We had a General Manager. How did that work for us? 85,000.00 plus benefits. We do not need another GM. We have enough competent office staff with the experience to fun the office just fine. Heidi or Kimber could take over as an Office Manager or Business Manager at say, 60,000 a year.
+What we really need, other than a bew Board, is a Water/Field Manager. That person would be charge of our water system, Compactor, RV storage lot and all common property, buildings and equipment. That person would Answer to the Board only. This person would have oversight of the Water Planning Committee and Lands and Buildings Committee. All other committees would be under the Business Manager.
41 comments:
There are several very good small system mgmt companies. Our water system has been using their schools for quite some time. Wouldnt it be better too have them run water dept? That way mistakes etc is on them and board would really have no control as they would have to abide by the contract.
I agree with the water manager need. It was obvious just before Neal left Reber was pretty much clueless and something was going to need to be done eventually. This should be a priory for the new board.
Kimber Holtermann (Office Manager...Heidi Larson (Association Treasurer) and Bob Haskin as Water/Field Manager.
Given the fact we are way over budget with the 100,000 5 year contract with the sheriff and the RV storage design, we do away with the GM and do away with Clancy
A little off topic but what I need is the official name of that nasty little weed with thorns that grows on most peoples's lawns here, some have refereed to them as goat heads,but when I look that up it's not the same plant and it's definitely not Gorse.
Cockle Burr
What's needed more than anything is an effective board that represents ALL interests, not just their own.
Over the last 12 years, there've been two constants, effective employees, and an ineffective Board. One needs to change.
I totally agree George! We do not need a GM. We have enough competent staff to get the job done without hiring another employee. Start working within a budget and start working for the residents of Surfside.
We are a water company and that's it.
I believe if you back through the posts you will find many where George was a very outspoken proponent of a General Manager. The need for a GM still exists. The challenge is finding a competent GM that can deliver the job responsibilities AND having a board that follows the covenants, bylaws, and operations manual in carrying out their duties and does not get involved in day to day operations.
Thanks 1037
I was too quick, 1037, it's not a Cockle Burr
What we need is to get rid of sf. Our dues is spent on attorneys that we don’t need. People on the board that we don’t need. And a water department that doesn’t work. I’m not getting anything from sf. At least when l lived in Vancouver we had speed bumps to slow traffic down and that’s on McCloughin blvd. It doesn’t slows the fire department or the sheriff we don’t have.
I hear you. It would take about 400 signatures to make an attempt to do it.
I think you mean Sand Mat on those burrs that stick to your shoes and mess with the dog's feet. There are some posts about that on Friends of Long Beach Penninsula on Facebook. Somebody had a solution of Vinegar, Epsom salts, and Dawn dish detergent to kill it.
Nobody wants to canvass for signatures?
Curious since so many letters were sent out in regards to tree heights, why are there so many trees over 35 feet along the east side of J place?
the lot South of 35304
the lot south of 35406
the house where Donnies signs business is located
the house at 35510
the house at 35602
the house North of Pam Harris
the lot south of the Deleest
these are just to name a few
These trees are over height per covenants and block the view of my sunrise
I didn't think so.
Very good point 10:32. And all the trees south of the golf course on J place.
Yes, very good point 10:32.
There is nothing in the covenants stating unlimited tree heights anywhere in surfside. These divisions, lots and blocks all state 35 feet per exhibit A in the covenants
Try not to look towards the deleest's at sunrise unless you want to see fred get his morning 'pegging.'
@4:08 - classy
Just lowering myself to you, your wife's, and the BOTs level, fred.
To anonymous 4:04 & 6:41. Wow now you know why this blog is bad for Surfside, when perverts like you are allowed to post these comments and the blog host allows it. Words cannot express what I think of you, you don’t know us, but you hide behind anonymous to feel powerful in some way. You are not! You are disgusting!
Someone got Fred's goat, though I think him more of a sheep man.
There you go 7:57 more of what this blog has turned into! Hope you are proud of your anonymous juvenile self!
Why do all of you pick on Fred so much? Seriously!! He is actually a great guy and good friend.
Thanks Ronda, but with Annette being a trustee some disparaging remarks are expected. The vile untruths spread on the blog by the pied piper and others only got worse when we moved up to J Place last year. Being allowed to go anonymous just fuels it.
I agree Fred. Pied Piper.
Your ridiculous over-reaction to anyone's mention of Trustee deLeest is why the attacks get ugly. I've never said anything "vile" or untrue about Annette or you, yet you go on and on about it. Buck-up. Anyone on the BOT that helps facilitate the enforcement of the Tree Policy, deserves the disdain that this policy represents toward the 75% of the community that this policy preys on. The community looks ridiculous, all shaved flat, and dead and dieing trees everywhere.
Please provide examples of the false remarks I have stated about Annette. You both have denied there was any truth to the claim that Reber made. I only repeated what he stated in a public Arch Comm. meeting, and I made that clear from the beginning.
She was a big driver behind the lighting covenant change, and was the key individual who objected to the McMurphy's porch light s on a string. She has also been a driving force behind the Tree Policy, the enforcement of which has grown to a few hundred victims each season. Enforcement guidelines were intensified about 2 to 3 years ago, being the primary legal cost the HOA pays, to micro-manage 75% of the properties west of the ridge.
The entire community bears a financial burden to enforce this misery beset upon private property owners. But Annette, the Tree Comm., and the BOT are blameless ? They could find more beneficial projects to spend our community money on, and show that they respect ALL Surfside owners.
Fred, go take your meds!
You're ridiculous comments regarding this blog are reflect your hateful attitude, your self-interest, and your disregard for any other member of this organization other than the board.
Reap what you sow, mouth!
Yah, go take your meds!
You made your bed, now sleep in it!
Reap what you sow!
356 - consider a mental health consult.
LOL True, no kidding!
The pied piper and his anonymous followers have spoken!
Those same porch lights she objected to are on the neighbors porch right next door to Annette. Hmmmmm...
7:51 I know for a fact that they have been notified that they are not allowed, nice of you to make it your business though! And post it to keep stirring the pot!
850 - yet more useless regulations, promoted by a manager that was fired, to promote the will of one over the Association. Priceless.
@8:50, everything is everyones business here in Surfside. If one resident has to comply, they all do. Of course I have to make it my business as well as everyones business. Doesn't all of J place like to stir the pot with all the tree complaints and their blocked views? Be careful what you wish for, or and I hope all the J placers enjoy looking into everyones yards now, lol
We don't look at your yards. Too busy looking at the ocean, boats, whales, sunsets, etc. LOL
@anonymous 8:50. I don’t know where you read that those lights aren’t allowed! I hope that home owner will appeal the complaint
2.17 covenants
Lighting and exterior signs.
2.17a holiday and similar low wattage decorative lighting may be displayed on a parcel so long as it does not cause a nuisance or unreasonably interfere with use on any other property.
I know they want to change the lighting covenant to completely eliminate these “string” lights, but we are still under the standing covenants as of now!
Post a Comment