FROM THE SUN NEWS - JANUARY 27, 2017

Wedgefield Plantation’s new owner seeking buyer, assessing other options

The owner of Wedgefield Plantation Country Club in Georgetown continues to seek a buyer for the closed golf course and its many affiliated amenities as it continues to assess its options with the property.

Paramont Capital of Phoenix, Ariz., acquired Wedgefield and two other Grand Strand properties late last year after foreclosing on a defaulted loan to Wedgefield’s former owner, Ray Watts, a real estate developer and owner of Apex Homes who splits time between the areas of Charlotte, N.C., and the Strand.

[READ MORE: Island Green Country Club could soon have a new owner through foreclosure Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/sports/golf/article129047179.html#storylink=cpy]

According to Gary Roberts, who is involved in Wedgefield as vice president of business development for Coldwell Banker Chicora Real Estate, one sales contract for Wedgefield lapsed in the past two weeks and was not extended, and negotiations have begun with a new potential buyer.

Roberts said the lapsed contract involved a local builder and architect, along with an additional investor.

“We’re looking to sell for sure. We’re looking at all options right now,” said Paramont chief financial officer Kevin Wolfe. “We’re kind of testing the waters to see what’s out there and looking at all options. No decisions have been made.”

WE’RE LOOKING TO SELL FOR SURE. WE’RE LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS RIGHT NOW. WE’RE KIND OF TESTING THE WATERS TO SEE WHAT’S OUT THERE AND LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS. NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.

Paramont Capital chief financial officer Kevin Wolfe

In addition to about 175 acres at Wedgefield, Paramont also acquired through foreclosure about 70 acres at Island Green Country Club in Myrtle Beach that formerly comprised the Dogwood nine, which closed in 2005 to drop the number of holes at Island Green from 27 to 18, and some property at the Sun Colony multifamily housing development near Colonial Charters Golf Club off S.C. 9 in Longs. The Island Green property is zoned for single-family homes.

“It’s tough to say what we’ll do until we complete our due diligence and see what we have in all these locations,” Wolfe said. “It’s the same status on all three.”

Wedgefield’s golf course has been closed since June when Watts said business was too slow in the summer to warrant continued operation. He said he hoped to reopen in the fall, but the course has yet to reopen and is now in disrepair, as there has been no upkeep for several months and damage including downed trees remains from Hurricane Matthew.

Another course Watts owned and closed in June, Island Green Country Club, also remains closed and has been foreclosed on by its lender.

Redevelopment options at Wedgefield are limited. It is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that requires much of the property to remain green space, though not necessarily a golf course. Extensive redevelopment would require rezoning. “We are aware there are development restrictions there,” Wolfe said.

Watts purchased Wedgefield in December 2013 from the Marlowe family, which had acquired it out of bankruptcy.

Wedgefield is a 7,034-yard Porter Gibson and Bob Toski design that opened in 1972 on the site of an old rice plantation. Watts' purchase included a manor house, guest cottage, several buildings including one that contains a snack bar and another that houses the golf pro shop, a swimming pool, maintenance barn, restaurant that seats more than 100, and two tennis courts.

Watts renovated the Manor House but it has been closed since June, and the golf course would require investment before it reopens.

Jacky Walton, president of the Wedgefield Plantation Association of homeowners, said he and several residents have been cutting grass, weeds and bushes on parts of the course to “keep things in a little bit better manner than what they had been at one time,” and residents cleaned up Wedgefield’s entrance following Hurricane Matthew.

“We would still like to see it operated as a golf course from the standpoint of beautification and recreation, that’s what we keep hoping for,” said Walton, who estimates the HOA encompasses about 370 homes, including 69 condos.

WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE IT OPERATED AS A GOLF COURSE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BEAUTIFICATION AND RECREATION, THAT’S WHAT WE KEEP HOPING FOR.

Wedgefield Plantation Association president Jacky Walton

Walton doesn’t know what support the golf course would receive from residents if it were to reopen. “It goes back to whoever is looking into purchasing it and what they can actually offer the residents,” he said. “The marketing side is what will convince the residents – if they will offer some type of a package.”

Roberts’ father is a Georgetown resident and the two have regularly played Wedgefield for many years.

“I’d love to see somebody take it over and put money back into it and bring it back as a member course and get the members back involved the property,” Roberts said. “We need the local community to support it. The [Georgetown County] planning commission, property owners, HOA and county council – if they all work together we can save Wedgefield, in some form.”

Alan Blondin: 843-626-0284, @alanblondin

Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/sports/golf/article129047574.html#storylink=cpy

RESIDENT RECEIVES ANSWER FROM THE BOARD REGARDING GOLF COURSE CUTTING SUGGESTION

HERE IS THE BOARD RESPONSE:

From: Adam Anderson 

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 1:06:55 PM

To: wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com; (RESIDENT EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED)

Cc: Jacky & Judy Walton; Bob Garrison; Janine Jill Cline; Peggy Phillips; Inge Ebert; Keith Johnson; John Walton; Larry McMillin

Subject: Re: Fw: Golf Course

Mr. (RESIDENT NAME REMOVED),

I assure you this will be a topic for discussion at the next board meeting. Thank you for your suggestion.

