Menu
Log in
Log in

    



 

Maine Alliance for Road Associations

Private Road Use Rules and Fees

  • 09 May 2016 5:51 AM
    Message # 4009571

    We are reviewing the road use rules for our association and are interested in learning how others are dealing with similar road use activities and rule enforcement.

    Specifically, we are looking at rules & possible use fees to govern use of our roads for: timber / biomass hauling from harvesting operations on member lots, non member deeded RoW access to their properties, member ATV, non member ATV, and non member hunting / fishing.

    We currently have a per lot annual dues fee for members to cover road maintenance, liability insurance and other expenses. Increased use of our roads for the above noted activities are causing our Board to examine other more equitable ways to collect $ to fund our annual road maintenance costs.
  • 27 May 2016 1:29 AM
    Reply # 4041952 on 4009571
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    With regard to those who have "non member deeded RoW access to their properties," if the deeded right of way is itself accessed by means of your road, I believe that would qualify the properties as a "parcel of land benefited by" the road.  That means it would qualify for inclusion in a road association under 23 MRSA 3101.  You didn't state whether your road association is set up under this statute or not.  Even if it isn't, I think you could justify including the owners of these lots in your road association, and charging them at the same rate as any other owner of a lot that has frontage on the road and is accessed in a similar manner or at similar frequency.  Let them know what services you are providing and at what cost, and point out that you can only provide these services if those who use them contribute their fair share.   Remind them that their access (and therefore the value of their property) depends on road maintenance paid for through road association dues.  If they protest, point out that if they use the road without contributing to the cost of upkeep, that amounts to theft of services.  As for rule enforcement, we have found that it's a lot easier and more effective with a road association set up under 23 MRSA 3101 - 3104 than with a non-profit type road association.  Under section 3101, "The determination of each owner's share of the total cost must be fair and equitable and based upon a formula provided for in the road association's bylaws or adopted by the owners at a meeting called and conducted pursuant to this section."  As I understand it, this allows you to come up with whatever formula works for you, as long as you then apply your formula equally to everyone.  That means your bylaws could specify one rate for residential use of the road and another for timber harvesting, and perhaps a surcharge for ATV use by members.  But this may not be much help in view of the restriction under section 3102 that, "The commissioner's or board's apportioning of the cost of repairs to the road undertaken pursuant to the provisions of section 3101 may not exceed 1% of an individual owner's municipal property valuation in any calendar year."  This means that a lot in tree growth may have such a low municipal property valuation that it severely restricts the amount of dues that can be charged. (See the question on this subject that I referred to this forum.) {UPDATE: See the forum question "Municipal Value of Land in Tree Growth" - Scroll down to Cliff Goodall's excellent explanation.  The Municipal Property Valuation is the value of the land BEFORE the discount for tree growth, and therefore the 1% limit refers to the full municipal value and not to the value after the tree growth discount.}  You could also have a bylaw that requires any member who damages the road to pay for repairs.  I don't know how you could charge for "non member ATV, and non member hunting / fishing," since those do not involve a "parcel of land benefited by" the road.  On the other hand, you could post the road with signs saying that it is a private road, for the use of members and their guests only. (Note - you can't do this if the road in question is a "public easement" created as the result of the discontinuance or abandonment of a town or county road.) Such signs may not stop the problem, but might reduce it somewhat, or at least make people a bit more aware of the fact that the road is not a public road.  Technically, hunters are supposed to have landowner permission, which would make them guests.  That would make the landowner who gave them permission responsible for any damage they do, but it would be difficult to assess plain wear and tear on the road due to their use.  One caveat - in a court decision in VICTOR SUNSHINE v.  STEPHEN M. BRETT, the Court said that collection of dues was unenforceable if the provisions of sections 3101 - 3104 had not been strictly adhered to, and that the association had failed to include every parcel that was benefited by the road.  So if you do have a statutory road association, or are thinking of re-organizing as one, make sure you identify every parcel of land that benefits from the road.  I don't think there has been a flurry of people jumping on this bandwagon, but there is always the chance that someone will take advantage of the loophole, so best to do thorough research and make sure everyone is included who should be included.


    Last modified: 30 Jul 2022 3:15 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 28 May 2016 1:51 PM
    Reply # 4045046 on 4009571

    The Tree Growth value of the land is what is used to calculate the property tax on the land under its current use, not the true market value of the land.  The assessors' property card for the particular parcel would also have the market value of the land and it is that value I would base my percentage from. If the parcel were to sell, it would be sold under market value, not Tree Growth value. Also, a parcel can be removed from Tree Growth Current Use Taxation and its use changed at any time after paying a penalty.

  • 06 Jun 2016 3:43 PM
    Reply # 4060119 on 4009571
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Thanks for the clarification, Terry.  If you look at the question on "Municipal Value of Land in Tree Growth," Cliff Goodall confirms what you said, and gives an excellent explanation. 

                            The Maine Alliance for Road Associations


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software