Very important meeting. New motto" PROTECT SURFSIDE
I know that everyone is eagerly awaiting the Board Meeting. You better get there early as seating is limited. It is reported that the 3 "protect surfside" newly elected Board members will award Flood with certificate of appreciation that he lost the election, mainly due to their efforts. Those attending will be screened by the deputy to make sure no one enters with a bucket of tar and feathers. (or have a warrant outstanding). The really important business is outside lighting. Remember, we must "Protect Surfside"
You can expect a "closed session" to consider how they can put the screws to the members to pay the fines and penalties.
Regular Board Meeting AGENDA
September 21, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
Call to Order - Regular Board Meeting (S. Winegar)
Adopt the September 21, 2019 Regular Meeting Agenda (S. Winegar)
Safety Message (S. Winegar)
Sheriff’s Report
Approval of the August 17, 2019 Regular Board Meeting minutes (S. Winegar)
Floor comments (20 Minutes)
Old Business
Appeal of lighting complaint for Ronald and Joanne McMurphy.
Naselle Rock and Asphalt bid of $6340.07 for road repair.
Transfer fees.
New Business
Recognition for James Flood.
New Lighting ordinance
2020 Budget preparation update (R Turner)
Communications
Incoming Correspondence
Outgoing Correspondence
Meetings & Contacts
Staff, Trustee & Committee Reports
Water Systems (B Neal)
Treasurer’s Report (R. Turner)
Architectural Committee (K Olds)
Community Relations Committee (A deLeest)
Tree, Brush, & Noxious Weed Sub-Committee (A. deLeest)
Land and Buildings Committee (R Minich)
Potential RV parking overcrowding
RV Storage Rates
Derelict Vehicles
Fish & Waterway Management Committee (J Clancy)
Business office/Compliance reports (T Reber)
Emergency Management Committee (M. Scott)
Other reports
Receipt of Committee Reports*
Recess to Closed Session on Legal or Employee matters (If necessary)*
Reconvene to Open Session
Miscellaneous
Floor Topics for the Good of the Order
16. Adjourn* (* Requires Board Action)
38 comments:
Will someone please provide an explanation of the “transfer fees”. Seems to be another illegal way to basically tax the members when they sell?
Do not be alarmed 2:25. Your question is valid. Transfer fees is a normal business practice and it is nothing more than the transfer of already collected member funds from one account to another. Surfside attempts to keep funds in the reserve accounts below the FDIC insured amounts. The millions of dollars that we have are kept in CD's and checking accounts. When funds are needed for the everyday expenses (budgeted) they are transferred to the operating account. The Banks charge for the time it takes to make those transactions. This is normal. It is all part of the required accounting. Hope this explains it as best I can. With the Board spending, you are right to be concerned and watchful in what they are doing. I am glad to know that a few more than me and others are being watchful. Thanks.
Thanks for the update. According to realtors a recent proposal from the BOT was to charge sellers $500 for “paperwork” required for changing ownership. Something that takes about 25 minutes.
You may be right on this. I may be thinking of "bank fees" I am waiting for the financial report and will let you know what I find out. May need to call the office about this. Thanks for being alert.
The HOA is designated as a non-profit organization, and this is a clear violation of that designation. It sounds like a $50 charge would be sufficient, even generous. Who on the Board would think owners favor this "penalty" for selling a Surfside property ?
Who are these people serving in their roles as Trustees ? Such a fee would be unjustified and a strange rip-off of owners by the BOT. I do believe this is what is cryptically entered as an agenda item - "transfer fees", and no further explanation.
I object to these self serving crooks being referred to as 'Trustees'. They watch over J Place and their own, nobody else!
I'm evidently beating a dead horse here. These self serving crooks are your friends and neighbors. When did they evolve from people giving up their time and wanting to do good into crooks? Did they have to take a class or was their an initiation? George was a Board member (twice). Was he a self serving crook? Who in your time here escapes your wrath? Somebody must. What special privileges have been given to J Placers other than the tree height mess? How would a Board ever find FIVE members to be in cahoots to screw you or anyone else over? Incompetence for sure. Lack of information leading to poor decision making? YES at times. Them that bitches the most probably does the least. I would like five or ten (if there are really that many of you) to go to the monthly meeting and destroy the Board members in person. Double dog dare you.
