Orchidland Road Association ballot items

[terracore]

1)  Motion to approve the $200 annual road fee.

2) "Motion to approve the commercial MRMA fee schedule for businesses and the church on lower Orchidland Drive for fiscal year 2020-21 as $2000."

3)  "Motion to increase the MRMA for small businesses that require additional traffic to and from their locations within Orchidland Estates for fiscal-year 2021-22.  This small business MRMA will double the standard resident MRMA." ($400 per lot, regardless of traffic generated).

Opinions:

1)  No.  You can't have an exclusive club of voters (those that are paid up) levying "taxes" against those who cannot vote, with the intent of collecting from the non-voters through liens.  Taxation without representation is wrong.  Until the by-laws are changed to allow people who are behind in payments to vote, I will vote NO for every MRMA and encourage others to do the same.

2)  They are basing this on the $10k the association pays each year on that section of road divided by the 4 businesses and 1 church that are on that stretch= $2k each.  I'm on the fence about the idea.  Some businesses create much more traffic than others (I've essentially only been to 2 of the locations).  But, refer back to #1.  I will vote no.

3)  HELL NO.  Even if I agreed with it in theory (I don't) I couldn't agree with it as written.  

What defines a "small business"?

What defines "require additional traffic to and from their locations"?  If somebody sells at a farmer's market, maybe they have to get mulch delivered (BUSINESS TRAFFIC), and they have to travel to the farmers market (BUSINESS TRAFFIC), maybe they an occasional visitor to the farm (BUSINESS TRAFFIC).  So they are "generating traffic"? 

A person works from home and their business internet goes out.  Hawaiiantel sends a van out to fix it.  THEY ARE GENERATING BUSINESS TRAFFIC.  Meanwhile, the lot next door has no businesses but 3 families each with 4 teenagers, 20 cars total coming and going 24/7.... you catch my drift.  It has nothing to do with traffic but just another reason to cast a net.

What defines "to and from"?  Lemonade stands aren't a destination from outside the neighborhood but by this poorly-worded nightmare those kids better pony up $200 per lot or else their parents will get a lien on their house.  And who makes these decisions?  Will the kids be able to give them free lemonade to look the other way?  An excellent way to teach kids how business in Hawaii works!  #1 already demonstrated that individual businesses can be called out, there is no reason to cast a net that includes things like lemonade stands.

Edited to add- The county's animal control program is run out of Bar-King kennels within the subdivision... where's the vote to make the county pay it's fair share? I don't know how many lots Bar-King owns, but they'll all get doubled under #3, but shouldn't there be an additional tax on the county for generating traffic to the subdivision?

[kalakoa]

The county's animal control program is run out of Bar-King kennels within the subdivision...

Rules for me, not for thee: consider the requirements for an "ag tourism" operation -- must be a public road, or deeded access that's been brought up to "standards".

Does "business traffic" include any self-employed person? Landlord visiting their rental property?

Rather than write rules to capture a business on lower Orchidland Drive, how about getting County to assume ownership of the block from 130 to 35th? Infinitely more fair, considering that fuel taxes are being collected there.

[terracore]

"Does "business traffic" include any self-employed person? Landlord visiting their rental property?"

Good one!

[My 2 cents]

#1.  Deja vu on the voting.  Gotta ask, if there are more no votes than yes votes does that mean there will be no fees next year? 

#2.  I can't figure this one out.  What are the 5 properties?  Church, Farmer's Market (has this ever been open for business?), Shopping Center.  That's only 3.  The 130 Holdings property that has been under very slow construction forever and is nowhere near opening for business is above 34th, out of the area they describe.  Still only makes 4, and I don't think you can count businesses that haven't opened yet so it's really only 2.

Are they counting the 4 individual businesses in the shopping center?  Those businesses lease the property and have no obligation to OLCA whatsoever so it can't, or at least it shouldn't be that.

