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?
