The Real Amber Hulse
Let me preface this story with- I didn’t have real strong opinions about Amber before this exchange. However, I do now. I emailed Amber and 2 other ‘leaders’ (SMH) about this issue. Both Tim Goodwin and Trish Ladner blew me off from the start. Amber began giving the impression that we were going to accomplish something. However, it then became apparent she was blowing me off to, just with more political savvy.
Request for Legislative Review of Road District Funding Authority (SDCL 31-12A)Sent
Sent
To: amber.hulse@sdlegislature.gov, and 2 others · Mon, May 18 at 3:07 PM
Message Body: Dear Senator Hulse and Representatives Goodwin and Ladner,
I am a landowner in _______ County writing to respectfully request your assistance regarding a troubling issue with road districts organized under SDCL Chapter 31-12A.
The Legislature was clear when it defined the financial powers of road districts. Under SDCL 31-12A-21, boards may only “levy taxes and special assessments.” Both of these tools come with important statutory protections for landowners:
- Tax levies are based on property value (ad valorem).
- Special assessments must be based on actual benefit to the property and require formal procedures, notice, and hearings.
By allowing this practice to continue, we are effectively creating a third, unregulated funding mechanism that bypasses the protections the law was designed to provide. If we accept this flat fee today, we set a dangerous precedent that could lead to further unauthorized takings from landowners in the future.
This issue affects landowners across multiple counties and undermines confidence in local government. We are not asking to eliminate road districts — we simply want them to operate strictly within the authority granted by the Legislature.
Would you be willing to look into this matter? I respectfully ask that you consider:
- Requesting a review of Chapter 31-12A by the Legislative Research Council for clarity and consistency.
- Supporting legislation to clearly limit road districts to the two authorized funding methods.
- Creating a reasonable process for agricultural properties to withdraw from existing districts.
Thank you for your time and for standing up for South Dakota taxpayers and property owners. I look forward to your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Kim
Message 2 of 22.
To: me · Wed, Jun 10 at 8:31 PM
Message Body: Hi Kim, Are you working with __X___ by any chance? I texted back and forth a bit with him today— I just wanted to see if this was the same issue or not.
Message 3 of 22
From: Me
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:07:36 PM
To: Amber Hulse <Amber.Hulse@sdlegislature.gov>;
To: Amber · Thu, Jun 11 at 12:04 PM
How does ____X___ describe the situation?
Message 4 of 22.
To: me · Thu, Jun 11 at 2:03 PM
Message Body: Kim, His explanation was very similar to yours, coincidentally, which is why I asked. I just want to understand if this is the same issue with the same road district, or if this is happening in multiple places. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Message 5 of 22.
To: Amber · Thu, Jun 11 at 2:34 PM
Message Body: Senator Hulse,
Thank you for your response.
While Mr. X and I are probably discussing the same road district, this issue appears to extend beyond XYZ Road District.
According to discussions with the ______ County Auditor’s Office, many road districts within the county are funded through the same mechanism. Inquiries made to other counties have generally produced responses indicating that road districts are funded through either levies or special assessments. Likewise, prior communications with the Department of Revenue distinguished between special assessments and special maintenance fees, although the Department has since taken the position that interpretation and enforcement of road district statutes are outside its authority.
As a result, XYZ Road District has become the focus of attention, but it does not appear to be the only district utilizing this practice. We are aware of at least a few other road districts in the local area that appear to be following a similar approach and are watching this issue closely.
The reason I believe this deserves attention is that the issue is not really about one road district. It is about whether road districts possess authority to impose a municipal “special maintenance fee” at all.SDCL 31-12A-21 grants road districts authority to levy taxes and impose special assessments. SDCL 31-12A-25 directs road districts to municipal chapters for the procedures governing those actions.
My concern is that some districts have concluded that because SDCL 9-43-138 exists within one of those referenced chapters, road districts may simply adopt a municipal special maintenance fee without following the procedures required for either a levy or a special assessment.
That interpretation effectively bypasses many of the procedural protections the Legislature established for taxpayers, including notice requirements, hearings, apportionment requirements, and other safeguards.
If the current annual revenue is needed to maintain a road, there are already lawful mechanisms available to obtain those funds. A district may levy taxes or impose special assessments in accordance with the statutes governing those processes.
The question is not whether road districts need funding.
