The contradiction is about the replacement of the carbon material in the new carbon treatment plant. I am just a layman about the water, like most on here. I have no direct line of communication with Bill Neal or anyone else. I do look at the water reports to have some idea of what is happening. The Water department issues a monthly report with many pages and graphs, that for me, are difficult to understand. Those reports are published in full on the water section on the official Surfside web page.
I do try to publish here some of the pages that the members like me, may find interesting and informative. This also gives a place where members can comment about the contents.
What I found puzzling, was the statement below about replacing the carbon.
In November of 2018 it was stated that the carbon needed to be replaced, but due to the cost, it would be differed until the new budget in Jan. of 2019. Now we see that it might be postponed until March.
Like I said, I am certainly no expert on water, but what changed between November and now?
Can they flush or not flush the carbon because of the flush pond that is not permitted?
I suspect there is a lot more going on than we are being told. Finding the truth about anything in Surfside is a very elusive thing. Am I wrong in thinking that something is just not right? There may be a simple answer to this, or a complicated technical one. Beats me.
Click on each page of the 2 pages here for a larger read.
23 comments:
Good work George. I think you are on to something with this topic. I'll do some research. I'll either post on here or call you within the next week.
No pond, no flush. Can't recharge filter material. Pretty simple. So can't do anything without settling pond, which may never be approved. Bunch of real idiots.
Thanks Mike and 3:38. Maybe that's the reason a flushing was missed. So does this mean that if we can't flush it, we will just replace it at a cost of 36,000 for each tank? Sorry, but I just can't make any sense out of this. Probably just dumb me, an old guy over the hill. (I mean ridge)
I'm willing to take some action anytime and anywhere. Do you have any recommendations either of you? I'll write something to send to the BOT and Pacific County. Should I? Would you two review what I write?
Its all in the works guys, govt moves slow. Criminal investigations on the asbestos by EPA needs to wrap up first I would think, before dealing with an unpermited construcion and a settling pond in a wetland. We are all royally screwed n most are unaware.
I think we're seeing a bunch of doubletalk that obscures the reality of the HOA denying funds to replace the filter material in a timely manner. We're the Guinea Pigs, and they're seeing what they can get away with, missing a scheduled flushing, delaying the carbon replacement, and more concerned with proceeding with their stupid lawsuit.
What we hear is that the owners incurred fines over delayed compliance to the Tree restrictions, as they had a lot full of trees to trim at considerable expense. They cut most of the trees and became compliant, but wanted the fines dropped. If this is true, there is no excuse, as I would presume anyway, to not resolve this by dropping the fines. Nothing is gained by causing great financial pain for members.
Compliance is enough in itself. It's not the HOA's job to "teach members a lesson" which seems to be Gary William's and friends M.O.
6:55 sez...I should add that, it is a big concern that the permitting on the plant and pond have not seemed to be a priority in the way that they should be. The community's health is at stake here, and I can't see the County or State putting us in jeopardy if Surfside has expressed remorse and willingness to fully cooperate. The current site needs to be acceptable in order to provide safe running water to Surfside in the near-term.
We don't have the time to remove the plant and relocate it, while keeping the taps on. Somehow the HOA Board doesn't see the urgency, so why should the State ?
Can there ever be a topic where trees don't come up? But since you did 6:55, are you aware that the person making the complaint offered to trim the trees and the owner said no? Some people require fines to get them to do what they should have done in the first place.
Back on topic.
From what I read there the decision to wait till March is based on what the test results are. It would have been nice if they said when the results will be done or if they have already and what they are. What I do hope is whenever they do change it they increase the amount used before. From what I was told at a meeting the problem that we had last year was that they underestimated how much was needed. Everything was fine initially at start up due to the decrease usage during the winter but ended up depleted for the high use summer months which resulted in water issues for a bunch of members.
It doesn't merit Superior Court, and I doubt that the Courts think so either. Tree heights and shed eaves are not "issues" in the big picture of Superior Court and their case loads. The HOA has the sense of power due to our large budget, that they just can't pass up an opportunity to flex that muscle, knowing that most members are intimidated by their spending power.
Johansen was chased out of the community, and left with $10,000 in legal costs - for having a small porch on a shed hidden in the trees. It cost the HOA about $75,000, and they withdrew the lawsuit because they were going to lose. Apparently, the BOT thought that was a reasonable exchange. I doubt any owners think so.
So much for your snarky remark. The reference to trees should be pretty obvious, as that's what the current lawsuit is about. Trees that were totally cut down in the face of fines and disrespect of their private property - their trees. It's a non-issue at this point, but the BOT wants to put the hurt on 'em. Teach 'em a lesson.
Better idea. Instead of the trees, let's get rid of the corrupt BOT!
They have repeatedly proved their incompetence at managing a large organization, r.e. trees, water, and community relations. If they refuse to leave, dissolve the organization.
Hey 6:55P. If you want to talk about trees use the link on this blog marked TREES. You can blag on all you want there
The remark wasn't snarky at all, just an obvious question. Why bring up trees on a topic concerning water department?
