This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Monday, August 31, 2020
General Manager Fired
It has been confirmed that the Surfside General Manager, Tom Reber, has been terminated, effective last Friday.
139 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Thank you Lord Jesus! 80 grand a year for doing nothing, its about time. Im sure we can find someone way cheaper, it would help offset the sheriff we now have to fund and the new IT person we will be paying 30 an hour.
Maybe hire Fred, he's already used to being buggered by Annette. Though Foghorn Leghorn Jim wouldn't mind being on the receiving end of that duty either.
Best decision they have made around here in years, he was worthless and never responded to requests, although I'm sure he was handcuffed a bit by the board.
Think we will ever know how much hush money they paid him to keep his mouth shut? He knows more than they want to get out. Reber may decide to talk and sink this sinking ship. The comments about how good it is that he is gone, is from the board to cover themselves. They didn't like Reber telling them of their illegal actions. Getting rid of Reber has been out there for a week. The J Place faction is not good at keeping a secret. I can only imagine what this has cost in legal fees. This board has reason to be worried. We are seeing just another cover up that we are paying for.
Bill Neal knew the truth about our water system. Laura Frazier knew where all the documents and records were. Flood knew about all the corruption. April Garcia knew of all the water department blunders. They are all gone now, including Reber who was seeing what is happening. One common thread remains through all this. That thread is the board president, Gary Williams. He continues his practice of making decisions that do not include the entire board. He uses the "executive committee" as a false use of his power, while the uninformed remaining board goes along in his deception. Clancy, as much as he is a big mouth, is the only one who might bring out the truth of this corrupt HOA. Williams has diverted Clancy attention on insigmificant matters such as the RV storage lot. Wake up Clancy, you are being manipulated by Williams. Don't expect Reber to say anything as he has been paid off with our member funds. If there ever was an HOA that needed investigation, Surfside is it. The delay in announcing the fireing of Reber was time for the lawyer to draw up the agreement for him to sign and pay off to keep his mouth shut.
You must ve new here. Public records? Like the 10,000.00 grant? The well field fine? I guess he got paid at least 50,000.00 Will we ever know the truth? Probably not. Especially from this corrupt place. I think your just a board member, fishing to find out how much we know and trying to figure out the source leak. Worried? You should be.
I'm continually stunned the state allows an hoa, who answers to nobody, to run a water system that is part of public health.
I know what the people of Flint, Michigan feel like. At least their leaders were subject to the public's vote and their water system was accountable to the people.
It does not matter who they hire or fire or what they call them. It only matters that they are yes men. They are doomed to failure from the start. Just ask Neal, Frazier, Garcia and Reber. This organization is just one failure after another. The status quo is all that matters. If we can't fix it, then we need to end it. A good start would be for Williams to resign as he is the biggest failure of all.
Williams says the book keeper is going to run the office and Gil the water department. One writes checks and the other "only does what told to do" God help us now.
Wondered when somebody would catch Williams on his “credentials”. “Lean Management” known as the “Toyota Method” has to do with production system management Andy nothing to do with how this Board manages. He doesn’t even know what he is talking about. The one you need to watch is Clancy with his Sheriff contact and his aspiration to become a County Commissioner, the others are too insecure to worry about. Just get rid of them all, Reber should just be the beginnings!
I see the jerks who are dictators and oligarchs are in full force. The truth hurts so much you have to spew some ridiculous bullshit about tin foiled hats. Cute idiot!
1247 - I'd rather work to drive the self interest out of here, including yours.
842 - you support an organization that has only their own self-interest at heart. How do you look in the mirror in the morning? Have you actually no moral fiber, or is screwing your neighbor's simply a hobby?
This place is one big screw up. We have become the laughing stock of the peninsula. I no longer tell people that I live in Surfside. I say that I live in Ocean Park. When told I live in Surfside, they just shake their head and say they are glad they don't. We are known as the place with all the dead trees. And, iy's only getting worse.
Who but a bunch of people from big cities would have such an obsession with cutting the shit out of trees planted by the HOA ? So yeah, to people who love nature and the outdoors and locals who have lived here long term, this is a bizarre phenomenon.
But WHY was Reber fired ? He tried to tow the line for the Board, and feared their disapproval. I assumed this would be the basic premise in hiring him, but I remained non-judgmental, hoping he would be his own man. He seems intelligent and capable in some ways, but seemed overwhelmed with the responsibilities, and unsure of himself. I had a few interactions with him, but he was dodgy and afraid to be honest about much of anything.
He is elderly, and apparently wanted/needed to work, so there's no reason to wish him ill. We don't seem to know any details here, and we know that the BOT is very intent on controlling EVERYTHING. Clancy in particular seems to need to have his hands on everything, and he in particular has brought on many fines and reprimands from the County, for failing to follow proper procedures and observe County ordinances.
While this may be a good thing, we have no clue apparently, WHY he was terminated. It seemed he DID NOT have useful expertise to lend to managing the Water Dept., and really wanted to become the Surfside Enforcement Czar. Winegar has a law enforcement background, and wants to tighten the screws on member's lives by increasing restrictions and enforcement pressure.
The community rarely had many compliance issues until the Tree Comm. went bananas under Peg Olds & Annette deLeest, and Clancy filing hundreds of complaints on trees that have no effect on his views. So this is a really negative road to follow, that has no real practical value.
April has resigned from the Water Dept., and she was a valuable and intelligent asset to the community. She was very personable, but knew her stuff. Now we have two huge vacancies, and very little information from the seated Board. With Williams at the helm, conducting simple business transactions in Board meetings becomes a comedy of errors. But it ISN'T funny ! Motions are approved, while no one knows WHAT the motion really is.
Non-judgmental and Steve Cox do not go together...
Just because there was no enforcement does not mean there weren't compliance issues. Folks had time to comply but choose just to ignore whereas if ongoing maintenance was performed, like many do in Surfside, there would not be a problem... People took advantage of not following the rules and the whine/complain when it catches up to them. The silent majority not posting on this blog agree.
Steve, you do not have a long history with Surfside so please let me inform you of compliance issues you are not aware of. About twelve years ago or so we had a compliance officer who worked full time. I don’t remember his name but I just called him Larry’s buddy. It was not uncommon to see him and Larry Raymer driving around the community measuring trees. Barbara was the GM back then. The compliance officer mailed out more than a hundred tree height compliance letters on one day. He signed Barbara”s name to each letter. Of course he did this while Barbara was on vacation. When the dust settled, no more compliance officer. Tree height compliance issues have been a problem for quite some time. You are fairly new to the game. Best to tread lightly on history unless you like the taste of your foot.
Off topic, but I thought the string lights were out of compliance? Didn't the board hammer Joanna about them? If this is the case, why is the neighbor to the north of the Deleest house allowed to have them, as well as the neighbor west of TJ Bockman. Oh and TJ Bockman, on the corner of 341st and I, his back fence is out of compliance . His fence behind his house is well over 6 ft. I only mention this because you seem to have selective enforcement around here . what's the tree height for those on the east side of J??
Once again certain people are talking out their backsides. If they would have attended any of the board meetings before they went to online and witnessed Reber, and I use the term loosely, in action you would understand why he was let go. Many people have given examples here and elsewhere including the blogs Trustee of the Year Scott.. Cox seems to forget that he was given false information from Reber concerning trustees, coincidentally deLeest being one of them, which of course he had no problem with spreading.
On that note let's all be real here. Cox still hasn't gotten over being spanked by Annette and takes any chance to bring her name into a topic, whether it's true or not.
You know it would be helpful if we didn’t have so many anonymous posts! Why can’t people just talk? I’ve stated many times from the beginning of our lighting mess that we were victims of “selective enforcement “ This has certainly proved true as no one has had to change their lights since us! They are still counting on a new lighting covenant that will make almost the whole membership out of compliance! The tree mess should absolutely be set aside until the COVID virus settles down and the membership can give input on the way the feel about the slaughter of the trees
Just think of the havoc Clancy can do if elected to the county. We'll be welcoming the apocalypse in that event, though dont think he has the time left to complete a full term. Maybe ask Antifa for some assistance.
12:17....Of course there have always been problems with Tree Policy compliance. It is a screwy destructive policy that is discriminatory, giving ridgetop owners unique privileges to demand ALL member households west of the ridge, continually top their trees. The single most damaging thing that can be done to any tree is to cut the top off repeatedly. It is a simple fact.
9:33....You have a problem with recall that demonstrates selective memory. I HAVE attended Board Meetings, I have argued Reber's accounting of events in a public meeting, and I stated that he has a problem being honest. What you conveniently overlook, is that the Board has not stated why Reber was terminated. You may well be a Trustee, and if so, you know specifically why Reber was fired. To the membership, this is just another unexplained action, there being no indication that Reber was not performing adequately.
So this nonsense about Annette suggests you are Mr. deLeest - certainly not just a member - to prattle on about just crap. I passed on information that Reber gave me in Blog comments. Reber would not confirm he had said what he had said, after the fact. It was never established that what Reber had said was NOT true, only that he would not repeat it or confirm.
He had said that Clancy, Annette and Peg Olds drove around the community and cited homes with exterior lights they wanted to ban, then sent out notices, even though no changes had been made to the lighting covenant. He stated that 50 complaints had been filed on lights, and that was why the covenant needed to be changed.
At the community review of the proposed policy, I put Reber on the spot with this, he bumbled and mumbled around, and shuffled papers, then said there had only been 5 complaints. Annette had a fit that she was implicated. All I was saying was recounting what Reber had said, and no one could explain why there were 2 stories and either 5 or 50 complaints.
No one offered a credible story, and no one was "spanked". So, back to your imaginary scenario.
Reber also told us when he came to inspect our lights that we were a “test” case. Never posted this before as I’m sure it would have been denied. We were selective enforcement at its best! I stated this in our second statement to the board and of course they denied that!
Why is it our compliance officer does not wear a badge identifying herself? Why is it she takes pictures of trees on a certain block yet parks a block away? I just watched this happen. Why would she not park in front of the house she is documenting...kind of weird, kind of sneaky if you ask me. Joanna, you are definitely selective enforcement. Before I took my string lights down, I would make sure the others in Surfside were made to take them down.
Oh we finally got the letter from the board March 2020 to let us know we’re in compliance! We only have a few bulbs screwed in on the string lights! So from our appeal Sept 2019 it wasn’t until March we were told officially we were in compliance and nothing had changed on our part
12:04/12:12/Mike Riley ? No one is interested in your strange mind-trip. Anyone who serves on the Board needs to be accountable for their actions when called on to do so. I don't single out anyone to lock horns with or disrespect anyone on the BOT. And I OWN my opinions and comments, which you don't have the backbone to do.
Oh Mr. Backbone has spoken. I'm retired and I'm sticking to that. If I got on the board, I wouldn't bring up the tree policy. I have one tree. The tree policy doesn't affect me so I'll let someone else lead any change. Meanwhile, I'll write 7 paragraphers about it constantly.
Thank you Mike. We wouldn't want to have a rational conversation when we can visit lala land with you. No, I don't care to represent someone so self-serving and angry, when no one else has the courage to challenge the current system. You talk big but are unable to function, so being a Blog troll is the best you can do. That's not political activism, just pitiful. Bonafide.