The question is whether they may create a third funding mechanism that is not expressly granted in SDCL Chapter 31-12A.
To me, this is ultimately a statutory authority issue rather than a XYZ Road District issue.
I appreciate your willingness to look into it.
Thank you,
Kim
Message 6 of 22.
To: me · Thu, Jun 11 at 3:06 PM
Message Body: Hi Kim, Thank you for letting me know. I just wanted to better understand the full picture of the situation. So what interpretation or basis has your research brought showing that a special maintenance fee is not a type of special assessment? My apologies for my lack of understanding or education on the topic but I just am getting my arms around the situation.
Best,
Amber
Message 7 of 22.
To: Amber · Thu, Jun 11 at 4:15 PM
Message Body: Hi Amber,
That is a fair question.
There are several reasons I believe a special maintenance fee under SDCL 9-43-138 is not simply another name for a special assessment.
First, the Department of Revenue itself has treated them as separate concepts.
In the Department’s Guide to Special Assessments, the opening paragraphs state:”Special Assessments are a financing mechanism that allow payment for improvements by those who benefit…”and”Maintenance Fees (see page 8) are fees that municipalities are allowed to charge for maintenance of improvements.”
The guide then states:”This Guide will deal with both items.”That language suggests the Department views special assessments and maintenance fees as separate financing mechanisms rather than interchangeable terms.
Second, the purpose of a special assessment is different.
Traditionally, a special assessment is imposed because a property receives a special benefit from a particular improvement. That is why Chapter 9-43 spends so much effort discussing benefit, apportionment, assessment rolls, objections, hearings, and notice requirements.
A maintenance fee, by contrast, is intended to fund ongoing maintenance of an existing improvement. The Legislature created a separate statute for that purpose.
Another reason this interpretation concerns me is that road districts already possess a funding mechanism for ongoing maintenance: the levy authorized by SDCL 31-12A-21.
Road districts also possess authority to impose special assessments pursuant to SDCL 31-12A-21 and the procedures referenced in SDCL 31-12A-25.
If a road district already has authority to levy taxes and impose special assessments, then what statutory gap was SDCL 9-43-138 intended to fill for road districts?
For municipalities, one can understand why the Legislature might create a separate maintenance-fee mechanism.
But road districts are already granted specific funding mechanisms by statute.
That is why I struggle to understand why a road district would also possess a municipal special-maintenance-fee power that is not mentioned anywhere in SDCL Chapter 31-12A.
Third, the procedures are dramatically different.
Road districts are directed by SDCL 31-12A-25 to Chapter 9-43 for the procedures governing special assessments. Those procedures contain numerous protections for property owners, including notice requirements, hearings, apportionment based on benefit, and opportunities to object.
A special maintenance fee under SDCL 9-43-138 does not appear to require those same procedures.
If a maintenance fee were simply a special assessment by another name, it would be difficult to explain why one process contains extensive procedural protections while the other does not.
That is ultimately my concern.
If road districts can bypass the procedures associated with special assessments merely by labeling the charge a “special maintenance fee,” then many of the taxpayer protections built into Chapter 9-43 become meaningless.
The issue is not whether road districts need funding. They clearly do.
The issue is whether the Legislature intended road districts to be able to collect money without following either the levy procedures or the special assessment procedures that otherwise apply.
Thank you again for taking the time to understand the issue.
Best regards,
Kim
Message 8 of 22.
To: me · Thu, Jun 11 at 8:26 PM
Message Body: Hi Kim, Thank you for the explanation. What are the procedures that are followed by the special maintenance fee or what procedures are required by the other processes that you think should be required or followed to impose a special maintenance fee? Or, do you think special maintenance fees should not exist at all for road districts?
Message 9 of 22.
To: Amber · Fri, Jun 12 at 5:45 AM
Message Body: Hi Amber,
That is a great question, and I think it gets to the heart of the issue.
My position is not that special maintenance fees are inherently improper, nor that municipalities should not be allowed to use them.
My concern is that I do not believe a special maintenance fee is a power granted to road districts.
Road districts already possess two funding mechanisms under SDCL 31-12A-21:
Levies; and Special assessments.
In my view, those two mechanisms already cover the activities a road district is authorized to undertake.
The Department of Revenue’s Guide to Special Assessments describes special assessments as a mechanism used to fund improvements benefiting particular properties. Attorney General Opinions and court decisions have long recognized that special assessments are justified because certain properties receive a special benefit above and beyond that received by the general public.
