure exceeds twenty percent (20%) of the current income derived from annual charges, it shall require approval of the membership by a majority of the votes cast in a referendum vote of all voting members."

The proposed by-laws provide additional language stating: "If the board is undertaking a planned replacement, renovation, or repair of existing facilities or the acquisition of new facilities or land that will be accomplished on phases, a 'single capital expenditure' refers to the phase under construction, provided the Association is under no contractual obligation to undertake successive phases."

The board might be well advised to wait and see if the by-laws changes are approved in early August, or proceed now without a referendum on a phased, non-obligatory basis for certain phases, just as it has done in the past.

The board has a difficult decision to make. From a personal perspective, either approach would satisfy me as an association member, but I'd rather see the new building approach as it provides a great deal more, including a gym area, for an additional $250,000 of actual construction costs. Either way, I hope the board finds the will and legal authority to avoid yet another divisive YES/NO debate.