OUR GROUNDS CHAIR DISCUSSES THE BUILDING OF A STORAGE SHED - HOW CAN HE, AND YOUR BOARD EVEN CONSIDER IT? PREPARE YOURSELF BECAUSE YOUR BOARD PASSED THE 2015 BUDGET, AND IT INCLUDED THE COST OF ERECTING THE SHED. DOES ANYONE ON THIS BOARD READ THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, OR BUDGETS, BEFORE THEY VOTE ON ANYTHING? WHO KNOWS, AS WILD AS THINGS GET IN WEDGEFIELD, MAYBE THE GROUNDS CHAIR WILL DECIDE WE NEED TO BUILD A GREENHOUSE TO SAVE MORE MONEY!

The Wedgefield Examiner has prepared the following report to the best of my ability.  I attended the February 16 WPA Board Meeting, and took notes.  I highly recommend that you go to The Wedgefield Times, and listen to the tape of the meeting to verify information for yourself.  This report is part one, of a two part, Grounds report.  COMMENTS will be provided in RED, and noted as such.

Grounds Chair, McMillin starts this segment by saying that he has felt for many years that we need a maintenance storage building.  Instead of buying 30 - 40 bales of pine straw at a time, he could buy in quantity, saving delivery charges, etc.  We could store old files, and holiday decorating items in it too.  He goes on to report that he built $6,500 in the 2015 budget for that purpose.  He would like to erect a 20ft. X 26ft. metal building, on a cement slab, with a 9ft. X 7ft. overhead door, and a side door.  He acknowledges that his budget falls a little short, but the whole thing could be completed for $6, 810.50.  He would place the building in the middle of lot 178, which is located behind the office.  He has been to see representatives at Georgetown County, and the permit would be a little more than he anticipated as it is viewed as COMMERCIAL.  He is not seeking approval now, as he knows he will have to go through ARC, and fill out paperwork.

Garrison said that he would like to point out, aside from other reservations, that this was not the place to store files.  Cline agreed.  McMillin said the attic of the office building is full.

COMMENTS:
As I spoke during resident comments, I asked the board how they could even entertain this when you, or I, could not erect this building on a vacant lot, if we owned one.  I also thought since it had gone this far, that residents whose back yards are adjacent to the proposed building site, should be considered.  Who would want that in their back yard?  I also asked why the board had bothered to negotiate a contract/lease with a utility with land at the end of Governor Johnston, pay for a gate, to store his grounds materials, and now this?   Garrison, agreed on the point that he, as a owner of a second lot, could not place this building on his vacant lot.  It should be noted, that I spoke respectfully, in tone, and manner.  During the time that I was speaking on this subject, our Grounds Chair, crossed his arms, made faces, and mouthed words - to disrespect a resident's  honest, open, legal, opportunity to speak to the board.  Just more of the lack of any professional behavior on the part of this board member.

Before we get any deeper into the comments, here is what our governing documents state about this situation.

FROM THE COVENANTS:
#5:  "The lot or lots described herein shall be used for residential purposes exclusively.  No structure, except as herein-after provided, shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one (1) detached single family dwelling and one accessory building which may include a detached private garage and/or servant's quarters, provided the use of such dwelling or accessory building does not overcrowd the site and provide further, that such building is not used for any activity normally conducted as a business.  Such accessory building may not be constructed prior to the construction of the main building."

#15:  "No trailer, tent, barn, tree house or other similar outbuilding or structure shall be placed on any lot at any time either temporarily or permanently."

In my not so humble opinion, the fact that this subject was even placed on the agenda, let alone on an approved budget, is just more condemnation, as to how far this board will allow our Grounds Chair to go.  Have any of them read the governing documents?  How did they approve this when they were drafting the budget, AND VOTING ON IT?  McMillin refers to the grounds budget, as his.  He often refers to the funds in it, as HIS money.  It is OUR MONEY.  He, and many on this board keep talking about taking this action, and that action to save us money!  Really??????  How does this building, and storing PINE STRAW realistically save us, any money, in ANY practical sense?

You have to buy, and pay for delivery on pine straw, for YEARS, to save us any money, on an investment of $6,810.50, plus taxes, insurance, and upkeep on a additional building, that appears to violate our governing documents.

McMillin, is out of control, and has been for a long time, while your board sits ideally by.  This is not the first time he talked about a maintenance building.  He was at it a few years ago.  He won't let go.  What do I mean?  He's wanted speed bumps at the front of the association, has built ridiculous cases for them at least three times.  The board has voted NO!  As recent, as last month, he started building a case again!

As to storing holiday decorations, I'd suggest that his committee pair down, clean out, and only buy what they can store.

McMillin's constant claims of saving money, just don't prove themselves out.  What he does do, as he is building his kingdom - landmarks at our expense, while ignoring our governing documents, is cut down the number of respectable people who would ever consider running for board, or ever wanting to serve as Grounds Chair.  The board is intended to govern, and oversee, not chop down the trees, or mow the lawn, etc.  We end the article with the first few sentences of the Bylaws regarding the powers of the board.

"Powers - The property and business of The Association shall be MANAGED by the Board of Directors, which may exercise all CORPORATE powers not specifically prohibited by the South Carolina Statutes, the Articles of Incorporation, or the deed CONDITIONS, COVENANTS & RESTRICTIONS."

No where does it say erect buildings, and do the hands on labor, while failing to govern.