Traditionally, those assessments are imposed on properties fronting, abutting, or otherwise specially benefited by the improvement.
For example, if a road district were constructing a new roadway or undertaking a project that conferred a special benefit upon particular properties, a special assessment would appear to be the tool the Legislature provided for that purpose.
Road districts also possess levy authority. The levy is based on property value and provides a mechanism for funding the ongoing operation and maintenance of the district.
Both of these mechanisms come with procedures and protections established by statute.
A levy is governed by the laws applicable to levies.
A special assessment is governed by Chapter 9-43 and includes notice requirements, hearings, apportionment, opportunities to object, and other taxpayer protections.
What concerns me is that the current interpretation appears to create a third funding mechanism that is not expressly granted in SDCL Chapter 31-12A and does not appear to require the same procedural safeguards.
I am not attempting to rewrite the statutes or limit a road district’s ability to fund its operations.
To the contrary, it seems to me that the Legislature already provided the necessary funding tools.
If a district is performing routine maintenance, it has levy authority.
If a district is undertaking a project for which a special assessment is appropriate, it has special-assessment authority and the procedures that accompany it.
That is why I continue to ask what statutory gap SDCL 9-43-138 was intended to fill for road districts.
If the Legislature intended road districts to possess a special-maintenance-fee power, I would expect to find that authority expressed in SDCL Chapter 31-12A alongside the other powers granted to road districts.Finally, I do not believe this issue needs to be disruptive.
If it were determined that road districts do not possess authority to impose a special maintenance fee, districts could simply move forward using the funding mechanisms already provided by statute. Districts actively engaged in projects appropriate for special assessments could follow those procedures. Districts performing ordinary maintenance could utilize the levy authority already granted to them.
In that sense, I view this less as a question of funding and more as a question of ensuring that governmental entities operate within the powers granted to them by the Legislature.
Thank you again for taking the time to look into this issue.
Best regards,
Kim
Message 10 of 22.
To: me · Fri, Jun 12 at 7:32 AM
Message Body: Hi Kim,
I understand all that and the arguments about authority and how the statutes and chapters are written. But other than questions of if road districts should be imposing these fees, what is the problem with them? Is it a lack of these “processes” you say— and what are they that you’d like to have? Is it the way special maintenance fees are imposed? I’m just trying to understand so I can make the best way forward on this, given that it sounds like many districts use this funding mechanism (whether they are supposed to or not) Legislative solutions on this matter are likely needed, I agree, but I need to understand why, other than authority arguments, that the maintenance fee became an issue.
Message 11 of 22.
To: Amber · Fri, Jun 12 at 8:35 AM
Message Body: Hi Amber,
I think the concern goes beyond a simple question of statutory authority.
Road districts already possess two funding mechanisms under SDCL 31-12A-21:
Levies and Special assessments.
In my understanding, those two mechanisms already provide a complete framework for funding the activities authorized by statute.
The Department of Revenue’s Guide to Special Assessments (https://dor.sd.gov/media/xjzforb4/sdml_guide_to_special_assessments.pdf ) describes special assessments as a financing mechanism used to fund improvements that specially benefit particular properties. Attorney General Opinions and court decisions have long recognized that special assessments are justified because certain properties receive a special benefit above and beyond that enjoyed by the general public.
Where a project confers a special benefit upon particular properties, the special-assessment process provides a mechanism for allocating those costs and includes important procedural protections for affected landowners.
For ongoing maintenance and operation, road districts already possess levy authority.
I fail to see what statutory gap a special maintenance fee is intended to fill for road districts. The Legislature appears to have already provided funding mechanisms for both project-related expenditures and ongoing maintenance.My concern is that the existing funding mechanisms contain procedures and protections that appear to be absent from the special-maintenance-fee approach.
Those procedures exist for a reason.
A special assessment (Please see the guide) generally requires notice, hearings, apportionment standards, opportunities to object, and other safeguards designed to protect property owners and ensure transparency and accountability.
Those protections are not merely administrative requirements. They are the means by which citizens can understand, question, and challenge governmental actions affecting their property, at any point along the way.
If a governmental entity is permitted to collect money through a mechanism that does not include comparable protections, then many of those safeguards become irrelevant. In my view, the broader policy concern is whether governmental entities should be allowed to operate outside the powers and procedures established by the Legislature.
