Posts: 7,798
Threads: 695
Joined: Jun 2011
They posted it as a PDF file, and I couldn't find a way to easily post it here.
http://www.orchidland.org/pdf/minutes/Pa...141113.pdf is where you can see it.
As usual, the plan is to increase road fees, this time to $185 per lot.
The last attempt to increase the road fees (by almost 400%) was voted down in a landslide.
Frankly I don't see the point in paving Ilima street as it would serve only a handful of lots and that section is already connected to close pavement via Ainaloa. Maybe somebody else here can explain the logic? Unless I'm missing something, I will vote against the proposal based on spending $155,000.00 on paving a street which is less needed of pavement than many others.
Posts: 1,450
Threads: 109
Joined: Mar 2013
I will vote for it because you have to start "somewhere" and I want the roads paved. Nothing is perfect.
Posts: 7,798
Threads: 695
Joined: Jun 2011
You also have your Orchidland lot listed for sale. Those of us who plan on dying here don't want our streets paved, only the access roads, and only those roads that make fiduciary sense. Please don't vote on a ballot that the rest of us are going to be paying for three years after you've bailed.
edited to add the three years after you bailed sentence
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
185 won't pass. Increases need to be in small increments. That's more than double what it is now. The new board isn't being realistic.
Iilima is a main access road. The original plan called for all of the main roads to be paved in a fair rotation. Aulii has great pavement and not a bunch of houses yet.The intent is to make these roads provide good access to the side roads. Then people will buy and build, in turn, creating more revenue.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 7,798
Threads: 695
Joined: Jun 2011
There is definitely a disconnect between those who want to pave Hawaii versus my many neighbors who don't have cars walking up Aulii that I stop and give a ride up to 40th or however far they are going. Somewhere in the middle is a road fee that isn't $185 per lot per year.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
Well, remember that before that badly worded rate increase vote was taken last year (which resulted in rates reverting to the rates in effect 5 years ago), we were paying $150 per lot for road fees, so $185 isn't a big increase at all.
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
85 is the MRMA .The first M stands for Mandatory. There's a reason for this wording or title. There were paving assessments in the past but they aren't mandatory.
The only fees that lot owners are required to pay, by law or court judgement, are the maintenance fees. And the General membership has to approve them.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
Quote from PDF "This Paving Assessment is consistent with our Bylaws definition of MRMA's, in that they will be used only for road improvements. It is recommended they be a mandatory assessment, to allow for a more predictable income stream to complete the project. This could be offered as a voluntary contribution towards paving, but it is likely the contribution rate will be much less than 70%, thus the project could not be completed in the three year time frame we are hoping for."
I don't think so.
MRMA stands for Mandatory Road MAINTAiNENCE .It should not include paving which is new construction. Not maintenance. The old Board got in trouble with this because they were trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes. And it looks like this new board is trying to do the same thing. And None of the road maintenance fees are supposed to go toward paving. Although I don't have a problem with that things need to be made more clear. This lack of transparency is the problem.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
Well if a paved road like Orchidland Drive is crumbling (like Orchidland Drive is below 37th), is re-paving it maintenance? I'd say so...
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
Yes that is maintenance of an existing roadway. However I seem to remember at one meeting that I attended it was pointed out that lower Orchidland Dr was never really "paved" to begin with. It was "chip sealed" so paving over chipseal would be considered "new paving"
This is what we were dealing with, with the last board.
I hope this new board will try to be more sensible.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
