HPP mailbox vote

[DTisme]

I agree central location(s) for the boxes would be preferable. Even tho I like my walk to my box every day. And I would support IF I knew more, if it weren't against the bylaws (not clear on that one, no need to argue,I just need proof), and if I knew what the "minim" ("minim"?) fee would be after these are installed. In add'n to the questions I asked above, does this $150 per lot pay for the infrastructure that would need to be built to accommodate the central boxes? Does HPPOA have funds to maintain those areas? Would empty lots have to pay for a box, even if they never get mail? Once boxes go into disrepair, who is responsible? (Today, the USPS replaces old boxes, but with USED boxes from Oahu) etc.

Johnd - to answer your question about why we don't get delivery to our homes - bc HPP is private property and the roads are not good, even when maintained, so USPS doesn't traverse them. Which is why a 3rd party delivers to the current boxes.

Had they simply asked if we would support central box locations, I would have said yes. I can't say yes to what we have been told. Too little information, vaguely written.

[dw12345]

From Bylaws Article XI section 8 referenced in mailbox letter:

Section 8. Special Assessments. In addition to the annual mandatory road maintenance assessment, per Section 2,above, the Association may make special assessments for any road maintenance costs only upon the affirmative majority of mail-in vote of not less than 600 members in good standing. Any ballot for special assessments shall include the terms of payment and specify an effective date.

Seems to me it will take a majority vote but at least 600 votes have to be received, but how is this a road maintenance assessment.

[Obie]

http://www.hppoa.net/newsite/wp-content/...-23-17.pdf

The link above is to a revised letter.Sure doesn't look like a run amok crazy board to me.
You only have to pay if want a box.If you have multiple lots and only want one box, just pay for one.

This is now the policy of USPS.I have tried to explain that our subdivision went through this about 6 years ago.

[Chunkster]

Obie, thanks for the link. I read it twice, and I didn't see anything indicating that we only had to pay if we wanted a box. Can you please cite the language which says it is optional?

[dw12345]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obie

http://www.hppoa.net/newsite/wp-content/...-23-17.pdf

The link above is to a revised letter.Sure doesn't look like a run amok crazy board to me.
You only have to pay if want a box.If you have multiple lots and only want one box, just pay for one.

This is now the policy of USPS.I have tried to explain that our subdivision went through this about 6 years ago.

---

Don't have to pay if you don't want to is not in the new letter. They removed the false statement about the USPS eliminating the current boxes. Also changed HPPOA to directors on the ballot portion

[Johnd]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DTisme

I agree central location(s) for the boxes would be preferable. Even tho I like my walk to my box every day. And I would support IF I knew more, if it weren't against the bylaws (not clear on that one, no need to argue,I just need proof), and if I knew what the "minim" ("minim"?) fee would be after these are installed. In add'n to the questions I asked above, does this $150 per lot pay for the infrastructure that would need to be built to accommodate the central boxes? Does HPPOA have funds to maintain those areas? Would empty lots have to pay for a box, even if they never get mail? Once boxes go into disrepair, who is responsible? (Today, the USPS replaces old boxes, but with USED boxes from Oahu) etc.

Johnd - to answer your question about why we don't get delivery to our homes - bc HPP is private property and the roads are not good, even when maintained, so USPS doesn't traverse them. Which is why a 3rd party delivers to the current boxes.

Had they simply asked if we would support central box locations, I would have said yes. I can't say yes to what we have been told. Too little information, vaguely written.

---

but ups delivers to our address.

jdo

[DTisme]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chunkster

Obie, thanks for the link. I read it twice, and I didn't see anything indicating that we only had to pay if we wanted a box. Can you please cite the language which says it is optional?

---

That's what I understand as well, Chunkster. The new letter seems to say that EACH lot is required by USPS to have a mail box. This, I assume, would include undeveloped lots. I can't imagine the USPS requires unoccupied land to have its own mailbox.

Thanks for posting the link to the revised letter, Obie, otherwise we wouldn't have known about it.

I do appreciate them taking off the "minim maintenance fee" line and writing this a tad clearer. But it still has some sentences that aren't too clear (e.g. one sentence uses the word "lot" to mean the lot(s) where the new mailboxes would go as well as each owned lot. I think.) And questions remain.

