04-05-2009, 05:55 AM
Jeff,
Thank you for your answers above, and I too hope many HPPers read this thread and we can all understand what happened and is happening with regards to the paving contract.
I'm afraid I'm now more confused as I'm sure others may be. In your post further above (04/03/09) you state:
Para 2. "I think it is important that definition of priority of paving from the bond be understood, so I’ve included the text from the bond as it relates to the subject. “The priority order in which roads will be paved will be determined by the avoided cost of road maintenance, the amount of vehicular travel and the number of residences adjacent to the road.” "
Para 4 "We are not addressing this project by the definition provided to us and that means we are in violation of our fiduciary duty to our membership."
Para 6. "The minute these streets, with the highest defined priority, were not put on the list, it seems we violated the premise and requirement of our bond."
In your answers today (04/05/09) you state the bond issuer has no input to the paving plan.
These two posts seem to contradict each other or am I missing something. Could you please clarify. If the bond issuer did not have any input to how we pave the roads, how did we violate the terms of the bond?
Thanks again for taking the time to educate us!
Thank you for your answers above, and I too hope many HPPers read this thread and we can all understand what happened and is happening with regards to the paving contract.
I'm afraid I'm now more confused as I'm sure others may be. In your post further above (04/03/09) you state:
Para 2. "I think it is important that definition of priority of paving from the bond be understood, so I’ve included the text from the bond as it relates to the subject. “The priority order in which roads will be paved will be determined by the avoided cost of road maintenance, the amount of vehicular travel and the number of residences adjacent to the road.” "
Para 4 "We are not addressing this project by the definition provided to us and that means we are in violation of our fiduciary duty to our membership."
Para 6. "The minute these streets, with the highest defined priority, were not put on the list, it seems we violated the premise and requirement of our bond."
In your answers today (04/05/09) you state the bond issuer has no input to the paving plan.
These two posts seem to contradict each other or am I missing something. Could you please clarify. If the bond issuer did not have any input to how we pave the roads, how did we violate the terms of the bond?
Thanks again for taking the time to educate us!