This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Pictures Worth A Thousand Words
These pictures show partly where we are and why.
For me to really state how I feel about all of this, would be a violation of my own blog standards, that language that is clearly offensive is not allowed. *@#*^
WOW, even if this pipe didn't have asbestos, it a very dirty and unkept, unsightly way to do business. Who runs this and thinks it's OK just to dump stuff willy nilly arouond and leave it there? Dangerous at least just to walk in the area.
That second picture is interesting. Someone looks like they attempted to handle the pipe correctly by wrapping it in plastic. That would indicate that they had some knowledge about how to handle asbestos. That is very incriminating. We should sell the water department it is apparent that we do not know what we are doing and we are now going to get to pay the price.
Fact check.. The "lake" is the newly constructed shallow depression that will be used as a collection for settlement of the flushed water from the new carbon filter plant. This is in our well field and a wet lands that was made without a study or permit. The water in the depression would have filtered down through the asbestos pipe and any other junk they threw into the hole. Our well field water is recharged from surface water that recharges in the Winter rains. Same is true for North Beach. Long Beach and South, get their water from the hills. I have been told that Long Beach Water has the capacity to supply the entire peninsula. Is there a solution to our problem in plain sight? I feel sure that the State and County would like to see one water district that included the entire peninsula. This is all above my pay grade. I am sure there are answers out there. You just have to ask the right questions. AND to the right people.
The issues relating to asbestos could have easily been avoided, the dangers of mishandling asbestos common knowledge for 50 years now. This colossal blunder can and will be corrected, and in itself, is not a sound reason to abandon operation and ownership of our own Water Dept.
If we are not able to manage permitting of the pond and plant, we may find ourselves in an unworkable position to remove these features and rebuild elsewhere. Surfside has a lot of wetlands, and has essentially been created out of a huge wetland reworked to reclaim land bordered by canals. Often the process of permitting to build in wetland areas requires dedicating preserved wetlands elsewhere on the same owner's property.
There is reason to think that this issue could have been negotiated with the State, considering we already have structures and wells on the same property, and a lot of undeveloped wetland areas. That may still be possible, in which case, there is no reason to give up our Water Dept.. We can just restructure the management, and establish a mandatory revue of procedures scheduled throughout the year.
It may be best to stop the pipe project for a period of restructuring, and training required for asbestos handling. We will probably have need for the $150,000 budgeted for this year's pipe-laying, paying fines and legal expenses. But I think we should not rush into giving up on any of our infrastructure, given that corrective measures need not be that complicated.
There's a lot of stuff still in question as we look to the near future. Some heads may roll, and the final burden of fines and legal expenses may prove too much for our BOT to handle. More likely, that we will need to restructure our Board and management and forge on with new resolve, and a solid awareness of what is most key to our community's survival -
"Keeping our eyes on the prize", (what's most cherished), OR politics as usual, and Trustees struttin' their authority ?
Lack of building permits and wetland survey was on purpose. If done, it would have delayed filter insall even more n have led to even heftier fines n possible shutdown of system. Result of improper sampling and foot dragging.
12:55. Perhaps better to transition the Water Treatment Plant to Long Beach Water Dept (not sure anyone would want North Beach to run it). Remove the operations costs from our HOA budget and let folks pay for water based on actual consumption. The 1800 or so members who are here seasonally because they have vacation homes, RV lots or undeveloped lots have been subsiding the water costs for the 400 or less full-timers long enough. I would rather pay for my water based on usage. Same with the trash compactor. The majority of members are paying to operate the compactor and support the staff year-round for about 15% of the members. We have been taken for fools long enough. HOAs can charge members based on actual consumption/usage - but the deceptive Board has led us to believe otherwise. Change is coming.
I understand why you and others feel this way Ms. Blagg. What I don't understand is why you purchased property in a HOA. That's how things work.
No different in the outside world either. I pay taxes that go to schools and mass transit, both items that I don't and will never use. Yet I don't have the option to not pay. I also don't have the option to go on a blog to complain about it.
