WPA LOT MAINTENANCE - A FEW QUESTIONS, SOME THOUGHTS, AND SOME PICTURES

What are the standards for maintaining lots in Wedgefield?  What if the vacant lot is adjacent to homes?  What if the lot owner has contracted with the WPA to have their lot mowed, in order to meet requirements, and the board allows a contract to be developed, that couldn't possibly meet the standard?  Is it possible that the board member who has control over the lawn mowing program, would use his authority and program supervision, to get back at a resident, by breaching a lot mowing contract?  Maybe someone should start asking questions, or have we learned that the board won't answer, when they are failing in their duty?

Last week, I picked some friends up to exercise, and noticed two vacant lots on John Green, set between homes, that were an over grown mess.  After my exercise, I picked up my camera, and went out and took some pictures.  Why?  I have a vacant, mostly grassy lot, next to my home.  In the past, the lot owner, appeared to have contracted with the WPA, to mow the lot, and it was mowed regularly, by the WPA grounds contractor.

The lot next to me, has not been mowed, since the late summer of 2014.  Board Member, McMillin, is chair of the grounds committee, which puts him in charge of the lawn mowing contractor, who mows the vacant lots of owners, who contract with the WPA.  

Since the board won't answer my resident letters, I asked my questions during the resident comment section of the July 21 board meeting.  I asked, and commented:

1. If any of the vacant lots under contract with the WPA had been mowed this year?
2.  I said that I didn't believe that the board had to respond as to whether the lot owner next to me, had contracted with the WPA for lot mowing, but I would like someone on the board to check, and see if they had, and if so, determine why the lot had not been mowed in over a year.
3.  I stated that  both the By-Laws, and Covenants stated that the board has the responsibility of preserving the natural setting and beauty of the Development. 

McMillin, Grounds Chair, stated that the lawns mentioned on John Green have been mowed twice.  He said something about they can't keep mowing them, because the contract with the WPA only provided 4 mowings.  I said that was the board's problem, for allowing contracts to be developed, with too few mowings for the season, when the board was responsible for maintaining a standard, for the residents who trusted them.  The grounds chair has had problems year, after year, with this particular contract, and yet, it appears that your board approves it, without proper review.  Year after year, we live with the messes they allow this board member to make.

In my view, is it possible that the vacant lot  next to to me, is in the miserable condition that it is, because the grounds chair has failed intentionally to instruct the grounds crew to mow the lot, for over a year?  Yes, based on actions he has previously taken.  I have no right to ask whether the lot owner next to me, contracted with the WPA, for 2015.  I've been here for 11 years, and this lot owner has always done the right thing.  I've done nothing to the grounds chair personally.  The blog covers his, and all the board's actions from the board table.  I've repeated his words, actions, etc., as with the other board members, and sent you to the minutes, tapes of the meeting, and legitimate documents.  If he is upset, possibly, he should act in a manner, that doesn't embarrass him, or his family members, when his own words, votes, etc. are reported.

The problem, for our community is bigger than the issues of the lot next to me. Whether, or not, a lot owner has contracted with the board for mowing services, is some what of a moot point.  Your board has a responsibility to monitor, and see that these lots are maintained to a standard that benefits the property owners in Wedgefield.   Here is what I observed, and then photographed, as I drove on John Green today.  Both of these lots, are adjacent to homes.  

At best, the grass is knee high, in these lots.  In some areas, on one of them, the weeds, are almost to my shoulder.

