Agenda....Budget Ratification...
Update:
Budget Ratification meeting recap. 224 votes (quorum met...needed 203). 181 For. 43 Against. 2020 BUDGET PASSED.
Open Board position on the agenda...
There must be no business, new or old....
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Surfside Homeowners Association
Regular Board Meeting
November 16, 2019
following the Budget Ratification meeting held at 9:00 a.m.
Call to Order - Regular Board Meeting
Adopt the November 17, 2018 Regular Meeting Agenda
Safety Message
Sheriff’s Report
Approval of Minutes of the October 20, 2018 Regular Board Meeting
Open Board position*
Floor comments (20 Minutes)
Old Business:
New Business:
Communication: Correspondence, meetings, contacts
Staff, Trustee & Committee Report
Water Department: Water System Main Replacement/Water Quality Update
Water System Planning
Treasurer Report
Compactor Report
Architectural Committee
Community Relations Committee
Firewise Report
Tree, Brush & Noxious Weed Sub-Committee
RV Storage
Land & Buildings Committee
Fish & Waterway Management Committee
Business Office/Compliance Report
Emergency Management
Other reports
Receipt of Committee Reports
Recess to Closed Session on Legal or Employee Matter
Reconvene to Open Session
Miscellaneous
Floor Topics for the Good of the Order
Adjourn
25 comments:
Again, why bother to vote. 3 years from now dues will reach $700.
The Budget meeting precedes the regular monthly meeting. This is the agenda for the monthly meeting. We have no information to bear out what you are saying will come to pass.
The community is still negotiating with the State over building in a wetland without proper permitting, and still waiting for a final decision from the Federal EPA for a determination on the Asbestos exposure of Surfside workers.
For that matter, we (the members) are still waiting for the Board of Trustees to admit to the mistakes that led to these serious lapses of judgement by the HOA management.
The HOA attorney recently hired out of South Bend may have helped to settle the Wetlands Mitigation issue, there having been a meeting with State/County reps last Thursday. The rumored settlement will be very expensive, so HOW expensive ?
I attended the BOT meeting today. The Budget passed of course. This was Bill Neil's last meeting -he is retiring. I spoke with him on a few issues, and as usual I found him quite candid and honest. Surfside will not have a real Water manager until they hire one, as Mr. Reber only imagines he can step in and take over. He has no credentials to legally do so.
There was a lot of fuss over hiring a part-time compliance officer, and conjecture that the position will expand in hours and unrelated responsibilities, working out of the Business Office. Mr. Reber wants 2 part-time compliance officers, and plans to pay for them with the newly conceived "Transfer Fees", of $200 for title transfers, and a mandatory compliance inspection.
A rational person can understand that the Office has the capability to keep accurate records on compliance issues cited, and easily discern who has not fulfilled such issues on record. The transfer is not complicated, nor does the community owe the Realtors any debt of gratitude. This is a bogus construct conceived as a way to pay for compliance employee salaries.
One of the first agenda items was "appoint Trustee". A Surfside member told me he had sent letters to ALL of the Trustees, insisting that they needed to appoint me to the position, as I received the next most votes in the election, to the 3 that took seats. He said he received only one response that insisted that they were not obligated to do so -which is technically true.
The Board was asked for discussion on the matter, and none had anything to say. Winegar just glossed over it, knowing that the person who wrote the letter was sitting right in front of him. Thank you Steve Fickinger ! You're awesome.
I asked them about the update on the Wetland mitigation and few straight answers were given, and no attempt to make anything specific or clear. It was claimed by someone that there was a large remainder of the money ear-marked for the CTP (plant), guessing about $150,000 and in the same moment that was debunked, and it was claimed only half that much remains. But no straight talk came from Mr. Minich in regard to the plans being pursued, or the potential cost, which has been rumored to be in the area of $270,000.
I'd have to say that the unwillingness to follow past precedent in the appointment of a Trustee, demonstrates the truth that J Place owners will make every effort to control the community, its' priorities, obsession with trivial enforcement, and all dialogue in the boardroom, willing to cover-up their objectives and ignore member letters of concern, in favor of the J place agenda. Preserve the Tree Policy at all costs, and keep the peasants discouraged and in their place.
92 members voted for me in the last election, and the actions of the BOT show blatant disregard for the rights and expectations of those voters. The BOT has not made any attempt to discuss this matter with me, and I was clearly on hand to do so. I wasn't going to beg or badger them to do what is obviously the right thing - appoint me to the position. So be it.
Thanks Steve for sharing your observations. You can see why no one wastes their time to attend board meetings. Just as well your not on the board. You will enjoy the beach more.
Steve you don’t get it do you? You will never get seated on this board after you have carried on and bad mouthed a number of trustees some of which was not warranted or deserved. Best to wait until next election season and lay off this blog for awhile. Just my opinion! Some of your comments are right on the money and I believe you could make a positive difference but you have gone too far on certain subjects and pissed people off. Think what you will but take a break, stop listening to a couple of ex trustees and do your research on a subject or supposed issue and don’t rely on third party information. Glad you went to the meeting, keep going.
