First off, we did NOT take a democratic vote on the road project. We took an “advisory” vote to “gauge” support. I do not understand why there are homeowners who don’t understand that. There is a discussion on the website where Annie Whittenberg and Jim Becker clarify that the vote we took was an “advisory” vote. Then in the November 2020 special meeting minutes on page two, you will see it states, “Each property owner is being sent a secret ballot to gauge support for the board proposal”. You will also see that it was an “advisory” vote in the treasurer’s report for February 2021 where a check was written to Ryder Election Services for the “Advisory Ballot”. Please explain to me how we took a democratic vote to move forward with the project. You can not tell property owners they will get an advisory vote then turn around and tell them they took an actual vote. It's absurd. If homeowners had known it wasn’t an advisory vote they may have voted differently. I have provided the links to the documents that prove we took an “advisory vote”. https://www.panoramicroads.org/_files/ugd/1e391d_af35efe025c94c78877d63f337290358.pdfhttps://www.panoramicroads.org/_files/ugd/1e391d_dd6b019f3c7e4e3d91dbb5a18bd4e687.pdfVoting Guidelines | Panoramic Access Spe (panoramicroads.org)
I understand there are times where the homeowners have no say and don’t get to vote on a road project. However, there are times where a road project must have a vote by the electors. One of those times is when the board is issuing a bond to fund a project. Look at the Oregon Revised Statues and ask the SDAO. I understand that doesn’t sit well with a lot of homeowners because that would exclude some homeowners from voting but that is the Oregon law. From my understanding we can not fund the project via a bond if we want all homeowners to be able to vote.
Jim made a comment that it is fair to divide up the costs equally because all homeowners benefit equally. How is it fair for an elderly woman who doesn’t drive or own a car to pay the same amount as someone who has four drivers at their property? Or someone who has a business out of their home with more traffic coming in and out? I know a homeowner who doesn’t even own a car and relies on a neighbor to take her to the grocery store.
Mark’s proposal is a bit risky in my opinion. Especially after hearing how easy it is. It’s not that simple. We need to make sure that would be a legal option before moving forward. What happens if we go with Mark’s proposal and there are homeowners who refuse to sign the promissory notes? Since there is a 9% interest rate on this proposal, are the homeowners who are fronting the money gaining from the interest? If it is the homeowners who do receive the interest and hold the liens to our neighbors’ homes, I am completely against this. Why should our neighbors/community members be able to financially gain from this road project? Is that why some are so adamant about funding this project?
I think it’s time our main-focus should be on Buck Horn then Panoramic rather than how to get a hard surface. Of course the board still has the right to look into a hard surface, I'm just stating our focus should be getting Buck Horn fixed, then Panoramic.
As a clarification, no attorneys have looked at either of these two recent proposals. That would have to come farther down the line. We sent out a survey to see if there was enough interest or support for either of these proposals to get to the point where they might need to look at them. We don't want to put all the work into developing these if there isn't sufficient support for either of them at the outset.
I do not remember the board saying the attorneys said that Marks proposal was legal. I will listen and answer later My wife and I are on the way to Kansas for my sister in law's funeral. I JUST have not time the past few weeks to answerer all the forum requests I normally would.
I will as time permits.
I am so frustrated by the outright misstatements, and other stuff
Please try to be civil
Melody, I do understand we don't have enough to fix Buck Horn at this point. I would just like to see the board begin to focus on repairing Buck Horn (even though I don't drive on Buck Horn) because that is the worst part of roads in our district.
And yes, a LOT of money was spent on attorney fees. The last time I added the attorney fees it was about $18,000. If you add that to the $32k we have, that would have been enough to repair Buck Horn. Sad!
Tonya
They have spent all the money on attorneys. There is no money to fix Buckhorn. Nyle said it would cost $40,000 and there is only $32,000 in the road fund. I getwhat you were saying about the vote. Went back and read it awhile ago. You are absolutely right!! It was not a democratic vote. Melody Johnson
Jeremy and Tonya, we agree. The main tributaries, and put it on a ballot based on our properties assessment and we would support it 100%. Even the entire project, if done that way. Buck Horn East is a mess. I would not want to drive on that, and someone mentioned the % of drivers or properties that must go that way! AND our focus should be on road maintenance first, in our opinion....