YES THE 2013 TRANSCRIPTIONS PROVIDED BELOW ARE ABOUT DITCHES, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY A LOOK AT THE ABUSE AND FLEXING OF OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS TO SUIT THE WHIMS OF SELFISH BOARD MEMBERS LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL AGENDAS AT OUR EXPENSE. MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT MCMILLIN WHO IS RUNNING FOR BOARD AGAIN, VOTED FOR THESE CREEPY MOVES, AGAINST OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, QUESTIONABLE BIDDING PRACTICES, AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF WEDGEFIELD. DON'T VOTE FOR HIM, BECAUSE IT IS A VOTE FOR THIS TO CONTINUE, AND IT IS HARMING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. READ THE TRANSCRIPTIONS, AND DOCUMENTATION, WHERE ELSE IN LIFE DO YOU TOLERATE THIS?
***************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************************************
Tainted history collided with recent handling of drainage ditches at the September board meeting, and one of the board dancers of fact was McMillin. I'll report the whole story in another article, but I admire the resident who did a great job of bringing his issue to light, and standing his ground. I wish he were running for board!
The transcriptions below actually cover facts from 2012 into the double talk of this board as it relates to governing documents, expertise, and whose best interests are being served. Oh, and after spending illegally (against our governing documents) $7,950 to remove trees felled from Hurricane Matthew on private CANAL LOTS, I can't wait to write the article about the Hurricane Matthew tree that fell in the ditch noted above, and who the board stated has to pay, and it wasn't the association. I've never seen exceptions in the governing documents giving special consideration to PRIVATE CANAL LOTS, but your board did. You other guys - FORGET ABOUT IT, NO EXCEPTIONS FOR YOU. I'll write the ditch/tree article soon. In the meantime let's see how we all got to this miserable place.
More transcriptions & bidding files found more than questionable, reported in June 2013. This time it is drainage.
I reviewed records to day at the office. Follow the drainage mess. Maybe you'll have questions about who pays for lot maintenance and who doesn't.
FROM THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2012 MINUTES:
Drainage:
"Al reported that due to the recent heavy rains some residents were contacted to discuss
problems and responsibilities. Most dealt with WPA responsibility to correct problemsyears ago.
Al stated several policy sections on the property owner keeping their ditches clean.
Letters will be sent to owners to clean ditches, if lot owners do not participate in this
effort there is very little the drainage committee can do."
THESE ARE HIS ACTIONS RECORDED IN THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 2013 MINUTES:
"He has received 2 bids for the ditch clearing at the Enclave. Al then made a motion to approve
DE&GC, Inc. for the ditch clearing at the Enclave not to exceed $1,200. 2nd by Bob Garrison.Motion passed with 8 ayes and 1 abstains from John McBride."
HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPTION FROM THE TAPE OF THE APRIL 16TH MEETING:
"The other thing is we've gotten TWO BIDS ???for the cleaning of the ditches and the road ways on the Enclave. The end of Frances Parker, the new section and Joanna Gillard. One of the problems there is that the mowers can't get in there and mow the berms adequately and we have a problem with drainage because it backs up in these because of all the weeds and the trees and of the two bids I got, one was from Great Lawns for $1,100 and one was DE and GC (hard to hear company initials), and theirs was for $1,080, and I've drawn up a contract which they have signed and they have are waiting for our approval."
Wait a minute. A few months ago, this same board allowed McMillin to refuse to get bids for the clearing of the spoil site, drag the spoil site management away from Water Amenities, and call on a clause in the Great Lawns contract that allows him to give them "like work". How does this board approve that, not use CONSISTENCY, and ask for bids outside to perform work to enable them to mow??????? This is more of a situation of "like work" than the crazy move made by the board prior to this. Now for $20 THEY GIVE THE WORK TO ANOTHER UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR?????????
