CORRECTION - (see note below) THE OLD DOCK IS GONE - FINALLY! THE DOCK REPLACEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSITIVE. WHY ALL THE HIGH JINKS?

 

CORRECTION:  THE DOCK IS STILL HERE!  A friend and I went out today.  When we came back we drove to check on the dock.  We didn't see it and thought it was gone.  It must have been wishful thinking and poor vision.  The article stands, as to the thoughts on the entire mess.

 

Yes, the old dock is gone. Well, at least from the place it has stood for over three months.  Hopefully it has truly left Wedgefield.  Sound skeptical?  It shouldn't if you have followed this saga.  Nothing happened as it should, according to what your board had voted to do at the board table.  In the end it removed trust. Trust that your board will keep their word, their own motions at the board table.  In fact, there may be a bigger question as to the integrity of many on this board.

 

Improvement is usually welcomed in any setting.  In our homes we evaluate what we have.  Does the item really need to be replaced because it has exhausted useful life?  Is it a cosmetic decision and we just want a new updated look? 

 

When the Water Amenities Committee brought the motion to the table to remove the old dock, some on the board questioned whether it could be repaired.  Initially, the committee chair told us that it couldn't.  He suggested that it might be used for recreation projects in the canals.  When pushed, it was stated that it definitely couldn't be repaired.  It was to be pulled up onto the landing and cut up.  We all know what happened.  The actions of this committee and some on the board, beg the question as to whether we were deceived.  It is entirely possible, even probable that the committee just wanted the old dock replaced to match the new dock built at the end of 2012.  Would that have been so bad?  No! We should be able to believe that our board will level with us.  If they wanted to replace the aging dock for cosmetic purposes, they should have laid it out that way on the board table.  They may, or may not, have received approval, but their integrity would have been intact.  Instead, we were left with high jinks! 

 

 

 

 



 



THE JULY 16 WATER AMENITIES REPORT - HUMOR, COULD ALLOW YOU TO CALL IT THE WEDGEFIELD VERSION OF THE KEY STONE COPS - IT COULD BE VIEWED AS A WINDOW INTO OUR ADMINISTRATION AND IT ISN'T FUNNY

I've transcribed the Water Amenities Report to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape of the report yourself.  Thank you Wedgfield Times for providing a complete meeting tape on line.  Transcription will be typed in BLUE, UNDERLINED, AND IN QUOTES. COMMENTS WILL BE IN RED.

Water Amenities Chair, John Walton gives the report.  He starts his report informing us that a  number of vehicles were parked at the landing recently, apparently unauthorized, without stickers.  In fact, they spoke to some people who would not identify themselves and left.  He asks the board to allow enforcement through the use of towing unauthorized vehicles. There appears to be support.  IMPORTANT NOTE TO RESIDENTS:  you must have stickers on both your auto and your boat trailer.  He also reports on the new landing gate card reader.

Next he notifies the board that the newest of the two docks has been hit. No one has come forward. They've asked contractor, Ronnie Campbell what to do to repair it.  They may have to replace the float.  He asks if our insurance will cover it. 

John Walton says "end of report".  President Walton says alright".  It looks like we will move on without one word about the old dock in the canals.  Very interesting that both Waltons seem to just want to let it go.  It was still in the canals on July 16th, the third meeting since the Water Amenities Committee went against the vote of the board.   We're not done yet, because Garrison has a question before they can move on to the next report.  Transcription begins below.

