(Oct. 20, 2016) While a decision on whether to renovate or replace the ailing country club was not made during a special board of directors meeting Monday in Ocean Pines, the message was clear – the community is not likely to support another costly referendum to spend millions on a new building.
Interim OPA General Manager Brett Hill said mold remediation on the building had been successful, and that bids to replace the roof of the country club would be on the agenda during a regular board meeting on Saturday. He estimated that cost at about $93,000.
While Director Pat Supik said it was obvious most of the directors would favor a rehab of the building, she worried about spending too much money “without knowing the endgame.”
“We’re kind of making decisions on individual pieces in a blind manner,” she said. “Maybe just a little bit longer range or a bigger-picture idea with the country club would be helpful.”
Director Cheryl Jacobs agreed.
“I have a concern that we’re, as Pat said, we’re going little by little with a big number, which maybe we shouldn’t be doing if, in fact, the ultimate decision is tear down and consolidate and make it smaller,” she said.
Hill said that staff was working on a report on different options for the building and that it would be ready for a board meeting in December.
Part of that discussion, he said, would be “what do we want the building to be.” Golf management company Landscapes Unlimited had said the building was too big for their needs.
If OPA opted to replace the building, Hill said trailers would likely need to be rented to accommodate continuing golf operations for up to three years, perhaps costing several hundred thousand dollars.
“That’s why we approached just stabilizing,” he said. “We do have a report that showed that building is absolutely solid. There’s no structural issues. The building could stand for another 100 years.”
Director Slobodan Trendic appeared to question the entire golf amenity, saying losses had totaled almost $5 million dating back to 2010, including depreciation. He said he was not in favor of replacing the building.
“The question we need to ask is about the responsibilities we have to the homeowners,” he said. “Can we continue to carry and subsidize what appears to be a very costly amenity to the community?
“Historically speaking, the numbers are not very attractive when it comes to golf course operations,” Trendic continued. “They’re just a burden, a drain of our financial resources and we need to have a long-term solution to address this problem.”
Director Doug Parks noted that a recent engineering report estimated a new, smaller 8,000-square-foot building had an estimated cost of $1.7 million.
“Looking at that number as kind of a benchmark … might give us a better idea whether or not it’s feasible,” he said, adding that number should be weighed against estimated costs for an extensive renovation. “I want to really investigate those numbers and say, from a repair perspective after the initial required investment, what’s a number that gets us to operational efficiency?”
Vice President Dave Stevens said it would be his choice to renovate the building because that would likely be more cost-effective overall, but admitted that would likely not be the most “straightforward path.”
“If we’re going to replace it, it’s not going to be our choice – it will not be our choice,” he said, hammering on the desk. “We can go out to referendum … but it’s going to be everybody’s choice.
“Maybe we make a really good case for it, we say, ‘Look, we’re saving your money in the long run,’ [but] we have to sell that idea,” Stevens added. “I don’t like my chances at all, therefore I do believe that, at a minimum, we ought to start by focusing on what we have to do to renovate that building, initially to make it operationally useful, and then, not long afterwards, to make it functional – and in a way that will serve the benefit of the entire community.”
When board President Tom Herrick asked for a consensus from the board, Trendic said he did not want to spend money on a new building. Supik and Jacobs both said they needed more information, and Jacobs added she was not as pessimistic about a referendum as some board members were.
Others pointed to the millions recently spent on a new yacht club, opened in 2014, which many in the community were not happy with after the fact.
“We have not had good success at pricing things out,” Stevens said, adding that estimates to replace the yacht club started at about $2.7 million. Final costs were closer to $5 million.
“And the yacht club’s still not done,” Hill said, drawing laughter from those at the meeting.
Three public comments also favored renovation.
“The odds of passing a referendum now to spend $2-to-$3-to-$4 million on a new golf club, I think, are slim-and-none,” resident Joe Reynolds said. “If you want to be generous, five percent, maybe.”
Interim OPA General Manager Brett Hill said mold remediation on the building had been successful, and that bids to replace the roof of the country club would be on the agenda during a regular board meeting on Saturday. He estimated that cost at about $93,000.
While Director Pat Supik said it was obvious most of the directors would favor a rehab of the building, she worried about spending too much money “without knowing the endgame.”
“We’re kind of making decisions on individual pieces in a blind manner,” she said. “Maybe just a little bit longer range or a bigger-picture idea with the country club would be helpful.”
Director Cheryl Jacobs agreed.
“I have a concern that we’re, as Pat said, we’re going little by little with a big number, which maybe we shouldn’t be doing if, in fact, the ultimate decision is tear down and consolidate and make it smaller,” she said.
Hill said that staff was working on a report on different options for the building and that it would be ready for a board meeting in December.
Part of that discussion, he said, would be “what do we want the building to be.” Golf management company Landscapes Unlimited had said the building was too big for their needs.
If OPA opted to replace the building, Hill said trailers would likely need to be rented to accommodate continuing golf operations for up to three years, perhaps costing several hundred thousand dollars.
“That’s why we approached just stabilizing,” he said. “We do have a report that showed that building is absolutely solid. There’s no structural issues. The building could stand for another 100 years.”
Director Slobodan Trendic appeared to question the entire golf amenity, saying losses had totaled almost $5 million dating back to 2010, including depreciation. He said he was not in favor of replacing the building.
“The question we need to ask is about the responsibilities we have to the homeowners,” he said. “Can we continue to carry and subsidize what appears to be a very costly amenity to the community?
“Historically speaking, the numbers are not very attractive when it comes to golf course operations,” Trendic continued. “They’re just a burden, a drain of our financial resources and we need to have a long-term solution to address this problem.”
Director Doug Parks noted that a recent engineering report estimated a new, smaller 8,000-square-foot building had an estimated cost of $1.7 million.
“Looking at that number as kind of a benchmark … might give us a better idea whether or not it’s feasible,” he said, adding that number should be weighed against estimated costs for an extensive renovation. “I want to really investigate those numbers and say, from a repair perspective after the initial required investment, what’s a number that gets us to operational efficiency?”
Vice President Dave Stevens said it would be his choice to renovate the building because that would likely be more cost-effective overall, but admitted that would likely not be the most “straightforward path.”
“If we’re going to replace it, it’s not going to be our choice – it will not be our choice,” he said, hammering on the desk. “We can go out to referendum … but it’s going to be everybody’s choice.
“Maybe we make a really good case for it, we say, ‘Look, we’re saving your money in the long run,’ [but] we have to sell that idea,” Stevens added. “I don’t like my chances at all, therefore I do believe that, at a minimum, we ought to start by focusing on what we have to do to renovate that building, initially to make it operationally useful, and then, not long afterwards, to make it functional – and in a way that will serve the benefit of the entire community.”
When board President Tom Herrick asked for a consensus from the board, Trendic said he did not want to spend money on a new building. Supik and Jacobs both said they needed more information, and Jacobs added she was not as pessimistic about a referendum as some board members were.
Others pointed to the millions recently spent on a new yacht club, opened in 2014, which many in the community were not happy with after the fact.
“We have not had good success at pricing things out,” Stevens said, adding that estimates to replace the yacht club started at about $2.7 million. Final costs were closer to $5 million.
“And the yacht club’s still not done,” Hill said, drawing laughter from those at the meeting.
Three public comments also favored renovation.
“The odds of passing a referendum now to spend $2-to-$3-to-$4 million on a new golf club, I think, are slim-and-none,” resident Joe Reynolds said. “If you want to be generous, five percent, maybe.”