04-09-2021, 09:36 PM
"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.
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.