Dues and assessments increase 4.57%
How strange that the copy sent to all the members is smudged only on the % increase. Most who see it will think the increase was only 1.57%. Not true. I hope this is not deliberate deception. One thig is clear, Social Security recipients only got 1.6% increase without a smudge. An apology now, is to late.
Click on the page below for a larger, clear read:
56 comments:
We did not see a board member or budget committee member come on here to make a correction on the percent. It takes a blog host to put out the true information. Oh, that's right, it is only his opinion, not facts.
The annual dues increase is 4.57%
The annual budget increase is 5.06%
I seem to notice some alleged creative misleading accounting in this budget.
As I attempted to rhetorically ask on the other page, the Common Property values seem awfully inflated to me. That would allow them to hide the true cost of something else such as legal expenses.
Should we request an independent, third party, budget audit at either the special meeting or the November meeting?
Regardless of the erroneous percent, it still is a $27.67 a year increase.
Get a grip!
His opinions are better than your 'facts', any day of the week.
Why is the water department budget up $28,000? If we ended the north beach contract then there should be a significant savings in the water department.
I wonder what our board troll thinks about these comments.
Fact: Its still a $27.67 a year increase.
Delete all you want, doesn't change the facts!!
Hey board troll:
A Recreational Vehicle Department. That even sounds absurd. As a member in good standing, of course, I assure I get use of the recreational vehicles
Where are the legal expenses?
Look how much the new lot ownership transactions cost us, an additional $50,000 a year. It looks like we get another full-time business office employee just for that. And pigs fly.
Fact is...It is 632.73 a year. Twice what it needs to be. There should be a decrease of twice what the increase is. Those little only's each year, add up.
Hey board troll, have you ever told someone on this blog to move?
It's just a question.
If our community was approximately 500 lots, instead of approximately 2,035, the annual dues would be approximately $2,570.
Would you like to continue deflecting and obfuscating? I can play that game.
Hey 8:30; we are not 500 lots. You argument has no meaning. If it did, we could just as easily postulate 5000 lots with an annual assessment of $200!
8:25, I am not on the board and I don't live on J place. I have never told anyone to move and am not an elitist. Just because someone differs from your opinion is NOT a reason to continuously insult. The funny thing is, I agree with many comments made here, on this blog, just not this one. I think we got off fairly unscathed (financially), considering the foolishness the board has been involved in. I count my blessings.
Just delaying the inevitable.
True, so I'm right too.
You don't justify or accept a budget just by the amount per lot.
You look at the details.
I count my money 8:55.
This HOA is out of control and we all know it.
I'M NOT MOVING!!!!!
No need to shout Mikey.
Btw, please double check the time for the budget meeting and set your alarm clock accordingly. It would be nice if you don't interrupt it again.
Enjoy your stay.
Make sure you come with all your proxies board troll.
Mikey Rileyey
I hear you discussed my two letters you received on 10/09 in closed session on 10/17. Will our attorney write another internal and external memorandum?
Mikey Rileyey
For god's sake please stop with the SS raise of 1.6% as it relates to the budget or anything else. It has nothing to do with anything. Find fault with the budget all you want. And to the poster who degrees that the dues are twice what they should be you need to line item the area's that would/could achieve that decrease.Don't spout off otherwise.
The 1.6% raise is relevant to the budget. It's called a cola. Cost of living adjustment. The budget exceeds the cost of living increase. There has been no explanation provided as to why there is a need to increase spending. The employee raise also exceeds the cost of living. Where is the explanation for that? A bonus is supposed to be recognition for performance that exceeds expected performance. It has become nothing more than expected wages. The incentive to do a better job, no longer exists.
It is not up to me or other members to line item area's of the budget to achieve a decrease. That is up to the board and the budget committee. Both have failed in any attempt to keep the dues affordable or justify the present spending or especially, any increase.
For the members on a fixed income, any increase in dues and assessments that exceeds the cost of living, is a negative effect on their disposable income. About the only spending they can reduce is in medicine and food. The comment by 6:59 shows a lack of empathy and understanding of basic economics. To say SS has "nothing to do with anything" is truly ignorant.