Mr Cox, here you go again talking out of your backside about us, you have done everything you can to spread your nonsense and false accusations. I say again you need to stop listening to disgruntled ex-trustees. I don’t go anonymous but most of my posts spreading the truth or answers are removed quickly by the blog host. He does not want our point of view or truth to come out! Please refrain from naming me in your posts as they are not true, and you continue anyway! you are a LIAR sir and if we ever meet I will tell you to your face! Or better yet come on out to the chipper site sometime and accuse us again! Idiot! No wonder your new nick name is the pied piper of surfside!
Steve, I am going to spell it out for you. You stated, and I quote, The community rarely had many compliance issues until the Tree Comm. went bananas under Peg Olds & Annette deLeest, and Clancy filing hundreds of complaints on trees that have no effect on his views. That is not an accurate statement. Members have been receiving tree compliance orders for decades. One time more than 100 violation letters were mailed on one day. Members have been complying with those orders for just as long. You, in your most arrogant fashion, falsely accuse two members of creating a problem where none existed before. You are wrong. The one making a big deal about a covent that has been around for decades is you, the new kid on the block. Who died and made you the morality sheriff in Surfside. It is not immoral to trim, prune or remove a tree that has become a problem for your neighbors. On some Surfside lots it is a rule. A long established rule.
Yes yes....dare speak the names of the holy deleests on the Blog and they invariably launch a shit-storm of disdain and haughty pronouncements. Fred has threatened me numerous times, such that it reminds me of Emmett Tell. "He dared speak of that white woman."
I didn't say that Reber's statement was true, yet here you both are, making wild accusations that I am lieing. I was reiterating a story Tom Reber told in an Architectural Meeting I attended with Joanne Mc Murphy. You ninnies.....you can't even understand what you read !!.
Yes, God bless your precious Tree Policy - keeps the lower classes in their place.
I wonder if Cox will get blogger of the year again. We'll see. He thinks he's been treated like Emmett Till. That is amazing and a disgusting and irrational comparison.
Wow, Steve, take a chill pill. Someone points where your comment is wrong and you come completely unglued? Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit you may have misspoken and move on? Everyone makes mistakes. That is the one thing we all have in common. Rise above the rest of us, own your mistakes.
Steve, please recant your comparison of the treatment you believe you received in Surfside compares to the brutal racist murder of a 14 year old black boy at the hands of two adult white males. It is inappropriate and demeaning for you to suggest that what happened to Emmet Till applies to your white privileged life. You must be deranged to use such a horrific crime as a comparison for any mistreatments you have been subjected to in Surfside. You should be ashamed of yourself for such an insensitive and inappropriate comparison. Your neighbors are not Jim Crow racist and you are not a black teenage boy. Any comparison to such is just wrong on so many levels.
Systemic racism is alive and well in Surfside. Somebody should start a go fund me page for Steve. He has been so badly persecuted by the man in Surfside. Sleep lightly Steve. Thy are coming for you in the middle of the night.
Yes, discrimination is a central premise of this HOA, enshrined in the Tree Policy. I haven't misstated anything, and there will be no apologies. I didn't compare myself to Emmett Till, but thanks for reminding me I'm not 15 years old and am not black. The point is the intent to demonize my comments and intent because I uttered the names of Fred and Annette deLeest is elitist and their sense of entitlement discriminatory in nature.
Typically, any mention of race or politics is taken as offensive rather than putting it in context. I fully support the goals of Black Lives Matter, but will the election show that America has a conscience ? Trump supporters seem to have no problem with police violence, systemic racism, and a president who is destroying the legal system and economy, while focusing on his own grifting and profiting off of government business.
I assume that there are many good people who own property in Surfside, but it is currently run by an all white Board, purposely dominated by J Place owners, in a community essentially void of people of color. The righteous indignation lacks self-awareness, and those who despise dissent always rush to condemn my point of view. That is a type of persecution. It doesn't dissuade me from speaking what I feel is the truth, but the intent is to prevent criticism of the HOA, and ignore member opinion that doesn't tow the BOT line of thinking.
The Weekender has published two different dates for the ice cream social. Poster says Sunday and calendar says Saturday. Guess that Reber guy screwed up again. Maybe Williams should send out a special letter. I was looking forward to see them stuffing their face while wearing a mask.
You are blind to your own racism. I am not demonizing your comments. I am demonizing your comparison of Fred to the Jim Crow racist who tortured and murdered a 14 year old boy because he wolf whistled a white woman. You are accusing Fred of being compatible to the most vile and disgusting racists who ever lived. If I was Fred, I would sue you for libel. How can you justify yourself?
You can categorize my comment however you will, but I am NOT a racist. The comment relates to white privilege and making threats to those who dare not hold you in high esteem. I know full well what the actual incident involved, and frankly, I think you are intent on exaggerating the comment for sensationalism. You offer no name but relish your own righteousness.
Our non-profit HOA has applied for and received, 2 Federal government stimulus checks for a total of $20,000. There is no real justification for this community drawing on dollars appropriated to sustain businesses, and in particular small businesses, that have sustained substantial losses due to the Pandemic. Surfside cannot verify any such need. That to me is selfish and elitist. But this is the attitude that prevails in our community's governance.
At the 2019 Annual Meeting, the HOA's law firm stated that 2019 had seen a huge increase in Tree Policy enforcement efforts and that Tree related compliance outpaced all other enforcement by far. There were about twice as many Tree compliance letters sent out in the last year, as the year before. Looking at the community, it is obvious that pressure to demand tree topping has increased greatly.
There has been no suggestion by the BOT that demands on Tree compliance might ease in the face of community-wide financial losses and challenges. This shows the tunnel vision of the current seated Board.
I suggest that focus of members should be on efforts to bring the community together by taking serious steps to establish member opinions about policy and future goals. This can be done by broadening communications and asking members to participate in a series of short surveys, as an example. It isn't something the BOT favors, or will likely do.
It does no good to speak the truth here! Just another reason for Cox to slander us with more lies! Does not really matter what we say, he will always put his long winded spin on it to justify his point if view.
You are a racist Steve, by your own words, you are just too snow blind to recognize it. BTW, efforts to bring the community together could include not comparing your neighbors to Jim Crow racists.
12:55 not sure when you talked to her but they took my complaint and didn't mention anything about being behind a year. They've moved it along quite well, so maybe try again.
I read your post Steve. It sure sounds like you are comparing yourself to Emmett Till and Fred de Leest to the men who killed him. What other comparison could you have possibly been making? Perhaps not posting such lengthy comments rich with metaphor and deep philosophical concepts would be helpful. Obviously, we are to shallow to grasp the intended meaning of your sagacious commentaries.
The deLeests have nothing to complain about. I repeated a statement made in an Architectural Meeting by Tom Reber, that named Annette, Peg Olds and Clancy by name. He refused to acknowledge it the next day. I didn't lie about anything. Nor did I accuse Annette specifically of anything.
I have documented that the Tree Comm. greatly stepped-up enforcement pressure and timelines under Peg Olds, as she had promised would happen. Nothing about tree topping is urgent, and particularly in the middle of the Pandemic, but neither the Tree Comm. nor the BOT gives a crap. Last year there were at least twice as many "complaints" processed on trees, obviously not sent by individual owners whose view is obstructed.
These are being manufactured by the dozen, Mr. Clancy being a proud participant who has boasted of it. The statement by Reber about the 50 lighting complaints jives perfectly with Clancy's manufacture of tree complaints. Yet everyone denied involvement when I brought it up at the Lighting Review community meeting.
So I didn't lie about anything in my statement about the Tree Comm/enforcement. But I did get all of this righteous indignation and the usual threats by Fred, because I uttered his wife's name on the Blog. I made no accusations, just repeated what Reber had said.
So having it suggested that Fred wants to confront me at the compactor site is ridiculous, and threatening bodily harm, a crime. My statement was in character with Fred's attitude, and no, I'm NOT a racist. I implied that Fred's threats and the repeated claims I lied about "stuff" non-specific, reminded me of an infamous lynching. Read what was said carefully if you think otherwise.
It's interesting that all of a sudden Surfside is a hotbed of social awareness, focusing on a Blog statement I made. I have no animosity toward anyone based on their color or beliefs, and adore many people of color, hate Trump, and love the Obamas like royalty. I have nothing more to say, so have at it. Remember, a vote for Trump is a vote in favor of racism. No excuses.
There you have it. You are apparently not racist as long as you hate Trump and, dare i say it, worship the Obamas. You reduce the suffering of a 14 year old black boy who was tortured and lynched at the hands of Jim Crow racists (registered democrats BTW) to compare to your petty squabbles with neighbors. That would not be considered demeaning or insulting to the family of Emmett Till. I am certain they would stand in solidarity with you in your fight against injustice and proudly hold up pictures of the lifeless broken child you are reminded of when you feel threatened by your neighbors angry words. You are disgusting in you insensitivity and privilege. You cannot talk back the comparison you decided to evoke. Say it just once. Fred de Leest is not a Jim Crow racist and you are not a tortured and lynched black teenager. The comparison you made is completely insensitive, without merit, and insulting to the memory of Emmett Till. If you cannot see that, wipe the white off your eyes and look again.
You must be very scared of Steve to attack so hard. Why? He makes a helluva lot more sense than you self involved, self pitying clowns. Keep trying-its entertaining to see just how stupid you'll get.
Wow Mr Cox, What a self righteous grandstander!! your last rant where you claim I have threatened you is a laugh, if you read that into my comments then you need some serious help! You just need to take a breather and take your paranoid self back to Olympia for awhile! You sure like to hide behind your keyboard but when you have stepped over the line and boy you have seriously stepped over the line with your rebuttal of my initial comment. I will leave it at that, but you need to take a break!
5:06....You are ridiculous. I made a flip comment on a f-cking Blog and you happened to read it. Get a grip niwit. I am a retired resident of an HOA that is obsessed with intrusive enforcement that in no way benefits the entire community. That is what is at issue, not the national policies that effect racial equality. You are as significant as an ant, pontificating and lecturing anonymously. What a self-righteous poop !
Deleest, here you talk out of both sides of your mouth. More threatening dialogue, and the dismissive bullshit to boot. Whatever your wife does as a Trustee is as a representative of the membership, and her actions effect the lives of members of the community. It should be expected that she is held accountable for her actions and decisions, just as any man on the BOT.
To 12:55 in regards to a year out on complaints... The compliance officer should have a general letter she can send out to the violator asking to meet with them and take a look at the said violation and you should be taking pictures to document your complaint. Where about is this place you speak of??? Perhaps if our compliance officer didn't take 15 minutes to measure 1 tree plus park a block away from her sites she visits, she might get more done in her day. I personally watched this happen. Why is she taking Peggy olds with her??? Is she not competent enough for the job??? Maybe we are not getting our monies worth...
You're the one that starting talking about racial equality Cox. You may broadcast on a blog that you hate Trump, but I wonder if you have a bit in common with him.
Wow Mr Cox, You are a blog bully! I have never threatened you! But you sure have a mouth on you! Talking out of both sides of my mouth? Not possible, but if it were, that’s much better than talking out of your Ass like you do every day and on just about every subject on this blog! Over and over the same stuff, very easy for you to sit back behind the key board and constantly criticize, slander and blame others for unreliable information. It’s about time folks call you on some of your nonsense that you continue to spout and reading some of the comments here I think they have succeeded. You just don’t get it, your previous verbal assassinations of sitting board members does not get you a seat at the table, but you still spout the same whoa is me story over and over. If you want change, then volunteer and get to know folks in the committees, get elected to the board and then you can work on changing some of our issues that need change. Again that won’t happen sitting behind your keyboard. Now I know your going to spout some more unkind words and if it makes you feel better, have at it. Just makes you look more foolish! Oh wait, you have already done that!