Garrison asks whether the old dock has been removed.  John Walton, "Not yet."  We have run into interference.  People have messed with the contractor.....tow it out of there.  It is getting to be hard to get somebody to do any work here in Wedgefield.  Constant interference with contractors."  Garrison, "Specifically, what are you talking about?"  John Walton,  "Someone called the contractor set to tow it away."  Garrison, "Campbell?"  John Walton, "Yes, they've been contacted and they...It is making it very hard to get anybody to do any work in here anymore."  Garrison, "Contacted about what?"  John Walton, "When he's going to move it, how he's going to move it?  Stuff like that.  Where you going to move it to?"  Garrison, "Who contacted him?"  John Walton, "I was told it was a board member. I don't wish to say any names." I don't know who called Campbell.  If I was a board member and information wasn't coming out openly at the board table after fellow board members did the direct opposite of what the board had approved, I'd do what I had to do to get answers.  Read further and you'll see it is OK for other board members to make inquiries - no problem!!!!  What is John Walton talking about when he says it is hard to get contractors to work here?  WPA shouldn't be handling this, the owner should, or is there more we aren't being told? Back to transcription.  Garrison, "The UNDERSTANDING was that this thing was going to be gone - alright."  John Walton, "Yes"  Garrison, "It was NEVER SUPPOSE TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE and now we're two months later and the STUPID thing.....We got our money, alright, and the STUPID thing is still here.  Now, we need to come to a resolution.  Get it OUT of here."  John Walton, "Well, we're working on a resolution to get it out of there."  Garrison, "Well is Campbell saying he won't move it?"  John Walton, "No, I mean I suspect he probably .....be moving it alright."  McMillin, "Can I say something to that?  I've been in touch with the owner, a representative of the new owner, and they are ...... at the cost that Campbell....for moving it.  They are looking for some other means to move it.  What ever his fee was they thought it was excessive.  They are trying to figure out another way of moving it.  Last,, I heard from them.  Another board member who is interfering and making calls, no problem.  Why did John Walton try and blame the unknown board member for the problems?  Here we are told that the buyer doesn't like Campbell's price?  The bigger question here is, what kind of deal did this renegade committee make with the purchaser?  What kind of business do they conduct in our behalf?  Remember, DeMarchi, our treasurer claimed at a board meeting that he didn't know how much we received for the dock, when John Walton , Water Amenities Chair,  wouldn't answer at the board table how much we received for it.  We weren't selling a lamp.  What kind of time lines, assurances that it would be insured for hauling out of our canals,  in the protection of resident property?  Why are we involved in any of the business of removal?  How do these board members conduct our business?  Back to transcription.  Garrison, "The problem we've got ....We need to get it out of our jurisdiction - out of that canal."  John Walton, "Well you can't put it anywhere because it needs to be permanent."  Garrison, "I got that which is why ORIGINALLY, THE BOARD SAID DRAG IT UP ON SHORE AND CUT IT UP.  BE DONE WITH IT.  Now, we've made a whole $1,200 on it and probably bought ourselves two or three thousand dollars worth of problems.  We're going to wind up paying to move this STUPID thing which is going to cost more than what we made on it by selling it.  THAT'S NOT A GOOD PICTURE."  John Walton, "I don't think we're going to spend any money on it."  Garrison, "Well yeah, but it hasn't been moved." President Walton, "Can I add to this?  Actually, John and some of his committee members, we spoke today.  Actually, I spoke with the owner.  We realize there is a problem.  There is conflict, but we're trying to get that resolved within the next couple days.  Should be moved and out of here.  They are ready for this.  What was explained to me....They want to get this, get it in place, because this group likes to take disabled veterans.  They want to use this for people to have like hunting trips and things and something STABLE for them.  They want it there.  It is just that this conflict has created this problem.  Now, I'm going to go tomorrow and look and see what if anything I can do to help speed this along,."  Why is President Walton in the middle of this transportation mess?  Because he turns a blind eye to all of the poor decisions of some on his board.  As president, he names the committee chairs.  He recently asked me what I would do?  We had spoken about a few situations, the Canal Committee and the Community Liaison (No answers to residents and no reports for months and months.).  I told him I'd fire the chairs.  He can't fire them from the board but he can replace them with someone who will perform the duties.  This Water Amenities Committee is a mess. He sat right at the board table when John Walton fired McBride from the Water Amenities Committee and McBride had been approved by the board.  He sat at the board table when John Walton wouldn't answer another board members question about how much we got for the dock, when his board never approved listing it for sale.  Why doesn't he do his administrative job properly and he wouldn't have to be moving docks?????This board aided and abetted by President Walton is strong arming the withholding of information from a board member we elected, not once, not twice, but three times.  He could ask that board member to chair Community Liaison and handle what should be one of his prime responsibilities - communicating with the members.  This board member has the knowledge and the ethics to chair the Water Amenities Committee, but our President appears to be afraid of sharing information with the entire board, and appears to be afraid of his board.   What, would they remove him as president?  Is being the president worth lack of integrity?  Why does Garrison, Legal Chair, make statements each month regarding what the board did approve, and not assist in nailing the board members who delivered this mess to us?  When I said the board never approved the sale of the dock, a WPA asset, he said they did at the May meeting.  I reminded him I had pictures of the dock with a "for sale" sign on it prior to the meeting.  Is this why we don't get written response from the board?   Back to transcription.  McBride, "Where's it going?"  President Walton, " It's going down to Easterville, Esterville road near the end of South Island."  Several on the board talk about what the road is called. Someone says it is going to a pond.  McBride, "This pond, is there access from the water?"  President Walton, "No, No"  Garrison, "That's their problem."  President Walton, "We're just going to try and get it down there.  Load it on a trailer so they can deal with it.  Main goal - get it out."  McBride, "How do you get something on a trailer that's that wide.?"  President Walton, "I'll sure try."  President Walton ends the discussion and thanks John Walton for the report.

 

This report on the blog, follows the ridiculous Finance Report and the slight of your board's hands and mouths regarding the Reserve Study.  Please read their own words, ridiculous motions, and ask yourself whether this is open, honest, in the best interests of Wedgefield, governance? 

THE JULY 16 FINANCE REPORT - RESULTS IN A DISCUSSION OF THE RESERVE STUDY

I've transcribed the Finance Report to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape of the report yourself.  Thank you Wedgfield Times for providing a complete meeting tape on line.  Transcription will be typed in BLUE, UNDERLINED, AND IN QUOTES. COMMENTS WILL BE IN RED.

The report is given by DeMarchi.  He starts with a motion, the first of two, that lead us to the Reserve Study.  He makes a motion to move $50,000 from operating into reserves at Edward Jones.  Prior to the motion he explains that he had calculated what we will need to operate until February of 2014.  There is plenty of cash.  There is a second to the motion and they move to discussion.

Garrison, "One question, how will you allocate that to the individual reserve categories?"  DeMarchi, "Until we complete our analysis of the reserve study I'm going to go ahead and allocate that according to the current appropriations schedule that we have, 30%, 20%, an so on.  At the end of the year we're going to have another surplus somewhere in the $50,000 - $70,000 which will the be allocated to the agreed upon Reserve Study numbers.  I'll talk more about that in a minute.  Right now we are in good shape."

A few questions and comments:   Savings should never be a problem, but what is the hurry?  The Reserve Study has just come in.  Why do we want to apply the current allocation percentages now?  Could it be because they are DeMarchi's?  There isn't any hurry.  As you read further you'll note we are receiving very little interest on the account at Edward Jones.  Could it be that this is your board's first orchestrated step to ignoring and diminishing the professional Reserve Study?  Remember, throughout the study the board is encouraged to seek professional engineering, professional financial guidance, and professional oversight of projects.  If they weren't going to follow the directives of the study, why did we pay for one?  This is the board that is expert at all things.   Prior to the start of the meeting, I heard DeMarchi tell someone at the board table that he wasn't going to get into percentages.  Why, more in the dark administration? Back to transcription.

