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!
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?
YES, IT IS STILL THERE