Steve, the BOT is not going to talk to you due to the fear that you will say that you were accosted and smear them all over this blog again!
Still hung-up on the word accost aren't you ? It means to approach with urgency or hostility. Not really too specific, and exactly what took place. Get a dictionary.
As for the invaluable advice from 11:05, Of course I "get it". I don't buy your version of what's going on, and don't need any advice. I don't see any future in getting involved in this community's HOA, or of taking reassurance from people who insist on being anonymous. Why don't you put all of your wisdom to work for the community ?
I don't think your encouragement is sincere, and I assure you, my feelings are not "hurt" for being ignored at the insipid Board Meeting. I'm just stating what happened, which I consider pitiful self-serving politics. The unwillingness to be open about the Wetlands Mitigation is despicable, and conveniently ignores the fact that the member's money pays for the failures of BOT management. That's why WHAT is spent on WHAT is very much my business as well as every member's business.
So interesting how the BOT interprets the by-laws! It says any vacancy occurring on the BOT. SHALL be filled by appointment!!! Not maybe, probably or we’ll think about it, but SHALL! As with other rules and covenants, they are being followed as the BOT sees fit even when members are trying to follow the rules!
Another Meeting item worth noting involved an owner who has been getting hassled by the Arch Comm. over their lights on a string. He attended to protest the matter. A very positive move by Mr. Winegar was to move for a moratorium on lighting enforcement while details of the new policy standards are still being discussed. In so doing, the president acknowledged that such changes must be reviewed by the membership before they can be finalized. The motion was approved.
It was also revealed that the contractor chosen to do the work on the RV storage lot has backed-out of the agreement, and the projected reconstruction will be delayed until 2021.
Treasurer Rudd Turner cautioned the Board on any further plans of large expenditures, with impending expenses related to the Wetland Mitigation yet to be finalized. He made a suggestion (details I didn't catch) that would enable the HOA to exit the Golf Course rental of a gravel storage lot recently set-up. This was a puzzling move by the BOT initially, and a very expensive annual cost. There was no real response, unfortunate, as this is a cost that needs to be eliminated.
From what I have observed, Turner and Winegar, are taking their responsibilities as Board President and Treasurer, seriously. This is a good thing. We wish them luck.
Again with the J place conspiracy thing, the good old boogeyman standby complaint of Cox.
Winegar, a J place resident put the topic of the board position up for discussion. If he was part of the J place agenda why would he do so? Nobody on the board chose to discuss it. Last I checked there are people on the board that don't live on J and one who has only recently became a J place resident, so are you saying they are part of the J place agenda/conspiracy too? Again more B.S.
When people who like Cox don't show up at meetings except on rare occasions read this crap they get the impression that those on the board who happen to live on J are locked together in some secret society, all in agreement together which is not factual. Those of us who do attend have seen those same people disagree with each other and not all vote alike. So the whole J place agenda is merely a distraction used by Cox and is purposely inflammatory.
Like it or not given the fact that over the years there have always been people who live on J stepping up to run for the board, there will always be J place Trustees. Like it or not the membership who bother to vote put them there so they are representing the desires of those members. You have the right to disagree, but to turn it into a big J place conspiracy like you do has no basis in fact and accomplishes nothing except showing your own bias.
To the whole accosted issue. Don't need a dictionary. No matter the definition it is as 11:16 pointed out a smear of a Trustee. Just look at only a couple facts that led up to it. I'm not going to go into the whole Tree Committee attacks Cox has made against her which are too numerous and well documented.
Look at the lead up to the election. For his own reasons Cox decided to not follow all of the steps that the other candidates did. Even So Annette still tried to make allowances anyways for him, probably in my opinion because if she didn't he would scream foul and blame it on the J place conspiracy. Even though she did this he still complained and made the false allegations anyways. Let's all remember too what happened when someone did a search and found pictures of his Lacey residence and commented on his trees. Cox quickly lost his composure and blamed her for it even though he had not one shred of proof.
So instead of going, and I'll use one of Cox's terms here, the Chickensh*t route of coming on here she instead did the adult thing and went to the source to discuss it. Of course instead of just dealing with it he had to come on here saying he was accosted, among other things. In my opinion this is just like the school yard bully being stood up to then running off crying to the teacher.
Pathetic.
Feel better no Jurt?
So nice to have heard from the bot, repeating themselves. They sure seem to be afraid of Mr. Cox's influence. The "only" thing they are transparent about.
He appears there is some real fear out there about Mr. Cox's competency. It scares them. That's why the trolls out here constantly attack him.
Ignore these fools Steve! Stay the course, as I see it the only hope short of disbanding this organization entirely.
