The Grounds Report is provided by chair, McMillin. He starts his report with information regarding the 2013 grounds maintenance contract. He had opened the bids during the May meeting and your board held a decision until the August meeting. The current contract would have been extended two more months. Two of the concerns that came from the board table in May were that some on the board felt that the spoil site maintenance should not be in the contract and that lot mowings for private lot owners were provided at much less than the cost to the association. We pick up transcription with McMillin,(speaking about the contract) "It will include two visits per year to the spoil site in order to maintain that area" Later, McMillin, "We have brought down the number of lot mowings from people who have not paid or have not responded, to 21 from 29. So that changed their numbers as well. Their fee for mowing is $33.33. That didn't change, but the total amount for lot mowing changed to $2,999.70 which is 90 lot mowings during the current season. Since they are behind on the lot mowings, they probably should have already had their second mowing and its caused a number of problems in the area. We've had complaints from the office." When the board held contract approval in May and extended the old contract, there weren't any lot movings left in the old contract. McMillin picks up later, "Concerning the lot mowings, Al, the total for Great Lawns would be $2999.70. We will recover $1,830.00 of that and from the fee that we are charging the property owners. So that leaves a balance of $1,169.70 to be paid by WPA to sponsor this program. I've met with Jacky and we discussed this and I know there is some opposition to anyone subsidizing, so ....that WPA is not given the benefit from...I don't exactly agree with that." He goes on to mention the mowing is a benefit to those that live near these lots. In the future the board will have to decide whether we want to continue this at a loss. He explains the new contractor invoicing and tracking of lots mowed. He goes on to talk about the provision for pine straw in the contract and reminds the board that the spoil site has been included also. The contractor hasn't had an increase in 4 1/2 yrs. As he finishes he says, "I think its in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation to adopt this and get back on track." He makes his motion. Cline seconds and they move to discussion. DeMarchi, "That includes the 90 mowings, right Larry?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "You have 21 lots Larry?" McMillin, "Yes" DeMarchi, "Some of those lots get six mowings." McMillin, "Three, 18 are wooded, three are grassy." DeMarchi, "We have 3 grass lots that get mowed how many times? McMillin and DeMarchi go back and forth with the number of lot mowings. Garrison steps in, "Couple of provisions here. Make sure everybody is on the same page. 1, contract is retro active to expiration date of the last contract?" McMillin, "Correct" Garrison, "This whole lot mowing business, alright, because letters have already been sent out, because you got people who have already sent money, in my view, it is too late to undo what's already 3/4 done for this year. Now, we'll pay for it this year. We'll SUBSIDIZE IT THIS YEAR, but by next year, long before we get to the mowing season, next year this board is going to need to decide what kind of letter you want to send out to these folks, whether you're going to eliminate this, whether you're going to leave it to their own devices, whether you want to manage it, get REAL COST to the people that chose to take ADVANTAGE . That's something that's going to need to be addressed in August or September, not next March when we go through this same routine again and end up back in this same routine. So let me be clear that this, if approved, and I support it with those provisions, alright that this lot mowing mess is going to get addressed by this board with a look toward making some serious changes to the way we are doing it." President Walton questions the fact that we are two lot mowings behind and Garrison wants to know the time frame for catching up. McMillin explains the schedule for catching up. Why didn't this board know what was going on with the letters to the lot owners asking if they are interested, the request for proposal that included the number of lots to be mowed - responses from lot owners must have come to the office, McMillin's setting a cost for the services? DeMarchi and McMillin had bumped heads about this around the first of the year. You can't tell by the sanitized minutes, but go back and listen to the board tapes. This is no surprise! Think about the authority structure. McMillin didn't type the letters, address envelopes and send them out. The office staff did. McMillin didn't sit in the office and receive the responses. They were sent to the office. McMillin didn't deposit the payments and make the entries into resident accounts. During the May meeting he told us that our president reviewed his request for proposal. Was there a budget developed for this? McMillin has sat at the board table in open meetings, crossed his arms and said he felt we needed to do this for the lot owners because they get nothing for their assessment. The whole board has been alerted more than once. With mailings, entries of payment, review of request for proposal, it could appear that President Walton, Cline as secretary and office supervisor, DeMarchi who seems to know all the figures and supervises the "accounting department", would know. Does McMillin even have a committee? He hasn't in the past. If so, when did they meet and discuss this? As far as Garrison saying that it should stand now because of letters and collection, really?
What could have been done if McMillin operated in the dark with no review from the board? If he really acted alone in sending out letters, request for proposal that considered HIS figures, and was responsible for directing the entries in the books, than we have a huge mess. I don't believe individual board members were unaware until it was too late. Even, if it was so, we elect the board members as individuals with their own functioning brain, talents, and individual voting power. We don't elect them as a herd with a leader of the pack. In May, your individual board members should have followed through in correcting the wrong that was laid on the board table. It would have only taken one board member to make a motion advising McMillin that letters would be sent to the then 29 residents, that there would either be no lot mowing service, or advising them of rates that covered the cost. Funds could have been returned or applied to the new rates. Instead, I think they protest too much! If you are going to provide this service to some at a subsidized rate, you offer it to all, or you are breaking the bylaws. This could look like nothing more than posturing, and moving their old boys network forward.
