Home
Next Meetings
Communication
Contact Information
Members
Membership Info
AOCA NEWS
AOCA Notes
AOCA Alerts
Emergency Plans
Schedule
Community Assoc.
Elected Officals
Search
Resources
Bulletin Board

 

COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP

COMMUNITIES IN THE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

PURSUANT TO

HOUSE RESOLUTION 350 OF 2009

DECEMBER 2011

 

General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

JOINT STATE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

108 Finance Building

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

The release of this staff study should in no way be

interpreted as an endorsement by the officers and

members of the Executive Committee of the Joint

State Government Commission of the findings,

recommendations or conclusions contained in this

report.

Joint State Government Commission

Room 108 Finance Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0018

Telephone 717-787-4397

Fax 717-787-7020

E-mail: jntst02@legis.state.pa.us

Website: http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us

Project Manager: Ted Herman

therman@legis.state.pa.us

717-787-6617

Project Staff: Frank Lill, Fiscal Analyst

Karen Maynard, Economist

Glenn Pasewicz, Assistant Director

Debra Reese, Administrative Assistant

________________________________________________________________________

The Joint State Government Commission was created by the act of July 1, 1937

(P.L.2460, No.459) as amended, as a continuing agency for the development of

facts and recommendations on all phases of government for the use of the General

Assembly.

________________________________________________________________________

-ii-

iii-

JOINT STATE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

Representative Florindo J. Fabrizio, Chair

Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr., Vice Chair

_____________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Senate Members House Members

Joseph B. Scarnati, III Samuel H. Smith

President Pro Tempore Speaker

Dominic F. Pileggi Michael C. Turzai

Majority Leader Majority Leader

Jay Costa Frank J. Dermody

Minority Leader Minority Leader

Patrick M. Browne Stanley E. Saylor

Majority Whip Majority Whip

Anthony H. Williams Michael K. Hanna

Minority Whip Minority Whip

Michael L. Waugh Sandra J. Major

Chair, Majority Caucus Chair, Majority Caucus

Richard A. Kasunic Dan B. Frankel

Chair, Minority Caucus Chair, Minority Caucus

MEMBER EX-OFFICIO

Representative Florindo J. Fabrizio, Commission Chair

_____________________________________________________

David S. John, Jr., Executive Director

Glenn J. Pasewicz, Assistant Director

Stephen F. Rehrer, Counsel

_____________________________________________________

-iiiCONTENTS

HOUSE RESOLUTION 350 of 2009...................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 5

Recommendations.................................................................................................... 6

Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 7

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 9

Prevalence of CIOCs.............................................................................................. 10

Developing CIOCs.................................................................................................. 12

Management of HOAs ........................................................................................... 15

Gardens & Landscaping.......................................................................................... 19

Pets.......................................................................................................................... 20

Permissible Vehicles................................................................................................ 20

Building Exteriors and Architecture ....................................................................... 20

Streets/Driveways/Walkways ................................................................................. 21

Signage..................................................................................................................... 21

Residents’ Behavior ................................................................................................ 21

Perceptions in News Media ..................................................................................... 22

Community Associations Institute............................................................................ 23

ISSUES AFFECTING CIOCs AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ............................ 25

Responsibility for Roadway Maintenance ............................................................... 25

What Can Occur When Municipalities Do Not Take Dedication of Roadways...... 26

Stormwater Runoff System Maintenance ................................................................ 28

HOA Owned Dams .................................................................................................. 29

Delinquent HOA Fees.............................................................................................. 30

Gated Communities ................................................................................................. 30

-vTHE

ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT IN CIOCs ....................................................... 33

CIOCs Access to State Money................................................................................. 33

The Issue of “Double Taxation” .............................................................................. 34

Legislative Activities in Other States ...................................................................... 36

Recent Legislative Activity Affecting CIOCs ......................................................... 37

ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA......................................................................39

Community Associations Institute........................................................................... 39

Pennsylvania Department of State ........................................................................... 39

County Planning Commission Surveys ................................................................... 40

County Tax Assessment Office Surveys.................................................................. 41

Treasure Lake........................................................................................................... 42

Pike and Monroe County CIOC Data ...................................................................... 43

Data Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX A: PIKE COUNTY CIOC DATA............................................................ 47

APPENDIX B: MONROE COUNTY CIOC DATA .................................................. 53

APPENDIX C: MONROE COUNTY REAL ESTATE TAX ESTIMATES ............. 59

APPENDIX D: COUNTIES WHICH PROVIDED SURVEY DATA ....................... 65

-vi-

1-

-2-

-3-

-4-

-5-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On July 2, 2009, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed House Resolution

350, Printer’s No. 2100, which directed the Joint State Government Commission to study the

impacts of Common Interest Ownership Communities (CIOCs) on the Commonwealth and its

local governments, collect information on the communities, their residents and infrastructure, tax

burden and access to state funding sources.1 CIOCs are defined in Title 68 of the Pennsylvania

Consolidated Statutes, entitled Real and Personal Property, as Condominiums, Cooperatives and

Planned Communities. These communities are considered private and are typically governed by

a Homeowners Association (HOAs) of residents. HOAs control CIOCs in the same way a

municipal government controls traditional residential developments. In exchange for the

payment of membership fees and assessments, the HOA ensures that residents are provided

certain services and that common property and amenities are maintained and improved. In

simple terms, the property owners are taxed by the HOA for the services it provides.

There are currently no requirements for municipalities to provide certain public services,

such as sanitary sewer, drinking water and roadway maintenance to CIOCs that may be provided

to traditional residential developments. Other municipal services, notably emergency services,

are provided to residents regardless of where they live. That residents of CIOCs are fully taxed

by their municipalities in addition to paying HOA fees leads many to feel they are subject to

“double taxation” without receiving an equitable return of services. Conversely, municipal

officials say residents are informed of HOA fees, assessments and restrictions prior to their

purchase, and residents willingly choose to reside within CIOCs for the amenities they offer.

House Resolution 350 directed this study to report on the number of CIOCs in each

county and municipality. Though a survey, the Commission staff contacted dozens of municipal,

county, and state agencies and found there is no official count made of CIOCs by any

government agency in the Commonwealth. While we believe most of the survey respondents

provided accurate data, there is no way to know with any degree of certainty as no entity is

currently required to maintain data on CIOCs, and they are not required to register with any

entity. Further, the resolution directed the study to report on the amount of annual local and state

taxes paid by CIOC residents. These data are similarly unavailable. No government agency,

either municipal or state, keeps an account of how many Pennsylvania residents live in CIOCs

and how much they pay in taxes. The resolution directed that the study report on the “amount

and age of current infrastructure” in CIOCs. With no local or state count of the CIOCs, no

means of locating CIOCs, and no agency or association that collects comprehensive data on

CIOCs, it is not possible to identify the amount and age of infrastructure in CIOCs.

1 A complete list of JSGC’s seven specific tasks, as directed in the “Resolved Clauses,” appears in the full text of

House Resolution 350 on page 1 of this report.

-6-

Despite the lack of usable data and Commission staff’s necessary reliance on anecdotal

information, this report offers a more comprehensive review of CIOCs than has been previously

available. Despite the friction between HOAs and municipalities on the subject of taxation, there

are avenues for cooperation between government entities and private communities. Further, the

Commonwealth may need to make resources available to private communities when

deteriorating infrastructure poses potential hazards to residents outside of CIOC’s. The report’s

conclusions offer many practical solutions to current problems, and present many policies that

could ease future difficulties with the continued growth of CIOCs as a housing option in the

Commonwealth.

Recommendations

Recommendations include the following policy and statutory changes:

1. Encourage CIOCs and local governments to look for areas of consolidation and

cooperation of services to find cost savings for both entities.

2. Encourage local municipalities to provide assistance to HOAs that request help on

projects that could impact people outside of the CIOC, including dam repair,

upkeep of publicly accessible green space and recreation amenities required by

local ordinance, sanitary sewer or drinking water projects and stormwater

infrastructure.

3. Require municipalities to accept dedication of all roads that are built to PennDOT

specifications, as adopted by the municipalities or under PennDOT Publication

72M, “Standards for Roadway Construction.”

4. Encourage the use of maintenance-free stormwater retention features to lessen the

burdens on CIOCs. Developers should work cooperatively with municipalities on

maintenance and design, including swales, permeable cover, riparian buffers and

water gardens as identified in industry Best Management Practices.

5. Encourage municipal planners to require cooperative development of sewer and

water projects to tie into or improve existing public infrastructure as defined by the

Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and included in comprehensive

plans.

6. Prohibit stormwater retention infrastructure from being assigned to an individual lot

within the CIOC and require HOA ownership and maintenance.

7. County planning officers in the Commonwealth are required by Section 207 of the

MPC to submit an annual report. The MPC should be amended to require County

Planning Commissions to track certain information on CIOCs, including their

-7-

names, physical locations, land area, lot size and number of units, presence of a

mixed use development, infrastructure including sanitary sewer, water and

stormwater systems, dedication of roadways including roads built to specifications,

common infrastructure and recreation facilities, and articles of incorporation or

other non-profit organization registration information filed with the Department of

State.

8. Require municipalities that provide trash, recycling, bulk item collection and yard

waste services to offer those services to all residents within municipalities, whether

in an HOA or not, but allow CIOCs to opt out and provide their own services.

9. Municipal, county and state emergency management coordinators should include

CIOCs in all municipal disaster planning, preparation and clean-up.

10. Require the information supplied by HOAs at the resale of a home, within a

condominium or planned community, be provided by a unit owner or declarant,

when applicable.

11. Support the passage and implementation of House Bill 1941, Printer’s No. 2663 of

2011, sponsored by Representative Mario Scavello, which creates the Dam Project

Assistance Act. The Dam Project’s bond fund would open $225 million for the

removal, restoration and repair of state-owned dams and $275 million for private

dams. The owners of private dams would need to apply as co-applicants with local

governments. Priorities would be given to high-hazard dams, with immediate safety

issues and those necessary for drinking water systems. This bill would help address

one specific area of CIOC infrastructure that would affect those outside the CIOC in

the event of a failure.

Conclusions

The issues surrounding CIOCs are difficult to simplify. CIOCs are the creation of at least

three different local forces, each with agendas pulling in a different direction. Builders are

primarily interested in developing residential properties that are most advantageous to their

business models. Municipal officials are primarily concerned with maintaining their

responsibilities to their residents and communities. Consumers seek the best home value for their

investments, both tangible and intangible. The three agendas converge where market forces find

an equilibrium, where quality of life, the real estate market and consumer preferences meet.

