By Maurice Emery
Editor Emeritus

WARRENTON – In a sometimes emotional, sometimes same old business, meeting the Lake Gaston Weed Control Council (LGWCC) met for three hours last Wednesday in Warrenton.
When it came to emotion Chuck Wiley, who represents Professional Lake Management (PLM, told the council it could do better with their money than what they have already done.
Under the same old business category the council adopted, with no objections, the 2007 $1,320,000 weed treatment budget; and the Lake Gaston Stakeholders Board (LGSB) Technical Advisory Group (TAG) five-year treatment plan.
The meeting started by Dr. Elton Brown, President of the LGWCC asking for a moment of silence out of respect for the passing of former member Les Mocock. The council then approved the minutes from the previous meeting and accepted the treasurer’s report presented by Rives (Judge) Manning from Halifax County.
Next on the agenda was the Public Affairs Committee report.
The committee consists of Wally Sayko, Brunswick County Representative; Pete Deschenes, Warren County Representative and Tom Winebrenner, a Halifax County representative and the secretary of the LGWCC.
Presented by Sayko, the report included a mission statement and a strategy for providing information to the public on a timely basis.
Among other things the strategy includes publishing periodic public service announcements including planned treatment activity actions from the council, and concerns voiced by the LGSB.
The strategy will also include meeting with homeowner associations and other area organizations on a regular basis.
Sayko then read a letter suggesting that the council send out an annual newsletter to all lake property owners keeping them up to date on and addressing their concerns.
The meeting was then opened up for public comments. Alice Johnson of Woodlake Pointe on Pea Hill Creek in Brunswick County asked if areas where homeowners pay for private treatment will be considered for future treatment?
Her concern was that if they pay for their own treatment and the weeds appear to be under control will they be overlooked when it comes for future treatment.
This question started a forty minute public comments segment of the meeting. The discussion that ensued was more one sided and controlled mainly by Wiley.
Although he told the council he was speaking for himself and not not PLM, he interspersed his comments with statements about how successful the treatment was from PLM this year and other suggestions or statements that sounded like they were made for PLM’s benefit.
He also told the council that there was not a place on the lake that doesn’t have a problem.
He added, “you can do more with a cost share program.” Wiley then told the council, “There is not a cove on this lake that should not be treated.”
When Clint Clary, board member and Brunswick County attorney, tried to bring out the fact that the council treated the areas last year that PLM recommended, his comment seemed to get lost in the discussion.
At one point in the discussion Dr. Brown stated, “There are not sufficient funds to treat the whole lake. We try to treat areas where we can get the most bang for the buck.”
In his comments which were loud and sometimes confrontational, Wiley stated, “What I’m telling you is that what we [PLM] treated last year you got a bang for your buck.”
Wiley told the council that he made recommendations last September and never got anything back.
What was once again lost in the conversation was that by September the major treatments for the lake were completed for the year so any recommendations would have to be considered for the 2007 treatment.
As the discussion came to an end Clary stated, “The more information we have the better decision we can make. We [PLM & the LGWCC] need to work together to come up with the best treatment for this year,” he added.
Robert Conner, a Brunswick County supervisor and council board member, recommended that all home owners associations communicate to the council like Woodlake Pointe has. By doing so it would add to the knowledge needed to treat.
It was brought out during the discussion that more than 400 acres have been treated on the lake by chemical contractors and paid for by the various homeowners.
It was also revealed that the cost for private treatments from PLM was $715 for systemic treatment. According to LGWCC comments this was $61, or 9 percent, less than what the firm is charging the weed council.
The report from the TAG was made by that group’s chairman, Dr. Rob Richardson, assistant professor of crop science and extension specialist at North Carolina State University.
After informing the council about the adoption of a mission statement and the TAG’s new public web site (www.lgtag.ncsu.edu), he brought them up-to-date on the status of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake studies.
Richardson advised the council the Corps has been forced to operate under what is known as a continuing resolution. \In laymen’s terms it means that they cannot do much that has not already been paid for.
They were forced to operate under the continuing resolution because the funds originally appropriated for the weed studies for Lake Gaston were done so by what is known as earmarks. When the democratic party took over congress they zeroed out (cancelled) all earmarks.
The council adopted the TAG’s treatment plan (see the Littonton Observer’s Website at www.littletonobserver.com for the complete plan).
In the final major business of the evening the weed council agreed, by unanimous vote, that it must re-bid the weed treatment contract for this year.
This was brought about as a result of a discussion between PLM and LGWCC board members over the present contract and the 2006 treatment.
According to Brown, PLM wanted modifications in the contract. In addition to unspecified modifications PLM stated they would be willing to lower the price for treatment.
Because of these changes Conner’s stated, “We are dealing with taxpayers dollars.” He then told the council they had no choice except to re-bid the contract.
After a discussion of other options, including the extension of the 2006 contract for one year, and the time frame needed to make sure this year’s treatment started on time, the council voted unanimously to re-bid the contract.
In an effort to make sure there will no holdup of this year’s treatment the council also agreed to hold another meeting on March 14 with the goal of approving a contractor for the 2007 treatment.
Prior to closing the meeting Conner reminded the directors that the time is now to hire a director to meet with the various lake groups and homeowners associations and other necessary day-to-day activities of the council.
With a budget of more than $1 million and the necessity of finding ways to finance future weed treatments there would be plenty for a director to do. The council has tried for more than a year to find a director but has been unsuccessful. Council members agreed that a continuous effort has to be made to find a director.