FEB. 2021
SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
REGULAR BOARD MEETING SUMMARY
February 20, 2021
President Gary Williams called to order the Regular Board Meeting of the Surfside Homeowners Association at 9:00 am. Trustees present via Webex were Mark Scott, Ric Minich, Rudd Turner, James Clancy, Kurt Olds, Dan Neptun, Mariann Schweitzer, Tom Rogers
• Gary Williams safety message was on severe winter weather. Be mindful of downed powerlines during a storm, do not drive over or under active powerlines.
• The agenda for the February 20, 2021 regular board meeting was amended and approved.
• The minutes from the January 16, 2021 Regular Board Meeting were approved.
• Complaint #5599 – This item was deferred until a determination is made on the “Perch Tree” federal restrictions and/or permits.
• Closed Session- The Trustees moved into closed session at 11:20 am to discuss legal matters. The board reconvened at 12:16 pm.
• Code of Civility- This item was approved to be added to the Annual meeting agenda in July.
• Proposed Lighting Covenant Change- This item was approved to be added to the Annual Meeting Agenda in July.
• 2021 Level III Reserve Study- The Reserve Study for 2021 prepared by Schwindt & Company was ap-proved.
• Proposed campfire restrictions- The motion for this item failed, the proposal was not accepted.
• Multi-Dwelling Fee-This item is for members who own more than one residence in Surfside. Motion passed to keep the fee in place.
• CRC – Joanne McMurphy was added to the Community Relations Committee.
• Appeal of fines Complaint #5295-Fines are reduced and will be held in abeyance for one (1) year. If any complaint comes in during that year, the fines will be reimposed.
• 10 Year Plan Schematics from Grey & Osborne-This proposal was approved.
• Proposal for NBW Tie-In- No motion was made on this item.
• Proposed Square Footage Reduction- No motion was made on this item.
• WMR & SELP bids- The bid from Ferguson was accepted for pipe and equipment at a cost of $78,644.49 not including tax.
• Nominating Committee – Valerie Harrison was approved as the 2021 Nominating Committee Chair.
• All Staff, committee & trustee reports were accepted.
• Meeting adjourned at 12:55 pm
50 comments:
Two measures were approved to become part of the July Annual Meeting agenda. No details have been offered-and why is that ? The lighting discussion has been consistently shrowded in secrecy. Over 100 members made their opinions clear, that this is an issue that is considered largely to be a practical issue, and within reason, a matter of each household's needs and preferences. The Trustees present at the Jan. 2020 Member meeting, pledged to leave the covenant largely unchanged, setting specific wattage and lumen levels as limits. That never happened. Having this covenant change sprung on the members in July IS NOT ADEQUATE. The details need to be announced now! This sneaky business is without integrity or respect of proper process.
They have to send it out at least a month before the annual meeting so members can have time to review then we can make our comments at the meeting
12:43....That may or may not happen. Since they didn't do what they said they would do to follow-up on the Jan. 2020 meeting, there is no basis for trust. There really is no excuse for secrecy. There have been NO covenant changes of any kind in many years. Lighting is not an appropriate issue to be discussed only secretively, and has the potential to have great impact on the entire community. The community needs to know exactly WHAT was approved by the Board immediately. We should insist on it ! We have no idea what their intentions are, and we know that fewer than 10% of the membership is represented in person at the Annual Meeting.
According to the Restrictive Covanants 9.3 the proposed amendment shall be mailed to each member of record not less than 30 days before the hearing date. So does this mean that in addition to the members annual meeting there will be a hearing by the BOT? Seems like a little too much to accomplish at an annual meeting which is a members meeting
Steve, there was a significant change in the covenants in 2019 simply by a vote of the BOT. That was when they changed from being complaint driven to compliance driven rules in the covenants. This totally changed the way “problems” are handled.
There have been covenant changes as recently as 2018.
When is olds term up?
I'm not at all sure there is such a covenant JoAnne. That sounds like an "Operations Manual" provision which to my mind, does not qualify as "covenants", in part because they do not require any member participation to approve. I also don't buy the significance Winegar put on formally becoming "conpliance driven". It does mean that there is intended to be a Compliance Officer. On the other hand, there was already a Compliance Officer. The HOA is obligated to respond to "complaints" or conflicts with neighbors. I believe that the last Covenant change was a change to the tree heights 8 or 10 years ago. I don' t kbow specifically when. The real point is, there is no excuse for this secrecy b.s. on the part of the Board. And reference has been made to the Int. Dark Skies Assoc., when the community has NOT had a big outcry for darker skies.Get real! Many people like my wife and I bought as a retirement get away, and expect to be able to and from our cars safely, and light our porches if we have guests. I'm not going to get shoved around behind this bull*hit.
