What little we do get, is not accurate...
This is the information published in the Board Meeting Summary of the September Board Meeting.
Below that is the statement made about that summary about tree enforcement.
"The Tree, Brush, Vegetation, and Noxious Weed Committee recommended that the
process for compliance be reduced from two years to six months. The Board voted to
set a hearing for the changes and receive input and comments from the members."
This is what was published in the October 4, 2019 Weekender:
Correction to Summary Report—
Surfside Homeowners Association Regular Board Meeting Summary
September 21, 2019
In last week’s Weekender, I described what had happened at the Board of Trustees meeting on Saturday, September 21. In describing
a change to our policy for tree height fines, I noted that there would be a proposed change to the covenants.
There is no proposal for change in our tree height covenants. The proposal was for a simple policy change.
We will continue to patiently work with Members who implement their plans to come into compliance, especially those that respond in a timely manner to complaint notices or have extenuating circumstances. The policy approved at the last Board meeting only affects a very small number (less than 1%) of members who do not respond in any way to letters regarding compliance.
The vast majority of members receiving compliance notices respond appropriately and will not be affected by this new policy.
Discussion:
Mr. Anonymous Weekender poster, I assume Mr. Reber, (They post more anonymous information than the blog) You were wrong on the summary, and your again wrong on this. According to your own words the first time, you said there would be a hearing. Obviously there was no vote for a policy change, only a hearing. Now you say there was a vote for a policy change. Where is the resolution?
Policy change does not require a hearing. That is basic information. It would be helpful to the members if something like this was an agenda item posted for the members. If this was to happen, you might get some input from members who would be affected, not the one sided tree committee only.
This policy change will affect the "vast majority" receiving compliance notices. Most have to schedule their time to comply.
It is good that you have made a correction, even if not completely accurate. Now, how about delegating some time an effort to bring the meeting minutes on the web site, up to date. How are the members supposed to be informed with missing minutes and others that are months old?
4 comments:
He should apologize for his screw up. We pay him $85,000.00 a year and we get $30,000.00 worth of service? He does not seem to know even the basic policy and procedures. How many more has he made that we don't know about? The board needs to take notice. Hell, they don't know them either.
If bot bothered to give timely minutes, or recordings even. There would be no doubt. But accountability is not their strong suit.
Mr. Reber was the promoter of the Transfer Fees and Inspections. Since he began, the office has been in chaos. Simple procedures are suddenly complex. Owner's personal contact information has been given out on request. Making photo copies is very challenging.
HOAs are residential communities, and one of the primary functions of the HOA is to transfer titles as residents sell and new owners take possession of those properties. The process is very basic, and only involves reviewing the accounts of residents who are moving, to verify that they are not behind on dues and assessments, and do not have unresolved compliance matters yet to be settled.
This transfer of titles is so basic to the function of the HOA it should be well understood that dues and assessments are intended to pay for this simple procedure. Instead, Mr. Reber thinks owners need to have their property inspected and charged a fee of $200 to review the HOA records. Since most properties remain in the same owner's possession for many years, even decades, this is an infrequent process on most properties.
At most, a $50 charge should be adequate, but it really should be paid for out of member dues and handled at no extra cost. We also pay for enforcement efforts with our annual payments, leaving no justification for further fees. The HOA exists because owners buy properties and pay dues. Recording title information is part of step one in taking on a new resident, and is not an EXTRA.
No one should allow the HOA to demand a closing inspection, unless they have an unresolved compliance matter already sent notice. No fee or inspection can be justified in the absence of a violation already on the books.
Once again, Steve is right on and stated without name calling and personal false insults. And, he is honest enough to put his name on it and own it. If we only had more members like him.
Post a Comment