Now you want to bring up sheds? Have you ever gone by and looked at Patrick's building? If you are being honest a "shed" is not the first description that comes to mind. Even his real estate listing didn't call it one. And I'm sure you and the rest of his defenders will continue to ignore a big fact. He altered his plans that were approved by the Arch committee and didn't go back to get them re-approved which is required. If he would have done so the whole mess would have been avoided. Then instead of appealing like everyone else he decided to go running to a lawyer. But all of you excuse him of this because it's easier to and accepted here to blame the board.
Have you seen the shed on approx. 30101 G st? It has an overhang of well over 18 inches. It's on the east side of the street. It's an extremely nice example of a well kept RV lot and I like the shed a lot, but the overhang seems to be out of compliance? I'd like to build one like it.
Have you seen the shed at 311 and I street? Looks like an ugly lemon. Who does that ugly eye sore belong too?
Many of us know exactly who that shed belongs to. It is within all the provisions of the covenants and is attractive compared to many other sheds in Surfside. No I am not on the board, have never served on the board, have no friends on the board. Some of us quietly own property in Surfside while we pay attention to what is happening in our community. Others will try anything to stir up trouble or bad feelings with little regard for the truth or ethics like 12:12. Get a life and put your energy towards efforts that result in improving our community rather than stirring up more crap.
10:10...Your account is not accurate, but it ignores the fact that $75,000 was spent on legal fees on a case they couldn't win. The same is true of the current lawsuit. Superior Court doesn't want to deal with this trivial nonsense, when the HOA should be able to resolve such matters.
Patrick had already bought property elsewhere when the lawsuit was brought against him. The current owner of the property being sued has already cut down ALL of the trees rather than top them. There is no need to sue at great expense or collect fines. Compliance is enough.
The point is, the BOT needs to tend to their own disaster which seems to be leading to shutting down the Water Plant, and turning off community water. The "stop-work order" was issued by the county in August. The first of November Mr. Neil said that the carbon material needed replacing, based on their tests.
That was delayed due to lack of funds, and scheduled for January, and that has now been delayed until March, when they plan to replace the material in ONE column. The plant has already missed a scheduled flushing months ago, has no holding pond for flushed water, and the plant may need to be moved.
It has been pointed out that there was not enough carbon material ordered in the initial set-up, and the filters retained debris the last flushing. At this point it is clear that there is no set schedule of maintenance to assure our drinking water is safe, and the BOT has abandoned maintenance in favor of spending HOA funds on yet another stupid lawsuit likely to cost another $75,000 or more.
Getting County approval for the Plant, Pond and CTP building is urgent, and the community has no alternative that is practical. ALL of the BOT's efforts should be focused on correcting their mistakes and begging for permits to continue at the current location. Owners will not appreciate the BOT's priorities, when in a few months, the CTP Plant is permanently shut down, and Surfside's water is turned OFF !!
That's the significance of sheds and trees. Get it ?
Cool 1:55, I'm contemplating buying a water truck, might be a lucrative business around the area for a while? Everyone, time to look into purchasing and plumbing a holding tank for your water.
Well, aren't you just to cute 2:24. This may be a laughing matter for you, but not the rest of us who have to pay for the boards stupid lack of attention. 1:55 talks sense while you just try to be cute. Surfside is in a mess that could bankrupt the association and leave the members with a financial obligation for years, long after the association is dissolved. The state may step in and take the water operations away from us for mismanagement. The association could also be dissolved by the state for failure to adhere to the rcw's for a non-profit corporation. So go ahead and make your jokes, simple mind, while Rome burns.
Cute? I just checked, yes I am.
Pricing trucks now. Also found best deals for water containers are at the 1000 gal level. That should last the average fulltime household about 6 to 10 days. At that rate I'll need two trucks at least, heck, I might need a tanker!
Good business opp for an ex well driller.😡
1:55, you said my account was inaccurate but didn't say how. Are you saying he didn't alter the original approved plans? He did. Are you saying he went back to get his changes approved? He didn't. So what is not accurate?
If he would have followed the proper procedures it would have been dealt with at the beginning before anything was built. But again, he didn't.
Everyone can try to hang Bill Neal out to dry, but the final responsibility lies with the Board. Leadership comes from the top, and we have none, just a collection of self interest.
1:44...How is stating an opinion of the aesthetics of someone's shed, apparently Gary William's shed, stirring up trouble ? And you're telling someone to "get a life" ?
3:11....Whether or not you think Johansen's shed was compliant, the matter should have been resolved. The shed is located where no one really sees it anyway. There is no great shame in looking at the ultimate impact of such a trivial thing, and on that basis, issuing a warning to the owner about future projects.
HOA's should do everything they can to avoid Superior Court and the expense to both parties. Johansen doesn't live in Surfside, what remains is a debt of about $75,000 foolishly squandered by the Board over a case they could not win.
Post a Comment