In the end, people choose to purchase houses from among those that are available, hoping

to have purchased the right home in the right community at the right price. Theoretically,

consumers make rational choices based upon complete information. Practically, consumers make

choices based on available, often imperfect information, given the parameters and constraints

they face. Overtime, those conditions are likely to change. Long term changes in the values of

-8-

real estate, in the health of communities, and in the values of their neighbors are unforeseeable. It

is perhaps unrealistic to expect that the neighborhood one buys into today will remain unchanged

in the decades to come.

In general, every prospective homeowner is faced with a choice of where to purchase.

Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution2 states it is the right of the individual to

choose where to obtain a house, whether to own property wholly, in part, or not at all. One could

say that builders leave prospective buyers with a limited choice, or that builders are constructing

homes to meet a demand. Buyers should choose an HOA the same way they should evaluate

heating costs and utilities, age of infrastructure, amenities in a locale, quality of schools, crime

statistics, access to transportation, municipal, county and city taxes on a

non-HOA property, daily commute to work, and style and construction of home they are

purchasing. If residents choose a CIOC way of life, they should be prepared for the

responsibilities that come with it, including maintenance of community infrastructure and

payment of local taxes. In rural areas, where no zoning or land use restrictions exist, residents

need to be prepared to service on-lot septic systems, drill and maintain a well, provide their own

trash disposal and if they move next to an existing farm or business, be exposed to smells and

traffic.

Aiding prospective buyers in that choice is the benefit of reviewing certain information

prior to sale, in both real property and planned communities, including the further benefit of a

home inspection.3 When a unit within a planned community is listed for sale, the Uniform

Planned Community Act requires the unit owner and the HOA to supply the prospective

purchaser with 17 different disclosures, ranging from a statement of monthly fees, current

operating budget, amount of reserves for capital expenditures and voting procedures for unit

owners.4 Similar disclosures are required for the sale of cooperatives and condominiums in the

Real Estate Cooperative Act and the Uniform Condominium Act.5 Sellers of residential real

property, separate from a CIOC, are subject to the same standards under a seller’s property

disclosure statement, which requires the same variety of information regarding the home’s

soundness.6 These disclosures provide ample information to the prospective buyer, in any

setting, allowing them to make an educated choice.

HOAs are an attempt to maintain the status quo, to meet current laws, regulations, and

ordinances and to meet the needs and desires of their membership. Local officials perhaps

function as an HOA for the municipality as a whole, and have responsibilities to all of their

residents. The best outcomes result when the two organizations cooperate with one another to

meet the needs of private communities along with the general population. This report attempts

to thread the issues standing between the two, and suggests a number of recommendations that, it

is hoped, will lead to agreeable outcomes.

2 Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states, “All men are born equally free and independent, and

have certain inherent and indefensible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty,

possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.”

3 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 7501 - 7513.

4 68 Pa.C.S. § 5407.

5 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 3407 (condominiums) & 4409 (cooperatives).

6 Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law, 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 7301 - 7315.

-9-

BACKGROUND

In an effort to thoroughly understand CIOCs in Pennsylvania, Commission staff spoke

with a diverse list of stakeholders and experts representing a wide range of issues and positions,

with respect to both communities and government involvement. These discussions provided a

representative sample of what each stakeholder or group believed was occurring with respect to

CIOCs and determined where existing data could be found that were relevant to HR 350. Each

group’s discussion provided a unique viewpoint as to what was occurring regionally and

statewide.

National figures from the Community Associations Institute (CAI) estimate that

80 percent of new housing starts since 2000 are built as CIOCs and governed by HOAs.7

Unfortunately, very few groups or individuals were able to provide specific, concrete details

concerning Pennsylvania, making empirical evidence the exception and incomplete or anecdotal

evidence the rule. In most cases, the data simply do not exist in any form or in a useable form

that is readily accessible. These shortcomings will be explored in detail in the data section on

page 39, but are important to understand when reviewing the list of contacts below. In general,

issues surrounding CIOCs are inherently local in nature, although the state may provide policy

direction.

Commission staff’s exhaustive search for data and research conducted on CIOCs

included contacting the following organizations, representing both stakeholders and experts:

Community Associations Institute, Pennsylvania and Delaware Valley Chapter

Pennsylvania Local Government Commission

Heritage Conservancy, Doylestown, PA

Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors

County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association

Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department, Criminal Investigations Unit

7 Community Associations Institute, “Governed by Neighbors: The Nature of Community Associations,”

http://www.caionline.org/about/press/Media%20Statements/statement_governance2.doc., pg.4.

-10-

Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Bureau of Narcotics Investigation and

Drug Control

Pennsylvania State Police

Pennsylvania School Boards Association

Pennsylvania Builders Association

Representatives from Sandy Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, including

Supervisors, the Chief of Police & Township Manager

Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, Governor’s

Center for Local Government Services

Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority

Pennsylvania Department of State

County Planning Commissions representing 66 counties

County Assessment Offices representing 67 counties

Pennsylvania Realtors Association

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Waterways,

Wetlands, and Stormwater Management

Prevalence of CIOCs

From the Pocono region to the Philadelphia suburbs to some of the most rural areas of the

Commonwealth, CIOCs have sprung up to provide individuals and families with different and

affordable opportunities for community living. CIOCs are often sought by potential homebuyers

because of the attractiveness and amenities they offer. In certain areas, municipalities welcome

these communities because they typically do not rely on municipal services to the extent that

traditional developments do.

A CIOC is a residential housing development that couples privately held property with

property held in common with other members of the development. There are three types of

CIOCs: condominiums, cooperatives, and planned communities, and each is governed by a set of

-11-

laws and regulations. Condominiums are usually apartment-style homes, and the owner has full

authority over the space within his unit and holds an interest in common areas of the property. In

cooperatives, the owner buys into a cooperative or association that owns the building but entitles

him to exclusive control over his unit. Planned communities are developments where a person

owning an interest in a portion of the real estate is obligated to pay for maintenance, repair,

improvements, management, administration and regulation of any portion other than what he

owns privately. According to Pennsylvania’s real property law, planned communities can

consist of developments combining certain aspects of cooperatives and condominiums. Other

planned communities require the owner to buy a unit, and then obtain a separate deed to verify

ownership of the land surrounding the lot. Each individual community is governed by its own

declaration and articles, a set of bylaws, and various regulations and decisions.8

CIOCs are attractive to first time home buyers, fixed-income retirees, and low to

moderate income families because outside maintenance is usually provided by the homeowners

association. Special landscaping and architectural uniformity often appeal to potential home

buyers, which furthermore aids in the success of these communities.

The first planned community in the U.S. was built in Levittown, on Long Island, NY in

1947 by developer William J. Levitt. He followed those in the 1950s with similar communities in

Pennsylvania (1952), New Jersey (1955) and Maryland (1957).9 The first condominium was built

in 1960 in Salt Lake City, Utah but was initially designed as a housing cooperative. The first

actual cooperative was not built until 1964 in New York City.10 In 1970, 2.1 million people

occupied 10,000 communities around the United States. The decades that followed saw these

communities experience significant growth in the number of CIOCs. As of 2010, 62 million

Americans occupy over 309,000 CIOCs nationwide.11 Today, one in five homeowners is subject

to an association’s rules, placing a spotlight on everything from association governance,

municipal services, homeowner disputes and data collection.

Homeowners who choose to reside in a CIOC often have access to a number of

recreational options owned by the HOA. Amenities often including parks, pools, tennis courts,

golf courses, lakes, ponds, walking trails, sidewalks and community buildings of varying size

and scope. CIOCs can also offer residents a reprieve on routine lawn work and outdoor

maintenance. In many of these communities, plowing/shoveling snow, raking leaves, mowing

grass, planting flowers and shrubs are all included in the HOAs maintenance fee. Young

families enjoy these perks because they offer conveniences that appeals to those with busy

schedules while offering safe, family outdoor activities. Older people enjoy the maintenance

benefits because they may not be physically able to do all of these things themselves.

8 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 3103, 4103 & 5103.

9 Eric Pace, “William J. Levitt, Pioneer of Suburbs, Dies,” NY Times, January 29, 1994, http://www.nytimes.com/

1994/01/29/obituaries/william-j-levitt-86-pioneer-of-suburbs-dies.html, (accessed October 24, 2011); Angela

Ogunjimi, “History of Homeowners Associations,” http://www.ehow.com/info_8036857_history-homeownersassociations.

html, (accessed July 26, 2011).

10 American Bar Association, “Sharing Ownership,” ABA Guide to Home Ownership, 1995, http://www.american

bar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/practical/books/home_ownership/chapter_2.authcheckdam.pdf,

(accessed July 9, 2009).

11 Supra note 7.

-12-

Residents of these communities are also subject to extra rules and regulations designed to

prevent one or two homeowners in the community from allowing their property to deteriorate

and reduce the property values of neighboring homes. These extra rules can be beneficial for the

overall appearance of the community, such as not allowing residents to let trash pile up on their

property, general upkeep of their house or using non-traditional colors, like hot pink, that clash

with the community’s aesthetics. Other rules and regulations can be a little more controversial,

such as not allowing residents to dry their laundry outside because it takes away from the overall

appearance of the community. It should be noted that traditional developments sometimes have

similar deed restrictions and stipulations.

Some CIOCs are built as gated communities and offer residents a greater perceived

feeling of safety. These communities may have a full-time security force. People who live in

these communities are willing to pay to have this added level of perceived safety that the

community outside of the CIOC does not have.

CIOCs’ popularity correlates with financial incentives for both municipalities and

developers. When a developer wants to build on land it needs approval from various state and

local government agencies.12 A developer can maximize its investment if the lot sizes are

smaller and home densities greater. Developers are subject to multiple permit and approval

processes, Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances, but often negotiates variations that

impact the future HOA. If a developer builds a road that does not meet PennDOT specifications,

it may fit more homes in the same acreage. The municipality may sometimes benefit from this

because if the developer can build more homes within a development, it may increase the tax

base of the municipality. Also, if roads are not built to PennDOT and municipal specifications,

the municipality will not take dedication of the roads and does not have the added expense of

maintenance on the new roads. One downside to the developer building homes closer together is

the increased need for a more involved stormwater mitigation infrastructure to prevent

flooding.13 Again, some municipalities do not object to this because stormwater management

systems are usually maintained by the HOA once the developer has finished the work.

