NEW ARTICLE ADDED TODAY (Friday, May 9th) FOLLOWS THIS ONE. THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT

 

 

 



BOARD MEMBER DE MARCHI RUDELY REQUESTS A RETRACTION REGARDING HIS SELF SERVING POT HOLE REPAIR. HE DOESN'T GET ONE.

HERE IS DE MARCHI'S EMAIL.  COMMENTS FOLLOW IN RED

 

 

 





COMMENTS & ANSWER TO BOARD MEMBER DE MARCHI:

First, Board Member De Marchi, you claim you never read the blog.  My suggestion to you is that if someone "told" you about an article, you should read it for yourself, or go back to the individual who carried the tale, and tell them they were wrong, and possibly it was their attempt to stir up trouble, and you bought it hook line and sinker!  I attended the April WPA Board Meeting and while you reported the self repair of the pot hole on Francis Parker, near the King George intersection, you never reported who paid for the supplies.   The Wedgefield Examiner, NEVER reported who paid for it, because it wasn't mentioned in the meeting.

 

Please go back and read, 'ROADS, COLD PATCH, A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, AND WHEN COLD PATCH WAS RECENTLY USED IN WEDGEFIELD.  WHO GOT SERVED FIRST?  IT WASN'T THE GENERAL WEDGEFIELD POPULATION.  THERE IS STILL A BIG CONE IN THE POT HOLE NEAR THE FRONT GATE", published on Friday, May 2, 2014.  No where in the article does it state who paid for the cold patch for your self, could be viewed as unauthorized, repair of the pot hole on Francis Parker near King George.  It does ask the simple question of how much could it have cost.  The article does go on to state the real problem regarding the pot hole repair.  "It is disregard for line management and line authority, respect, and constant failure to act according to policy and procedure."  I stand by that regardless of your RUDE, attempt to be intimidating, email.  Perhaps you should retract your email!

 

I was unaware that a resident, and that's what you are, nothing more, when you take matters into your own hands, disregarding proper approval, could do what they want, when they want, in the manner they want, to common grounds.  After all, a cone placed in a pot hole that 40-50% of the residents have to travel on is sufficient to protect our "front end alignment".  As a board member are you recommending that each of the residents repair, fix, or alter any problem they see on common grounds?

 



WPA BOARD MEMBER MC MILLIN DECLARES PRIVATE LOT MOWING IN 2013 WAS NOT SUBDIDIZED. INFACT, HE CLAIMS THERE WAS A PROFIT. DE MARCHI, CLINE, AND GARRISON QUESTION HIM AND HE'S WRONG. IN FACT HE OWES SOME RESIDENTS A REFUND - PROBABLY MORE RESIDENTS THAN THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES

NOTE:  The following portion of the Grounds' Report was presented at the April 15, 2014 WPA Board Meeting.  The Wedgefield Examiner attended the meeting, listened to the tape again today, and is presenting the following to the best of my ability.  Please review the tape for yourself at the Wedgefield Times, to verify the information, for yourself.  The Grounds' Report begins at about 35.35 minutes into the tape.  DIRECT QUOTES WILL BE PROVIDED IN BLUE, UNDERLINED, AND IN QUOTATION MARKS.  COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED IN RED.

 

McMillin begins his report talking about plantings, a garden group, and a motion to spend funds.  He then moves to private lot mowing.  It is time for discussion to renew the second year of Great Lawns contract.  There is a caveat in it that allows for discussion and changes in the private lot mowing portion of the contract.  Note, last year the contract approval and signing was delayed.  Both Garrison and DeMarchi declared they didn't want to subsidize private lot mowing.  They gave credible figures.  If allowed to proceed in the world according to Mc Millin, we would be subsidizing private lot mowing.  After much discussion, the board voted, allowed Mc Millin to proceed, despite the fact that you and I would be subsidizing private lot mowing.  Go back to the 2013 tapes and listen for yourself.