Back to the transcription. McBride, "Is there a way we could take these lot mowings out of this budget that they have? Its not common ground, their mowing, its private property, and we're giving them a KICKBACK. It doesn't need to be in this budget of theirs." Garrison, "KICKBACK?" McBride, "The owners are not paying for it, for all of it. So, we're giving the owners a KICKBACK, by paying for it." McMillin, "This has been going on for 8, 10, 12 years." McBride, "Can we separate this from the budget?" Many voices at the board table, "NEXT YEAR" Someone says, "Right now I think we're in to far into it..."McBride, "We could separate it out now, so that......" Garrison, "Not without backing out on people we already committed to." McBride, I'm not saying ......." Cline, "We already know what we're paying and it is pretty clear..." Garrison, "As it stands you're only going to pay for mowing done. I don't like that, but its the best we can come up with for current year." John Walton, "Did they include spoil site?" McMillin tells them the contractor wants to do it spring and fall and talks about how they'll catch up because of the contract delay.
McMillin gets his way and we pay. They vote 8-1. McBride says "NO".
Before we begin, let's settle something. There are those on the board, and amongst you that think I favor McBride. At this point you are right in one respect only! I favor him because he is the only one at that board table who votes according to the governing documents, and takes the heat and abuse from the balance of the board and committees, because it looks like HE thinks it is the right thing to do. Some on the board and amongst those reading think he brings information to me. Let me clarify, NOT ONCE! Some on this board have been around for 3-5 years. They always look, and claim that one amongst them brings me information. In the past they accused Reames and Wijthoff, it NEVER HAPPENED. There was one who did bring me things until he told a bold faced lie and I exposed it and we parted ways. I seek information through proper channels, put up with this board's nonsense and do what I think is right. With that cleared up, we can move on.
The word KICKBACK jumped out at me during the meeting and I forgot about it until I transcribed this section of the meeting tape. The word jumped out again. HMMMM, it seemed to relate to this cohesive board, I say it is I'll wash your back, you wash mine, each with the soap of choice - votes at the board table while turning a blind eye. Well that's me. I looked up the word for all of our benefit. KICKBACK: "a sum of money paid illegally in order to gain concessions or favors." How could that apply? Well, several claim it is wrong but we are going to do it "one more time, but NEVER AGAIN". If it is wrong, stand up and stop it, NOW! Otherwise it could be viewed as kickbacks! Do I believe any of the board members are receiving money? No! I do believe it could be all about votes You'll decide, because who would declare in this litigious time?. Think about the rest of the meeting. The nominating committee is announced. The deadline for resumes to run for board is posted. Now get back to practical matters. Have you or the your group, ever worked toward campaigning for certain individuals to be elected? One of the first things you do is try and contact and secure the votes of the lot owners. Is this part of what is happening? You'll decide. Why would you violate a bylaw and continue with something you blatantly declare is wrong? You'll decide. It could appear to be a kickback to private lot owners. Anything else that you might construe to be part of this? Think about the last election cycle. There was a lot of discussion and in fighting about lots. Did one lot owner actually own 3 or 5 lots? Should the largest private lot owner be allowed to vote all of their votes? A Concerned Citizen tried to put forth a bylaw change for vote so that it was one vote per member, whether you owned one or 30+ lots. You'll decide. Think of the work that is being done on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard. There are so many lots there. The drainage chair, whose home is on Francis Parker and has sold lots and built homes on Joanna Gillard is pushing that work through claiming everybody else before him was wrong. He declared last year that drainage was the responsibility of the property owners (See quotes in previous articles.) responsibility. His own vendor for the first two stages of work in those areas called it "lot maintenance". Does he have to accept McMillin's lot maintenance, to get his "lot maintenance"? You'll be the judge. In the meantime, neither of these projects relate to common property, and you shouldn't have to pay through your assessments, for any private lot maintenance. It could appear that eight of the nine board members will do what it takes, to get the votes for their pet projects. It is RUMORED THAT Garrison and Jacky Walton are preparing to submit their names for election. You'll need to follow all of their actions, review the governing documents and decide whether there are KICKBACKS for lot owners.
P.S. One more thing. Remember, last month some on the board held up contract approval because they didn't feel the spoil site should be included in the contract. No one objected this month, or questioned. The Water Amenities Chair did ask if it was included. Yes it was. No more questions. Your board is happy to vote. Remember the Water Amenities Chair received a pass for not following the motion he presented and your board approved. We're still living with it.
Why won't the board give me a kickback and pay for some of my lot maintenance? I qualify. I don't live on "common ground". Where are our condo owners? I talked to one a few days ago that told me they pay well over $200.00/month for the varied maintenance services they receive. One of the services is lot maintenance. Wouldn't it be nice if your monthly rate could be reduced and you received kickbacks on that service like the lot owners do? Call your board representative President Walton and see if he can work a deal for you like he voted to do for the lot owners.