Garrison:  "So, so far as this $50,000 is concerned, how much is going to each?  Do you have the numbers on it?"  DeMarchi, " No I don't have the specific numbers on it.  Kathy...We went over that the other day.  I believe 30%....$15,000 will go into canals....(Kathy brings info to the table.)  I'm sorry, $15,000 went to roads, $5,000 to drainage, $5,000 to marina, $7,500 emergency, $5,000 to canals, $7,5000 to landscaping and building, and $5,000 into miscellaneous.  We currently have in our operating account approximately $206,000.  We need $120,000 to carry us through February of next year.  So that will leave us $80,000 we're going to transfer $50,000 that will still leave us a cushion of $36,500 and at that rate of collections.... We had a very good week this week.  Last week over $7,000.  Some of those ere 3 liens that we had placed on the properties that sold.  The liens got paid.  One was a settlement on a bankruptcy - wasn't it?  Two were pass due people who came in and paid their entire past due plus their delinquency fees  their late fees."

The motion passes with 5 voting yes.  McBride abstains saying he would like to see the numbers in front of him.

John Walton, "Al, do we get interest on this?  DeMarchi, "Yes, we do very minimal about .1%, which is something that we might want to look at which is not on our report, but some of the brokerage firms are offering, in fact some of the credit card...like American Express...You can open up, basically, a savings account with them which is what we have with Edward Jones and they're paying .85% interest which is considerably more than we earning now.  The next item, I'm a little premature on this, I submitted a 2014 proposal budget month.  I asked for input from board members for additions, deletions, corrections, and so on.  The only change would be to the revised budget you were given - there were three line items that basically are now covered under one line item - landscape.  We had $1,500 for tree removal - blah, blah, blah, etc., and flowers and benches and pine straw.  These items total $34,000 in the proposed budget and after the approval of the landscape contract last month, it is off by $100 - $34,100 landscape contract and I think we could deal with that variance without generating a new budget.  If you look at the second page of the reserve fund allocations, OK, if you have your report there it tells you what the reserve point allocations will be next year and that was BASED ON THE CURRENT which will not happen...once we go through the Reserve Study and determine the CORRECT ALLOCATIONS for our specific needs.. Those will be appropriated to the specific organizations, whatever you want to call it.  The reserves stand at $198,000 and we'll add the $50,00 to it.  So I'd like to go ahead and have the budget approved since I won't be here to present it next month, or if the board would like to hold off, I can have someone else present it next month.  I'd like to have the 2014 budget approved." 

McBride, Al, it seems premature to approve any 2014 budget until we had the opportunity to look at the - ALL OF US, to look at the Reserve Study so that we include those items also into that budget.  That's very important, " McBride is interrupted by DeMarchi, "They are in the budget"  Remember that DeMarchi says they are in the budget.  Didn't he say earlier that he used the current percentages - HIS?  McBride, "I didn't see them"  Garrison, "Have you not looked at the Reserve Study?"  McBride, "Yes I have.  We need to meet and talk about that Reserve Study and what those numbers are and then look at your budget and see how those are included.  I don't see them included.  DeMarchi, "Well, OK I can answer that for you John.  I spent about 50 hours and I probably have another 50 to go on this thing.  That's why the Finance Committee is going to meet but if you were to look down at the end of the proposed, or towards the end of it, it shows reserve fund allocations for next year, OK."  McBride, "I'm trying to find that.  Did you include that in this packet?  DeMarchi, "No, it was sent to everybody LAST MONTH." 

When last month?  The Reserve Study came out last month.  DeMarchi spends 50 hours working on the figures, wants the 2014 budget approved tonight with his current reserve allocations (HIS), and then after the board approves the budget he'll meet with the Finance Committee?????.  I know some of the individuals on this committee.  They are smart people, I have respect for them, so don't take this any other way, but they aren't what the Reserve Study calls for in the decision making for moving forward.  Besides, this is just half ass backwards and DeMarchi is running the ship while placing blinders on everyone - including you.  This is like the federal health care bill.  You have to approve it to read it and find out what is in it.  Read the Reserve Study.  It is suggested that the association select a funding plan.  There are four basic strategies that most associations select from.  From the study, "It is recommended that the association CONSULT PROFESSIONALS to determine the best strategy or combination of plans that best suit the association's need."   They recommend the following:  1) a financial advisor to determine tax implications, 2) American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for their reporting requirements.  Read Section 10:  Definitions, and the type of information required and ask yourself  if a transitioning board and it's related view and structure for finance, can make these decisions?  Review the transcribed words above.  We don't have a certified accounting professional any where.  If your board was going to play this game, why did we even bother to use funds to pay for something they never intended to follow?  Back to transcription.

McBride, "I don't have that with me right now."  DeMarchi, "OK.  The Reserve Study indicated that we needed approximately $215,000 put into reserves next year."  McBride, "I read it differently but go ahead."  DeMarchi, "So what I did, I just took those numbers and ALLOCATED AGAINST OUR CURRENT PROPORTIONS (HIS) .  These are not going to be allocated that way John.  As I said, once we finish with the Reserve Study we will go ahead and reallocate those according to the percentages, or the dollar values that are in the Reserve Study.  One of the problems we have and I'll be quite honest is the Reserve Study right now, we look good for about the next five years and if we want to be short sighted come 2021, we're going to go over $500,000 in the hole.  We'll be behind $500,000.  I do not want to go to a bank and borrow $500,000 so we're looking at the individual line items and moving those into appropriate years, some we are ELIMINATING, OK.  Some WE WILL NOT DO AT ALL, OK .  So that's where we are with that.  No one has provided any input on the Reserve Study other than what I'VE DISCUSSED WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS."  What other individuals?  Certainly not the entire board.  This is a long term plan that we paid for.  Go back and review who set the stage for the Reserve Study.  Who wouldn't let the entire board participate?  Who appears to have been included?  Back to transcription.