The Long Beach water system goes to Cranberry. Their reservoir in the hills behind the dump, is really not large enough to support the whole peninsula. Their existing pipes are not any better than NBW or SHOA's
New pipes and boosters and more than likely a couple of rather large elevated water reservoirs to maintain fireflow capacity and pressure on the system. Would have to be built and installed to get the water from Cranberry to the NBW pipes, which would need to be upgraded. Then new pipes and booster pumps and interty would be needed to tie into SHOA water system.
The seasonal and fire flow needs for water down here makes things complicated.
Your talking about a very large infrastructure project that might have to include a sewer system to satisfy federal requirements.
You are really talking about some HUGE dollars invested to make this work peninsula wide
5:56. That’s a good question, but it’s not how all HOA’s work.
When we purchased our property I did my due diligence by carefully reading the Articles & Bylaws and the Covenants. I noted there are provisions for changing the governing documents. I failed to grasp the unilateral control of the Board over such changes, but I also read the RCWs governing HOAs and saw that the law empowers members to call and vote in member meetings when there is a quorum. Unfortunately when I made a motion at the Annual Meeting to amend the Articles & Bylaws to give members voting rights on the governing documents & Covenants and authorize electronic voting, my motion was illegally blocked and a vote wasn’t even put to the members present, who comprised a quorum.
When we purchased our property, it was unclear to me what the cost was to operate the water treatment plant and compactor site. I also didn’t realize the significant number of part-timers, so I didn’t realize how much the part-timers actually subsidize water & garbage services for 15% of full-timers who consume far more water and generate far more waste.
I think it’s unrealistic to compare HOA fees paid to a non-profit corporation to taxes paid to a governmental entity. We all benefit directly or indirectly from taxes. We pay for schools even though our children are grown because society benefits when we educate future generations. We pay for mass transit whether we use it or not because it’s good for the environment and the economy. We also pay municipalities for water, utilities and garbage service based on usage.
We also own property in another HOA in Lacey. In our HOA we pay metered costs for some services like electricity & propane, while others, like CATV, are free. We all pay for the pool & gym, whether we use it or not. Before purchasing in another HOA I was even more cautious. I read the governing documents and Covenants before we purchased. I was pleased to see the Members have a stronger voice and get to vote on these documents. I also got the budget and financials from the Treasurer so I would know the financial health of the HOA. We made several trips to the property and made a point of meeting as many owners as possible to get a feel on what they think about the HOA and Board. People were overwhelmingly positive.
Consumption-based charges for Surfside water would be easy because we already have installed water meters. Perhaps everyone with water service would pay a a minimum monthly charge to maintain the meter and system, much like it is with our PUD electricity. Although electricity is charged based on usage, we must pay PUD a minimum of $25 per month - even when we use none. The same could be done for water provided by Surfside.
Bob, thanks for sharing your knowledge on this. What about contracting out the operation (and liability) to Long Beach or NBW so they would operate the plant and charge residents for water? Or we just keep the plant operated by Surfside (or an HOA Management company) but still charge based on usage. I see nothing in the RCWs to prevent chafes based on actual consumption.
Personally you need competent folks running things like Ken Karch and myself did. Things were moving in the right direction until, Jim Flood, Grant M, Larry Nelson and Debbie R. came into the mix.
You guys have already contracted out the management of the system to Billy Neal and North Beach Water and look where that got you guys.
You guys need to fire some folks and get moving on finding replacements, you really can't afford to maintain the status quo. time to move on right the ship
I checked my source once again, after making the statement about Long Beach being able to supply (has the water capacity and availability) water to the entire peninsula. This was reaffirmed that this was said by the operator of the LB water works department.
Yes it would be expensive to tie the entire peninsula together and there would indubitably be some opposition. The first question those outside of Surfside might ask...Why take on the Surfside mess?
A project this size would take years and cost millions of dollars. Such an approved plan by the regulatory agencies would first be needed. State and Federal funds in the way of grants and long term loans might be available.
Surfside is spending millions now and replacing miles of pipe. And, how is that working for us? The water I use is no better, if not worse than it was 14 years ago.
I would bet there has already been study and discussion about the water use and supply of the entire peninsula. We need to tap into that and be involved. A consolidated one water management would save millions of dollars. (a guess).
Bob mentioned sewers. That is a separate issue that was part of the original development plan for Surfside. The increased removal of trees with resulting increase of storm water run off, may make the need for sewers sooner rather than later.
