A RESIDENT WRITES THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER, AND I RESPOND

The resident's letter follows.  As always, I've removed the resident's name, and any other information that might identify them.  If you would like to share a letter that you have sent to the board, or comment to the blog, you can email wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com

HERE IS THE EMAIL:

I have no objection to maintaining the canal even though it belongs to 

the state.  Logic tells me that we should be mowing the golf course 

even though it belongs to a third party and was abandoned.  It 

looks like hell.  We should also purchase or lease the pool & tennis 

court and operate and maintain them.  Annual assessment will need 

to go up big time but it's worth it.  Real estate values are going to take 

a big drop if we continue sitting on our hands.  When we moved 

here 5 years ago Wedgefield was a beautiful place.  We ate at the 

Manor House and swam in the pool.  Now it's all gone.  

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER RESPONDS:

We're of the same thought.  We've been here 12 years, and the golf course was closed at 

least 3 times , in bankruptcy, etc.  If I remember correctly previous figures have been 

1.4ml, 1ml, and now 500,000 to purchase.  I feel that if we don't all put our minds 

together, and open conversation amongst all members - all who have a vested stake - 

our homes, we are just self destructive.  I believe our board, driven by some board 

members, has a agenda of it's own, and won't even bring it to the table.  In the least I 

believe information meetings to discuss what we might do, should be made available to 

every resident.  The topic - How Do We Save Wedgefield?  As to the assessments, if we 

were involved with the golf course, and canals, if there was a meeting, committees could 

be formed to investigate potential assessments, backed by realistic numbers.  If you 

have been following the blog, you'll note that that was done last time with the canals, 

and everyone was asked to join.  Those opposed, wouldn't even participate, but did run 

around publishing figures as high as $20,000 per member just to dredge the canals.  

Obviously, you should know now, that those were figures used to scare people, and 

divide a community.  We have 1-2 people on the board now, and some on critical 

committees, who were part of that ugly campaign.  One of them is the legal chair.

We all have some thinking to do. We are about to elect 4 more board members, during 

a critical time in Wedgefield.  Open minded people who want to save the PUD - 

Wedgefield  - all of it, need to put their name forward, and run for board.  Otherwise, 

we will continue to have closed governance, continued manipulation of our governing 

documents through a devious legal chair & chain of lawyers, and no service to the 

"good of Wedgefield".  There is no hope of progress if we continue as we are.  

DID YOU RECEIVE YOUR QUARTERLY WEDGEFIELD WRAGG? DIDN'T LEARN ANYTHING OF REAL SUBSTANCE? WHY?

I received my Wedgefield Wragg, yesterday, as I was preparing to head to town.  By the time my family handed me lists, keys, etc., I had read the Wragg.  Where's the content - valuable information -real updates?  For the most part, the publication was a waste of space.

I'm not criticizing the editor, the person who put it together, because you can only work with what you've got.  I served as editor of the Wragg for about 3 1/2 years, as a community volunteer.  During that time, I saw 4 different board administrations, but the development of the Wragg was the same throughout that period.  I'd be notified in advance that it was time to get another edition out.  The entire board would be notified of the schedule, including deadlines.  Each board officer, and committee chair would be asked to submit a report by a deadline. If I wasn't receiving reports from certain committee chairs, the president got involved.    All reports to me were typed as written.  A draft Wragg would be sent to every board member for review, and comment.  Did each of the reports represent the actions of the board?  Often, reports were edited, and changed.  The final copy, prior to delivery to the printer, was reviewed by the board one last time.   There was often so much information that the printer, and I would discuss how small we could make the print, and make it readable by the average member.  Often, we would have to add more pages.  No more!  

Our governing documents require that the Wragg go out quarterly.  This is a good board's opportunity, to provide information to every member.  Many of our members aren't at meetings, and this permits a quarterly update, an opportunity to share with all,  the undertakings of the board.  Apparently very little has been done, according to the Wragg.  Really, very little in real administration, has been done from the board table, and the undertakings of the board under, and behind the table won't be written about in the Wragg.

We did learn a few unintended things through omission, if you are an observer of this board's game.

*DRAINAGE:  Our drainage chair reports "All major drainage projects have been completed along with the three sinkholes which occurred after the heavy rains.  All projects came in under budget.  After the last sinkhole was repaired, the contractor notified WPA that the original galvanized steel pipes which are approximately 40 + YEARS OLD ARE DETERIORATING and will need replacement over the next few years.  THE RESERVE ACCOUNT for drainage will not provide for this project.  The overall scope of the project should be evaluated by an experienced contractor/engineer to determine the extent of the required repairs and the order in which they will be performed.  Future assessments and their allocations to reserves will have to be reviewed."  Here is what we learn here by omission.  If you don't attend meetings, go to the office to review documents, and learn for yourself, they'll just keep you in dark, about key important items.  When bitten in the butt, you'll pay - "FUTURE ASSESSMENTS AND RESERVES WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED."  Go back to the blog, shift through the articles, and you'll find, that the drainage chair, and our president, have told us for years that they didn't need to pay engineers because between them they had the EXPERTISE.  Your entire "cohesive" (a word this board likes to use in describing themselves) board sat back and voted time after time for projects that popped into the drainage chair's head, failed to follow the reserve study that we paid for, which recommended several times that this board get engineering support, and professionals to handle their bid process, contract development, and project oversight.  In addition to that the drainage chair, who was also the treasurer, played with the reserve study recommendations of fund assignment percentages for reserves.  We have had several half assed projects that ate up our funds, without following a comprehensive plan.  So members, as a resident recently wrote to the blog regarding the isolation canal meeting, "Bend over folks, you and your wallet are about to get screwed"  It should be noted that the drainage chair/treasurer recently resigned, and this was his last report.  Just maybe you would have begun to question, if you had attended meetings, vague as they are, and researched in the files in the office .

*WATER AMENITIES:  I'm not going to pull the language of the report in.  It has little substance.  Briefly, we're told who will tow boats for the landing area, and we need our stickers on cars parked at the landing.  Here is what we learn here, if we have been paying attention.  The committee did not want to report on the meat of their work for the last several months - getting quotes, and bids on a maintenance dredge, and preparing to launch a meeting for some canal lot owners (They haven't even invited all of them).  According to what was stingily announced at the board table during the July board meeting, the Wragg had not yet, gone to press.  Don't you think that it would have been important to notify the ENTIRE association that a meeting of canal lot owners was going to be held?  By the way, I don't believe that the water amenities committee did not have a date until that evening.  As a past editor of the Wragg, I know that that information could have been inserted.   This is just plain old don't tell them, we got this, as in I'll wash your back, you'll wash mine.

