I'll relate what took place to the best of my ability. Please go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the report for yourself.
Water Amenities Chair, John Walton reported that he had three bids to replace the # 1, or original dock at the landing. A motion is made and seconded by Cline to proceed with a cost of $15,022. Before we go any further, remember that the Water Amenities Committee made a presentation to the board last year convincing them that a second dock was necessary to safety and ultimate use of the landing. The second dock was approved and the second dock (new) was completed late last year. I attended the presentation to the board and no mention was made of the now "unrepairable" number one dock. During the January Board Meeting, as the new 2013 budget hit the road (new money), John Walton proposed replacing dock number one, had one bid, and stated this "unrepairable dock", could be towed into the canals, for the use of projects there. Garrison questioned the use in the canal area, if it was truly "unrepairable", along with the fact that the committee only had one bid. A vote was held until February.
During the February meeting, Garrison wanted to know what the Water Amenities budget was for 2013. Treasurer, DeMarchi stated that it was $15,000 and there was approximately $19,000 in reserves. Please note that we haven't had a reserve study yet, and the figures for reserves were determined in a formula developed by DeMarchi. Garrison has more questions. He wants to know if the old #1 dock will be dissembled and removed, so as not to end up in our "back yard". Anderson wants to know what the time frame is. We're informed that the contractor could start by the end of February and have the project completed in March.
The vote is taken. All nine board members are in attendance. Barrier is the only one who votes "no". He doesn't give any indication why, in the form of questions, or comment. I am grateful to Barrier for his "no" vote. Why? First, we haven't had acceptable finance reports in 6-8 months. The management company has quit. They have been collecting our assessments, paying our bills, and providing the financial reports, with the guidance of two different treasurers. Our reserves are being assigned without a reserve study. There is just too much regarding our finances hanging in mid-air. I have respect for many of the people who serve on the Water Amenities Committee, but I believe they have become overly zealous about what they want at the landing, at our expense. Later on we'll review the grounds report. The Water Amenities Committee appears to have allowed the maintenance of the spoil site to be deposited in that budget. In January, McMillin reported that there wasn't any money in the grounds budget for spoil site maintenance. It could appear that your board will shuffle and move financial burdens to suit their "cohesive, behind the public's backs, deals", to keep promises to each other. If a dock is truly needed, we should straighten out some crucial finance problems, wait for the reserve study, and not allow the board to reassign committee responsiblities, irresponsibly. When Water Amenities can detail how they will take care of the spoil site within their budget and build a new dock, it would be legitimate.