I voted yes and am moving on to a nice walk on the beach. This is the cost to live here. Very reasonable in my opinion.
BTW: The comparison between SS increase % and the SHOA increase % is like comparing apple to oranges. They have nothing to do with each other. I understand the angst one may feel to be paying more anything, it just the way of life, food, gas, electricity, insurance, phone, all increase ever year. We wish it didn't but it does. Those on fixed incomes may need to find a side hustle to assist, that's the way life goes, you are not entitled.
It makes no difference how you vote. Yes. no, or not at all. It will pass. May I suggest you go for a long walk on a short dock.
BTW, my insurance, phone, tv and internet did not increase. SS is called an entitlement. You need to become better informed in basic understanding on how an economy works. I suggest you limit your comments to describing your beach walk.
Are you saying you suugest someone die 10:46 AM? That is what I read.
Are you the board troll?
I agree that Surfside dues and assessments are reasonable, and that the increase is modest. I don't really understand the mean-spirited comments toward George, and in general toward those with fixed incomes and/or are of advanced age. I think it's likely half of the community's owners are retired or nearly so, so everyone's entitled to their opinions of concern over increases.
For those who have lived fulltime in Surfside for an extended period, I think the perspective is lost as to the modest cost of living here. Water, Sewer, and Garbage services are very expensive in most communities. This is what makes such a difference in this community, making it one of the best bargains to be found.
On the other hand, the more we learn about wasteful spending by the BOT, the more apparent it becomes that poor management of budgeted dollars comes largely from poorly conceived policies, poorly implemented to the extent that vast sums of money are going toward fines on the HOA, and pursuit of HOA legal efforts against members.
George is acutely aware of that, and were the BOT to be entirely transparent about their MANY misadventures in the last 2 years, as described here, the entire membership would surely be asking for better management of our member dollars. Let's all insist on complete transparency of legal spending, and where those dollars are going. Only when that comes to pass, can everyone make a solid judgement as to the wisdom of the HOA's budgets and management.
What we have seen in the last 2 years is a concerted effort to hide these expenditures from the membership. That is a violation of the State RCWs regarding HOA management and business practices. So if the State had the ability to enforce these standards, as they do wetlands management, or the EPA's enforcement of environmental issues, we would be in yet another heap of trouble.
Wasted fees should be going to the cumulative benefit of the entire community, and not to sue owners over shed eaves, and tree heights, while the HOA is failing to comply to government regulatory agencies, resulting in fines.
The BOT needs to set specific limits on how legal fees are spent, and exactly what they are being spent on. Making this all public record is a step in the right direction, setting reasonable limits, and making better decisions, not based on personal agendas, or focused on tree inches.
I don't see the comments as being mean spirited, specially towards those on a fixed income and are advanced aged. I made some of those comments and I'm both of those. People were just giving THEIR opinions that SS doesn't belong in the conversation in the first place and shouldn't be a measuring stick on the SHOA budget.
Of course no comment can go by without bringing up the shed eaves and tree heights. A statement that always overlooks the FACT that if people follow the rules there would be no law suits.
10:51, my ins of all types,electricity,internet, and many other things have gone up in the last year. You need to pay closer attention to your finances.
You need to pay closer attention to your providers and turn off those offending outside lights.
Word is, that the failed lawsuit against Patrick Johansen was at a cost of over $110,000. Insurance paid some of that (it's not clear how much), and dropped our community for too many claims. The company that agreed to insure S.S. increased our annual bill by $20,000. Around $40,000 were paid in fines a year ago about last July, and Asbestos abatement was billed at about $45,000.
The HOA attorney stated (at the Annual Mtg.)that Tree related legal issues had seen a big increase, far more than any other issues in Surfside. The community was to be fined $1000/day for failing to offer a wetland mitigation plan, to begin Oct. 1st, but that was prevented by Bill Neal and Larry Raymer by scheduling a meeting w/ the State rep. Oct. 1st, and delayed until Oct 31st.