VICE PRESIDENT REPORT:  We'll pull a few things from the report.  Direct quotes will be underlined, and in quotation, because I'm going to skip some of the unnecessary fluff.  "There have been some questions regarding the state of the golf course and pool."  Yes, there have been questions from the floor, during the resident comment section of the meeting.  The part that interests me the most is, "There is currently no consideration for the WPA to take over control, operation or purchase of either the golf course or the pool."  It should be understood that I'm not advocating for any of this, except that I do believe the community should be called together to discuss how they feel, and what might be done, because we have no assets left in anyone's back yard, - functional canals, or golf course.  Additionally, people have had genuine questions, and concerns about property values, and unfulfilled promises, at sale.  What is more important, our vice president tells us there is no consideration.  That is the clue.  How is it that he can say that?  When did the board discuss it at the board table presenting the problems, possible solutions, get resident input on a critical issue with information meetings like the illegal canal information meeting, and when did they vote no action?  I've either been at the meetings, listened to the tapes, or reviewed the minutes, and nothing has been handled from the board table in our behalf.  Yet, a proclamation is made by our vice president/legal chair, as though it is gospel, and he gets to decide. I guess either the entire board doesn't proof the Wragg, or they just continue to allow things to happen, and play dumb to honest, open governance, in our decaying community.

Perhaps, you should consider running for board, and help make Wedgefield a community to be proud of physically, ethically, openly, and honestly.

  

THE PLOT THICKENS ON THE CLOSED CANAL MEETING

The article will be short, but not so sweet.  The isolation canal lot meeting that violates good governance, WPA governing documents, and ignores information sharing to all residents, with board, and committee present, grows darker.  There appears to be an attempt to keep some canal lot owners in the dark.  As a canal lot resident, I received my invitation earlier this week, dropped at my door.  I've received notice from some canal lot owners who live out of state, who have received their invitation/notice via mail.  Yet, after posting my invitation notice on the blog, I've received word from 3 canal lot owners, who live here, that they haven't been noticed at all.  This whole meeting, and the way it has been set up is a mess - legally, and ethically!  Stay tuned, if possible your board, and committee is taking this governance to a new low.

A VIEW FROM BEHIND - ANOTHER RESIDENT WRITES ABOUT THE CANALS, AND MEETING

The Wedgefield Examiner has received another email regarding the canals.  As always, I've removed their name.

If you would like to share your letters to the board, or just write the blog, here is the address:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

HERE IS THE EMAIL:

"Why should Wedgefield residents pay to clean up a canal while

 canal residents continue to dump their yard trash and other 

crap into the canal.   They even dump Xmas trees.   Bend over 

folks, you and your wallet are about to get screwed.  Private 

meeting canal people and the board; bend over again."

HERE IS THE INVITATION TO THE CANAL MAINTENANCE DREDGEING MEETING - WHILE IT IS EVERY MEMBERS BUSINESS, LESS THAN 1/5 OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS GET INFORMATION THAT IS A CONCERN TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE WEDGEFIELD COMMUNITY

This invitation, admitting less than 1/5 of a community, at a time when every one is concerned, flies in the face of good governance,  our governing documents, and community!  Your Water Amenities Committee has obviously been working under the table in secret, rather than from the board table.  Recently, a resident wrote the following to the board:

"I want to express my concern about the canal lot owners meeting, this meeting should and must be opened to all WPA members as we are a community group and the canals and golf course affect all of us. If the meeting was a meeting to discuss the purchase of the golf course, would it be fair to only invite golf course lot owners? The canals and water access should concern all members, It should be there option to attend or not.  I try to listen to all of your meeting recordings online to keep abreast of what is happening in the community. Prior to this meeting notice the water amenities comm. has not mentioned a dredge in over two years in their reports, But it seems things have been going on in secret there and not being reported. This is not the way an organization should be run."

That says it all!  Wake up Wedgefield, and write your board.  Do not call the board, write them so that there is a record.  You are welcome to share your letters, or concerns on the blog by emailing:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name, and any information in the email that could indicate who you are.

HERE IS THE INVITATION:

ANOTHER LETTER TO THE BOARD, COPIED TO THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER. WILL YOU WRITE THE BOARD, AND SHARE IT WITH THE BLOG? IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WRITING THE BOARD, AND BEING TARGETED, OR MISTREATED, WRITE THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER, WE'LL SHARE IT, AND PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY. IT IS TIME TO CARE, SHARE, AND GET THE WORD OUT

Here is the member letter.  As always, names, addresses, have been removed to protect the writer.  After reading the member letter, you'll note that The Wedgefield Examiner has responded to the writer (see below).  That doesn't indicate agreement by the member of my response.  It is simply my response.

Subject: canal meeting
To: wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com 

Dear Board of Trustees,

                

                    My name is (removed) and I am the owner of the lot at (address removed). I purchased this canal lot three years ago with the hope of building a home in this lovely community. I live in the state of (removed) and have watched my property value sink over that time. My property is now up for sale without any interest from the public.    

                  My purpose for writing today is two fold. I want to express my concern about the canal lot owners meeting, this meeting should and must be opened to all WPA members as we are a community group and the canals and golf course affect all of us. If the meeting was a meeting to discuss the purchase of the golf course, would it be fair to only invite golf course lot owners? The canals and water access should concern all members, It should be there option to attend or not.  I try to listen to all of your meeting recordings online to keep abreast of what is happening in the community. Prior to this meeting notice the water amenities comm. has not mentioned a dredge in over two years in their reports, But it seems things have been going on in secret there and not being reported. This is not the way an organization should be run.

                  Secondly, yesterday I discovered a several pictures of my lot on the wedgefield  blog. I do pay the WPA to have my lot mowed, and was surprised to find my lot being used to show bad lot conditions. Please correct both of these situations.

Thank you

MY RESPONSE TO THE WRITER:

Thank you so much for your letter.  You'll note that I publish, but remove all indicators 

of who the person is.  I don't believe that I am militant, but I can't stand lies, and cover ups.  My hope with the blog has always been to bring the truth, supported by the board's words - transcription, and visits to the office for document copies that I legally have a right to under our governing documents, and state non profit law.  When they (board) deny me copies, but allow review, I simply sit, and hand copy. The blog purpose is to open eyes, and for residents to take action by writing the board, standing up at meetings, and question in the open, etc.