George - We do not have millions of dollars sitting around in bank accounts. Where do you get off spouting this garbage? Our excess funds are invested until needed but no where near that amount. Pull up the most recent financials dear members and you will see that the Wizard is stoking the fires yet again.
I suspect that 7:35 is about as informed about the financials as most of the Board members.
Reconciled Balance as reported on 08/05/2019..
2,047,597.41
I would call that millions.
These are not excess funds. They are dedicated funds for daily operations and reserve accounts. Those accounts are called Operational and Capitol Reserve.
7:35 once again displays their ignorance, false accusations and propaganda garbage. Pleas assure the members that you are not on the Board. If you are, God help us all.
I think 2:25 and Steve Cox are right that the transfer fees do have to do with the sale of property in Surfside. It would be helpful if when they posted the agenda, it contained more information. The Board packet should be published at the same time.
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, but when a sale is pending in Surfside, we as an association, are required to inspect the property to see that it is in compliance, before the sale is final. That is the main function of the new compliance inspector.
It would appear, that is what the "transfer fees" on the agenda, is about. Steve make a good point about being non-profit. The fee should only cost the actual expense of inspecting and office work associated with the sale. It will be interesting to see the results and how each individual votes.
This transfer fee is garbage. Sure maybe a little paperwork involved, maybe even a visit to the site to look it over. But aren't all the employees involved in doing this already employed and getting paid? Don't tell us it takes away too much from their other duties. It's just another way of grabbing our dollars, much like if the water dept. comes out and tests backflow devices and charges $30.00. That is for all our safety and what the water dept. employees are employed for. It only takes about a half hour for that test surely time they could spare in their daily duties. We pay our dues and assessments for these very things to be taken care of.
In Washington State, a nonprofit corporation is allowed to generate more revenue than it’s expenses or make a profit on it’s services. What it cannot do is distribute that excess revenue, or profits, to shareholders as a dividend. Therefore, establishing a transfer fee is not a violation of the law. Most Washington State HOA’s have adopted a transfer fee that is paid by either the seller or the buyer when the property ownership is transferred. Is it a good idea or is it a bad idea? That depends on your point of view. I do not know how much revenue the transfer fee will generate but I do know it should reduce my assessments.
So the HOA is “taxing” sellers for example, to assist in paying off the fines that the Board incurred? Also agree with above in that we are paying employees salary’s, why the extra charge to bring them to our property?
6:20 - The HOA has decided they need to "inspect" properties when they sell - inspect for what ? A professional inspection is already a part of selling a home and homeowners are charged a significant amount for it. What is the "service" being rendered by the HOA that could justify a $500 charge ?
I don't doubt that this has become a popular HOA money-making scheme, but this is a useless intrusive add-on that we can easily assume NO members want, and have not had a part in approving in Surfside.
The Board of Trustees know this, and that's why the subject is "cloaked" on the agenda. Some such issues are rushed through in the meetings, sometimes even using a number for the resolution they already have drawn-up, rather than a description. A little mumbling, a quick vote, and presto - no one knows what was approved.
My wife was pointing out that St Peters Hospital in Olympia is a non-profit organization, but they take in a great deal of money. Because it all goes to operational expenses, it is not considered "profit". I obviously know little about what is allowed, but St Peters obviously renders critical SERVICES, and patients are also CUSTOMERS.
By charging a large transfer fee for real estate sale, the HOA is in a sense penalizing members for selling their property. Our Lacey HOA charges $50 for a handling fee, something I had forgotten. But I don't think there is any justification for the HOA inspecting properties sold. I'm willing to bet that the majority of Surfside properties are never cited for non-compliance, aside from the useless Tree restrictions.
There is no justification for an HOA inspection of properties, and this so-called "plan" reflects the paranoid notion that everyone is trying to get away with something - some vague thing that can be objected to that owners are trying to hide. That's absurd.
The recent Water Dept. questionnaire has the same inspiration it seems. The HOA has requested this information repeatedly, and require the backflow check annually, in spite of the fact that they have records of which properties have Surfside meters, all of which have backflow valves. All other points in a home's system may have contamination potential to the individual home, but cannot contaminate the HOA supply lines.