This is only a water company. The BOT as evidenced in last claims court action has overstepped what do judges hate? Groups abusing power this is happening here again and again. They ignore signs. One good case can sink this HOA
was there a covenant change related to shed "overhang" ? was that in 2018 ? had something to do with patrick's shed ?
Good point 9:29. This was rammed through without any community discussion, so invalid in a sense - and all to be able to screw with Patrick and RV owners he had hoped to champion. The Courts have viewed this as a pointless restriction with no merit. Just because the HOA has a rule, doesn't mean it will be considered valid to enforce. If the merit of the restriction cannot be demonstrated, Courts have tended to consider such HOA rules frivolous and of no merit. The Tree restrictions seem to be another such rule that causes permanent damage to private property, while the HOA demands members bear this compliance cost.
Steve, yes the covenant is under 6.0 , 6.3a. How to report violations of the restrictive covenants. Then at the August 17, 2019 meeting in the minutes, new business D. “Mark Scott made the motion Gary Willams seconded to direct staff to follow the covenants and be proactive in enforcement of Covenants to reverse complaint driven compliance. Vote yes-8. No-0
So the way I interpret this is a covenant was changed without a hearing. I was at that meeting and was very surprised to see this handled in such a casual manner because of all the repercussions!
It appears that nobody on this forum has decided to run for the Board. If so, then you have no standing to complain about actions the Board takes because you are really not that interested in trying to actually make changes. You can bet that with Valerie being selected to chair the nomination committee, that you will probably get a choice of a Clancy or Williams clone. Also, how does the Board enact a “civility” action? Do they plan on having the compliance officer become the judge and jury for “civility”? The Board has NO authority to exercise a limitation on your rights. If someone wants to complain, they do so by contacting the authorities and filing a complaint. If not satisfied, a civil suit (a form of a restraining order) can be filed where a real judge, not some Board member with a personal agenda can decree some sort civil penalty, if so deemed. Also, a “noise” fine. Now let me see, didn’t Olds and DeLees try and have a neighbor fined last year when they determined the person was “making too much noise”? Seems as though this an “end run” by certain members of the Board to justify pushing punishment on others they may disagree with. Again, this would be a civil action, not the realm of the compliance officer or the Board. If neighborly discussions don’t work, call the police. After all, didn’t Mr. Clancy just spend $500k of your money for a police officer? Oh, but he ran away. Again, the Board is NOT judge and jury, and actually open themselves to litigation should they attempt theses actions. Stand up if you want change, don’t get discouraged!
1150 - why would anyone not consumed in self interest volunteer to serve an organization that doesn't even follow its OWN rules, operating amorally and in a totally self serving fashion?
@11:50, yes you hit it right on the noise complaint. Again, it is OLDS and DELEEST wanting the big tree cut down, for a personal reason.
I can’t believe this tree thing has now escalated to involving the federal government! If these people were given a variance 11 years ago, honor it! I don’t care if it wasn’t presented to the board to ok at that time! Get over it!
The shed issue had to be spelled out so people couldn't abuse it due to nothing in writing. Any reasonable person who looked at Patrick's "shed" could see it didn't fit the usual definition. Even his real estate listing didn't call it a shed.
Nobody will be forced to walk to their car in the dark, just to have reasonable lighting or ones on a sensor. What people don't want is to have to buy blackout curtains because someone wants to light up the neighborhood like Vegas.
deLeest didn't make the noise complaint, it was neighbors in the area. I've walked by there when the music was a full blast. I dare you or anyone else to put up with that from your neighbor.
Small Court has not acknowledged this stupid eaves limit as a legitimate issue, and neither does anyone sensible that I've talked to. As for the lighting issue concerns I've expressed, your contention that any changes or restrictions will be sensible is not founded on knowledge of what exactly the Board has approved. They have not made that public which is inappropriate and reason for member distrust. They give us reason to be suspicious by taking action secretively. I know nothing of the noise issue. Such a complaint can be given warning, mobitored and fined. It's an entirely different matter than the other stuff here.
@11:50 here we go again, that is not true, get your facts straight before you slander someone with incorrect information, please leave our name out of this issue as we have nothing to do with this tree, can’t see it and don’t live near it, have not filed a complaint against it! Same with the noise complaint, don’t live next to it, can’t hear it and have not made a complaint against it!
Anonymous 11:50 action required: please get your facts straight before you post incorrect information about the noise complaint! Same goes for anonymous @11:50 about the tree, all your doing is stirring the pot to see what reaction you get!
DeLeast has spoken with her record of making complaints against others. She has a record of killing trees and harassing the members. She and her J Place friends are disgusting. Poor baby crying slander. She needs to crawl back under the rock she came from along with poor Freddie.
Now don't go getting Fred's panties all tied in a knot. Remember, he has to live with Annette. Though it may be better than taking a Peg'ing.