Adam Anderson 

Community Liaison 

HERE IS THE RESIDENT LETTER:

On Friday, January 20, 2017 10:58 AM, (RESIDENT NAME REMOVED)

Please include this letter at your next board meeting

Now that the sale of the golf course has fallen through we face another summer of living in a jungle.  I’m asking that you all take some action to mow this mess 3 to 4 times.  Nothing elaborate, a bush hog job would do.  You don’t have any funding available in your budget to pay for this.  You might propose a voluntary donation from lot owners on the golf course similar to the funding provided by canal lot owners for canal dredging.  Not sure what the cost would be, but a $50 “donation” should provide $20k+ to get the ball rolling.  I’m sure most of the lot owners on the golf course would support this idea.  Please try to take a proactive “can do” approach and not think of reasons it can’t be done.  It means alot to keeping our community a decent place to live.  I’ll be looking forward to hearing from you all.

WPA POSTS AD IN GEORGETOWN TIMES FOR GROUNDS CONTRACT - THE AD LOOKS GOOD!

HERE IS THE AD:

"WEDGEFIELD MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
Accepting bids for upcoming grounds maintenance contract to begin 3/1

Contact WPA off (546-2718) to arrange meeting & tour of property.

Only sealed bids in writing, hand delivered or mailed.  Accepted no later than 2/12.

No faxes or emails."

WHY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE BOARD, PARTICULARLY THE GROUNDS CHAIR, WHEN THE VACANT LOT NEXT TO YOU IS MOWED, AND LOOKS LIKE THIS? BECAUSE OF YOUR BOARD'S MADCAP DECISIONS! NO ONE AT THE BOARD TABLE QUESTIONED THE RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS OF THE GROUNDS CHAIR DURING THE JANUARY WPA BOARD MEETING. NO WONDER THIS PLACE LOOKS A MESS!

PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.

****************************************************

The following is provided to the best of my ability.  I took notes during the meeting.  To confirm the information for yourself, please check for the recording at The Wedgefield Times website, when it becomes available.  The tapes of meetings were provided on the WPA website for years.  Your board no longer provides the tapes - another article.  COMMENTS will be provided in red at the end of the article.

HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE VACANT LOT NEXT TO MY PROPERTY, TAKEN THIS MORNING,  WONDERFUL!  NOT A THING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, UNTIL YOU HEAR THE JANUARY GROUNDS REPORT!

It looks pretty good doesn't it?  It has looked this way since early December because it was mowed, and then went dormant.  Remember the word dormant.    The lot owner is a good neighbor. They contract, and pay a fee to the WPA to keep it mowed.  The WPA builds the mowing and associated revenues into the grounds contractor's contract.  Each lot owner who has purchased the services for grassy lots is to receive 4 cuttings.  McMillin, grounds chair, supervises the cuttings.

The lots under these contracts were left to grow to heights as high as five feet, as measured by myself, and reported in letters by other residents.  I took pictures of the one next to me, and several others in the community during the 2016 GROWING season.  A few residents, including myself, sent letters to the board.  Here are a few of those pictures for verification.

  

Now, to the irksome January 2017grounds report, given by McMillin.  He reported that everything was looking pretty good, and that these lots were DORMANT now.  Later, he went on to say that it was time to seek bids for the new grounds contract, and there would be some changes to the contract regarding vacant lots, and that the grassy lots would probably be the only vacant lots considered for the contracts, because these were the ones that people were most concerned about.  If you aren't aware, the WPA had contracts with owners of wooded lots, at a different fee.  As McMillin gets into discussion he reminds the board that there are still cuttings that have not been performed on the grassy lots in this last contract, but he is going to work them in between now, and the new contract start.  He has until the end of February.  Basically, McMillin is going to blow through the balance of the contracts, mowing lots that are dormant - don't need it, when he neglected them to 5 feet heights during the GROWING SEASON.  What kind of management is that?  Your board is charged with following the governing documents regarding the maintenance by property owners, to maintain a community standard!  We have none, but the games of this board!  Even when residents pay an additional fee, and contract to meet standard, your board fails them, and our community!  That board just sat there, and let it happen - AGAIN!  The other board members have been ignoring this kind of ignorant governance from each other to get the votes needed at the board table (when they bother to vote from the board table at all) for years!  Our community has finally reached such decay that it is hardly noticeable!

Think this is picky?  Hardly!  It speaks to not only what the board allows, but what you allow without question, and the will to make changes to bring our community back.  I use the term illegal, because it violates our covenants, restrictions, and by-laws.  When I used that term on even a more serious violation at the January board meeting, board member Anderson smirked, and told me "to call the police".  This board governs with favors to some, and penalty to those they don't like, all while flitting in, and out of our governing documents!

We'll stay with lot mowing.  Last fall McMillin announced at a board meeting that he had 5 lots bush hogged in a certain area that all belonged to one owner, and that he had sent the bill to the owner.  He further stated that he was sick and tired of hearing about those lots.  These lots are not under contract by the WPA.  Initially, I thought - GOOD.  Then I thought what kind of blatant inconsistency is this?  They don't maintain lots - grow to 5 feet - yet they use the governing documents when it suits them, to step in mow, and charge those who neglect as they are.  I took it a step further and drove over to see the 5 bush hogged lots.  They were mowed, but what was more concerning was that there was another set of multiple lots next to them, that were wild and high, and they hadn't been touched.  I'm not naming the resident of the set that were mowed, or the one whose lots were left over grown with no fines.  I have been following these things for a long time.  The second lot owner is a long time friend to this board and their moves, and motives.  If we had a decent, true to governing documents board (a few members who stood up for Wedgefield), I would ask where ARC, LEGAL, COMPLIANCE, AND OUR PRESIDENT WAS.  AS DEMONSTRATED SO MANY TIMES, THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF MY TIME, AND EFFORTS!