McBride, "Did people buy these lots?" DeMarchi, "These lots are owned by individuals and corporations and things like that." Good, let them pay for the problem. DeMarchi recorded in the minutes that ditches were the residents problem, but now it is his road and where he built homes for lots he sold. When questions arise from the board table President Walton shuts them down and Garrison helps. McBride, "and they bought there knowing .....Their not responsible?" President Walton, "That is part of ......roads. We're talking about........The lots are not mowed and what we're trying to .... is just the right way.....part of drainage." Portions of what all President Walton said were difficult to hear. Someone else says, "It is not private property?" DeMarchi, "Another thing, you said these people bought those lots knowing this. No, WE didn't. WE did not buy those lots knowing that because WE....those lots were all owned prior to any of the infer structure or roadway going in. MY house OK, set almost2 feet above the old road. When Grand Strand Engineering got done they wanted water to flow up hill and they took....took ME 430 cubic yards of dirt to put MY house up to street level" President Walton, "This is the same area...Larry was it last year we had to regrade because...." McMillin, ...problems where those 3 new houses...We may have to do some of that out in that other area President Walton, "Now once that is taken care of then the property owner maintains that to the road, but right now they're not maintained lots......" Why do some owners have to maintain and others not? Garrison, "We consistently, you know this...clean or re-cutting of ditches, or drainage ditches along a number of streets....This is a situation where you can't begin to get there. If we get this other stuff out of the way...know what you want to do in terms of...." Too many begin to speak at the board table. Hard to understand. What is interesting is that the president doesn't pound the gavel. President Walton, "foot and a half of water always".
McBride, "The reason I bring this up is because I know for a fact that you helped with drainage, but we've also charged. I remember I was on the board...We were doing grading. We charged them $2.00 a foot to clean their ditches out. Ended up to be $4,000 and they were charged $4.00 a foot." Someone on the board cuts in but what they say can't be heard on the tape. McBride continues, "They were charged for it. That was the ditch work. You say we need to be consistent. Be consistent, better to go back and say consistent....where and why....something also doesn't understand either." McBride is shut down by President Walton who says, "I THINK WE'VE GONE BEYOND WHAT THE ACTUAL MOTION WAS....JUST GETTIN TO WHERE OUR GROUNDS CREW CAN MOW." DeMarchi, "It is going to have to be regraded John. It ...the roads where water sits there for a day or two. It get under that road an...lucky haven't had a hard winter...way to destroy roads." McBride, "Got that on Swamp Fox." President Walton, " ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND." Your board all vote yes except for McBride, who abstains.
During the May board meeting DeMarchi brings another project for this area to the board table. He announces that 5 or 6 drainage committees have been wrong and HE IS GOING TO FIX IT. When questions arise again, no one at the board table really listens. Which time in the records, minutes was DeMarchi accurate? We are quoting his own words and his own minutes. Could it be because it is his property. His own words, MY and WE as it relates to the property owners.
I visited the office today to review records. I had asked to review the following in regard to the $1,080 contract award: The Request For Bid Specs, The Contract, and The Bidders response. I was provided the bids and the contract. When I asked our secretary where the request for proposal was I was told that these were the items she had been provided. I asked if she knew whether it was a sealed bid process. She couldn't say. Review of the bids left me wondering whether one of the bidders had been assisted in his bidding.
HERE IS WHAT THE BIDS REVEALED:
Great Lawns of Georgetown submitted a bid on March 18, with a note that said they had met and discussed the work with DeMarchi. The bid was for $1,100.
There is a bid from DE&GC, originally in the amount of $1,160.00. Then there are scratch off areas with initials, and the bid drops to a total of $1,085.00. A contract is written and when the invoice is submitted for payment, it is submitted for $1,160.00. Again there are cross off and initials and the total due changed to $1,085.00.
It could appear that the second bidder was assisted in lowering their bid just below the first bidders price. Interestingly, The bidder thanks Wedgefield for "considering us for YOUR LOT MAINTENANCE needs.
Where is the WPA consistency in the bidding process? Where were the written request for proposal specs? Why sealed bids on some things, and others not? Why wasn't the clause called on that McMillin used to avoid bidding on the spoil site, in the Great Lawns of Georgetown contract? Additionally, the contractor includes this "along Francis Parker Road, total of 35 lots. Also along Joanna Guillard, total of 23 lots." HMMM, some lot owners pay for their lot maintenance and others not. Does it just depend whether you live on DeMarchi's road, or a road he owned lots on, and sold and built houses on?