Developing CIOCs

The construction of CIOCs and creation of HOAs helps builders to compete in highly

competitive housing markets while simultaneously relieving municipalities of the often fiscally

and politically burdensome responsibility to provide services to new developments. CIOCs, as

private developments, are therefore not subject to the same mix of regulations as traditional

developments. Hundreds of thousands of homes, notably in sunbelt states experiencing rapid

development, have been constructed in CIOCs in recent decades. Estimates show that half of all

12 Many state government environmental regulations are actually Federal regulations which are implemented and

enforced by the states.

13 The size and complexity of a stormwater mitigation system is larger when there is more impervious cover, and

less area for groundwater recharge. This increases runoff and often requires the use of more “unnatural” forms of

stormwater runoff systems such as the creation of retention ponds.

-13-

new housing in the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas is being built in CIOCs. In some areas

CIOCs make up 60 percent of housing growth.14 In an effort to outpace construction costs,

builders have come to rely on CIOCs as a viable way to maintain profitability. Further, they are

using CIOCs in innovative ways to overcome what are considered by many to be increasingly

burdensome zoning, permitting and other ordinances layered on at the municipal level.

Between 1940 and 1999, new housing unit construction averaged about 593,000 units per

decade in Pennsylvania, and more than 1.4 million new units were built between 1980 and

2008.15 The biggest housing increase since the post-World War II boom of the 1950s came

between 1970 and 1979 when 703,845 new units were constructed.16 The construction of

hundreds of thousands of new homes each year cannot occur without environmental

consequences. Rising concern over the effects of land development on watersheds in

Pennsylvania led to the passage of the Storm Water Management Act of 1978.17 In essence, it

had been determined that insufficient planning for stormwater runoff was having a deleterious

effect on downstream watersheds. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

administers regulations that place responsibility for stormwater management on municipalities

and landowners.

A significant part of the act states:

Section 13. Duty of persons engaged in the development of land.

Any landowner and any person engaged in the alteration or development of

land which may affect storm water runoff characteristics shall implement such

measures consistent with the provisions of the applicable watershed storm water

plan as are reasonably necessary to prevent injury to health, safety or other

property. Such measures shall include such actions as are required:

(1) to assure that the maximum rate of storm water runoff is no greater

after development than prior to development activities; or

(2) to manage the quantity, velocity and direction of resulting storm water

runoff in a manner which otherwise adequately protects health and property

from possible injury.

The concern over runoff into watersheds continues. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency promulgated new standards for farms, residents and municipalities to control runoff into

watersheds in May 2010.18

14 Eran Ben-Joseph, “Double Standards, Single Goal: Private Communities and Design Innovation,” Journal of

Urban Design, Vol. 9, No. 2 131-151, June 2004, pg. 132, http://web.mit.edu/ebj/www/JUDStandards.pdf,

(accessed May 21, 2010).

15 U.S. Census Fact Finder http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US42&-qr_name

=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on,

(accessed May 12, 2010).

16 Ibid.

17 Act of Oct. 4, 1978, P.L. 864, No. 167.

18 Ad Crable, “‘Pollution Diet’ in federal Chesapeake Bay fix plan,” Lancaster Online, May 12, 2010 http://articles.

lancasteronline.com/local/4/254860, (accessed May 12, 2010).

-14-

The pressure to provide services to a growing residential housing market has been

burdensome to many municipalities, which have sought to alleviate the expense and strain of

meeting their obligations. To meet the requirements of Section 13, developers create

homeowners associations (HOAs) when they build new residential construction. The HOAs

assume responsibility for the maintenance of the stormwater basins located within their

developments after the developer relinquishes control of the property to the HOA.

The prevalence of government regulations is often cited as a driving reason for much of

the growth in CIOCs. Developers see themselves as accommodating market trends toward

buyers’ preferences for HOAs, while negotiating their way around regulatory obstacles. While

some municipalities have adapted smart growth techniques, comprehensive plans and strict

zoning, which allows for mixed-use and higher density building options, some rural counties

have failed to update their land-use policies. Many communities have seen surges in both

population growth and farmland conversion as huge swaths of land are built upon with larger

lot-size requirements, which, ironically, are often enacted as a way to slow large-scale

development.19

A 2002 survey of developers showed that 80 percent believe regulations of site design

were the most expensive obstacles they face. Of these requirements, those considered most

excessive were related to street construction, including width and setback requirements, land

dedication for open space and recreation and stormwater mitigation.20 In Pennsylvania, roadway

regulations are detailed in the Department of Transportation Publication 72M, “Standards for

Roadway Construction.”21 Given these and similar pressures and in light of the competitive

nature of housing construction, builders often seek to develop CIOCs because private

developments are often less regulated by municipalities. Through negotiation with municipal

authorities, builders are innovating new techniques that bypass standards and offer more flexible

planning and better profitability. Allowances made for CIOCs include narrower streets, smaller

setbacks, non-standard street configurations, and alternative paving materials were identified in

84 percent of cities in a 1995 national survey.22

Many CIOC developers create homeowners’ associations (HOAs) to preserve the

integrity of a community and help maintain its long term value. It frees the developer of financial

and legal responsibility of the community by transferring ownership of the association to the

homeowners after selling a predetermined number of lots.23 Homeowners pay annual dues to

cover maintenance and amenity costs within the community. HOAs function as “private”

governments, enforcing deed restrictions on what can be done in and to the neighborhood. These

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Smart Growth Principles,” http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_sg.

htm, (accessed June 12, 2011).

20 Supra note 14 at pg. 138.

21 “Roadway Construction Standards,” Publication 72M, Bureau of Construction and Materials, Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation, June 2010, ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/design/PUB72M/PUB72COV.pdf,

(accessed September 29, 2011).

22 Supra note 14 at pg. 142.

23 68 Pa.C.S. § 5303(c).

-15-

deed restrictions help make the community appealing over a long period of time and hold

homeowners responsible for the ongoing maintenance of their property, helping to maintain

property values and control the appearance of the neighborhood.24

Management of HOAs

During the construction of a CIOC, the builder establishes an association that includes

among its members the builder and future property owners, and lays the groundwork for a body

to govern in lieu of the municipality. This organization, commonly referred to as a homeowners

association (HOA), has authority to enforce the development’s Conditions, Covenants, and

Restrictions (CC&Rs), levy assessments and fees, manage the HOA’s sinking fund, and is

responsible for the maintenance of common areas within the CIOC.25 The HOA’s governing

laws allow the builder to cede its responsibilities to the HOA in proportion to the number of units

sold. Eventually, the builder is removed entirely from the HOA and control is held by the HOA’s

membership. In Pennsylvania, there are several conditions under which a builder turns control

over to the HOA. These conditions include when 75 percent of the units have been purchased;

two years after the builder has ceased to offer units for sale; or two years after any right to

construct new units has been last exercised.26 In some HOAs, the mortgage lender continues to

hold a position of authority in the HOA.27

Since most CIOCs are privatized by HOAs, each community provides its own

maintenance for services such as trash and recycling pick-up, roadway maintenance, street lights

and signs, stormwater infrastructure and snow plowing. Although the services are covered by

their individual community, homeowners may pay municipal taxes for similar services as well.

Very few states have statutes compensating condominium owners for municipal services,

eliminating the payment, often dubbed “double taxation.” Maryland is the only state that gives

the governing bodies of private residential communities the freedom to contract for the delivery

of “residential street services” with the municipalities providing reimbursement in-lieu-of

services.28 The law, adopted in 1995, also allows for roadways to be dedicated for public use.

The 1989 Municipal Services Act in New Jersey requires municipalities to provide services to

qualified private communities or reimburse them for snow removal, lighting of roads and streets,

and collection of solid waste and recyclables, alleviating the burden from HOAs or individual

homeowners.29 In addition, “the municipality shall be required to accept for dedication for public

24 Lindsay Andrews, “House Urban Affairs Committee, 3/26/09,” testimony by Community Associations Institute.

25 A sinking fund refers to a pot of money set aside by an organization for the purpose of reducing the organization’s

debt over time. The Joint State Government Commission found that a sinking fund, within the framework of HOAs,

commonly refers to a fund established to pay for maintenance and capital improvements to the CIOC.

26 68 Pa.C.S. § 5303(c).

27 Barbara Coyle McCabe, “The Rules Are Different Here: An Institutional Comparison of Cities and Homeowners

Associations,” Administration & Society, September 2005, pg. 416.

28 Maryland Code, Corporations – Municipal, § 49-51.

29 New Jersey Permanent Statutes, Municipalities and Counties, Title 40, § 67-23.3 and § 67-23.7.

-16-

use…any road or street within the community that conforms to municipal specifications for

public roads and streets.”30 Other states, including Rhode Island and Connecticut have

considered similar legislation in recent years.

The CC&Rs controlled and administered by the HOA are intended to maintain each

CIOC’s community standards.31 These complex and often highly specific CC&Rs can be dozens

of pages long, though most CC&R documents include regulations common enough to verge on

boilerplate. In The Rules Are Different Here: An Institutional Comparison of Cities and

Homeowners Associations, Barbara McCabe wrote, “CC&Rs address a myriad of issues related

to the development…and generally serve to regulate taste.”32 Typically, CC&Rs are viewed

through the lens of how specifically they detail resident behavior: on which side of a street

residents may park cars, if cars, boats or campers may be parked overnight, or whether a toy

sandbox can be in view. Each of the CIOC’s CC&Rs are written to preserve shared values of the

residents and, importantly, the financial value of the property. When seen from the perspective

of a preservation of private property, the CC&Rs are not essentially different from urban

zero-tolerance crime policies that seek to enhance residents’ quality of life by applying the

“broken window” hypothesis.33 A survey by Zogby International, which was sponsored by the

CAI, found that 78 percent of HOA residents believed that their HOA rules and regulations

“protect and enhance” property values, and 80 percent believed that their professional

management company provides value to the residents.34

Commission staff heard several recurring themes from stakeholders who identified

problems associated with HOAs. Inadequate association dues and reserve funds for maintenance

and improvements were identified as problems, as were unqualified managers and administrators

and inadequate staffing.

Stakeholders’ comments gathered for this report are summarized as follows:

Developers have little incentive to leave a significant rainy day or reserve fund. Most

developers are required to leave the HOA with an established reserve fund to get the

HOA started. However, the developer has an incentive to underestimate the amount

of reserve funds needed to support the HOA in the first few years. If the developer

takes advantage of these incentives, the HOA is left in the hole financially from the

very beginning.