Article I - Purpose, Section I, of the ByLaws, states. "These are the By-Laws of the Wedgefield Plantation Association, hereinafter referred to as The Association, a non-profit corporation existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, which has been organized for the purpose of preserving the natural setting and beauty of the Development, of establishing and preserving a harmonious and aesthetically pleasing design for the Development, and of conducting the affairs of the Plantation for the benefit of the property owners in a manner which will maintain the high standards of the Wedgefield Plantation Subdivision within Georgetown County, South Carolina.  This includes enforcing the Covenants of the subdivision and these By-Laws, "  

Number 8 of the Covenants states, "In Order to implement effective insect, reptile and woods fire control, the grantor reserves for itself and its agents, heirs, successors and assigns, the right to enter upon any residential lot on which a residence has not been constructed and upon which no landscaping plan has been implemented (with prior written approval of the grantor for such plan), at the expense of the grantee, his heirs, successors; distributes and assigns, such entry to be made by personnel with tractors or other suitable devices, for the purpose of mowing, removing, clearing, cutting or pruning underbrush, weeds or other unsightly growth, which in the opinion of the grantor detracts from the overall beauty, setting and safety of the subdivision."

Since the July 21 meeting, has any officer, Pres., Vice Pres., Sec., or Treasurer, reviewed the contracts, payments to the grounds contractor, and verified that ALL lots are being maintained? The board became aware in 2014, that the grounds chair,  had failed to fulfill the prepaid services of some of the contracts, and attempted at the board table, to declare a profit on the lot mowing program?

Trying to maintain your property, with a similar situation next door?  Trying to sell your home, when potential buyers observe these conditions as they drive to your address?   There are homes totaling over $3,000,000 in listings, whose potential buyers, have to drive by this mess on my street. Perhaps, you should write the board.  If you are one of their special residents, you may get an answer.  If you aren't, Christmas is coming, and your board may allow, cover, and condone, the grounds chair, putting your address on a extremely large obscene sign, and hanging it on his house.  

If the board doesn't answer your questions, fails to blatantly, to "preserve the natural setting and beauty of the Development, of establishing and preserving a harmonious and aesthetically pleasing design for the Development", as it relates to issues to lot and property maintenance around you, should you pay your assessment?  At some point, that may be a decision some here in Wedgefield have to make.   

TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED ON FRIDAY. MORE ARE IN DEVELOPMENT

THE WPA JULY 21 BOARD MEETING, PART III: I GET ANSWERS FROM THE BOARD TABLE, THAT DEMARCHI HASN'T, MUST BE - WOULDN'T PUT IN WRITING, IN RESPONSE TO MY RESIDENT LETTER. DO I FEEL BETTER? NO! EVERY BOARD MEMBER IS AT FAULT FOR ALLOWING SOME OF THESE THINGS TO BE COVERED UP BY OMISSION - FAILURE TO TELL, OR ANSWER

We really should start at the beginning.  What and when, did I ask the board, and what made me believe that DeMarchi would answer?

Here is what I asked them on June 18, 2015 in question 3, in my letter:
"During the May WPA Board Meeting, a board member mentioned that the bookkeeper/ accountant had left, and wanted to know if she would be replaced.  When did this contractor, or employee leave?  What was the date?  What was the reason that this person left?   Treasurer DeMarchi, did not report on the date this individual left, plans to replace her, candidates, or anticipated expense to the accounting function.  Please provide that information. "

What made me think that I would get an answer:
The Board Community Liaison, Anderson, responded in writing, in regard to question # 3 said, "I will refer this question to Al DeMarchi, the board treasurer."  It has been more than 30 days since I wrote, and still no answer from Treasurer, DeMarchi.


Now,  for what happened during the meeting.  PLEASE NOTE:  I will relate what occurred to the best of my ability.  As always, I highly suggest that you go to the tape of the meeting at the WPA website, or The Wedgefield Times, to verify information for yourself.  COMMENTS, are provided at the end of the article, and noted as such.

Here is where some of the answers, inadvertently, start coming.  Treasurer, Demarchi, reports that the bookkeeper has left, and he is trying to find another. DeMarchi says the former bookkeeper (?????) left because she was upset that she couldn't use a 5 year old program, and the WPA had gotten a new one. He lists some of the things that the new person would need to do.  He has a quote in a envelope for $600/mo., but wants to table it because the CPA (believe that we use for the audit) is in Europe, and he'd like to wait for a schedule of his fees.  Garrison jumps in and asks him what he is waiting for?  He states that this guy bid once, then renigged on the bid.  Garrison said that we have been without the bookkeeper (position to be filled?????), for "MONTHS AND MONTHS".  At another point Garrison says, "I don't want to wait.  It has been long enough, fooling around with this."  Still later, Garrison speaks about integrity, protection to board and Kathy, in having these services performed.  Cline says we need to do the right thing.  Later, Garrison suggests that DeMarchi call the board to a meeting BEFORE the next meeting, to get this done.

During the July meeting, DeMarchi announces that he is changing/simplifying, the financial reports, that are handed out each month. (Why, less reported, less chance of error?  A dumbing down of reporting to suit the needs of a flawed process?) 

Before we leave the board meeting, and go into comments, it should be noted that during McMillin's request for funds for the weed eating carp, that he states the money is to come out of fund # 10--.  When discussion begins, DeMarchi gives another account  number, and asks Kathy (paid staff, and other member of the DeMarchi, two person, accounting function) if that isn't correct.  She agrees with the number McMillin has presented, and DeMarchi says that he gave her a note on that.  They'll talk about it later.

COMMENTS:
Before I really get into this, I should note that I went to The Wedgefield Times, to check their coverage of this meeting.  I found the following in the meeting report there.

Meeting Highlights

NOTE that the WPA Board in general, and probably Mr. DeMarchi in particular, has removed the "monthly" portion of the financial data package handed out at this monthly WPA Board meeting. The reader of this web site has no information that this part of the financial data package, along with the monthly YTD part of the package, have been used to show errors in the WPA published data every month since January 2015, via my recent, lengthly and confidential email to the WPA Board. During a home visit by Mr. DeMarchi, your Treasurer, committed to the following actions regarding the correcting the errors: (1) finding the cause of the errors, (2) fixing them, (3) and revising the appropriate WPA web site financial files with names showing the corrected versions. 

I presume that by withholding the "monthly" WPA data, Board does not plan to honor the above commitment! But maybe the Board has little need for "error-free" financial statements.

I believe the financial data errors are a consequence of a "no prior review" policy before the publication of such data! 

I have already gone to the office and reviewed the correspondence file from Jan. - June 2015.  For almost every one of those months,  a resident was  questioning the figures in the financial reports, with errors admitted at times by DeMarchi.  

I'm not requesting a home visit by DeMarchi, as provided to The Wedgefield Times Editor.  I do deserve to have my questions answered in writing.  I pay my assessments, this is where I live, and we deserve better governance and fiscal management than this.  This isn't weeds in the pond and how to get them out, and your board's experimenting!  This is our money!

Every board member has failed miserably in their responsibilities.  Why?  They have gotten far to comfortable in dumbing down information (now proposed in financial reports), and lack of reporting exactly what is going on, when, where, and why, from the board table.  The "integrity", a word I'll use right along with Garrison, has been gone for months, and you can't tell me that board members didn't know.  So they sat there month after month, basically lying to us by omission.  They love cohesive, but they are individually elected to represent us, vote, ask, and get the business of the association out on the board table, and in the open!

THE WPA JULY 21 BOARD MEETING, PART II: THE FISHY PORTION OF THE GROUNDS REPORT

PLEASE NOTE:  I will relate what occurred to the best of my ability.  As always, I highly suggest that you go to the tape of the meeting at the WPA website, or The Wedgefield Times, to verify information for yourself.  COMMENTS, are provided at the end of the article, and noted as such.

The title of this article is intended to be humorous, and is not an intended jab, at the presenter.  You would've had to have attended the meeting, to know that there was humor throughout this presentation.  At times, it provided a light hearted look at our board in action.  The report can be found on the tapes, under the Grounds Report, provided by chair, McMillin.  

