new law concerning private roads

[scott]

I discovered that the State of Maine is working on a new law to protect lake water quality. OMG! Has the State finally decided to help the camp owners? We have been telling them for years that our lakes & rivers are under assault from our roads. We have been telling them that we needed help because our municipalities ignore our pleas. They gladly accept our money but ignore our concerns. Finally, the State is providing relief, right? Not so fast.....

The new law addresses one specific contributing factor to diminished lake water quality: phosphorus from private roads. This law was passed overwhelmingly in the State House and Senate recently. and is apparently awaiting signature by the governor - then it is a done deal? Pucker up you non-resident camp owners, they may be coming soon and it may require extra lubricant this time.

www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/billtexts/LD224901.asp

Basically, the State (and MMA) tells our towns they can't spend our tax money on our roads if they are "private.". <flame on> We already know that "tax money" and "private" are terms whose definitions are often confusing, subject to the "whims" of town officials. These are the town officials who, at least in some cases, care about money alot more than the environment. After all (in their minds), the camp owners pay the bills, live on "camp" roads, and can't vote. Many of us are painfully aware of our status within the community. <flame off>

The new law (eventually) requires contractors to be "certified" to work within a watershed. This is a good thing except that some of us will die addressing the issues before the law has any impact. What is disturbing about the new law, is that it allows town to adopt an ordinance to levy a tax specifically on a class of tax payers who are often the victims of watershed issues, not necessarily the "responsible" parties. For instance, what if town officials created the watershed road issues in the first place - will the victims now be forced to pay for the cleanup??

Consider this law carefully as to how it may be applied in your concerns and speak up! I will post two complimentary replies to this thread, for and against. Hope to see many more from others. We can do an online straw poll after we discuss to collect an overall opinion.

[scott]

argument for the law.....
We desperately need this law.

There are countless private roads that provide access to a large number of lakes in Maine. These roads, like their public counterparts, need to be kept up to standards and maintained properly to protect our lakes from their impact. While State Constitution prohibits towns from utilizing their tax levy to address private road concerns, this law will enable towns to raise the required funds to address watershed and stormwater concerns on private roads by adopting an ordinance to that effect. The funds would be raised by a town through a special assessment on properties accessed by a private road, and placed in an account dedicated to bringing that road up to acceptable standards. The funds would cover the administrative costs incurred by the town and relieve the burden on road associations or individuals to implement required improvements. It would also allow the DEP and a town to become directly involved in the project, to insure proper standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used, and only certified contractors are used.

We need to save our lakes before it is too late.

[scott]

argument against the law
This law has the right target but misses the mark. This law is based on numerous false assumptions and discriminates against a group of undeserving, unrepresented taxpayers.

Camp owners, for instance, are largely non-resident and generally do not vote on State and local matters such as this. This law would encourage towns to levy special taxes on these property owners to address all spring runoff and stormwater mitigation on these roads, even if the property owners are the victims not the responsible parties. This law assumes all private roads are ways that are privately owned and used exclusively by those who access their properties. It assumes that no public interest exists in these roads and that any lake quality mitigation is the sole responsibility of the owners, even if the issues originate miles away. Private roads come in many shapes and sizes and have legal challenges dwarfed only by those on so-called public roads. While some roads may ultimately benefit from such an arrangement, the vast majority of so-called private roads include unaccepted Town Ways, public easement roads, service corridors, emergency and other public access roads. This law would be impossible to administer fairly as written and would discriminate against camp owners and others.

As learned from the Patriot's Day storm, our roads are vulnerable and represent a significant threat to our lakes. We have learned that MEMA has helped with disaster assistance on some but not all of our roads. This law would have towns seeking mitigation funds from the victims of a disaster in these other cases? For the victims paying for mitigation now - this law would only serve to disrupt their ongoing efforts to recover. State, County, and local officials need to consider the status of all roads thoroughly before basing a tax on their assumed status. Until we can identify who owns them, who is legally responsible for them, and who has legal rights to use and maintain them, we can not resolve issues concerning them.