 

We'll start with quotes from Mc Millin as he begins discussion of this subject during the April 2014 meeting.  Mc Millin, "  I did a little bit of research and there is a perception that we are subsidizing the lot mowing.  Do any of you have any idea how much the subsidizing might amount to?"  De Marchi, "I think it was about $17.00 a lot."  Mc Millin, "Well, that turned out not to be true, because I did some research.  I had looked up how many lot owners we had signed up for the services, how much they have paid, and how many site visits they ACTUALLY RECEIVED for the last year.  NONE OF THEM GOT AS MANY LOT VISITS AS THEY PAID FOR, and 3 heavily wooded lots that were unimproved.  These people responded to the letter that we sent to all the non residents and they thought they were going to get their lots cleared and maintained."  (Laughter)  Mc Millin continues, "So a letter was sent out to them....how much it would cost in addition to have their lots cleared and then they would be maintained on a regular basis for the $85.00.  None of the three responded."  De Marchi, "Did they pay $85.00?"  Mc Millin, "Yes, they did."  De Marchi, "Did you refund their money?  Mc Millin, "No we didn't."  De Marchi, "We should."  Mc Millin, "All right, that was one of my questions." (Comment - ???????)  Mc Millin continues, "So any how, if you total up what we collected from the property owners, we collected $1,845.00.  This was at a rate of....the wooded lots were at a rate of $80.00 each which was for a total of 4 visits during the season and there were 17 of those that had signed up.  There were 4 grassy lots that we maintained for some time.  We raised theirs to $100.00 and that was suppose to have been for 6 visits during the growing.  As I say NONE OF THEM got the total number visits they were suppose to because there was a clause in the contract - it was SUPPOSE to be as needed.  They weren't guaranteed that many visits.  It was SUPPOSE to be as needed."    ( Comment: Sounds like the contract with the residents wasn't written the way it was SUPPOSE TO BE and your board failed to provide what the contract actually said.  Later you'll get some of the individual numbers, as to how little people got, but Mc Millin attempted to declare a profit, when the board failed to live up to individual contracts with residents.  Shoddy contract development could be the reason they violate state law, and won't allow copies of contracts.)  Mc Millin continues, "So any how, we collected $1,845.00 from the property owners.  We paid Great Lawns a total of 50 visits, at a rate of $33.33, which comes out to $1,666.50.  So WPA actually made $178.50 off this deal.  SO WE DIDN'T SUBSIDIZE ANYTHING."  Cline, "OK, now I....so after we give back $85.00 times 3"  Mc Millin, "OK, we'll have a negative balance."

Mc Millin goes on to tell the board about 2 additional lots that are in bad shape.  He doesn't know who owns one of them.  He suggests for 2014 that the visits per lot be reduced to 4. Garrison asks whether 4 visits is enough.  De Marchi wants to know if all the residents under contract in 2013, whose contracts read 6 visits (grassy lots) or 4 visits (not cleared), how many did not received all of their mowings? Mc Millin starts to read from a chart, "

3 mowings
 4
 2 instead of
2 instead of
3 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of
2 instead of, etc."

Comments:  I stopped typing at this point.  You can listen to this sorry mess on the tape yourself.  I've transcribed the salient points.  Last year (2013), your board held up the grounds contract for months, first telling Mc Millin they wouldn't subsidize lot mowing.  Both De Marchi and Garrison went after Mc Millin, giving accurate loss figures, gave in, and voted with the rest of the board to allow us to subsidize private lot maintenance once more.  During that time, Mc Millin himself declared that it would only amount to about $2.00 per member.  Now, it sounds like the very people who signed these contracts were cheated, and he wants to declare a profit.  Thanks to Cline, Garrison, and De Marchi, at least three people will get their money back because they didn't receive any service at all.  What about the rest?

For those of you that are so concerned about your property values, why aren't you asking this board to quit fooling around and get the lots groomed, quit delaying the contract.  Living by a grassy lot (The owners are great!  They have had that lot mowed for years.), last year the weeds were over my knees before they started mowing.  This year, it is on it's way to the same. This board needs to be held responsible for their ridiculous contracting.  No wonder they want to hide their shoddy contracts!

A GRASSY LOT IN WEDGEFIELD ON 5/7/2014

NOW, MC MILLIN WANTS TO REDUCE THE MOWINGS TO 4???????

YES, IT IS STILL THERE

COULD THIS MAKE IT BETTER FOR MOTHER'S DAY WEEKEND?

