October 23, 2026 | Surfside Washington News
Board unanimously supports pursuing additional sheriff coverage despite unanswered questions about crime reduction, existing patrol services, and the financial burden on homeowners.
At its October 17, 2026, board meeting, the Surfside Homeowners Association voted unanimously to begin pursuing a second dedicated sheriff’s deputy. Yet during the same meeting, Pacific County Sheriff Daniel Garcia acknowledged that available crime data could not readily isolate Surfside to demonstrate whether the existing dedicated deputy had reduced crime.
The sheriff also reported that other department personnel continued to patrol Surfside during the assigned deputy’s medical leave and that he had not observed a negative impact on crime conditions.
The decision raises a question for homeowners already paying for dedicated law enforcement:
Before spending more money on a second deputy, shouldn’t the association establish what measurable benefits the first deputy has delivered?
A Second Deputy Without a Demonstrated Reduction in Crime
There is little disagreement that public safety matters. Homeowners want their families, homes, vehicles, and property protected.
However, providing effective public safety and spending more money on law enforcement are not necessarily the same thing.
The Surfside HOA already pays for a dedicated deputy through an agreement with the Pacific County Sheriff’s Office. That arrangement is intended to provide enhanced law enforcement coverage beyond the general services available to Pacific County residents.
But an important question remains unanswered: Has this additional expenditure actually reduced crime within Surfside?
During the October 17 meeting, Sheriff Garcia acknowledged difficulties in obtaining crime statistics specifically identifying Surfside.
Without reliable geographic crime data, it becomes difficult to compare criminal activity before and after dedicated patrol services or to determine whether the program has produced measurable improvements.
The absence of such evidence does not mean the existing deputy has been ineffective. Visible patrols, quicker responses, community relationships, and deterrence may provide benefits that are not immediately reflected in crime statistics.
But neither can the HOA claim that dedicated patrols have reduced crime without evidence supporting that conclusion.
That distinction matters when homeowners are being asked to finance an expansion.
What Happened When the Dedicated Deputy Was Absent?
One of the most revealing parts of the October 17 discussion concerned the existing deputy’s medical leave.
According to Sheriff Garcia, other Pacific County Sheriff’s Office personnel continued providing patrol coverage while Surfside’s assigned deputy was unavailable.
The sheriff also indicated that he had not observed a negative effect on crime conditions during that absence.
This raises several important questions.
If regular county deputies continued serving Surfside and no noticeable deterioration in public safety occurred, what additional protection does a second dedicated deputy provide?
Or would Surfside receive substantially more patrol hours, faster emergency responses, greater investigative capabilities, or measurable reductions in criminal activity?
These are different objectives, and each should be evaluated separately.
It is also important to recognize that an absence of observed increases in crime does not prove dedicated patrols are unnecessary. A relatively short period of coverage by other deputies may not provide enough information to establish a meaningful trend.
Nevertheless, the sheriff’s observations create a reasonable basis for examining existing justification of coverage before expanding the program.
Homeowners Are Already Paying for Sheriff Services
Surfside’s dedicated sheriff arrangement represents an ongoing financial obligation funded through HOA assessments.
Based on previous cost estimates, adding another deputy could increase annual expenses by approximately $53 per lot, or roughly $4.44 per month.
That estimate would place the additional cost at approximately 6.9% of a $774 annual assessment.
If the cost of the second position is comparable to the first, maintaining two dedicated deputies could represent a significant share of members’ annual dues.
These figures are illustrative estimates, not an approved price for a second deputy. The actual financial impact would depend on the negotiated contract, staffing arrangements, equipment, vehicles, benefits, and other expenses.
Before approving additional spending, homeowners deserve a complete accounting of the existing agreement and any proposed expansion. The dues paid to fund the deputy, but the service was not provided. although the money is not paid to the county but rolling it over if unused raises question about the contract negotiated not taking into account an officer not available due to medical leave. but also the unused money.
That accounting should identify the actual annual cost, the number of patrol hours delivered, the cost per patrol hour, and the specific services that Surfside receives beyond ordinary county law enforcement.