TWO ARTICLES WERE POSTED ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 21. STAY TUNED. WHEN YOUR BOARD WON'T TALK, THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS TO.

WHERE ARE THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING? THEY AREN'T POSTED ON THE WPA WEBSITE! THE BOARD ATTACKED ME AT THE JANUARY WPA BOARD MEETING CLAIMING THEY NEVER RECEIVED MY CORRESPONDENCE ASKING ABOUT THE WHERE ABOUTS OF THE SEPTEMBER 2016 MINUTES. MORE GOVERNANCE BY OMISSION?

PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.
****************************************************
As noted in previous articles, I sent a email to the board on December 22nd, didn't receive an answer, published a article regarding that fact, received a nasty email from board member Anderson with no answer to my questions, and questioned the lack of response during the January board meeting, and was treated rudely by board member Anderson, denying there ever was a email.  When I returned home after the meeting I forwarded the December 22nd email to the board.  I had asked about the September 2016 meeting minutes.  They are the only minutes missing on the official WPA website.  Here is Anderson's response regarding the minutes, "September 2016 minutes are not posted because they have not been approved. I was absent from the October meeting so I am unsure as to why they are not approved but I will find out what is going on and get this resolved."

I suspect that the minutes haven't been posted because I spoke during the actual board meeting, in one of the two five minute speaker spots available to all residents under our governing documents.  I wrote my presentation, timed it prior to the meeting, was timed by the board, and got EVERY word written in the presentation read aloud, before the board called time, and provided a copy to the paid staff person to be included in the minutes.  In the past, the presentation has been provided in the minutes.  

I wrote a article immediately following the meeting on September 20, 2016.  The article included my presentation at the meeting.  I've reposted the September 20, 2016 article below.  I stand by my words posted then, and have additional comments today.  During this months resident comment section of the meeting when I expressed my concerns about a board failing to recognize a prior Wedgefield  ruling regarding a board's promise, and the validity of it under the current dredging, board secretary Cline, said she "didn't want to hear it", and president Walton shut the meeting down.  

Are the September 2016 board minutes hanging out in mid air because your board doesn't want my words presented on the record?  It is a strong possibility.  Can't wait to hear how this is handled.

HERE IS THE SEPTEMBER 20TH BLOG ARTICLE: 
Here is the presentation by myself, Madeline Claveloux, at tonight's WPA Board Meeting.  Every member has a right to write the board, and request one of the two 5 minute speaker slots, available at every monthly board meeting.  It is a timed presentation, and you are cut off at 5 minutes.  I've done this before, and the presentation has been included in the minutes for that particular board meeting, and noted as a resident's presentation.  I seriously don't know whether this board will provide the presentation in the minutes, or not - they appear to do what they want, when they want to, and if you aren't one of their favorites - they don't follow the same procedures they do for those in their favor.  It is a test.  Let's see what they do.

I did the best I could with 5 minutes.  I've supported - documented everything I said, in previous articles.  HERE IS THE PRESENTATION:

Madeline Claveloux, 168 William Screven. My presentation is:  “Wedgefield Crisis – Canal & Golf Course Properties, General Maintenance, and Concerns Regarding Actions of The Board, Particularly – Legal, ARC, Water Amenities and Compliance”. I’m hearing dissatisfaction from every type of lot owner, and the statement, “This isn’t what we were told when we were buying our home, on the canals, golf course, or in the condo area.”  Wedgefield is in a crisis when even the real estate listings have added the new term “buyer must verify”.  Take a ride from the front entrance to every corner of Wedgefield. Would you expect anyone to pay top dollar for your property?

At the same time, our board makes broad statements, on key issues, without discussion, or vote.  There is nothing in the minutes!

*From the Wedgefield Wragg: “There is currently no consideration for the WPA to take over control, operation, or purchase of either the golf course or the pool.”  When did they discuss it at a meeting?  You have asked for a meeting for residents to discuss the golf course situation.  Your board has ignored you. Yet, there was a closed meeting held on September 12 with a prospective golf course buyer. Why the secrecy?

*From the printed handout provided at the August Canal Lot Owners Meeting:  “We did this on May 12^th 2016. We met with the president and vice president of the WPA to gather their ideas and support for the project.”  Later:

 “The WPA currently has $115,000 earmarked for dredging and by next year that number will be in the $135,000 range.  Once we have our funding in place the WPA will contribute their funding earmarked for dredging and then enter into a contract to dredge the canals.” YOUR BOARD, IN A PRIVATE, UNNOTICED MEETING, ON MAY 12^TH COMMITTED UP TO $135,000 OF OUR WPA FUNDS – UNRESTRICTED FUNDS, WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT AT AN OPEN BOARD MEETING, AND VOTING, FOR EACH AND EVERY MEMBER TO OBSERVE IT! Please remember this unauthorized promise to pay, as we will address it later.

·      The board’s management according to our governing documents – the promise of Wedgefield, as it relates to Grounds, ARC, Compliance, and Legal – all of which impact our property values, has been appalling! Lots with weeds 5 feet tall, vehicles parked in vacant lots –the tractor, sheds placed on lots inappropriately and ARC, and Compliance ignoring complaints for over 10 months, etc.  Yet, your board sits silently by, while we re-up the grounds contractor’s contract, with an increase, and your board votes to approve, while it is reported that the contractor, now knows who the boss is!