This is being looked at by the HOA as an excuse to intrude on owner privacy, and to snoop around searching for something to complain about, or confirm their paranoia that everyone is out to violate wherever possible. It's a bad attitude, and it confirms the disconnect between the BOT and the rest of the membership. Even though they are as fallible as everyone else, it's everyone else that's suspect, and needs to be "inspected".
Owners should protest any new fees on sales beyond what covers the handling of paperwork involved - and $50 is more than adequate. No inspection should be involved, unless specifically arranged with the property owners before hand, with an explanation of WHAT the concern is.
Unlike the non-profit hospitals, the members are not customers to be profited from. We pay dues to finance the operations of the community already, and beyond that, we deserve autonomy on our property. Sales are a private property procedure, and are not part of the HOA's responsibilities to paying members.
It should be simple. If there is a filed complaint and has been investigated and found to be valid, the present owner should be required to comply before a sale is finalized. Simple as that. An inspection for other violations should not be allowed. No employee should be allowed to step on any members property for any reason. That would bring a law suit for sure. Wake up, it's all about trees and sheds. We need to remove the invective clowns from the board and committees.
Enough. Can anybody tell me what the “transfer fee” issue was at the Board meeting Nd what was the outcome!
It never ceases to amaze me how people can get on here and make their usual critical comments concerning the Trustees at a board meeting when they didn't even attend. Why let facts get in the way of a rant, right?
Funny also how George can spend his days driving around the West side taken picture but can't drive over to the meeting to actually get informed.
7:36 usually attends all Board meetings but I am away on business for this one. 11:29 if you are so adamant about attending the meetings that you can criticize others, I must think you went to this one, so please answer the question, what was the “transfer fee” issue?
I thought the transfer fee issue was explained. It is SHOA being paid, I've been told, $500, when a property is sold. Apparently the cost of SHOA to do the necessary paperwork in the office after the sale takes place. Big deal, they have to change the names on the roster of property owner's, what, a couple of keystrokes on the computer? I think this is appalling at the least. Staff are there already doing their job. Shouldn't be too time consuming. Just another way to grab some dollars. I think someone earlier got it right though, our dues and assessments should go down if they collect this money, or at least not rise too much.
11:29 - It should be obvious that comments being made WHILE the meeting is going on, are not coming from members AT the meeting. I see comments, but no "rants" except yours. There tend to be very few members attending B. Meetings, and they rarely have anything to say on the Blog.
The previous meeting agenda claimed that the permitting issue at the Waterworks was to be discussed, but no one has mentioned such a conversation. 7:36 ? Did you attend the last meeting ? How about 11:29, who thinks we all need to attend ? Was the permitting discussed ?
They don't discuss anything in open meetings till its a done deal.and never publish any real details. Ive been there many times n my blood pressure just cant take it. Waste of time.
Btw, when did member input at bot meeting mean anything? You disagree and your a troublemaker n dismissed out of hand.
Come on folks, we all know why they are charging this outrageous fee!!
They need to replenish the “till” so what better way than to TAX(take from the less fortunate) the members for their atrocious court fees. When is enough enough in Surfside??
If I sell my property, you can bet I WILL retain an attorney regarding this fee. I personally have an attorney relative in WA and wouldn’t cost me for my bank to fight these monsters.
Come on people, start speaking up!!!! Don’t let these monsters do what they did to Deb and Patrick. It’s time for the harassment to stop in this HOA and members to take back the SHOA. Please cronies: spare your sarcasm! We are not backing off of this FEE FIGHT!
Yes, I did attend the meeting. It is not my job to inform you. In the past I have given information on what has happen at the meetings and have been accused of being a board member, been told I was wrong and argued with by people who weren't there and have had my comments deleted when all I did was repeated facts that were later confirmed by the minutes. Then after last months meeting and having my comments deleted again, why should I bother doing so going further?
But I will say this about the fees. It is NOT $500. in fact it never was. Anyone who said this is wrong. It was original lower than that and was even lowered more after a discussion.
The process invoves more than just a couple keystokes, so that is wrong.
And the non profit issue was discussed also.