3:25...There are no established procedures for the pre-election period. Never has been. If you are a member "in good standing" as they say, you can file to run as a candidate. The rest was made up by deLeest as trustee head of the nomination committee, and [articipation was not required. You've beat this dead horse enough. Give it up.
Ah yes, the BOT are shaking in their shoes. What a joke. Why would the big bad J place cabal be afraid?
But keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel good.
Bot has been digging their own hole, just depends on how deep. Prob is, they wont suffer for it. We will. Maybe.
3:25....This is all YOUR fabrication and assembly of various people's blog comments. The BOT was given Chandler's resignation before the October meeting. It had not been announced until Saturday, but has obviously been discussed in private.
I have NOT claimed J Pl. owners are involved in a conspiracy, so much for your reading retention. J place owners on the BOT and other status-quo lovers have become very organized in their election efforts to elect their choice of candidates, by doing an annual round-up of promised votes and proxies.
There's nothing improper about it really. But the fact that only about 275 votes were cast in the last election, and ALL of the 3 candidates promoted received over 150 votes each, demonstrates that this was not by chance. Mr. Olds received 182 votes - 3/4 of the entire electorate. I received about 92, with the next in line, Flood, at about 67 votes.
5 of the 8 seated Trustees are J Pl. owners, and Chandler was too. What I do point to often, is the apparent "policy" quietly adopted, to offer tidbits of information only at the BOT's convenience, and feeling no shame for covering-up whatever they wish.
Transparency is a State requirement in HOA business, not an option. When asked about the Wetlands Mitigation, a matter that has been covered-up since June/July of 2018 (as has the asbestos issue), very little information was offered, and what was, could not really be deciphered.
A great deal of money has been spent on legal counsel in the last 2 years, and it is never clearly accounted for. Nor has legal spending been carefully monitored and controlled by the Board. This notion of "pro-active" enforcement that has been adopted as a new policy direction, promises to create a lot of anger and conflict by increasing trivial enforcement pressure and the fabricating of nonsensical restrictions like shed eaves, transfer fees/closing inspections, and pointless lighting limitations.
The Tree height restrictions have worked their "magic" and the community looks like hell. The heavy enforcers are anxious to get a couple of compliance officers hired, even as a priority over hiring a qualified Water manager, which Reber IS NOT. The community no longer has a qualified Water Dept. manager.
The priorities are out of whack, and much of this fussing over imaginary compliance problems has to do with intimidating the membership from asking too many questions, and demanding full transparency. The full Board seems willing to let this go on - so is it a conspiracy ? It's an alliance to defy State requirements and honesty in our governance, that is clear.
Whatever you want to call it, this is not governance as the State OR our covenants prescribes and requires. And it inevitably falls back to the blind allegiance to the enforcement of the Tree Policy at all costs, and maintaining a false social structure and J Place elite. No one would pretend that simply having a J place address means you're in cahoots with the politicos, but many obviously vote in lock-step, and few if any openly oppose retaining the Tree Policy and legal spending to maintain it.
All of this monkey business is detrimental to Surfside physically, fiscally, and emotionally.
Thank you Steve! I couldn’t agree more. When the first line of the new lighting covenant reads “the purpose of this section is to 1. Prevent excessive illumination. It’s pretty apparent where this comes from. My question is how many compliance officers are we going to have to hire and who is going to interpret what “excessive” means? Valid question in my mind
What are you going to do about it Cox?
I will never vote for you ever again.
Have you ever written to the state complaining about Surfside? I have.
Keep whining and complaining and doing nothing. Good for you.
Thank you Mike, and sorry I've disappointed you so. You're a real champion, that's for sure.
"There's nothing improper about it really".
Then why do you insist on repeating it? Also, you always forget one important item concerning the 3 candidates in general and since you had to single out Mr. Olds, him specifically. All three have been involved with doing volunteer work for the community for years. Something you have not.
To JoAnne. Yes, it IS pretty apparent from where it comes from since they are the ones who brought this to the board and also deal with light complaints. That would be the Arch Committee. If you are at all insinuating that it is J place people you have been drinking the Kool-Aid that Cox has been serving.
To anonymous 6:31. I am not one who drinks any Kool-Aid! I am do my research and we have tried to follow all the steps per the covenants after receiving our lighting complaint. I do know throughout this process the board has not done their part to complete this action. I have never said anything about J place or blamed them for anything! I simply feel as a level headed concerned member of surfside that this new lighting covenant is too much! I feel and have stated to some board members that is setting the board up for failure as the current lighting covenant can’t and isn’t being administered fairly and equally! This is a fact as we’ve been going through this since July and you can go in any neighborhood and see lights way more out of compliance than ours ever were. I’m not on here to argue or call names, just to get justice and hopefully to prevent the BOT adopting a covenant that in my opinion is way too restrictive for our community.
Dues were about $350 about 6 years ago.
Post a Comment