$35,000.00 waste of member funds...
SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
REGULAR BOARD MEETING SUMMARY
March 21, 2020
Scott Winegar, Pres. of the Board of Trustees opened the meeting by explaining members were not al-lowed to attend to preserve social distancing.
Board Members Present: Scott Winegar, Gary Williams, Kurt Olds, Annette deLeest, Mark Scott, James Clancy; Ric Minich and Rudd Turner via speakerphone
Staff Present: Tom Reber, Maureen Gilbert
Safety Message: Scott Winegar gave this month’s safety message; practice social distancing and wash your hands frequently and thoroughly.
NOTE: MP= motion passed
Old Business:
MP to accept the 2020-2025 Level II Reserve Study report by Schwindt & Company as presented. (Explanation= an outside consultant reviews all of our assets determines a value, recommends a year for replacement, out to 30 years, and recommends how much money needs to be set aside so money will be available when the asset needs to be replaced.)
MP to close the lighting complaint against Ron and Joanne McMurphy. (Explanation =This was an old com-pliance issue that was in limbo because of the possible changes to the lighting covenant.)
In response to a recommendation from our auditor the Board clarified our policy on the lower limit of value to capitalize an asset. MP to capitalize any assets valued at $2000 (was $500) to $9999.99 and amend the Surfside Operations manual on Fiscal Policy to include this provision and amount. (Anything valued at $10,000 or more becomes part of our reserve study.
New Business:
Board of Trustees Application. MP to accept the Board Trustee Application as amended, adding a cut off date of 7 days to withdraw after the application deadline.
Defer Annual Meeting. MP to defer the Annual Meeting until after the State lifts the ban on public meetings. The Trustees whose terms are expiring will remain in place until such time as we can re-schedule the Annual Meeting and the election.
Accept Bid on Mini Excavator. MP to accept the bid from Bobcat of Olympia to purchase a mini ex-cavator not to exceed a cost of $69,555. (The excavator is used most days of the year. Having a new excavator will eliminate the need to repair and rent a substitute machine during repairs.. This ex-penditure comes from our Reserve savings.)
Lower Columbia Engineering contract. MP to accept a contract to establish a process for the RV/Compactor site that will result in a scope of work not to exceed $35,000. Explanation= (This will move us forward toward a design for improvements to the RV storage and compactor site. This ex-penditure comes from our Reserve savings.)
Decrease Conservation Rate. MP to reduce the conservation rate from 8,000 cubic feet to 5,000 cubic feet. Explanation= (The purpose of the conservation rate is to charge high water users as an encour-agement to reduce water consumption, High water use is often the result of a significant leak or break after the meter.)
Purchase Signs. MP to purchase signs to put around Sea Breeze Lake warning of Blue Green Algae, not to exceed $1000. Explanation=( after significant research into treatment for blue-green algae, it was decided to post signs to warn members of the blue-green algae. Costs to control blue-green algae are significant, not always effective, and only last for a few years)
Eradipest contract. MP to approve the contract with Eradipest for treating trails for Sand Spur as well as Seabreeze Lake and the canal not to exceed $14,160. Explanation=(these are two separate treat-ments – 1. Will treat Seabreeze Lake and the canal for water plants such as milfoil 2. Treat our trails for Sand spur.
19 comments:
What expenditure did you think is a waste of money ($35,000)?
The RV lot..Will they inform the design firm that it is located in wet lands? You would think they would have learned the lesson by now. Clancy is hell bent on spending member money. We need to allow members to store on their own lots. That land would be better suited for gravel and pipe storage. You start messing with the compactor area and the health department will end up closing it down.
Five fools had to show up in person for this meeting which could have all been done on the phone. Minich and Turner were the only ones who did not attend in person. They were the only ones to act responsibly. I am sure the office appreciated the meeting.
Pacific County has been fortunate that no one outside the County has brought it here. Gary Williams needs to return to Renton and stay away from the office. GO HOME FOOL.