McBride, "The Reserve Study clearly states that we have to have X number of dollars available and that we need to do that - accumulate at such and such a rate until 2021, 22, 23, at which time the rate of accumulation can go down."  DeMarchi, No, actually in year 2021 our assessments based on the Reserve Study will be $2,008 per lot."  McBride, "If we used their plan there and start to assess at the rate that they're suggesting...I suggest that you do that at 100% and not at 83%.  I have yet to see us do a reserve project that was even close to the national average in terms of cost, but according to that...we need to accumulate money so that year 2021 we don't have $500,000 that we need to all of a sudden ....In my mind we need to accumulate gradually in year 2014, 15, 16 and all the way up to that, so that money is available."  This board set the 2014 assessment before the Reserve Study even came in, just like DeMarchi is playing with the budget now. Shouldn't this be an indication of your board's intentions?  McBride is correct.  If you fail to assess properly there will be a huge problem at some point.  Remember, this board won't follow the recommendations of the professionals they hired.  What are the chances they'll hire competent professionals to help us at this point.  Some on the board embrace the fear factor.  Remember how some residents were told they would all have to pay $5,000 for the last canal dredging?  Never happened.  This report could appear to be a meeting of the drama club.  Will you buy it?  Back to transcription.

DeMarchi, "I really didn't want to get into this John, but I'll tell you basically I...tons of numbers OK, and the first  was based on the RDA study, OK and according to that study on assessments for this year should be $611, next year $761, the following $371, and then $394, $389, $524, $425, an the $2,008 in the year 2021 and then it drops to $878 the following....  Numbers here John.  We're in good shape here because we have reserves to cover that.  We start to recover some of our money here and then we spend it here according to their study.  We can't do that.  We're not going to the bank.  We're not borrowing money.  We're not going to hit somebody with a $2,000 assessment.  I won't be on the board, OK.  Next years board may decide to throw this thing away.  Another scenario, OK, saying we made some adjustments, we're a little better off, OK.  We actually go about $150,000 in the whole in 2021, but then we come out of it by the year 2025, but that's based on raising our annual assessment an additional $25 a year forever.  So next year it will be $475, $500, $525, $550, $575,.  I ran another proposal here and another John.  I will gladly give you these numbers.  You can look at them, but these numbers on this Reserve Study need to be adjusted."  McBride, "I think the BOARD NEEDS TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU AL, I'm sure you've done a very fine job here and have you share all of this with us and how it fits into this Reserve Study, so that we don't catch people off guard and have to assess a million dollars in one year.  That would be $2,000 a household.  We just can't afford that kind of mistake. "   Anyone can see that adjustments could be made in the low years so we never have to reach the drama of 2021.  First, share it with the whole board.  Second, hire professionals.  There is too much slight of hand (mouth) going on here. The board kept some board members out of  the contract with the vendor, wouldn't allow all board members to see the draft, and gave erroneous information to the vendor.  Back to transcription.

