====== RMOG's response to the HOA email ======
===== 1. On the motivation behind the Fee =====
The Board writes:
>The Board did not adopt the Guest Registration Fee to address a budget shortfall as one did not and does not exist. As previously communicated to all owners, there was a sound business reason for adopting the fee. Specifically, due to the increasing number of transient rental reservations at the Royal Mauian, a greater proportion of the Front Desk Person’s time (approximately 70%) is spent providing rental guest assistance and services on behalf of owners who rent their units. In fact, even among rental unit owners, there exists wide variation in the number of reservations and transient rental guests. For that reason, it is not appropriate to charge all owners for the cost of those individual services as a common charge. Before passage of the resolution, when owners were asked to provide input, the Board received broad support from both non-renting and renting owners in favor of the resolution. The Board exercised reasonable business judgment in making this determination and the action taken was consistent with the AOAO’s Declaration, Bylaws, and relevant Hawaii Statutes.
To clarify, Paul Piraino, the Treasurer, had the following statement in the cover letter to the Final Resolution adopted by the Board:
{{ ::email_response:board_resoltuion_screen_grab.png?direct&800 |Similar to the 5% decrease in maintenance fees and budget that occurred in 2022 when Maui County’s monthly $37.50 per unit sewer service charge was removed from the budget as a common expense, offsetting the payroll and other costs attributed to time spent on registrations will essentially result in a corresponding decrease in the budget by a percentage amount equivalent to the dollars offset, at least in the first year of full implementation. This will accordingly result in a decrease in revenue requirements that will be made up by the registration fees. Thus, the statement in the December 1 notice to all owners that a portion of the recommended maintenance fee increase for 2023 could have been offset if the registration fee had been in place in 2022 is not inconsistent with the cost offset nature of this fee.}}
What this is saying is that, had the the registration fee been in place in 2022, then a maintenance fee increase could have been avoided, and this is "not inconsistent with the cost offset nature of this fee." Hence, there would have been a projected shortfall this year without this fee (or a maintenance fee increase).
===== 2. On the makeup of the Board: =====
The Board writes:
>It was stated in at least one of the recent emails that four of the current Board members do not rent their units. That is incorrect. At the time the resolution was adopted, four of the six Board members were rental owners. At this time, three of the six members rent their units and three do not. All six of Board members in office in December 2022 voted to adopt the resolution, and all six of the current Board members also support it.
We believe the status of the board members is of interest from the perspective of fair representation of owners who rent on the Board, but is not relevant to the legality (or lack thereof) of the December 20th resolution. We appreciate the Board's correction to our understanding here.
===== 3. The 2008 Vote =====
The Board writes:
> One of the emails asserted that there was a 2:1 margin that voted against adopting a Guest Registration Fee in 2008. Based on AOAO records of the meeting, that is not correct. At the 2008 General Meeting, a vote was taken from the floor. The weighted vote in support fell short by 7.7% of 50 percent of the meeting’s quorum required for passage. Although we are addressing this point to correct their assertion, it is not relevant to today's owner base and transient rental circumstances.
Again, we appreciate the Board's information. We don't remember things the same way, but again, this does not bear on the legality of the Board's action here. We at least agree that there was a vote of all owners (presumably because that Board thought that was what was needed to make the change) and the vote failed.
===== 4. On the "slippery slope" =====
The Board writes:
>It was stated in both versions of their emails that the adoption of this fee is a “slippery slope”, opening the way for future Boards to adopt “user fees” for such things as the elevators, pool, parking lot, etc. That is simply not the case. The requirement for proportional cost sharing for common elements maintenance and upkeep is well established in both the AOAO’s Declaration and Bylaws. Our Declaration and Bylaws do not define the Front Desk Person as a “common element” and the decision to charge a fee to owners whose businesses benefit directly from her services was, again, within the scope of exercising reasonable business judgment regarding this specific service as well as Hawaii Revised Statutes.
We don't merely allege that the front desk is "a common element." We allege that it is an "administrative expense" which the Bylaws, in addition to common elements, regards as a "common expense" and therefore requires costs to be apportioned according to each unit owner's interest in the building. Full details of our legal analysis are available here: [[registration_fee:start|Registration Fee Background and Analysis]]
However, of //**course**// the front desk is a common element. It does not belong to any one particular owner. Furthermore, on the Board's own admission, the front desk performs work for all owners, not just owners who rent. The fact that certain owners use the front desk disproportionately does not make it less of a common element. For example, some owners use the pool, and some do not. That doesn't make it less of a common element.
===== Closing =====
Mahalo for reading this. I'm sorry to put the owners at large in the middle of this debate, but, sadly, talking directly with the Owners seems to be the only way we can communicate with the Board these days.