So Surfside is either paying fines of $1000/day to the State for nothing, OR, the HOA has agreed to the State's mitigation plan, offering offsite land to be converted to wetlands, at a cost of $90,000/acre. It is believed that 3 acres will be required to fulfill the mandate, at a cost of $270,000. That is essentially penance for management failures by our BOT via Mr. Clancy, recently re-elected under the slogan "Save Our Surfside".
So HOA focus on the inches on trees that don't block anyone's views, are leading to increased legal challenges to owners, increased levying of fines and lawsuits, while failing to comply to required compliance of our HOA. Trivial shed restrictions have done the same. You don't see the contradictions here ? No concern that our enforcement is not working, but is leading to six figure gambles and losses, while lack of focus has lead to huge payouts to the State ?
This is your HOA at work. We have no Water Dept. manager, and apparently, according to the budget, no money is budgeted to replace carbon in the CTP, a cost of about $70,000 (or more) annually. One compliance Officer lasted about 2 months, but the Office plans to hire 2 more. This nonsense adds up folks, and most of it is just money down a deep deep hole.
Can't access line item budget on Surfside website. I only get one page of the entire budget. I don't vote on a budget that is not available to review as a line item, overall proposal.
I'm wrong about the line item budget being accessible on the Surfside website. I changed screen size and found the other departments in the budget at the bottom of the screen. Sorry. I hate it when I am wrong.
The office has denied there are fines being levied for wetland mitigation.
Just who is "the office"? And who are you? In other words, we don't know. Your statement has no credibility in fact. Even if true, there remains the possibility for fines. It is good, if you did, that you called "the office", but their credibility is also in question.
12:29.... If you have understood what I have written, you realize that this stuff may still be involved in negotiations, as the deadline was the end of Oct., or fines would proceed.
But why would you ask "the Office" something of this nature ? The Board of Trustees handles this kind of stuff, and they still haven't fessed-up to the Asbestos stuff, or to my knowledge, detailed the Wetlands stuff that preceded the current negotiations.
What we can probably assume is, a settlement is in the making, or has just been agreed to. The Mitigation plan is what I'm talking about - which isn't technically a "fine" but an agreement that Surfside will buy X number of acres offsite, which will then be converted to wetlands according to detailed State criteria.
This involves a lot of money, so HOA attorneys are no-doubt involved, and the State sets the rules. They had originally mandated that 12 times the land improperly built on would need to be converted. That seems extreme, so it's hard to say if they have set guidelines, and just how much negotiation is possible. Last I had heard, the projection was 3 acres/$270,000.
Mr. Winegar is the one to ask, and the Annual Meeting the proper time. He may or may not be willing to offer any information. That doesn't change what is in progress, so keep that in mind. This Mitigation stuff has been left on a back-burner for about 16 months or more, so the State was running out of patience.
Woops! I didn't mean to say the ANNUAL MEETING. I meant the Board Meeting Nov. 16th. There really isn't any reason why the BOT shouldn't be willing to outline the situation, as the membership will inevitably be paying for the mistakes made that lead to all of this. It would be a big mistake for anyone on the Board to deny that this is in progress. I believe that the meetings with the arbitrators of this are public, and on record as such.
I have asked the office a follow up question. I have asked if anyone representing SHOA is engaged in negotiations regarding any wetland issue or building without a permit issue with any external organization.
My question is worded differently. That is a summary of my question.
I wonder if I will get a response at all this time.
Mr. Reber may or may not know any details, and may or may not be willing to acknowledge what he knows. When you say that you asked "the Office", what do you mean ? The HOA has stonewalled the membership on a year and a half of legal issues, fines, and legal expenses, so if you want answers go to the BOT president.
The Wetlands Mitigation matter will have to be talked about in detail, as it will require a large expenditure that can't be secreted away. Only mitigation will get Surfside off the hook. I've seen the permitting issue on the BOT Meeting agenda a couple of times, but have not attended those meetings. No one has reported any news about this, so I'm not sure if it has been clear what was at stake here.
I did.