Garrison, "Let me...with something here.  The Finance Committee meeting is when?"  DeMarchi, "Tuesday night."  Garrison, "I suspect that part of what the Finance Committee is going to do is take a look at the Reserve Study and evaluate SOME of that." In one meeting?  DeMarchi, "Yes"  Garrison, "That be the case, seems to me that it is up to the Finance Committee at this particular point in time to assess the reality of those numbers and what those numbers - what those projections are, and understand that the Reserve Study is not by any stretch of the imagination a mandate.  It is a suggestion based on certain assumptions, some of which in my view are patently unnecessary - not all.  The major thrust of it and if any of you ....it has been on the web, if any of you have looked at it, is the biggest commitment - basically is with roads, and I believe drainage is pretty much behind that.  There's no question there's work that needs to be done on roads, but MY intent, I think this boards intent is that what ever is needed is going to be tempered with the resident's ability to pay.  To pay as it goes, not by borrowing money, not by doing it by whacking people with huge assessments, collectively, individually, or any other way.  If that means that some things take 3 or 4 years longer than the Reserve Study might indicate would be optimal, unless there is a really pressing need for something, than you know we just start with Duck Pond which probably is the most depressed road around here.  It is under consideration now. (Well Garrison, you sat on the board when it was repaired in 2010, ignored engineering, and once again, you'll decide?) It makes more since to me to recognize that the Reserve Study needs to be tempered with a good dose of reality in terms of what's affordable.   I think that's what Al is trying to do".  How affordable does it become when you have to redo it 3 years later because you AL knew how to schedule it the first time?  When you have an unbiased schedule, provided by a third party, it keeps selective self serving moves from individual board members, from happening.  How did we get to Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard, for instance for drainage?  Garrison continues.  "Now that doesn't mean the assessments are never going to go up.  Sure they are.  Everything - the cost of living is going to go up, alright, by looking at this over a long rang picture and let the FINANCE COMMITTEE evaluate  first and they report .  I think the process should work.  Let the Finance Committee and go over that.  Then let the Finance Committee have a meeting that they invite the board to and that would be the appropriate place to have that discussion at and iron out any differences there may be in opinion in regard to that.  That seem reasonable to everybody?"  McBride, "I think we have to remember Bob, that there's nothing that you can say and there is nothing you can do to change when these roads are going to wear out and when these ditches need to be dug, and canals need to be dredged.  It is going to happen and when it happens, it happens.  We have to have the money available, now the one thing we can serve ourselves, is get a PROFESSIONAL opinion on some of this stuff.  It says right in the report that we ought to be doing that.  Find out what they are saying.  I already see more than Duck Pond with  weeds encroaching two feet unto the road."  Garrison, "There's no question and I have no objection now or going forward on a unit by unit basis, when it is appropriate, as it is with Duck Pond, as we've already approved, to conduct an engineering study to determine the best way to clear that and that's going to happen with each of those as the Roads Committee decides which of them are most relevant.  I'm not much interested in hiring an engineering firm to assess the entire roads system in Wedgefield at this particular point."  President Walton, "You're not going to repair in unison at one time anyway."  Garrison, "You couldn't afford it in 10 years right away. So, although I agree - yeah - that they're going to have to be done.  There are things that are going to be needed, but is going to have to be done on a step by step basis, in order to be affordable to the community."Please take time to review the study.  There is a plan for roads and it.  No where does it say to do the roads all at once.  In fact there is a schedule for it that the Roads Committee should follow. Could these long, sometimes misleading statements, count on you not being informed, and intended to cause fear?   Personally, I'm more afraid of the miserable half baked jobs we've had in the past, conducted by some on boards, with favored projects and favored ill equipped vendors. Garrison continues, "This board, AT LEAST ME, for as long as I'm on this board, is not going to go on some expedition borrowing money to do something that's going to put a hole in every body's wallet.  You can do just as well with cash on hand if we look at it properly, correct assessments as to what needs t be done.  We're hoping we can do that without breaking any body's pocket."  I haven't read in the study, nor have I heard anyone but DeMarchi and Garrison, keep bringing up borrowing money.  There are several possible funding options in the study.  Why try and set the stage for upset?  Do they want people to think they have to ignore the study in order to save them?  Well maybe some of this is because it is nearing elections and some of these board members are running again.  Is it easier to get votes if you start convincing members that you are going to save them?  McBride, "Many of the ...... that you say are absolutely correct.  Until you have professional opinions, WRITTEN OPINIONS, from a PROFESSIONAL road builder....We're going to have to have something in place.  Then we can plan what kind of money we're going to have to raise....until we know exactly and that's what is in here.  He's given us the best guess that he can, but he's suggesting we get......professional to advise us.  It could really fall apart.  I just want to be....about this.  I don't want to have big bills come.  Let's get a little bill and keep it going so we have money available ."  Garrison, "My suggestion is let the Finance Committee look that over and meet with the board with their recommendations."  DeMarchi, "Do you want me to hold this acceptance of the budget?"

DeMarchi closes by saying something about his wanting to get this out of the way because he wasn't going to be here next month.  This is important.  We haven't ever had a study.  This board, some - provided orchestrated information to the vendor, didn't want engineering, and now some of them who did all this behind the scenes, don't want what they got.  They continue to want to avoid professional help, state every board before them did the wrong thing, and now they want to self direct, because they know better?????  They'll employ scare tactics if they have to. 

Some questions for  all board members.  Were you allowed to have input into the information that went to the study vendor?  Did you review all the information before it went to the vendor?  Were you allowed to see the draft?  Have you read the complete document?  How many hours have you spent reviewing it? 

To the Finance Committee:  Were you allowed to have input into the information that went to the study vendor?  Did you review all the information before it went to the vendor?  Were you allowed to see the draft?  Have you read the complete document?  How many hours have you spent reviewing it?   HAVING READ THE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROFESSIONALS, DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR COMMITTEE AND THE CURRENT BOARD ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING THE CRITICAL DECISIONS REQUIRED FOR OUR LONG TERM FUTURE, WHILE IGNORING PROFESSIONAL ADVICE TO BRING IN PROFSIONALS?

Residents, don't let the scare tactics get to you.  This is important.  Read the study, listen to the words of the board, and ask weather they are speaking in the best interests, for the long term, of our association.

SUNDAY - TRANSCRIPTION OF THE FINANCE REPORT - THE RESERVE STUDY

The transcription of the Finance Report is long.  This is a slow process for me.  Everything should be up on Sunday.

THE THOUGHT FOR TODAY - YOU'LL HAVE TO READ THE PREVIOUS ARTICLE -"HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE JULY 16 WPA MEETING AND THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED ARTICLES ON THE RESERVE STUDY TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE QUOTE

This quote is taken from the reserve study:  "Following the recommendations of reserve study performed by a professional consultant can protect the board of directors in a community from personal liability concerning reserve components and reserve findings."

The Wedgefield Examiner will provide transcription from the July meeting regarding the reserve study.  You may find that your board appears to be ignoring the document that they all but composed themselves.  Are they afraid of personal liability?  Maybe not, as indicated by their actions.  You have made them very complacent.  Will we ever have the integrity of truth in our administration?

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE JULY 16 WPA BOARD MEETING.

Six board members were present at the meeting: President Walton, Garrison, DeMarchi, McMillin, John Walton, and McBride.  Absent:  Cline, Anderson, Barrier.  Later, we'll transcribe some of the reports.