I don't know the answers to these issues, but I think we should be looking. What we are doing now is not working. We just keep limping along with status quo and ignorant self interest people running the show.
I feel compelled to reply to the statement made by Deb Blagg about charging for actual water consumption. I understand her view and thinking on this as she is a member who is here part time and a relatively newcomer in our 50 plus year old association.
Those who have been here for many years and/or their family owned parcels, have been paying for the installation and maintenance since the beginning. They have more of an investment in actual dollars than newer members.
Most members are smart enough to know that there would not be a reduction in their dues and assessments because they are paying for metered water now. Maybe at the start, but then watch the rate increase. Essentially members would be paying for their water twice. It's like taxes. Ever see them go away?
Deb is a respected person and has a right to her views and opinions. However, the problem is more complex than just charging everyone the same for water use. Our water system and it's facilities is an investment with the promise that members would never be charged for metered water. Just my thoughts. A more important issue than sheds and TV's, for sure.
No George, I beg to differ. We have three lots, but only one water hookup, yet we pay for all three lot assessments. It would be much cheaper for us, and any other multi lot owner, to be a meter pay.
Back when the meters were required to be installed there were many topics concerning that the board was going to start charging for water with countless comments from people expressing concerns with that possibility and placing the usual accusations and outrage against the board. Years later and more recent the same happened when the board decided to set a threshold for water usage and a penalty for going above it. Some of the same folks again were making the comments that this was going to be the beginning of charging for water for all and again the same accusations against the board. All without merit.
Now we have Ms. Blagg actually calling for the charging of water. Will those so critical of the board be just as critical of her? I'll be curious to see if that happens but I doubt it will.
Thanks to George for posting his views on this issue.
9:59 - to clarify, I’m not calling for charging for water, but merely throwing out ideas for discussion and consideration. Prior to taking any action, a feasibility study would need to be done to determinr the cost impact and potential service disruption, followed by an implementation plan and member vote. If water was billed based on consumption, the HOA budget & apportionments would potentially drop substantially if the largest cost center became self-supporting. I was primarily thinking about this action if we were to dissolve the HOA. If we could salvage the HOA and hire a management company to oversee Surfside, or replace the Board with competent leadership, keeping the current operations might be best.
12/13 5:56 PM. Your analogy to paying for schools and mass transit have no relevance here. Deb's statements and reasoning is clear, reasonable, and applies to our HOA if we want. Put it to a vote of the members. Oh yeah, our BOT and J Place members don't want the members to have a say in anything. We'll see how much longer that goes on.
I don't know if we should or should not. It is evident what we have been doing is not working. It is destroying us. I just wish it could go back to where it used to be. Maybe the association owned water system can be fixed. At this point, it does not seem likely to me. Flood and Williams got their mile of pipe, but at what price? With the investigations and fines, the solution may be out of our hands. What a shame. We don't deserve this.
All those that wanted to be a Board member and lost in our elections consider your self lucky you have nothing to be worried about.
Now on the other hand who ever planed the new filtration system has alot to be worried about.
We own the water system and have spent a lot of time and money getting it to the point it is now, we have the best water on the peninsula and you want to throw it away.
just take control and keep everting in the open and we wont have these problems.
We will have to find a new business manager so we can tare down that wall and let or dogs run a muck.
Who were the members of the Architectural committee that approved all this with out a permit, if it would have been for one of our permits they would fight you every step of the process.
Right on Martin. It never went to the Architectural Committee. The committee is busy writing up sheds. Another worthless committee. The county can do all the permits and inspections that are necessary. The committee should only be doing business related to surfside owned property. That was the original concept in the articles of incorporation.
36 comments:
OMFG!
Couldn't agree more, George.
Looking forward to the headline, 5 INDITED IN SURFSIDE ASBESTOS SCANDAL
God, This was just so stupid.
Even on the darkest and coldest night (and there were too many to count while working for free) I would have never considered doing this
What was the management duo thinking, when thought they could get away with such a blatant in your face way.
The Duo knew all regulations and relating laws and yet they did it anyway .... WHY?
WOW, even if this pipe didn't have asbestos, it a very dirty and unkept, unsightly way to do business. Who runs this and thinks it's OK just to dump stuff willy nilly arouond and leave it there? Dangerous at least just to walk in the area.