Developers have a financial incentive to set HOA fees on the low side. Developers

want to sell lots to builders and homeowners. If they set an HOA fee too high, it

might scare off potential buyers. Also, developers may believe the fees do not need

30 Ibid, Title 40, § 67-23.7.

31 Supra note 7.

32 Supra note 27 at pg. 408.

33 Hope Corman and Naci Mocan, “Carrots, Sticks, and Broken Windows,” Journal of Law and Economics,

April 2005, http://bus.lsu.edu/mocan/CARROTS,%20STICKS,%20AND%20BROKEN%20WINDOWS.pdf,

(accessed August 25, 2009).

34 CAI, Zogby International, “What do Americans say about their own community associations?”

http://www.caionline.org/info/research/Documents/national_research_2009.pdf, (accessed August 24, 2011).

-17-

to be high in the beginning because maintenance costs in a brand new community

should be fairly low. They may assume that when the HOA takes over, fees can be

increased as necessary.

Some HOAs have difficulty raising substandard HOA fees to adequate levels on their

own. Usually HOA fees are set by a vote of all community homeowners. Residents

who only plan to stay in the community for a limited time do not see the need to pay

HOA fees into a long-term reserve fund. Long-term residents have an incentive to

see that fees are appropriately set, but with the low savings rate nationwide, people

often do not save enough money for their own personal rainy day fund.

Consequently, it is often difficult for many families to all agree to save more

collectively in a reserve fund. So when something major occurs, like a community

swimming pool in need of major repairs or a bad winter that results in extraordinary

plowing costs, the reserve fund may not be sufficient to cover expenses. If the HOA

does not have adequate funds to cover the expense, it is forced to either take on debt

or charge all residents a one-time assessment to cover their share of the cost, which is

usually unpopular.

Some CIOCs are too small to hire management companies and so day-to-day

activities are left to the HOA Board. The Board is made up of people from the

community who may or may not have the experience needed to deal with a broad

range of issues including accounting and taxes, legal questions, maintenance issues,

and dealing with people with complaints within the community. For example, if the

HOA does not have a regular CPA, it is less likely anyone will realize that the reserve

fund is not large enough or the HOA does not have enough insurance against a major

catastrophe.

A lack of or limited staff can make it difficult for day-to-day operations of the HOA

to continue. For example, if someone in the community wants to sell their home, they

need to provide all the legal HOA documents to the buyer before the home sale can

be finalized. The Pennsylvania’s Realtor Association indicated that some HOAs have

difficulty responding to simple requests for common documents in a reasonable time

frame. This could potentially lead to the seller finding it difficult to attract buyers

wanting to close quickly.

McCabe wrote that CC&Rs and HOA bylaws are drafted to represent the interests of the

“institutional entrepreneur,” that is, the developer. As such, the CC&Rs and HOA bylaws are,

initially, “crafted by an individual whose goal is to sell, but not necessarily to live in, the

community he or she has created. For that reason, these rules may do more to facilitate property

sales and maintenance than community governance.”35

35 Supra note 27 at pg. 409.

-18-

It can be argued, however, that CC&Rs and HOA bylaws nonetheless attract initial

property buyers and that if CC&Rs and HOA bylaws are maintained largely intact they will

continue to attract buyers who reflect the interests of the CIOC residents. Thus, the benefits of

stability and reliability are provided.

HOAs are established under state law as non-profit private corporations and courts have

viewed HOAs as business enterprises, granting them “considerable autonomy from their host

city and state.”36 Moreover, “Once established, neither the state nor its cities can extinguish an

HOA, modify its jurisdiction, or demand that it perform tasks not assigned to it in its organizing

documents.”37 In Pennsylvania, 68 Pa C.S., § 5220 requires the termination of planned

communities by a majority vote of at least 80 percent of residents.38 As with other types of

property, the state may exercise eminent domain over property in planned communities.39

Proponents of HOAs say they ensure a standard of living, maintain property values, offer

amenities not available in traditional communities, impart a feeling of community and belonging

among members, and give members more direct control over their community. Criticism of

CIOCs include that they are exclusive, contribute to social segregation, and reinforce fears about

people living outside the community.40

In purchasing a property within the HOA’s jurisdiction, property owners become

members of the HOA and are bound to its CC&Rs. In exchange, they are given voting privileges

in the HOA’s management and proceedings. Seen from the standpoint of economic models,

membership in an HOA allows consumers in private markets the opportunity to insure the

stability of their investment.

In contrast to CIOCs, properties in traditional neighborhoods are not necessarily secure

investments. While “individually rational, opportunistic behavior,” drives markets such personal

moves may not be beneficial to a neighborhood. If one resident allows his property to decline in

value, the cost is borne not only by him, but also by his neighbors. Conversely, if a property

owner invests in improvements, his neighbors benefit without having made similar investments.

Unchecked, such lopsided, asymmetric relationships could spiral into losses for all residents.

HOAs provide a buttress against market uncertainty by enforcing cooperation that stabilizes and

secures the value of the properties within their borders. The HOA’s “rules of governance each

set procedures, secure rights, and express restrictions for directing future decisions.”41 However,

whether living in HOAs or traditional communities, people have less tangible investments in

their neighborhood than the money spent on their houses. Schools, community groups, local

organizations and businesses may all contribute to enhance the neighborhood’s quality of life.

36 Supra note 27 at pg. 406.

37 Supra note 27 at pg. 407.

38 68 Pa.C.S. § 5220.

39 68 Pa.C.S. § 5107.

40 Andrew Kirby, et. al, “Examining the Significance of Housing Enclaves in the Metropolitan United States of

America,” Housing, Theory and Society, 2006, pgs. 19-33.

41 Supra note 27 at pg. 410.

-19-

Members’ involvement in the HOA provides them with a direct connection to policies,

budgets, and day-to-day administration, which together give them more control over their

community than they may otherwise have. Larger HOAs often hire professional managers to

administer the financial, planning, insurance, maintenance, laws, and regulations on behalf of

HOA members.

Renters living in CIOCs are not property owners, and therefore not voting members of

the HOAs governing their communities. The system of voting by property owners links the

parties most financially and legally responsible for the well-being of the CIOC directly to the

governance of the CIOC. Those who bear the costs reap the benefits. Robert Ellickson, in New

Institutions for Old Neighborhoods, argued that: “Allocation of votes by property ownership,

instead of by residency, would give rise to an electorate attuned to both the costs and benefits of

decisions, an outcome that enhances the probability of prudent institutional governance.”42

It has been argued, however, that HOAs can limit homeowners’ rights to a greater extent

than municipalities can, even to a point that would be considered unconstitutional.43 Professor

Evan McKenzie wrote, in Common-Interest Housing in the Communities of Tomorrow:

Homeowners’ associations are not restricted by the conventional notions of civil

liberties, and their activities are supported by a powerful array of professionals,

including lawyers, property managers, accountants, and others. Individual

homeowners who dispute the authority of their associations typically learn in

short order that the courts generally support the authority of this form of private

government.

A sampling of CC&Rs selected from Pennsylvania CIOCs shows they have common

categories among them. Some of these categories include provisions for landscaping and

gardens, building exteriors and architecture, permissible vehicles, signage,

streets/driveways/walkways, pets, and general behavior of residents. The CC&Rs are the code

that informs owners of the rules and standards to which they are held and what behaviors they

can expect of their fellow residents. The HOA has the authority to levy financial penalties

against residents who do not comply with the CC&Rs.

Gardens & Landscaping

CC&Rs define the permissible use of landscaping and gardens for residents. Generally,

modifications to the property may be made only with the approval of the HOA. In some cases,

the CC&Rs specify little more than that the owner is responsible for the grounds around his

residence, such as lawn and vegetation maintenance and repair. It may be specified that trees

and shrubs must be appropriately trimmed so as not to reach a point of “overgrowth.” Other

42 Robert C. Ellickson, “New Institutions for Old Neighborhoods,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 48:75, 1998,

www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?48+Duke+L.+J.+75+pdf. pg. 94, (accessed August 25, 2009).

43 Steven Siegel, “The Constitution and Private Government: Toward the Recognition of Constitutional Rights in

Private Residential Communities Fifty Years After Marsh v. Alabama,” William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,

Vol. 6, Issue 2, 1998, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=wmborj, (accessed

August 25, 2009).

-20-

CIOCs’ CC&Rs require that residents obtain written permission prior to the planting of trees and

shrubs. Some CC&Rs permit no tree plantings in front of residences and limit the number of tree

plantings permissible in the rear.

Most CC&Rs sampled include provisions for recreational activities on individual lots.

These regulations define uses such as whether or not a resident may install an above ground

swimming pool, use seasonal decorations such as Christmas lights or yard figures, leave BBQ

grills on their patio, install in-ground or raised bed gardens, or if permanent or moveable

basketball hoops may be installed.44

Outside and line-drying of laundry is prohibited in nearly all CC&Rs sampled. The rules

disallow hanging laundry from deck railings, the installation of clothes lines, laundry poles, and

the like. Some CC&Rs allow for outside line drying provided that the laundry is not visible to

neighbors.

Mailboxes are often subject to approval of the HOA. Television antennas and satellite

dishes may or may not be permitted, but often are allowed within certain dimensions.

Pets

In each of the CC&Rs sampled, the number of pets of any type is limited to two, and no

commercial breeding is permitted. Further, the keeping of farm animals, exotic pets and livestock

is not permitted.

Permissible Vehicles

While it is true that some HOAs maintain control over street parking, the regulations are

normally geared toward recreational vehicles such as motor homes, campers, and boats.

Vehicles such as these are usually not allowed to be parked within CIOCs for more than a day

unless they are garaged out of view.

Building Exteriors and Architecture

Allowable paint schemes are usually the most visible aspect of CC&Rs related to

building exteriors and architecture. Some CC&Rs prohibit outright the installation of storage

sheds, tree houses, and basketball hoops. Fences are commonly regulated by the HOA, and rules

define their installation. More important, however, is that CC&Rs regulate modifications to

existing building structures, installation of fences, and the construction of additional structures

on the premises. In some CC&Rs, allowable building materials are listed. Because the HOA is

44 Emilie Lounsberry, “White holiday lights only, say bylaws for a Bucks development – but some residents are

rebelling,” December 10, 2011, http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-10/news/30502254_1_lights-townhousedevelopment-

holiday-season, (accessed December 10, 2011).

-21-

primarily charged with protecting its residents’ quality of life and properties, it must give careful

consideration to any long term property modification. Usually, CC&Rs allow residents to

petition the HOA if they seek to make changes.