I agree that it's no longer safe having the boxes on the roadside. Centralized locations SHOULD (hopefully) cut down on vandalism and theft. And enough boxes for every occupied home is sorely needed. So it's a good thing.

I also agree that it's pretty hard to trust them to do this right when they are not currently handling the one thing we've entrusted them to handle, which is roads and easements. ALL effort should be going in to that I would think. Not sure it's time yet to have spent "considerable time" (per the letter) on this.

Lastly, the time between due date of the bill/submittal of your vote (April 1) and requirement to pay the mailbox fee (June 30) is way too close for comfort. When would they bill for the $150 if approved? That's like question number 10.

[mermaid53]

Interesting...someone/s on the board must've been reading PT when I stated they needed to give us a presentation at the upcoming membership mtg and here it is...oh, the ad is gone now too...

BTW, HPP threads on PT are visited often by board reps AND employees. Someone who used to work in the ofc joked it's "other duties as assigned" for ofc staff. Has been since Jul 2014. That is why I believe Johnd, there are some that vent on this thread, "beating a dead horse", bc the reps do read HPP threads.

The reps giving the power point are brand new reps, inactive in HPP business before....the mailbox project used to be Dist 2 rep's responsibility...what happened??? Too hot a topic now?

Hopefully the reps will be able to answer ALL our questions. If not, it wouldn't be prudent to vote for an expensive project we don't know enough about. Hence the poorly managed chip seal project in which they cut out the membership vote = the awful condition of our roads and easements and neglect of safety concerns on our roads. Before the CS project began, some of us asked all the pertinent questions (i.e. how will they juggle road maint while chip sealing?) and we got NO ANSWERS. Why? Bc they had NO PROACTIVE PLAN...all they saw was the agenda, screw the details.

Will it be done in house? If so, how will the crew keep up w/their already delinquent duties, if not, will they ensure us that we'll have at least 3 bids; ensure us that we'll have an engineer involved from start to finish; total cost for each segment; will they comply this time by drawing the applicable permits; and MOST OF ALL, what does this have to do w/Article XI Sec 8 that only discusses assessments for ROAD MAINTENANCE?

Did they write a policy to circumvent our bylaws or did they hire an atty again w/our $$$$ who'll tell them what they want to hear, "they can do whatever they want bc they're the board"?

Very importantly, if they haven't been transparent w/our money for over a year now (i.e Chip Seal project costs) why should we think this will be any different? Some think we need a forensic audit NOW and here we are w/these reps asking for more $$$ on top of the raised road maint fees. With their bad track record of lying (as SWR also discovered), disregarding the bylaws (i.e. arbitration and ongoing 2 1/2 yr law suit), overturning membership votes, meddling in a membership district recall process, screwing up the CS project (evidence is in the road and easement neglect all over the park) and ELECTION FRAUD... why should we trust them? This will be a big expensive project. I have zero confidence or trust.. the same people asking for more $$$ are the same people violating our bylaws in a major way.

[caveat emptor]

I thought it would be helpful to post the actual wording of board meeting minutes as found on the HPPOA website concerning earlier board work on the mailbox issue. I start with Mar. 2013, but there are earlier discussions on mailboxes that I am not including that that board had posted to the web. I post this to show that a more competent board had already worked on the mailbox issue. Why didn't the current board ask for input or help from some of the people who had already started this work? Isn't it like someone that started digging a well, got 20 feet down and then stopped only to be followed by someone else who ignored the previous work and started digging another hole right next to the first. But this is the repetitive pattern that some on the board have been following since July 2014. Similar to the old saying “reinventing the wheel” except in the boards case since July 2014, the wheel always turns out functioning more like an outhouse.

Mar. 20, 2013 BOD meeting under “Unfinished Business”- Mailbox Relocation – Of note, any additional mailboxes must be purchased; currently there are 2300 boxes for 4300 homes. The Board reviewed suggestions for relocating boxes in high traffic areas. The mailboxes which have been knocked down will be replaced. Mr. Reilling suggested soliciting an RFP for architectural design on centralizing the location of the current boxes, as well as for potential residential expansion in HPP.