We are in a huge mess, and this board - many of the members on second, and third terms, has caused such an apathy, and fear of becoming a target of their displeasure, that we have now reached the lowest numbers of people voting, attending meetings (usually less member 

attendance, or barely over the 9 count of actual board members), or even members offering

 to have their name placed on the ballot to run for board.  This board has lawyer shopped to

 the point that there is no justice here, and a fear of the courts, and lawsuits.  The conditions

 here are caused by failure to call the board out, and get involved.  Right now, every asset of the community is in jeopardy - canals, golf course, and the very basic maintenance of community.

I thank you for mentioning the board recordings.  You probably have had to listen to the 

tapes on The Wedgefield Times website.  Your board hasn't posted the recordings in months.  I personally think that they are afraid of their own words being out there for the residents who 

don't attend meetings.  We all need to be grateful to the webmaster for The Wedgefield Times, 

for his service to our community, by proving them.

As to the lot conditions on your street, most of the lots, 4-5 are owned by good members like yourself who have tried to do the right thing - pay the WPA to mow.  I take pictures on that 

street often, and they are all a mess!  In regard to your lot, now that I know for sure which 

one it is, I was told by a resident near you that it hasn't been mowed in months!

Thank you so much!  Let's hope that in allowing me to publish your letters, and others, that 

other concerned residents, will share their letters with the blog.  Why?  Not to promote the 

blog, but because I have been following the efforts of another member who has been on a 

7 month journey to get answers from ARC Committee, and the board.  He has written the 

board three times, and his first letter was on file for months, and never mentioned, included 

in the board official minutes - as others are.  When he stood up at a meeting, and asked 

about his correspondence, he wasn't treated well by the board.  When he got an answer to his question, he told the board it was "bogus", and failed to follow our governing documents.  

He has asked for reconsideration of the problem.

The story must continue to get out, before we can ever hope to help our community.

WHY HASN'T ANYONE FROM THE BOARD, OR THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE, CALLED ON THE OBVIOUS, AND PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THE CANAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING?

Wedgefield members, why when all Wedgefield assets canals, golf course, and general maintenance, are all at risk, is the board, and Water Amenities Committee, rushing to act now?  The run up to the maintenance canal dredging, is secret - ONLY canal lot owners, promotes division in the community, and is tangled with suspicious legal moves, as to who would have to pay.

Canal lot owners paid the unbelievable sum of over $160,000 for the permit that allowed the first dredging, and included a maintenance dredge.  It was expensive, hard fought, and expires in 2019.  You can easily understand concern for letting it expire, and not getting the full benefit of the permit terms - another dredge.  The canals are in bad shape.  Storms, extreme flooding, have expedited the silting.

There is a common sense action that would slow the train, consider every land owner, and give members a chance to weed through the legal, unscrupulous twists, and manipulation of this board.  The answer is painless.  SEEK TO LEGALLY EXTEND THE PERIOD TO MAINTENANCE DREDGE ON THE CURRENT PERMIT.  It is legally acceptable, but must be filed within a certain time frame, specified in the current permit.

In the mean time, as gracious as the invitation is to attend the canal lot owners meeting is, I will not attend this - illegal meeting of the canal lot owners, board, and Water Amenities Committee  in August.  It is about time that we are ALL, or none, until this board steps up, and does the right thing.  There is a practical solution to the current terms of the permit.

ANOTHER LETTER FROM A MEMBER

Here's another letter to The Wedgefield Examiner from another resident.  I've removed the name, and street address to protect the owner.

To

wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

Today at 1:00 AM

 

Hello Ms. Claveloux, My name is (removed), I wrote to you a few years ago. 

I am the owner of (removed) Road. This is the lot next to the large lovely home on 

(removed) ( the lot to the left of the large house from your side of the canal) and I believe 

this is the lot across the canal from your home. I do live in (out of state) and have owned 

the lot for about three years. I have not seen the property since the spring and pay 

the WPA to mow the lot. Before I call the WPA and complain I just wanted to confirm 

that the pictures on the blog are my lot. Please confirm this for me. I appreciate all you 

do for the residents of wedgefield and am concerned about the community I once choose 

to build my future family home. After seeing and hearing (from you ) the many problems 

with the way the community is being run I placed the lot up for sale about a year ago without 

any interest at this point.

Please confirm for me that this is my lot on the blog. If it is my lot my voice will be heard!!!   

Thanks again for all you do. Congrats on the 55000 and know that I'm probably good for 

about 1000 views myself.

AS PROMISED, A REPEAT OF ARTICLES COVERING YOUR BOARD'S QUESTIONABLE HANDLING OF INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT SETTLEMENTS - NOT RULINGS. CANAL LOT OWNERS MAY WANT TO REVIEW BEFORE THEY ARE DRAWN INTO SUSPICIOUS DISCUSSION AT THE UPCOMING CANAL DREDGING MEETING. YOUR BOARD'S ACTIONS SMELLED THEN, AND THEY REALLY STINK WITH THIS MEETING

ARTICLE ONE PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 5, 2015
BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO READ, PLEASE NOTE THAT IT MAY BE A LITTLE MESSY, I'M FED UP.

The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following information to the best of my ability, from review of records, and my notes, taken during a scheduled visit at the WPA.  While the law covering records review, provided the ability to have copies of requested documents, I did not request copies, as my board, your board, have denied them in the past.  To confirm the detail provided below, I suggest that you write the board, and request a date and time to review The orders -2, signed by Referee Beverly, in 2013 and 2014, regarding the litigation, against the canal lot owner who refused to pay the dredging assessments.

I visited the office today at the scheduled time, and was provided most of the detail that I had requested.  I’d like to thank Board Member Cline, for her efforts in gathering the documents, and arranging for a comfortable place to review, at what has to be a very busy time.  In this article, I will focus on two documents in particular, two orders, signed by Chip & Hal Beverly.  The orders focus on the litigation of members, at times one, at another two, who failed to pay their canal related dredging assessments.  Both live on the canals, and to protect their rightful privacy, will be titled A & B members.

It should be noted that these cases have been hanging, almost since the beginning of the dredging, which took place in 2010.  Details of which each owed, is insignificant to this particular article.  It appears to me, to become and issue of principle, sound judgment, and open honest governance.

I am not a lawyer, so bear with me.  It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments.  The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.  This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed.  Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment.  Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.

“Therefore, I find that the plaintiff acted with proper authority when it maintained and assessed the canal assessments”

#13 of the order.  “Regarding the assessment of fees, section 3331-302 (15) of the South Carolina Code (2006) states in Part, “(E) every corporation has…the same powers as an individual…to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out it’s affairs including without limitation, power…to impose dews, assessments, and admission and transfer fees upon it member… “The Covenants and By-laws of the Plaintiff run with the land and are binding upon all persons, firms, and corporations owning any interest in the lands within Wedgefield Plantation Association.  The language of Article IV of the By-laws, particularly Sections 2 and 4 give the Plaintiff wide discretion in levying Individual Assessments and using the Individual Assessments. For the payment of common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes necessary or desireable in the opinion of the board of directors for the general benefit of the subdivision.”