 



 

A RESIDENT DELIVERS A "PROP" TO COVER THE UGLY CONE FOR THE MOTHER'S DAY WEEKEND VISITS

Today at about 4:00PM a resident, who wishes to remain in the background, delivered a iron structure with a Happy Mother's Day balloon and flowers.  The resident felt it might help obscure the ugly cone.  They want to remain unnamed, so as not to suffer the wrath of this board.  I'm use to it.  They make up rules, avoid state law after providing it to me, and quite frankly it doesn't keep me from doing what I need to do.  This is the resident's answer to the ugly cone, for the Mother's Day weekend.

OPP'S, THERE WAS A HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY BALLOON ATTACHED, BUT I COULDN'T GET IT IN THE PICTURE.

 

While I was trying to take the picture in the wind, a resident stopped, smiled, and asked what I was doing.  I asked them if they would like that cone out near them?  They responded, "not by my house."

 

 

If you are selling your home, wouldn't this be better than the cone that has been there for about 2 months?  We all want to maintain our property values.  Does your board really want to?

 



LATER TODAY, MAY 7, FROM THE APRIL WPA MEETING: MC MILLIN DECLARES PRIVATE LOT MOWING IN 2013 WAS NOT SUBIDIZED, INFACT HE CLAIMS THERE WAS A PROFIT. DE MARCHI AND GARRISON QUESTION HIM AND HE'S WRONG. IN FACT HE OWES SOME RESIDENTS A REFUND

IN THE MEAN TIME....... IT IS STILL THERE

 

IS THIS YOUR "ROAD" TO GREAT PROPERTY VALUES?





ROADS, COLD PATCH, A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, AND WHEN COLD PATCH WAS RECENTLY USED IN WEDGEFIELD. WHO GOT SERVED FIRST? IT WASN'T THE GENERAL WEDGEFIELD POPULATION. THERE IS STILL A BIG CONE IN THE HOLE NEAR THE FRONT GATE.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE  CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY VALUES -

THIS HAS BEEN SITTING IN ONE OF THE MOST TRAVELED ROADS IN THE ASSOCIATION FOR ABOUT 2 MONTHS (pot hole much longer).  YET, THE FIRST POT HOLE TO BE FIXED IS ON FRANCIS PARKER

Roads Chair, Anderson brought the board up to date on the projects his committee has been working on, during the April WPA Board Meeting.  To his credit, Anderson has stuck to proper engineered projects.  It has taken time, but is an improvement to the scattered, "we have the expertise" approach of the past.  As he finished the report, he was asked whether there was anything in the plans for pot holes.  He explained that he had reported on the planned projects, and that he didn't know enough about road repair.  DeMarchi told him that he could cold patch them. He further reported, that he, himself, had picked up the material and fixed a pot hole on Francis Parker, near the King George intersection.  He advised Anderson that he could provide him with some contractor names who could cold patch.  PLEASE LISTEN TO THE MEETING TAPE OF THE ROAD REPORT FOR YOURSELF.  I've relayed the report to the best of my ability.

COMMENTS:
It appeared that DeMarchi was making the Roads Chair aware of his own special project road work at the board table.  If so, how does DeMarchi get his hands into everything, regardless of committee chairmanship, the governing documents, etc.?  The man is everywhere.  No one at the board table asks him how he took the pot hole repair into his hands.  The pot hole just off the circle on Wedgefield Road, was mentioned at the board table in March.  A good 40 - 50% of the entire population of Wedgefield make that turn.  Once again, he takes care of Francis Parker first!  Some might ask, "how much could that have cost?  That's not the point.  It is the disregard for line management and line authority, respect, and constant failure to act according to policy and procedure. 

On April 23, 2014, the following Letter to the Editor, appeared in the Post and Courier.  I've removed the writers name.  I have no idea what this writer knows about roads.  He does possess observation skills.  Just as you and I do.  I have observed in the 10 years that I've been here, that poorly planned projects have lead to repeat fixes in the same road areas, and the roads of Wedgefield are all but half paved with cold patch.

As to the hole with the cone in it at the circle, that area was repaired in 2010 or 2011, when that board didn't want engineering and they knew best. 

HERE IS THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

RESIDENT SHARES LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST