This was first posted here on 9/30/18
The 3 page contract below was for March 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011.
This was extended for a year at a time with review and renewal every year in July. At the request of North Beach, it was later changed to an automatic renewal each year with a 2% increase in cost each year. To my knowledge, the body of the agreement was not changed, or has there been a yearly review.
Click on each page of the 3 page contract for a larger view...
37 comments:
Was told Neal gets 27,000 a year from contract with Surfside. With his North Beach pay, he gets over 100,000 a year. Not bad for a well digger. Easy to understand why he wants to keep flood and williams happy.
The contract makes it clear that North Beach Water District and Bill Neal, the expert, are the responsible ones that need to answer for their actions. They have failed in meeting the requirements of the contract. Court action seems likely.
The contract contains an agreement by both parties that one will not hold the other responsible in case of legal dispute, and agreement to a partnership of equal indemnity. It also states that North Beach has free access to our water facilities, so they undoubtedly were aware that Neal had begun hauling pipe debris to the Water Dept. lot, and proper procedures were not being followed as to it's disposal.
Since their role was actually to manage the Dept., it's interesting that we agreed to not hold them responsible for anything, accepted an equal partnership - and then provided no consistent oversight.
Since the BOT retracted the lawsuit against Johansen and Otterson, the over $60,000 spent on legal council isn't likely to be covered by insurance, and the additional $10,000 in legal fees that should be reimbursed to Johansen and Otterson added to the costs of this ridiculous lawsuit.
So now we will likely have fines to pay as well, and there are costs associated with the processing of the pipe debris. Both of these issues show the outcome of a smug and entitled HOA seeing itself above following State and Federal guidelines, as well as our own covenants. Being so audacious and over-confident has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass!
If the covenant change on shed rooves is made permanent, there will be at least a dozen member properties that will be written into non-compliance, probably more. And the BOT had wanted to make it retroactive to last year !That's just poor management.
I was right the last time and If they would as Oct.1 at 2:30 states I believe another law suet could be placed and not by two but 12.
What?
Maybe referring to existing sheds with large overhangs and porches.
Someone stated on the blog that no shed has ever been approved with eaves over 10". Where did 10" come from, and why would this be an issue ? These lots are private property, and it should not come as a surprise that owners have their own ideas about what they may want to build. When there are no specific guidelines prohibiting porches or eaves, it is likely to be assumed to NOT BE AN ISSUE.
In creating standards for the community, the BOT should draw on what owners WANT in the community, and not some random number - like 10" - to make a rule about. There are a lot of sheds in the community that will not conform to the new random number the BOT wants to set, ignoring what owners want - 14". Stop trying to create this artificial guideline out of nowhere as if there is some impending disaster if free will is allowed to be a factor.
Allow sheds of 120 sq. ft. or less, to have appurtenances approved for their design and material soundness, and leave it at that. Allow some freedom of choice and imagination, and stop pretending this is a threat to the "classy" nature of Surfside. That's a joke, and it accomplishes nothing.
This, like the Tree restrictions, is just an effort to create artificial issues to enforce, the intent being to intimidate the membership with the authority of the HOA, through manipulation.
The shed changes were made to clarify and match the Pacific County codes, seems like this makes is easier to understand the requirements since there was so many people interpret to suit there needs
It was not written to match or clarify Pacific County codes. The Pacific County code was copied and modified to fit Surfsides own wishes and desires. I, Myself will only follow the County codes as written. The Surfside code is meaningless and could get us sued.
Seriously question people. Do you have your same shed, overhang and tree comments stored somewhere so you can continually copy and paste them here no matter if the topic hasn't anything to do with them? Is there any topic that can be discussed without you all doing so?
To put so much effort into creating these ridiculous restrictions is to ignore that they create issues where there are NONE. The community has a number of critical issues to resolve that require time and attention that is instead being spent on useless enforcement and frivolous lawsuits relating to shed overhangs and tree heights in inches.
Wonder why the same points keep being made ? Because what is perfectly obvious is that these matters have no real functional impact on life in Surfside. No one DESERVES a view, and overhangs make big sense in a wet climate. If you own a stick-built home, you can put a porch on your shed and call it a "shop". If you own an RV lot, you cannot have more than a shed, so cannot, go figure, have an overhang on your shed. It makes no sense.
The County doesn't care about this stuff in an HOA run community. They have more important concerns, like idiots who build in a wetland without a permit, for instance. The HOA has not been in compliance with State standards for many years. It took about 5 years to build the CTP to try to be compliant on water quality, but asbestos was being mishandled during this period as well. The HOA needs to clean-up their act before getting distracted with inches on shed roofs and trees.
The opposite is the case.
It is unclear why the contract between SHOA & North Beach specifically names Neal, rather than specifying the qualifications and other requirements, e.g., licensing, required for the person they would provide as System Manager. This is another example of the poor management of the Board and inadequate advice from its attorney.
Blagg - you were on the board and the contract is approved by the board each year. This makes you responsible if there is a problem with the contractual agreement.
3:16 - I served on the Board from Jul 8, 2017 to Jul 13, 2018. The contract was established long before I was elected. During the timeframe that I served, the Board did not vote on renewal of the contract for Neal. If it had come up for vote, it’s likely the original contract would not have been presented to review.
Why do we doubt the credibility of Blagg's statement? Neal/North Beach was under contract throughout the time that she served on the board. Ignorance is no excuse as the saying goes.
4:05. Why don’t you go read the Board Minutes during the time I served? They are available on the SHOA website. The contract for Neal’s service was never on the agenda. If you consider that to be ignorance, then what does that say about the Trustees who entered into that contract and extended it all these years?