So which is it Steve, you have no animosity toward anyone or we are insignificant. Can you spell bipolar. Maybe your true colors are showing. Derangement and self righteousness.
Have we always had a general manager? Have we ever had a good general manager? It seems I've read we have a general manager, but some documents refer to a business manager. Does anyone know which one we really have?
So let's talk budget here. Reber was making way too much. We are over budget by about 25,000 with a new sheriff. Let's be real here and pay the new GM or OM, whatever the title is 50,000. We are talking about a community of 3000 people, not a city or county. This new person needs to prove their worth. Everyone and everyplace has to budget and live within that budget, surfside included.
We were paying Travis about 72,000. Now Clancy wants us to fund about 100,000 for a sheriff, working 159 hours a month, 1 hour shy of full time(160 hrs), what a joke. We, the members are not made of money, like some of you. We have to stay within budget. Cut the GM wage makes sense. The board already approved a wage increase for staff. That staff works for us,the members, we should be approving wage increases at the yearly meeting. Staff could be cut to 4 days a week, Tues - Fri, this will save money too. Its all about options and everything needs to be looked at.
Ronda, How much money does it take to arm, outfit, and pay one policeman a year? $100,000 is a bargain. Our employees are considerably underpaid compared to similar jobs on the peninsula. We lost the best water employee mostly due to low pay and to much work load. Please learn more about Surfside’s business before recommending moves that would damage our ability to manage our assets and stay in compliance with government regulations.
I agree with Ronda. We shouldn't treat the person's health like they're expendable. The person needs a vacation and sick leave. Why screw them out of benefits by limiting his hours to 1 hour less than full-time. Pretty slimy. Doesn't surprise me out of this autotacracy and oligarchy. Again, I agree with Ronda. Then they get healthcare and we can end up paying less in the long-run too, relative to $100,000.
I haven't seen the details, if there are any, as to where the deputy will be stationed, and whether or not he is on-call for any and all calls elsewhere on the peninsula. 11:15 is surely Clancy. He had stated that he would not agree to a more expensive contract. Surprised that was b.s.?
We don't need a fulltime officer in Surfside. Sharing an officer who helps police the local communities is a benefit to all. Varied spotty crime is documented by the Observer. Some break-ins occasionally occur in Surfside, domestic disputes can happen anywhere, but there seems no real evidence of significant crime in Surfside.
It seems much more desireable to Mr. Clancy and other J place owners, since only a few hundred people reside here year-round. Better to have a legitimate deputy than a rent-a-cop, but he'll be doing a lot of whittlin' if spending 40 hours a week in Surfside.
If you didn't support and defend an organization consumed with hate, self interest, and greed, you might have a better position. Your Boards snubbing of Steve Cox is just another example of your cults not even following their own rules! Now your Board will run wild with absolutely no adult supervision, and the rest of us will continue to get screwed!
12:49, 100,000 is outrageous when Travis was doing the same job for 72,000. Too bad you cannot leave your name so I know which board member you are. If the staff is underpaid, why have they stayed so long? Kimber has been here at least 5 years. What keeps them here when they have options? Its all about options and budgeting and trying to save money. if you want paid top dollar, go work in King, Pierce or even Thurston. @ @2:21, oh he is getting benefits too, it just looks part time on paper. His total wage and benefits are 85,003.68. We are funding the package deal. The budget sheet for him is on the main Surfside HOA website under the 2020 board meeting minutes. its the last item, scan packet, and its on page 17. . He gets the uniform allowance, car, gas, medical/dental, retirement , membership at a gun club/shooting range, cell phone,lap top, docking station, radar, scanner, ...go look it up, when said and done its 100,000. Back to my topic, we need to be cutting other areas to stay in budget. Our staff should be able to do a job 4 days a week, other government agencies have to furlough to make ends meet, we are no different. George, can you post that specific page on your blog so everyone knows the expenses for the sheriff?
Actually Steve, 11:15 is me, Ronda. I don't post much, and didn't mean to post anonymous. I totally disagree with what Surfside will be paying for a sheriff, and its a five year contract we are stuck with. Like I said, cut the new GM salary significantly lower to make up for the sheriff and or furlough employees. Times like these, many people are unemployed. Take the salary offered or leave it. @12:49, surfside should strictly be a water company. We are an HOA wrapped around a water company. Cut out a lot of the inner crap and focus more on the infrastructures .
OCR did a decent job of converting the images to text. You may still find a few mistakes in spelling and/or punctuation...here's part 1::
This Agreement for Patrol Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into on August , 2020 by and between Pacific County, Washington, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, (the “County”) and Surfside Homeowners Association, a Washington non-profit corporation, (“Surfside:), and is consented to by the Pacific County Sheriff (the “Sheriff’), for the uses and purposes and under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement
I. Recitations
Lil Surfside is the homeowners association for the owners of property in Surfside Estates and certain other areas subject to the covenants of Surfside in the northern portion of the Long Beach Peninsula in Pacific County Washington. .
1.2 Surfside and the County (each a “Party”, and together the “Parties”) have previously entered into agreements for the provision of deputy sheriff patrol and related services in and around the Surfside Estates and other areas subject to the covenants of Surfside, including, most recently, the Agreement Regarding Deputy Sheriff Services entered into on November 8, 2005 (the “Prior Agreement”).
1.3 Surfside and the County have each concluded that the Prior Agreement has benefitted both Parties, but that changes to the Prior Agreement are appropriate.
14 The Sheriff agrees that the Prior Agreement has benefitted the Pacific County Sheriff's Office, but that changes to the Prior Agreement are appropriate.
I. Agreements
Jn consideration of the foregoing recitations and the agreements, undertakings and consents of Parties and the Sheriff, which the Parties and the Sheriff agree constitute adequate consideration, the Parties hereby agree and the Sheriff hereby consents as follows:
2.4 Incorporation by Reference: the foregoing Recitations, paragraphs 1.1 through 1.4 of this Agreement, are hereby incorporated by this reference.
2.2 Prior Agreement: Effective upon full execution of this Agreement, the Prior Agreement is hereby terminated in its entirety.
2.3 General Purpose: Consistent with, and as specified in other provisions of this Agreement, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide enhanced sheriff's patrols and related activities on the portion of the Long Beach Peninsula in Pacific County Washington generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the West, Joe Johns Road on the South, on the East and 357" Street on the North (the “Service Area”).
24 Services; The County, through the Sheriff Office, shall provide and pay one fully qualified and commissioned Pacific County Sheriff's Deputy (the “Assigned Deputy”) to patrol and provide all other Sheriff’s Office Patrol Division functions in the Service Area (the “Services”) for 159 hours per calendar month. The County and the Sheriff's Office shall, in all respects, provide the Assigned Deputy with the same services, facilities and equipment and treat and supervise the Assigned Deputy in the same manner that other patrol Deputies are provided services, facilities and equipment and treated and supervised by the County and Sheriff’s Office. The Deputy will be compensated and provided benefits as determined by the Sheriff consistent with applicable law and other obligations of the Sheriff. Without, in any way, limiting the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the Sheriff's Office shall provide the Assigned Deputy with the following to the same extent and on the same basis provided to other Patrol Deputies: a) equipment and supplies, including without limitation, a patrol car, mobile computer, communications equipment, fire arms, uniforms, ammunition, Taser and other safety equipment; b) insurance, c) office supplies and business cards d) Washington State Patrol Academy training and certification and other training and certification; e) recruitment, supervision and other personal and management services; f) dispatch and other support services; g) office space and other related services and h) gun club membership or other access to a shooting range. The Assigned Deputy shall have all authority and responsibility of a Pacific County Washington Sheriffs Deputy. The Assigned Deputy shall keep sufficient records and other information, which will be made available to Surfside at its request by the Sheriff's Office, to determine that the required number of hours of the Services are being provided.
2.5 Cost: Surfside will compensate the County and the Sheriff’ é Office for the Services in the following manner:
2.5.1. Surfside will make a one-time payment to the County of vehicle support and equipment purchases in the amount of xx,xxx.xx due five business days after full execution of this Agreement.
2.5.2. Surfside will make quarterly payments to the County in the amount of $xx,xxx.xx within 10 business days of the start of each calendar quarter (for the avoidance of uncertainty, that is the 10" business day of January, April, July and October) for calendar years 2020 and 2021, prorated for the calendar quarter in which this Agreement goes into effect.
2.5.3. On or before September 15 of each year commencing in 2021 and continuing in each calendar year of this Agreement thereafter, the County and the Surfside shall commence negotiations over the amount of the Quarterly Payment for the next calendar year. Notwithstanding the term of this Agreement under paragraph 2.11 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate on December 31 of any calendar year unless the Parties have, by December 15 of that year, agreed on the Quarterly Payment for the next calendar year.
2.5.4. Surfside will reimburse County for fuel consumed by the Assigned Deputy’s patrol car while the Assigned Deputy is providing the Services. The per-gallon change for the fuel shall be the rate that the County pays for the fuel. The County will, quarterly, present billing to Surfside for the fuel consumed in the previous quarter, and Surfside shall pay the requisite amount within 30 calendar days of receipt of the bill.
Within the first calendar quarter after each year during the term of this Agreement: a) the Parties will examine the time and other records of the Assigned Deputy to determine if the Assigned Deputy provided the Services for 159 hours in each calendar month during the past calendar year, and b) the County shall reimbursement Surfside for each hours in the past calendar year when the Assigned Deputy did not provide the Services for at least 159 hours for each calendar month based on the following formula: [the
Quarterly Payment for that past calendar year] multiplied by 4 [divided by 1908] = [per hour amount of reimbursement].
2.6 Limited Office Space: Surfside shall also provide a desk in its business office or other facility maintained by Surfside in which the Assigned Deputy may do work at his/her discretion. This desk need not be in a secure location.
2.6 Indemnification: The County shall indemnify and hold Surfside harmless from and against all liability, damages, claims and costs (including attorney’s fees) related to and/or arising out of any acts or omissions or alleged acts or omissions of the Assigned Deputy while providing, or allegedly providing, the Services.
2.7 Personnel Decisions; The Sheriff shall be solely responsible for designating the Assigned Deputy as well as all, termination, advancement, evaluation, and other employment related decisions related to the Assigned Deputy; provided, however, that the Sheriff shall solicit and consider input from the Surfside Trustees before making any such decision, except in the case of an emergency, in which case the Sheriff need not solicit this input.
2.8 Notices: Any notice that may or must be give under this Agreement shall be given in writing to the following persons at the following addresses or to such other persons or addresses as either Party may subsequently notify the other in writing:
The County: The Association: XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
2.10 Termination for Cause: Either Party may terminate this Agreement, if the other Party materially breaches its obligations hereunder, on 30 days written notice of the material breach giving rise to this termination to the other Party, provided, however, that termination shall not occur if the Party receiving this notice corrects the breach within this 30 day period.
2.11 Term: Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2.5 and 2.10 this Agreement, this Agreement shall run for a period of 5 years from the date of this Agreement. Following termination of this Agreement at the end of this 5 year term or pursuant to paragraph 2.5 or 2.10 of this Agreement, neither Party shall have any further fights or responsibilities hereunder; provided that termination of this Agreement will not affect the rights and responsibilities of the Parties with respect to any act or omission prior to the effective date of that termination and the reconciliation of the hours the Services were provided in paragraph 2.5 of this Agreement.