@7:09 - really? How does your comment add any value to the discussion? It is confusing how even with moderation some comments are deleted while others like yours are allowed.
A. deLeest is no longer on the Board. Looking at the first B. Meeting of the new configuration, the agenda is very enforcement heavy. I think it's important to bear in mind that a very conservative contingent has been in control of policy and Board positions for many years. The current Board appears it will be no exception.
I do think that the pathological drive to cut down this protected roosting tree, shows how far off the rails Surfside Tree Restrictions and drive for more enforcement has gone. It's frustrating to be treated so indifferently as members where this stuff is concerned. That's where the anger comes from.
If it is true, it is NOT slander. What has deLeest ever done that has made Surfside better? Her term on the board was a complete failure. To call these kind of people "conservative" is a cruel joke. These are bad people doing bad things. They give the definition of conservative, a bad name.
Your comments are the cruel joke. Acting in one's own self-interest is a common inclination. The governed always hope for the elected "governors" to rise to the higher calling - acting in the community's interest. HOA stuff shouldn't come to this, but often does. Nothing is accomplished through such extreme feelings.
With your double talk, you would fit right in with this board. Your all smoke and mirrors and have contributed nothing to Surfside. Talk is cheap and you do a lot of that. To make a change in Surfside will require extreme feelings. Then the members will make changes. The example you set is nothing more than talk and more talk. As a moral compass, you do not pass the smell test.
"we have nothing to do with this tree, can’t see it and don’t live near it, have not filed a complaint against it! Same with the noise complaint, don’t live next to it, can’t hear it and have not made a complaint against it!" maybe......but perhaps you may have friends and/or relatives that do? people with powerful influence on the board or with other board members should be open and honest about their possible biases
Agreed hey use influence to funnel their talking points. One good court case may be the tree could crater all covenants. And denial stated maybe true in facts but not in influence big difference court will out whole thing
1:45....You have an extremely righteous tone for being just an anonymous blabbermouth. Aside from joining committees or running for the Board, ANY discussion of Surfside issues is part of the process whether ypu give it any credence or not.
I have served my Lacey HOA as a Board member over 3 years, and was very involved with the HOA for another 2 years after. I ran for Surfside Board in 2019, something fewer than 50 members have done in the 5 years we have owned our place in Surfside.
In a community of over 2000 member households, there are surely in the range of 3500 members who could run for the Board or participate in the HOA. Maybe you should use your brain rather than rely on the "smell test".
As far as DeLeest goes it is justified by the Olds case of guilt by association. Of course you did strip property creating an erosion problem, then left it. May be you should re-plant it. How many times do we have to hear that Mr Cox served on another HOA Board? He provides the same story day by day, criticizes others and eulogizes himself, but no action, just noise. That will not do anything of substance.
7:05 - You can't verify that you are even a Surfside member without identifying yourself. No one owes YOU diddly squat.
Once again "all show, no go"!
Today is March 4th not May.
Geez a little quick to start throwing shade when you didn't even know what month it is, smh
Whoops. I apologize. I'll remove the previous post. The board has given a two month notice on Facebook for board member applications for the 2020 board election.
Thanks for the heads up 11:47.
It's probably too much trouble to email all the members. I guess.
Why doesn't the board email all of these notices? Email info about meetings, covenant discussions, upcoming events....all sorts of info. Pick one or two of the most important topics in the weekender and email those. An email is sent about the water questionnaire. Email reaches EVERYONE and is easy to do. They already have everyone's email. If people don't want it they can just mark it junk and it won't even go into their inbox.
The Trustee nominating period needs to be announced in the Weekender. I don't ever use Facebook, and many members surely don't either.
Most people probably don't use Facebook or Weekender. If the board wants to reach everyone they should use email.
This is 2:15. I agree. They should use email. They're too lazy, don't really care, and aren't sincere about reaching everyone.
Not all members have email
Not all members have email, nor do all members have a social media account. Most have 1 or the other, so send out an email, with a link to the forms, its already on Facebook.
The noise complaint was started by the Harris family who lives next door to the noise, Deleests had nothing to do with it.
So I see there are 3- 3 year terms open and 1- 1 year term.
When is Olds position up? Who are the 4 leaving...Clancy, Mark and....
@2:06, you are right about influence regarding the tree. Didn't delaest just have a relative who bought right by the tree?
I can hardly wait for the neat and tidy covenant to come along. Another one of Annetts bright ideas. Whats neat to someone and maybe its all they got, is going to be trash to another. Not every member is able to keep up, this is an elderly community. I think this was created as a personal dig with someone.
Not all members have facebook or go to the weekender either. Do it all. The more ways to get the word out the better.
Not all members use Facebook.
Olds must go
Olds bad
I agree. Olds bad.
Post a Comment