HIGHLIGHTS

1)  Yes, the old dock is still in the canals.  I don't have time for humorous fairy tales tonight.  The story, the fake, "really it is still there and we aren't going to take it any more" drama is too much to deal with this evening.  The Water Amenities Chair didn't even mention it.  He had to be asked.  I encourage you to listen to the end of the Water Amenities report, but I will transcribe it.  While many questions linger this evening, my principle one is this - How can a dock that can't be repaired, is slated for dismantling, be hauled from the landing to the canals, be dragged out of the canals and a mile and a half on the river, placed on a truck, and be placed in water to be used for a veteran's program as, and I quote, "for stability"?  The new owner is going to put veterans on it, some wounded, and it couldn't be repaired at all??????

 

2)  If you read the two articles on the Reserve Study on this blog and attended the meeting tonight, you may have to acknowledge that I am a mind reader and I can predict the future.  It didn't take long to prove.  Listen to the financial report.  I will transcribe it later.  

 

Have a great evening, or morning, and stay tuned.  



PART II OF THE RESERVE STUDY: IF YOU EVEN BELIEVE THIS IS A REAL RESERVE STUDY, RATHER THAN A POSITION DOCUMENT ENGINEERED BY SOME ON THE BOARD, CAN YOU TRUST THEM TO FOLLOW IT? ARE WE CURRENTLY STRUCTURED TO FOLLOW IT?

NOTE:  I've followed the development of the Reserve Study through transcription - the words of the board , fact finding - to the best of my ability, and quoting the words of the study itself.      You should review transcriptions, listen to board meeting tapes, and read the Reserve Study yourself for your own verification.

In my opinion, the reserve study lacks solid foundation, structure, full board interaction with the vendor, and therefore is not an instrument that will serve us in moving forward "in the best interests of the association."  I believe it has turned out to be a position document serving in the interests and isolated thinking of "some" on the board.  Because of the way it was developed, it could appear to set the stage for a term that "some" on the board like to use - PRECEDENT.  Remember, as soon as they begin to claim they are following it, it becomes part of our history, and the term precedent will follow.  EXAMPLE: Remember about a year ago when DeMarchi told us that the board had to assign reserves, they used the figures he wanted to use, and rather than it being a paper declaration, it became fact and the board assigned assessment dollars according to his plan.  He has been on record, in the files, of trying to peddle his method since early 2009.  Go the compliance file regarding 2008, that was filed in early 2009.  A document intended to guide built on secrecy, lack of engineering, and false statements to the vendor cannot serve our community.  Your silence over months of mismanaged meetings, broken bylaw and policy, acceptance of the board's failure to respond to residents, undocumented legal opinions, denial of information to "some" on the board, has empowered the board to move forward with this ill begotten document that will haunt us for years.

  If you read the document's wording you may find that the vendor has taken the assignment but covers their credibility, with repeated instructions to the board, qualifications noting what they were told by the board, and provided by the board.  As you read through you may determine that they are placing reality into the document, to the best of their ability.  I don't blame the contractor/vendor for the product.  Personally, I would not have contracted with this board for this type of assignment. 

Review some of the advice from the vendor to the board, in the vendor's own words. Ask yourself, based on actions and words of this board, whether they have set a "precedent" that you believe would indicate they can follow this professional advice?  Go back to board minutes, transcription, documents, and answer the question for yourself.  

*It is suggested that the association select a funding plan.  There are four basic strategies that most associations select from.  From the study, "It is recommended that the association CONSULT PROFESSIONAL to determine the best strategy or combination of plans that best suit the association's need."   They recommend the following:  1) a financial advisor to determine tax implications, 2) American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for their reporting requirements.  Read Section 10:  Definitions, and the type of information required and ask yourself  if a transitioning board and it's related view and structure for finance, can make these decisions?  Think about it.  We've had three treasurers in two years.  All sit currently on the board.  There have been months during each of their reigns as treasurer that they've claimed they didn't have accurate reporting because they (each) of them were reporting in "their world".  Not one of them is a CPA. Currently, our accounting department consists of two bookkeepers and our treasurer.  Not one of these treasurers have wanted a CPA managing our finances on an ongoing basis. How many times have we sat in meetings where they have said they have the expertise? What are the chances they will change their ways and hire a CPA to do our books?  I believe little to none.  What do you think?

*Numerous times, as you review the report, regardless of the asset, the study states, "In order to ensure a high quality installation, the client may wish to obtain the services of independent (roads, roofing, etc.) consultant to work with the client and (roads, roofing, etc.) contractor providing installation."  Again, how many times have we sat in meetings where they have said they have the expertise?  They know it all.  Need I remind you of the fiasco of the roads contract of 2010.  McBride suggested they bring in engineering. Many still sitting on this board today, ignored, scoffed, voted to continue with the same vendor who hadn't shown up for weeks, and they were later notified by the state that their contractor was unlicensed and uninsured and had been fined by the state.  Last month we were informed that one of the sections worked on - Duck Pond, would have to be re engineered and then done again.  Go back to the transcriptions of 2010 and read what several of these vary board members had to say.  What are the chances they will change their ways and hire consultants in all the areas recommended in the study?  I believe little to none.  What do you think?

*Your board did not want to pay for proper engineering in the development of the study. There are more than a few instances where there wasn't proper information provided.  Again the vendor is left reminding us of the fact that they didn't have proper information and advising the board to get the information because lack of it poses a liability.  From the study regarding Slopes - Dike Repairs, "The board ha agreed to use a temporary figure to allow for the reserve study to be computed.  The allowance is NOT BASED ON ANY MEASUREMENTS.  The board will be soliciting a quote from an appropriate contractor.  Once a reasonable figure can be ascertained, we will input the unit cost and recompute the reserve study.  Slope failures can represent a SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO A CLIENT. As the extent and nature of this liability is largely INDETERMINABLE, we have used ARBITRARY estimates based upon PAST HISTORY, direction from THE CLIENT or its REPRESENTATIVES, our own experience, ......" Remember this board wouldn't even share information with each other.  It could appear that they are just territorial and will continue to have all their own individual claimed expertise. What are the chances they will change their ways and hire consultants in all the areas recommended in the study?  I believe little to none.  What do you think?

