Maine Alliance for Road Associations - What basis does your association use to set assessments?

14 Jul 2009 4:09 PM

Quote

Message # 195365

Deleted user

Since every road association is unique, with its own particular mix of properties, personalities, issues and circumstances, I thought it would be interesting to compile some information on how various associations base their individual assessments for property owners.

There are probably dozens of ways that expenses can be apportioned among owners. Here are a few that come to my mind:

Apportion expenses equally among parcels
Apportion expenses proportionally based on parcel valuation
Apportion expenses based on benefit derived from road (distance of parcel from start of road)
Reduced share for seasonal properties
Reduced share for undeveloped properties
Increased share for multi-dwelling properties
Increased share for home businesses which increase traffic

Which of these methods does your association use, or do you do something else entirely?

15 Jul 2009 11:38 AM

Quote

Reply # 195698 on 195365

Deleted user

Knowing a who was member taken to court, I will advise that the judge ruled the assessment had to be "fair and equitable". Along those lines he determined that if you did not have to use the remainder of the road to access your land or cottage, you should not have to pay for it. Thus having set a precedent in the court. This also could apply to the snowplowing, when some associations have determined that they would assess members by the amount of time spent here. In other words, if you are here six months, you should pay that share of "maintenance", but if not here year round, should not have to pay for "Maintenance" in the winter. I would like to know how other association members feel about this.

15 Jul 2009 10:11 PM

Quote

Reply # 195949 on 195365

Deleted user

We require equal dues from those that benefit from the road. Undeveloped parcels are not included as they have no benefit (driveway etc). We have no seasonal issues.

15 Jul 2009 10:17 PM

Quote

Reply # 195950 on 195365

Deleted user

An additonal thought on this topic, just an opinion. Here in Windham, the town plows and picks up our trash. One of the criteria for these services is having a large turnaround at the end of the road. I would suppose that all benefit from the entire road in order to get these services at a great savings to the residents. Without a safe turn around for large vehicles those services might run the risk of being discontinued.

22 Sep 2009 6:16 AM

Quote

Reply # 221285 on 195698

Anonymous

Patricia Dignard wrote:Knowing a who was member taken to court, I will advise that the judge ruled the assessment had to be "fair and equitable". Along those lines he determined that if you did not have to use the remainder of the road to access your land or cottage, you should not have to pay for it. Thus having set a precedent in the court. This also could apply to the snowplowing, when some associations have determined that they would assess members by the amount of time spent here. In other words, if you are here six months, you should pay that share of "maintenance", but if not here year round, should not have to pay for "Maintenance" in the winter. I would like to know how other association members feel about this.

22 Sep 2009 6:20 AM

Quote

Reply # 221286 on 195365

Anonymous

I would be interested in knowing the particulars of the court case in which the judge decided for the homeowner who did not wish to pay for road that was not needed to access his property.

23 Sep 2009 7:27 AM

Quote

Reply # 221778 on 195365

Anonymous member

To reply to Todd Tolhurst's July post, our road association uses a combination of distance and seasonal vs. non-seasonal. Both have "cut-off" points even though the use is "shades of gray," by which I mean there is a point in the road beyond which people don't have to pay for the rest of it, and it's summer vs. winter. Some people benefit and some lose disproportionately to use but that is probably OK with most.

24 Sep 2009 7:39 AM

Quote

Reply # 222176 on 195365

Deleted user

The judge cited an example: "If three millionaires lived at the end of a four-mile road, and I lived at the beginning, should I be liable for the road from my house to the millionaires? " He ruled NO that it was unfair for me to pay for a road that I did not need or use. The law states that I am only liable for the "repair" of the road from my parcel of land to the main road....as it should be...

24 Sep 2009 12:24 PM

Quote

Reply # 222267 on 195365

Anonymous

In reply to Patricia Dignard's post about the 4 millionaires, wouldn't the same principle apply to 4 people of average means? If you happened to know the title of the case, ie. "A" vs "B" I would like to do some research on the subject.

24 Sep 2009 12:36 PM

Quote

Reply # 222279 on 222176

Deleted user

Patricia Dignard wrote: The law states that I am only liable for the "repair" of the road from my parcel of land to the main road....as it should be...

I can't find anything in the Private Ways statute that supports that statement. The law states only that "The determination of each owner's share of the total cost must be fair and equitable."