March 16, 2019 meeting agenda
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Surfside Homeowners Association
Regular Board Meeting
March 16, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
1. Call to Order - Regular Board Meeting (G. Williams)*
2. Adopt the March 16, 2019 Regular Meeting Agenda (G. Williams)*
3. Safety Message (G. Williams)
4. Sheriff’s Report
5. Approval of Regular Board Meeting Minutes of the February 16, 2019 and Special Board Meeting March 8, 2019 (G. Williams)*
6. Floor comments (20 Minutes)
7. Board Goals
8. Old Business
A. D-B-L #20-03-31 Variance application (S. Winegar)*
B. 2019 Reserve Study Update (R. Turner)*
C. Complaint #5125 Fines appeal (G. Williams)*
D. 2019 Fishing Derby (G. Williams)
E. RV Storage Ad-Hoc discussion (L. Raymer)
9. New Business
A. Introduction of General Manager (G. Williams)
B. Check signers’ motion (G. Williams)*
C. Draft 2019-2024 Financial Strategic Plan (R. Turner)*
D. Fishing Rules (L. Raymer)*
E. Property offer by member (L. Raymer)*
10. Communications
A. Incoming Correspondence
B. Outgoing Correspondence
C. Meetings & Contacts
11. Staff, Trustee & Committee Reports
20 comments:
Any outcomes we should be aware of?
Nope
Did Winegar get his variance? Did he pay his fees? Can I get a variance for my trees?
The variance wasn't for Winegar, it was for deLeest. Yes he paid his fees even though other members with the same variance weren't required to pay them.
The variance for deLeest is a big deal if you don’t realize it. This Board member gets one while the rest of us can’t get one for our trees. Treat all as you treat one.
He got a variance for his house, not trees. If we put it on the ballot to get rid of tree heights, we all win!
Interesting to note that variances are said to be common on eastside J Pl. home heights. So presumably the assumption is that they don't block anyone's views, so it's okay. On the other hand, no determination of blocked views is necessary according to the HOA, when issuing violation notices on tree heights. And as we know, any mention of views has been removed from the covenants.
So while the wording was changed, a secret agreement was made, that Tree/home heights would be tightly regulated on all properties west of J Pl., while no height limits would be enforced on the eastside of J Pl. That is clearly discrimination. Most of us recognize this, but the HOA is dedicated to maintaining this discrimination.
The State RCWs forbid discrimination, so this is a blatant violation of these State regulations. Funny how the BOT has no problem violating regulations at every level of government, but take a very righteous attitude toward enforcement of the very trivial/useless Shed roof regulation they recently started issuing notices on, and the Tree Comm. got their expensive binoculars and $2000 Laser ruler.
Consider how simple as well as appropriate, had the BOT granted Patrick a variance on his shed, and allowed him to serve on the Board without being harassed his entire term. It would have saved the HOA in the area of $80,000 - $,90,000 dollars piddled away on legal counsel. Obviously, we have better things to spend such sums on.
The Architectural committee is now proactive without board authorization. Compliance is supposed to be by member complaints.They are again hell bent on shed violations.
If your shed was allowed prior to the covenant change, it is grandfathered in, period. Try to make me change mine, and let's see how much the HOA gets sued, again.
It would have made more sense to have changed the covenant to allow minor "appurtenances" such as porch overhangs or woodracks, properly reviewed and approved by the Arch. Comm.. This covenant change targets RV owners intentionally, as they can only have a shed as an outbuilding. Home owners can have at least 3, so can have much more latitude to call a shed a "shop", and have a porch or whatever they want on a 120 sq.ft. structure, needing no building permit, or have a larger building if permitted.
The BOT intended to make this change retroactive to when it was first approved by the BOT more than a year ago. That makes no legal sense, but they don't worry about that stuff. Oh, and they have that big-time attorney, and he wouldn't steer them wrong would he ?
And yes, the Arch Comm. has been instructed to seek out shed violations and site them. That's a fact. And the County isn't concerned about sheds in Surfside, the County also being less restrictive.
Who instructed the Arch Comm to seek out shed violations? We are supposed to be investigating written member complaints. I am not aware of any Board vote to change policy.
How do we know this is happening? Where is the proof? Or is this another false accusation based on the grapevine?
Like I stated, come after me and my shed, see you in court. It was approved long time ago, it will stay as is.
Good job 7:53 PM. I'll help you with that in the future if you want.
9:09 knew the variance was not for deLees’s trees, but for something much larger and obtrusive-a structure. It is a way to circumvent the covenants. My point is that it was very easy for them to go around the rules, yet they are the very ones who jump mercilessly on others who would like to be able to do the same by allowing the trees to grow a bit. Try and get a variance for that! The rules are not applied equally to all.
Is our dues now paying for a water helper?!!
THIS WAS NOT IN OUR BUDGET
We know that about $125,000 were squandered in the last year on 2 lawsuits filed in Superior Court and then withdrawn. We know that $45,000 were spent on Asbestos abatement, $27,000 were paid to L&I for fines relating to failed management and lack of proper permitting, and we have no idea how much the BOT has secretly spent on legal fees, or for what.
The protective building for the Plant was not built, but was budgeted for, the Equipment Shed was not properly permitted, the holding pond was dug-up and cannot be used, and the Carbon Treatment Plant may need to be moved elsewhere, as it was not properly permitted. We may have longterm financial obligations to workers exposed to asbestos unnecessarily.
There is a great deal we don't know anything about that is yet to be revealed, undoubtedly spelling great expense for the community, most of which should have easily been avoided by competent leadership, and management oversight.
So long as April Garcia is still a voice in Waterworks decisions, we have some smart realistic input on what needs to be done in the Water Dept. If hiring a helper is deemed needed, that seems a far more practical expenditure than what we have seen in the last year or two. The Federal Investigation is likely to generate long term financial obligations to Surfside members that are yet to be revealed.
So what's next on our payroll? What's wrong with volunteers like we have at the chipper site? I didn't move down there to be paying everyone's salaries. Pull your heads out and start thinking with them.
So Laura stays on part time, yet getting full benefits, correct?
We hired a GM, will be hiring a compliance officer, part time and now a water helper.
Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture?
When does it end?
What does need to end is the board. Keep a GM, a compliance officer part time. Why part time, because anyone that knows what they are doing and knows the RCWs doesn't need to work 40 hours for our small community.
The water helper was the new kid they let go, it is not a new position.
Post a Comment