After reading the article I have to wonder what lake they buried the asbestos under...
me, too, 9:01
That second picture is interesting. Someone looks like they attempted to handle the pipe correctly by wrapping it in plastic. That would indicate that they had some knowledge about how to handle asbestos. That is very incriminating. We should sell the water department it is apparent that we do not know what we are doing and we are now going to get to pay the price.
Fact check..
The "lake" is the newly constructed shallow depression that will be used as a collection for settlement of the flushed water from the new carbon filter plant. This is in our well field and a wet lands that was made without a study or permit. The water in the depression would have filtered down through the asbestos pipe and any other junk they threw into the hole. Our well field water is recharged from surface water that recharges in the Winter rains. Same is true for North Beach. Long Beach and South, get their water from the hills. I have been told that Long Beach Water has the capacity to supply the entire peninsula. Is there a solution to our problem in plain sight? I feel sure that the State and County would like to see one water district that included the entire peninsula. This is all above my pay grade. I am sure there are answers out there. You just have to ask the right questions. AND to the right people.
Just what "they" had in mind. I would rather see them in jail and us with our own management.
The issues relating to asbestos could have easily been avoided, the dangers of mishandling asbestos common knowledge for 50 years now. This colossal blunder can and will be corrected, and in itself, is not a sound reason to abandon operation and ownership of our own Water Dept.
If we are not able to manage permitting of the pond and plant, we may find ourselves in an unworkable position to remove these features and rebuild elsewhere. Surfside has a lot of wetlands, and has essentially been created out of a huge wetland reworked to reclaim land bordered by canals. Often the process of permitting to build in wetland areas requires dedicating preserved wetlands elsewhere on the same owner's property.
There is reason to think that this issue could have been negotiated with the State, considering we already have structures and wells on the same property, and a lot of undeveloped wetland areas. That may still be possible, in which case, there is no reason to give up our Water Dept.. We can just restructure the management, and establish a mandatory revue of procedures scheduled throughout the year.
It may be best to stop the pipe project for a period of restructuring, and training required for asbestos handling. We will probably have need for the $150,000 budgeted for this year's pipe-laying, paying fines and legal expenses. But I think we should not rush into giving up on any of our infrastructure, given that corrective measures need not be that complicated.
There's a lot of stuff still in question as we look to the near future. Some heads may roll, and the final burden of fines and legal expenses may prove too much for our BOT to handle. More likely, that we will need to restructure our Board and management and forge on with new resolve, and a solid awareness of what is most key to our community's survival -
"Keeping our eyes on the prize", (what's most cherished), OR politics as usual, and Trustees struttin' their authority ?
Lack of building permits and wetland survey was on purpose. If done, it would have delayed filter insall even more n have led to even heftier fines n possible shutdown of system. Result of improper sampling and foot dragging.
I like what you say 12:55
12:55. Perhaps better to transition the Water Treatment Plant to Long Beach Water Dept (not sure anyone would want North Beach to run it). Remove the operations costs from our HOA budget and let folks pay for water based on actual consumption. The 1800 or so members who are here seasonally because they have vacation homes, RV lots or undeveloped lots have been subsiding the water costs for the 400 or less full-timers long enough. I would rather pay for my water based on usage. Same with the trash compactor. The majority of members are paying to operate the compactor and support the staff year-round for about 15% of the members. We have been taken for fools long enough. HOAs can charge members based on actual consumption/usage - but the deceptive Board has led us to believe otherwise. Change is coming.
I understand why you and others feel this way Ms. Blagg. What I don't understand is why you purchased property in a HOA. That's how things work.
No different in the outside world either. I pay taxes that go to schools and mass transit, both items that I don't and will never use. Yet I don't have the option to not pay. I also don't have the option to go on a blog to complain about it.
When you joined an HOA, certain things are assumed. Honesty, transparency, communication. We get none of this.
What we get our people were mercilessly pursuing their own special interests, to the detriment of the rest of association.
I truly hope we find a way out of this, but at this point, dissolution would not be that bad an idea. It would certainly be better than status quo.