*The study speaks to contracting.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time reminding you of all that is currently going on.  Please review transcriptions, other documented articles, and go examine the files yourself.  The cautions to the board from the study are quoted.

"Despite the extra work routinely required  track down a contractor, it is advisable to get 2-3 bids if work is anticipated to be substantial."

"The contract's work scope should be explicit."

"All documentation used with proposals should be included in the contract.  Hold at least 10% retainage on any job to ensure a contractor completes a punch list (the loose ends that still need to be completed."

"Make sure you get a copy of workman's comp if required, w-9 form, and a certificate of insurance with THE ASSOCIATION LISTED AS NAMED INSURED."

"Due to the amount of roads, your community should strongly consider having a street study performed by a licensed engineer that specializes in road design and repair."

There have been a number of documented articles regarding contracting. During the last 4-6 weeks I visited the office to review the request for proposal, contract, license & insurance, of the contractor DeMarchi had hired for work on Francis Parker and Joanna Gillard Lane.  There wasn't a written document to review as a request for proposal.  I wasn't provided license and insurance.  The contract couldn't have contained the specs required in the request for proposal because there didn't appear to be one. One of the few contracts that I've ever reviewed that contained a hold back for performance of contract was the contracts related to the dredging.  I have reviewed sketchy contracts with advances, one with over 40% of the total contract.  Your board has lamented that they can't get contractors to bid.  During the run up to the 2008 elections McMillin spoke about contracting.  After he was elected we all watched him secure bids, properly on contracts less than $1,000.  He expressed numerous times that it was no problem to find people.  What has happened?  DeMarchi's current projects have not been of a high cost, but he has a plan and the work is being done in segments.  It could amount to a large total.  Go back and read what the study says about drainage.  Remember, recently to avoid real search for contractors, your board actually spoke of hiring our president.  What are the chances they will change their ways and actually follow the recommendations  in the study?  I believe little to none.  What do you think?

In the end, you will be the judge as to whether the study has value.  You will be the judge as to whether this board is capable of following the study.  Remember it is rumored that two of them will be running for board again. Decide wisely.  Three more years of this?  Good or bad, it will be up to you. 

NEXT:  THE STUDY AND THE CANAL LOT OWNERS.  HOLD ON, BECAUSE IT COULD BE THE BOARD DIDN'T WANT ALL BOARD MEMBERS TO HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE VENDOR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT THEY HAD TOLD THE VENDOR UNTIL IT WAS A DONE DEAL.  WHAT COULD BE IN THE BOARD'S MASTER PLAN?

THE OLD DOCK IS STILL IN THE CANALS. IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 3 MONTHS. WILL YOUR BOARD SEE TO IT THAT IT LEAVES OUR BACK YARD? THEY HAVE ALLOWED IT TO BE PLACED THERE, AGAINST THEIR OWN APPROVED MOTIONS. WHERE'S COMPLIANCE , MORE IMPORTANTLY TRUTH?



THE RESERVE STUDY - THE DEVELOPMENT - WORDS FROM THE STUDY - QUESTIONS ONLY YOU CAN ANSWER

I've followed the development of the Reserve Study through transcription - the words of the board , fact finding - to the best of my ability, and quoting the words of the study itself.  I've followed it and read through to the best of my ability.  I have not addressed the numbers ($$$) at this point.  It is my understanding that another resident is working their way through the numbers and hope their findings will be shared for our resident public.  You should review transcriptions, listen to board meeting tapes, and read the Reserve Study yourself for your own verification.

The association has NEVER had a professional reserve study performed until this one.  It is a critical tool for the long range financial planning of any association.  In our case it is probably even more important.  The association has been riddled with lawsuits, disputes, recall or recall attempts, hiring and firing of CPAs and lawyers, almost always driven by funding and the decisions of boards regarding spending and interpretations of what needed to be done and when.  If done correctly, with good intention, it can be the confirmed guide to planning and implementation to keeping a homeowner community sound.  It would seem that the expertise, input, and approval would be sought from EVERY board member and the community members would be openly kept abreast of its development.   Anywhere else but here. Consider:

*A shelf contract was utilized.  $10,000 had been set aside by one board.  Later it was reduced to $5,000. 

*Information Obstruction:Since the study contract didn't include engineering the contractor was reliant on the board to provide concrete back ground asset information. Some on the board held the project close to the vest.  There was board in fighting and information held from fellow board members.  DeMarchi told me that he had asked McMillin for information regarding the spoil site and canals and McMillin told him "to mind his own business".   Review the study.  There aren't any figures for the spoil site.  It is more than rumor that DeMarchi and President Walton would not allow McBride to sit in on a conference call with the vendor.  President Walton would not allow McBride to view the draft of the study.  I had asked to review the draft.  My request was denied and I was given an explanation that didn't make sense.  A draft is a draft.  It is sent for review and comment.  Why would you deny anyone, let alone a board member (s) to review all critical information?   Additionally, I asked to review the information that was provided to the contractor to initiate the study.  When I arrived at the office I was shown the equivalent of a large moving box filled with engineering type plans.  When I spoke to three of the board officers I advised them that I was sure there was a notebook or folder that gave reference to the drawings and other information and that was what I wanted to see.  They all remained silent and didn't answer. There was information provided to the vendor on policy that conflictS with fact that will be provided later.  

