Ending Oct. 31, 2019
We only have two (2) months left in this fiscal year. The final two months of the year will determine if we end the year in the red or black. It is important to closely watch the spending. Overall it appears this fiscal year will end on total budget, unless there is excessive spending, or an emergency. There are no funds in the contingency fund.
INCOME:
97.6% of the members have paid their dues and assessments.
8,610.63 remains to be collected. Some will be, but most won't. This is normal and much will be recovered next year. With late fees, they will go into Misc. income. This year to date, 28,787.40 has been collected on past due.
Miscellaneous Revenues shows to date, there has been 130,470.07 collected. This includes a number of items that should be in other separate budget items. For example, chipping, RV storage and past dues. In the past the Misc. Revenues had a budget that showed an expected income. It has none currently budgeted. This is a flawed accounting practice. This amount will be used to off set the expenses over budget.
EXPENDITURES:
Business Office:
91.8% spent. 20,991.53 remaining. With 25,258.49 spent in October, we can expect it to go 20,000 over budget. A number of items account for the over budget.
Administration:
90.9% spent. 18,823.14 remaining. This should stay in budget. Large expenses have been paid.
Of interest:
Legal fees....budget 75,000.00 Total to date...59,544.08 spent in Oct. 1,407.00 remaining 15,455.92
Insurance... budget 56,000.00 Spent 65,894.51
Water Department:
84.6% spent...This should remain under budget.
Patrol, Common Property, Compactor, RV Storage, & Activities:
These should all finish the year, under budget.
Special Interest:
Chipping...
Donations...4,092.00
Expense...10,745.00
RV Storage...
Income...23,000.00
Expense...6,859.00
38 comments:
So, The Chipping Site was a loser. However, the RV site was a big money maker. I can assume that the monies from the RV site will be used to cover the Chipping site.
You losers.
And my money. I don't use the site and I have to pay for someone else to clean their lot? Are you going to pay for someone to mow my grass? I take care of my lot, you take care of yours. They should be charged the full amount to dump there. Force them to top their trees and the rest of us will pay for it. Make the J place people pay for it, after all, it's about their damn view.
Thanks for the information George. Didn’t realize there is no contingency fund.
Ok another Weekender published and not a word or information concerning the new proposed lighting covenant!!
Btw, we rent the chipper from a landscape company, n they get free chip.
The "new" text of the lighting policy is published on the website. You make a good point JoAnne, why isn't this being published on the Weekender site as well.
I remember a Board meeting last May when Annette deLeest emphasized that if Mike Riley wanted to propose covenant changes, he needed to provide a copy of the original covenant, showing where changes were being made by highlighting, and provide a copy of how the final covenant would read.
Riley was not present at the meeting, and it was interesting that the BOT couldn't consider input from an owner without it being in a very specific format. What was also interesting was the Board never contacted him to let him know of their specific expectations. About 2 weeks later Riley was commenting on the Blog that he hadn't heard from the BOT about his proposals. I responded to him, I believe by e-mail, that the Board had rejected his proposal unanimously, due to the format.
They didn't have the decency to contact him about it, and when I found out, I let him know what had happened at the meeting. Then by some odd quirk, he got angry at me about it.
But notice that only the new policy is published, with no indication of what has been changed to compare to.
So why is it over budget?
That’s correct. This is not an amendment to to covenants, but a whole new lengthy covenant
For an approximately 1.4 million dollar budget, the budget and spending look pretty good to me.
Please tell me why the chipping budget went so far over? I’d like to understand
As i understand, the chipper rental is supposed to be covered by donations by the chipee. Since the renter of the chipper gets free chip to resell, we should at very least get a discount. Better yet, buy our own. One years rental would more than cover it.
Back off the blog host, troll!
The only thing slanderous on this blog is the behavior of the entitled.
I agree Cox. Riley is a crazed weasel. He is the bottle man too.
As you also said, he is so quirky he can't organize his sock drawer, he is a weak person who whimpers and whines, and gets mad at people for no reason.
Stay away from Riley.
Cox. You talk about Riley's proposals that he submitted on April 25.
Did you know he requested those be put on the agenda for a vote of the membership at the July Annual Meeting?
Deb had information him that in 2018 the board told her they had to be submitted prior to the meeting.
Then the board turned around and said they rejected all of them. That is false particularly since the board alone does not vote on voluntary dissolution, the entire membership does.
Riley asked you to help him write proposals.
Don't you remember refusing to help him write proposals while criticizing him for what he wrote?
I submitted a vote for voluntary dissolution. That is why Cox has been so angry with Riley.