2.11 Miscellaneous: The headings of the provisions of this Agreement are for convenience only and may not be used in interpreting this Agreement. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced under the laws of the state of Washington. As used in this Agreement the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and each pronoun shall include every other pronoun, all as the context may require. Neither Party may assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of the other Party. The failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that provision. Any waiver of any breach of this Agreement must be in writing signed by the waiving Party, and any waiver is limited to the specific provision and instance of breach for which the written waiver is given.
2.12 Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in any number of any counterpart originals with like effect as if all signatures appeared on one original document, and all such counterpart originals shall be taken together as one original Agreement.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PACIFIC COUNTY, WA
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Approved as to Form:
Prosecutor
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
The undersigned Sheriff of Pacific County Washington agrees to comply with and be bound by the foregoing Agreement for Patrol Services and to perform the responsibilities of Pacific County Washington under that Agreement.
First, why wasn't this just summarized to emphasize the primary details ? On reading once quickly, $100,000 (not actually stated here) is just the initial compensation owed to the Sheriff's office. Surfside also agrees to "a one time payment of (unstated)5 figure payment for the car and equipment". Surfside also agrees to pay for his fuel. Remember the original Sheriff's proposal of $150,000 which everyone said was outrageous ?
In spite of his assurance Surfside would not agree to his proposal, Clancy has agreed to having the numbers obscured, and a statement in the contract that the Sheriff's office will provide the squad car. So $99,999 is a 5 figure amount isn't it ?
I don't see any clear indication where the deputy will spend his time, other than Surfside, and there is no earthly excuse for having a deputy sitting on his butt in Surfside 40 hours a week. The previous arrangement made more sense, with considerably less money laid out, and his services benefiting the local neighborhoods and municipalities where needed.
Other than occasional break-ins and minor crimes, Surfside s apparently void of more serious crime, though we know there are questionable folks in some neighboring areas and neighborhoods. There are only a few hundred year-round residents in Surfside, most retired. Hardly a need for full time patrol at a premium price. White privilege, like the $20,000 from the Fed we didn't need or deserve ? Sounds like it.
I sent a screenshot of the price breakdown to George to put on here. 85,000 in wages and benefits, 5,500 in recurring support costs and 10,600 for a one time hardware and support components, which you know things break and wear out. So add up the numbers, we are a tad over 100,000 grand... 5 year contract.
If I could add the spread sheet I would. George is having health issues and at this time cannot add it. You are welcome Steve, thanks for your input...along I go, I have a life to live😘
Ronda - Someone pulled the first sentence from my previous comment and added a sentence. I had only suggested that whoever posted the contract, should have just summarized the most significant parts, but mentioned I hadn't checked the website. They had to scold me, and misinterpret what I had said.
Your simple breakdown of the costs was really what I was getting at, so thank you.
Really Steve, misinterpret? I think they read it the same way I did, which is how you wrote it. You really have an issue with admitting any type of error.
Making a comment on a Blog stating a preference, doesn't constitute a demand. Documents such as this are challenging to read and whoever contributed this probably knows the details we would want to pull from the contract. Given the format of the Blog, that would have been better than publishing the entire contract.
Some members will think it's useful to have access to the contract, and it's pertinent to make it available for the sake of transparency. I don't see it available on the website, and it is true that disclosure is not a focus of the BOT, though it needs to be.
Knowing that the added expenses are part of the $100,000 makes this agreement seem a little more reasonable than I thought initially. I don't think it makes any sense to have a full-time deputy. I'm unclear if the officer would still be on-call for the County as before.
I think if the deputy is confined to Surfside it would be a waste of County resources. Still, I do think it's good to have a legitimate County law enforcement presence on the north end.
354 - perhaps it's your misinterpretation of his comment, since you're self interest filter keeps going off. He makes way more sense, than your two line drivel. Consider silence.
I just posted the entire cost breakdown under Georges new topic..It Is Just Wrong! I don't care how much time Clancy put into this deal, we need to back out of this contract before it gets going. Surfside is what, 3000 residents, if that?? Am I the only one thinking this is a shit ton of money to spend on someone patrolling Surfside
No you’re not! I’ve visited with many who feel we shouldn’t be paying special for services already in our taxes! Also members should go back over old reports from Travis. Must of the ones he picked up had to be released because no room at the jail! I know for a fact speeding on the Oysterville approach was never addressed and I’ve heard also on other streets! So why spend this enormous amount of money when everyone’s budgets may be slim this coming year?
I want the patrol. There is a deterrence aspect that can't be quantified. You can say it is covered in your tax dollars but that won't get the same type of service as often. From my perspective I'll pay the extra $33.
9:20, Well you are just one voice and you are entitled to your opinion, I won't argue that. I say it goes out to all the members to vote on. It is our money, we should have a say in how we spend it. If we can spend 1000 to send out the water control letter, which is a total waste again of our money, we sure as heck can send out the cost break down sheet of a sheriff . More residents would find that more informational and actually read it and possibly return their vote. Another option, we pick between the sheriff budget or a GM budget, but not both. If we go with a sheriff, then no GM for 5 years. We have to stay with budget, period. Something has to give and go away besides Clancy.
I’ve said from the beginning, we need the membership to have a voice in this budget item. Maybe more want this than not, but there has been no avenue to state our views ! The notice in the weekender was only for continuing the contract! It would certainly have to be better coverage than we had previously!
You mean the membership that doesn't volunteer or run for the board? Its obvious by the lack of participation of the membership that folks don't want to run a corporation on their days off or when they're on vacation. Any major company has a board, not 2000 members who can't agree on a simple item steering the ship. If you want participation why don't you start with volunteering in your own damn community and stop bitching others who do.
451 - because we will NOT volunteer for an organization that doesn't treat all its members fairly.
Any deviation from the party line will result in anger, recriminations, and resistance to any type of progress or accountability. You at best are looking for grunts that will have no input in the process. Not interested.
Excuses, excuses to Ronda and Joanne. You have time to complain but that's about all we will get out of you. Every month new members are added to committees, apparently you don't read minutes either. Committees are not hand picked, just another excuse for your volunteer bashing
1:03....Having been disregarded for appointment to the last Board vacancy, I can tell you definitively, that the Board, the Committee chairs and their trustees, appoint who they want, and don't feel they have any obligation to explain why. I'm pretty certain the BOT declared that committees could have unlimited members, when complaints about Johansen's Covenant Revue committee surfaced 3 years ago.
I don't think it was ever accepted beyond screwing-up and dissolving Johansen's committee. The charters usually state a given number, I believe, or did.
I want to be on the Neighborhood Watch Committee. Oh wait, we pay for a Sheriff's deputy that works banker's hours. For other hours, you can blast exterior lights. Your exterior light illumination better not cross your property line. If they do, we'll fine you and put a lien on your property.
Wow you don’t know me at all! I’ve read almost all the minutes that are on the website! I’ve done extensive research and know for a fact that other boards are not run like this one! Not hand picked? Really? I know my husband offered at a couple of meetings to serve on a Committee, it sure never went anywhere! Just because a person doesn’t run for the board or serve on a committee doesn’t mean we aren’t a part of this HOA and deserve to have input!
Just curious if the East side of J place received notices to trim their trees, which many are well over 35 feet. I have picturesand addresses and will turn in my complaints like everyone else if need be. Who is on the tree committee on here and can answer my question?
Please confirm the addresses with the CC&Rs document language. I believe you will find that those addresses don't have height limits. Most of the east side doesn't. Convenient hugh. For a special interest, without compensation for the taking by one for another, for a view.
Well the covenants I am reading on the surfside website clearly do not say unlimited. Address 35602 is div 20, lot 7 block 1. Tree height states 35 feet. Nothing states unlimited for anyone. Tree heights follow all building heights
Per the covenents, the "no limit" tree height was changed back in 2007 to a 35 ft limit to comply with the county. Its written at the very top of Exhibit A. So the East side of J is out of compliance. Let's get those letters of compluance filed and get those trees cut. Besides, its a safety factor too with the winds we have.
One of the only things that keep the landscape in Surfside from looking completely like Dr. Seussland (as you look east from the beach) are the normal tall trees on the eastside. This is the f*ing Northwest Coast folks - if you don't like trees move to the plains states - Kansas and the Dakotas have some vast areas with hardly a tree. Or find a nice desert or abandoned air field to live on.
The Tree Policy has made this a freaky landscape. So a couple of thousand people let a few hundred people on the ridge force them to top their trees as short as 12 feet, at their own expense ? WHY ?? It's a headscatcher.
There are trees probably 80 to 100 feet tall on the eastside. You want to top them at 35 ft. ? The person you need to handle this is called a "faller". He cuts the tree down after climbing near the top. You can't "trim" an 80 ft. tree to 35 ft.
Personally I like the trees. Topping any of them will eventually kill them. But its strange how the rules apply to a few. Eventually, what goes up must come down.
Cutting the top off of such trees kills them on the spot. I don't buy this anonymous claim. It has always been assumed that tree heights were only an issue for ridgetop owners whose views were at some point, protected by a covenant. It was deemed legally indefensible and removed from the covenants. Most members probably appreciate the forested natural quality of the eastside, in spite of a few scruffy-looking properties.
Many have been redone and look great. In general, that neighborhood has seen a lot of properties cleaned-up, and greater pride overall. There are some awesome RV properties, and many owners would like the wildness that pervades those woods. In general, it costs a lot to remove trees that big in a residential area. The HOA needs to stay out of it. At least a couple of the Tree Comm. members are serious control freaks, so keep a sharp eye on the HOA in this regard.
139 comments:
Thank you Lord Jesus! 80 grand a year for doing nothing, its about time. Im sure we can find someone way cheaper, it would help offset the sheriff we now have to fund and the new IT person we will be paying 30 an hour.
Maybe hire Fred, he's already used to being buggered by Annette. Though Foghorn Leghorn Jim wouldn't mind being on the receiving end of that duty either.
Best decision they have made around here in years, he was worthless and never responded to requests, although I'm sure he was handcuffed a bit by the board.
Now if we can fire the BOT.
Think we will ever know how much hush money they paid him to keep his mouth shut? He knows more than they want to get out. Reber may decide to talk and sink this sinking ship. The comments about how good it is that he is gone, is from the board to cover themselves. They didn't like Reber telling them of their illegal actions. Getting rid of Reber has been out there for a week. The J Place faction is not good at keeping a secret. I can only imagine what this has cost in legal fees. This board has reason to be worried. We are seeing just another cover up that we are paying for.
Maybe Reber will get on this blog and blog on us?
We need 9 members who agree on a platform to run for the board.
Hello Reber. What do you have to say about those who have fired you?
Bill Neal knew the truth about our water system. Laura Frazier knew where all the documents and records were. Flood knew about all the corruption. April Garcia knew of all the water department blunders. They are all gone now, including Reber who was seeing what is happening. One common thread remains through all this. That thread is the board president, Gary Williams. He continues his practice of making decisions that do not include the entire board. He uses the "executive committee" as a false use of his power, while the uninformed remaining board goes along in his deception. Clancy, as much as he is a big mouth, is the only one who might bring out the truth of this corrupt HOA. Williams has diverted Clancy attention on insigmificant matters such as the RV storage lot. Wake up Clancy, you are being manipulated by Williams. Don't expect Reber to say anything as he has been paid off with our member funds. If there ever was an HOA that needed investigation, Surfside is it. The delay in announcing the fireing of Reber was time for the lawyer to draw up the agreement for him to sign and pay off to keep his mouth shut.
how much did Reber get paid off for? If this truly did happen, which I doubt, it will be part of our public records and/or budget report
You must ve new here. Public records? Like the 10,000.00 grant? The well field fine? I guess he got paid at least 50,000.00 Will we ever know the truth? Probably not. Especially from this corrupt place. I think your just a board member, fishing to find out how much we know and trying to figure out the source leak. Worried? You should be.