There is already a commercial fee schedule in place that is based on number of vehicles per day.  Under the current schedule, the church is assessed $325/year and the shopping center is assessed $6000/year.  Under the proposed schedule the shopping center assessment would be CUT by 2/3 and the church's assessment would INCREASE more than 6 fold.  This is among the most idiotic, poorly thought out proposals ever to come out of OLCA.  Not to mention that it is highly challengeable and they probably won't ever collect any of it, so it's all just a big waste of time.

You guys covered #3 pretty well.

[terracore]

"if there are more no votes than yes votes does that mean there will be no fees next year"

Doubtful. They will probably kick another amount back to the voters to vote on.

When I moved here the road fees were $85. They somehow managed to pass a "temporary" paving assessment, I think it was $100. There were some shenanigans one year where the road fees were $100 and some sort of "optional" paving fee that billed as mandatory, then some hokie pokey action with it. I don't even remember exactly any more. When the fees got around $200 a lot of people who couldn't afford them lost their ability to vote against them, and now there has been a bunch of gentrification of people who want all the roads paved, only own one lot, and don't think $200 is a lot of money.

The higher they raise the fees, the less no votes they get, because the people it affects aren't allowed to vote. This makes the first sentence of the March Newsletter completely laughable:

"Your participation is key to the building and maintenance of our growing community. As a community association, a 414D and 501c4 nonprofit, Orchidland Community Association, Inc. (OCLA) remains a democratically controlled association with the membership approving the elections, annual budgets, road fees and more via annual ballot voting." Democratically? When "the membership" aka "the party" threatens property confiscation on the peasants for not paying tribute on issues they aren't allowed to vote on... does that sound like democracy? It sounds more like the USSR.



Looking at the budget of $303,030, 21% of it ($65,000) goes towards "administrative fees". But there is no breakdown of what that means.

[My 2 cents]

"if there are more no votes than yes votes does that mean there will be no fees next year"

Doubtful. They will probably kick another amount back to the voters to vote on.

My question was intended to be rhetorical, but since we're here I will share the appropriate bylaw:

Changes in the MRMA, whether an increase or a decrease,shall be recommended by the BOD, and submitted to the membership for approval. Proposed MRMA changes shall be published in the March Newsletter and included on the enclosed ballot. Completed ballots and/or proxies shall be received by the close of the April Semi-Annual meeting. Should the proposed MRMA change not be approved by the membership, the current MRMA prevails.

My interpretation is that:

1.  If it fails it will revert to the current amount, which is the same, and/so

2.  This ballot item is completely unnecessary and useless.

There seems to be no end to the paving "hokie pokey".  Initially it was rightfully determined that paving contributions had to be voluntary because the court case that granted mandatory fees was very explicit with it's wording "necessary road maintenance".  That is the phrase that is used throughout the court's decision.  This is the limit of that decision, and the words "paving" or "improvement" do not appear.  This has been argued ad nauseum, but the latest manifestation of it is the current use of 25% of the MRMA funds for paving.  The board acknowledged in it's newsletter a few years ago that there is indeed a big legal difference between maintenance and paving, but they contend (to this day) that the MRMAs can be used this way because the bylaws say "road maintenance and improvement projects".  The court did not grant this, the word "improvement" was inserted into the bylaws specifically to create this kind of confusion.  The word "improvement" in the bylaws has no more weight that the word "foreclosure" had, and we all saw how that turned out.  The use of MRMA funds for anything other than road maintenance and costs directly related is a misappropriation of funds.  People just can't seem to follow the rules.

I haven't dissected the admin costs, but they don't appear out of line to me.  The recent quadrupling of the D&O insurance premium due to the Arthurs/OL Voice lawsuit has been a big contribution to the increase.

[terracore]

So, in theory, they could raise the road fees to $1,000 with a membership vote once, and then it's $1,000 forever even if the vote is no.

Wow.

[My 2 cents]

Yes, although a voting member could make a motion at a membership meeting to have the fee reduced, get it seconded, affirmed by vote in that meeting and ratified by full membership mail-in vote.

But your point is well taken.

[kalakoa]

Form an LID and have County mismanage it as a property tax surcharge.

[eightfingers2.0]

Do what they do in HPP, complain to the county about road dust.

Does OLCA have bylaws? If so what do they say about fees and road maintenance?