·       

We’ll focus on the most egregious, the promise of the $135,000 to the canal lot owners. 

Almost everyone sitting on that canal committee, and those of you willing to write checks voluntarily, forget that we’d done that before.  We collected over $162,000 to secure the permit to dredge, and when we got to within 30-60 days of securing it, that board threw the canal committee off the board – shut down the process.  The only ruling by a judge ever directed at permit, or dredging came then.  The judge basically said that the board had promised, the canal lot owners had complied with the board’s conditions, and they needed to be allowed to continue securing the permit. 

Why would you trust this board?  Why would you impact the future of all of the lot owners in Wedgefield by letting them tell you that there is no other way?  I’ve checked the Legal, and Water Amenities Reports from 2013 through today, and there is no vote on the $135,000, no mention of any dredging.  Every time there has been a dredging, there has been a lawsuit.  Most sitting at the board table today, has either contributed to one side or the other in the last dredging lawsuits, or been deposed.  During the last lawsuit depositions, the opposing side carried in a big notebook that contained minutes from meetings where there were votes, information provided at information meetings to all residents, WPA written legal opinions, copies of checks written to WPA attorneys, etc.  Today, if the WPA was sued regarding the $135,000, the notebook would be empty, and you would be back to square one. This time the people who are urging you to do the wrong thing for Wedgefield aren’t looking out for anyone, at a time when all of Wedgefield is in trouble, and your board doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.  If you have any questions, or comments, you can email me: Wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com, and I’ll be happy to answer them.  

THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE POSTING OF THE OFFICIAL WPA MEETING TAPES ON THE WPA WEBSITE! HOW DO WE KNOW? A RESIDENT ASKED. WHEN WILL YOU RISK ASKING QUESTIONS? IT IS THE ONLY WAY WE GET ANSWERS FROM THIS BOARD.

PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.
****************************************************


The following is provided to the best of my ability.  I took notes during the meeting.  To confirm the information for yourself, please check for the recording at The Wedgefield Times website, when it becomes available.  The tapes of meetings were provided on the WPA website for years.  Your board no longer provides the tapes - another article.  COMMENTS will be provided in red at the end of the article.

During the resident comment section of the January WPA board meeting, a resident commented on the importance of the WPA website, and the fact that there were problems with it.  It wasn't an attack on the board, as he stated he knew they had been working on it.  He asked if the board would again, be posting tapes of the meetings.  One board member answered simply saying "NO".  The resident asked if the minutes would be available on the website.  The answer - YES, after they were approved by the board.  The resident went on to say something about the minutes being very brief.  Someone from the board responded - yes.

COMMENTS:
Once again, it appears that your board has made a decision without discussing it at the board table, or a vote.  This lack of discussion, or vote, at the board table is another in the pile of debris of disregard for the members of our association's right to know, and disregard for the intent, or any respect for the power of our governing documents. It is more in the board's grand scheme of cover up of their actions.  We are left with their abbreviated minutes, much left out by their authorship, and approval.

The tapes of the meetings have not been published for our review since July of 2015.  These tapes provided actual verification of their words - discussion, and votes.  We no longer have the ability to verify the content of their miserable, abbreviated minutes.  

Note that the board is so embolden by their self appointed grasp of power - self designed - a law onto themselves, that when asked about the recordings that they simply answer "NO".  They don't say that the board discussed it, when they discussed it, that they voted on it, and informed the membership.  That is the case in so many important decisions over the history of this board.  They have nothing to stand behind on record, because there isn't one, and it appears that they don't want you to verify that.

How important are the tapes - very!  Think about a very recent event - the dredging.  When board member Anderson sent a response to articles I had posted on the blog to when the board had addressed dredging, and the water amenities committee's work on the proposal in open meetings, Anderson wrote, "We began discussing this in April of this year and have had approximately one meeting a month ever since. These meetings have been reported at EVERY board meeting."  I went in and cut and pasted the water amenities report from January of 2017 on, from the official WPA minutes, and posted them on the blog.  There were no reports.  I had been at the meetings, and there were no reports, and I verified it for you with their brief minutes.  I've always advised you to go listen to the tapes, to verify for yourself. NOW, WE HAVE NO OFFICIAL BOARD RECORDINGS FOR YOU TO VERIFY THE BOARD'S LIES, WHEN EVEN THEIR MINUTES MAKE THEM LIARS. Board member Anderson attended the closed canal lot meeting last August where the following was reported in their handouts. HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM THE HANDOUT PROVIDED BY THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE,  AT THE CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING:  "Meet with WPA leadership and garner their support and find out what they expect in order to gain that support.  We did this on May 12 2016.  We met with the president and vice president of the WPA to gather their ideas and support the project.  They were receptive to our ideas.  The general consensus of this meeting was if the waterfront properties can privately raise the money needed, the WPA will contribute the monies set aside for this purpose in the reserves.  The WPA will allow the use of the WPA name, permit and will generally support the project so long as these contingencies are met.  The WPA is willing to allocate up to 1/3 of the total cost not to exceed the reserve funding already in place.  For the past 5 years the WPA has allocated roughly 15% of its yearly budget for canal dredging.  This money is already in place and our plan will NOT cause any rise in assessments or cost ANYONE not living on the canal ANY additional money."