Sept. 19, 2013 BOD meeting: Mailboxes: Scott said that Aaron Oya, the postal representative from Oahu, has said they will draw a line across the Park and not deliver to boxes below that line. Scott said this will send another 1000 residents to pick up their mail at General Delivery.
Tom said the post office has been asking for a list of the lot owners’ names, lot numbers and TMK’s for years. “We should have switched over from the HC box number to an address over 10 years ago.” Scott said he could not give the post office that information without Board approval.
Tom added that when boxes get damaged by getting hit by a car, it stands to reason they do not want to replace them in the same location.
Scott said that Oya has agreed to replace the 9 damaged mailboxes only on the condition
that HPPOA take responsibility for all the boxes in the Park. Scott refused, offering to
take responsibility for the 9 boxes only.
Larry suggested that the Board invite a postal representative to a Board meeting.
Scott said that the Kea`au postmaster supported replacement of the 9 boxes.

And from the same BOD meeting: Mailboxes: Tom asked the Board to consider installation of a 10,000 square foot concrete pad for mailboxes on each of the six 20-acre parcels owned by the Park. He spoke to an architect and is waiting to hear back from the Planning Department on the number of parking spaces required. He also spoke to Malamalama School, and they are amenable to the project. Tom said it is unsafe to have the mailboxes where they are now. Mr. Oya feels that boxes should not be on the main roadways, but has no problem with locating them on the Park lots. Judy asked what the cost will be. Tom said with a contractor it will cost $75,000 per location, including asphalt pavement of 14 parking spaces, ADA requirements, solar builder to reduce costs.
Judy asked whether this cost includes mailboxes. Scott said the money would have to come from a non-roads fund. Also, the contract routes would have to be expanded, and the post office may not agree to do so. Bill said he can not support the motion without a firm written commitment from the Post Office that they will deliver to a prescribed number of boxes at those locations.

Oct. 16, 2013 BOD meeting: Mailboxes: June reported that she has received verbal approval from the post office to move the mailboxes to the Association’s parcels. She asked Mr. Oya whether a carrier would deliver to any additional boxes; he said he cannot guarantee that. Oya added that he needs to speak personally to the Board, but he is busy with other issues right now. Bill suggested contacting Representative Hirono and Senator Schatz, requesting letters of support for improved postal service.
Scott said he contacted Hirono’s office last fiscal year. “They are aware of it.”
June said when Dan Inyoue was contacted, he told them to work with the post office.
The Board agreed to contact Representative Hirono and Senator Schatz. June said she will draft a letter based on the one previously sent to Inyoue.Terry suggested presenting a petition on the issue at the October membership meeting.

Now fast forward to last year.
May 18, 2016 BOD meeting Treasurer’s report: Again, for this year, $300,000 has been set aside for dust mitigation, which some call chip seal, but it is actually the dust mitigation project. There was a $100,000 in the Capital Improvement Budget for the mailboxes property and expense, which also might not cover everything, but it’s for the first year and should be a good start.

Isn't that interesting? As my last post to the HPP road maintenance topic states, whatever the phony finance committee at that time agreed to or not, their committee actions are null and void since their considerations on any matter pertaining to HPPOA financial matters violated HPP bylaws and State law. But one thing, in the last sentence of the Treasurer’s report, should grab your full attention, “There was a $100,000 in the Capital Improvement Budget for the mailboxes property and expense,”.
Even obie should be wondering what happened to that $100,000. What black hole did it disappear into? I haven’t spoken with any one on the current finance committee who is even aware of that money.

However that illegal finance committee was able to dig up $100,000 (I suspect they did it wrong), it points out something else I stated on the HPP road maintenance topic on page 25 when I first brought this mail box scandal to light. The mailbox issue obviously falls under the preview of a finance committee and they can examine ways to budget revenue to pay for the boxes and other costs using what the bylaws already allow for using non-road maintenance funds. This means there is no need to extort the money from us by blatantly abusing bylaw Art. XI Sec. 8 in such a way as to lie and deceive the community.

[mermaid53]

I like to be as accurate as possible and I have a correction to make on a previous post I made on this thread: "The 20 acre parcels can only be used for parks and schools. If they use it for anything, the whole 20 acres has to be cleared pin to pin."

This info was passed onto me from a previous board Pres several yrs ago and it's come to my attention to be inaccurate. That HPP owned 20 acre parcels can only be used for schools and parks is accurate information.