Although this issue has been discussed at length (and too much), will residents have any input on the design or will that simply slow the process down (again). Or can we assume that the MVF Board has the sense to approve the best/adequate design for the project?

As written, the MOU’s comprise a one-sided partnership lacking in mutuality, one that positions MVSA as a free rider.

More specifically,

1. The MVF role is an active one in that it owns the property, has professional staff, performs project management, and assumes joint responsibility. In contrast, the MVSA role is passive in that it is granted the funds by the State, assumes joint responsibility, receives insurance coverage, and receives indemnification. Just what is MVSA’s responsibility?

2. I urge MVF and MVSA to engage in a good faith effort to rebalance the ledger and redistribute active and passive responsibilities. For example, MVSA should agree to utilize concession proceeds to defray the cost of supplies, regular cleaning, trash removal, and security as well as the cost of water and electricity.

3. Furthermore, MVF indemnification of MVSA is troubling for Village residents and should be even more troubling for board members. Each MVF Board member has a fiduciary responsibility and obligation to act in good faith on behalf of the residents of the Village. The interests of Village residents must be the priority of each board member. By indemnifying MVSA backed up by millions of dollars in MVF resources, the board would be prioritizing the interests of MVSA above those of Village residents. In so doing, the board would be delinquent in its fiduciary responsibility to the residents of Montgomery Village.

One last comment here, the MVF Board voted to approve both of the MOUs. Therefore, it is now completed and the project design and construction will move forward. I do find it puzzling that one person talks of “troubling for Village residents”. Yet I continue hearing about this from only that one resident. It is clearly time to move our community forward on behave of ALL of our residents.

I would like to correct Bob Hydorn's false report on the recent action of the MVF Board. The MVF Board did not vote to approve the MOU's.

1. The MVF Board voted on June 28 to authorize the MVF EVP to negotiate and execute two MOU's with MVSA concerning the Restroom and Concession Facilities at South Valley Park.
2. The MVF Board did not vote to approve the language in the draft MOU's, simply the authority of the EVP to negotiate and executive the MOU's.
3. The MVF EVP acknowledged that revisions to the draft MOU's will be needed, referring to these expected changes a "tweaks".
4. After that, the MOU documentation on the MVF/MVSA partnership will be sent to the State for approval in order to secure MVF's position as the grantee of the $125,000 State funds earlier denied in the legislative process. Only then will the way be cleared to begin design and construction with the assurance of reimbursement.

Bob Hydorn is getting way ahead of himself, the MVF Board, and the State in his enthusiasm for this project which two dozen Village residents spoke out against at Resident's time earlier in the year.

Bob Hydorn's version of events at MVF Board meetings is troubling. The minutes of the MVF Board meetings will confirm the actual record of events.

To learn the Top Ten Reasons for withholding funding for this South Valley project, view the YouTube post at: 
http://youtu.be/yftHnv5bxG0

The Board of Public Works (BPW) will take up the issue of the $125,000 bond bill grant for the South Valley Restroom and Concession Stand At 10:00AM on December 19, 2012 in the Governor’s Conference Room in the Sate House.

On the agenda, I will be there urging the BPW composed of Governor Martin O’Malley, Comptroller Peter Franchot, and Treasurer Nancy Kopp to disapprove the South Valley Park bond bill project involving the Montgomery Village Sports Association and the Montgomery Village Foundation.

I will offer ten compelling reasons for withholding this funding.

Finally I will urge the BPW to end these smoke and mirror tactics by disapproving and withholding the $125,000 funding for the South Valley restroom and concession stand.

At the end of the day, the BPW will approve, disapprove, defer, or withdraw the bond bill grant for the South Valley Restroom and Concession Stand.

Stand by!

Reasons 1-5:

1. Misleadingly listed as the Design and Construction of South Valley Park, it is actually the Design and Construction of a Restroom and Concession Stand in South Vally Park. In truth, the project is a $250,000 toilet.
2. Irregular tactics were involved in switching the grant recipient from the Foundation on the original application not approved by the legislature to the Sports Association approved by the legislature and then back to the Foundation as beneficiary, designated by DGS solely to protect the state.
3. However, in designating the Foundation as beneficiary, DGS contradicted the earlier action of the legislature.
4. The Foundation serves only residents of the well-heeled Montgomery Village HOA while the Sports Association is open to all residents of Montgomery County, a distinction noted by the legislature in not approving the original Foundation application.
5. Not part of the Foundation, the Sports Association is not a responsible party. A responsible party owns the property, pays project expenses, and conducts all transactions with the state associated with the project. The Sports Association does none of this. For example, the Foundation, not the Sport Association, transacted the consultation with Maryland Historical Trust on item 3 which directed the grant recipient to perform this duty.

Reasons 6-10:

6. Recognizing these Sports Association inadequacies, DGS propped up the Sports Association when it patched up the grant agreement designating the Foundation as beneficiary, thereby, enabling the Foundation to pose as grant recipient.
7. Recognizing its own fragility and content to operate as a free-rider, the Sports Association shed its core responsibilities in an MOU linking the Foundation and the Sports Association by designating the Foundation as the responsible party for procurement of bids, contracting with selected bidders, and paying vendors.
8.However, the validity of this MOU is in question since it was not approved by the Foundation board and does not bear the signature of its elected President. Instead, it was drafted, negotiated, and signed by paid staff employees.
9.Furthermore, the MOU indemnity clause violates the Foundation fiduciary responsibility. Board members have an obligation to act in good faith on behalf of the residents of the Village. Instead the MOU improperly places the interests of the Sports Association above those of Village residents.
10. All this maneuvering while the state of Maryland is financially strapped with taxes raised and services cut.

Don, I look forward to seeing you there on Wednesday morning

Bob,

Will you be attending as a participant or spectator?

http://www.coachoutletonlinebfd.com/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.guccibeltstb.com/ Gucci Belt
http://www.coachoutletonlineste.com/ Coacsh Outlet Store Online
http://www.cocoachoutletonline.org/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.coachoutletonlinetsy.net/ Coach Online Outlet

It is time to scrap plans for building the controversial $250,000 South Valley Restroom and Concession stand, awarded a $125,000 state grant under false pretenses, and shake off the egregious state imposed conditions and strings attached to awarding the grant.

1. Governor O’Malley expects State funds to be spent on union labor because, he said, “... in our State we believe that stronger unions make for a stronger middle class.”

2. Demanded by the State, an MOU indemnity clause places the Montgomery Village Sports Association (MVSA) above Village residents in direct violation of MVF Board member fiduciary responsibility.