#11 “The Master Deed and By-laws, together provide among other things that 1) The owner of each lot shall be personally liable to the Assoc.  for the payment of all regular and individual assessments levied by the Association and shall be personally liable for interest.”

From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees.  It appears, one member paid.  We’ll call him A.  That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”

Go back to my letter to the board.  I requested documents that would have showed me what was happening after order one, and before order two.  They weren’t provided.  I asked for all related invoices, defendant lawyer, or member correspondence, etc.  They might have provided insight to the road traveled.  We can’t rely on the minutes of meetings, in my humble opinion they have been sanitized.  I attend most board meetings, and for the most part, little to nothing was said from the board table, between the two orders.  The next order relative to this case, is signed almost a year and a half later, and reverses the decision regarding Individual Assessment - $5,000 to canal lot owners, only.

The second order is signed on October 30, 2014, by CHIP Beverly, Special Referee  Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment.  Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.

“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A.   VALIDITY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASE  I find that the Board of Directors’ decision to levy an annual assessment increase is an intra vires act and the purpose for the increase (canal dredging) is within the sound business judgment of the Board.  It is reasonable for the Board to construe canal dredging  as a preservation of property values, safety, and aesthetic appeal of the subdivision.  It matters not that the canals are not Association common area property because the dredging could still be construed as a benefit to the association at large.  WPA is entitled to judgment and foreclosure against the Defendants in the annual assessment Increase, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of collection, and interest.

B.   Validity of the five thousand dollar Individual Assessment The association is bound to follow the covenants and its own bylaws.  Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass’n V. Pellzer, 292 S.C. 343, 348, 356 S.E. 2d 411, 414 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987) (reversing judgment against a homeowner for non payment of assessments on the basis that the association had no authority to levy flat fee annual maintenance charges where the governing documents required charges to be based on property values).

In addition to Annual assessments, the By-laws for WPA provide that individual assessments may be levied by the Board.  These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by the Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.  The Restrictions themselves do not mention individual assessments.

The strict parameters for which an individual assessment may be levied indicate that the board was without express authority to levy individual assessments for the purpose of canal dredging.  Individual Assessments are limited to costs for keeping up lots.  Clearly the canals are not within the bounds of individual lots.  As it relates to the Individual Assessment of Five Thousand Dollars, I find for the Defendants.”

After I took my notes, and went home, I sat and reviewed my notes.  I am still left wondering about too many things.  First, notice Chip & Hal Beverly.  I assumed two people, maybe in a partnership.  I asked myself why our board after the first order, would go back and pay again.  They had won!  Both assessments stood.  I went to the computer and looked for Hal & Chip Beverly.  It isn’t two people.  Hal’s nick name is Chip.  What would cause a board to go back to the same person, who gave an opinion, justified it, and they won, who is now writing a new opinion on Individual Assessment, and they lose a large part?  My only thought is that someone, or more, who moves the board HERD around, convinced them, that they had to do it.  

There is a larger HERD, led by some on this board, - members, enough of them, that we have such apathy, that we don’t question, we don’t go review documents, we take half truths, reports from the board table that have little or no information – long absences with no updates, and let it be.  

One of the two members sued, paid the $5,000.  One was robbed because he believed he had to, or lose his home.  It could appear, that the second, had contacts on the board, and was involved with their Agenda.  If this one didn’t have to pay, why did the other, and what about the 78 other canal lot owners who paid.  I forget myself.  When word got out that one didn’t have to pay, and some of us asked for our money back , it was stated that the time had run out for us.  No one, would answer as to what law, etc.  This board answers to no one, just dances to the music of their own hidden agenda.  I believe that we deserve answers to just exactly how the second ruling was allowed to happen.  Garrison & DeMarchi, during a board meeting  October 2014,  with little or no information provided, kept calling Beverly a judge, like a judge, the power of a judge, when actually he was a referee, who each side would have had to pay him his fees.  No judge calls for a board to vote, on an outcome!  We were paying this judge?????, for a second time to violate his first ruling.  This should have gone to court if the member & his lawyer wouldn’t pay, after the first settlement.  

Before I finish, I should note that Beverly died.  I’ve nothing against him.  I resent this board’s denials of fact by hiding information that should be available under the law, failing to offer full – if any information at meetings, and individual board members who sit by raise their hands and vote yes, either without demanding information, or turning a blind eye to the great deviance of the actions of this board,, that robs us of good, sound, fair governance.

Write the board, and ask to see these documents, ask where all the documents are?  Ask individual board members how they could have voted for this second go around, with a REFEREE that wrote the first one, and was about to turn the first order up side down..

ARTICLE TWO, PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2015
've prepared the following information to the best of my ability.  To verify for yourself, please go to The Wedgefield Times (as soon as it is available), and listen to the tape of the WPA 2015 Annual Meeting, visit the WPA office, and ask to review the 2 Beverly documents, and read the article  ""No Real Title For This, Let's Just Call It Injustice, At The Hands of The WPA Board", published on this blog on November 5th. If you don't read the article, you won't be able to follow today's piece, and it is important.

We'll start with some questions that can't be answered, unless your board opens up, and handles the situation with honesty, integrity.  
*Is forgery on a official document a crime?
*If forgery is a crime, and it is committed against your association, should your board make the members aware, and follow it up with a proper OPEN investigation, and refer it to the proper authorities?
*Why would a board go quiet, under the board table, on litigation, where it appears forgery took place, when the issue contained in the litigation, has rocked, and shredded our community twice?
*Why haven't you been following this board's actions, researching for yourself, and calling members of this board on their actions?

Here we go!  During the annual meeting, where we are advised that this is the one time during the year that we can participate, DURING the meeting,  people asked various questions from the floor, respectfully raising their hands, waiting for acknowledgement from the board table, giving their name and address, and presenting their question, or information, and getting feed back from the board.  I did all of the above.  One of my comments/questions related to the Beverly documents, requesting answers as to why the membership was not kept informed.  

