Ending March 31, 2019....How our money is being spent.
My brief overview of items of interest and concern.
First item:
412,711.56 in one operating account. This is almost double what the FDIC will insure. This account can briefly go over the insured limit but is than quickly corrected by deposits in other accounts or CD's. This is a concern with this large of an amount. This is in Bank Of Pacific.
Income:
Dues and assessments are at 84.5% of budget with 254,789.52 outstanding. This is near the same percent as last year at this time. Installment payments continue.
Misc. Income (A non budgeted amount that should be) is 29,856.95. This is about the same as last year at this time.
Expenditures:
Business Office:
The wages are at 16.4% . The next month's report will include the GM wage. We can expect an increase with the continuation of Laura Frazier. Total is at 24.2% (First 3 months = 25% of budget year)
Administration:
Two items to note: Legal fees and insurance.
Legal fees have a budget of 75,000 for the year. We are now at 20,318.10 for the year with 54,681.90 remaining. We are at 27.1% of budget. This is a red flag, knowing what is ahead.
Insurance has a budget of 56,000.00 and has now exceeded that amount by 9,894.51 or, 117.7% of budget. Another red flag.
Water department:
Nothing jumps out here with the first quarter expenditures at 25.3%. Slightly over the 25%.
Other departments:
Patrol, Common Property, Compactor, RV Storage and Surfside activities are all below 25%. It should be noted that we are spending at the budget levels and leaves little for anything other than what is budgeted. Any new or item expenditures not budgeted, should have to answer the question...Where is the funding?
Checks of note:
Calgon....36,445.56 Carbon fill at Water Treatment Plant.
Mikes Computer...497.26 Quarterly maintenance of office and water dept. computers.
Lawyer) 7,349.13 Asbestos, assessment, general consult, tree complaint.
22 comments:
It was our understanding that about $50,000 were squandered on the lawsuit Surfside pursued over unpaid fines on a member regarding a slope of trees that were said to be non-compliant. The case was taken to Superior Court this year, and withdrawn.
Assuming this is so, the total legal costs are not $20,000. It is also hard to believe that after several months of Federal investigation, and badgering the State over permitting, that legal fees are so modest. Something isn't right here. The Tree Comm.is also generating legal fees, referring 3 members to legal over compliance issues.
SSDD🤷♂️
OK, I realize that to some here the Tree Committee is evil reincarnated. But to state that they are responsible for any legal fees is just plain false. All they do is determine if a complaint is valid and report to the office. They decided how to pursue it and are responsible as the HOA representative for any legal fees, not the tree committee.
They pressure and bully Laura to seek legal options rather than work with the members. They have friends and relatives on the board. These are self serving committee members with their own personal agendas. Clear conflicts of interest. They are not our friends. The sooner they abolish this committee, the better. They put an ugly face on surfside.
The ugly faces are of the members who persist in ignoring their responsibilities to abide by the covenants.
Your bias 8:00pm doesn't change the fact that the Committee doesn't generate legal fees. That is a false statement no matter how you want to spin it.
The ugly faces are those that crucify people for doing what the charter of their committee requires. The only pressure on Laura is from those who made the complaints that she doesn't attend to in a timely matter.
Anyone can volunteer for the tree committee, why don't you 8:00pm? Why not volunteer some of your ranting time here to doing something for the community. Show up and see how things are done then report anything you witness first hand that isn't within the charter instead of making up crap like you do.
Lastly, they don't need to be your friends and from the constant tone of your rants who would want to be.
Yes, let's look past the self serving individuals who hold our association hostage, enforcing outdated covenants by whim and malice, destroying our property values to protect theirs.
Anybody want to belong to that? Didn't think so.
Boo hoo, let's all feel sorry for the Tree Comm. The policy is the problem, not "evil" people. This is a policy that has outlived its' purpose, and in its' current application, is flooding the HOA with compliance issues, and preying on otherwise compliant owners by demanding conformity on a micro-level.
This is enforcement for the sake of keeping Tree Comm. members busy and pretending to be doing important work for the community. What it IS doing is costing virtually every member with trees, hundreds of dollars annually - money that could be better spent on other improvements to these properties.
There are dozens of properties with serious water leaks that are going without repair. This is a serious problem that adds still more to the Water Dept. woes. Resolving these issues is much more important to the community than snipping inches off of everyone's trees.
How did the Waterline replacement manage to mishandle asbestos pipe for years, while the dump site was in plain sight, and the Water Comm. meets monthly with Mr. Neal ? Lack of focus on the most important issues. There is no clear sense of priorities here. The BOT was busy hassling RV lot owners over shed eaves, measuring every tree on the westside, and blowing vast sums of member funds on foolish lawsuits.
Boo hoo? Funny statement coming from a guy who gets his panties in a bunch when people disagree with him on a message board. You're thin skinned a$$ couldn't handle half the harassment the committee endures.
What keeps the committee busy is people who don't honor the covenants. I'm willing to lay odds that those volunteers would rather not spend their days going around measuring trees that the owners should have taken care of like the majority do here. Maybe with the free time they could come on here like you do and write the same stuff over and over constantly no matter the topic.