Yes they should be.
I'm continually stunned the state allows an hoa, who answers to nobody, to run a water system that is part of public health.
I know what the people of Flint, Michigan feel like. At least their leaders were subject to the public's vote and their water system was accountable to the people.
It does not matter who they hire or fire or what they call them. It only matters that they are yes men. They are doomed to failure from the start. Just ask Neal, Frazier, Garcia and Reber. This organization is just one failure after another. The status quo is all that matters. If we can't fix it, then we need to end it. A good start would be for Williams to resign as he is the biggest failure of all.
Is it true Reber was paid off an additional $50,000 to keep his mouth shut?
Williams says the book keeper is going to run the office and Gil the water department. One writes checks and the other "only does what told to do" God help us now.
Perfect for williams, no resistance there.
Williams needs to go! His years of incompetent leadership have left us with bad water, no security, and a Board that only cares about themselves!
But Williams is about lean management.
Looking at him, I don't see anything lean.
Wondered when somebody would catch Williams on his “credentials”. “Lean Management” known as the “Toyota Method” has to do with production system management Andy nothing to do with how this Board manages. He doesn’t even know what he is talking about. The one you need to watch is Clancy with his Sheriff contact and his aspiration to become a County Commissioner, the others are too insecure to worry about. Just get rid of them all, Reber should just be the beginnings!
I see the tin foiled hat folks are out in full force.
I see the jerks who are dictators and oligarchs are in full force.
The truth hurts so much you have to spew some ridiculous bullshit about tin foiled hats. Cute idiot!
842 - you and fools like yourself are why we are here.
I don't like being forced to belong to an organization that behaves unethically, illegally, and immorally.
Anyone else?
You are not forced, you can always move?
Good question 12:47!
The answer is.....Because 10:47 likes to cry and complain.
1247 - I'd rather work to drive the self interest out of here, including yours.
842 - you support an organization that has only their own self-interest at heart. How do you look in the mirror in the morning? Have you actually no moral fiber, or is screwing your neighbor's simply a hobby?
This place is one big screw up. We have become the laughing stock of the peninsula. I no longer tell people that I live in Surfside. I say that I live in Ocean Park. When told I live in Surfside, they just shake their head and say they are glad they don't. We are known as the place with all the dead trees. And, iy's only getting worse.
Who but a bunch of people from big cities would have such an obsession with cutting the shit out of trees planted by the HOA ? So yeah, to people who love nature and the outdoors and locals who have lived here long term, this is a bizarre phenomenon.
But WHY was Reber fired ? He tried to tow the line for the Board, and feared their disapproval. I assumed this would be the basic premise in hiring him, but I remained non-judgmental, hoping he would be his own man. He seems intelligent and capable in some ways, but seemed overwhelmed with the responsibilities, and unsure of himself. I had a few interactions with him, but he was dodgy and afraid to be honest about much of anything.
He is elderly, and apparently wanted/needed to work, so there's no reason to wish him ill. We don't seem to know any details here, and we know that the BOT is very intent on controlling EVERYTHING. Clancy in particular seems to need to have his hands on everything, and he in particular has brought on many fines and reprimands from the County, for failing to follow proper procedures and observe County ordinances.
While this may be a good thing, we have no clue apparently, WHY he was terminated. It seemed he DID NOT have useful expertise to lend to managing the Water Dept., and really wanted to become the Surfside Enforcement Czar. Winegar has a law enforcement background, and wants to tighten the screws on member's lives by increasing restrictions and enforcement pressure.
The community rarely had many compliance issues until the Tree Comm. went bananas under Peg Olds & Annette deLeest, and Clancy filing hundreds of complaints on trees that have no effect on his views. So this is a really negative road to follow, that has no real practical value.
April has resigned from the Water Dept., and she was a valuable and intelligent asset to the community. She was very personable, but knew her stuff. Now we have two huge vacancies, and very little information from the seated Board. With Williams at the helm, conducting simple business transactions in Board meetings becomes a comedy of errors. But it ISN'T funny ! Motions are approved, while no one knows WHAT the motion really is.
Non-judgmental and Steve Cox do not go together...
Just because there was no enforcement does not mean there weren't compliance issues. Folks had time to comply but choose just to ignore whereas if ongoing maintenance was performed, like many do in Surfside, there would not be a problem...
People took advantage of not following the rules and the whine/complain when it catches up to them.
The silent majority not posting on this blog agree.
The Faction
Steve, you do not have a long history with Surfside so please let me inform you of compliance issues you are not aware of. About twelve years ago or so we had a compliance officer who worked full time. I don’t remember his name but I just called him Larry’s buddy. It was not uncommon to see him and Larry Raymer driving around the community measuring trees. Barbara was the GM back then. The compliance officer mailed out more than a hundred tree height compliance letters on one day. He signed Barbara”s name to each letter. Of course he did this while Barbara was on vacation. When the dust settled, no more compliance officer. Tree height compliance issues have been a problem for quite some time. You are fairly new to the game. Best to tread lightly on history unless you like the taste of your foot.
Lol, then why was that copliance officer fired? Hmmm?
Go cut your trees peasants!
The Faction
Off topic, but I thought the string lights were out of compliance? Didn't the board hammer Joanna about them? If this is the case, why is the neighbor to the north of the Deleest house allowed to have them, as well as the neighbor west of TJ Bockman.
Oh and TJ Bockman, on the corner of 341st and I, his back fence is out of compliance . His fence behind his house is well over 6 ft. I only mention this because you seem to have selective enforcement around here .
what's the tree height for those on the east side of J??
Once again certain people are talking out their backsides. If they would have attended any of the board meetings before they went to online and witnessed Reber, and I use the term loosely, in action you would understand why he was let go. Many people have given examples here and elsewhere including the blogs Trustee of the Year Scott.. Cox seems to forget that he was given false information from Reber concerning trustees, coincidentally deLeest being one of them, which of course he had no problem with spreading.
On that note let's all be real here. Cox still hasn't gotten over being spanked by Annette and takes any chance to bring her name into a topic, whether it's true or not.
You know it would be helpful if we didn’t have so many anonymous posts! Why can’t people just talk?
I’ve stated many times from the beginning of our lighting mess that we were victims of “selective enforcement “ This has certainly proved true as no one has had to change their lights since us! They are still counting on a new lighting covenant that will make almost the whole membership out of compliance!
The tree mess should absolutely be set aside until the COVID virus settles down and the membership can give input on the way the feel about the slaughter of the trees
I can prove my house on J Place is worth $15,000 more because of my view. If anyone takes my view away, I'll sue them.
The Faction and J Placer
You selfish creep. My property is worth 15,000 less because of the dead trees on my property because of you. Go to hell.
Just think of the havoc Clancy can do if elected to the county. We'll be welcoming the apocalypse in that event, though dont think he has the time left to complete a full term. Maybe ask Antifa for some assistance.
12:17....Of course there have always been problems with Tree Policy compliance. It is a screwy destructive policy that is discriminatory, giving ridgetop owners unique privileges to demand ALL member households west of the ridge, continually top their trees. The single most damaging thing that can be done to any tree is to cut the top off repeatedly. It is a simple fact.
9:33....You have a problem with recall that demonstrates selective memory. I HAVE attended Board Meetings, I have argued Reber's accounting of events in a public meeting, and I stated that he has a problem being honest. What you conveniently overlook, is that the Board has not stated why Reber was terminated. You may well be a Trustee, and if so, you know specifically why Reber was fired. To the membership, this is just another unexplained action, there being no indication that Reber was not performing adequately.
So this nonsense about Annette suggests you are Mr. deLeest - certainly not just a member - to prattle on about just crap. I passed on information that Reber gave me in Blog comments. Reber would not confirm he had said what he had said, after the fact. It was never established that what Reber had said was NOT true, only that he would not repeat it or confirm.
He had said that Clancy, Annette and Peg Olds drove around the community and cited homes with exterior lights they wanted to ban, then sent out notices, even though no changes had been made to the lighting covenant. He stated that 50 complaints had been filed on lights, and that was why the covenant needed to be changed.
At the community review of the proposed policy, I put Reber on the spot with this, he bumbled and mumbled around, and shuffled papers, then said there had only been 5 complaints. Annette had a fit that she was implicated. All I was saying was recounting what Reber had said, and no one could explain why there were 2 stories and either 5 or 50 complaints.
No one offered a credible story, and no one was "spanked". So, back to your imaginary scenario.
Reber also told us when he came to inspect our lights that we were a “test” case. Never posted this before as I’m sure it would have been denied. We were selective enforcement at its best! I stated this in our second statement to the board and of course they denied that!
Annette didn't have to accost Cox. Come on have some decency.
Cox just needs to learn how to bend over and take it from Annette. Sure Fred can offer some pointers.
Why is it our compliance officer does not wear a badge identifying herself? Why is it she takes pictures of trees on a certain block yet parks a block away? I just watched this happen. Why would she not park in front of the house she is documenting...kind of weird, kind of sneaky if you ask me.
Joanna, you are definitely selective enforcement. Before I took my string lights down, I would make sure the others in Surfside were made to take them down.
Oh we finally got the letter from the board March 2020 to let us know we’re in compliance! We only have a few bulbs screwed in on the string lights! So from our appeal Sept 2019 it wasn’t until March we were told officially we were in compliance and nothing had changed on our part
12:04/12:12/Mike Riley ? No one is interested in your strange mind-trip. Anyone who serves on the Board needs to be accountable for their actions when called on to do so. I don't single out anyone to lock horns with or disrespect anyone on the BOT. And I OWN my opinions and comments, which you don't have the backbone to do.
Oh Mr. Backbone has spoken.
I'm retired and I'm sticking to that.
If I got on the board, I wouldn't bring up the tree policy.
I have one tree. The tree policy doesn't affect me so I'll let someone else lead any change. Meanwhile, I'll write 7 paragraphers about it constantly.
Thank you Mike. We wouldn't want to have a rational conversation when we can visit lala land with you. No, I don't care to represent someone so self-serving and angry, when no one else has the courage to challenge the current system. You talk big but are unable to function, so being a Blog troll is the best you can do. That's not political activism, just pitiful. Bonafide.
Mr Cox, here you go again talking out of your backside about us, you have done everything you can to spread your nonsense and false accusations. I say again you need to stop listening to disgruntled ex-trustees. I don’t go anonymous but most of my posts spreading the truth or answers are removed quickly by the blog host. He does not want our point of view or truth to come out! Please refrain from naming me in your posts as they are not true, and you continue anyway! you are a LIAR sir and if we ever meet I will tell you to your face! Or better yet come on out to the chipper site sometime and accuse us again! Idiot! No wonder your new nick name is the pied piper of surfside!
Steve, I am going to spell it out for you. You stated, and I quote,
The community rarely had many compliance issues until the Tree Comm. went bananas under Peg Olds & Annette deLeest, and Clancy filing hundreds of complaints on trees that have no effect on his views.
