How your money is spent, is very revealing.
You can learn a lot that does not show up in other information available for members.
When I was on the Board, I often had questions about expenditures listed on this report. Today, you hardly ever see any questions. That indicates a lack of attention to the primary function of the Board.
Click on each page of the 4 page report for a larger read:
3 comments:
I find it a bit strange that there is so little traffic on the Blog since all are required to identify themselves. The last year of record-setting numbers of Tree complaints has made it clear that this policy is completely off the rails and the condition of Surfside landscape a pitiful specter of dead and dieing trees beyond saving.
The HOA shows no interest in addressing this mess, and excuses abound, as to why it must continue, all completely lame. But it is apparent to most that this has all gone beyond all reason and is a lost cause, the entire membership left to accept a community that has embraced this madness that has made this a very ugly community.
In a similar sense, I was struck by a comment written by our General manager Tom Reber in a print-out offered at the January BOT Meeting. Strangely enough, this was a copy of the monthly report from August, and to my knowledge these are not published routinely. There are a number of issues addressed in the report, so I'm not sure what the intent was in publishing this. Even months late, members appreciate information they should be routinely provided.
But one statement really stuck in my craw, showing an intellectual depravity and lack of community concern. Reber writes : "We are experimenting with disposing of more material to the compactors starting with Styrofoam. We consistently run 8 to 9 cents a pound on the compactor, and 14 to 15 cents a pound on the Styrofoam/Dry Cardboard container. The BOT may need to make a decision on "Feel-Good Environmentalism".
Most plastic packaging is made from plastic pellets that are processed in different ways, Styrofoam obviously being mostly air. As waste it can be reduced to a tiny volume by heat, yet everyone knows that it will not compact. So the community could save 6 cents a pound on Styrofoam disposal, by ignoring the recommendations of proper disposal. I haven't heard anything so lame in a long time.
The facts are well established that in many ways our planet is in a crisis it may not be able to divert. A huge growing hole in the protective Ozone layer of our atmosphere, Global Warming, a huge floating island miles across of plastic debris floats in the Pacific Ocean, massive forest fires and clusters of hurricanes and tornadoes, all are obvious signs of the perhaps irreversible disaster we face.
Recent research on the Long Beach peninsula showed that an average of 7 microbits of plastic (1/8 inch or smaller) are in every Oyster tested, and about 10 in each Razor Clam. Environmentalism is a blanket term for vast efforts being made to study these issues, and modest efforts to minimize our impact on our environment. That's what the last 50 years of recycling efforts has been directed toward.
There really is no such thing as "Feel-Good Environmentalism". There is nothing laughable about the issues we face Globally, and nothing that feels good about the reality we must face sooner or later.
The statement of Reber is absolutely astounding, Styrofoam is one of the worst items
in polluting the environment, to save 06 cents a pound of styrofoam disposal is ridicules.
We at OPLC have stopped using all styrofoam food containers for Community Table.
This HOA has no interest in improving our environment as evidenced by the tree policy
and clearing all shoreside fauna around Seabreeze Lake.
The current Chinook observer has an article about the pursuit of a replacement deputy in Surfside. Where many of us have supported the continuation of the same arrangement we have had for many years, the current plan proposed by Sheriff Souvenir is ridiculous and should be rejected by the Surfside Community.
The amount of funds spent on this deputy has been considerable for a somewhat modest return, and many in the community have opposed it as such. My viewpoint has been that Surfside has a solid funding base that can allow the expenditure, which has been about $70,000 annually.
Read the article to find the absurd excuses offered for the County not being able to offer ANY of this proposal, but instead offering to offer candidates only if Surfside pays for a new cruiser, computers and equipment to outfit the cruiser, and provide a retirement program, as well as make the officer available to the County whenever needed. Souvenir also would expect a 5 year contract for a full-time position.
All of this would about double the cost of the deputy. Souvenir also remarked that he hadn't made the effort to offer an estimated cost to Surfside, it being too much trouble without knowing if the Commissioner will okay the plan.
What we know after reading this article is, that the County is inadequately protected by law enforcement to be provided by Pacific County Sheriff's Dept., and Sheriff Souvenir is too lazy to do anything about it. Rather than make efforts to increase the dept. funding to be able to contribute to Surfside's 30 year partnership with the Sheriff's Office, he will settle for nothing.
It makes no sense that the peninsula is so poorly manned that they are desperate for emergency assistance from the Sheriff's office when issues arise, but they have no plan beyond bilking Surfside for the entire cost of deploying another officer. Surfside should reject being held hostage by Sheriff Souvenir, and offer only to continue the same arrangement as before, the County needing to fund their desperate need of this officer's service, part-time. The County needs to provide the vehicle, do the hiring, pay vehicle operating costs and pension for the officer. Surfside is willing to do the rest.
Shouldering ALL of these costs is complete nonsense, and Surfside shouldn't be asked for more than the generous contributions of the prior agreements. I say "NO WAY".
Post a Comment