I've listened to the tape of the March 19th WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. NOTE: If you don't listen to any other part of the tape, this portion is important, it is an exhibit, a telling of much that is wrong with this board. If you listen for logic, solid foundation, principles, etc., you won't find it. Parts of the article will be transcribed and in quotes (blue print and underlined) to the best of my ability, other portions - not, my comments will be in red. P.S.: Please don't think that I fail to understand that this is a discussion/proposal. However, this board has had snippets of discussion in the past, gone under the clock of "closed meetings", and surfaced like they did with the "accounting function" and really made all the decisions, behind our backs.
'PART II, WE PICK UP WITH MC MILLIN'S WORDS:
"Now lets talk about some costs. Earth Works calculates that approximately 2/3 have filled back in......I find that hard to believe.....Yes, the north canal is heavily silted due to factors that was miscalculated during the last dredge. MY GUESS is closer to 50%, or slightly less. Some of this is predicted because of the ways the canals were cleared, how the canals were dredged. Earth Works suggests that a maintenance dredge be performed within 3-5 years to sustain the useful life of the canals for an additional 10 years or longer. If you use MY GUESSES, instead of theirs, the cost to dredge today would be around $300,000, not counting all the additional fees they want to add, as far as the hydrologic survey, telegraphic survey?????...the fees for administrating and all that.....IF WE ALLOW THAT to happen. At the time we dredged the last time we were told that to raise the dikes of the spoil site higher than needed at the time and that the site would need no additional prep for a maintenance dredge. Now they change that...." He goes on to list the potential cost of some of these surveys.
Again with McMillin's words: "If we are allowed to use what we have, the cost would be $195,000 for the canal lot owners and $105 for WPA. Since nothing has been planned or set aside for three years, we are that far behind in this plan. We can extrapolate that, an additional 18 - 20,000 yards will accumulate in the next two years. Let's break that figure down. It's 70,000 yards, as opposed to 50, which is my...with a dredging cost of $6 per yard, that would equal $420,000 or $168,000 for WPA and $250,000 for..." (difficult to catch some figures) We pick up with McMillin again: "Each canal owner should besetting aside approximately $640.00 per year to pay their share of the dredging cost. If we do it in the next two years....for a total of $3,300. Each canal owner will pay about $64 per month . LET'S HOPE THE RESERVE STUDY DEFINES THOSE FIGURES EVEN MORE. Like I say, this is a general proposal. It's and idea.... We can't get much more FAIR than that. The canal owners.......Reasonable solution.......Get something in place so when the bill.....We'll just pay the bill and move on."
COMMENTS:
Quite frankly, I'm glad McMillin started his proposal with the information about the spoil site, not wanting to get bids, and attaching the work to the grounds contract. (Part I). There were times in that discussion that I thought indicated he had sought information from Earth Works. Again, I'd like to see it in writing. I'll write the board and ask for it. In Part two, HE kicks Earth Works to the side. It is how HE VIEWS the numbers. Residents, canal lot owner, or not, this is the same old pattern of this board. I, or WE, on the board have expertise in all things. We don't need expertise, we have it. REALLY???? Don't begin to tell me what I'm going to pay on another one of their haphazard, half baked, projects. I will pay NOTHING on anything that isn't properly studied, engineering plans developed, and overseen by a reputable source! I won't entertain "putting aside money' to fund a sloppy project after all the hell the 2009 board went through on a project that was well designed, documented, followed by experts, every step reviewed by our attorney, and a lawsuit brought not only against the board, but individual board members. I won't pay anything toward any canal project that differs from residents off the canals, until they tell me EXACTLY - word for word, what part of the governing documents allow them to do. McMillin has thrown his figures out, told me what to put aside, but hasn't bothered to tell me HOW, under what legal authority the board entertains doing that.
Once again, where was Water Amenities? Remember, when they had the dock project - both of them. They hired EXPERTS to design and oversee the work. They put the project out to bid. As a canal lot owner, I'm tired of being the step child of Wedgefield.
STAY TUNED. PART III, GARRISON SPEAKS
