By Greg Ellison

Staff Writer

(Nov. 14, 2019) The Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors approved updates to resolution M-02, redirected a contact for bulkhead repairs and rescinded an earlier motion seeking bids for auditing services during its meeting on Nov. 2.

Resolution M-02

The board approved on second reading updates to resolution M-02 to reflect newer amenities, along with requiring the inclusion of business plans and performance metrics.

Board member Frank Daly said the second reading included feedback from the Bylaws & Resolutions Committee following an earlier first reading.

“These changes update resolution M-02 to reflect the introduction of pickleball facilities as an amenity, legal rulings and the requirement for business plans and metrics,” he said.

Board member Steve Tuttle noted the resolution updates also included boat ramps among fee-based amenities.

“The fee-based amenities list the boat ramps, and as far as I know, we don’t charge for our boat ramps,” he said.

Daly said while in theory accessing boat ramps in Ocean Pines should include costs, in practice enforcing charges has not been followed.

“The boat ramps have always been fee-based amenities and it seems the board has annually struggled with collecting,” he said.

Board member Tom Janasek supported the inclusion of boat ramps with fee-based options.

“We’ve been trying for years to get a gate on that boat ramp,” he said. “We’re going to have to add it in after the fact if we ever jump off the cliff and put a gate there and actually charge, which we should have been doing for the last eight years since we rebuilt White Horse Park.”

The board voted unanimously to approve the changes to Resolution M-02.

Bulkhead repairs

Due to scheduling conflicts with two other contractors, the board opted to award an already approved contract for bulkhead repairs to Fisher Marine Construction.

The item was a last-minute addendum under new business, with the bulkhead repairs previously budgeted but now, based on contractor availability, appropriated to Fisher.

While in agreement with awarding Fisher the contract, board member Larry Perrone asked if, due to prior approval, the procedural step was required.

“Last year, I think the guidance from the board was if we budgeted the money and it comes in at that number through the RFP process, that the GM has the authority to go ahead and move forward,” he said.

OPA President Doug Parks said that sentiment is partially correct.

“The GM has the authority once approved by the board [but] a lot of times these will exceed the spending limit of the GM,” he said.

Parks said on occasion there are time-sensitive matters, which need to be addressed prior to the next scheduled board meeting.

“If wait to get to the board meeting, obviously we could put ourselves in jeopardy, probably most likely financially, or functionally,” he said. “It would be a shame to squander the associations money by waiting for the next board meeting.”

If a proposed expenditure has been approved by the board, and costs are held within established funding levels, Parks said further board involvement is unwarranted.

“It doesn’t necessarily need to come to a board vote,” he said. “That might not be the case going forward in every situation.”

General Manager John Viola said resoliciting the board to vote on already granted approvals could prove counterproductive.

“I’m in a meeting … we tell them yes we have a budget [and] we need the service,” he said.

“We have a deal, bring it to the lawyer and then I’m like, ‘let me just hold on for a second because now I have to wait a month because seven people in a board room have to authorize and OK it.”

Daly noted bulkhead repairs were included as part of the last budget process.

“We went through an RFP process and we really qualified three contractors,” he said. “We have a program that basically nothing was done for two and a half years and it’s behind schedule.”

Daly said in this instance, when two of the contractors were unavailable for the time period sought, the work is awarded by default to the third approved contractor.

“We’ve already gone through two formal board steps,” he said.

Daly also proposed comparable situations could be remedied through an electronic board vote.

“That is the perfect place to have an electronic vote,” he said.

Daly suggested a future resolution could be adopted to permit the general manager the leeway to proceed with previously approved projects, which have minor changes, but remain within budget.

“John should be able to send an email to us saying, I’m meeting with this contractor tomorrow and I need to be able to sign this contract,’ and we should be able to do that electronically,” he said. “Rather than bring people in from all points of the country to approve something that we’ve already approved in two prior steps.”

Auditing firms

The board opted to rescind an earlier motion to issue a request for proposal seeking a new auditing firm.

Daly said after delving into matters further after the previous board approval, it appeared sensible to hold off changing firms until the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.

“The purpose is to delay the issuance of an RFP for auditing services,” he said. “The effect is to continue with our current auditing firm for the current fiscal year 2019/2020.”

Daly said in light of the current changeover to Northstar financial systems, switching auditing firms was deemed less than optimal at the moment.

“By approving this motion we will create an avoidable and unnecessary increase of work for the finance group,” he said.

Perrone questioned the proposed time frames to seek a new auditing firm.

“When we did this the thought process was that we should bid these contracts out every three years,” he said.

Perrone took exception with the approach.

“When they bid on the work they level out their costs over a period of time,” he said. “By bringing in another auditing firm, again, they’ve got to get up to speed on what we’re doing.”

The soonest the association should be seeking proposals from auditing firms is five years, Perrone said.

“That institutional knowledge they gather when they first do the audit I think is appropriate,” he said. “In the past, I think our auditing firm was around for 20-25 years. That was probably a little too long, but I think three years is a little too soon to put it out again.”

If auditing firms suspect the services contract would be renewed every few years, higher initial fees would be likely, Perrone said.

Viola concurred with those sentiments.

“Larry is absolutely correct because I saw that situation two years ago when certain board members were saying that we should change firms and they immediately hit me with fees that would have [otherwise] been over several years,” he said.