Deb and others
The Long Beach water system goes to Cranberry. Their reservoir in the hills behind the dump, is really not large enough to support the whole peninsula. Their existing pipes are not any better than NBW or SHOA's
New pipes and boosters and more than likely a couple of rather large elevated water reservoirs to maintain fireflow capacity and pressure on the system. Would have to be built and installed to get the water from Cranberry to the NBW pipes, which would need to be upgraded. Then new pipes and booster pumps and interty would be needed to tie into SHOA water system.
The seasonal and fire flow needs for water down here makes things complicated.
Your talking about a very large infrastructure project that might have to include a sewer system to satisfy federal requirements.
You are really talking about some HUGE dollars invested to make this work peninsula wide
5:56. That’s a good question, but it’s not how all HOA’s work.
When we purchased our property I did my due diligence by carefully reading the Articles & Bylaws and the Covenants. I noted there are provisions for changing the governing documents. I failed to grasp the unilateral control of the Board over such changes, but I also read the RCWs governing HOAs and saw that the law empowers members to call and vote in member meetings when there is a quorum. Unfortunately when I made a motion at the Annual Meeting to amend the Articles & Bylaws to give members voting rights on the governing documents & Covenants and authorize electronic voting, my motion was illegally blocked and a vote wasn’t even put to the members present, who comprised a quorum.
When we purchased our property, it was unclear to me what the cost was to operate the water treatment plant and compactor site. I also didn’t realize the significant number of part-timers, so I didn’t realize how much the part-timers actually subsidize water & garbage services for 15% of full-timers who consume far more water and generate far more waste.
I think it’s unrealistic to compare HOA fees paid to a non-profit corporation to taxes paid to a governmental entity. We all benefit directly or indirectly from taxes. We pay for schools even though our children are grown because society benefits when we educate future generations. We pay for mass transit whether we use it or not because it’s good for the environment and the economy. We also pay municipalities for water, utilities and garbage service based on usage.
We also own property in another HOA in Lacey. In our HOA we pay metered costs for some services like electricity & propane, while others, like CATV, are free. We all pay for the pool & gym, whether we use it or not. Before purchasing in another HOA I was even more cautious. I read the governing documents and Covenants before we purchased. I was pleased to see the Members have a stronger voice and get to vote on these documents. I also got the budget and financials from the Treasurer so I would know the financial health of the HOA. We made several trips to the property and made a point of meeting as many owners as possible to get a feel on what they think about the HOA and Board. People were overwhelmingly positive.
Consumption-based charges for Surfside water would be easy because we already have installed water meters. Perhaps everyone with water service would pay a a minimum monthly charge to maintain the meter and system, much like it is with our PUD electricity. Although electricity is charged based on usage, we must pay PUD a minimum of $25 per month - even when we use none. The same could be done for water provided by Surfside.
Bob, thanks for sharing your knowledge on this. What about contracting out the operation (and liability) to Long Beach or NBW so they would operate the plant and charge residents for water? Or we just keep the plant operated by Surfside (or an HOA Management company) but still charge based on usage. I see nothing in the RCWs to prevent chafes based on actual consumption.
Deb, I guess have to ask why.
Personally you need competent folks running things like Ken Karch and myself did. Things were moving in the right direction until, Jim Flood, Grant M, Larry Nelson and Debbie R. came into the mix.
You guys have already contracted out the management of the system to Billy Neal and North Beach Water and look where that got you guys.
You guys need to fire some folks and get moving on finding replacements, you really can't afford to maintain the status quo. time to move on right the ship
I checked my source once again, after making the statement about Long Beach being able to supply (has the water capacity and availability) water to the entire peninsula. This was reaffirmed that this was said by the operator of the LB water works department.
Yes it would be expensive to tie the entire peninsula together and there would indubitably be some opposition. The first question those outside of Surfside might ask...Why take on the Surfside mess?
A project this size would take years and cost millions of dollars. Such an approved plan by the regulatory agencies would first be needed. State and Federal funds in the way of grants and long term loans might be available.
Surfside is spending millions now and replacing miles of pipe. And, how is that working for us? The water I use is no better, if not worse than it was 14 years ago.
I would bet there has already been study and discussion about the water use and supply of the entire peninsula. We need to tap into that and be involved. A consolidated one water management would save millions of dollars. (a guess).
