NOTE: The information presented below is written from my attendance and notes from the May 15th Board Meeting. In all cases I encourage you to listen to the tape of the meeting at the Wedgefield Times. The discussion and vote to repair the bulkhead fall under the ARC Report.
A motion was voted on and approved to spend up to $7,500 to repair 60 feet of bulkhead on a canal. It passed 7-1 with McBride voting no. The background appears to be this. Sometime after the 2010 dredging, bulkhead failed on one of the canals in back of a private residence. Some earth on the owners property also gave way causing a large hole. The dredging contractor did some work previously on the property. The problems continued. The homeowner had paid part of their $5,000 assessment and quit paying. The problem is exaggerated by the fact that the canal frontage is owned by the WPA, as is the case for four other properties. From the discussion at the Board table it appeared that some, if not all, were adjacent to this property.
Some of the discussion centered around the fact that the WPA owns the water frontage and must restore it. It is then hoped that they can quit claim deed the property to the resident. A question arose as to whether the resident could resist the quit claim deed. Legal will be looking at that quit claim deeding all of the properties..
It was stated by one of the Board Members that it was the opinion of Water Bridge Construction that the bulkhead failure had nothing to do with the dredging. It had been damaged by tie back failure. Someone else added that they had been told that when this section of bulkhead was fixed that there was a high probability that the bulkhead on the adjacent properties on either side would fail. When that point was brought up President Walton said, "let's move on."
This is a Solomon decision at best. Some would say if you own it, you fix it. Others would say if you own it you can let it be. Remember there is some evidence that the WPA may own the adjacent water frontage on either side and the bulkhead may fail on each of those. I'm glad I don't live by either. What if the properties adjacent to this chain of events are caused to fail and the frontage is owned by you or me? The bottom line question is, is $7,500 spent now the end of this, or just the beginning of $7,500 X at least four more properties?
Discussion continued as to whether when the bulkhead on this particular property was fixed, would the owner pay their $5,000? There were no promises. So we vote to repair WPA property because a property owner who isn't in good standing, and wants correction to a problem we didn't cause , is upset?
These are just a few questions, but I think the Board "moved on" too quickly.
PS: Where did confidentiality go? The Board named the resident, the fact that they were in arrears and mentioned their payment history.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you want your name published with your comment.
