Meeting Agenda...Sat Feb. 15, 2020
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Surfside Homeowners Association
Regular Board Meeting
February 15, 2020
1. Call to Order - Regular Board Meeting
2. Adopt the February 15, 2020 Regular Meeting Agenda
3. Safety Message
4. Approval of Minutes of the January 18, 2020 Regular Board Meeting Minutes
5. Members comments (20 Minutes)
6. New Business
A. Short class on water system components
B. Quote for new office 365 email
C. Award bid for compactor replacement
D. Appoint Nominating Committee chair/Election Committee Chair
E. Approve the cost of the magnetic meter replacement
F. Add the 3% credit card service charge to operations manual as policy
G. Multi-Dwelling Fee
H. Deputy Patrol
7. Communications
A. Incoming Correspondence
B. Outgoing Correspondence
C. Meetings & Contacts
8. Staff, Trustee & Committee Reports
C. Treasurer’s Report
D. Compactor Report
E. Architectural Committee
F. Community Relations Committee
G. Firewise Report
H. Tree, Brush, & Noxious Weed Sub-Committee
I Land and Buildings Committee
J. Fish & Waterway Management Committee
K. General Manager Report
L. Emergency Management Committee
M. Other reports
N. Receipt of Committee Reports*
9. Recess to Closed Session on Legal or Employee matters (If necessary) *
10. Reconvene to Open Session
11. Miscellaneous
12. Floor Topics for the Good of the Order
6 comments:
Why should there be a 3% Credit card fee when owners do not make frequent payments to the HOA ? No one makes these payments in cash, and that leaves cards and checks. Does the HOA WANT the money ? Then what is this Mickey Mouse ?
I could see it if it pertains only to folks who pay dues and assessments quarterly or monthly, but I also see that there is an effort to add a "multi-dwelling fee". What the hell is that ? There are 4 condo structures in the community, and one, maybe 2 or 3 Duplexes. Each unit has an address and pays dues and assessments just like everyone else. There is no extra burden to bear for the HOA.
This sounds like more b.s. to follow the other bogus fees approved to change titles and pay for these bogus closing inspections. Owners best stay alert, as this all seems contrived.
I will not be able to attend the meeting because I work, But I am curious about the multi dwelling fee. Where can I find information about it?
I have to admit to being too quick to comment, but distrustful of the HOA. My wife said, everyone is adding charges for credit card use these days, which seems to be true. On the other hand, all of the HOA's operational funds are from member dues and assessments.
I haven't heard anything about this multi-dwelling fee, and some such things pop-up in meeting agendas and are approved as quickly. I wasn't able to attend the meeting today, so will hope someone will enlighten us on what this is about.
I made an admission of impulsively speaking my first reaction, and that I realized that my wife was making a valid point. I am certain that we all have a first response to annoying news, and generally have a little different take after some reflection.
You manage to not comprehend how inappropriate it is to respond the way you did. You use my honesty as an opportunity to reiterate what I just said, telling me my wife is correct, my exact words, then telling me it is my bias against the Board that is to blame. You are pitiful !
I judge Board actions on their merit or lack of it, not by a bias against them. I judge them by their consistent choice to operate in secrecy and withhold information from the membership which is improper and disrespectful of the membership and State laws requiring HOAs operate openly and transparently, serving their memberships without bias.
I presume each of these Trustees to have the ability to be honest and theoretically, change the prevailing attitude and practices, and would welcome it at any time. The rejection of the Lighting Covenant revision was a step in that direction, and encouraging. But if we look at the Arch minutes here, we see that most of the committee is absent from the meeting, and only half a sentence is offered about the progress on the rewrite.
They were given a pretty simple task that could be wrapped-up in 2 or 3 meetings. Reword the original covenant and keep it simple, determining a lumen value to use to limit light beyond property lines.
February 14, 2020 at 4:51 PM, unfortunately most likely not.
George deleted a snarky comment leaving mine, so it seems I'm talking to a phantom. He could have removed my remark as well, but I understand his objective.
The now missing comment did offer some info about the agenda item "Multi-dwelling fee". The commenter did not state what the Board's objective was, but pointed out that this pertains to ownership of multiple properties, and in particular, those that are adjacent to one another.
As it stands currently, these members pay dues for one property, but assessments on each property. Owners of multiple properties only get one VOTE. That part is written in our Bylaws. That part seems best left unchanged, with each household wielding no more than one vote. But there are some legitimate reasons why undeveloped lots owned by an adjacent homeowner shouldn't be charged assessments on a vacant lot.
A point to support assessments might be that there are many variations on this theme. Some members use their unbuilt lot as a garden, some use the extra lot for visiting guests with RVs. In these cases, community water is likely used, and gardens and RVs may generate some waste. There would be an argument for paying only dues, which is $100 annually, in cases such as this, and most are undeveloped and unused. Some are in need of maintenance.
Apparently someone is building a house on an adjoining lot with the intention of renting it. It was not stated what the concern was over this. Obviously, assessments need to be collected, and it may make sense to charge the dues as well. But the owner can't have more than one vote in any case, so we need someone to enlighten us as to what was at issue here. It is mostly a black and white issue it seems.
Post a Comment