Menu
Log in
Log in

    



 

Maine Alliance for Road Associations

Legislation to increase limit on road association dues to 2% of municipal evaluation

  • 15 Mar 2017 1:53 PM
    Message # 4668816
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Here is a THIRD piece of legislation this year (2017) that’s of interest to Road Associations. This one's pretty simple - it would increase the limit on road association dues from 1% of municipal evaluation to 2%. Here's the text of the bill, with the deleted 1% in brackets because this format won't let me do "line through."

    LD 1042

    An Act To Amend the Law Regarding Road Associations

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

    Sec. 1. 23 MRSA §3102, as amended by PL 2013, c. 198, §8, is further amended to read:

    § 3102. Commissioner's or board's duties; neglect of owners to pay

    The commissioner or board chosen under section 3101, with respect to the private road, private way or bridge, has the powers of a road commissioner. If any owner, on requirement of the commissioner or board, neglects to furnish that owner's proportion of labor, materials or money, the same may be furnished by the other owners and recovered of the owner neglecting to pay in a civil action, together with costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees. Such civil action may be brought in the name of and by the road association created pursuant to this subchapter and the decision to bring that civil action may be made by the commissioner or board or as otherwise provided for in the road association's bylaws. 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 [delete1%] 2% of an individual owner's municipal property valuation in any calendar year.

    SUMMARY

    Under current law, if a road association is formed for the maintenance of a private road, private way or bridge, all owners of land benefitted by that private road, way or bridge are required to pay a share of the costs incurred for the maintenance of that private road, way or bridge. If an owner fails to pay, the owner's share of the costs may be recovered in a civil action, up to a maximum of 1% of the owner's municipal property valuation.

    This bill increases the maximum amount of liability to 2% of the owner's municipal property valuation.

    So. MARA members, what are your thoughts on this bill?  I'll post my comments separately.

    Last modified: 15 Mar 2017 1:55 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 15 Mar 2017 2:10 PM
    Reply # 4668829 on 4668816
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Much as I don't like the idea that this could allow my dues to go up, I would be in favor of this bill.  Last year the Town of Bridgton did a re-evaluation that suddenly dropped several of our Road Associations's member properties' evaluations far enough that we had to reduce their dues. It has made billing very confusing, as we have to look up the evaluation of each lot and, if it's below a certain amount, re-calculate what we can charge them. Then the checks come in for all kinds of odd figures.

    Also, we are looking at possibly having to resurface a paved section of road at some point in the future, and there’s no way a 1% cap would allow us to cover the cost, even if we set aside some each year. A 2% cap would certainly help in this regard, although we may still have to opt for going back to a gravel surface.

    Incidentally, we have been advised that the percentage refers to the municipal evaluation BEFORE deductions such as tree growth.  If we were limited to the evaluation AFTER the tree growth deduction, it would reduce some properties' dues to a mere pittance.  Perhaps this should be clarified in the law as well, while we're at it.

  • 21 Mar 2017 3:34 PM
    Reply # 4680918 on 4668816

    I see no reason not to support LD 1042 at this time.

  • 22 Mar 2017 5:25 AM
    Reply # 4682111 on 4668816
    Deleted user

    I also see no reason not to support the bill or at least not to oppose it. Some road association must have needed this amount to ask for this change. 

  • 11 Apr 2017 11:40 PM
    Reply # 4747475 on 4668816
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    It turns out this bill wasn't introduced for the reason I expected.  It was requested by a road association which was set up as a non-profit, and therefore shouldn't even have been bound by 23 MRSA 3101-3104.  They had one member who had not paid in years, and had piled up overdue dues in the thousands.  The association took the person to court.  But the judge interpreted section 3102 not as limiting the amount of dues that could be charged to a member per year to 1% of their municipal evaluation, but rather as limiting the amount the road association could recover on unpaid dues to 1% of the total owed.  As a result they recovered less than $100, (I think it was around $60?) only 1/100th of what was owed.  So I'm putting in follow-up testimony as shown below.  (Sorry I didn't get around to posting this sooner, as the work session is Apr 12, 2017 .)