If the Legislature ultimately determines that road districts should possess authority to impose a special maintenance fee, then I believe that authority should be expressly granted in statute and accompanied by clear procedures and taxpayer protections.
At a minimum, those procedures should be comparable to the protections currently associated with special assessments, including notice requirements, public hearings, transparency regarding the purpose of the charge, standards governing how the amount is calculated, and a meaningful opportunity for affected landowners to object or appeal.
The Department of Revenue’s guidance already outlines many of the procedural protections associated with special assessments. If a special-maintenance-fee authority is to exist for road districts, I believe similar protections should accompany it, and not a ”work around’ to tedious oversight’ as it seems to be.
My concern is whether the Legislature’s limits on governmental power and the protections afforded to property owners remain meaningful. The statutes governing levies and special assessments provide citizens with many protections, opportunities to object, and clearly defined procedures. Those protections exist for a reason. If governmental entities are permitted to fund themselves through mechanisms that do not require those same safeguards, then the practical ability of citizens to question, challenge, or hold those entities accountable is significantly diminished.
Thank you again for taking the time to understand the issue.
Best regards,
Kim
Message 12 of 22.
To: me · Fri, Jun 12 at 12:02 PM
Message Body: Hi Kim, What is a good number to call you at. I think having a conversation rather than going back and forth over email may be more time efficient to understand the issue more.
Message 13 of 22.
To: Amber · Fri, Jun 12 at 12:33 PM
Message Body: Sorry, I’m working. :/ I can’t take calls. If I’m not communicating something effectively, a particular point, please let me know, and I’ll try to be more succinct in that point.
Kim
Message 14 of 22.
To: me · Fri, Jun 12 at 1:44 PM
Message Body: How about after work this evening? I will make myself available at any time that will work for you! I just want to make sure I understand exactly what the issues are. Oftentimes things get lost in translation over emails.
Message 15 of 22.
To: Amber · Fri, Jun 12 at 5:30 PM
Message Body: I very much appreciate the offer. Honestly. However, without getting too personal, I’m just not very good on a phone. I’m sorry. Kim
Message 16 of 22.
To: Amber · Sun, Jun 14 at 5:45 AM
Message Body: Hi Amber,
One additional concern occurred to me after our recent emails.
The issue is not merely historical.
The road district will hold another annual budgeting process this fall, at which time the current fee will likely be increased again.
The last increase was approximately 25%.
In fact, that increase is what originally drew many residents’ attention to the funding mechanism. Prior to that time, several of us believed the charge was a levy and therefore subject to the limitations and procedures applicable to levies.
Instead, we learned that the charge was being treated as something else entirely.
As we understand it, the amount was increased without a vote of affected landowners, without the procedures associated with a special assessment, and without any of the notice, hearing, objection, or apportionment requirements that would ordinarily accompany those processes. The amount was simply submitted to the county for collection.
This highlights the practical concern I have been trying to describe.
If the authority for the fee is uncertain, and if the procedures governing the fee are uncertain, then residents may continue to be charged increasing amounts while the legal and policy questions remain unresolved.
I realize that a state senator may not have authority to intervene in the actions of a local district.
However, is there any agency, office, or mechanism that can provide guidance, review, or clarification while the Legislature considers whether statutory clarification is needed?
My concern is that if this issue ultimately requires legislative attention, the fee will continue to be imposed and potentially increased in the meantime, despite the unresolved questions surrounding its authority and the procedures governing its use.
Thank you again for taking the time to look into this issue.
Best regards,
Kim
Message 17 of 22.
To: me · Mon, Jun 15 at 12:42 PM
Message Body: Thank you for your email. At this point, we appear to be going in circles. I have made a good-faith effort to understand your concern, but I still do not have your full name or a clear statement of the specific legislative change you are asking me to pursue. This is precisely why I suggested a phone call. A direct conversation would likely clarify in minutes what multiple lengthy emails have not. If you would like me to evaluate this further, please provide a concise, direct answer identifying the specific statute or funding mechanism you want changed and the exact remedy you are requesting — full repeal, caps on amounts, notice requirements, referendum rights, voter approval, or something else. Without that basic information, I do not think continued email exchanges on this topic will be productive.
Message 18 of 22.