To those who repeatedly who felt the need to attack me saying I feel that you all need to attend let me be clear. I don't care what you do. I just pointed out how "certain" people like to make comments that are less than positive on subjects they don't even know went on. Then they take it even further as 1:03 has done.
So continue to enjoy yourselves with the usual. Let's see if this comment remains.
There are only 2 reasons your comments would be deleted - either making aggressive or abusive statements, or stating something as fact that is known to be entirely false. Here again, you want to chastise and complain rather than offer information you claim to have. You visit the Blog and behave badly, while complaining about others behaving badly.
You could have just shared what you observed as happening at the meeting, and otherwise, spared everyone the whining. Everyone gets knocked around a bit on the blog, especially if you use your name, which you do not. Your content must be lacking, since there's no name to pick on. Retool I'd say.
3:05 sez - I see it indicated on the Surfside website that both the wetlands permitting AND the Transfer fees were discussed at last month's meeting. So we are a month out from that meeting and no one knows what was discussed ?
Apparently the Transfer fees of $300 for new owners, and $100 for family transfers to an estate - (whatever that means)- were voted on 8/17. This may have been amended slightly, according to an unreliable source.
Wetlands discussion was to assign Trustees to investigate alternative means of wetlands mitigation. They seem to have all the time in the world a year into this, as if the County will forget about the improper actions that led to the failed permitting. This was an agenda item again Saturday.
Guess we don't have great contacts these days. The so-called minutes are not really minutes, so I'm taking this info from the website, which only lists motions. But as a concession, a very detailed Deputies report ! Throw a little red meat to the crowd, right ?
In response to 8:39 concerning inspections. Your are talking about 2 different things. The professional inspection is for the house to see if it is good shape with no issues. If so then the buyer and selling can decide if going further who will pay for the fix, either by paying for it, lowering the price or some other agreement.
This HOA thing is only checking if the property is complient with the covenants. By doing this the buyer can come in knowing if there are issues that need to be address if the owner hasn't been following the covenants. Many HOA's do the same thing.
As been said already, it is not a $500 fee. Also, Escrow and Realitors have been asking for this to be done so it is not something that the board has come up with to generate income.
The covenants do not provide a means for the HOA to inspect owner's property without their permission, nor do owners want the HOA to have this authority. The sale of a property in Surfside is a private matter, that only requires that the HOA verify there are no outstanding debts owed to the HOA by the seller.
If there is a compliance matter pending a resolution, that can be addressed at the time the HOA is asked to sign-off on the lack of debt. But most owners never receive any non-compliance notices, and most would resolve unfinished business before a sale - making this a non-issue exactly like the SHED EAVES matter that mutated into a covenant restriction.
The insipid Tree Policy generates well over 100 compliance demands annually, and beyond that, very few compliance matters are cited. So this is not a community full of violations that go unaddressed, and there is NO justification for the HOA to demand inspections to SEARCH for marginal things to interfere with the pending sale.
This strange law and order attitude is currently driving absurd policies that needlessly interfere with owner autonomy, in an effort to intimidate owners with the power of the HOA to make pointless demands, and take undue advantage of the BOT's runaway authority in Surfside.
The "new" restriction would seek to charge a $100 fee for owners wanting to transfer title to a family member or Estate as well. This is HOA interference that is driven by a paranoid vision of the membership, and like the ridiculous EAVES covenant, originates from the HOA's losses in Court efforts to discipline former Trustee Patrick Johansen. This is sick elitist thinking, and the membership will stop it.
There is no justification of a charge of hundreds of dollars to check HOA records for unpaid assessments or fines. It's a simple procedure, and homeowners pay hundreds of dollars to have their homes inspected as a part of each sale. Non-profit means that there must be a specific service rendered that justifies the cost of the fee, while management of the community is paid for by the members annually in dues and assessments.
Hiring a compliance officer was the BOT's decision, now they want the owners to pay a second time for his services by creating required inspections and fees. The BOT has yet to outline the many management failures of the last year that resulted in legal challenges from County, State, and Federal regulators, and we probably have yet to see the last of fines that have accompanied these challenges. They need to focus on HOA compliance with these entities, which is now well over a year pending final resolution. More fines on the HOA are on the way !!
