Post by leokeeler on Apr 28, 2016 10:53:05 GMT -7
During the April 25th road meeting, there was a lot of discussion on the GLA road history and difficulty in maintaining the roads. Mr. Mead pointed out that under Church Universal and Triumphant administration that he, as grader operator, spent unlimited time on roads because he was a Church employee. He cited how he was able to spend hours getting rid of wash boards at a single location, then move on to the next problem.
With the change to personal ownership of the lands in 1997, came the responsibility for GLA to maintain the roads, and a fixed limit to the money that could be collected and used for road maintenance and administration of GLA. The limitation of funds naturally reduced the amount of work that could be done on the roads each year. In 2015, the average amount of assessments that went to road gravel and grading was only $ 62 per assessment ($24,292 spent on gravel and grading to serve 390 lots).
Mr. Mead pointed out how vehicle use and repeated grading for 40 years (assuming starting in 1986) has naturally resulted in loss of road gravel, or its becoming mixed with the road sub-grade material, i.e. pit run that contains larger rocks. He presented that it is natural that over the years some roads are now down to bedrock or native soils, and that considering other roads in the valley and Montana, GLA roads have held up very well.
But we now have lots of problems. Landowners are withholding paying their assessments because there has been little if any maintenance on roads they must use.
Some Board members want to continue as we have for 20 years and patch as we go. Others want a long term Road Maintenance Plan to identify and prioritize ( or recommend priorities to landowners for approval). I believe most Landowners and many Directors see the value in, and want to develop a long range Road Maintenance Plan.
Ed Dobrowski has offered a starting point for discussing a long range plan by developing a Road Districts Proposal, which he presented at the April 25th meeting. I see merit in his proposal and have discussed it with him. He asked that I post the proposal on this forum as a method to get comments and suggestions.
I admire his desire to start a discussion and comment process that can involve all Landowners as well as Directors. So please comment on his proposal below.
I would like to point out something for everyone to think about. Our attorney did not advise us to change our road policy. He has said it is a fair policy and that we should follow our policy. I have sent you his written statements to this effect.
Instead of making major changes to the road policy, I propose ‘road maintenance and improvement districts’, where the landowners in each district would decide upon the level of road maintenance they wanted to receive and would pay for it themselves. This is a fair and simple way of managing road maintenance.
Furthermore, with landowners having autonomy regarding the maintenance of the roads they use to access their property, and with the responsibly to fund such maintenance being put back upon them, landowners would not have grounds to sue the GLA if they didn't like the level of service they were receiving, as that would be entirely up to them.
Details will need to be hammered out, but here is a rough first draft of possibilities. I see three natural regions in the two communities of Glastonbury:
1. North Glastonbury
2. Lower South Glastonbury
3. High South Glastonbury
The neighbors in each region should get together and decide how many neighborhood road districts they wanted in their region, which could be based upon a tier system It should be up to the landowners in each region to decide how many districts they wanted.
Each district would set its own road maintenance standards and road maintenance fees accordingly. Districts that used the roads in other districts should help maintain those roads, also. Every landowner should pay a fee to maintain the paved roads in their community of North or South.
If a District depleted their road fund and wanted more maintenance, then they could assess themselves till they had enough money to satisfy the standard or quality of maintenance or improvement they desire. They might also borrow the money from another district that had spare funds.
As it now stands high South does not pay for any of the administration costs for the GLA. With road districts, all landowners would pay the same in administration cost, as a GLA assessment would go with the land.
Here are a few good reasons for having road districts:
1. It gives landowners autonomy over their roads.
2. There would be less chance of corruption or suspicion of corruption regarding future Boards.
3. Money would not be taken from one area against its will to subsidize another.
4. Landowners would pay the same for GLA administration.
5. There would be less chance for a lawsuit because the GLA would not be responsible for the level of road maintenance it provides to a district – in that the responsibility to set standards and pay for the desired road maintenance would be upon the landowner, and there would be no grounds to claim discrimination against any neighborhood or district in Glastonbury.
Each district should have a road captain to coordinate with the road committee chair. The captain would work with the road chairman to schedule and oversee the maintenance of their district. The road captain would give input to the road committee chair for the road report at the monthly meetings.
The road committee chair would authorize the work to be done in each district and allocate the amount of money to be spent. The treasurer could determine this amount, as he would know how much is collected in each district.
Furthermore, Dry Creek Road needs a co-maintenance plan with the county; however, it may be necessary to put this decision to South Glastonbury landowners, first, in order to avoid someone suing the GLA over it being a county road.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that I would not be too quick to criticize that this plan would be a bookkeeping nightmare. Keeping track of road expenditures isn’t any easier the way it’s being done today. I'm certain QuickBooks could handle the different assessments for the different districts, which would be few, not many. In addition, there would be transparency regarding the amounts spent on each road in each district, and the GLA would be clear on what it is spending, which would help in planning. Besides getting things done, the district road captain would be an asset in planning the road budget.