Bob mentioned sewers. That is a separate issue that was part of the original development plan for Surfside. The increased removal of trees with resulting increase of storm water run off, may make the need for sewers sooner rather than later.
I don't know the answers to these issues, but I think we should be looking. What we are doing now is not working. We just keep limping along with status quo and ignorant self interest people running the show.
I'd like to put my own well in. The only reason we haven't is because the covenants don't allow it.
I'd like a divorce from North Beach Water.
I feel compelled to reply to the statement made by Deb Blagg about charging for actual water consumption. I understand her view and thinking on this as she is a member who is here part time and a relatively newcomer in our 50 plus year old association.
Those who have been here for many years and/or their family owned parcels, have been paying for the installation and maintenance since the beginning. They have more of an investment in actual dollars than newer members.
Most members are smart enough to know that there would not be a reduction in their dues and assessments because they are paying for metered water now. Maybe at the start, but then watch the rate increase. Essentially members would be paying for their water twice. It's like taxes. Ever see them go away?
Deb is a respected person and has a right to her views and opinions. However, the problem is more complex than just charging everyone the same for water use. Our water system and it's facilities is an investment with the promise that members would never be charged for metered water. Just my thoughts. A more important issue than sheds and TV's, for sure.
Sorry, I mean RV's, not TV's. Need to take my own advice and proof read.
No George, I beg to differ. We have three lots, but only one water hookup, yet we pay for all three lot assessments. It would be much cheaper for us, and any other multi lot owner, to be a meter pay.
Back when the meters were required to be installed there were many topics concerning that the board was going to start charging for water with countless comments from people expressing concerns with that possibility and placing the usual accusations and outrage against the board. Years later and more recent the same happened when the board decided to set a threshold for water usage and a penalty for going above it. Some of the same folks again were making the comments that this was going to be the beginning of charging for water for all and again the same accusations against the board. All without merit.
Now we have Ms. Blagg actually calling for the charging of water. Will those so critical of the board be just as critical of her? I'll be curious to see if that happens but I doubt it will.
Thanks to George for posting his views on this issue.
9:59 - to clarify, I’m not calling for charging for water, but merely throwing out ideas for discussion and consideration. Prior to taking any action, a feasibility study would need to be done to determinr the cost impact and potential service disruption, followed by an implementation plan and member vote. If water was billed based on consumption, the HOA budget & apportionments would potentially drop substantially if the largest cost center became self-supporting. I was primarily thinking about this action if we were to dissolve the HOA. If we could salvage the HOA and hire a management company to oversee Surfside, or replace the Board with competent leadership, keeping the current operations might be best.
Good points expressed by 9:47 and Deb. Proof there can be civil discussion. Thanks
12/13 5:56 PM. Your analogy to paying for schools and mass transit have no relevance here.
Deb's statements and reasoning is clear, reasonable, and applies to our HOA if we want. Put it to a vote of the members.
Oh yeah, our BOT and J Place members don't want the members to have a say in anything.
We'll see how much longer that goes on.
Well said George. I fully agree.
We need to get out of the water business.
I don't know if we should or should not. It is evident what we have been doing is not working. It is destroying us. I just wish it could go back to where it used to be. Maybe the association owned water system can be fixed. At this point, it does not seem likely to me. Flood and Williams got their mile of pipe, but at what price? With the investigations and fines, the solution may be out of our hands. What a shame. We don't deserve this.
All those that wanted to be a Board member and lost in our elections consider your self lucky you have nothing to be worried about.
Now on the other hand who ever planed the new filtration system has alot to be worried about.
We own the water system and have spent a lot of time and money getting it to the point it is now, we have the best water on the peninsula and you want to throw it away.
just take control and keep everting in the open and we wont have these problems.
We will have to find a new business manager so we can tare down that wall and let or dogs run a muck.
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Flood
Who were the members of the Architectural committee that approved all this with out a permit, if it would have been for one of our permits they would fight you every step of the process.
Right on Martin. It never went to the Architectural Committee. The committee is busy writing up sheds. Another worthless committee. The county can do all the permits and inspections that are necessary. The committee should only be doing business related to surfside owned property. That was the original concept in the articles of incorporation.
Can we now get out of this SS hoa without moving I love my place but hate SS hoa
Post a Comment