*Was the information provided to the contractor influenced by the opinion of the current committee chair of an asset?   For instance, remember, DeMarchi has told us that the last 6-7 drainage committees didn't know what they were doing and he was going to fix his road and the road he owned lots on and built homes on.  How could that information contribute to a credible study. Here is what the study says about drainage, "The grade of the community is quite flat and abuts the Black River.  It is our understanding that there has been concern with slow site drainage from some of the residents.  We have noted standing water in the drainage swales along the roads.  Unfortunately, due to the flat grade of the entire community there s little in the way of effective solutions.  Simply cutting s steeper swale along the road will have little if any effect with moving water quicker off site.  We have included an allowance for drainage problem that the community wishes to address."  The contractor didn't speak to the community.  I've reviewed the correspondence file several times.  There hasn't been more than 2 letters regarding drainage to the board over the last year.

*It could appear that the contractor was not informed that those members providing information had not included the entire board.   The contractor states the following regarding dredging, "On 4/6/13 RDA met with Wedgefield Plantation board members. RDA was informed that the canal dredging was not the responsibility of the Association, even though it covered the cost of the first dredging.  The board explained that the canals are owned by the Federal Government and future dredging may need to be performed by the individual homeowners with property fronting the canal  However, the board presently wishes to provide $30,000 each year toward any future dredging.  RDA has reviewed the Declarations and dredging is not discussed.  We have attached this document.  It is our understanding that first dredging involved multiple government agencies and legal proceedings.  RDA has not reviewed any of the government or legal documents from the previous dredging and has relied on the board's direction concerning the responsibility of the canal dredging."  The contractor did not meet with the entire board.  We don't know how many of the board members were included.  We do know that President Walton and DeMarchi have appeared to be in charge.  If you've been at board meetings it can appear that Garrison has been kept informed about this project.  I have been able to confirm that there wasn't a notice sent to all board members for the April 6 meeting noted by the contractor in the above quote.  You decide whether those in attendance misinformed, or lied to the contractor.  First we all know that there have been two dredgings and the entire membership paid to some levels in both.  The bottom of the canals are owned by the government.  Multiple government agencies were involved in approval of permits and the state of SC in a lawsuit.  No court has ever decided that the WPA does not have responsibility.  In fact, here is the wording from the court order on the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson, Page two of the court order says, "The State Plaintiffs, and other named defendants acknowledge that this order in NO WAY addresses ANY RIGHTS, DUTIES OR OBLIGATIONS of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield Plantation regarding the maintenance, dredging, or ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES pertaining to the canal and therefore, this order in NO WAY addresses or RULES UPON those rights, duties or obligations."  The contractor appears to find it necessary to include language about what the BOARD?????? - not with the knowledge of the full board told them, a second time in the reserve study.  "The board has informed us that dredging of the canals is the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS WITH WATERFRONT.  This direction is based on history of the community, multiple government agency involvement, and lawyers' opinions.  The board has indicated that they would like to contribute $30,000 each year  the dredging, REGARDLESS of association obligation.  WE CAN CHANGE THE WORDING, TIMING, AND UNIT COST OF THIS ENTRY IF THE BOARD SO DESIRES."   Whether you want the canals dredged, or believe it isn't the responsibility of the WPA, you have to wonder why it may have been necessary to lie to the contractor.  Why didn't they provide the contractor with complete information?  Why did some board members speak for the entire board, while not informing the entire board?  Lawyers opinions?  There are concrete lawyer opinions from the board attorney of record at the time of the board vote for the last dredging, that are contrary to what some on the board told this contractor.  Additionally, if the board does truly believe that they have no obligation, members should be asking them why they are setting aside $30,000 a year for dredging?  It could look like once again some are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

How can you trust your board or the reserve study after the shoddy preparation, hidden agenda, denied access to process and information to all duly elected board members, and what could appear to be outright lies to the contractor?  Who is responsible?  We know for sure that DeMarchi and President Walton were involved. Listen to the June board meeting tape and Cline and Barrier's laughter about the canals. Wouldn't you think that Garrison as legal chair was involved?  You'll decide, but if you listen to the tapes of the May and June meetings, he appears to have been kept informed.

NEXT:  IF YOU EVEN BELIEVE THIS IS A REAL RESERVE STUDY, RATHER THAN A POSITION DOCUMENT ENGINEERED BY SOME ON THE BOARD, CAN YOU TRUST THEM TO FOLLOW IT?  ARE WE CURRENTLY STRUCTURED TO FOLLOW IT?

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMNER IS BACK FROM VACATION - NEXT: THE RESERVE STUDY - THE DEVELOPMENT - WORDS OF ADVICE FROM THE STUDY - QUESTIONS ONLY YOU CAN ANSWER - IT IS IN DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH AND REVIEW IS TAKING TIME. IT SHOULD BE UP SOON.

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER IS GOING ON VACATION FOR THE HOLIDAY UNTIL JULY 8TH. WE ARE BUSY CELEBRATING BUT WATCH FOR "THE RESERVE STUDY ON JULY 8TH. TAKE A MINUTE AND DRIVE BY THIS OLD RELIC OVER THE HOLIDAY. DIDN'T YOU THINK IT WOULD BE GONE BY NOW? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM NOW? IN THE MEANTIME IT IS A REMINDER AS TO THE FOLLOW THROUGH OF THIS BOARD