Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
The Wedgefield Examiner reported on the reserve study contract, covered by Jacky Walton in his president's report. We won't start at the beginning. If you haven't read "Part I, The January 15th WPA Board Meeting, posted on The Wedgefield Examiner on Jan. 17, you might want to go back and read it.
There is new, not so great information. I wrote the board and requested the opportunity to review the contract, proposals, and RFP (request for proposal). I was provided the contract, and the responses to the RFP. The RFP was not in the file. I was told that William Douglas sent out the RFP and the board didn't have it. This is just the beginning of a list of problems that have surfaced since the January 15 board meeting.
Why is it a problem? When did your board verify for themselves that the RFP detailed all the necessary specifications and information, for our project? Remember, we have NEVER, in all these years had a reserve study conducted. Additionally, one board set aside $10,000 for a reserve study that was ignored by this board. I believe they intend to spend $4,000. Our first reserve study will literally lay the foundation for our reserves. It is always important for this process to be competitive, but this isn't the time to go cheap, if it impacts credible results. Is cost, not enough money, why they didn't really want to know what the RFP, representing our needs, looked like? You get what you pay for, and the time you are willing to invest to see that your project is done correctly, start to finish. It would be the same as you asking a contractor to bid to build something, and not knowing what specs he was using to bid. Things only go from bad, to worse.
I reviewed what I was told was the contract. I do believe they believed that to be truthful at the time. First, the contract appeared to be "off the shelf". That was disturbing because we haven't ever had a reserve study and your board is going to assign our reserves according to the findings. Do they want the study results to be so benign that they can do what they want? Remember about a year ago, we were told that if the board didn't assign reserves we would face problems, with either the audit, or our taxes. I don't recall which, but I believe it was a set up to use one board member's figures. I've reviewed the last audit administrative report and it wasn't mentioned. We've been paying taxes for years, and it wasn't mentioned in the past. What we didn't know at the time was, almost immediately, the board began to use this formula to distribute funds into reserves, monthly. There was no real foundation to the appropriations, a lame excuse, but now we have reserves assigned accordingly.
I couldn't have a copy of the contract but I did read through it. I did hand copy a portion of a clause that concerned me.
"(CONTRACTOR - I won't name) will assume, unless otherwise advised by client, that all reserve assets have been designated and constructed properly and each estimated useful life will approximate that of the norm per industry...." In signing that contract your board lied on paper, and violated the contract. The WPA doesn't have any of that. No former reserve study, as a building block. No experts EVER out here to assign the life of anything! Our reserves were assigned, without realistic formula or backup. They may have been based on a study by board members of past expense, but what is that worth? It doesn't speak to life of asset, or have a solid foundation. Take roads for instance. In 2011, we spent almost $30,000 on an unlicensed, uninsured, contractor. Many on this board justified it, and knowingly let it move forward. How would you like to present that?
I read through and then ran into a board member in the office. I asked if I was correct in stating that any assets that didn't have a proper reserve study background and foundation, would cost us beyond the contract, if the vendor had to create that information? The board member said that was how he read it. Basically, we don't have anything solid on any of our assets. I don't believe we have a single asset, that has the appropriate documentation.
Since my visit, more information has come my way, from two different, credible sources. When I can't, or won't provide documents, The Wedgefield Examiner calls the information - RUMOR. That is what we'll call it for now. It is credible information. First, the contract President Walton signed, is not the contract the board approved. Next, a board member stopped payment on the check written to the contractor. They are going to have to start again. Am I concerned? YES!!!! I'm afraid we are headed to another half baked job!