What keeps the tree committee busy is investigating complaints, mostly written by James Clancy and a very few others who are friends and associates of the gaggle. The committee does insist that Laura keeps hounding the criminals and threaten them with fines and liens. Every complaint takes office time and legal fees. They need a bake sale to raise money to pay for all the expenses they generate. Complaints, all, should be a public record with the names of those making the complaints, public. If that happened, watch the bully group go away. Cowards don't want their names made public.
Why do you think this committee gets harassed? They are ignorant busybodies.
They enforce outdated covenants that favor only J place members, force compliance through intimidation and conveniently ignore any science that doesn't promote their position.
As for you, Mr. Board member or lackey thereof, I think we know who the a$$ is.
4:15....You don't know anything about me. A whiner I'm not, tough guy. You are incapable of processing the pointlessness of this enforcement and can only understand continuing the same failed policies. I just speak to the issues the community must deal with, and don't feel the need to tell people I don't know about their panties or their asses. I win.
8:42: Wasn't talking about the enforcement, which the committee doesn't do, just the unfair treatment the volunteers get from some on here just because they disagree with the policy. But let's use your logic of blaming a committee for a policy on something other than trees.
When I moved here and wanted to build my house it came with restrictions. If I would have shown up at the Architectural Committee with plans for a 3 story house with a crows-nest on top it would have been denied. Now even though I would have been upset that I couldn't build what I wanted, would I have blamed the volunteers on the Committee who were only doing the job they were tasked to do? No. Because I'm too mature and not petty enough to do so, something you and some others are not.
As far as winning Mr. Sheen, congratulations. Why not print this thread out, frame it and hang it on the wall. I'm sure it will look great along side the Chinook Observer article that mentions your name which no doubt is already there. .
Congratulations, but not quite.
You almost deflected the facts....again, and again will be called on it.
The committee in question files complaints. That's where it starts, this stupid game of enforcing outdated covenants that were never agreed upon by membership, just our wonderful Board protecting themselves and their buddies. The rest of the association can go hang.
We blame self interest wherever- committee or Board. Which one are you?
You know 10:16, I was honored to be asked by the Observer to be interviewed as a part of their story on George and his Blog. I wasn't in town when the article was published, but my neighbor saved a copy so I could see it. It's a nice article on George and his friends who value and enjoy him. It wasn't about me nitwit. Why would I keep a copy on my wall ? I DO have opinions, and I base them on facts as much as possible.
There is no logical rational excuse for enforcement of tree height restrictions which vary from 14 feet to 24 feet, without any reason based on need or aesthetics. It is not determined if views are in any way obstructed, though THAT IS WHY THERE ARE HEIGHT LIMITS and why they vary wildly. That makes this an irrational exercise in member intimidation and pointless enforcement. It's a waste of time and money, and has done great damage to the community.
Mr. Cox,
I can tell you that tree heights do affect my views of the ocean. And I can tell you that the county does in fact charge me a premium tax for my property with a view of the ocean. So while the state/county may not believe a view is any reason to trim trees, they sure don't mind the extra money in their coffers.
Now to your comment that great damage has been done to the community I would disagree based on my personal experience. My neighbor has trimmed his trees every year I have lived here and I see no dead trees. I believe that property owners who do not trim when needed cause much more damage to their trees when they perform gross trimming which over stresses them and they die.
11:50 I suppose you don't have an issue with your neighbor paying the cost to maintain your view. That's what generates a lot of hate on this blog. Before you go to you knew before you bought. Those covenants were put in many years ago and things change. The board should be forced to put this to a vote with the homeowners and settle the issue.
11:50.... No one in this community is guaranteed a "view". A view of what ? Just because you have the address "J Place" doesn't mean you are high enough on the ridge to have a view over the rooftops of homes on G Street. The street you live on varies greatly, and is only about 40 feet high at the highest point. Dunes are as high as 30 feet at the highest point, and growing annually. Homes on G St.can be 24 feet high above the ground on which they are built, and are built about 8 feet apart in some areas. There is no guaranteed view in the community.
Our taxes are high on G St.. Got a gripe ? Complain to the County. It has nothing to do with a view. You offer ONE example of a neighbor who has cut their trees. At least a thousand households are forced to top trees because of this stupid policy, and no one takes any time to determine if it makes any sense.
53 households will be sent compliance notices this month alone, requiring several hundred dollars each. How does that break down ? About $15,000 to $25,000. Think that's a disincentive to move to Surfside ? I do !!
Those 1053 households need to abide by the rules. Done, mic drop Steve'o
Since the board doesn't follow the rules, why should anyone else? Especially since any kind of enforcement is a relatively new thing.
Not even close to mic drop, Bozo.
Keep preaching adherence to outdated covenants that never get a review. Dinosaurs, after all, should stick together.
Steve is trying to generate discussion and change, something our association badly needs. You just troll.
Steve Cox said...
....Just because you have the address "J Place" doesn't mean you are high enough on the ridge to have a view over the rooftops of homes on G Street.
I already told you I have a view
Our taxes are high on G St.. Got a gripe ? Complain to the County. It has nothing to do with a view.
Please explain how the county determines tax levy on my property
FWIW, my neighbor who trims his own trees does not spend several hundred dollars. I guess you assume people cannot trim their own trees.
Post a Comment