During Wednesday night’s meeting, the Cinco Ranch Property Owners Association board of directors thought it had voted to move ahead with the construction of a new office building, albeit by the narrowest of margins.
On Thursday morning, however, board members found out the vote was not binding.
STILL AWAITING APPROVAL – The Cinco Ranch Property Owners Association board will have to vote again on this proposed office building for the Cinco Ranch Associations. Despite a 2-1 approval vote during Wednesday’s board meeting, the association’s attorney said the measure would have needed at least 3 votes to pass.
After a lengthy debate that included the discussion of leasing new office space over building, the board voted 2-1 to accept a low bid of $735,822 from Markee Construction to build the new office facility on Westheimer Parkway next to the Willow Fork Fire Department.
Board members Bob Pennington and Bob Russell voted to move ahead with the building. Board President Annabel Terrell voted “no” and Board Member Tim Dore abstained.
The fifth board member, Michael Price, was absent.
After the vote was taken, the board believed the measure had passed. When board attorney Bob Alexander reviewed the vote the following morning; however, he ruled the action would have required a majority of board members was needed for approval, rather than just a majority of board members present and voting.
Community Manager Michael Meagher then notified board members Wednesday’s vote would not count.
“At the board of directors meeting last night, additional bids were reviewed and a motion was made to select one of the bidders. There was a second to the motion and two of the four board members present voted in favor, one voted against and one abstained,” Meagher said. “With a 2-1 vote, it was thought that the motion passed.”
The attorney’s review, however, found that it had not.
“The association’s legal counsel has advised that the language of the bylaws leads to the conclusion that we needed three votes last night. A ‘majority of the board’ was required, rather than, for example, ‘a majority of those present and voting’ as some bylaws state,” Meagher explained. “In other words, a plurality was not sufficient.”
A special meeting will have to be called for board members to again consider what to do about the new office building.
Earlier in the meeting, Keenon Rayner with Identity Architects presented the board with the four bids received from contractors to build the new facility. He said the lowest bidder, Markee, came in more than $80,000 below the next-lowest proposal.
Rayner said he believed the difference was because Markee was planning to use a different set of sub-contractors than the other bidders. He also said he was not familiar with the company, but had interviewed them and found that they met all specifications and requirements to do the job.
“At the end of the day, Markee is $20 a square foot less than the next lowest contractor,” Rayner pointed out.
He added that “a few red flags came up” because of Markee’s substantially lower bid and recommended if the board accepted the bid that they have a contingency fund equal to the difference between Markee’s bid and that of the next-lowest bidder, Comanche Construction.
“Bottom line, they have to build it to plans,” Rayner told the board.
The four bids received for the 4,318 square-foot building were:
- Markee Construction, $735.822 or $170.41 per square foot.
- Comanche Construction, $818,060 or $ 189.45 per square foot.
- Hennessee Contractors, $824,985 or $ 191.06 per square foot.
- C.A. Walker, $834,999.39 or $ 193.38 per square foot.
In the bids, both Comanche and Hennessee promised to complete the project in 150 days, Markee said it would finish the job in 180 days and C.A. Walker promised completion in 210 days.
Before taking a final vote, the board also looked at several leasing options.
The Cinco Ranch Professional Building at Cinco Village Center Boulevard and Commercial Center Boulevard offered a 12-month lease of 4,000 square feet for $106,000 or $1.75 per square foot. The Villagio Center at Westheimer Parkway and Peek Road offered the same lease for $ 1.50 per square foot or $105,600 per year.
“That’s the office space that’s currently available,” Meagher told the board.
Terrell appeared to favor pursuing a lease over building a new office building.
“Do we still want to pursue building given the numbers we’ve seen?” she asked the board.
Pennington said the economics of a permanent building over leased space made better sense.
“At some point, the economics are going to say you need to own. I think building is still a viable option,” Pennington said.
Dore said he was not certain which option was best.
“I just don’t think I have enough information to give you a vote,” he told the board.
The special meeting to reconsider the vote has not yet been scheduled.