Streets/Driveways/Walkways

Because of the varying specifications to which CIOCs roadways are constructed, some

HOAs must regulate how vehicles are parked on their streets. In some CIOCs, narrow streets

demand that vehicles be parked solely on one side or the other to allow passage for emergency

responders. Other CIOC regulations may prohibit the use of street space and driveways for car

repairs. In condominiums, parking may be limited to a certain number of vehicles per unit, which

may be insufficient and create overflow problems along driveways and streets.

Signage

Perhaps the most known regulations in CC&Rs are those regarding signage. Media

reports about residents’ disagreements with HOAs over posting political signs, sports team

banners and the American and military flags are common. Often these residents elicit the

support of the public living outside the boundaries and agreements are made with particular

HOAs. Nonetheless, the CC&Rs sampled did allow provisions for signage within certain

restrictions on the allowable dimensions, and some allow other displays to be shown within

certain stipulations.

Residents’ Behavior

Residents’ behavior, and that of their guests, is also commonly addressed in CC&Rs.

Generally speaking, residents are expected to maintain a decorum in common areas that reflects

the values and respects the standards of neighbors. Particularly frowned upon are unreasonably

noisy activities that disturb fellow residents. Where HOAs claim responsibility for residents’

health and safety they may have policies that allow them some oversight of private space. For

example, an HOA in Florida passed an ordinance against hoarding, a move supported by the

local fire department.45 It has been reported that second-hand smoke is causing rifts between

neighbors in HOAs, and the question has arisen as to whether or not HOAs can regulate smoking

in residents’ private space.46

45 Claire Webb, “Laguna Woods Residents Told Not to Fear Hoarding Inspections,” The Orange County Register,

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hoarding-291249-policy-hoa.html, (accessed March 8, 2011).

46 ABC7News.com, “HOA Rule Forbids Couple To Smoke In Their Own Home,” http://www.thedenver

channel.com/news/10336501/detail.html, November 16, 2006, (accessed August 25, 2009).

-22-

In exchange for regulations such as these, HOAs provide stability and a greater level of

certainty “about what their neighbors will do to their homes, and how officials will respond, than

do homeowners outside HOAs.”47

Perceptions in News Media

HOAs are frequently perceived by the general public as being overbearing and overly

focused on managing the minutiae of residents’ daily lives. Media stories about controversies

between residents and HOAs tend to gather widespread attention. The American public’s ire

quickly falls on an HOA that prohibits flagpoles above a specified height. Disregarded in these

cases, whether about flagpoles or drying laundry, is that the residents are signatories to the HOA

CC&Rs. The HOAs are, for better or for worse, enforcing the CC&Rs they are charged to

uphold. Typical of negative media attention are these examples:

An elderly WWII veteran, and Medal of Honor winner in Virginia, was sanctioned by

his HOA for installing a 21’ flagpole that violated CC&Rs.48 In Pennsylvania the

“American, Commonwealth and Military Flag Act” prevents associations from

prohibiting the display of the American, Commonwealth, or military flags on

property privately controlled by residents. The Act does, however, allow HOAs to

limit the size, location, and use of flagpoles.49

A central Pennsylvania couple was told by their HOA not to hang their laundry

outside to dry. The case was not only reported in the local media, but also landed in

the national spotlight as well.50

In one extraordinary example, a resident was briefly jailed after failing to appear in

court to answer his HOA’s charges that he had not replaced damaged sod in his front

yard.51 While no legislation has passed the House or Senate, multiple bills have been

introduced in Pennsylvania to give residents of HOA’s the right to dry their laundry

outdoors.52

47 Supra note 27 at pg. 417.

48 Associated Press, “WWII vet gains support in Va. flagpole battle,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34261317

/ns/us_news-life/t/wwii-vet-gains-support-va-flagpole-battle/, 12/3/2009, (accessed July 5, 2011).

49 Act of July 7, 2006, P.L. 608, No. 93.

50 Lara Brenckle, “Upper Allen Township Laundry Battle Makes People Magazine,” The Patriot News,

September 7, 2010, http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/09/upper_allen_township_laundry_b.html,

(accessed September 15, 2010); Eileen Finan, “Dividing Lines,” People, September 13, 2010,

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20418835,00.html, (accessed September 15, 2010).

51 Jeff Gillman and Eric Heberlig, How the Government Got in Your Backyard, Timber Press Inc.: Portland, 2011.

52 “The Right To Dry Laundry by Solar Energy Act,” HB 417 & SB 1048 of 2011, HB 2158 of 2009.

-23-

One Nevada community got so disgusted with neighbors not cleaning up after their

dogs they initiated DNA testing to solve the crimes. HOA members are required to

register their dog into a DNA databank, but owners who fail to do so will face a $100

fine and have a lien put against their unit. Violators who do not clean up after their

dogs will face a $60 fine.53

In contrast to HOAs’ mentions in the media, not only are municipalities responsible for

enforcing local codes, the public has high expectations for their ferreting out zoning scofflaws

and bringing them to justice. Words like “slumlord,” and the less libelous “absentee landlord,”

were coined to characterize property owners who, in the eyes of both the public and municipal

authorities, violate local ordinances by neglecting to maintain properties to community

standards. Lawsuits are news in the case of property owners with track records of violations.54

The municipalities, for their part, are typically viewed by the public as enforcers of the public

good. In cases where property owners allow a particular property to degrade, most often through

dilapidated structures, accumulation of trash and refuse or vegetation overgrowth, the

municipality enforces measures that range from cutting grass to condemning buildings. The

property owners are billed for these services, and unpaid bills lead to liens and eventually

lawsuits. Nonetheless, municipalities generally do not enforce codes and ordinances as

vigilantly nor as vigorously as do HOAs, and tend to delay action until either nearby residents’

complaints are sufficiently fervent or violations rise to the level of endangering public health and

safety.55

Community Associations Institute

CAI is a trade-group representing the interests of CIOCs, HOAs and their residents since

1973. The Pennsylvania and Delaware Valley chapter represents some 1,500 member

associations and over 3 million Commonwealth residents living in Planned Communities,

Cooperatives and Condominiums, one-quarter of the state’s population. Nationally, 57 million

Americans live in 300,000 associations. While CAI represents all CIOC homeowners in the

figurative sense, the literal finds only a fraction of the total, perhaps as little as 10 percent, are

active members. The Foundation for Community Association Research and their research

partners, including Zogby International, have struggled to pinpoint sources for complete data.

While the functions and benefits of living in HOAs have been discussed earlier, the magnitude of

what role these communities play in Pennsylvania cannot be disputed. However, all population

and demographic information available to the organization are estimates, including the

53 Darcey Spears, “HOA uses DNA testing to target dog owners who don’t scoop poop,” ABC 13 Action News,

December 15, 2011, (accessed December 15, 2011).

54 Brett Hambright, “City targets landlord,” Lancaster Online, http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/431105_Citytargets-

landlord.html#ixzz1XHJTnIG7, July 31, 2011, (accessed August 12, 2011).

55 There are instances, however, in which a municipality is characterized as overreaching the spirit of the law when

enforcing codes. Like the aforementioned HOA resident who was taken to court by his HOA and subsequently

jailed, a resident of Oak Park, Detroit, a traditional neighborhood rather than CIOC, faced up to 90 days in jail for

failing to comply with municipal ordinances related to plantings in her front yard. Adrian Higgins, “Some

Homeowners Finding Out That Garden Police Can Go Too Far,” The Washington Post, July 30, 2011,

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11211/1163956-30-0.stm, (accessed August 1, 2011).

-24-

Pennsylvania and national figures. A main feature of this report was to establish accurate

numbers, but that is not possible as not even the CAI has comprehensive or methodological

data.56

A national research study, commissioned by CAI, was updated in 2009 by Zogby

International, which included a survey of CIOC residents. Findings of the survey concluded that:

Residents are satisfied with their community associations

Association board members strive to serve the best interests of the community

Community managers provide value and support to associations

Association rules protect and enhance property values

Homeowners value the return they get for their association assessments

Residents do not want additional government intervention in their communities57

In the current legislative session, CAI has endorsed the following pieces of legislation

affecting HOAs and CIOCs. They include: HB 202 on Tax Equalization; SB 877, HB 419 and

950 on Open Meetings and Association Records; SB 353 and HB 442 (Act of Jun. 24, 2011,

P.L. 40, No. 8) on Private Transfer Fees; HB 417 and SB 1048 on “The Right to Dry Clothes by

Solar Energy Act;” and is advocating for clear legislation to allow the creation of planned

communities and HOAs out of existing land or facilities that would not require municipal

approval.58

56 Supra note 7; CAI, Pennsylvania Legislative Action Committee, “Testimony on HR 350, Hearing-9/8/2010.”

57 Supra note 34.

58 CAI, Pennsylvania Legislative Action Committee, “Testimony on HR 350, Hearing-9/8/2010.”

-25-

ISSUES AFFECTING CIOCs

AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Responsibility for Roadway Maintenance

The primary source of funding for municipal road construction and improvements is the

Commonwealth’s Liquid Fuels Funds. This money is generated from liquid fuels tax receipts, the

state oil and franchise tax, and is supplemented from time to time by other state and federal

allocations for specific projects within each municipality. Payments are distributed based on each

municipality’s road mileage and population.59 State Highway Maintenance Funds are distributed

to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) County Highway Maintenance

Districts, who maintain state roadways within a municipality.60 In the case of CIOCs, however,

unless the municipality agrees to take dedication of a CIOCs roads, the maintenance on

roadways within that community is usually paid for by HOA fees collected from each property

owner in the community.

Under the Second Class Township Code, municipalities may accept dedication of “roads,

streets or alleys located within townships…as public roads,” but there is no requirement to do

so.61 Further, municipalities have incentives not to take dedication of the roads, including these

comments that were communicated to Commission staff by municipal officials:

The current liquid fuels money provided to municipalities and PennDOT to care for

local and state roads is inadequate. Since the state gas tax has not been raised in

recent years and many people are now purchasing more fuel-efficient cars, revenues

in the liquid fuels funds are not keeping up with the cost to maintain the roads.

Old or poorly constructed CIOC roads may need significant work to get them up to

municipal and PennDOT standards. Municipalities are struggling to keep up with

their current road maintenance without adding many miles of roads that may need to

be completely replaced.

CIOC roads may not have been built wide enough for municipalities to easily plow

and cinder them during winter months using their current trucks. If the municipality

would take dedication of narrow, non-standard roads, it may require them to purchase

smaller trucks or contract with independent contractors to adequately care for the

roads.

59 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 9001-9022; Act of Jun. 1, (1956) 1955, P.L. 1944, No. 655.