He reports that there are some issues with the pond (located on the right side of the road, just prior to entering the Wedgefield gate).  McMillin states that there are problems with the fountain, and he will take care of them, himself.  (Earlier, on the day of the meeting when I went to take pictures, it was not working, and hadn't been for some time.)  He states that we have rapidly growing vegetation in the pond, and he would like to purchase 4 grass eating carp at a cost of $120.00.  A motion is made, and discussion begins.  McMillin also says that he will have to construct a grate type cover for one of the pipes leading out of the pond, to keep the fish contained.  DeMarchi says that he had experts from Clemson out at one point, and they advised  12-15 of the fish. We're advised that the fish are sterile, and won't reproduce.  Someone asks if any anyone fishes in that pond.  Another says the fish can't be caught.  DeMarchi says that he has seen people catch carp with bread balls.  (He's right.  I've caught them in my own backyard.)  Ebert, has been adding light humor to the subject, saying something about if they aren't smart enough to reproduce, they probably can be caught.  Approval of the grass eating carp does not mean they will be here immediately, because there are certain times, in the year cycle, that are better than others to add them.

The discussion was light, and it was good to see your board's light  hearted handling of the problem.

A larger problem exists with the pond project, and several others. While, as noted above, the board worked well at this stage, and this meeting, the pond has been a territorial dispute between DeMarchi and McMillin, and battle of self proclaimed experts, for too long.  Briefly, both at times, have brought proposals forward - that went no where for long periods of time, for the bulk head, weed control, etc.  DeMarchi, with board approval hired a company at a monthly rate to control the weeds.  Later, he canceled the service.  McMillin, brought volunteers in and cleared weeds, debris, and added the fountain. It should be noted that at last months meeting, McMillin requested $134.00 to purchase a product to kill the weeds.  In fact, he had to order more than he felt he needed, but hoped to sell part of it to the condo association, for their ponds.  What happened to that?  No one asked.  DeMarchi, controlled the bulk head project, but needed money from the Grounds' budget for grass, etc.  McMillin said that was ok, at least he was being asked this time, rather than the money just being appropriated.  Now, we have a pond with weeds, a fountain in the weed pond, with a spot light to highlight it, and a bulkhead.

Below, I've provided a information sheet on the grass eating carp.  Will this fix it.?  Maybe, but it could take quite some time, and we have quite the mess.

Using Triploid Grass Carp for
Aquatic Plant Control in SC Small Impoundments

The triploid "grass carp" which is a sterile version of the white amur, has been used in South Carolina's private and public waters for the control of noxious aquatic plant species since 1984. Triploid grass carp are incapable of reproducing viable offspring.
Grass carp are selective feeders, preferring soft tissue aquatic plant species. Where more than one noxious plant species is present, the carp will feed almost exclusively on the more preferred plant species before targeting the other available aquatic plant species.
The following is a list of aquatic plant species commonly found in South Carolina's waters that grass carp will feed on:

Preferred Plants

• Naja sp.
• Bladderwort sp.
• Coontail
• Hydrilla
• Salvinia
• Potomegton sp.
• Slender spikerush
• Elodea
• Duckweed

Non-Preferred Plants

• Water milfoil
• Cabomba
• Water lilies
• Cat-tails
• Water shield
• Water meal
• Pithophora algae
• Alligatorweed
• Water primrose
• Lyngbya algae
• Water hycanith
• Water lotus
• Pennywort
• Parrot's feather

Carp will consume those plants on the "non-preferred" list if other more desired plant species are not available. Control of those "non-preferred" plant species may be incomplete or take longer for desired control levels.
Ponds which are seriously impacted by noxious aquatic plant species (high plant biomass), should be managed to reduce the plant biomass either through the application of selected aquatic herbicides or by other methods (drawdown, mechanical removal, ete.) Prior to stocking grass carp.

Stocking Rates

Recent research on grass carp stocking rates indicates to achieve control a stocking rate of 4-6 fish per ton of aquatic plant biomass must be used. Pond owners should consult with a SCDNR fisheries biologist or other qualified individuals to assess a stocking rate recommendation. Generally, in South Carolina a stocking rate between 10-40 fish per surface acre will be recommended, depending on the plant species and the biomass of plants present in the pond.

