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 III begins with Garrison speaking. " A couple of things....Al, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is money that has been set aside specifically to deal with canal maintenance. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be spent on canal maintenance. Money is flexible. Don't think it is fair to say....looking at potential. Number 2, I think this board has made it clear it isn't opposed to the concept of shared responsibility. I don't know what the next board is going to do, but the majority of this board's feeling is that had....kept within a process that didn't increase assessments that....canal lot owners would likely fly pretty well if we get this assessment. Now, the question was asked a couple of years ago if this could have been done without assessment going up, how much objection would there have been. Felt it would have been less than it turned out to be. This board has contemplated the idea of setting money aside for some of this. The spoil itself, I don't believe there is any question. The WPA owns the spoil site, so the spoil site, in terms of maintaining it, is our responsibility. In fact, we just spent a couple of thousand dollars doing just that.
The problem I have is conceptually, even if the WPA were to contribute a given amount of money. What we've been looking at and I don't think this is a secret to anybody....discussion...I've had somewhere in $30 - $32,000 a year range in terms of set aside money for canals. There would be a reduction in assessments at the end of this year...The problem is the administration. We proposed a separate regime, a sub regime, whatever you would like to call it, to canal owners. We asked them essentially whether they would be in favor, or against such a proposal. Am I correct? In December or January, you reported back the results of that, of which there were 23 respondents, out of 79. Think about that."
DeMarchi: "12 were favorable. 11 were....
Garrison: About evenly opposed. The majority of canal lot owners didn't respond. One interpretation can be - if their not interested enough whether they dredge, why should WPA be? I don't take that approach because it may not be the proper interpretation - that lack of response. The problem is as soon as you talk about the canal lot owners as a group, how do you come up with a certain amount money? Who is going to administrate that? That's why....tried to get sub association, for exactly that reason. The WPA, at least this WPA, has no interest in administrating this and is trying to enforce canal lot owners to kick over this many dollars. We've done that. We've been there. It's still costing us money for having done it. That a fact. You still got several unpaid from original $5,000 assessment."
COMMENTS:
Garrison does have more to say and we will continue. I had to stop and comment. A few key points to look back at and consider, that make the discussion by McMillin and Garrison unpalatable.
*In earlier parts McMillin says he hopes the Reserve Study will add information. Garrison states that the board has been setting money aside for the canals. Remember, any reserve type set aside we do have has been through figures and assigned percentages, developed by DeMarchi, who told the residents it had to be done for either tax or audit purposes. He didn't even bring his percentages of assignment to the board table to be read aloud, but did begin to draw money over expenses, from his formula, directly into reserves, monthly. His assignment meant little, really? It directly involved our monies. The Reserve Study contract basically says that if you have an asset that was not determined by a previous reserve study, that it will cost more to build that foundation. Please tell me that the figures of DeMarchi and McMillin, will not be used to cover the canal asset. I have absolutely no trust.
*Garrison speaks to the low response of the canal lot owners to the regime survey, as possibly being an indication of interest in dredging. Really?? We've discussed the survey enough. Garbage in, garbage out. Don't put the poor survey development, a board function, on the heads of the canal lot owners.
*Garrison doesn't believe the WPA wants to get involved with the administration of this. Why, some of those canal owners still owe $5,000 on the last dredging assessment! Pardon me, but wasn't he one of the Bob's that sent that letter to every resident telling them to hold their assessments in escrow at Anderson bank? Additionally, this board shoots any sound collection on any assessments, including 2013, right in the foot! Finally, if he or anybody else on that board doesn't want to administer a project for 79 residents, they are disavowing themselves of their duties and should get off the board.
RESUME WITH GARRISON: Garrison goes on to explain where they are in collections with some of the properties. We pick up transcriptions here: "But the whole process comes down to how you administer this. ......Why would the WPA be enforcing something, or involved in something.... the canal lot owners side here to be voluntary right?
McMillin: "Unless you us the same logic that....
Garrison: I think the point here, and best part of your proposal is recognition that canal lot owners as a group - if they expect there's expectation that something is going to get done down the road then....within next 2-3 years - maintenance dredge....needs to be understood that they better start putting pennies in a jar. They need to start planning ahead for this because there is going to be a bill and a substantial one. How substantial depends on how much yardage... I think this board has tried and is not against the idea of WPA contributing to that in some fashion. I really don't believe, among the membership that there is a tremendous amount of objection. If there is, I'm sure I'll hear about it after, but right now.... I felt that in a certain moderation that that would not be particularly objectionable.
COMMENTS:
There is more to the tape regarding this subject. It is going to be a surprise to all of us because I haven't listened to it, or attempted to transcribe it. There will be a part IV.
First, as far as the canal owners part being voluntary, I don't think there is a prayer. Why would anyone just hand over the funds. Your board is responsible to administer and they need to develop a concrete plan with a thought that their actions could stand up in court, assess according to plan, collect according to sound practices, and tell all - not just canal lot owners, what section and verbiage from the by-laws that they are doing it under.
STAY TUNED FOR PART V.
`