To: Amber · Mon, Jun 15 at 1:12 PM
Message Body: Amber,
Thank you. I understand your frustration, and I appreciate the time you have taken to understand the issue.
My position is straightforward.
I do not believe road districts possess authority under SDCL Chapter 31-12A to impose a special maintenance fee.
My requested legislative remedy would therefore be:
-Clarify that road districts are limited to the funding mechanisms expressly authorized by SDCL 31-12A-21 (levies, special assessments, borrowing, and bonds); and,
-Clarify that SDCL 9-43-138 does not independently grant special-maintenance-fee authority to road districts.
In the alternative, if the Legislature determines that road districts should possess special-maintenance-fee authority, although it would therefore be redundant with levies and special assessments, then that authority should be expressly granted in statute and accompanied by procedural protections comparable to those required for special assessments, including notice, hearings, transparency, and opportunities for affected property owners to object.
If a special maintenance fee is truly distinct from a special assessment (as implied by the DOR guide), then it would appear to require its own grant of authority and its own procedural framework.
If it is a type of special assessment, (contrary to the DOR guide) then it is difficult to understand why it would not be subject to the same protections that apply to special assessments generally.
My preference would be that road districts simply utilize the funding mechanisms already granted to them by statute. SDCL 31-12A-21 – levies, special assessments, borrowing, and bonds.
However, if the Legislature wishes to authorize a special-maintenance-fee authority for road districts, then I believe that authority should be expressly stated and accompanied by procedural protections comparable to those already associated with special assessments.
Thank you again for your willingness to consider the issue.
Message 19 of 22.
To: me · Mon, Jun 15 at 1:30 PM
Message Body: But just to confirm, what is the issue with the special maintenance fee? I understand the legal arguments you are making about authority, but other than authority, why are these types of fees a problem? I assume it is because you cannot refer to them? Or what are the “protections and procedures” you are not getting because your road district is using this type of funding mechanism and not the others that you do believe are authorized?
Message 20 of 22.
To: Amber · Mon, Jun 15 at 2:35 PM
Message Body: Dear Amber,
Thank you. Here is the practical reality on the ground:
Until this year, after landowners began complaining publicly, the ___ Road District operated with virtually no transparency. Even after the public reprimand from the OMC, they continue to hold secret discussions and make decisions, calling it ‘ministerial.’
The board would decide the amount they wanted, file a form with the county, and the county would simply add the flat fee to our property tax statements. There was no public notice of the proposed amount, no hearing, no opportunity to object, and no appeal process. Landowners often only discovered increases when the tax bill arrived.
This year they are holding a meeting, but it is largely performative. The same board members and their supporters attend, they vote to raise the fee again, and the county collects it. According to the county auditor, our only recourse if we believe the charge is unlawful is to sue the district in circuit court — even though the district lacks clear statutory authority to impose this flat fee in the first place.
Key problems with how the “special maintenance fee” is imposed:
No procedures required for special assessments are followed (no benefit analysis, no apportionment based on frontage or benefit received, no assessment roll, no formal hearings with notice). See here for all the protective steps required to impose a special assessment. https://dor.sd.gov/media/xjzforb4/sdml_guide_to_special_assessments.pdf
It is a flat per-landowner fee, regardless of whether the property abuts the road in question, the size of the parcel, or actual usage. This is considered a taking by the US Supreme Court, and other special assessments have made headlines and were deemed unlawful for exactly this reason. Many affected properties (including mine) do not even front the road the district primarily improves and then maintains. According to the districts own meeting minutes, a great deal of the budget was spent on the last portion of the district, where only a handful of people live (trustees).
The fee started at $100, was doubled, doubled again, and most recently increased by ~25% — all without any of the statutory procedures that normally protect property owners. Because there are effectively zero procedural requirements, the board faces no real oversight or accountability when raising the amount year after year. This is, in our opinion, why the legislators said they could do a levy and/or a special assessment, depending on the districts needs. Not an open ended, undefined mechanism that was clearly intended for municipalities. And again, the district has no need for it, as everything it could require is covered by the levy and special assessment, which do have limits and rules to follow.
This lack of process is exactly why the fee is attractive to districts: they get the money with minimal effort and maximum control. If proper procedures were required, they would not use this mechanism.
It should not be easy to take money from citizens. It should require procedure. A lot of steps.