60 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 9101-9106.

61 Act of November 9, 1995, P.L. 350, No. 60.

-26-

Many CIOC roads are more narrow and contain cul-de-sacs, which make roads

difficult to plow in the winter as snow accumulates along the roadside.

With that said, some municipalities do take dedication of the roads for the following reasons:

Some municipal police departments feel they are better able to patrol CIOC

neighborhoods that have public roads. When the roads are privately owned by an

HOA, the police need permission from the HOA to do routine patrols. In the event of

emergencies or reports of crime, police have authority to enter private roads but only

after they have been notified.

If a municipality takes dedication of a road when it is brand new, it receives some

liquid fuel money for the road in the beginning years when maintenance is minimal.

Thus, a municipality is positioned to spread maintenance expenses across all of its

roads.

Municipalities are better able to ensure that their safety personnel are traveling on

safe roadways during the winter months if they clear snow and ice themselves.

Commission staff was informed by one municipality of an HOA that did not

adequately plow its roads during snow and ice storms, which could have jeopardized

the safety of fire, ambulance, and police personnel.

What Can Occur When Municipalities

Do Not Take Dedication of Roadways

Varying issues were raised by stakeholders regarding private/public roadways. Some

local officials encourage all roadways within CIOCs to be dedicated to the municipalities for

proper maintenance. Others officials felt strongly that builders should be allowed to determine

what is best for the development, and give greater control to the homeowners through HOA

management and upkeep. While most local governments have adopted the specifications within

PennDOT Publication 72M, “Standards for Roadway Construction,” deviations are common

during the development and construction process, under Subdivision and Land Use Ordinances.62

However, it should be noted that consequences of decisions regarding road dedication are borne

by the HOAs and residents and not by the builders who negotiate the agreements.

Some municipalities allow developers to deviate from PennDOT specifications in favor

of lesser standards with the understanding the roads will be maintained by the HOA. Roads

without normal setback requirements, lighting, width, curbing, sidewalks, or even materials used

62 The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Publication 72M includes earthwork, pavement, drainage,

guiderail and median barriers, fences and curbs, erosion and sediment control, highway lighting and roadway

development and plantings; The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805,

No. 247) provides a framework for a municipality to plan development through the adoption of a comprehensive

plan, zoning and a subdivision and land use ordinance. Supra note 21.

-27-

in construction are often less expensive to construct. Owning non-conforming roads makes it

difficult, if not impossible, for HOAs to request assistance from municipalities in later years

when major repairs are needed. Intervention from the municipalities would require that the roads

be rebuilt in their entirety to comply with PennDOT specifications.

A statute requiring all roads in the Commonwealth, including private roads in HOAs, to

meet PennDOT standards would be impractical. Eliminating the flexibility offered to

municipalities under the MPC is not desirable, and imposing such a requirement on developers

would certainly increase costs of construction. Moreover, an (unknown) number of rural HOAs

are little more than private hunting camps that are accessible only via unpaved, dirt or gravel

roads. Such a requirement would also fail to resolve issues retroactively with respect to road

repairs. The most productive policy moving forward would be that all roads built to PennDOT

specification would be required to receive municipal dedication, provided they are not within

gated communities. Under that policy, the cost to developers who choose to invest more in roads

would be balanced by the reasonable compromise of municipalities agreeing to maintain them.

Realistically, developers have little incentive, however, as they will eventually transfer control to

the HOAs, but it may present an incentive for prospective unit owners, making them an easier

sell.

Some issues that can occur when CIOC roads are owned by HOAs include the following:

Some HOAs that are governed inefficiently do not understand that regular

maintenance on roads helps prolong the roadway’s use and prevents having to

completely rebuild a road (a very expensive proposition). Municipalities usually have

people employed who adequately understand what it takes to maintain roads and a

better understanding of what funds should be set aside for yearly maintenance.

Keeping the roads clear during the winter months is a safety issue. If an HOA fails to

keep community roadways clear, it hampers efforts of police, fire and emergency

personnel from accessing the community quickly and safely.

If roads are not built to proper specifications and are not owned by the municipalities,

sometimes the roadways are too narrow for larger vehicles such as trash trucks,

school buses, fire trucks, municipal plow trucks, etc. to safely maneuver in the

community. There is a potential liability issue for government maintenance

equipment entering private property.

Since school districts are only reimbursed by the state for transportation of students

on public roads, there is little incentive for school districts to provide transportation

on HOA owned roads. Also, some school districts expressed a liability concern for

their district if an accident would occur with a school bus on a private road.63

63 JSGC staff heard concerns that in some large communities, school districts are not providing bus transportation

inside the CIOC due to the roads being designated as private.

-28-

HOAs usually cannot take advantage of very large bulk purchasing of salt and

cinders for winter roadway maintenance (unlike municipalities). HOAs also have a

limited ability to receive state grants and loans to help with repairs of roadways.

There are a few programs they qualify for, but due to the recent budget tightening that

has occurred at the state level, available funds have dwindled.

A survey of police departments, conducted on behalf of the Joint State Government

Commission by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, revealed that although the

potential for police access problems exist, in practical terms there are few problems between

CIOCs and local police departments. In CIOCs where the municipality took dedication of the

roadways, local police have jurisdiction to patrol the streets and issue citations for parking,

traffic, and moving violations. In CIOCs where the municipality did not take dedication of the

roads, the local police do not have jurisdiction to issue traffic citations. Nonetheless some police

departments responded that residents complain to the police about traffic violations the police are

powerless to enforce. In almost all cases, police departments reported they have unimpeded

access to CIOCs in the performance of their duties, especially when they are responding to

emergency calls. There are a few situations where access is less than optimal, however.

Stormwater Runoff System Maintenance

In addition to roads, stormwater runoff system maintenance is another part of

infrastructure for which HOAs tend to be responsible. Federal and state regulations require

builders to integrate stormwater runoff systems into their development of a CIOC. Once the

development is complete, the builder typically transfers maintenance to the HOA. In some

cases, the developer simply attaches stormwater components like retention ponds onto an

individual property which then becomes that particular homeowner’s responsibility. Another

arrangement has the municipality or county take dedication of the CIOC’s stormwater runoff

system, but Commission staff found no examples of this occurring in the Commonwealth. The

municipality often refuses to take responsibility for these systems and so the HOA is usually

responsible for maintenance. If an HOA fails to provide adequate maintenance of the stormwater

system, it could increase the likelihood of flash flooding both inside and outside the boundaries

of CIOC.

Municipalities, especially in rural areas, have not commonly addressed stormwater

management through their comprehensive plans. Some municipalities lack appropriate zoning,

which can lead to a patchwork of stormwater systems. Requiring a stormwater management plan

as part of municipal comprehensive plans under the Municipalities Planning Code would help to

alleviate and standardize practices.64 Developments nonetheless are held to Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requirements, which are derived from the U.S.

64 Act of July 31, 1968, P.L.805, No.247.

-29-

Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES).65 Development permits, relevant to stormwater, are often issued and enforced by DEP

through County Conservation Districts.

Developers are encouraged to incorporate and build low-maintenance, naturalized

stormwater retention basins that include meadow grasses, increased infiltration soils, extended

flow channels, rain gardens, cisterns, rain barrels and other described Best Management

Practices.66 HOA management could also be educated to invest in low-maintenance options to

cuts costs for the CIOC.67 It would be difficult for municipalities to accept dedication of

maintenance and upkeep of stormwater management systems, as the recommendation could not

be imposed unilaterally and any policy going forward would need to include residential,

commercial, and industrial properties. Costs for maintenance would be prohibitive for

municipalities at any time, but especially in difficult budget years. Research has shown that

developers should be prohibited from attaching stormwater infrastructure to an individual lot

owner within a CIOC.

HOA Owned Dams

In some areas of the state large CIOCs own their own lakes that were created by

man-made dams. Many of these lakes are private lakes provided for the enjoyment of the CIOC

residents only, but some HOAs allow public access. The dams are owned by the HOAs, and it is

their responsibility to keep these dams maintained and properly inspected. DEP, under the Dam

Safety and Encroachments Act, issues permits for and inspects many of these dams to identify

potential problems.68 DEP also has the power to inspect and prescribe corrections to unsafe

conditions. In some cases, these dams need substantial repairs, and flooding resulting from

eventual failure could endanger not only the CIOC, but areas outside the CIOC’s boundaries as

well. Where dams become an extreme danger, DEP can order that the dam either be repaired or

the lake behind the dam be drained enough to prevent a flash flood. This problem has the

potential to affect people outside of the CIOC, causing serious risk to public safety, health and

property. The largest example of a private dam failure in state history is the Johnstown flood of

1889, when the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club’s dam at Lake Conemaugh failed.

Currently, no public funding is available to repair dams within HOAs or private

communities. House Bill 1941 of 2011 has, and continues to be a focus for the prime sponsor,

Representative Mario Scavello, to help alleviate this issue by creating the Dam Project

Assistance Act. The Dam Project’s bond fund would open $225 million for the removal,

65 Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 864, No. 167; Act of June 22, 1937, P.L. 1987, No. 394; 25 Pa. Code §§ 92 & 102;

33 U.S.C., § 1342.

66 The Pennsylvania Environmental Council, “Maintaining Stormwater Basins on Your Property,” Fall 2008.

http://www.stormwaterpa.org/assets/media/resources/OM_Pamphlet.pdf, (accessed July 5, 2011).

67 Heritage Conservancy, “Report to William Penn Foundation Homeowners Association Technical Assistance

Project,” September 2009.

68 Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, Act of November 26, 1978, PL 1375, No. 325. Implementing regulations can

be found at 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 105.

-30-

restoration and repair of state-owned dams and $275 million for private dams. The owners of

private dams would need to apply as co-applicants with local governments. Priorities would be

given to high-hazard dams, with immediate safety issues and those necessary for drinking water

systems. This bill would help address one specific area of CIOC infrastructure that would affect

those outside the CIOC in the event of a failure. Legislation making public dollars available for

private projects, especially in this case, would unquestionably affect people outside the private

community should a breach occur.