Size of Fish to Stock

In a new pond or a pond devoid of fish predators, a grass carp 6-12 inches in length can be used. In ponds having potential grass carp predators, a grass carp 12 inches or larger should be used.

Grass Carp Predators

The following is a list of potential grass carp predators that can seriously reduce or eliminate all grass carp:

1. Man
2. largemouth bass, bowfin, etc.
3. osprey, herons, etc.
4. otters
5. alligators

The impact of predators on young grass carp is one of the major reasons aquatic weed control is not successful when using grass carp as a weed control method. Grass carp prefer shallow water for feeding and can easily be seen swimming in small groups or individually at the surface of the pond. If after stocking grass carp you fail to observe these fish feeding, swimming or at the surface of the pond, this could be an indication of poor or no grass carp survival.

Escapement

Grass carp can and will leave a pond via the emergency spillway or large concrete surface overflow systems during peak rain "events". Any overflow deeper than 3.0 inches will encourage the loss of grass carp.
Pond systems which utilize emergency spillways or large surface overflow systems, should use a barrier to prevent escapement. The most successful fish barrier designs incorporate horizontal steel bars, which have a 1.0 inch space between bars.
Care should be taken to keep the barrier clear of debris during high water periods. Failure to provide maintenance on the barrier at this time could result in complete failure of the barrier or could seriously damage the pond's dam.

Time to Stock

Grass carp should be stocked in the spring for best results. Early plant growth for South Carolina's aquatic plants begins in late March - April. Fish should be stocked at this time to allow them to aggressively feed on tender, young plant growth. Since the fish's metabolism is increasing with rising water temperatures, they grow at an accelerated rate and quickly reach a size that eliminates many potential grass carp predator problems.

Source of Fish

Triploid grass carp can only be sold in South Carolina by SCDNR approved grass carp vendors. A department permit is issued by the vendor to each individual who obtains these fish verifying the fish as being "triploids".

Length of Weed Control

Depending on the aquatic weed species, plant biomass, number of fish stocked, and grass carp survival, effective weed control success can vary from 1-10 years in most South Carolina ponds. Effective weed control should be evident 6-12 months after the initial stocking of the carp.

Grass carp and Bass / Bluegill

Grass carp are mainly herbivores but will consume insects, invertebrates, and other gamefish food organisms. There is no documentation that indicates that grass carp are serious predators on other fish species. Grass carp do compete with typical bass/bluegill populations for food, therefore, some competition between species does exist.
Grass carp will consume floating pelleted fish feeds and prefer these feeds over aquatic plants. In ponds where supplemental feedings of bream or channel catfish is desired, you may want to consider other aquatic weed control options.
If you have further questions or need additional assistance on the "use of grass carp", please call 803-734-3891.
A list of SCDNR approved triploid grass carp vendors can be obtained by writing to:
Hatchery Coordinator
SCDNR
Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
Post Office Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
The information above regarding Using Triploid Grass Carp for Aquatic Plant Control in SC Small Impoundments is provided in an Adobe PDF file. Adobe® Reader® is required to open the above files and is available as a free download from the Adobe® Web site.

---

THE WPA JULY 21 BOARD MEETING, PART I: THE ROADS REPORT

PLEASE NOTE:  I will relate what occurred to the best of my ability.  As always, I highly suggest that you go to the tape of the meeting at the WPA website, or The Wedgefield Times, to verify information for yourself.  COMMENTS, are provided at the end of the article, and noted as such.

Roads Chair, Anderson, presented the report.  The Roads Committee had invited the board to attend a recent committee meeting, to provide the board the opportunity to review all of the areas that had been identified as problems, and select 13 of the worst areas, as our next project. 13, because that was the funding available, after the selection. During the discussion, the following key items were noted.  Earlier this year, Anderson, had received approval from the board to contract with EarthWorks (engineering), to review the areas, note the engineering necessary to repair each area, write the specs for all the areas (believe 23 were identified), write the request for proposal and send it out, and once a contract was awarded, oversee the project.  It appeared from Anderson's report, that the board had reviewed the areas, and associated costs of each, after the bids were in.  Anderson made a motion to contract with Coastal (vendor on last years project, and least cost), to repair the 13 areas, with the cost not to exceed $153,000.  Ebert seconded the motion.