I explained that I had reviewed the two documents.  It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments.  The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.  This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed.  From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees.  It appears, one member paid.  We’ll call him A.  That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”

During the annual meeting, I asked why we had to go, almost a year and a half later, and get a second ruling, from the SAME referee (both sides of the litigation have to pay the referee), when we had won?  At one point in my questioning, our Legal Chair, said something about not wanting to talk about it.  I said, we had a right to know.  It was explained that Hal L. Beverly, had NEVER SIGNED the document.  I reviewed the document.  His name is typed in, and the signature is in ink, and this document came from the WPA legal file.  Who gave the board the document? Who DID sign the document?  Who told the board it wasn't Beverly's signature?  When was the board informed?  Why  did this board vote in October of 2014 to go back and pay Beverly, again, for a new order, reversing half of the old order?  Why didn't your board notify the membership, and the solicitor, and the authorities, that they had a forged signature, on a document that was intended to serve as a legal decision, on an issue that has torn this community apart with each dredging?  Why didn't the board give resident "A", his money back, when they knew they had pressured the member, with a false ruling?


Where are you?  Why are you allowing this corrupt, blind eye, governance of our community?

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER CELEBRATES 55,000 VISITS TO THE BLOG IN LESS THAN 5 YEARS

The Wedgefield Examiner was established on November 1, 2011.  The development of the blog was driven by the fact that no one would seek information, verify fact, and put it out.  

*The dredging was completed, and meetings had been held under police security.

*The president of the board had punched a resident leaving the WPA office, after a meeting.  He was arrested, and jailed overnight.

*The president was video taping certain residents, and we were told the sheriff suggested it.  The sheriff supposedly denied it.
When I asked to review the tapes, I was told they were the property of the president, yet taken during our monthly meetings with the president directing the camera man to get that one.  

*The president, and a number of the board members publicly threatened two female board members with jail time.  The women were both business owners in the community.  The women hadn't done anything, like the video taping, it was a ploy of certain board members to force them to resign, so their vacancies could be filled by these foul board members.

*The president of the board requested that the paid office secretary erase a portion of the official meeting tape.  When questioned by one of the only decent board members, he finally confessed that he had made the request.  His plenalty?  He got moved to a different position on the board.  

*During my tenure on the board things got so bad that we had to have security at all meetings, because the group that had sued the board had people in the audience at every meeting, yelling, and threatening, and sneaking the press into our member only meetings.  Shortly after I was off the board, and a audience member who hadn't ever done anything during the meetings, I spoke out loud from the audience floor, when the president said something totally unacceptable from the board table.  One of the presidents co-horts called 911 and reported that Madeline Claveloux was inciting a riot during the WPA board meeting.  Not less than 3 sheriffs cars arrived.  The officers never spoke to me as they roamed the room.  I had no weapons, hadn't left my seat, and was over 60 years old.  The next day I went to the appropriate office, and asked to hear the 911 tape, and see the report.  There wasn't one.  Later, a board member told me that he was in the office when a officer called the board member, and told him NOT to ever call them again.  Pretty scary right?  Where else but Wedgefield could this happen?

There is more, and more, as bad and worse.  If you are new, or have forgotten, go to the bottom of the blog, and start reading in the archives.  The articles are formed from direct transcription from the meeting tapes, and documents.  Yes, opinions follow, but it is my blog, and I won't live this way without an attempt at informing, or making things better.  Such as it is, this is my home.  Do you know that when we went for depositions that the lawyers on the other side were having my blog printed out daily?  Afraid of being sued?  Not much, if you seek the truth, and document it the best you can, what can anyone do about it?  A few times this board has staged people to get up at the end of the meeting, and yell about the blog, and tell me that it has to come down.  It doesn't shake me up, because I consider the source, and if you live in squalor (legal squalor), and won't do anything about it, that is your problem, not mine.  I have often told the board that if they'd only do the right thing, I'd be able to close down the blog.  I don't see that happening soon.  So the count on the blog continues.  If you find it offensive, don't read it.  I just keep wondering why, if you find it offensive, you don't try to do anything about it.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't note, that three board members on the current board have been here since the inception of the blog, and have been co-horts to much of the few items listed above.  They are our legal chair, grounds chair, and president.  They don't stand up to the challenge.  They've become the challenge, and harass and get rid of any newbie's that might have helped change things.  The rest....they bring into the fold.

Stay tuned.

YOUR BOARD SAYS "NO" TO OPENING THE CANAL MEETING TO ALL MEMBERS! I WON'T BE ATTENDING THEIR MEETING - CIRCUS

HERE IS MY LETTER TO THE BOARD:

HERE IS THE BOARD'S RESPONSE:

July 23rd, 2016

Mrs. Claveloux,

I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. I have been very busy.

I am in receipt of your letter asking for the entire membership to be invited to the meeting of the canal lot owners. This meeting is NOT an official WPA function. We are breaking no covenants, bylaws, state laws or ethics. It is for the sole purpose of the owners of canal lots to decide if they, as a group, want to pursue a maintenance dredge and to discuss among ourselves what will be needed from this group to move the project forward. If the interest in the project among canal lot owners is low, then it all becomes a moot point. There is no reason to get the entire WPA involved until we can first discuss the project among the people it will effect the most. I find it odd that you would be in such strong opposition to a meeting like this  because while you were a board member I personally  recall attending several similar “private” canal lot meetings prior to the 2009 dredging.  I would ask that you reserve criticism of the meeting until you have heard the content.

Thank you for your interest and concern,

Community Liaison

Adam Anderson

First Mr. Anderson, you don't have your facts straight. I filled a board seat, after 6 board members resigned, and I was appointed to the board. My first board meeting was December 2008. My final board meeting was the annual meeting in November 2009. I moved here in 2004, and almost immediately began attending canal lot owner meetings, usually in homes of canal lot owners. Unlike your meeting, those meetings were not called by a committee of the board, with the board invited, and held at the regular meeting place of the board. During that time, canal lot owners were expected to pay for the dredging permit. My husband, and I were contributors toward the expense of securing the permit. The WPA board sued, save the wet lands groups sued, etc., all trying to halt the permit. We contributed to the degree we were asked every time, we were asked, and yes we attended meetings.

Your board has a maintenance dredge permit. Your committee, composed of many from the board, and I'm told even the Legal Chair sits on the committee, have reported ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, from the board table. Board, go read your own board minutes for the last year, and note that not once, do you tell the WPA membership the committee is seeking bids, funding plans, etc. Your board during resident comments, six to eight months ago, was asked by a canal lot owner what was being done about the maintenance dredge, and your Legal Chair, said there was no interest by the canal lot owners! The board has been asked since then. It appears it was a lie, because it also appears that the committee was doing a whole lot, but the resident peons were to be kept in the dark, until this board, and this committee deemed we should know.