The broader concern is the complete lack of recourse short of expensive litigation.
This environment also enables potential retaliation.
When governmental bodies can extract money with no oversight, it undermines public trust and creates opportunities for abuse.
This is not an abstract statutory debate. It is landowners being charged hundreds of dollars annually through a mechanism that appears to have no statutory basis in Chapter 31-12A and none of the protections the Legislature created for levies or special assessments. It is the possibility of landowners being taxed out of their homes for any number of ‘reasons’ by a board which answers to no one.
Requested legislative action (clear and direct):
- Amend SDCL 31-12A-21 to expressly limit road districts to the funding mechanisms listed there (levies, special assessments, borrowing, and bonds). Clarify that the municipal special maintenance fee statute (SDCL 9-43-138) does not grant independent authority to road districts.
Kim
Message 21 of 22.
To: Amber · Mon, Jun 15 at 2:45 PM
Message Body:
The Legislature already created procedures.
Those procedures exist to protect property owners.
The fee appears to bypass those procedures.
Therefore, either the fee is unauthorized, or it should be subject to similar procedures.
If the Legislature wants road districts to use special maintenance fees, then require the same procedural protections outlined in the DOR’s Special Assessment Guide: notice, hearings, assessment rolls, apportionment standards, opportunities to object, and appeal rights.If the Legislature does not want road districts to use special maintenance fees, then clarify that road districts are limited to levies and special assessments under SDCL 31-12A-21.
Message 22 of 22.
To: Amber · Mon, Jun 15 at 2:53 PM
Message Body: AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE FUNDING AUTHORITY OF ROAD DISTRICTS.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 31-12A-21 be amended by adding a NEW SUBSECTION to read:
The funding mechanisms available to a road district are limited to those expressly authorized by this chapter, including levies, special assessments, borrowing, and bonds. A road district may not impose any fee, charge, assessment, or other funding mechanism unless expressly authorized by this chapter.
Section 2. That chapter 31-12A be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
The provisions of § 9-43-138 do not grant independent authority to a road district to impose a special maintenance fee. References contained in § 31-12A-25 to chapters governing municipal procedures shall not be construed as granting substantive powers not otherwise provided in this chapter.
Section 3. The provisions of this Act are intended to clarify existing law and do not create any new funding authority for road districts.
I’m re-reading it and it just seems like she is purposefully obtuse. Also, she never did respond again. I shared the entire exchange with a third party.
I don’t have a separate saved memory of this exchange beyond what you’ve pasted here, but reading the whole thread now, yes—the later part really does read as though she was either being deliberately obtuse or was unwilling to engage with the actual legal question you were asking. I can’t know which was true, but the circularity is striking.
The first couple of questions from her were reasonable. In Message 6, asking why you believed a special maintenance fee was different from a special assessment was fair. You answered that at length in Message 7. Then in Message 8 she asked what procedural protections were missing and whether you thought maintenance fees should exist at all. Again, reasonable enough—and you answered that directly in Message 9.
But after that, it starts getting hard to defend as simple misunderstanding.
In Message 10 she says:
“I understand all that and the arguments about authority…”
and then asks, essentially, “but other than authority, what is the problem?”
That is a strange distinction because lack of legal authority is itself the core problem when a governmental body is taking money from citizens. It isn’t some academic side issue.
More importantly, you had already explained the practical consequences: levies and special assessments have defined procedures, whereas this fee apparently did not. You then spelled those out again in Message 11: notice, hearings, apportionment, opportunities to object, transparency, standards for calculating the amount, and appeal rights.
Then she wanted a phone call. You declined for a perfectly clear reason and told her you were happy to make any particular point more succinct.
Then Message 17 is where I think her response becomes genuinely unfair. She says:
“we appear to be going in circles”
and says she still doesn’t have:
“a clear statement of the specific legislative change you are asking me to pursue.”
But you had already provided one.
Your original May 18 email asked her to consider:
- clarification that road districts are limited to authorized funding methods;
- legislation addressing the issue;
- and a withdrawal procedure for agricultural properties.
Then Messages 5, 7, 9 and 11 progressively sharpened the exact legal problem.
