Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
@Terracore: if you rezone your multiple lots into a single lot, you are still assessed road fees based on the original multiple lots according to the Association rules. That question has been asked and answered by the Board a while back. And I still don't follow your logic regarding rthe volume discount: you say if you own a lot you should pay road fees regardless where you live (so usage of the roads isn't a factor in the decision to pay or not). But you seem to be saying that someone who owns 10 lots should pay less in road fees than the total paid by ten individual lot owners.
The Association has had a degree of success in collecting from deadbeat owners since they started implementing the new collections policy. Unfortunately, the policy is still way to lenient (in my opinion) so it'll take a few years before any serious consequences kick in -- the kind of consequences that woild motivate hard-core deadbeats to pay. Until then, we need to depend on property owners who accept the responsibility for road maintenance fees that comes with being an Orchidland resident.
@Julie, the rosad maintenance fee of $85 was increased to $150 in a motion that had a two-year kickout date (I may be off on the timing, but the gists is the same). My understanding is that that increase is about to expire, so without a new road fee vote, maintenance fees will revert back to $85.
Posts: 368
Threads: 22
Joined: Feb 2014
Why is receivership being considered ? Don't the courts have to be petitioned in order for this to happen ? Don't petition the courts, let any monies sent in collect in the OLCA bank account, and take a deep breath ( or two ). Once tempers and emotions have had a chance to settle, we can hit the re-set button. This is not the first time work on the roads in Orchidland will take a long hiatus. If I'm not mistaken, the last time was 2-3 years. If the past is any indication, as the roads deteriorate, people will drive slower, and get together with their neighbors to fix the worst of the problems.
Posts: 7,727
Threads: 684
Joined: Jun 2011
"But you seem to be saying that someone who owns 10 lots should pay less in road fees than the total paid by ten individual lot owners."
Yes, because if the road fees were $300/lot, and you expect somebody to come up with $3000/year for road fees, they just won't pay it. I know I wouldn't, not as a sign of protest, but because I could never afford that. But it doesn't have to be 10 lots, it could be 3 lots. I don't have $900 a year for road fees either. So back to my original statement, make the road fees fair and applicable to everybody, or else we'll keep voting NO to raising them.
Let places like California price people out of their subdivisions, NOT PUNA.
Posts: 1,522
Threads: 13
Joined: Apr 2014
Fee per "dwelling unit"?
Are you a human being, or a human doing?
Posts: 1,450
Threads: 109
Joined: Mar 2013
If someone has the money to buy 3 lots in there- conservatively- 60k bucks (probably cash because land is difficult to finance)- then they need to pay the fees for all 3 lots... Otherwise, the people that do pay, are "financing" that persons "investment". Is that person going to share the profits of their sale with the "road committee" when they can sell for higher because of everyone else's money that went into the fund? If that is the stipulation that is attached a "road fee reduction" - then that is the only way I would be in favor of it.
Posts: 1,522
Threads: 13
Joined: Apr 2014
Good point UJ, just saw the immediate of the cost of re zoning, then the tax increase of a larger parcel following. The $$ would go to the tax coffers, and not the solution. Maybe a smaller fee, but per registered vehicle, or bedrooms, like school tax when you visit the building department? Just trying to get others (mine included) "cranial oatmeal" moving towards an equal solution for all.
Are you a human being, or a human doing?
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
How about a (low) set fee per acre and also a fee per dwelling unit or, if practical, per registered vehicle. That way you get an acceptable minimum cost sharing per acre but also an acceptable cost share for actual wear and tear on the road. $50 per acre and $150 per dwelling unit. Or $50 per acre and $75 per registered vehicle. I'd like the dwelling unit thing better as I have a garage full of motorcycles that get their individual love based on whim but only one or two at a time.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
Oink, there may be merit in a developed/undeveloped fee structure, just like the way property taxes are assessed. Some issues would, of course, arise (for example, does a tent count as a structure? an unoccupied house? Does a big house pay more than a shack?). That proposal (as well as the registered cars approach) would require some sore of verification process to discourage cheating, which would also entail extra costs. These issues could all be worked out, but like many things, the devil is in the details. One political issue, however, is that the association needs to increase the amounts of revenues collected as well as increase the percent of folks who pay their assessments (even if everyone pays the $85 assessment, that wouldn't be enough to cover the costs of road maintenance and completion of the pavement plan). So finding the sweet spot that a) keeps local homeowners happy, b) encourages deadbeats to pay and c) generates enough revenue to meet road costs will be an almost impossible feat. In my opinion, the per lot assessment is the fairest, easiest way to go.
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
No, I don't think the per lot assessment is the fairest. However, it is likely the only practical method.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 7,727
Threads: 684
Joined: Jun 2011
Maybe the way to go is to charge a miniscule percentage of property tax assessed value. The vacant lots are assessed the lowest and would have the lowest road fees. The lot with the five car garage is not coincidentally assessed by the county to have the highest property tax and would have the highest road fee. And the subsistence family who inherited 9 vacant undeveloped acres but are living under a $296 HPM tarp wouldn't have a $900 road fee each year that they will never be able to pay.
It's not a perfect solution, but maybe better than the last effort on the ballot that apparently failed.
Of course, such an idea would have to include minimums and maximums, for example the minimum charged each lot would be X amount ($85?) and the highest would be Y. (both reasonable).
|