I think you're probably right George. But folks in our area have been limiting their contacts and excursions for a few weeks closer to the outbreak epicenter, and 3 or 4 weeks in the Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater area. We didn't have any recorded cases in Thurston County until about a week ago.
There are a lot of holes in the overall picture of the nation. A close friend of ours from Portland just returned from southern Spain, where she was visiting for a couple of months. She isn't a carrier, but she did comment that she wasn't scrutinized in anyway upon returning, though she flew through Vanc. Canada.
A number of states have no stay-at-home restrictions, and passage state to state is not restricted.
Except for limited trips to the grocery, we don't have any contact with people, and everyone is mindful of keeping some distance, and washing up after outings. We're keeping our grand-daughter home from daycare and have been for a couple of weeks. Her parents are working out of home these days.
I'd feel confident about coming down to O.P. under the same regimen, feeling we are safe to handle minor errands without concern we would be carrying illness. We were down about a week ago and basically stayed a few feet from everyone we saw, keeping to ourselves as we usually do, so it's nothing new except the distance in conversation with clerks or neighbors.
Thank you Steve for being responsible and taking care in your contacts. My point is that people like Gary Williams, did not follow your example. The Board room is small and the employees are in and out of there every day. These six people did not take the necessary actions to avoid exposure to themselves or the employees that work there. I see no actions taken at this Board Meeting that could not have been done on the phone. In fact, most of the actions they did take, could have been done later, especially since the members had no chance to voice their opinions and ask questions.
As I’ve said more than once, the knowledge to have remote meetings, classes or interact with fellow employees is not brand new and undiscovered! It should be a very simple process to setup a method to have our BOT meetings open for all via the internet! Please let us the members why this is such a hang up? I’m sure that $35,000 voted to be spent on the RV lot could easily have hired someone to set this up! There are many free programs that can be utilized as most people are aware of.
If this situation continues very long, as I’m sure it will, meetings should just be canceled until the meetings can be open to the members again
It is obvious we cannot save ourselves from infecting each other with covid-19. People think they are smarter than the experts and make excuses to explain why they do not have to STAY-AT-HOME as so ordered by Gov. Inslee. What is it going to take to convince people that they are risking other people lives?
We made a trip to Fred Meyers in Lacey Thursday morning, and it was interesting how effortlessly people were keeping a safe distance, and looking away. I was a little surprised that Clerks weren't wearing masks, but it makes their work more difficult. But there's no need to be in the face of the checker, and there were no signs of sick people around. Some folks wear masks, which can be defensive OR preventative.
But some folks such as my wife and I have been pretty isolated for weeks now, and can be assumed to be unexposed - to the extent that can determined.
It has been shocking to see small crowds of people in Ocean Shores, and some Parks. Some States have no restrictions - Florida was one of them, now with over 2000 cases and 57 dead. So long as people can move state to state, there are risks from out-of-state, True.
One point from the meeting, why not put things on hold during this time except for essential? The $35,000 expenditure is unnecessary at this time or even maybe in the future! I think this is time to hold on to our money
There were some electrical issues, but I think the basics were done last year on that. There is no building area to expand the RV parking, so what's to design ? The current design is said to be poorly laid-out for larger RVs. If the demand is strong, and I believe it is, why not limit the size of RV in the lot ?
I agree that some on the Board see no limits on spending. $35,000 for design of a parking lot ? Makes no sense, and Clancy's in the middle of it, as usual.
So Steve, what is the RV size limit? Do you want to also limit the age to say 5 or 10 years? The fact is new RV’s are getting larger and more luxurious, the inside of my 5th wheel is as nice as most stick built houses.
I do have an RV storage lot, although my RV at 40 feet with triple slides and stairs that fold out of the entry door I cannot enter my RV as the lots are to narrow. Why not a resigned layout with some larger (wider) spaces to accommodate bigger RV’s? Place these lots in an easy access area and have an area for smaller RV’s. And sorry no utility trailers, store those on your property.
If you feel the above is out of line then allow me to keep my RV on my property that I own, pay taxes and HOA dues on! This is an area George and I agree on. My RV is my second home just as some of the stick built houses are some of all of yours, don’t see why my financial expenditure is treated differently than yours.
