04-06-2009, 04:59 AM
Youser.....you are right about the contradiction. That is why we had to tack a few steps back and put things in alignment. The BOD majority in fall 2008 agreed that we needed to get control and focus. Then came the ultimate problem; there was no plan. It was at that point the BOD supported changing the streets on the paving contract to move more in alignment with the premise of the bond and the alleged reason we borrowed the money.
The dilemma as I saw it and the BOD agreed, was that without cost figures how the heck can you construct a budget that actually allows for a realistic and fair application? Ok now let's get some costs. The original paving specification was reviewed and subsequently modified via contractor and engineer input to allow for an application that would allow us to save approx. 20% per mile cost. That's great, but with the eminent failure of the lower main roads and accepting the premise that this impacts a substantial portion of the membership......why after a couple of years of discussions had this figure not been ascertained? That caused some more grey hairs.
Now we know the cost per mile on the "cross roads" and in two weeks or so we will know the overlay cost. Logic is to apply those to a budget projection to get the most bang for our buck ( remember the bond criteria) . Yes, it has taken six months to get through this, but the end result will be a new reality, not the speculation of the past few years.
Please note that I personally paid for two attorney's opinions to educate myself beyond the point of common sense and the OMG feeling I had back in Aug. 2008. After those meetings two things became clear:
1 There is nothing contractual that mandated which streets we pave.
2 We needed a plan that followed the only premise stated in the indenture; “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.”
Seeb....That was an option until we confirmed that it would cost us another few million in penalties to return the money.
Aloha,
Jeff
The dilemma as I saw it and the BOD agreed, was that without cost figures how the heck can you construct a budget that actually allows for a realistic and fair application? Ok now let's get some costs. The original paving specification was reviewed and subsequently modified via contractor and engineer input to allow for an application that would allow us to save approx. 20% per mile cost. That's great, but with the eminent failure of the lower main roads and accepting the premise that this impacts a substantial portion of the membership......why after a couple of years of discussions had this figure not been ascertained? That caused some more grey hairs.
Now we know the cost per mile on the "cross roads" and in two weeks or so we will know the overlay cost. Logic is to apply those to a budget projection to get the most bang for our buck ( remember the bond criteria) . Yes, it has taken six months to get through this, but the end result will be a new reality, not the speculation of the past few years.
Please note that I personally paid for two attorney's opinions to educate myself beyond the point of common sense and the OMG feeling I had back in Aug. 2008. After those meetings two things became clear:
1 There is nothing contractual that mandated which streets we pave.
2 We needed a plan that followed the only premise stated in the indenture; “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.”
Seeb....That was an option until we confirmed that it would cost us another few million in penalties to return the money.
Aloha,
Jeff