This bill should be referred to a committee to identify and resolve the complications and discrimination that will result from its use.

[localboy]

I just noticed besides the lord, the only people on here are pam and Scott!, what a pitty party this is!

[payingtaxestoget0]

local boy is wrong about Pam, Scott & and (the town treasurer - ie: I Love Jesus)[who should not be pushing her religious beliefs onto other people]. being the only members of this board.

I appreciate ALL of Scott's & Pam's efforts along with many others for their concern and interest of informing the residents/property owners of Acton of their dealings with the town of Acton. As well as providing information the people have every right to know about, but are not being informed about by the town officials.

At least Pam and Scott also provide their name at the end of their posts along with where they obtained their information from. They sure hold more credibility with me than a "local boy" who can't even reveal his name at the end of his cowardly actions of bullying them for trying to help the residents/property owners of Acton.

This is exactly why I feel I am paying taxes to get 0 when we have people like local boy trying to influence the people of Acton to think badly of anyone simply trying to inform the public. So who is this local boy? Why doesn't he provide informative information of the budgets in the town of Acton and where our tax dollars are Really being spent? Could it be that he is still stuck in the mentality of the bullying that took place back in the elementary schoolyard playground? I hope that he is not a parent teaching his children that this is an acceptable way to act, because bullying is just plain wrong!

[scott]

LD 2249
Governor's Action: SIGNED, Thu Apr 10, 2008

summary

This bill is submitted by the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources pursuant to Public Law 2007, chapter 65. It authorizes municipalities to assess annual fees under certain conditions to property owners whose properties are accessed by a private road. It requires excavation contractors working in the shoreland zone to ensure that a person certified in erosion control practices is in charge of erosion control practices at the site. It changes the phosphorous compensation fee. It authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to allow applicants to meet municipal mitigation requirements in lieu of paying a compensation fee.

[towncryer]

The State Takes Aim at Gravel Roads,
but Who Will Foot the Bill?

By Maggie Shannon, Maine COLA

Lakes In Trouble
Despite many state programs and strenuous efforts by lake and watershed managers, scholars, nonprofits and citizen lake groups, Maine lakes are on a stubborn downward slide. 26 of our great ponds failed to meet federal Clean Water Act standards in 2005; today that number has risen to 32 (23%+). 239 lakes are now classed as being “at risk from development,” a comforting phrase that masks the truth: if we don’t change our habits soon, Maine will face 239 expensive restoration projects around 2030 CE.

full article: www.mainecola.org/gravel_road_impact.htm

[scott]

this information is provided by Scott Cowger of the DEP, thru Rick Burns. Many Thx!

(this) ... discussion thread ... does not make distinctions between
the bill language that the Natural Resources Committee requested as a printed bill for a public hearing (LD 2249 which came from the lake water quality report dated January 31, 2008), and the amended bill that was enacted as Public Law 2007, chapter 593. They are substantially different.

LD 2249 proposed a provision to require that excavation contractors working in the shoreland zone must have a person certified in erosion control practices in charge of erosion control practices at the site. This provision was enacted relatively unchanged in PL 2007 c. 593.

A second provision of LD 2249 which changed the phosphorus compensation fee to a more practical number and authorized the use of municipal mitigation requirements in lieu of paying a compensation fee was included in its entirety in PL 2007 c. 593.

The third, and most widely discussed, part of LD 2249 was a provision that would have authorized municipalities to assess annual fees to property owners whose properties are accessed by an improperly maintained private road in a lake watershed. These fees were to be used to bring those roads up to proper standards that would prevent the degradation of lake water quality due to storm water runoff. This provision of LD 2249 was rejected by the Natural Resources Committee and was not part of any enacted law. In its place, PL 2007 c. 593 directed the DEP to evaluate strategies to diminish the impact of private roads,
driveways, and boat ramps on lake water quality and required a report back to the Natural Resources Committee by January 2009. This report is to include guidance on appropriate road standards, a sample model ordinance, and an analysis of the constitutional issues which allow a municipality to assess private property owners for construction or maintenance of a private road.

