************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it . P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************
Readers, sorry it has been so long since The Wedgefield Examiner posted. Our home is still medical central for two loved ones. One is here in Wedgefield, and the other in Connecticut. If you think the Wedgefield Examiner is tough, you ought to have to deal with Nurse Ratchet. Due to time constraints, I will continue to publish, but probably one committee report at a time. Today, we kick off with a key report - The Water Amenities Report. I will provide the information to the best of my ability from the notes I took that evening.
Board member Walton (John) reported. There was nothing new to report on the landing. The canal committee is in phase II. The specs provided by EarthWorks must be completed, and inspected before the Army Core of Engineers will allow dredging. The voluntary funds ($400 collected from participating canal lot owners - last reported count at about 50 of the 79 lot owners) are almost exhausted.
The board opened six bids at the board table. EarthWorks put out the bid specifications. The bids are as follows:
1) J Mack Construction - $48,034
2) CL Benton & Sons - $245,000
3) D&L Site Work - $119,900
4)Unsure of company name - $94,900
5) Brad Davis - $25,000
6)HERR Inc. - $255,000
Garrison questioned the vast range between the bids for the same scope of work, stating it was hard to believe. He suggested that the committee go through bids and make sure they were all bidding on the same specs. John Walton stated that they were all on the spoil site when EarthWorks explained the work to be done. He went on to say that "we" had a bid originally and the engineering firm said that it was way out of line. We didn't need to spend that much money. Anderson said that the bid for $25,000 spelled out exactly what was required.
Garrison suggested that the committee meet, and then come back and the board would look at how it got funded. He went on to say that he felt the board had acknowledged - responsibility for keeping it cut down since the WPA owns it, but this is different since dredging...According to my notes, it appears he was interrupted from finishing his statement. Anderson asked what Garrison's concern was. Garrison responded that it needed another look, and they need to meet and determine how to hash it out. He acknowledged that he remembered hearing a while back that it was around $25,000. John Walton stated that the committee would call for a special meeting prior to the next regular board meeting. Garrison stated that appropriate notice would have to be given for an open board meeting. Another board member on the water amenities committee (believe it was Anderson or McMillin - unsure) said the committee wanted to remind the board that the WPA was responsible for the spoil site.
John Walton went on to say that they were going to have to ask for an extension on the permit as it expires in 2019.
Please note: Again, I have provided the above information to the best of my ability. I was in attendance and took notes. You can't go to the tapes to verify, because your board removed them from their website quite some time ago. My comments follow.
I have watched the legal reports for years, prior to the canal lot owner only meeting in mid 2016. As to legal, we've had several changes in attorneys by our legal committee - one who was disbarred, we've had settlements by mediators or referees - not judges. One of the referees who disagreed with himself on individual assessments - in two cases, died, and we never got real answers from the board, except when pushed that some unauthorized person signed the referee's signature on the first document. We truly found out that dead men can't speak even through legal written documents, and that you could supposedly forge a document involved in a critical decision - settlement, and your board didn't want it investigated. We had a closed canal lot owners meeting - scheduled, announced, attended by 4-5 sitting board members, with promises made of funding of up to $135,000 - never voted on at a board meeting until long after it was promised, and the committee had collected $400 voluntarily from approximately 50 canal lot owners, based on illegal promises. We've had a spoil site supposedly maintained through a grounds' contract that at times, it was stated was maintained according to contract, was not maintained because of bad advise from a former sitting board member, plus a claim from a sitting board member that the entire board knew why. The water amenities chair then and current, used the term neglected, and we needed a professional burn of the spoil site, and then later it was said the site was damaged but no one told us how. What a mess!
One thing stood out for me, more than others at the January board meeting. There was a lot of hype from the beginning that we had to hurry and scurry to get to the maintenance dredge allowed within the current permit. Many of you allowed the committee, and the board to put the rush on your decisions regarding the $400, didn't care that governing documents weren't followed regarding promises of funding, or that the membership - non canal lot owners were not allowed to attend the meeting, because time was a wasting. I suggested from the beginning that you take your time, force your board and committee to do the right thing, and ask for an extension on the permit. Your board and committee would never acknowledge at the board table, that the potential to extend the life of the permit resided in the current permit. Now, that things are so screwed up - the committee and board will seek to extend the permit.