As to what I did, or the board I served on did in this circumstance, I'm proud to show you. The official minutes that address the lead up to dredging during my tenure on the board, are provided at the end of this article. I was the board secretary, and the community liaison. Go through the minutes. You'll note the CLEAR, VERY DEFINED information EVERY MONTH IN THE CANAL REPORTS. YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE INFORMATION MEETING WAS OPEN TO EVERY RESIDENT! YOU'LL NOTE THAT THAT BOARD INVITED NON CANAL LOT OWNERS TO SIT ON THE COMMITTEES REPEATEDLY!

What may, or may not happen to one Wedgefield lot, let alone 79 lots, is the business of every lot owner in Wedgefield, any time, and all the time! Especially now when almost EVERY lot in Wedgefield is losing it's asset - canal, or golf course. For sure, it is the business of every lot owner when the BOARD, and a COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, won't operate in the open. Most of the 79 lot owners who are invited, have been kept in the dark, FROM THE BOARD TABLE. In any other case, when a committee of the board calls a meeting to provide information to the board, at the WPA office, it is called an OPEN MEETING, and all residents get to attend. Did our legal chair suggest you use the words NOT OFFICAL? It was announced from the board table, questioned by a non canal lot owner, and you said "NO" they couldn't attend. To keep people in line, not question, as usual this board intimidates! I'm not intimidated, I grew up being told to consider the source. This one, the board, isn't credible.  

I'm not attending the meeting, I wouldn't be able to believe a word that is said! I dare to say, that the reason the meeting is so closed is because YOUR BOARD LEGAL CHAIR, has cowed the board, and committee into his thoughts on how the dredging has to be paid for, and the less presented on record the better. There is NO ruling on anything as far as dredging! Your legal chair is not credible! I'll reprint the article on how he got those REFEREE SETTLEMENTS - one was forged, traveling through 5-6 attorneys, one of which was disbarred. Your whole board, and committee forget just who your legal chair is. His support as speaker, writer, organizer of the group, and the very 3 residents who sued my board, caused him to be countersued for his actions.

You may have seen me at meetings, often held with canal people, as I, and others worked to organize The Wedgefield Civic Group (not on the board at the time). You may have seen me at meetings, because YES you were at a lot of them, when I was gathering information to write for The Wedgefield Times (not on board). You may have seen me at meetings when I was speaking with others to raise funds to pay for the countersuit. You may have seen me at meetings in homes, getting papers signed by canal lot owners - waivers for the dredging. You have water behind your house, because I and others did the work! You have no right, no fact, and no credibility to ever say what you did! The committee composed of almost half this board, is as corrupt, and abusive as the board.


HERE ARE THE MINUTES I PROMISED FROM MY TENURE ON THE BOARD. I didn't publish the August minutes on. They are at times, almost 20 pages long. RESIDENTS, go to the old website for the WPA. You can get there by searching Wedgefield Plantation Association. Once there, tap "board reports", and then select 2009, and then the month. If you read what happened word for word, AS IT HAPPENED, you'll understand how critical it was to provide complete information.

CANAL REPORT DECEMBER 2008

9. Canals-Jude Davis
On November 20, 2008, Judge Anderson of the SC Administrative Law Court found in favor of Wedgefield Plantation Association and denied the SC Environmental Law Project’s appeal of the SC Department of

Health and Environmental Control‘s decision to grant us permits to dredge our canal system. He ordered DHEC to issue Water Quality and Coastal Zone Management Consistency permits, as they proposed in 2007, thus permitting maintenance dredging of the Wedgefield canals. These documents are now in the hands of the US Army Crops of Engineers, which should issue the actual permits in 2009 after a legally required Public Notice period.
In the meantime, we expect to reactivate the dredging funding subcommittee. It will begin investigating possible sources of grants, assistance, and other funding strategies. As there are still a few unpaid bills another solicitation letter was send to canal lot owners in early December. Our thanks to those who have contributed money, time, and expertise over many years and helped us reach this important milestone.
We expect to hold an open informational meeting sometime in early 2009 to recap the project to date and map out what the next steps might be. It will be open to all interested Wedgefield residents. 

CANAL REPORT FEB. 2009

Canal Report: Karl Gettman/ Mike Davis
On December 8, 2008, Heather Preston, Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), Division of Water Quality, issued the documents that will allow WPA to perform maintenance dredging of the Wedgefield Canal system, once published by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Attached are copies for the WPA files. Specifically included are 1)Certification in accordance with section 401 of the Clean Waters Act as amended, 2)Permit in accordance with the SC Code of Laws, 3)Construction in Navigable Waters Permit, and 4)Certification in Accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Program.
DHEC forwarded copies of these permits to the Corps office in Charleston last month and we are patiently waiting for formal issuance of the actual documents. Our Agent for the application, Bobby Riggs of Newkirk Engineering, is working with the Corps to try to

expedite the process. We understand however that a three to six month lag time is typical for routine permit issuance.
In the interim, the Canal Committee has several action items. The first is getting new firm bids for the project from interested vendors. In theory, the costs should have gone up since we got budgetary quotes in 2006. The current economic climate, lower fuel cost, and lack of business may actually result in lower bids. The second is reactivation of the “funding” sub-committee. This group’s mission is to investigate all possible funding strategies including seeking assistance from federal, state, and local agencies. We are also working with the WPA Webmaster to set up a Canal Committee sub page on the WPA website to post copies of all the important documents and Committee reports. Finally, we still are planning an open information meeting once the permits are received from the Corps of Engineers. It will recap the project to date and explore what the next steps should be and will be open to all interested Wedgefield residents.
On the legal issues, Judge Anderson of the SC Administrative Law Court issued an amended Final Order on January 22, 2009. A copy is attached for the WPA files. He modified his original order issued November 24, 2008 after the Environmental Law Project filed a motion for reconsideration. The fundamental findings were unchanged and he reaffirmed his order to DHEC to issue permits.
There are still some unpaid bills but we gratefully thank those who have contributed money, time, and expertise over many years and helped us reach this important milestone. 