Delinquent HOA Fees

In the past several years, there has been an increase in the number of homes facing

foreclosure due in part to the poor economic climate and higher unemployment rate. When

someone living in a CIOC gets into financial trouble, they often stop paying HOA fees, which

causes the HOA financial problems. If enough people fail to pay HOA fees, the HOA would

face serious financial problems. Once a house goes into foreclosure, it is unclear if the HOA is

reimbursed for missing HOA fees from the proceeds from the sale of the home. Adjudications

have become more common in the recent economic downturn, and situations like these are

particularly acrimonious. Liens can be placed on properties and legal action is common, but the

residents suffer the most as everyone in the community is expected to “pick up the slack” created

by those who don’t pay and typically face increased fees and assessments.69

Gated Communities

Gated communities are a subset of CIOCs that are designed to provide increased privacy,

security, and exclusivity. Moreover, they typically offer a number of expensive amenities such

as private golf courses, swimming pools and tennis courts. Property owners may expect to find

shared values and a sense of community with their neighbors. Security guards and gatehouses are

provided to both prevent unwanted persons from accessing the development and also to provide

a modicum of security to the CIOC. Some recreational properties have part-time residents,

which increases the need for gates and guards. However, gated communities have a unique set of

issues that can increase hazards to public safety if not addressed.

69 Tamara Lush, “Homeowner associations foreclose on residents,” USA Today, July 9, 2011,

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2011-07-09-homeowner-foreclosure_n.htm, (accessed

August 12, 2011); Paul J. Weber, “Homeowners associations start foreclosures to collect dues,” USA Today,

June 12, 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-06-11-homeowner-associationforeclosures_

N.htm, (accessed August 12, 2011).

-31-

Staff has heard anecdotal evidence that some school districts will not provide bus

transportation inside gated communities. The reasons given included: The roads are

sometimes too narrow for school buses to maneuver; school districts are only reimbursed

by the state for miles driven on public roadways; and there are liability concerns for

school districts and school bus drivers when buses are driven on private roads.

Gated communities pose a potential barrier to access for local police responses. Where

gated communities exist, police departments reported that procedures are in place to allow them

immediate access. Access is made by providing gate keys or key cards to each patrol car. In

some large CIOCs a security guard meets local police officers to open the gate. Pauses at the

gate are characterized as “minimal” by those who responded to the survey.

There have been a few reported problems related to police access, specifically to gated

communities. Because access can be limited to marked patrol cars, undercover officers in

unmarked cars find it difficult to access the CIOC unnoticed. Further, the Pennsylvania Office

of Attorney General responded that in CIOCs where access is available only with the cooperation

of a private security guard, undercover operations are sometimes compromised when the private

security staff tips off residents engaged in criminal activity that law enforcement authorities are

entering the premises. Private security officers are susceptible to bribery, and have been bribed

by criminal residents, as noted by the Attorney General’s office.

Some law enforcement actions have been hampered by HOAs that take matters into their

own hands and have criminally suspect residents removed from the premises prior to police

intervention. The HOAs do this, it is believed, to protect their reputations and avoid bad

publicity.

Police departments reported in the survey that private security guards hired by HOAs

have misrepresented themselves as police officers. Private security guards have no authority to

issue citations, nor have they the authority to engage in police pursuits. Respondents to the

survey reported that, in some cases, private security guards have been cited for engaging in

police pursuits that went beyond the boundaries of the CIOC. Police investigations have been

hindered by CIOC security guards who make their own investigations and wrongly inform

residents that contact with and intervention by local law enforcement authorities is unnecessary.

Regardless of whether or not the local municipality has taken dedication of the roads, the

laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania apply throughout the state. Local, state and federal

law enforcement authorities have the responsibility and the legal ability to enter any CIOC to

enforce the laws and apprehend suspects once a crime is reported. In one reported example, a

CIOC resident presumed he was immune to drunk driving laws because he was driving drunk

within the boundaries of the CIOC. He was quickly disabused of that notion.

-32-

-33-

THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT IN CIOCs

CIOCs Access to State Money

In the past, state grants and loans were available for municipalities and private

communities for infrastructure upgrades through the Pennsylvania Department of Community

and Economic Development (DCED) and the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority

(PENNVEST). However, because of the current state budget constraints, such funding is

becoming less available. In the event of natural disasters state resources from the Pennsylvania

Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) may be made available through county administrators.

DCED grants are fluid and can change with each budget cycle in terms of available

dollars and applicability. Many grant and loan programs require municipal sponsorship,

matching investment, and have specific eligibility requirements. Programs where CIOCs may be

eligible to apply for funds include the Community Redevelopment, Urban Development,

PennWorks, Community and Business Assistance, and provisions of the H2O PA Act. Obstacles

to funds include CIOCs simply being unaware of eligibility, smaller community boards may not

have full time managers or may have a board that meets infrequently and DCED and

municipalities may be more inclined to rate other “public” projects as a greater priority. In

addition, Community Development Block Grant monies, originating from the federal

government and flowing through municipalities and counties, is also available. In the past two

years, budgets cuts at the federal and state levels have severely limited funding allocations,

making competition ever stiffer for remaining monies.70

PENNVEST has been and continues to be a funding source for CIOC projects. In general,

most projects are approved for low-interest loans, with matching contributions and sometimes

include a portion as grants. PENNVEST also administers numerous other funding streams,

including DEP’s Growing Greener and those through the federal American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. PENNVEST has the ability to fund “any owner and/or

operator of a water, sewer or municipal stormwater system with a project to construct a new

system or improvements necessary to correct public health, environmental, compliance or safety

deficiencies.”71 There is also a lack of awareness amongst many CIOCs and in general, a

70 DCED meeting with JSGC staff on 10/19/2009; DCED, “Funding and Program Finder,” http://www.newpa.com/

find-and-apply-for-funding/funding-and-program-finder, (accessed October 22, 2009); Dan Miller, “Decline in

federal grant funds makes tough job harder for nonprofits and municipalities,” The Patriot News, 11/25/2011.

71 Office of the Budget, “Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports,” http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal0

/server.pt?open=512&objID=4574&&PageID=473437&mode=2, (accessed October 22, 2009).

-34-

frustration that more program options are not available. It is recommended that all infrastructure

grant programs available to municipalities be open to CIOCs through either stand-alone

applications or municipal pass-throughs.72

In general, when a situation within a CIOC has the potential to adversely affect the

general public, the HOA, municipal and state governments have a responsibility to reduce or

eliminate the hazard. Areas of concern could include stormwater infrastructure, dam repair,

sanitary sewer and water infrastructure and treatment. State and federal competitive grants or

loans could be administered directly to the CIOC or the municipalities, with municipalities

serving as a pass-through entity. While the state could develop and enforce new requirements for

municipalities to accept dedication of infrastructure or builders to comply with certain

regulations this would be costly and not alleviate any of the problems in existing CIOCs. Both

the PA Builders Association and the Township Supervisors Association are adamantly opposed

to any mandates.73

The Issue of “Double Taxation”

In most cases, there is only a very small overlap in services that are paid for twice by

HOA members. Municipal taxes paid by all municipal residents pay for municipal roads and

bridges, fire and ambulance services, libraries, community development, administrative services,

solicitor and legal services, planning and zoning and building code enforcement, some limited

health services, parks and recreation services, and police protection. These are areas from which

all residents in the municipality either directly or indirectly receive a benefit.

In many municipalities, the cost of sewer, trash and water is included in the municipal

budget, but in most cases, the money is only collected from those who benefit from the service.

If a CIOC collects its own trash or handles its own water and sewer, its residents do not appear to

have to pay for trash collection, sewer or water from the municipality. It is difficult to determine

with certainty however, due to the lack of available data.

One area where CIOC residents may be paying twice for the same service is when an

HOA owns its own roads or it must maintain its own stormwater runoff systems. These are

items that municipalities often pay for on behalf of residents living on municipal roads.

However, since all residents within a community can use all public municipal roads, it would

make sense that all residents living in a municipality pay taxes towards the upkeep of municipal

roads. Those living in a CIOC drive on municipal roads and should therefore should continue to

help pay for those roads.

72 PENNVEST, “Financial Assistance,” http://www.pennvest.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/

financial_assistance/9321, (accessed October 22, 2009).

73 PA Builders Association meeting with JSGC staff on 3/10/2010; Township Supervisors Association meeting with

JSGC staff on 3/17/2010.

-35-

Some residents in larger CIOCs argue that since they have recreation facilities that are

owned and paid for by their HOA, they should get a break in paying for duplicate recreational

facilities outside of the CIOC. However, all people living in a municipality have access to all

services offered by a municipality, whether or not they choose to take advantage of them.

Some larger CIOCs also have their own private security force paid for by the HOA. This

is a service the HOA members want to have in addition to whatever protection the municipality

or state offers. No municipal ordinance or state law or regulation that staff can find requires that

a CIOC have its own security. The HOA members are seeing added benefits of this extra service.

If a CIOC has increased criminal activity, most municipalities will work with HOAs to provide

patrols in the community. The key is to have a good working relationship between the HOA and

municipal board of control.

The state taxes paid by both CIOC residents and those living on municipal and state roads

also go towards a whole host of different services that benefit many state residents either directly

or indirectly. As stated previously, some dollars do go towards grants and loans to

municipalities to upgrade some of their infrastructure such as sewer lines. It is important to note

that, while dollars may not be available to HOAs, they are also not available to thousands of

residents in Pennsylvania who currently have individual wells and septic tanks as well.

Another issue that came to our attention was municipalities not collecting household

waste and recyclables within CIOCs. Under Act 101 of 1988, municipalities with populations

above 10,000 or populations between 5,000 and 10,000 and more than 300 persons per square

mile are required to provide curbside collections of trash and recyclables, including a mandate

that municipalities collect at last three of the following materials: clear glass; colored glass;

plastics; aluminum; steel and bimetallic cans; high grade office paper; corrugated paper and

newsprint; and separate leaf waste. In addition, counties are required to develop municipal waste

management plans. Certain exemptions for multi-family housing units, including rental

properties can meet this requirement with a general collection system or drop-off location.74

The only example of a municipality refusing to provide trash, recycling and bulk item

collection services to a CIOC comes out of the City of Philadelphia. City Council recently

moved a bill that would provide owners of condominiums, cooperatives and planned community

units with a tax credit in-lieu-of providing those services. While there may be others, it is also

possible that CIOCs have declined to participate if collection points in the CIOC were offered. It

may be beneficial to clarify the law to require municipalities to offer trash collection services to

private communities where they provide them at large. In addition, CIOCs should retain their

right to opt out and provide their own collection services, but must meet the requirements for

recyclables.75

74 Act of July 28, 1988, P.L. 556, No. 101.

75 Community Associations Institute, “Philadelphia City Council Moves on Condo Trash Bill,” October 18, 2011,

http://www.cai-adelval.org/athome/2011/10/18/ philadelphia-city-council-moves-on-condo-trash-bill/, (accessed

November 1, 2011); City of Philadelphia, “Legislative File ID,” http://legislation.phila.gov/detailreport/

Matter.aspx?key=11067, (accessed November 1, 2011).