A little further into the handout we hear what else the WPA is willing to do, and I quote:  "The WPA currently has approximately $115,000 earmarked for dredging and by next year that number will be in the $135,000 range.  Once we have our funding in place the WPA will contribute their funding earmarked for dredging and then enter into a contract to dredge the canals.  All of the permits, contracts, etc. will be in the WPA name.  The WPA will be the responsible party."  Go to the May 2016 board minutes.  Your board does not mention the May 12 meeting, let alone vote. 

I suppose that when I questioned this promise to pay, and the canal lot owners' reliance on it - they collected, and referenced a WPA court case where there was a RULING, by a judge, at the January WPA meeting, that your board doesn't want you to be able to listen to a tape of me stating it was illegal, Anderson telling me from the board table to "call the police", Cline attempting to silence me saying"they don't want to hear that", or president Walton pounding the gavel, and shutting the meeting down, blocking other resident comments.  

This board doesn't want you to hear what happens during the board meetings, doesn't want you to be able to verify, doesn't want you to hear another resident commenting, and you can't trust their minutes. 

RESIDENT SHARES LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE FAILED GOLF COURSE SALE

PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.
****************************************************
As always, The Wedgefield Examiner has removed the name of the writer.  Here is the letter.

o	wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com

CC	wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

Today at 10:58 AM

Please include this letter at your next board meeting Now that the sale of the golf course has fallen through we face another summer of living in a jungle.  I’m asking that you all take some action to mow this mess 3 to 4 times.  Nothing elaborate, a bush hog job would do.  You don’t have any funding available in your budget to pay for this.  You might propose a voluntary donation from lot owners on the golf course similar to the funding provided by canal lot owners for canal dredging.  Not sure what the cost would be, but a $50 “donation” should provide $20k+ to get the ball rolling.  I’m sure most of the lot owners on the golf course would support this idea.  Please try to take a proactive “can do” approach and not think of reasons it can’t be done.  It means alot to keeping our community a decent place to live.  I’ll be looking forward to hearing from you all. Please Note:  I would hope that if this effort is allowed that all members would be provided the information so that we are able to support it through contributions.  I'd would contribute.  The appearance of an overgrown golf course hurts all of our property values.

WHERE IS THE SALE OF THE GOLF COURSE? GARRISON GIVES A REPORT. THERE WAS ANOTHER UPDATE AFTER THE MEETING

PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.
****************************************************

The following is provided to the best of my ability.  I took notes during the meeting.  To confirm the information for yourself, please check for the recording at The Wedgefield Times website, when it becomes available.  The tapes of meetings were provided on the WPA website for years.  Your board no longer provides the tapes - another article.  COMMENTS will be provided in red at the end of the article.

Garrison provided the golf course update in the legal report.  He stated that the board had been following the events related to the sale of the golf course.  The sale was in escrow in December, but it didn't happen - didn't go to closing.  Garrison had contacted Wolf (contact for the financial company holding the golf course property).  Wolf had failed to call Garrison back.  Garrison said that he had instructed the board attorney to be attentive to any petitions pertaining to changing the PUD.  He went on to say that while he didn't want to speculate, it was his suspicion that prospective buyers had tried to do things different than running a golf course.  He had heard anybody wishing to buy has wanted to build.  He went on to say that changing a PUD is a big deal.  Later, he said there was no real way to keep the Wedgefield public informed, except at monthly meetings.  Cline suggested that the board use the WPA website.

UPDATE:
From the board website:  "We have been advised that the purchase contract of the golf course has been canceled and it is up for sale again."

COMMENTS:  Wedgefield is in the same position we were in last summer.  The fact that the sale of the golf course fell through is not the fault of the board.  The facts are however, that the two biggest selling assets of our community are in poor condition.  Their decay directly impacts the values of our homes, and destroys the beauty of our community.  Additionally, our board fails to enforce restrictions on property owners, that result in the added look of decay in our community.  

Some will say that their is a board approved effort to dredge, and fix the canal situation.  Yes, there is but it is not a legal, in the best interests of the association.  It is a behind closed doors, no public board vote, or discussion, with no look to the future plan.  Last May, your board met in secret with members of the canal committee, and allowed and promised up to $135,000 of our WPA assessments for this dredge.  The board did not report the meeting from the board table in May, or June, and held a vote - that can only be called a farce, to attempt to cover themselves at the January meeting.

Wedgefield needs a board, particularly at this time, that governs openly, honestly, legally in the best interest of our entire community.    

JANUARY 18 - I RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM ANDERSON

PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.
****************************************************
I received a answer from community liaison, Anderson on 1/18/2017, to my email sent to the board on 12/22/2016.  I thank him for his answer.  I do not thank him, or the board for treating me like a liar, claiming there was no email - nothing to answer, during the January WPA board meeting.  When I got home from the meeting on Tuesday evening, I simply forwarded the original email.  I would have appreciated an explanation as to what happened.  I also forwarded a copy of a resident letter to the board that had been hand delivered to the office in December 2016, and had been shared with me.  This resident had written me later, and shared that they had not received an answer.  I removed the resident name from both of the emails, and sent them to the office on Tuesday evening.  You see, board member Anderson was not done scoffing, and treating me like a liar from the board table, after the meeting he came and stood in my face to tell me that they had no correspondence in the office - mine, OR THE RESIDENT WHO HAD HAND DELIVERED THEIRS!  Why remove the other residents name?  I do not wish that resident to be treated in the manner that I was treated on Tuesday evening.