CANAL REPORT MARCH 2009

Canal Report: Karl Gettmann/ Mike Davis
On March 9, 2009, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued permit number 2006-03476-41V to Wedgefield Plantation Association allowing periodic maintenance dredging of our canal system over a ten-year life span. I have attached a copy for the WPA office and files. As soon as a PDF version is available, it will also be posted on the WPA website.
Specifically the permit allows for expansion of the existing previously permitted spoils site on WPA-owed property, to a capacity of approximately 151,000 cubic yards by raising the perimeter embankment by 1.5 feet. It also permits with certain conditions an immediate maintenance dredging of approximately 99,000 cubic yards, which will establish a centerline depth of 8 feet below mean low water in the main access canals and 6 feet in the finger canals. Finally, it provides for subsequent maintenance dredging of approximately 30,000 cubic yards before the permit expires on March 31, 2019.
The Canal Committee met on March 15 to discuss several agenda items. First was whether the Canal Committee mission or “charge” needs to be redefined by WPA at this time. At various times since its inception in 2001, the Canal Committee was tasked with either “getting permits”, or “getting funding”, or some variation. We agreed to draft a set of recommended or suggested specific tasks or goals for the next phase of the canal dredging project, and ask the WPA Board to put it on the April meeting agenda as “new business”.
We believe the key tasks, as outlined last month, should be to:
1) Get up-to-date budgetary-only proposals from prospective vendors, to
assess the current cost of the project

2) 3)
4)

Restart the funding subcommittee, and charge them with exploring all possible scenarios for funding maintenance dredging before the Committee makes any specific proposals to the WPA Board.
Investigate the feasibility of "differential assessment". Our governing documents in one place imply that equal assessments are required, but they are contradictory and inconsistent. This may require advice from an attorney who is expert in HOA governance issues, and possibly a clarification to the Bylaws presented for consideration and voted on at the next annual meeting.
Hold an "informational meeting" open to all Wedgefield property owners, to present and discuss what options are available and possibly agree on one or more proposed plans of action.

Second was the issue of unpaid bills. Despite generous private contributions from many canal lot owners, there is a balance owed to McNair Law firm of Charleston. We agreed to have one last “fund drive”, now that permits are in hand, to try to raise enough money to close the books on this phase of the project.
Finally, we want to thank those who have contributed not only their money, but also time, expertise, and moral support over these last eight years. Your encouragement has helped us reach this important milestone, but it is just the first step in a still long and winding road. We recognize that restoring the canals is possibly the most contentious and difficult issue WPA will face over the next few years. We also believe our overriding mission is to find a way to get the job done in a way that is acceptable to the majority of Wedgefield owners, and without further litigation or malice. We are always open to constructive ideas on how to do that and look forward continuing the quest. 

APRIL CANAL REPORT 2009

Canal Report: Karl Gettmann requested Mike Davis give the report.
The WPA Canal Committee is holding an open informational meeting on Tuesday, April 28 at 7:00 PM at the WPA office. We will briefly recap the history of the project to date, outline the various steps needed to restore the canals and their associated costs, suggest several scenarios for funding the work, and most importantly solicit feedback from residents as to how to best get the job done without resorting to expensive and time wasting litigation. All interested Wedgefield residents are welcome.
In the last 30 days, the Canal Committee has gotten updated budgetary quotes from prospective contractors qualified to perform the various tasks needed to restore the Wedgefield canals. After on-site meetings with them, it is becoming apparent that there should be four distinct phases to the process:

1. Topographic resurvey of spoils site, hydrographic resurvey of canals, and preparation of Bid Specs and detailed engineering drawings
   
2. Site preparation, including restoring the old spoils basin and providing access
   
3. Hydraulic dredging itself, with oversight and management by 3rd party
   

4. Post-dredging cleanup and documentation; planning for future supplemental
maintenance dredging.
Now that the needed permits are in hand, the Canal Committee would like to move on to the next phase. To that end, we respectfully ask that the WP A Board tonight take the three following actions:
1. Reaffirm the Canal Committee as a regular standing subcommittee of the Water Amenities Committee. The "charge" of this group is to continue managing the technical aspects of the canal maintenance project, such as vetting of prospective vendors, development of specific action plans for WP A to consider, coordination of funded activities, and development of a 5 to 15 year plan for the long-term maintenance of the canals.
We propose the following members: John McBride, Mike Davis, Larry McMillin, John Walton, and Ed Wozniak. We also seeking at least two additional members, ideally non- canal lot owners, who may be named in the near future
2. Establish a "Canal Funding Committee" as a new sub-committee of the Water Amenities Committee. The "charge" of this group is to investigate all possible scenarios

for funding canal dredging, including but not limited to local, state, and federal grants, differential assessment strategies, voluntary contributions, and the establishment of a waterfront sub-association, with supplemental assessment rights. When this information is in hand, the Funding Committee will coordinate with the Canal sub-committee and prepare one or more action plans for the WP A Board to consider for approval and funding.
We propose Carolyn McBride to be leader of this group, and are actively seeking two or more additional volunteers. Candidates should be Wedgefield residents in good standing, ideally with grant writing or fund raising experience.
Both of these sub-committees, as part of a regular standing WPA committee should have access to WP A office support and be reimbursed for reasonable approved expenses such as postage, office supplies, and incidentals not to exceed an amount to be set by the Board for the balance of fiscal year.
3. Fund the first phase of the canal restoration project, i.e. the topographic resurvey of the spoils site, the hydrographic resurvey of canals, and preparation of bid specifications and detailed engineering drawings immediately. Time is of the essence here; in our discussions with prospective vendors, we determined that our project might be eligible for Recovery Act (stimulus) funds if we can make it "shovel ready" in the next quarter. We have given the Board copies of proposals from prospective vendors that range from about $30,000 to $57,000. We respectfully request that tonight you approve in principle funding in an amount not to exceed a limit you set which would permit signing a contrac1 with one of these contractors within the next 30 days, after review of three or more bid proposals.
While this request is not a budgeted expense for fiscal 2009, we believe it would be a good investment in the project because of the possibility of reducing the overall cost to WP A over time. Based on our analysis of projected 2009 WPA expenses, economies to date would keep the overall WP A budget in line so a special assessment would NOT be needed and reserves would not be reduced.
Finally, we feel it imperative that WPA develop a "15 Year Plan" for the long-term maintenance of the Wedgefield canals, as recommended by the Compliance Committee Report for 2008. If we ultimately perform an initial maintenance dredging in the near future, there will be a need to establish a reserve fund for future canal maintenance. The goal would be to attain enough in reserve in 5-9 years, to fund the 2nd maintenance dredging as allowed by the current Corps of Engineers permit. It also needs to address in general terms how to accomplish future maintenance beyond the 10-year life of the permit. This does not require any formal action by the Board at this point, except to note that it is a long-term need and should be part of the charge to the Water Amenities and Canal Committees.
Larry McMillin made a motion to reaffirm the Canal Committee as a regular standing subcommittee of the Water Amenities Committee. The "charge" of this group is to