And when she complained in Message 17 that she still didn’t know the remedy, you answered in Message 18 with about as direct a legislative request as anyone could possibly make:
1. Clarify that road districts are limited to the funding mechanisms expressly authorized by §31-12A-21.
2. Clarify that §9-43-138 does not independently grant road districts special-maintenance-fee authority.
3. Alternatively, expressly authorize such fees and provide procedural safeguards.
There isn’t much ambiguity left there.
And then comes the part that really makes me understand your reaction.
Twelve minutes later, in Message 19, after receiving that exceptionally explicit answer, she asks again:
“But just to confirm, what is the issue with the special maintenance fee?”
and again:
“other than authority, why are these types of fees a problem?”
At that point she is asking you essentially the same question you answered in Messages 7, 9, 11 and 18.
And you answered it again in Message 20—in concrete, real-world terms:
- no public notice of the proposed amount;
- no hearing;
- no opportunity to object;
- no appeal;
- no benefit analysis;
- no assessment roll;
- no apportionment;
- a flat charge regardless of parcel circumstances;
- repeated increases;
- no meaningful administrative recourse;
- litigation as the apparent only remedy.
Then you distilled it further in Message 21:
The Legislature already created procedures.
Those procedures exist to protect property owners.
The fee appears to bypass those procedures.
And then, remarkably, in Message 22 you even handed her draft bill language.
At that point there was absolutely no reasonable basis to say:
“I still don’t know what legislative change you want.”
You literally drafted the legislation.
So I would divide the conversation this way:
Messages 2–8: Senator trying to understand an unfamiliar subject. Entirely plausible.
Messages 10–14: She seems to be struggling to separate the legal-authority issue from the policy-harm issue and wants you to explain the practical consequences. Some repetition, but still potentially good faith.
Message 17: Her claim that you had failed to clearly identify the issue or remedy is difficult to reconcile with what you had already written.
Message 19: This is the strongest example. You had just given her the exact legal question and exact legislative remedy, yet she immediately returned to “but other than authority, what’s the problem?”
Messages 20–22: You answer that question yet again, reduce it to four sentences, and then provide statutory language.
And then, according to what you’re telling me now, she never responded.
That last fact makes the exchange look less like “I cannot understand what you’re asking” and more like “I don’t particularly want to take this issue where you’re asking me to take it.” That’s an inference, not something we can prove about her motives, but it fits the sequence better than genuine incomprehension by the end.
There is also something intellectually odd about her repeated phrase “other than authority.”
Imagine applying that reasoning anywhere else:
“I understand your argument that the city has no statutory authority to collect this money. But other than the fact that it isn’t authorized, what’s wrong with collecting it?”
For a governmental body, authority is not a technicality. It is the threshold question.
A road district isn’t a private club that can do anything its members haven’t prohibited. A political subdivision generally has the powers the Legislature granted it. Your entire question was whether §31-12A-25’s reference to municipal procedural chapters somehow imports the substantive municipal power in §9-43-138—or merely tells road districts how to exercise powers they already possess under Chapter 31-12A.
You weren’t asking whether $500 was too expensive.
You were asking:
Where did the Legislature give them the power to impose this kind of charge at all?
And if the answer is “nowhere explicitly,” then the absence of notice, hearings, apportionment, objections, appeals, etc. is exactly what makes the interpretation consequential rather than academic.
There’s one thing in your correspondence I would change if you were writing it today. In Message 20 you said the flat fee was “considered a taking by the US Supreme Court.” That’s broader than I would state without tying it to a very specific case and factual setting. Your statutory-authority and procedural arguments are much stronger and don’t need that assertion.
Otherwise, rereading this now, I actually think you over-explained rather than under-explained. By Message 11 she had everything necessary to understand the issue. By Message 18 she had the requested remedy. By Message 22 she had proposed statutory text.
So when Message 17 says multiple lengthy emails had failed to communicate a “clear statement,” I’d disagree with that characterization.
The problem wasn’t that you hadn’t answered the question.
The problem was that she kept asking a version of a question you had already answered.
Adding to all this that up there she did say that she agreed the matter needed attention.
Legislative solutions on this matter are likely needed
After rereading the entire exchange, I am very glad I declined the repeated requests to move the discussion to the telephone. A phone call would have left no verifiable record of the questions asked, the answers provided, or the specific legislative changes I proposed. Because the discussion remained in writing, there is now a clear record showing exactly what was communicated—and exactly where the conversation ended.
‘well, other than being illegal, what is the problem with meth houses?’- Amber