Doug. You keep your RV lot in a very neat and attractive condition. In fact, it is nicer looking than many of the lots with stick built homes.
Part of the RV storage lot re-design is for larger spaces for the larger RV's. A re-design will reduce the total spaces available, which exceed demand. The RV lot is surrounded by wet lands as is the compactor. The County has stated that they will not allow any expansion. Surfside has searched for additional land within Surfside that could be used or purchased for storage. They have had no luck in this.
A re-design would require a change in the electrical configuration. The present electrical hook ups were designed to provide limited power for a small dehumidifier, not the size units that larger RV's need or want.
35,000.00 study and the cost to do what would be needed or wanted, is not a solution. There is no reason that a lot, such as yours with electricity, should not be allowed for year around use. A 35,000,00 study with reserve funds, is a waste of money that does not solve the problem.
The selfish few in control, see the problem as preventing year around use of member lots. For the RV people, like yourself, the problem is storage. We need that reserve money for real needs in the future, not a temporary fix.
Thanks George for clearing up the information about the RV storage renovation. We were there at a meeting when this was discussed and the problem of the wetland issue was brought up. At that time it was suggested we as a HOA shouldn’t necessarily be expected to have this service available considering the past issue with wetlands.
I was at that time and still am in favor of letting members find their own storage area. Of course this could be a problem as this entity is a money maker! This despite the bylaws stating no service is to be provided to make a profit!
Changing the covenant about RV s being permissible on a persons lot would have to be changed. I understand the covenant not allowing this in regular HOA, but we aren’t “regular”. We’re recreational.
Anyway that’s another bucket of worms! The basic fact is the BOT should not have voted to spend this money at this time! There is no sense of urgency and the members should be able to have a voice in more places than just this blog!
PS. Has anyone in control ever heard of Zoom or Go To Meeting? There are plenty of easy inexpensive solutions to having an open, interactive board meeting😁
Mr. Mally...First, I am not in any position to effect this issue one way or another. Personally, I don't object to owners of RV lots having their rigs on-site year-round. But I do understand the reason for that, being the intention of preventing RVs from being left to disintegrate on the lots they are legally allowed to store them on. There's no easy way of dealing with this, once a property has been allowed to degrade to the point of abandonment.
In these times, there are few ways of disposing of such a large unit of refuse, and to remove abandoned RVs becomes a legal matter, as well as a huge effort and expense. There have been numerous cases of this in the community, primarily on the eastside, where RVs have been allowed all year long.
It just seems to make sense, if the HOA is going to provide a limited amount of off-season RV parking, that it be utilized by smaller RVs for which the lot was designed. The lot cannot provide parking for ALL RVs, and a 40 footer is extreme. A large portion of RV owners will rent storage annually, or park them elsewhere and not in Surfside.
Were the lot to be redesigned and redone at great expense to the entire community, would you be willing to pay double the cost to rent currently ? That would be a reasonable expectation by the HOA if $100,000 was spent designing and redeveloping the limited RV parking.
What the HOA has maintained as a defense of their current policies is that the Coastal weather does a great deal of damage to RVs left on-site all year long. It is a very valid point. If the cost of such a massive RV has not been a problem, then why not find sheltered storage part of the year, and preserve your investment ?
There is certainly a valid argument that an RV lot ownership should be yours to choose parking year-round. But I don't think the HOA is without valid reasons for these restrictions, nor would they be, to limit the size of RVs that can safely navigate the storage lot.
A disadvantage to allowing year-round RV parking is that this would likely have to be consistent with homeowners who have RVs, and probably extend to storage on-site of boats and trailers as well.
Having been a residential HOA Trustee in our community, I appreciate the 24 hour limit on such parking in our standard urban community. The streets and driveways start to look really trashy when dozens appear even short-term in our neighborhood. Visibility when driving is difficult, and the community looks really cluttered. But it is a different community and more compact than Surfside.
I do think that there are some other restrictions on RV lots I don't agree with, and feel there should be more freedom to add some useful additions for storage and porches and steps, which some owners have in spite of restrictions, seem reasonable. But the parking issue is complicated.