With the change to personal ownership of the lands in 1997, came the responsibility for GLA to maintain the roads, and a fixed limit to the money that could be collected and used for road maintenance and administration of GLA. The limitation of funds naturally reduced the amount of work that could be done on the roads each year. In 2015, the average amount of assessments that went to road gravel and grading was only $ 62 per assessment ($24,292 spent on gravel and grading to serve 390 lots).
Mr. Mead pointed out how vehicle use and repeated grading for 40 years (assuming starting in 1986) has naturally resulted in loss of road gravel, or its becoming mixed with the road sub-grade material, i.e. pit run that contains larger rocks. He presented that it is natural that over the years some roads are now down to bedrock or native soils, and that considering other roads in the valley and Montana, GLA roads have held up very well.
But we now have lots of problems. Landowners are withholding paying their assessments because there has been little if any maintenance on roads they must use.
Some Board members want to continue as we have for 20 years and patch as we go. Others want a long term Road Maintenance Plan to identify and prioritize ( or recommend priorities to landowners for approval). I believe most Landowners and many Directors see the value in, and want to develop a long range Road Maintenance Plan.
Ed Dobrowski has offered a starting point for discussing a long range plan by developing a Road Districts Proposal, which he presented at the April 25th meeting. I see merit in his proposal and have discussed it with him. He asked that I post the proposal on this forum as a method to get comments and suggestions.
I admire his desire to start a discussion and comment process that can involve all Landowners as well as Directors. So please comment on his proposal below.
Road Districts proposal for Glastonbury
Submitted by Ed Dobrowski 04, 25, 2016
Submitted by Ed Dobrowski 04, 25, 2016
I would like to point out something for everyone to think about. Our attorney did not advise us to change our road policy. He has said it is a fair policy and that we should follow our policy. I have sent you his written statements to this effect.
Instead of making major changes to the road policy, I propose ‘road maintenance and improvement districts’, where the landowners in each district would decide upon the level of road maintenance they wanted to receive and would pay for it themselves. This is a fair and simple way of managing road maintenance.
Furthermore, with landowners having autonomy regarding the maintenance of the roads they use to access their property, and with the responsibly to fund such maintenance being put back upon them, landowners would not have grounds to sue the GLA if they didn't like the level of service they were receiving, as that would be entirely up to them.
Details will need to be hammered out, but here is a rough first draft of possibilities. I see three natural regions in the two communities of Glastonbury:
1. North Glastonbury
2. Lower South Glastonbury
3. High South Glastonbury
The neighbors in each region should get together and decide how many neighborhood road districts they wanted in their region, which could be based upon a tier system It should be up to the landowners in each region to decide how many districts they wanted.
Each district would set its own road maintenance standards and road maintenance fees accordingly. Districts that used the roads in other districts should help maintain those roads, also. Every landowner should pay a fee to maintain the paved roads in their community of North or South.
If a District depleted their road fund and wanted more maintenance, then they could assess themselves till they had enough money to satisfy the standard or quality of maintenance or improvement they desire. They might also borrow the money from another district that had spare funds.
As it now stands high South does not pay for any of the administration costs for the GLA. With road districts, all landowners would pay the same in administration cost, as a GLA assessment would go with the land.
Here are a few good reasons for having road districts:
1. It gives landowners autonomy over their roads.
2. There would be less chance of corruption or suspicion of corruption regarding future Boards.
3. Money would not be taken from one area against its will to subsidize another.
4. Landowners would pay the same for GLA administration.
5. There would be less chance for a lawsuit because the GLA would not be responsible for the level of road maintenance it provides to a district – in that the responsibility to set standards and pay for the desired road maintenance would be upon the landowner, and there would be no grounds to claim discrimination against any neighborhood or district in Glastonbury.
Each district should have a road captain to coordinate with the road committee chair. The captain would work with the road chairman to schedule and oversee the maintenance of their district. The road captain would give input to the road committee chair for the road report at the monthly meetings.
The road committee chair would authorize the work to be done in each district and allocate the amount of money to be spent. The treasurer could determine this amount, as he would know how much is collected in each district.
Furthermore, Dry Creek Road needs a co-maintenance plan with the county; however, it may be necessary to put this decision to South Glastonbury landowners, first, in order to avoid someone suing the GLA over it being a county road.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that I would not be too quick to criticize that this plan would be a bookkeeping nightmare. Keeping track of road expenditures isn’t any easier the way it’s being done today. I'm certain QuickBooks could handle the different assessments for the different districts, which would be few, not many. In addition, there would be transparency regarding the amounts spent on each road in each district, and the GLA would be clear on what it is spending, which would help in planning. Besides getting things done, the district road captain would be an asset in planning the road budget.