McMillin began to question the project, almost before the motion could be completed, and seconded.  He had questions as to what the contractor was doing about the base.  It didn't make sense to him.  His questions and comments went on for quite some time.  At some points he was reminded that he had been at the Roads Committee meeting, when the 13 areas had been identified, had received all the materials, specs, etc., including EarthWorks specs on every area.  Anderson reminded him, that he, Anderson, was not an engineer, that EarthWorks had satisfactorily performed these services on the last project, etc.  McMillin said, "I'm not a big fan of EarthWorks.  Can't trust engineering." He continued with questions about other areas, stated areas where he felt drainage was the real problem, etc.  Around and around it went.  At another point, DeMarchi said, "I'm looking at reserve accounts.  I have more than enough in drainage.  I'll give up the rest of this money...."  DeMarchi, was willing to move drainage funds to roads, in an attempt to get more areas on the list done. Garrison, said something equivalent to let's just deal with what we are right now.  Later, at some point, Garrison jumped in and said to McMillin, "What is it that you do want to do?  All I've heard for 25 minutes is what you don't want to do?"

COMMENTS:  First, on a very positive note regarding the Roads Report, we should thank Anderson, Roads Chair, for continuing to stay the course, seek engineering, allow those with expertise to write the specs, contract, and follow the work of the vendor.  He doesn't get angry, he simply stays the course, answers to the best of his ability, refers to documents that he has provided consistently to every board member, and more to his credit, has invited the full board to his committee meeting to determine, the areas "most critical" for the next round of road repair.  Excellent!  More kudos to Garrison for openly, and fairly, moving this discussion along.  DeMarchi, should also be credited with attempting to serve as many as possible, for the greater good.  He's offering funding from drainage, in hopes of contracting for more areas to be repaired.  Cline, also jumps in at critical points with constructive thoughts.  What could be better than these board members working constructively, to get us through this discussion, and move a credibly constructed project forward?  

McMillin appeared to be a board member, with nothing but sour grapes, on his plate.  It appeared that he hadn't gone into this kind of questioning during the board's meeting with the Roads Committee, and that he waited for a bigger stage to make a splash.  It appeared that he sunk, rather than swam, and if he was fishing for support for his "expertise", no one was taking the bait. 

WE'LL HAVE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE JULY WPA BOARD MEETING BY END OF DAY TODAY

Eight board members were present for the meeting last night.  Ten residents were in attendance.  Stay tuned for more pouting, efforts AGAIN to bring speed bumps, or rumble strips, feigned questioning of the road project, and upsets about the gatehouse.

IT HAS BEEN 34 DAYS, AND DEMARCHI AND MCMILLIN HAVE FAILED TO RESPOND TO MY LETTER TO THE BOARD. OUR PRESIDENT, THE BOARD MEMBER WHO HAS THE PRIVILEGE OF APPOINTING COMMITTEE CHAIRS, MAY HAVE APPOINTED THEM AS CHAIRS, BECAUSE OF THEIR DEMONSTRATED ABILITY, TO LOCK THEIR LIPS, WHEN THINGS AREN'T BEING HANDLED LEGALLY AND ETHICALLY FROM THE BOARD TABLE. DOES A RESIDENT HAVE TO PAY THEIR ASSESSMENTS, IF THE BOARD FAILS TO SERVE THEM EQUITABLY, OR DO YOU GET A DISCOUNT?

THESE GUYS ARE HIDING UNDER GROUND, AND MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.  WILL WE EVER BE ABLE TO DECLARE GROUND HOG DAY IN WEDGEFIELD?