Back in 2018 a guy named Mark volunteered to be a member of some committee that was going to look at upgrading/revising the RV lot. IIRC they spent $20k to hire a firm who submitted a drawing on how they would re-design the area. Once I saw it I emailed him and told him it was not going to work...an obvious case of someone not familiar with RV's using a CAD program to measure so everything would fit. It was a disaster and would have left us with half the spaces we have now.
Does anybody else remember this fiasco? Didn't the county nix the permits required for the proposal?
This is precisely why spending $35,000 right now is nonsense! No urgent need, already been discussed the footprint couldn’t be changed, subject of wetland problem discussed, why then BOT was this motion passed? All we can do is speculate because we only have the motion and approval, no discussion. One more justification to no more closed meetings until this shutdown is over!
My time of trying to communicate with the board is over. I can show you examples of absolutely no repose to my emails, By the way, very curious as to how you are privy to this exact number of response, but won’t share your name! More than a little suspicious!
It's hard to grasp why your inquiries would go unanswered. I was told recently by Mr. Minich that he doesn't have time to bother with less significant issues such as the Tree Policy, lighting covenant, and RVs, concerns he credited to me, but is working on much more important things. He also said that anyone who claims the BOT is not transparent enough, is "on a fool's errand".
This reflects the attitude we have presumed to dominate the Boardroom, that Trustees have all of this under control, so it need not be any concern to members.
Had the Observer not done an extensive article on the Asbestos mishandling by the Surfside Water Dept. and HOA collectively, we may never have heard anything about it. Had George not detailed this stuff, the failed permitting, building in wetlands, and huge fines paid by the HOA from member funds, we might not know anything about these management failures, never directly admitted to nor detailed for the membership.
The mitigation efforts were never well outlined for the membership, and we have yet to hear what the final cost was, with large fines, more than a year of legal costs, and a final cost to purchase land from the land bank, at over $12,000. All of this a matter of failures to follow County and State regulations, and knowingly so.
Everyone gets that not everything is easy in the management by a volunteer Board. Everyone understands that mistakes are sometimes made. What is NOT acceptable is the refusal to acknowledge these issues, and explain how the situation will be rectified and avoided in the future. That hasn't happened.
We were recently faced with the Lighting covenant change proposal, approved by the BOT for member review. We had an uncharacteristic robust response by several hundred members that rejected the policy change, and enough Trustees listened to prevent it going forward. Members criticized the lack of information about the process of the rewrite, as NO meeting minutes were recorded or published.
We were given assurances that the proposal would be redone as a minimal rewrite of the current policy. Since the January meeting, there have been no published minutes of the committee's discussions and progress on this version. I remain optimistic, but concerned that there is ZERO transparency. Why ? Mr. Minich's take on this was that everyone at the Lighting Review meeting had selfish motives, and had no concern for the greater good.
Again, this attitude that the Trustees know best, so butt-out of it. I was also told that as the community grows the HOA will need to tighten restrictions on trees, lighting and RVs. It somehow escapes his understanding that during about 6 months out of the year, there are only a few hundred residents present in the community at any given time. How does this translate to a compliance emergency ? Get real.
Elaborate rules and restrictions create infinite opportunities for misinterpretation, as well as disregard for unnecessarily intrusive restrictions that are mere power trips. The new "closing inspections" are a prime example. They WERE going to tell us we had to change all of our exterior light fixtures to avoid lighting the darkness. We may have dodged that bullet.
Unfortunately with all HOA’s the .5% rule the 99.5% of the members, the.5% push thru their own agendas and they change with each new Board.
It is time as we are in the 21st Century for technology to be introduced and online transmittal of all BOT meetings for all member viewing and commentary. Along with this would be online voting and voicing of concerns of all BOT actions.
As far as trees go, pine trees when trimmed and topped become two things: Lumber, which that won’t happen with our small trees, or firewood which is more likely as evidenced by all the pickups sitting loaded with firewood for sale!
Post a Comment