Cox. I remember you saying on this blog that Clancy has submitted false complaints. Please tell us more.
Good job on the budget Mr. Turner.
I made the 11/23 6:29 AM comment. I wonder if it will be deleted now.
Deb and I were interested in submitting 2 or 3 proposals for member approval. Riley had at least 9, and would not consider settling on the least controversial ones for the sake of maybe getting one or 2 approved.
We wanted to get on-line voting approved, and that seemed to require a Bylaw change as well. The objective only being to try and expand voting participation, and in so doing, getting a broader sample of owner opinion. Not really controversial, but requiring a commitment of time and patience to let it catch on - or not.
We also wanted to propose requiring a member vote in order to approve covenant changes. This isn't controversial either. Surfside is an oddity, allowing only the BOT to make a final decision on covenant changes. Virtually all HOAs require some measure of owner approval of covenants, generally done by gathering signatures by visiting members door-to-door. This method is not practical in Surfside, but there are other options for gathering signatures.
Both of these measures would potentially help Surfside make more equitable decisions, and try to involve more owner participation.
Mike could not see the wisdom in this, had not experienced an election in Surfside, and was unwilling to compromise his list of measures for the sake of a less ambitious, more promising effort. He said that he could submit as many measures as he wished, and we agreed, and wishing him well, we bowed out. No matter how much effort is expended trying to be kind and work with Mike, he manages to get mad about something, and full of resentment.
Yes, I figured ALL of these entries are written by Mike Riley.
No one really cares what you say little Mikey. Your just another nut job.
I very much agree the covenants need to be changed by a vote of the membership not just the BOT. This item needs to come up at the July annual meeting in my view. Let’s work on that
Why didn't you submit your own proposed resolutions Steve Cox?
You chose to "bow out" of my work. Why do you think you have to hide behind someone else to do the work?
Do your own work then and get support behind your own efforts then. You can also then contemporaneously draw a distinction between yourself and mine. Again, you chose not too.
When you negotiate, you don't first propose what you are willing to accept. You first propose more than what you want.
I'm a reasonable person. I would have negotiated in good faith with the Board. I would have withdrawn the voluntary dissolution proposed resolution for voting. I would have reworked my proposed resolutions showing redlines for the actual vote. The fact is the Board had no intention to allow the addition of any proposed resolutions for membership to the July Annual Meeting agenda.
Look, the board troll calling me little Mikey is back at again. Now I'm little Mikey. I complained about you to some of the board members. Now you're at it again. Are you taller than 6' sir?
Notice how George lets someone ridicule me like that. Also call me a nut job. That's a real serious, constructive, and on topic comment George. Thanks for allowing someone to call me little Mikey and calling me a nut job.
Good luck JoAnne. You will need all the luck in the world.
The member who tried as much as I did, using a different tactic, in 2018 has left Surfside. We lost a good member. I used a different tactic based on what I learned from her attempt in 2018. It's tough to get others to help. I understand. It's just sad. I don't need to build on my property yet, so I don't have much to loose or worry about. Even if they try to retaliate against me, I have ideas about how to handle that.
If you want to talk to me about what happened in 2018 and 2019 regarding that matter, contact me. The board published my proposed resolutions for a vote of the membership to be added to the July Annual Meeting letter in the May or June Regular Board Meeting Minutes packet. I think it's in the May minutes packet.
11/24 12:27 PM.
By calling me little Mikey, are you threatening me or challenging me to anything?
I just read some of the board minutes the past few days and saw statement about your proposal. No details, so I would love to chat. In my opinion it’s very important for the membership to vote on covenant amendments. On the website the July and September minutes are missing. We’ve been to the September, October and November meetings. Following up on our lighting complaint of July 9, 2019
I have disputed that statement via email with the General Manager and one or more of the Trustees. They refuse to correct the statement.
I have a bunch of emails and documents to share with you on that topic and many others.
I couldn't agree more.
On a side note, Scott Winegar has been disappointed with me for not wanting to help them write contracts on an unpaid basis. He told me that he thought I would want to help so I can get access to detailed information. I told him that I wouldn't help out until Surfside requires membership voting on governing document amendments, per the Articles of Incorporation/Bylaws. I also told him that all members are entitled to detailed information, with some limited exceptions of course, not just those on the board or that volunteer.
I can't find the August 17, 2019 minutes. I just sent them an email asking where they are. I also asked them why they don't provide the agendas and minutes separately. That's what I do for my job and the industry committees I Chair.