Now that Clancy has been removed from interfering in the mitigation process, we may finally resolve this issue. His take charge meddling without board approval has resulted in delays of the process and thousands of member funds wasted. The board has cause to remove him from the board, as they should. If they were to do this, it would be a message to the members that the present board, is working together, to solve problems, not covering them up.
I give them a 5% chance of responding at all.
I wonder how the Trustees are progressing on the new correspondence acknowledgement and response policy.
See the last Regular Board Meeting Minutes.
Nov 6 at 8:35 AM you need to gather some knowledge on removal of board members. It can only be done by actual member's at the Annual meeting or by the novel approach of not voting for them in the first place.
Good luck with that members.
Nobody wants to work together so keep babbling on this blog and do nothing.
It's not about not working together. It's about lack of transparency. Those that dont read this blog are clueless, including our bot.
The blog is not entirely useless but it's like Fox to MSNBC. Slanted.
Okay, this gives you transparency. Now what?
Better than nothing at all, which is what we currently get from our wonderful Board. Lack of communications at all should be grounds for recall.
Increase is tolerable but the HOA needs to be gutted and get folks in there that are true to all Surfside members. I see a lot of $ wasted and mismanagement of funds.
I find this all interesting but for the last 5 years I have seen no action by any blogger to make changes. You may get one or two but where are the rest of the members who agree with the blog host??
Why doesn't anyone show up for meetings?? How is change to happen when no one participates?? Im not there is a need for blog that can't get any member action going, seems like a bunch of talk and name calling but no action. So who is really at fault; those who volunteer or those who complain but do nothing to encourage change?
If this is as important as you all say then I expect to see you all tomorrow
If blog worthless, why are you commenting all the time? Saying same thing over n over?
3:24....You haven't seen change because the BOT is largely a homogenized group of J Place owners and fulltime residents who vow to protect the status-quo, and agree to support only status-quo supporters as candidates.
You surely realize that some Blog comments are made by Trustees and Committee members, generally signed "anonymous". Board members who comment as themselves are typically harassed by the status-quo supporters for not being mainstream enough.
The Blog doesn't have any responsibility to prove anything to anyone, and no charter to abide by. It's just a place to talk, and share ideas at its' best, but many folks have their own weird intent, to shame, to insult, to waste the space with misguided notions and baseless assumptions. Like you, many pose as superior citizens who contribute a great deal to the community - then sign their comments "anonymous". That's not at all convincing.
Attending the meeting tomorrow is no measure of who cares or who may have organizational skills our community desperately needs. Only 300 or less owners vote annually out of about 2030 households. Until we can draw more participation into our elections, the same story will repeat itself in Surfside. No need to brow-beat anyone. That won't change what's going on here.
Hey Cox. Do you still think I can't organize my sock drawer? I bet I have better organization skills than you.
Why did you say something about clean underwear checks? What kind of language is that?
Why have you repeatedly said stinky-butt? What kind of language is that?
Hi Mike Riley. You don't seem to get when someone is joking or trying to be funny. The topic is the budget Mike. Does the word "underwear" make you uncomfortable ? It was a reference to a scene from the Woody Allen movie "Bananas". You are the consummate back-stabber, having asked me to help you organize a "movement" for change, but whimpered and whined to George if I am not in agreement with your opinions.
Alternately, you have dissed George and even sounded threatening in your comments about him. I've tried to be as reasonable and fair to you as anyone could be, and have defended you openly on the Blog. I don't like to see anyone licked on, but you invite it upon yourself.
I try to write about community issues, but some people choose to use the Blog as an opportunity to do nothing more than insult and demean. You have your own list of deprecatory terms, such as calling people Jokers, Jerks, Old Bags, shills, Overlords, and on and on. I write a lot of stuff, and few words meant to insult. It takes a lot of abuse for me to go negative, usually. Some people have it coming.
Guess you have nothing worthwhile to say about the topic, so go away.
I have no problem organizing my sock drawer Mr. Know It All and Mr. Perfect.
You go away.
George will soon delete my comment and not yours.
You say I whimper and whine. I see Cox. Go get some real therapy Cox!
Post a Comment