That is not an accurate statement. Members have been receiving tree compliance orders for decades. One time more than 100 violation letters were mailed on one day. Members have been complying with those orders for just as long. You, in your most arrogant fashion, falsely accuse two members of creating a problem where none existed before. You are wrong. The one making a big deal about a covent that has been around for decades is you, the new kid on the block. Who died and made you the morality sheriff in Surfside. It is not immoral to trim, prune or remove a tree that has become a problem for your neighbors. On some Surfside lots it is a rule. A long established rule.
Yes yes....dare speak the names of the holy deleests on the Blog and they invariably launch a shit-storm of disdain and haughty pronouncements. Fred has threatened me numerous times, such that it reminds me of Emmett Tell. "He dared speak of that white woman."
I didn't say that Reber's statement was true, yet here you both are, making wild accusations that I am lieing. I was reiterating a story Tom Reber told in an Architectural Meeting I attended with Joanne Mc Murphy. You ninnies.....you can't even understand what you read !!.
Yes, God bless your precious Tree Policy - keeps the lower classes in their place.
Wow Cox. You're unbelievable.
I'm sure glad you're not on the board.
I wonder if Cox will get blogger of the year again. We'll see.
He thinks he's been treated like Emmett Till. That is amazing and a disgusting and irrational comparison.
Wow, Steve, take a chill pill. Someone points where your comment is wrong and you come completely unglued? Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit you may have misspoken and move on? Everyone makes mistakes. That is the one thing we all have in common. Rise above the rest of us, own your mistakes.
Steve, please recant your comparison of the treatment you believe you received in Surfside compares to the brutal racist murder of a 14 year old black boy at the hands of two adult white males. It is inappropriate and demeaning for you to suggest that what happened to Emmet Till applies to your white privileged life. You must be deranged to use such a horrific crime as a comparison for any mistreatments you have been subjected to in Surfside. You should be ashamed of yourself for such an insensitive and inappropriate comparison. Your neighbors are not Jim Crow racist and you are not a black teenage boy. Any comparison to such is just wrong on so many levels.
Wow, faction out in force. Must be doing something right steve.
Systemic racism is alive and well in Surfside. Somebody should start a go fund me page for Steve. He has been so badly persecuted by the man in Surfside. Sleep lightly Steve. Thy are coming for you in the middle of the night.
Yes, discrimination is a central premise of this HOA, enshrined in the Tree Policy. I haven't misstated anything, and there will be no apologies. I didn't compare myself to Emmett Till, but thanks for reminding me I'm not 15 years old and am not black. The point is the intent to demonize my comments and intent because I uttered the names of Fred and Annette deLeest is elitist and their sense of entitlement discriminatory in nature.
Typically, any mention of race or politics is taken as offensive rather than putting it in context. I fully support the goals of Black Lives Matter, but will the election show that America has a conscience ? Trump supporters seem to have no problem with police violence, systemic racism, and a president who is destroying the legal system and economy, while focusing on his own grifting and profiting off of government business.
I assume that there are many good people who own property in Surfside, but it is currently run by an all white Board, purposely dominated by J Place owners, in a community essentially void of people of color. The righteous indignation lacks self-awareness, and those who despise dissent always rush to condemn my point of view. That is a type of persecution. It doesn't dissuade me from speaking what I feel is the truth, but the intent is to prevent criticism of the HOA, and ignore member opinion that doesn't tow the BOT line of thinking.
The Weekender has published two different dates for the ice cream social. Poster says Sunday and calendar says Saturday. Guess that Reber guy screwed up again. Maybe Williams should send out a special letter. I was looking forward to see them stuffing their face while wearing a mask.
You are blind to your own racism. I am not demonizing your comments. I am demonizing your comparison of Fred to the Jim Crow racist who tortured and murdered a 14 year old boy because he wolf whistled a white woman. You are accusing Fred of being compatible to the most vile and disgusting racists who ever lived. If I was Fred, I would sue you for libel. How can you justify yourself?
You can categorize my comment however you will, but I am NOT a racist. The comment relates to white privilege and making threats to those who dare not hold you in high esteem. I know full well what the actual incident involved, and frankly, I think you are intent on exaggerating the comment for sensationalism. You offer no name but relish your own righteousness.
Our non-profit HOA has applied for and received, 2 Federal government stimulus checks for a total of $20,000. There is no real justification for this community drawing on dollars appropriated to sustain businesses, and in particular small businesses, that have sustained substantial losses due to the Pandemic. Surfside cannot verify any such need. That to me is selfish and elitist. But this is the attitude that prevails in our community's governance.
At the 2019 Annual Meeting, the HOA's law firm stated that 2019 had seen a huge increase in Tree Policy enforcement efforts and that Tree related compliance outpaced all other enforcement by far. There were about twice as many Tree compliance letters sent out in the last year, as the year before. Looking at the community, it is obvious that pressure to demand tree topping has increased greatly.
There has been no suggestion by the BOT that demands on Tree compliance might ease in the face of community-wide financial losses and challenges. This shows the tunnel vision of the current seated Board.
I suggest that focus of members should be on efforts to bring the community together by taking serious steps to establish member opinions about policy and future goals. This can be done by broadening communications and asking members to participate in a series of short surveys, as an example. It isn't something the BOT favors, or will likely do.
It does no good to speak the truth here! Just another reason for Cox to slander us with more lies! Does not really matter what we say, he will always put his long winded spin on it to justify his point if view.
Tried to turn in a complaint of an auto shop operating in shoa. Compliance officer said is bout year behind. Trees taking up all her time?
You are a racist Steve, by your own words, you are just too snow blind to recognize it. BTW, efforts to bring the community together could include not comparing your neighbors to Jim Crow racists.
12:55 not sure when you talked to her but they took my complaint and didn't mention anything about being behind a year. They've moved it along quite well, so maybe try again.
That is true Fred.
Keep trying to get blogger of the year Cox. I'm sure you're on your way to that goal.
Cox, your recent comments demonstrate white privilege precisely.
Anybody running for the board? The packers are due today.
I read your post Steve. It sure sounds like you are comparing yourself to Emmett Till and Fred de Leest to the men who killed him. What other comparison could you have possibly been making? Perhaps not posting such lengthy comments rich with metaphor and deep philosophical concepts would be helpful. Obviously, we are to shallow to grasp the intended meaning of your sagacious commentaries.
The deLeests have nothing to complain about. I repeated a statement made in an Architectural Meeting by Tom Reber, that named Annette, Peg Olds and Clancy by name. He refused to acknowledge it the next day. I didn't lie about anything. Nor did I accuse Annette specifically of anything.
I have documented that the Tree Comm. greatly stepped-up enforcement pressure and timelines under Peg Olds, as she had promised would happen. Nothing about tree topping is urgent, and particularly in the middle of the Pandemic, but neither the Tree Comm. nor the BOT gives a crap. Last year there were at least twice as many "complaints" processed on trees, obviously not sent by individual owners whose view is obstructed.
These are being manufactured by the dozen, Mr. Clancy being a proud participant who has boasted of it. The statement by Reber about the 50 lighting complaints jives perfectly with Clancy's manufacture of tree complaints. Yet everyone denied involvement when I brought it up at the Lighting Review community meeting.
So I didn't lie about anything in my statement about the Tree Comm/enforcement. But I did get all of this righteous indignation and the usual threats by Fred, because I uttered his wife's name on the Blog. I made no accusations, just repeated what Reber had said.
So having it suggested that Fred wants to confront me at the compactor site is ridiculous, and threatening bodily harm, a crime. My statement was in character with Fred's attitude, and no, I'm NOT a racist. I implied that Fred's threats and the repeated claims I lied about "stuff" non-specific, reminded me of an infamous lynching. Read what was said carefully if you think otherwise.
It's interesting that all of a sudden Surfside is a hotbed of social awareness, focusing on a Blog statement I made. I have no animosity toward anyone based on their color or beliefs, and adore many people of color, hate Trump, and love the Obamas like royalty. I have nothing more to say, so have at it. Remember, a vote for Trump is a vote in favor of racism. No excuses.
There you have it. You are apparently not racist as long as you hate Trump and, dare i say it, worship the Obamas.
You reduce the suffering of a 14 year old black boy who was tortured and lynched at the hands of Jim Crow racists (registered democrats BTW) to compare to your petty squabbles with neighbors. That would not be considered demeaning or insulting to the family of Emmett Till. I am certain they would stand in solidarity with you in your fight against injustice and proudly hold up pictures of the lifeless broken child you are reminded of when you feel threatened by your neighbors angry words. You are disgusting in you insensitivity and privilege. You cannot talk back the comparison you decided to evoke. Say it just once. Fred de Leest is not a Jim Crow racist and you are not a tortured and lynched black teenager. The comparison you made is completely insensitive, without merit, and insulting to the memory of Emmett Till. If you cannot see that, wipe the white off your eyes and look again.
506 - how about looking at it outside the blatant self interest you promote?
816 - who the hell are YOU to judge? Your misrepresentations out here effectively cancel any credibility you might have.
You must be very scared of Steve to attack so hard. Why? He makes a helluva lot more sense than you self involved, self pitying clowns.
Keep trying-its entertaining to see just how stupid you'll get.
Wow Mr Cox, What a self righteous grandstander!! your last rant where you claim I have threatened you is a laugh, if you read that into my comments then you need some serious help! You just need to take a breather and take your paranoid self back to Olympia for awhile! You sure like to hide behind your keyboard but when you have stepped over the line and boy you have seriously stepped over the line with your rebuttal of my initial comment. I will leave it at that, but you need to take a break!
Hmmm, sounds like heresay evidence.
I'm shaking in my boots. LOL HAHAHAHAHA!
So I hear the general manager got fired??????
What's your take on that?
5:06....You are ridiculous. I made a flip comment on a f-cking Blog and you happened to read it. Get a grip niwit. I am a retired resident of an HOA that is obsessed with intrusive enforcement that in no way benefits the entire community. That is what is at issue, not the national policies that effect racial equality. You are as significant as an ant, pontificating and lecturing anonymously. What a self-righteous poop !
Deleest, here you talk out of both sides of your mouth. More threatening dialogue, and the dismissive bullshit to boot. Whatever your wife does as a Trustee is as a representative of the membership, and her actions effect the lives of members of the community. It should be expected that she is held accountable for her actions and decisions, just as any man on the BOT.
To 12:55 in regards to a year out on complaints...
The compliance officer should have a general letter she can send out to the violator asking to meet with them and take a look at the said violation and you should be taking pictures to document your complaint. Where about is this place you speak of???
Perhaps if our compliance officer didn't take 15 minutes to measure 1 tree plus park a block away from her sites she visits, she might get more done in her day. I personally watched this happen. Why is she taking Peggy olds with her??? Is she not competent enough for the job??? Maybe we are not getting our monies worth...
Wow Steve, you sir have a mouth on you! George needs to block you and your fowl mouth from this blog.
You're the one that starting talking about racial equality Cox.
You may broadcast on a blog that you hate Trump, but I wonder if you have a bit in common with him.
Wow Mr Cox, You are a blog bully! I have never threatened you! But you sure have a mouth on you! Talking out of both sides of my mouth? Not possible, but if it were, that’s much better than talking out of your Ass like you do every day and on just about every subject on this blog! Over and over the same stuff, very easy for you to sit back behind the key board and constantly criticize, slander and blame others for unreliable information. It’s about time folks call you on some of your nonsense that you continue to spout and reading some of the comments here I think they have succeeded. You just don’t get it, your previous verbal assassinations of sitting board members does not get you a seat at the table, but you still spout the same whoa is me story over and over. If you want change, then volunteer and get to know folks in the committees, get elected to the board and then you can work on changing some of our issues that need change. Again that won’t happen sitting behind your keyboard. Now I know your going to spout some more unkind words and if it makes you feel better, have at it. Just makes you look more foolish! Oh wait, you have already done that!