At the 2017 Annual Meeting Deb Blagg attempted to introduce a few proposals, including voting online, requiring member approval for covenant change, and a couple more as I recall. There has since been great controversy about why this effort failed, but the HOA attorney insisted she couldn't ask for motions on these proposals.
The Board knew she wanted to make the proposals, and this is the proper venue for doing so, specified in the Bylaws, and common to most HOAs. This is technically a "Member Meeting", and so, this is proper. Whatever the technicalities or lack of, she was prevented from moving forward on this effort, and got an abundance of crap about it, because she got angry.
In the 3 years I have attended these meetings, no member initiated proposals have been allowed to be voted on. So against this backdrop, Mr. Riley wanted to bring 9 or more proposals before the members, including ending the Tree Policy and Dissolution of the HOA. Deb and I had encouraged there only be 3 or 4 measures that were non-controversial, and pointed out that this shouldn't be looked at as an occasion to address numerous complex issues in a vote by 100 or so members in attendance.
The Board is in the process of rushing a new lighting covenant through by the first of the year, and it is NOT a well written or acceptable policy for many owners, while most will have no idea where it came from. The policy is viewable on the website, which many members surely do not look at, and we will see if it is published in the end of year Newsletter. Will anyone know that the scheduled member review is a meeting the first Sat. in January ?
Mr. Riley manages to make everything a personal matter, when no one was snubbing him, nor did he express any interest in making any compromises. I chose to run for the BOT and forget about the measures. Deb moved away.
I'd suggest trying to secure an agreement by the BOT to delay the review, on the argument that owners won't attend, and haven't been given adequate time to acquaint themselves with the new standards verses the old. As a part of that, we should get an agreement that covenant changes will ALWAYS be reviewed at the Annual Meetings, the only meetings where more than a few dozen owners attend.
That seems a modest compromise on the part of the Board, OR they could move to instate a requirement that owners must approve of covenant changes. One is a modest request, the other just common respect.
The member review will be January 18,2020 before the regular BOT meeting. It was decided to send the copy of the new covenant and notice of the hearing out with the notice for our annual dues and assessments to save money on postage! Not one person I have talked to here even knew anything was going on! The reason we are so aware is because of our lighting complaint of July 9,2019 that still is unsettled! We knew the architectural committee was working on changing the current covenant, but never in my wildest imagination could I ever have been prepared for this one!
Please get the word out about the Jan 18th hearing as the board is being silent. It was promised to be published in the weekender and hasn’t shown up yet
I’ve made 100 copies of the proposed new covenant with a cover telling about the hearing. I plan to distribute as much as I can, but if anyone wants to help. Give me a call. 360-665-4444
This needs to be set aside until the annual July meeting in my opinion
Wrong Steve Cox. I never wanted to propose anything about the Tree Policy. That is too decisive and complex. You wanted to propose something on that, I didn't.
Look at my proposals published in the May 2019 Regular Board Meeting Minutes. I did not propose anything about the Tree Policy.
I never had any such intention, and I recall that you specifically did. You sent Deb and I copies of your measures, so you may have reconsidered on the Tree issue before you brought them to the BOT. I don't care to discuss ANYTHING with you, and this illustrates why. You totally missed the main point, which is how challenging it is to just get an issue on the ballot or docket.
Thanks for the info JoAnne !!
I'm a little confused by your comment JoAnne.
You say that they are sending out a copy of the new covenant along with a notice of the hearing yet you also accuse the board of being silent. How are they being silent then? I don't remember any promises given about putting it in the weekended but since many members don't bother to read it or the board meeting minutes from when this was discussed, sending it out with the dues/assessments is a good idea in my opinion.
For the record :I've never referred to Mike Riley as a "crazed weasel".
6:20 - lighting "complaints" have not been common or numerous in Surfside. Many have been pretty ridiculous, so the actual need for an elaborate rewrite can't be verified. Approving these lighting changes without having discussed it with members at length and scheduling a member review in January is intentionally slick and disrespectful of owner's wishes.
This reflects this push to bring some twisted sense of "law and order" to Surfside by people who like to tell other people what to do, then pester them to death. That's the new plan for making Surfside a better place to own property. Pages of obscure and useless restrictions dreamed-up in a bubble.
Much of these restrictions are silly. How coincidental that the weirdest most unnecessary restriction bans "string lights" which relates to JoAnne's 4 month struggle with compliance. Holiday lights were allowed all year long in the original covenant, and there was clearly a decision made to allow them at that time. Many people enjoy white string lights on patios and porches, as they provide cheery subtle light.