[scott]

Info about where this law has gone....

The Camp Road Stakeholders Committee (DEP) made numerous recommendations to the Natural Resources Committe, who has put forth three proposed changes to Maine law as foolows....

(as reported by the Maine Alliance of Road Associations)
MARA supports three bills that have just been referenced in the Legislature. According the their sponsor, Rep. Duchesne, hearings may occur in April. Here are links to the bills with a brief statement on why MARA supports them. I hope you will convey your views to your legislators as the bills move through the process. I will keep you informed of their status and will inform you in advance when communicating with legislators becomes timely.

LD 1307 An Act to Provide Limited Immunity for Road Association Directors, Commissioners and Volunteers

janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1307&SessionID=8

This bill would make those carrying out road association responsibilities immune from civil liability while doing so. Similar immunity is afforded to charitable organizations. MARA supports the bill because it will make it easier for Road Associations to enlist the efforts of members and reduce insurance expense. It will go to the Judiciary Committee.

LD 1311 An Act to Enable Municipal Assistance for Purposes of Protecting or Restoring Public Waters

janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280032393

This bill allows a municipality to repair a private road contributing to water quality degradation of a most at risk or impaired water body where the Road Association maintaining it has been established under the Private Ways law. MARA supports the bill because municipalities will at times take an active interest in their local water bodies if allowed to, since they benefit from their quality. It will go to the State and Local Committee.

LD 1315 An Act to Amend the Private Way Laws with Regard to Road Associations

janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280032397

This bill clarifies the reasons why a road association may call a meeting and what it might address, and provides for the negotiation of easements for storm water management. It allows a town to use town equipment on the road for water quality management. MARA supports the clarification of the statute and the ability of Road Associations to negotiate easements and benefit from town equipment. It will go to the Transportation Committee.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Betsy Connor Bowen

Maine Alliance for Road Associations

[scott]

Update from MARA....

MARA supports two bills that are scheduled for public hearings this week. There is opposition to both of them, so your views are extremely important, especially at this time.


LD 1307 An Act to Provide Limited Immunity for Road Association Directors, Commissioners and Volunteers

janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1307&SessionID=8

This bill will be heard by the Judiciary Committee on Thursday 4/16 at 1 PM in Rm 438 State House.

MARA supports the bill because it will make it easier for Road Associations to enlist the efforts of members and reduce insurance expense.

LD 1311 An Act to Enable Municipal Assistance for Purposes of Protecting or Restoring Public Waters


janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280032393


This bill will be heard by the Natural Resources Committee on Friday 4/17 at 9 AM in Room 214 Cross Building.

MARA supports this bill because it enables willing municipalities to help with private roads.

<> <> <>

PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION -- HEARINGS ARE THIS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY

1. If you are able to attend, bring 20 copies of your testimony to distribute to the committee.


2. If not, please email me with your testimony and I will distribute it, or email the members of the relevant committees (see email lists below).

3. Another way to be heard on this is to listen to the hearing using your computer and then email the committee. You can access the state's audio service, then send your thoughts. Click on the link www.maine.gov/legis/audio/html and then click on "External Pop Up Player." You may have to download a small free piece of software -- which is quick.

As many of you know, testimony should begin by addressing the two chairs of the committee and stating your name and the reason for your interest in the issue and then your opinion. Email is acceptable so long as you include your name and address.

Email addresses for Judiciary:


go to: www.maine.gov/legis/house/jt_com/jud.htm

or paste list:

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]


Email addresses for Natural Resources:

go to: www.maine.gov/legis/house/jt_com/nat.htm

or paste list:


[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

THANK YOU!

Betsy Connor Bowen


Maine Alliance for Road Associations

[e-mail]