It should also distinguish between money spent on dedicated patrol coverage and money that would otherwise support countywide policing.
Surfside Residents Already Receive County Sheriff Services
Surfside homeowners are Pacific County residents who contribute to the public services financed through county taxes. for examle the county pays for the patrol car used for surfside patrols.
Those services include law enforcement provided by the Pacific County Sheriff’s Office.
The HOA’s dedicated deputy contract is a separate arrangement intended to purchase additional services.
This creates a legitimate financial question:
What additional service are homeowners purchasing through HOA assessments that they would not otherwise receive through ordinary county sheriff coverage?
For example, ordinary county patrols already respond to emergencies, investigate reported crimes, and provide law enforcement services throughout their jurisdiction.
A dedicated deputy might offer more frequent neighborhood patrols, closer community engagement, and additional proactive policing.
Those potential advantages should be clearly documented and evaluated.
Simply having a deputy assigned to the community is not, by itself, proof that crime has decreased or that a second position is necessary.
Crime Statistics Should Come Before Major Spending Decisions
Washington already collects extensive law enforcement statistics through the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
Its Crime in Washington reports include reported offenses and other law enforcement information.
The organization maintains historical reports and provides a mechanism for requesting additional statistical data.
However, countywide crime figures cannot automatically establish crime trends within Surfside.
A meaningful evaluation would require records identifying incidents occurring within the HOA’s geographic boundaries.
Ideally, the association should request several years of information covering:
- Reported crimes by category, including theft, burglary, vandalism, assault, and vehicle-related offenses.
- Calls for service originating within Surfside.
- Emergency and nonemergency response times.
- Patrol hours actually completed within the community.
- Arrests and criminal investigations involving Surfside incidents.
- Comparable periods before and after dedicated deputy service.
- Patrol coverage and crime reports during the assigned deputy’s absence.
- The actual annual cost per dedicated deputy and per patrol hour.
Where possible, the sheriff’s office should also compare Surfside crime trends with those of similar nearby communities receiving ordinary county coverage.
Such comparisons would not prove that any change was caused by the deputy program. Other factors, including population changes, seasonal occupancy, reporting practices, and broader countywide crime trends, could influence the results.
Nevertheless, these records would provide a substantially stronger foundation for decision-making than assumptions about the benefits of additional patrols.
What Exactly Would a Second Deputy Accomplish?
The October 17 vote began a process of pursuing additional coverage. It should not be confused with proof that a second deputy is necessary or that a final contract has been approved.
Before moving forward, the board should clearly identify the problem it intends to solve.
Is Surfside experiencing an increase in violent crime?
Have burglaries, thefts, vehicle break-ins, or vandalism increased?
Are emergency response times becoming unacceptable?
Are existing deputies unable to respond to calls?
Has the current contract failed to provide the patrol hours promised?
Or is the primary concern simply ensuring that someone is available when the assigned deputy is absent?
Each concern could justify a different response.
For example, if the main issue is backup coverage, the HOA could explore whether a revised agreement for supplemental patrol hours would be more cost-effective than financing another dedicated position.
If response times are the concern, the association should first obtain response-time records.
If crime prevention is the objective, it should identify which offenses the additional patrols are expected to reduce.
Without measurable objectives, homeowners may have no practical way to determine whether spending more money has improved public safety.
The Broader Question of HOA Spending Priorities
The sheriff proposal also comes at a time when Surfside homeowners are facing other substantial financial obligations.
The association must maintain an aging water system, address infrastructure needs, manage operating expenses, and plan for future repairs.
Each additional recurring expenditure competes with other community priorities.
Unlike a one-time purchase, funding another deputy could establish an ongoing obligation that increases as compensation, benefits, insurance, equipment, and operating costs rise.
That obligation could ultimately affect homeowners living on fixed incomes, including retirees who may already be struggling with higher assessments, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses.
This does not mean public safety should be sacrificed to reduce costs.
It means public safety expenditures deserve the same scrutiny as water system improvements, construction contracts, equipment purchases, and other substantial commitments.