I'm use to this kind of treatment by this board - in public - and in person.  Don't get your violins out, I'm willing to take their abuse to make my point, and will stand up and speak out when I know I have the facts.  You should be concerned that I am not the exception.  I've watched this board treat other residents this way from the board table - residents who questioned, and had the governing documents standing with them.  At times, over president Walton's long run in office, we have called the WPA office - the dead letter office.  I guess today, it can be called the lost and found.  What is more concerning in regard  to individual board members is that they sit back, and let it all happen, and don't stand up and question what is happening.  As to president Walton, the officer that controls the meeting, he is gutless, leaving him a co-conspirator, in this degenerate board's actions.  

My December 22nd letter was simple, contained no opinions, or accusations.  It was sent then to the same board email address that it was forwarded to on Tuesday evening.  My system would have notified me on the 22nd if it was unable to deliver it, and it didn't.  What did happen to the hand delivered letter?  Your board doesn't explain, instead they try to humiliate the individual.  They've failed.  I always consider the source, and make sure I have the facts.  This is the place where I live, and I am concerned about our governance.

HERE IS MY DECEMBER 22ND LETTER:

Adam Anderson <andersonbodyshop@gmail.com> To mclaveloux@sc.rr.com <mclaveloux@sc.rr.com> Cc Subject Subject: Questions Priority/Date/Size Priority: Normal Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:38 PM Size: 4 KB Attachment Mrs. Claveloux, There were 203 total votes in the 2016 election. The  September 2016 minutes are not posted because they have not been approved. I was absent from the October meeting so I am unsure as to why they are not approved but I will find out what is going on and get this resolved. Adam Anderson Community Liaison

A FEW HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE WPA JANUARY 17 BOARD MEETING. THESE HIGHLIGHTS END WITH ME BEING TOLD TO CALL THE POLICE, AND OUR VICE CHAIR SAYING THAT HE WAS GLAD ANDERSON WAS ANSWERING BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T BE AS NICE! LOVELY! YOUR BOARD AT WORK

This is going to be quick.  Articles will follow over the next several days.  Tonight, I will simply focus on the resident comment section of the meeting.  Tonight, during the meeting the  board made a motion to "officially commit" to spending up to one third of the cost of dredging, not to exceed the amount in the canal reserves, if the canal residents raise the balance.  Additionally, partial costs for the controlled burn of the neglected spoil site were discussed.  For my purposes, it is also noted that Anderson, community liaison reported that there was no correspondence since the last meeting.

A resident had questions, and comments about the WPA website.  Another resident had continued flood issues since the storm.

I addressed two areas.  One, I had written the board since the last meeting, received no response to my questions, but a nasty letter from Anderson.  It should be noted that he is even nastier in the meeting setting.  I explained that there was a second resident who also hadn't received an answer from a letter that had been hand delivered to the office.  The board claimed they had not received any correspondence, and Anderson stated he had given me his email address.  I explained that when a resident writes the board the letter should - as requested, be distributed to every board member through the board office, and their system was failing.  I was treated like a liar.  At the end of the meeting, Anderson stood in my face, and stated he had checked in the office, and there were no letters.  It should be noted that I published my letter on the blog the day I had sent it.  I also shared the hand delivered letter from the other resident who had sent it to me, and advised the board that they had sent it to me.  I also shared their follow up letter advising me that they had not received an answer from the board.

Two, I addressed the dredging and spoil site neglect.  I explained that I found the dredging process to be illegal.  The board promised the money to the canal lot residents in writing, in a private meeting in May 2016 (never reported from the board table), and verbally during the closed canal lot owners meeting last August, without a public, at the monthly board meeting, discussion and vote.  It was illegal.  Anderson said laughing "call the police".  Mr. Anderson, unless there was THEFT, it is a civil matter.  Mr. Garrison spouted at one point that he was glad Anderson was handling it because he wouldn't be as nice.  As I tried to explain the fact that in the last dredging the "promise of  by a board" in regard to the dredging permit, with voluntary payments to securing the permit from canal residents, and then the board's (another board) withdrawal of the right to seek permit, was the only RULING we had ever had from a judge that said the canal lot owners won, because they had collected based on the promise of the board.  Board member Cline said that wasn't this board, and she didn't want to hear it.  At some point in this mess,  I told the board I wanted the canals dredged legally, not in this half assed, illegal manner. Their vote this evening was an illegal farce.

Water amenities chair, John Walton had reported during the meeting that during the last dredging that more money was spent on preparing the spoil site than the dredging itself.  He also reported that the spoil site was very over grown.  I asked how the board could knowingly let that happen.  I explained that McMillin had reported last month that everyone at that board table knew why it got that way.  I asked why everyone at that board table knew, and yet we didn't, and asked what they knew.  McMillin wouldn't name names, but said he had trusted someone that was no longer there. 

 President Walton shut the meeting down.

Residents, do yourself a favor, and go back and read the minutes from the last dredging, from the point of approval of the permit, right on through the dredging.  It isn't that it was so perfect, but it is all detailed, every public from the board table vote. Lawsuits followed - CIVIL LAWSUITS MR. ANDERSON.  We have a mess, an illegal mess.  Canal lot owners, this was billed as the last dredge, the last use of the spoil site - neglected with full knowledge of this board.  Their handouts stated you could enjoy the dredge for 10-15 years.  Really?  We have had a natural disaster for each of the last two years that have destroyed much of the benefits of the 2010 dredging.  Are you so short sighted that you will contribute to a plan with no future, illegal as it is, as poorly planned as it is, and risk the possibility that it all comes to an end if we have another disaster, a year or two, after this dredge?  Only 46 of the 79 canal lot owners have paid.  Tonight, one of the board members asked if the 46 would be willing to pay for what equals 2/3 of the actual dredging cost?