Sept 22 @ 3:05 PM. If " aggressive or abusive " OR " entirely false " statements were eliminated from the blog there would be 50%+ less posts. It's okay to post opinions (like I'm doing) but the basically libelous statements should be censured by the host. Keep it civil as if you were speaking directly to those you disagree with.
8:41....The HOA has not publicly acknowledged the major legal entanglements they have gotten us into, and as a result, Realtors are not informing prospective buyers that Surfside has major internal problems that are costing the community vast sums of money in fines and long-term legal expenses. WA State law requires that Realtors inform clients of legal problems in prospective HOAs, and the prospect of large assessments to pay for it.
We do not owe Realtors any allegiance to justify altering our community policies to satisfy them. An Anchor agent totally misrepresented my neighbor's fulltime home. When they moved from Idaho to Surfside they found that the stove didn't work, and the oven was hardwired into the 220 Watt socket. All cupboard and room doors were removed, and the whole place had to be gone over electrically.
This BOT plan cannot be enforced without changing the covenants to permit mandatory inspections, which are not currently legal. This is "Police-State" b.s. that oversteps reasonable authority, without any justification. Out of over 2000 properties, there are bound to be a few less than ideal circumstances to gripe about, but grey areas do not constitute a compliance emergency.
Such an intrusive policy must be presented to the members for comment or rejection at a pre-announced member meeting, before it can be enacted. The members have no reason to agree to pay for compliance enforcement on their own property, when they know they are fully compliant, and pay for enforcement with their assessments. Get real.
After a family has owned a Surfside property for 15 or 20 years, and paid annual assessments, the HOA should happily make the transfers necessary to change the title to another family member or Estate at NO COST. The community can show some class and appreciation for their contribution to Surfside. The new policy would require a $100 fee, and this illegal search of the premises. Sales to outside buyers may be charged $250 to $300.
Such a policy creates conflict by addressing an imaginary problem, and pissing people off. The BOT has their hands full with matters of their own making, without adding this money grab, being slipped by the membership.
Easy fix to all this BS. Dissolve surfside. These clowns have no ability to fix anything.
I agree. Let's put a end to this foolishness. Been here close to 20 years. It's beyond redemption.
It's absurd to think that in a community where 85% of the membership doesn't even vote in annual elections, that a majority would vote in favor of dissolution, and chaos. Who would step-up with the plan to replace the HOA management ? Who would implement it ? Get real !
The only attempts at mobilizing an effort to bring some needed changes have failed to gain traction due to member apathy and lack of participation. We have a very large community that owns a lot of land, a Water Dept., must employ a staff, keep the books, budget funds for maintenance and payroll, pay taxes, and negotiate with County, State and Federal entities. Who would decide how to accomplish these tasks ?
So long as the HOA follows Gov. regulations, our Water Dept. provides us with inexpensive water, and the compactor site provides a practical solution to waste management. There are systems in Surfside that function quite well and show a cumulative history of good decisions and some vision of a well-run community.
But people tend to seek political control, which leads to crony-ism, and selfish objectives. We're mired in them at this point in our history, and it's destroying the community literally and physically. It looks increasingly like hell from the obsessive tree topping, and that can't be undone.
We can stop the madness by ending the policy and starting over planting trees.
The litany of success with this HOA is brief, to say the least. Mismanagement of the water system, unsuccessful litigations, etc., etc.
You mentioned member apathy. Why should an organization continue to exist that 85% of their members care so little about that they don't even vote?
I live on East Side, and am stick built. Where I have really been looking for is fairness. Still haven't found it. Do not care to be part of an organization that operates illegally and unethically, And don't see a way to save them from the self interests. That is why I favor dissolution.
Compacter is only thing run properly at this point.
Wanting something doesn't mean it can be had. Dissolution would require a majority vote of about 1050 member households. Disregarding how irresponsible approval would be, we would have to expect a large number of owners to vote against dissolution. I'm no fan of the current BOT, but I would not approve dissolution. Virtually every member household would need to vote in order to have a chance of this being approved. It ain't gunna happen.
Change will come from within the system or not at all. That's a grim prospect, I know.
Remove the creeps at the annual meeting, and keep doing it until we have a decent board. All it takes is a simple majority at the meeting to throw them to hell out of this concentration camp. Time for the prisoners to take back the camp.
Post a Comment