We'll start at the beginning with the Water Amenities Report. There is a connection with the Grounds Report, in fact quite an unusual one. You'll decide if it is bizarre as we move through the information. CONSISTENCY regarding the twists and moves of this board will also be questioned.
John Walton, new Water Amenities chair, gave the report. The second dock project is complete and some work was being done on the landing road. Walton reported that the first thing his committee would like to do, was to continue on the landing project by replacing the old dock. In fact he stated that there was a contract in each board member's packet. All permits were in place. They would utilize the same contractor that just completed work on the second dock.
Garrison asks if the committee feels that the existing dock has come to the end of its useful life, or could repair, replace some portions, etc., be considered. He further stated that the committee needed more bids.
The discussion indicated that the committee did not view the dock as repairable. But wait, the recommendation was to relocate the old dock. Garrison wants to know if the dock can't be repaired, why would it be relocated anywhere? Walton responds that it could be used for some projects on the canals.
In the end, the project was stalled until more bids could be secured.
Second, we'll throw in McMilllin's Grounds Report (Printed as read and presented on the WPA website.
Grounds Report
January 2013
"There has been recent discussion about the maintenance of the spoil site for future use. Its actual definition, according to the Army Corp, is a “confined disposal facility”. Earthworks, the engineering firm hired to oversee the dredging process, made suggestions about what was needed to ensure the facility would be viable for future use. The dikes were seeded to reduce erosion. Any trees and brush were to be removed, because their root systems would create voids in the walls, leading to possible breaches. None of this has been addressed since the spoil site was last used, and it is quickly becoming overgrown. Since nobody disputes that this area is owned by WPA, then we are required to maintain it as “common property”. The legalities of this may become quite daunting. First, the property must be determined which category it falls under, grounds or water amenities. An inspection must be done to determine the scope of maintenance needed. Then, our grounds crew should tour the site and give an estimate of cost and frequency that this work should be performed. Also, the crew and equipment must be transported to and from the spoil site, since it is surrounded by water. I am hoping the upcoming reserve study will hill help address all or most of these issues, and the input could be quite valuable. There has not been any money budgeted specifically for such spoil site maintenance as far as I can determine, so if this falls on our regular crew, GLOG, a change in the budget must occur. Much more discussion will be needed, and I welcome the boards input. A little money spent now will avoid a major expense when the facility is needed again."
COMMENTS:
First to the Water Amenities report. I attended the open meeting between the board and the Water Amenities committee several months ago when the committee presented their information regarding a second dock. Their presentation was outstanding. However, there was nothing in that presentation that indicated that dock number one (existing) would have to be replaced immediately. NONE! At the time if anyone had said such a thing I believe they would have been sent packing and told to take care of what they had.
Listen to the January 15th tape under committee reports - Water Amenities, at The Wedgefield Times. First, when questioned about repair, the response was it couldn't be. Later they are going to move it into the canal for canal projects. How can that be? If it is junk at the landing, why is anyone considering it for recreation projects on the canals? Doesn't make sense. Additionally, if they did use it and there was ever an accident or injury, what would we be set up for?
Additionally, there was a swift move a few months ago that took the future canal recreation projects and moved them under grounds, which McMillin chairs. Why did the board move those projects, obviously canal and water related to grounds? Made no sense then, but might be breaking ground for something else.
If you consider the content of the January 15th Grounds Report, it appears that now another water based amenity may be moved to grounds. Why? From a line management prospect, it makes no sense at all.
Perhaps it is a money strategy by some on the board. First the board has acknowledged that the spoil site maintenance is the board's responsibility. Yet, I haven't noticed spoil site maintenance in the approved 2013 budget. There is no money in the Grounds budget for the spoil site and shouldn't be. The Grounds Committee shouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, have anything to do with the spoil site. It should definitely be, along with any recreation projects on the canals, under WATER AMENITIES.
Is all this a grand plan to put a new replacement dock in and leave the rest "float", saying we have no money? Is it a power grip by some on the board to make these items part of their committee? I don't know, but all this is on the head of Jacky Walton. He is the president, he names the committee chairs, and he removed good, hard working, committee chairs, and replaced them with "fail to produce" board members. Does he really want to be president that badly? There appears to be some kind of inner sanctum politcts going on. Additionally, many of our board watch all this happen, must condone it, and do nothing about it. I didn't hear one board member question why McMillin's ground report contained the spoil site. I didn't hear one board member say to John Walton, "this committee never told us that dock one had to be replaced in months, when you presented your information for dock two".
Why isn't the board placing a ban on project spending until they re-align this budget? Where is the consistency in committees, committee responsibilities, and planned spending?
First to the Water Amenities report. I attended the open meeting between the board and the Water Amenities committee several months ago when the committee presented their information regarding a second dock. Their presentation was outstanding. However, there was nothing in that presentation that indicated that dock number one (existing) would have to be replaced immediately. NONE! At the time if anyone had said such a thing I believe they would have been sent packing and told to take care of what they had.
Listen to the January 15th tape under committee reports - Water Amenities, at The Wedgefield Times. First, when questioned about repair, the response was it couldn't be. Later they are going to move it into the canal for canal projects. How can that be? If it is junk at the landing, why is anyone considering it for recreation projects on the canals? Doesn't make sense. Additionally, if they did use it and there was ever an accident or injury, what would we be set up for?
Additionally, there was a swift move a few months ago that took the future canal recreation projects and moved them under grounds, which McMillin chairs. Why did the board move those projects, obviously canal and water related to grounds? Made no sense then, but might be breaking ground for something else.
If you consider the content of the January 15th Grounds Report, it appears that now another water based amenity may be moved to grounds. Why? From a line management prospect, it makes no sense at all.
Perhaps it is a money strategy by some on the board. First the board has acknowledged that the spoil site maintenance is the board's responsibility. Yet, I haven't noticed spoil site maintenance in the approved 2013 budget. There is no money in the Grounds budget for the spoil site and shouldn't be. The Grounds Committee shouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, have anything to do with the spoil site. It should definitely be, along with any recreation projects on the canals, under WATER AMENITIES.
Is all this a grand plan to put a new replacement dock in and leave the rest "float", saying we have no money? Is it a power grip by some on the board to make these items part of their committee? I don't know, but all this is on the head of Jacky Walton. He is the president, he names the committee chairs, and he removed good, hard working, committee chairs, and replaced them with "fail to produce" board members. Does he really want to be president that badly? There appears to be some kind of inner sanctum politcts going on. Additionally, many of our board watch all this happen, must condone it, and do nothing about it. I didn't hear one board member question why McMillin's ground report contained the spoil site. I didn't hear one board member say to John Walton, "this committee never told us that dock one had to be replaced in months, when you presented your information for dock two".
Why isn't the board placing a ban on project spending until they re-align this budget? Where is the consistency in committees, committee responsibilities, and planned spending?