PS:  Tonight, I forwarded my letter from email, and the other resident letter - with resident name removed, to the board.

  

   

THREE ARTICLES WERE PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 17

"FOR THE RECORD" & WHAT IS THE INTEREST IN 2012 BLOG POSTINGS

PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.
****************************************************
"FOR THE RECORD"
Today, I'm reminded once again why I continue with The Wedgefield Examiner.  It is "for the record".  I have not trusted this board to govern from the board table openly, honestly, and according to the governing documents.  I say this board, because with the exception of one, most have been on the board at least 6 years.  I started the blog 5 years ago.  When your board holds closed meetings, won't answer residents, fails to follow standard contracting procedures, and at times refuses access to documents/records requested under the law, fails to get written opinions in writing, lies from the board table, no longer provides access to board meeting recordings,  sanitizes the minutes, vilifies members who ask questions, etc. - someone must assemble truth - FOR THE RECORD.  Do you know - some of you new residents, that under president Walton's lengthy administration, that we as residents, had no correspondence replies for over a year?

Today again, as I review the back pages of the blog, I find 3 people have gone back 4 1/2 years to two different 2012 articles.  I don't know if it is the same 3 people, but the articles cover two very different topics.  Both involve the character cast of the majority of this board.  The same lack of integrity, and sound governance are questioned in both these articles.  I published one of the articles this morning.  Here is the second August 2012 article.  The questioner is not me, but another resident's informed comments to the board.

August 2012
PLEASE NOTE:  The following comments, in blue, are not those of the resident, but mine.  I'll provide the document, as delivered to The Wedgefield Examiner.  I can't help but ask, "Where is Secretary DeMarchi?  According to the documents below he promised this resident "action", whether response, etc., in June.  I ask, does your name have to be Thomas to get a quick 3 HOUR response time from the Board?  Oh, I forgot, DeMarchi has burdened the response system with more layers, after he did death defying leaps for Thomas.  Well, the rest of us can just wait our turn, beyond policy, beyond his new rules, and sometimes - NEVER HAVE HOPE OF AN ANSWER.  Mr. La France where are you?  I've been waiting for months for answers, even after you wrote and told me you were working on it? 

Remember, the words in blue are mine. 
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email:wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.  
HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS:



TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 17, 2017.

WHY ARE SOME WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER FOLLOWERS GOING BACK 4 YEARS TO READ ABOUT THE CANALS? YES, IT HAS BEEN THAT LONG - LONGER, THAT MANY ON THIS BOARD HAVE BEEN MANAGING ?????? THE DREDGING ISSUE, IN THEIR OWN QUESTIONABLE FASHION. HERE IS THE REPRINT OF THE ARTICLE

PRESIDENT'S REPORT:  President Walton reported that the reserve study contract had been signed and sent to William Douglas.  The start date has not been determined yet.  He was asked whether the canals and spoil site were stated in the contract.  The response was that they were included in the proposal, but not the contract.


COMMENTS:

First, what kind of report was this?  What is the total amount of the contract?  Who is the vendor?  How is it that canals and spoil site were included in the proposal, but not the contract?

I'm sorry but I don't trust this board for a number of reasons, but particularly when it comes to the spoil site and the canals.  Why?  Think about it.  The Canal Committee, a subcommittee of  Water Amenities, took a proposal from committee to Garrison's Legal Committee, last spring.  The committee's proposal was to add language to the Individual Assessment by-law, to be voted on by the residents (Note:  the proposed by-law change was not an indication that Individual Assessment couldn't stand as it was, but an effort to ease the decisions of another board who faced dredging.)  Garrison put his own proposal on the table and that was to form a canal sub-association, put forth a by-law change for a vote, for a yearly set aside for the canals.  Additionally, the board would seek a legal opinion from the board attorney regarding the legality of forming a sub-association.

First, the legal opinion was presented verbally by Garrison.  There wasn't a written opinion that could be shared/viewed by all, and utilized in the event that someone questioned it.  Why?  According to Garrison the attorney gave every indication that it was a legal possibility, but every canal resident would have to be in agreement.  How likely was that?  This board didn't even bother to look in the records when advised that this had been considered in the past.

Second, it was decided that a survey would be sent to all canal lot owners to determine their interest.  The survey was months in development and finally sent around the time of the annual meeting.  It was a ridiculous instrument!  They weren't mailed to all the canal lot owners on the same date.  There was no way to look at the authenticity of any of the responses because it wasn't signed by the board, did not require the responder's signature, or date to return by, and left the canal lot owners with a yes or no answer.  This was nothing more that a staged effort in futility!

In the end, wait there is no end, because somewhere under 30 surveys were returned.  Since there was no return date some could wait to return them next year!  Of those returned many said "no". 

The survey was mentioned at the December board meeting but what is next?  There was nothing listed under "old business", or "new business", for January.  Did this subject fall off the face of the earth, or just this "stall and hide tactics" board's agenda?  It all just looks like smoke and mirrors to me.

How do you accept what is presented in a proposal and not include the language/assignment in the contract?  This is just as sound as getting a legal opinion for a board and residents, verbally!

WILL YOU ATTEND THE WPA BOARD MEETING ON THE 16TH?