    Follow-up testimony on L.D. 1042 by Roberta Manter of Maine ROADWays

    Senator Davis, Representative Martin, Ladies and Gentlemen of the State and Local Government Committee:

    This bill proposes a change in the last sentence of 23 MRSA §3102. But upon careful reading, I realize that what is really needed is to move the last sentence of §3102 to §3101 (5). (I have attached the relevant sections, with the pertinent parts in italics for your easy reference, and I also include my proposed amendment.) If you read §3102, most of the section has to do with the procedure for recovering unpaid dues from a member of the road association. But the last sentence has to do with determining how much each owner can be assessed for his share of road maintenance cost annually under §3101. Wouldn’t it make more sense, then, to make it part of §3101 (5), which deals with the process for determining each owner’s share?

    After last week’s hearing, I spoke with the gentleman who requested this bill. The road association of which he is a member took court action to recover several years of unpaid dues from another member. If I understand correctly, the judge read the last sentence of §3102 as limiting the amount a road association can recover on unpaid dues to 1% of the total they owed. The road association was owed several thousand dollars, but recovered less than $100. But read §3102 carefully. Clearly it’s intended only to limit the amount an owner can be asked to pay as dues in any calendar year to 1% of their municipal property valuation. That’s a HUGE difference.

    I believe the confusion was largely due to this sentence being included in the section that deals with recovery of unpaid dues, rather than in the section that deals with determining an owner’s share of the cost. The last sentence of section 3102 says, “pursuant to the provisions of section 3101,” so why not put it in section 3101?

    As an example, if a person owns a lot which the municipality values at $30,000, the most a road association can assign to that member for his share of road maintenance costs is 1% of that amount, or $300 each calendar year. If that member refused to pay his dues for ten years, he would by then owe $3,000. Under §3102, the road association should be able to recover that amount in full, PLUS costs of the suit and reasonable attorney’s fees. - not a mere $30.

    The ambiguity in the law that led to this miscarriage of justice needs to be corrected.

    My Proposal:

    • Raising the limit from 1% to 2% of municipal property valuation, or even to 1.5%, would be helpful to road associations that have many low-valued undeveloped lots.
    • It would also be helpful to clarify that “municipal property valuation” refers to the valuation before any deductions such as tree growth.
    • I believe the requester’s problem would be best addressed by deleting the last sentence from §3102, and inserting similar language into §3101. See my proposed amendment below.

    Thank you for considering my proposed amendment.

    Current law (Pertinent parts italicized)

    23 MRSA §3102.

    Commissioner's or board's duties; neglect of owners to pay

    The commissioner or board chosen under section 3101, with respect to the private road, private way or bridge, has the powers of a road commissioner. If any owner, on requirement of the commissioner or board, neglects to furnish that owner's proportion of labor, materials or money, the same may be furnished by the other owners and recovered of the owner neglecting to pay in a civil action, together with costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees. Such civil action may be brought in the name of and by the road association created pursuant to this subchapter and the decision to bring that civil action may be made by the commissioner or board or as otherwise provided for in the road association's bylaws. 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. [2013, c. 198, §8 (AMD).]

    (Propose to delete final sentence of §3102)

    23 MRSA §3101. 5. Commissioner or board; assessment for repair, maintenance and other costs.

    The owners of parcels of land benefited by a private road, private way or bridge at a meeting called pursuant to subsection 2 may choose a commissioner or board, to be sworn. By a majority vote of the owners present and voting in person or by written proxy or absentee ballot, the owners may determine what repairs and maintenance are necessary and the materials to be furnished or amount of money to be paid by each owner for repairs and maintenance and may determine the amount of money to be paid by each owner for other costs, including, but not limited to, the cost of liability insurance for the officers, directors and owners and costs of administration. 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. * The commissioner or board shall report the outcome of all votes to all the owners by United States mail within 30 days. Special assessments for emergency repairs and maintenance may be made at a duly held meeting called for that purpose. Emergency repairs and maintenance are those actions necessary to maintain or restore the functionality of the private road, private way or bridge.

    Propose to insert the following at * above:

    An individual owner’s share of the total cost in each calendar year shall not exceed 1.5% of that owner’s municipal property valuation before any deductions such as tree growth.


  • 04 Jan 2018 3:51 PM
    Reply # 5662065 on 4668816

    Does anyone know if this passed?

  • 05 Jan 2018 12:28 PM
    Reply # 5663544 on 4668816
    Deleted user

    This did not pass. The 1% cap remains in effect.

                            The Maine Alliance for Road Associations


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software