So which is it Steve, you have no animosity toward anyone or we are insignificant. Can you spell bipolar. Maybe your true colors are showing. Derangement and self righteousness.
Keep it up steve, u def under factions skin, to the point the6 dont rebut any points concerning shoa, just personal attacks as usual.
Fred's just posting what Annette tells him, she wears the pants in their fiefdom.
I'm very happy Reber is fired!
Have we always had a general manager? Have we ever had a good general manager? It seems I've read we have a general manager, but some documents refer to a business manager. Does anyone know which one we really have?
So let's talk budget here. Reber was making way too much. We are over budget by about 25,000 with a new sheriff. Let's be real here and pay the new GM or OM, whatever the title is 50,000. We are talking about a community of 3000 people, not a city or county. This new person needs to prove their worth. Everyone and everyplace has to budget and live within that budget, surfside included.
Good points. I agree.
We were paying Travis about 72,000. Now Clancy wants us to fund about 100,000 for a sheriff, working 159 hours a month, 1 hour shy of full time(160 hrs), what a joke.
We, the members are not made of money, like some of you. We have to stay within budget. Cut the GM wage makes sense. The board already approved a wage increase for staff. That staff works for us,the members, we should be approving wage increases at the yearly meeting.
Staff could be cut to 4 days a week, Tues - Fri, this will save money too.
Its all about options and everything needs to be looked at.
Does anybody know if we paid off the commissioners, a little back pocket money, for the sheriff contract? Would Clancy do that?
Ronda,
How much money does it take to arm, outfit, and pay one policeman a year? $100,000 is a bargain. Our employees are considerably underpaid compared to similar jobs on the peninsula. We lost the best water employee mostly due to low pay and to much work load. Please learn more about Surfside’s business before recommending moves that would damage our ability to manage our assets and stay in compliance with government regulations.
I agree with Ronda.
We shouldn't treat the person's health like they're expendable. The person needs a vacation and sick leave. Why screw them out of benefits by limiting his hours to 1 hour less than full-time. Pretty slimy. Doesn't surprise me out of this autotacracy and oligarchy.
Again, I agree with Ronda. Then they get healthcare and we can end up paying less in the long-run too, relative to $100,000.
I haven't seen the details, if there are any, as to where the deputy will be stationed, and whether or not he is on-call for any and all calls elsewhere on the peninsula. 11:15 is surely Clancy. He had stated that he would not agree to a more expensive contract. Surprised that was b.s.?
We don't need a fulltime officer in Surfside. Sharing an officer who helps police the local communities is a benefit to all. Varied spotty crime is documented by the Observer. Some break-ins occasionally occur in Surfside, domestic disputes can happen anywhere, but there seems no real evidence of significant crime in Surfside.
It seems much more desireable to Mr. Clancy and other J place owners, since only a few hundred people reside here year-round. Better to have a legitimate deputy than a rent-a-cop, but he'll be doing a lot of whittlin' if spending 40 hours a week in Surfside.
Fred deLeest!
If you didn't support and defend an organization consumed with hate, self interest, and greed, you might have a better position. Your Boards snubbing of Steve Cox is just another example of your cults not even following their own rules!
Now your Board will run wild with absolutely no adult supervision, and the rest of us will continue to get screwed!
12:49, 100,000 is outrageous when Travis was doing the same job for 72,000. Too bad you cannot leave your name so I know which board member you are. If the staff is underpaid, why have they stayed so long? Kimber has been here at least 5 years. What keeps them here when they have options? Its all about options and budgeting and trying to save money. if you want paid top dollar, go work in King, Pierce or even Thurston.
@ @2:21, oh he is getting benefits too, it just looks part time on paper. His total wage and benefits are 85,003.68. We are funding the package deal. The budget sheet for him is on the main Surfside HOA website under the 2020 board meeting minutes. its the last item, scan packet, and its on page 17. . He gets the uniform allowance, car, gas, medical/dental, retirement , membership at a gun club/shooting range, cell phone,lap top, docking station, radar, scanner, ...go look it up, when said and done its 100,000.
Back to my topic, we need to be cutting other areas to stay in budget. Our staff should be able to do a job 4 days a week, other government agencies have to furlough to make ends meet, we are no different.
George, can you post that specific page on your blog so everyone knows the expenses for the sheriff?
Actually Steve, 11:15 is me, Ronda. I don't post much, and didn't mean to post anonymous. I totally disagree with what Surfside will be paying for a sheriff, and its a five year contract we are stuck with. Like I said, cut the new GM salary significantly lower to make up for the sheriff and or furlough employees. Times like these, many people are unemployed. Take the salary offered or leave it.
@12:49, surfside should strictly be a water company. We are an HOA wrapped around a water company. Cut out a lot of the inner crap and focus more on the infrastructures .
OCR did a decent job of converting the images to text. You may still find a few mistakes in spelling and/or punctuation...here's part 1::
This Agreement for Patrol Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into on August , 2020 by and between Pacific County, Washington, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, (the “County”) and Surfside Homeowners Association, a Washington non-profit corporation, (“Surfside:), and is consented to by the Pacific County Sheriff (the “Sheriff’), for the uses and purposes and under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement
I. Recitations
Lil Surfside is the homeowners association for the owners of property in Surfside Estates and certain other areas subject to the covenants of Surfside in the northern portion of the Long Beach Peninsula in Pacific County Washington. .
1.2 Surfside and the County (each a “Party”, and together the “Parties”) have previously entered into agreements for the provision of deputy sheriff patrol and related services in and around the Surfside Estates and other areas subject to the covenants of Surfside, including, most recently, the Agreement Regarding Deputy Sheriff Services entered into on November 8, 2005 (the “Prior Agreement”).
1.3 Surfside and the County have each concluded that the Prior Agreement has benefitted both Parties, but that changes to the Prior Agreement are appropriate.
14 The Sheriff agrees that the Prior Agreement has benefitted the Pacific County Sheriff's Office, but that changes to the Prior Agreement are appropriate.
I. Agreements
Jn consideration of the foregoing recitations and the agreements, undertakings and consents of Parties and the Sheriff, which the Parties and the Sheriff agree constitute adequate consideration, the Parties hereby agree and the Sheriff hereby consents as follows:
2.4 Incorporation by Reference: the foregoing Recitations, paragraphs 1.1 through 1.4 of this Agreement, are hereby incorporated by this reference.
2.2 Prior Agreement: Effective upon full execution of this Agreement, the Prior Agreement is hereby terminated in its entirety.
2.3 General Purpose: Consistent with, and as specified in other provisions of this Agreement, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide enhanced sheriff's patrols and related activities on the portion of the Long Beach Peninsula in Pacific County Washington generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the West, Joe Johns Road on the South, on the East and 357" Street on the North (the “Service Area”).
24 Services; The County, through the Sheriff Office, shall provide and pay one fully qualified and commissioned Pacific County Sheriff's Deputy (the “Assigned Deputy”) to patrol and provide all other Sheriff’s Office Patrol Division functions in the Service Area (the “Services”) for 159 hours per calendar month. The County and the Sheriff's Office shall, in all respects, provide the Assigned Deputy with the
same services, facilities and equipment and treat and supervise the Assigned Deputy in the same manner that other patrol Deputies are provided services, facilities and equipment and treated and supervised by the County and Sheriff’s Office. The Deputy will be compensated and provided benefits as determined by the Sheriff consistent with applicable law and other obligations of the Sheriff. Without, in any way,
limiting the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the Sheriff's Office shall provide the Assigned Deputy with the following to the same extent and on the same basis provided to other Patrol Deputies: a) equipment and supplies, including without limitation, a patrol car, mobile computer, communications equipment, fire arms, uniforms, ammunition, Taser and other safety equipment; b) insurance, c) office supplies and business cards d) Washington State Patrol Academy training and certification and other training and certification; e) recruitment, supervision and other personal and management services; f) dispatch and other support services; g) office space and other related services and h) gun club membership or other access to a shooting range. The Assigned Deputy shall have all authority and
responsibility of a Pacific County Washington Sheriffs Deputy. The Assigned Deputy shall keep sufficient records and other information, which will be made available to Surfside at its request by the Sheriff's Office, to determine that the required number of hours of the Services are being provided.
2.5 Cost: Surfside will compensate the County and the Sheriff’ é Office for the Services in the following manner:
2.5.1. Surfside will make a one-time payment to the County of vehicle support and
equipment purchases in the amount of xx,xxx.xx due five business days after full execution of this Agreement.
2.5.2. Surfside will make quarterly payments to the County in the amount of $xx,xxx.xx within 10 business days of the start of each calendar quarter (for the avoidance of uncertainty, that is the 10" business day of January, April, July and October) for calendar years 2020 and 2021, prorated for the calendar quarter in which this Agreement goes into effect.
2.5.3. On or before September 15 of each year commencing in 2021 and continuing in
each calendar year of this Agreement thereafter, the County and the Surfside shall commence negotiations over the amount of the Quarterly Payment for the next calendar year. Notwithstanding the term of this Agreement under paragraph 2.11 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate on December 31 of any calendar year unless the Parties have, by December 15 of that year, agreed on the Quarterly Payment for the next calendar year.
2.5.4. Surfside will reimburse County for fuel consumed by the Assigned Deputy’s patrol car while the Assigned Deputy is providing the Services. The per-gallon change for the fuel shall be the rate that the County pays for the fuel. The County will, quarterly, present billing to Surfside for the fuel consumed in the previous quarter, and Surfside shall pay the requisite amount within 30 calendar days of receipt of the bill.
Within the first calendar quarter after each year during the term of this Agreement: a) the Parties will examine the time and other records of the Assigned Deputy to determine if the Assigned Deputy provided the Services for 159 hours in each calendar month during the past calendar year, and b) the County shall reimbursement Surfside for each hours in the past calendar year when the Assigned Deputy did not
provide the Services for at least 159 hours for each calendar month based on the following formula: [the
Quarterly Payment for that past calendar year] multiplied by 4 [divided by 1908] = [per hour amount of reimbursement].
2.6 Limited Office Space: Surfside shall also provide a desk in its business office or other facility maintained by Surfside in which the Assigned Deputy may do work at his/her discretion. This desk need not be in a secure location.
2.6 Indemnification: The County shall indemnify and hold Surfside harmless from and against all liability, damages, claims and costs (including attorney’s fees) related to and/or arising out of any acts or omissions or alleged acts or omissions of the Assigned Deputy while providing, or allegedly providing, the Services.
2.7 Personnel Decisions; The Sheriff shall be solely responsible for designating the Assigned Deputy as well as all, termination, advancement, evaluation, and other employment related decisions related to the Assigned Deputy; provided, however, that the Sheriff shall solicit and consider input from the Surfside Trustees before making any such decision, except in the case of an emergency, in which case
the Sheriff need not solicit this input.
2.8 Notices: Any notice that may or must be give under this Agreement shall be given in writing to the following persons at the following addresses or to such other persons or addresses as either Party may subsequently notify the other in writing:
The County: The Association:
XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
2.10 Termination for Cause: Either Party may terminate this Agreement, if the other Party materially breaches its obligations hereunder, on 30 days written notice of the material breach giving rise to this termination to the other Party, provided, however, that termination shall not occur if the Party receiving this notice corrects the breach within this 30 day period.