There were only six or seven members in attendance during the December WPA Board Meeting.  Consider attending the WPA Board Meeting on January 16, at 7:00PM.  Wedgefield continues to hang in a very precarious situation.  

*There doesn't appear to have been a sale, and closing on the golf course.  There are rumors that interested parties would like to do some building if they were to buy.  Some residents have expressed concern for the PUD.  Will the board provide updates tonight?

*The board has illegally met with the Water Amenities Committee and promised up to $135,000 for dredging.  Last month the board surprised us, reporting that the spoil site has not been maintained, and a controlled burn was suggested.  It was reported that the canal dredging group has not built a remedy, or controlled burn into their projected budget.  The spoil site maintenance has been built into the grounds contract for several years.  When asked if the previous grounds contractor had met all the contract terms, board member McMillin answered that they had.  How can it be reported now, that the site hasn't been maintained?  What is even more mysterious, but not surprising, was that last month McMillin stated at the board table, regarding the lack of maintenance, "that everyone knew why".  Not one board member, asked what he was talking about.  Obviously, more closed meeting, illegal, and mysterious decision making by this board.  I have no trust in this board, and their illegal dredging plan.  Perhaps, if you've paid your $400, you should attend tonight's meeting, and ask your board what "everyone knew", and when, where, and why this information wasn't reported to the residents from the board table when these decisions were made.

During the December meeting, it was reported that the storm caused trees to fall into the canals blocking navigation, and they would have to be removed.   I couldn't discern from the report who would have to pay.  One would assume it is the canal lot owner, but perhaps you would like to ask this board at tonight's meeting.  Why?  You never know with this board.

If you have questions, you'll be fortunate if they are answered truthfully, and respectfully.  Last month's meeting left me with several questions, but I get tired of the board's treatment of people who ask questions respectfully, and are treated poorly by this board.  Some months, it is not worth my effort.  I still haven't had a response to my email to the board sent on December 22nd, with two simple questions. I don't count board member/community liaison, Anderson's attack letter, which failed to answer the questions.

Hope to see you at the meeting! 

STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE BOARD ON TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS. THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER REPOSTS A NOVEMBER 10TH ARTICLE - SOME READERS ARE GOING BACK TO REREAD THE ARTICLE. MAYBE, YOUR REREADING IT WILL EXPLAIN WHY I ASKED ONE OF THE QUESTIONS. NEW COMMENTS FROM THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER ARE ADDED.

****************************************************
PLEASE NOTE:  Member residents if you have a comment, or concern - agree or not, you are welcome to write the blog at:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com  As always, I will remove your name - any identifying information, and publish it.
****************************************************
Readers, while I received a letter on January 5th from board member Anderson, I didn't receive answers to the two questions I sent to the board on December 22nd.  Instead, I received insults.  One of my questions was quite simple.  "What was the total number of members who voted at the 2016 annual meeting?"  The stats provided on the back pages of the blog indicate that readers are going back to a article published on November 10, 2016 titled "Are You, Or Your Friends Wasting An Opportunity To Make A Difference In Wedgefield?  Please Exercise Your Right As A Member And Vote."  I suspect that readers are verifying for themselves why that number is so important to me, and maybe should be to you.  The content of the article explains one very basic reason why knowing it is important.  

There is a second reason, not noted in that article.  The annual meeting cannot be held unless there is a verified quorum.  From the bylaws:  "Section 4: Quorum: Except as otherwise provided in these By-Laws, the presence, in person or by proxy, of persons having one-third (1/3) of the total eligible (members in good standing) and authorized votes shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the owners."
As you reread the article provided below, you'll note that I'm able to provide the number of the total number of people who voted at the 2015 annual meeting - 214.  That's because as always, prior to this year, the board announced the number during the annual meeting, and published it on their website, along with how many votes candidates received.  The total number of people who voted was not announced at the 2016 annual meeting, was not provided in president Walton's election results report during the WPA December board meeting, and is not published in the report on the WPA website.  I'm not attempting to say that the board didn't have a quorum at the annual meeting.  The number is important, and should be provided.  Why, except to irritate, and cast aspersions, is the board ignoring, and insulting the questioner?  

Go back to the blog - January 5th article and read Anderson's letter to me.  It is insulting.  Why?

HERE IS THE NOVEMBER 10TH ARTICLE:


Do you realize that only 214 of the 577 members of Wedgefield Plantation Association voted in the last election?  That means that approximately 363 members failed to select the board that will determine assessments, use of our funds, and ultimately the direction Wedgefield will take over the next year!  Do you realize that your current board has been working on a plan to use that very apathy, to go to court, and change our covenants, and restrictions?

Right now, it takes a 100% affirmative vote by the residents to change the covenants and restrictions.  As of last year, your board is gathering the stats to prove to a court that because of your failure to participate - vote at all, that they can and should lower that number.  This board wants the opportunity to change our covenants and restrictions - the very documents that we bought into when we bought our properties!

This board has caused enough damage, often illegally, and lowered the appearance, and the standard in Wedgefield to such a degree that some of the board acknowledge it, and don't care, because you let them.  At a recent board meeting, board member McMillin, stated that "due to the fact that people were unable to sell their homes, and they were renting them, we were getting a lower standard of people here".  We can't sell our homes because this board has made decisions that have allowed our community to decay, and potential buyers are refusing to even tour homes that they made appointments to tour, because of how bad Wedgefield looks as they are driving to the address!