Any board member who has served throughout the Neal/North Beach debacle is responsible for failing in oversight to protect our members. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is no excuse for failure.
A contractual agreement should be reviewed at least annually in any organization. Failure to do so would be a matter of negligence.
5:07 What planet have you been living on? Are you just coming to the realization that the handful of engaged SHOA members have repeatedly handed over the oversight of Surfside to a Board that elects officers based on cronyism, fails to follow SHOA governing documents, Washington state laws pertaining to non-profit corporations and homeowners associations, ignores & usurps Pacific County ordinances, relies on questionable legal advice and has paid an outside contractor to provide a Water Department Manager who was either unqualified for the job or willfully violated federal & state environmental and safety laws? Anyone who has observed a Board Meeting knows how it operates and knows that a few unscrupulous Trustees maintain a stronghold on the Board and the Association. Any newcomer who manages to get elected is treated as an outcast. There is a difference in being ignorant and being margainalized by a handful of people who hold all the power with no regard for the membership as a hold. They act on the interests of very few members - themselves and the small percentage of members who participate in the elections. They use their power to keep the majority of members in the dark by withholding information and making it all but impossible for members to communicate and organize any kind of opposition. The failures are many and they start with the members who don’t bother to inform themselves to what is going on in Surfside and don’t bother to vote in elections.
Correction: ..the membership as a *whole*.
A person should quit while they are ahead, but you are so far behind Deb that you might as well keep blathering. Good entertainment.
Go Deb!
Shame on you for being such an obvious and blatant shill. She offers facts, we all saw what happened. You hide behind empty rhetoric and repeat the kind of logic and ego driven venom that has got us in the mess you can only deny. Shame on you, the board and Mr. Neal and his employer. Shoa definitely has its own deep state.
George has stated that the Board was not reviewing Neal's contract annually as it was intended. If your comments are being deleted it's because of the empty-headed hatefulness in your comments. Deb served for one year, and as she stated, the contract was not discussed or reviewed.
Actually (3:16, 4:05, 5:07, 6:27, 7:32... all probably the same person), if you have attended BOT Meetings, you would have heard firsthand about the concrete/asbestos matrix pipe, and seen pictures of it broken. I attended 2 meetings where this was openly discussed - but nothing was mentioned about the disposal or handling of it, everyone assuming it was being done appropriately, but no one asking those kinds of questions.
So if you think Deb is responsible for the lack of oversight, so are you and I equally responsible for not asking the critical questions about proper disposal and handling of asbestos laden pipe.
Long term Trustees, and in particular Mr. Flood were very much involved in promoting the "mile of pipe" project, with Raymer and Miller not supporting it, and Johansen and Blagg never having an opportunity to discuss it or have any influence over this long term project.
Blagg is very honest and that makes you really uncomfortable. That tells us something about you Mr. Anonymous. Do you beat your wife ? You certainly can't lay off Blagg.
@10:16 - Do you beat your wife ? You certainly can't lay off Blagg
Either way you read this statement is gross!
Deletions are making this blog nothing more than a propaganda organ.
The only deletions being made are yours. You contribute nothing to a valid conversation about anything. Probably because you don't have the mental capacity to engage in a meaningful conversation. You would rather hide behind anonymous and slur and attack several who have the courage and integrity to use their real names. It is people like you, and there are just a few, that make Surfside look bad. I will continue to delete your disrespectful hateful comments. The blog followers will know that your complaints about deletions are the kind you posted above. You have no honor or credibility. Go away. Your not welcome here.
I appreciate you very much George! Thank you very much for all you have done and continue to do providing this blog and being the blog administrator.
Probably 99% of posts (mine included) are anonymous. George ???
I would like to second that accolade. Thank you George!
I would like to third that accolade. Thank you George!
That isn't true. Look at the overhang on the sides of Johansen's shed. They are at least 2 ft of not 3 ft. There was nothing about the side roof overhang .
Wrong again. There is nothing in the County codes about roof overhangs on sheds.
One would think that you would realize how important this issue is to those that live here. The sheds roof issues represent the lack of integrity and the level of dishonesty of the controling board.
No, that would be the Surfside Weekender.
It is strange that there are no restrictions on design of homes in Surfside, and if you own a home you can have multiple outbuildings. Any structure over 120 sq. ft. must get a building permit, but can have eaves and porches with no restrictions.
The "new" covenant restrictions specifying how many inches shed eaves can be is really aimed strictly at RV lots who can have but one outbuilding. The BOT was well aware before passing this restriction that numerous RV lots had sheds with eaves and/or porches, the county having no restrictions on this. Several such sheds are easily seen from the street in Surfside, some being the nicest sheds in Surfside.
So what is it that motivates this meddlesome mean-spirited campaign to screw with these owners and demand that they damage their structures because the HOA has a wild hair up their behind about EAVES and RVs ?
It is as if allowing owners to enjoy the opportunity to add minor features to the only structure covenants allow, is a danger to the community. Allowing any semblance of owner autonomy and creativity is a threat to the community ? Only to the feeble-minded and those fearful of individuality and creative expression. Porches are very practical over doorways to any structure in this wet climate.
This represents the same twisted logic that brought us "the Tree Policy", meant to intimidate members with meddlesome and indifferent enforcement. A power trip that causes unnecessary conflict and grief. That's very counter-productive and a disincentive to possible new buyers.
02/08 3:01 PM. This is one of the reasons I have been so angry. I'm an RV lot for now and the BOT and many members treat us like we don't exist.
Mike Riley
Post a Comment