2.11 Term: Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2.5 and 2.10 this Agreement, this Agreement shall run for a period of 5 years from the date of this Agreement. Following termination of this Agreement at the end of this 5 year term or pursuant to paragraph 2.5 or 2.10 of this Agreement, neither Party shall have
any further fights or responsibilities hereunder; provided that termination of this Agreement will not affect the rights and responsibilities of the Parties with respect to any act or omission prior to the effective date of that termination and the reconciliation of the hours the Services were provided in paragraph 2.5 of
this Agreement.
2.11 Miscellaneous: The headings of the provisions of this Agreement are for convenience only and may not be used in interpreting this Agreement. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced under the laws of the state of Washington. As used in this Agreement the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and each pronoun shall include every other pronoun, all as the context may require. Neither
Party may assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of the other Party. The failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that provision. Any waiver of any breach of this Agreement must be in writing signed by the waiving Party, and any waiver is limited to the specific provision and instance of breach for which the written waiver is given.
2.12 Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in any number of any counterpart originals with like effect as if all signatures appeared on one original document, and all such counterpart originals shall be taken together as one original Agreement.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PACIFIC COUNTY, WA
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Approved as to Form:
Prosecutor
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
The undersigned Sheriff of Pacific County Washington agrees to comply with and be bound by the foregoing Agreement for Patrol Services and to perform the responsibilities of Pacific County Washington under that Agreement.
SHERIFF:
Robin Souviner
SURESIDE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
President
Secretary
CONSENT BY THE SHERIFF
First, why wasn't this just summarized to emphasize the primary details ? On reading once quickly, $100,000 (not actually stated here) is just the initial compensation owed to the Sheriff's office. Surfside also agrees to "a one time payment of (unstated)5 figure payment for the car and equipment". Surfside also agrees to pay for his fuel. Remember the original Sheriff's proposal of $150,000 which everyone said was outrageous ?
In spite of his assurance Surfside would not agree to his proposal, Clancy has agreed to having the numbers obscured, and a statement in the contract that the Sheriff's office will provide the squad car. So $99,999 is a 5 figure amount isn't it ?
I don't see any clear indication where the deputy will spend his time, other than Surfside, and there is no earthly excuse for having a deputy sitting on his butt in Surfside 40 hours a week. The previous arrangement made more sense, with considerably less money laid out, and his services benefiting the local neighborhoods and municipalities where needed.
Other than occasional break-ins and minor crimes, Surfside s apparently void of more serious crime, though we know there are questionable folks in some neighboring areas and neighborhoods. There are only a few hundred year-round residents in Surfside, most retired. Hardly a need for full time patrol at a premium price. White privilege, like the $20,000 from the Fed we didn't need or deserve ? Sounds like it.
I sent a screenshot of the price breakdown to George to put on here.
85,000 in wages and benefits, 5,500 in recurring support costs and 10,600 for a one time hardware and support components, which you know things break and wear out. So add up the numbers, we are a tad over 100,000 grand... 5 year contract.
Steve Cox said...
First,why wasn't this just summarized to emphasize the primary details ?
Not everyone has the ability to find the crap SHOA buries on their website. Just say thanks and move along!
If I could add the spread sheet I would. George is having health issues and at this time cannot add it.
You are welcome Steve, thanks for your input...along I go, I have a life to live😘
Ronda - Someone pulled the first sentence from my previous comment and added a sentence. I had only suggested that whoever posted the contract, should have just summarized the most significant parts, but mentioned I hadn't checked the website. They had to scold me, and misinterpret what I had said.
Your simple breakdown of the costs was really what I was getting at, so thank you.
Really Steve, misinterpret?
I think they read it the same way I did, which is how you wrote it.
You really have an issue with admitting any type of error.
Cox demands things his way. Nothing is good enough for Cox. He will criticize everything and everyone.
Thanks Ronda. I appreciate the Information.
Making a comment on a Blog stating a preference, doesn't constitute a demand. Documents such as this are challenging to read and whoever contributed this probably knows the details we would want to pull from the contract. Given the format of the Blog, that would have been better than publishing the entire contract.
Some members will think it's useful to have access to the contract, and it's pertinent to make it available for the sake of transparency. I don't see it available on the website, and it is true that disclosure is not a focus of the BOT, though it needs to be.
Knowing that the added expenses are part of the $100,000 makes this agreement seem a little more reasonable than I thought initially. I don't think it makes any sense to have a full-time deputy. I'm unclear if the officer would still be on-call for the County as before.
I think if the deputy is confined to Surfside it would be a waste of County resources. Still, I do think it's good to have a legitimate County law enforcement presence on the north end.
354 - perhaps it's your misinterpretation of his comment, since you're self interest filter keeps going off.
He makes way more sense, than your two line drivel. Consider silence.
454 & 354 - both the same clueless clown? Thinking so!
Keep shucking, and be a good shill for an organization that cares nothing about anyone other than Board members.
251 & 254 - both the same clueless clown? Thinking so!
I just posted the entire cost breakdown under Georges new topic..It Is Just Wrong!
I don't care how much time Clancy put into this deal, we need to back out of this contract before it gets going.
Surfside is what, 3000 residents, if that?? Am I the only one thinking this is a shit ton of money to spend on someone patrolling Surfside
No you’re not! I’ve visited with many who feel we shouldn’t be paying special for services already in our taxes! Also members should go back over old reports from Travis. Must of the ones he picked up had to be released because no room at the jail! I know for a fact speeding on the Oysterville approach was never addressed and I’ve heard also on other streets! So why spend this enormous amount of money when everyone’s budgets may be slim this coming year?
I want the patrol. There is a deterrence aspect that can't be quantified. You can say it is covered in your tax dollars but that won't get the same type of service as often. From my perspective I'll pay the extra $33.
9:20, Well you are just one voice and you are entitled to your opinion, I won't argue that.
I say it goes out to all the members to vote on. It is our money, we should have a say in how we spend it.
If we can spend 1000 to send out the water control letter, which is a total waste again of our money, we sure as heck can send out the cost break down sheet of a sheriff . More residents would find that more informational and actually read it and possibly return their vote.
Another option, we pick between the sheriff budget or a GM budget, but not both. If we go with a sheriff, then no GM for 5 years. We have to stay with budget, period. Something has to give and go away besides Clancy.
I’ve said from the beginning, we need the membership to have a voice in this budget item. Maybe more want this than not, but there has been no avenue to state our views ! The notice in the weekender was only for continuing the contract! It would certainly have to be better coverage than we had previously!
Joanne, you and I should be on the budget committee. Whip this place into shape. But then again, I think comittees are hand picked
You mean the membership that doesn't volunteer or run for the board? Its obvious by the lack of participation of the membership that folks don't want to run a corporation on their days off or when they're on vacation.
Any major company has a board, not 2000 members who can't agree on a simple item steering the ship. If you want participation why don't you start with volunteering in your own damn community and stop bitching others who do.
451 - because we will NOT volunteer for an organization that doesn't treat all its members fairly.
Any deviation from the party line will result in anger, recriminations, and resistance to any type of progress or accountability. You at best are looking for grunts that will have no input in the process. Not interested.
Thanks Ronda is love to be on that committee. Not easy to get on a committee! My husband volunteered more than once, no response!
5:58 - have some more whine with your cheese.
Keep shucking.
The Faction
Is somebody shucking?
I saw that on the other page too.
Excuses, excuses to Ronda and Joanne. You have time to complain but that's about all we will get out of you. Every month new members are added to committees, apparently you don't read minutes either. Committees are not hand picked, just another excuse for your volunteer bashing
1:03....Having been disregarded for appointment to the last Board vacancy, I can tell you definitively, that the Board, the Committee chairs and their trustees, appoint who they want, and don't feel they have any obligation to explain why. I'm pretty certain the BOT declared that committees could have unlimited members, when complaints about Johansen's Covenant Revue committee surfaced 3 years ago.
I don't think it was ever accepted beyond screwing-up and dissolving Johansen's committee. The charters usually state a given number, I believe, or did.
I want to be on the Neighborhood Watch Committee. Oh wait, we pay for a Sheriff's deputy that works banker's hours. For other hours, you can blast exterior lights. Your exterior light illumination better not cross your property line. If they do, we'll fine you and put a lien on your property.
Wow you don’t know me at all! I’ve read almost all the minutes that are on the website! I’ve done extensive research and know for a fact that other boards are not run like this one! Not hand picked? Really? I know my husband offered at a couple of meetings to serve on a Committee, it sure never went anywhere! Just because a person doesn’t run for the board or serve on a committee doesn’t mean we aren’t a part of this HOA and deserve to have input!
Ronda can you private message me on Nextdoor?
I'm not on nextdoor, but check your phone, you will find a message from me
Just curious if the East side of J place received notices to trim their trees, which many are well over 35 feet. I have picturesand addresses and will turn in my complaints like everyone else if need be.
Who is on the tree committee on here and can answer my question?
Please confirm the addresses with the CC&Rs document language. I believe you will find that those addresses don't have height limits. Most of the east side doesn't. Convenient hugh. For a special interest, without compensation for the taking by one for another, for a view.
Well the covenants I am reading on the surfside website clearly do not say unlimited.
Address 35602 is div 20, lot 7 block 1. Tree height states 35 feet.
Nothing states unlimited for anyone. Tree heights follow all building heights
Okay. It had been a while since I read the covenants. Good catch.
Per the covenents, the "no limit" tree height was changed back in 2007 to a 35 ft limit to comply with the county. Its written at the very top of Exhibit A. So the East side of J is out of compliance. Let's get those letters of compluance filed and get those trees cut. Besides, its a safety factor too with the winds we have.
Go get em. I support you.
One of the only things that keep the landscape in Surfside from looking completely like Dr. Seussland (as you look east from the beach) are the normal tall trees on the eastside. This is the f*ing Northwest Coast folks - if you don't like trees move to the plains states - Kansas and the Dakotas have some vast areas with hardly a tree. Or find a nice desert or abandoned air field to live on.
The Tree Policy has made this a freaky landscape. So a couple of thousand people let a few hundred people on the ridge force them to top their trees as short as 12 feet, at their own expense ? WHY ?? It's a headscatcher.
There are trees probably 80 to 100 feet tall on the eastside. You want to top them at 35 ft. ? The person you need to handle this is called a "faller". He cuts the tree down after climbing near the top. You can't "trim" an 80 ft. tree to 35 ft.
Personally I like the trees. Topping any of them will eventually kill them. But its strange how the rules apply to a few. Eventually, what goes up must come down.
Cutting the top off of such trees kills them on the spot. I don't buy this anonymous claim. It has always been assumed that tree heights were only an issue for ridgetop owners whose views were at some point, protected by a covenant. It was deemed legally indefensible and removed from the covenants. Most members probably appreciate the forested natural quality of the eastside, in spite of a few scruffy-looking properties.
Many have been redone and look great. In general, that neighborhood has seen a lot of properties cleaned-up, and greater pride overall. There are some awesome RV properties, and many owners would like the wildness that pervades those woods. In general, it costs a lot to remove trees that big in a residential area. The HOA needs to stay out of it. At least a couple of the Tree Comm. members are serious control freaks, so keep a sharp eye on the HOA in this regard.
Post a Comment