continue managing the technical aspects of the canal maintenance project, such as vetting of prospective vendors, development of specific action plans for WP A to consider, coordination of funded activities, and development of a 5 to 15 year plan for the long-term maintenance of the canals.
We propose the following members: John McBride, Mike Davis, Larry McMillin, John Walton, and Ed Wozniak. We also are seeking at least two additional members, ideally non- canal lot owners, who may be named in the near future. This motion was seconded by Madeline Claveloux. Discussion followed. Brenda Martin suggested that we included a diverse committee that includes both canal and non-canal residents, and also includes both retired and working residents. The motion passed unanimously.
Larry McMillin made a motion to establish a "Canal Funding Committee" as a new sub- committee of the Water Amenities Committee. The "charge" of this group is to investigate all possible scenarios for funding canal dredging, including but not limited to local, state, and federal grants, differential assessment strategies, voluntary contributions, and the establishment of a waterfront sub-association, with supplemental assessment rights. When this information is in hand, the Funding Committee will coordinate with the Canal sub- committee and prepare one or more action plans for the WP A Board to consider for approval and funding.
We propose Carolyn McBride to be leader of this group, and are actively seeking two or more additional volunteers. Candidates should be Wedgefield residents in good standing, ideally with grant writing or fund raising experience. This motion was seconded by Johnny Huggins, motion passed unanimously.
Larry McMillin made a motion to fund the first phase of the canal restoration project, i.e. the topographic resurvey of the spoils site, the hydrographic resurvey of canals, and preparation of bid specifications and detailed engineering drawings immediately, between $30,000 and $50,000, not to exceed $50,000.00. This motion was seconded by Johnny Huggins. Discussion followed. Brenda Martin stated that she supported this study so the community is working with facts based on a professional engineering study and can outline the scope of the dredging project accurately. The motion passed unanimously 

MAY 2009 CANAL REPORT

Canal Report: Karl Gettmann requested Mike Davis give the report.
The WPA Canal Committee held a well-attended informational meeting on Tuesday, April 28 at the WPA office. A short slide presentation recapped the project to date, and outlined four proposed phases to restore the canals. It also covered preliminary cost estimates, along with some alternative funding scenarios being investigated, and ended with a lively question and answer session.
We apologize to those who had to observe from outside or could not attend the second presentation. Printed copies of the summary handout are available from Kathy at the WPA office, and copies of both the slide presentation and handout are up on the WPA website under Committee Reports-Water Amenities. As we try to build community consensus on to how to best get this difficult job done, we plan to hold similar meetings on a regular basis, and will use an appropriate larger venue as needed.
.
This month the Canal Committee also solicited sealed proposals from prospective Professional Services contractors for the phase one tasks. They were opened on May 8th by Karl Gettmann, with one other WPA Board member and the entire Committee in attendance. On May 11th the contract was awarded to The Earthworks Group of Murrells Inlet, and we held a kick-off meeting with them on May 15th to review contract details and establish a timetable. The spoil site topographic survey should begin this week.
We are still actively seeking additional volunteers. We need at least two additional members for the Canal Committee itself to help with the technical aspects of planning and supervision. The ideal candidates would be non-canal lot owners, so that we can get better input from that perspective, but we will gratefully accept anyone who is willing to pitch in, put in the hours, and help develop a workable action plan. In addition, the Funding Subcommittee is seeking two or more additional volunteers, ideally with grant writing or fund raising experience. Candidates should be Wedgefield property owners in good standing. Please contact Karl Gettmann if you would like to help with this project.
The Canal Committee appreciates the constructive feedback we have received since the information meeting. As always, we are open to your suggestions, comments, or questions.

JUNE 2009 CANAL REPORT

Canal Report: Karl Gettmann requested Mike Davis give the report.
Following the award of the Phase 1 contract and the kick-off meeting in mid May, our Engineering contractor, the Earthworks Group of Murrells Inlet, has been hard at work surveying the old spoils site adjacent to the Black River. They had to do a lot of bush hogging and clearing through 20 plus years of overgrowth to get clean sight lines across the center and around the perimeter. They set two temporary benchmarks along the north side of the landing road, which must stay in place until the project is completed; please do not disturb them.
All of the spoil site fieldwork is now completed. Their next task is to import all the measurements into the site database and begin designing the revamped basin within the permit guidelines to meet the required capacity for spoils. The preliminary drawings should be available in another week, and once approved by the Canal Committee, the topographic survey will be completed.
Earthworks also obtained the 2002 and 2006 canal system hydrographic survey data in electronic form from the previous Engineering contractor, GEL of Charleston. Those earlier surveys were paid for by voluntary contributions from canal lot owners. Earthworks’ preliminary analysis indicates that the old data, once correlated with the current survey, will be adequate to recompute the required dredge volumes and should make a new full hydrographic re-survey unnecessary. A final determination will be made next week.
Once WPA approves the drawings, Earthworks will generate a bid specification package. They will then solicit proposals from qualified contractors, and at last give us valid hard data of projected costs of spoil site preparation and dredging itself.
We are still actively seeking additional volunteers for both the Canal Committee and the Funding Subcommittee. Please contact our Chairman Karl Gettmann through the WPA office if you would like to get involved, or to submit constructive feedback, suggestions, comments, or questions.

JULY 2009 CANAL REPORT

Canal Report: Karl Gettmann requested Mike Davis give the report.
Since the last report in June, our Engineering contractor, the Earthworks Group of Murrells Inlet, completed the design for the rework of the old spoils site, which the Canal Committee approved after some minor changes. The design meets the capacity requirement of the US Army Corps of Engineers Permit with about a 10% surplus to allow for settling of the perimeter dike over time. It also includes a clever water quality baffle in the design, which should help meet or exceed agency standards for turbidity in the water returned to the environment.
Earthworks validated and successfully imported data from the 2002-2006 GEL hydrographic surveys into their drawing package, which eliminated the need for a new survey. This will substantially reduce the final bill for their contracted phase one services.
Last week Earthworks issued bid specifications packages for both the site work and the dredging work itself to over one dozen prospective contractors. The sealed bid reply date is in early August, and will provide the Canal and Funding Committees specific projected costs of spoil site preparation and dredging itself to work with. Once WPA and the Canal Committee have opened bids, they will make a summary available to interested residents.
The Funding Subcommittee has been hard at work seeking outside funding but recent negative publicity about Wedgefield is proving to be a major obstacle. Once they have the firm cost quotes, additional specific requests for aid will be made. They are also analyzing various funding strategies and should make a preliminary report to WPA with one or more action plans to evaluate and consider before the August Board Meeting.
We still need additional volunteers for both the Canal Committee and the Funding Subcommittee. The most important and difficult task of finding a way to fund restoration of the canals that the majority of our fellow residents can accept is now on the table. Please contact our Chairman Karl Gettmann through the WPA office if you would like to get involved, or to submit constructive feedback, suggestions, comments, or questions.