If garden and walkway lights are allowed, low wattage LED lights on strings should be fine also. Limiting non-holiday use to white also seems fine. This is a case of some entitled individual on the BOT harassing an elderly couple over lights that are NOT out of compliance technically, and that person is insistent that JoAnne will not have her lights. WHY is that, Trustee who demands your own way ?
If their lights glare, then maybe they should buy a different type of LED lights, but holiday lights are, at least until January, compliant.
The thing about our complaint is that we know it didn’t come from neighbors. In the first place we have no full time neighbors so our ares is very dark, that was part of the appeal. The LED lights we installed were modified by putting black tape over them do the lights shine downward. What has happened is now our driveway is dark and unsafe for us in our opinion. The lights on our front deck come under the exception 2.17a. Holiday and similar low wattage decorative lighting may be displayed on a parcel so long as it does not cause a nuisance or unreasonably interfere with use on any other property
So easy to know it was “someone” patrolling around looking for issues.
Like I’ve stated many times, our mistake was appealing the complaint. We should have just ignored!
I discussed sending it out with the weekender with the board chairman and Tom. In my opinion when it was approved at the October meeting and decided to send out with the dues and assessment notice, it should have been included with the board minutes. You cannot possibly have too many avenues of notice on changing our covenants
Not sure why you chose to aim your comment at me 11:00. To your comment, a couple things to ponder.
I don't know what you consider numerous but you might want to check in with your buddy on the Arch Comm since the member I talked with said they do get a bunch of light complaints, that is why they brought the proposed changes to the board.
Speaking of which, I notice once again you ignore that fact and instead have to go at a Trustee. Something I find interesting specially when you consider the fact that there are at least 2 board members I know of who have received lighting complaints which they had to fix. One of those lived on J.
To JoAnne. If you would have said that it was a conversation with Tom that would have explained everything. All I said was I didn't recall it being mentioned at the meeting to everyone.
You can gripe about my point of view if you like. There's no real hurry to make these changes, yet there seems to be a sense of urgency to hold the review meeting. And why are these people being hassled when string lights are allowed year 'round until the standards are officially changed ? This appears abusive, and the elderly couple certainly feel it is also.
The fact that this circumstance has been going on since July is an indication of how pressing these lighting issues are - not at all pressing. I have followed-up on a few of these that have been slow to be resolved, and several have been truly foolish. One on-going complaint proved to be due in part to an owner who refused to put up a curtain to block the occasional annoyance of someone's light. Some seem to have no logic involved at all.
To Steve. I have asked more than once for a report of just how many letters of complaint went out concerning lighting, how many appealed and what is the status of the remainder. I think this would be very beneficial information to study. I know we’re the only ones who went to a meeting to appeal and also went to a subsequent meeting to try and clarify our status. I would think this data could easily be on a simple spreadsheet, numbers only no names
That was a good move. What exactly has prompted this, besides a Board that is increasingly prone to intrude on owner rights, and so, owner happiness ? The seemingly random nature of this stuff is, like the "Shed Eaves" restrictions, more about flexing Trustee authority muscle, than about addressing a verifiable problem. This is the kind of thing that makes people hate HOAs, as it amounts to abuse of authority BECAUSE it is known to meet little resistance.
The HOA has been embroiled in numerous serious legal issues of their own making, and at the same time, the Tree comm. has been raking the community and increasing legal consequences and pressure, Office management has continued to be in turmoil and unable to be fully staffed. We do not have a qualified manager to replace Bill Neal at the Water Dept.,and there are no compliance officers. The BOT has approved these ridiculous closing inspections as a justification to hire 2 compliance officers, and put a $200 price tag on changing titles in Surfside.
There is a big power grab going on as I see it, and based upon what ? Incompetence ? Apparently so.
It has been difficult to get basic information by request, when as you say, most of this should be easily accessed in a few minutes. All of this title change business has grown out of the fact that the Office processed the Johansen title change, without having formally resolved Johansen's hard fought shed porch compliance issue. Incompetence.
The "Eaves" covenant change was also a knee jerk reaction to Johansen's success in court, and the unwillingness of the HOA to accept that no Court agreed that this was a valid issue. Incompetence and denial.
They started bugging you folks in July about a string of lights ? Do we really believe that ALL of the Trustees see this as a valid compliance issue ? And now we see this ban on "string lights" standing out as a reactionary obsession of one or 2 Trustees, moving forward for the community of 2000 families.
Where is the evidence that lighting issues have reached an unmanageable level of incidence ? They know that there is no substantial basis for most of these new restrictions. A well constructed data base would make it simple to offer the data on lighting compliance. On the other hand, they have been hassling you over string lights which are legal all year 'round.
Post a Comment