An HOA board has a responsibility to consider both the services members receive and the financial consequences of providing them.
The Sheriff Deserves Credit for Providing Important Context
Sheriff Garcia’s statements about continued patrol coverage and the limitations of available crime data are important.
They provide homeowners with information necessary to evaluate the proposed expansion.
The sheriff’s office also faces legitimate operational challenges, including staffing shortages, employee absences, scheduling requirements, and the need to cover a geographically large county.
A second deputy could potentially provide greater continuity of patrol coverage and reduce interruptions when an assigned employee is unavailable.
Those are legitimate potential benefits.
However, the HOA must distinguish between supporting the sheriff’s department and demonstrating that additional dedicated coverage is the most effective use of homeowners’ money.
The two objectives are not necessarily identical.
Seven Questions the HOA Board Should Answer
Before committing to a second deputy, the Surfside HOA board should publicly address seven questions:
1. Has crime actually decreased since Surfside began paying for dedicated patrol services?
Provide geographically specific statistics rather than relying solely on countywide trends.
2. How many hours has the existing deputy actually patrolled Surfside?
Compare contracted hours with delivered hours, including periods affected by leave, training, and other assignments.
3. What happened to crime and response times while the assigned deputy was absent?
Present the available data alongside the sheriff’s observations.
4. What specific services would a second deputy provide?
Identify additional patrol hours, scheduling improvements, response-time objectives, and other measurable benefits.
5. How much would the second deputy actually cost homeowners?
Publish the anticipated contract expenses, including compensation, benefits, vehicles, equipment, and future increases.
6. Have less expensive alternatives been evaluated?
Consider supplemental patrol coverage, flexible staffing arrangements, and targeted enforcement based on documented needs.
7. Will homeowners have an opportunity to review the proposal before a financial commitment is made?
Provide the proposed agreement, financial analysis, and supporting public safety data before final approval.
Accountability Is Not Opposition to Law Enforcement
Questioning the cost and effectiveness of a sheriff contract should not be confused with opposing law enforcement.
The Pacific County Sheriff’s Office performs an essential public service, and deputies deserve recognition for the risks and responsibilities associated with their work.
The issue is whether the Surfside HOA can demonstrate that the additional services it purchases produce benefits commensurate with their cost.
A program can be valuable without reducing reported crime. Greater visibility, improved relationships with residents, faster responses, and a stronger sense of security may also matter.
But those objectives should be identified in advance, supported by relevant evidence, and measured wherever practical.
If Surfside homeowners are expected to finance expanded law enforcement, they should know what improvements to expect and how the association will determine whether those improvements occurred.
Conclusion: Measure the Results Before Expanding the Program
The October 17 meeting presented Surfside homeowners with an important contrast.
The board unanimously supported pursuing another dedicated deputy.
Yet the sheriff acknowledged limitations in demonstrating whether the existing program had reduced crime specifically within Surfside.
He also reported that normal sheriff operations continued to provide coverage during the assigned deputy’s medical leave, without an observed deterioration in crime conditions.
These statements do not establish that Surfside needs fewer deputies or more deputies.
They establish the importance of obtaining better information.
Before entering another potentially expensive, ongoing agreement, the HOA should publish the cost of the existing patrol program, document the services actually provided, examine available crime statistics, and explain the measurable objectives of the proposed expansion.
Homeowners should not have to choose between supporting law enforcement and demanding financial accountability. They have every right to expect both.
The central question is not whether having more deputies sounds desirable.
It is whether Surfside can demonstrate that paying for another deputy will deliver sufficient additional public safety benefits to justify the cost.
Until that question is answered with evidence, the financial case for expansion remains incomplete.
Sources and Further Reading
Pacific County — Agreement for Patrol Services, June 23, 2026
https://co.pacific.wa.us/commissioner/interlocal-agreements/JUNE%202026/6-23-2026-SHOA-Patrol-Agreement.pdf
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs — Crime Statistics and Reports
https://www.waspc.org/crime-statistics-reports
Washington Crime in Washington Reports — Historical Archives
Available through WASPC, including the 2024 and 2025 annual reports.