-36-

In general, state, local and municipal tax data was difficult to acquire because of the

variety of taxes paid by residents. State taxes include the Personal Income Tax, Sales, Use and

Hotel Tax, Liquid Fuels Tax, Cigarette and Liquor Taxes; it is impossible to calculate the state

tax burden imposed upon any individual or family. From county and local property taxes, the

Local Services Tax, Earned Income Tax, Per-Capita Taxes, little meaningful information was

found.76 The disparity in local tax rates, median household incomes and millage rates as

determined by the State Tax Equalization Board make demographic information difficult to

quantify and compare.

Another factor making any meaningful comparisons impossible is the lack of available

association fee data. The CAI does not track that information for its members, which can change

annually, and would not include assessments. When comparing the percentage of taxes relative

to any region, using median incomes or average tax burdens, a benchmark is necessary and none

were found.

Legislative Activities in Other States

Two states have laws requiring state compensation or reimbursement of CIOC owners for

municipal services. In Maryland, the code governing municipal corporations provides that “The

governing body of a municipal corporation that provides a residential street service may make an

agreement with the governing body of a privately owned residential community that

qualifies….”77 In New Jersey, The Municipal Services Act of 1989 has two related provisions.

One provision requires a “Municipality to reimburse private community for services or provide

services,” and a second provides for a roadway’s “acceptance for public use if conforms to

municipal specifications.”78 While the dedication of roadways built to specifications is addressed

on page 26 of this report, purchasers of dwellings that lie within CIOCs, as long as the proper

disclosures are made, are choosing to live under a system that requires them to pay fees to an

HOA that provides services normally provided by municipalities. If these are fees for services

and a system of government that prospective residents would like to avoid, they have that option,

just as they have the option to move from the state, a municipality or school district.

76 Pa Department of Revenue, “Tax Types,” http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/

revenue_home/10648, (accessed September 1, 2011); DCED, “Tax Information,” http://www.newpa.com/get-localgov-

support/tax-information, (accessed September 1, 2011).

77 Maryland Code, Corporations - Municipal § 50 & § 51.

78 New Jersey Permanent Statutes, Municipalities and Counties, Title 40, § 67-23.3 and § 67-23.7.

-37-

Recent Legislative Activity Affecting CIOCs

Pennsylvania was one of the first states to legislatively authorize the establishment of

condominiums by the enactment of the Unit Property Act in 1963.79 At that time it was reported

that 4 million Americans resided in condominiums, and a 1978 report by the Joint State

Government Commission noted that “all states presently provide statutorily for the establishment

of condominiums, and the upsurge in their development—especially marked since the early

1970’s—has led to significant legislative revision…[to} provide additional flexibility to

developers while incorporating consumer-protection provisions.”80 CIOCs in Pennsylvania are

currently governed by a bundle of laws: The Uniform Condominium Act was adopted in 1980

and amended in 1992 to deal with Cooperatives and expanded further in 1996 to encompass

Planned Communities.81

In Pennsylvania, there are primarily two types of CIOCs, condominiums and planned

housing developments.82 The differences between the two CIOCs are subtle. In a condominium,

each owner holds a deed to private living space and a percentage ownership in common areas.

Condominium associations function like building managers, and leave provision of municipal

services to the local municipal government. In a planned community, each owner holds a deed to

private living space while the HOA owns the common areas.

In the last three legislative sessions more than 60 bills and resolutions have been

introduced in the House and Senate dealing with “Common Interest Ownership Communities,”

“Planned Communities,” or “Homeowners Associations.” The topics they dealt with ranged from

allowing the use of energy efficient upgrades and allowable materials, claims to adverse

possession of property, preemption from building construction standards, solar energy deed

restrictions, and other miscellaneous topics. The majority of legislation focused on the operations

of HOAs, open meeting requirements, financial disclosure, record keeping and minutes. Few

bills, however, received a hearing or were enacted. House Bill 202 of 2011, P.N. 154, sponsored

by Representative Mario Scavello, has been introduced in some form since 2007. The bill would

amend the Tax Reform Code of 1971 to allow 75 percent of HOA dues to be deducted from

taxable income on a personal income tax return.83 This bill has never been the topic of a hearing

in the House Finance Committee, and while it is unclear what the specific cost of this bill would

be, one certainly is a reduced amount of Income Tax Revenue to the state.

79 Act of July 3, 1963, P.L. 196, No. 117.

80 Joint State Government Commission, Condominiums: A New Generation, September 1978, pg. 1.

81 Title 68 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (Real and Personal Property), contains these three acts in Part

II: Subpart B, Condominiums (added by Act 82 of 1980); Subpart C, Cooperatives (added by Act 168 of 1992); and

Subpart D, Planned Communities (added by Act 180 of 1996).

82 PA House Urban Affairs Committee, remarks of Stefan Richter, Chairman and President of CAI Pennsylvania

Chapter, March 26, 2009.

83 House Bill 202 of 2011, Printer’s Number 154.

-38-

-39-

ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA

Commission staff gathered all available data required by HR 350 after speaking with

many of the stakeholders. Data sought included the number of CIOCs in each county and

municipality, approximate amount of state and local taxes paid by residents in CIOCs, and the

age and condition of infrastructure within the CIOCs. The sources of data are detailed under the

following sub-headings.

Community Associations Institute

The Pennsylvania and Delaware Valley Chapter of the CAI, which represents HOAs and

CIOCs, provided staff with a database of its 504 community (HOAs) members as of November

2, 2009. This database included the address of each HOA so it would be possible to determine in

which municipalities and counties the HOAs are located. Commission staff was made aware that

this list was only a small fraction of the CIOCs in Pennsylvania, by some estimates only 10

percent.

Pennsylvania Department of State

Commission staff concluded that HOAs would possibly register with the Pennsylvania

Department of State (DOS) as nonprofit corporations. Therefore, staff contacted DOS and

requested a list of all non-profit organizations that have the words “home owner,” “homeowner,”

“condo,” or “condominium” within their name to gather a more complete list of HOAs located

within Pennsylvania. The DOS provided a list of 5,380 non-profit groups that met these criteria.

The majority of these associations did appear to be HOAs. In fact, many of them turned out to

be a plethora of other organizations that happened to have the search words in their name.

Unfortunately, as staff sifted through the list it became clear that some of the addresses were the

associations’ management companies or their original developers. Such information was not

helpful in trying to determine the county and municipal locations of the CIOCs. Additionally,

staff concluded it may have missed non-profit HOAs that did not have the search terms in their

names.

-40-

County Planning Commission Surveys

Staff was informed early in the study by multiple sources that counties were unlikely to

collect information pertaining to CIOCs. County planning commissions were likely the only

county office to retain some of the information. It was understood that it would be highly

unlikely that any of the planning commissions would have any information regarding state and

local taxes paid by CIOC residents. Michael Mrozinski of the Pike County Planning

Commission contacted the Commission in February 2010 and stated that the Pike County

Planning Commission did have a fair amount of information collected on CIOCs and their

infrastructure, and believed that some other planning commissions probably had similar

information.84 Using the Pike County Planning Commission as guidance on what staff might be

able to find from other planning commissions, a survey was welcomed to the county planning

commissions on March 2, 2010 with a response deadline of April 9, 2010. It was hoped that an

adequate response rate would provide data to complete the study. On April 13th, staff sent out an

e-mail reminder to non-responding planning commissions with a due date of April 30th.

Unfortunately, the data received from the county planning commissions were not

thorough. Upon final count, 23 of 66 of the planning commissions had responded to the survey

with data.85 Furthermore, some of the counties were only able to provide estimates of CIOCs

instead of an actual count. Of the remaining planning commissions, 43 either did not respond or

did not collect the requested information.

A few planning commissions who did not collect the information did forward the survey

on to municipalities within their counties. Some municipalities responded with information, but

a surprisingly high number of municipalities did not collect any of this information. Even if staff

had the resources to survey all of the municipalities in Pennsylvania, it is probable that many

municipalities would not be able to respond to the data request.

The survey also asked planning commissions the following questions, in addition to the

CIOC data requested from the planning commissions:

Are there any general comments you would like to make concerning CIOCs?

Based on your personal experience, do you have any suggestions on what the

State may be able to do to assist both local governments and HOAs in

addressing infrastructure concerns?

Only thirteen planning commissions answered these questions in some way.

84 See Appendix A for some of the information provided by the Pike County Planning Commission.

85 There are 67 counties and only 66 County Planning Commissions because Lehigh and Northampton have a

combined Lehigh Valley Regional Planning Commission.

-41-

County Tax Assessment Office Surveys

In late April 2010, Alan Price Young, an attorney from Young & Haros, LLC in

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania contacted the Commission and suggested the possibility that county

tax assessment offices collected the necessary data. Mr. Young stated that all CIOCs would

most likely have at least one piece of property (parcel) that is owned by the HOA or similar

entity and would therefore be assessed different from the other parcels of land within the CIOC.

He believed the county assessment offices would be able to locate each CIOC by using these

commonly owned parcels and then using that information to provide Commission staff with the

number of parcels within each community and the assessed value of each parcel so that the real

estate taxes paid could be calculated.

Based on Mr. Young’s comments, staff contacted Steven Howe of the Dauphin County

Tax Assessment Office to solicit his opinion on that approach. Mr. Howe thought it had

promise, although he admitted that it would be time consuming for the assessment offices. He

suggested that some of the most populated counties may have the computer databases to handle

such a request, but they would need to devote significant manpower to process the requested

data. Some of the least populated counties may not have an electronic database capable of

processing the requested data. While this was by no means a perfect way to collect the data

needed to complete this research project, Mr. Howe was doubtful that any other organization at

the state, county, or local level would have anywhere close to the data needed. He did caution

that due to the lack of resources experienced in just about every county office across the

Commonwealth, he thought Commission staff would be lucky to get a 50 percent response rate

to the survey.

In order to get another opinion on potentially surveying the county tax assessment

offices, Mr. Howe suggested staff contact two other individuals: Joan Righter-Price of the

Montgomery County Tax Assessment Office and Terry Cochran of the Pennsylvania Tax

Assessors’ Association. Ms. Price turned out to be an excellent source of information when staff

drafted the survey. She tended to agree with much of what Mr. Howe had stated, and both Ms.

Price and Mr. Howe assisted JSGC staff in wording the survey in such a way that most county

tax assessment offices would understand what was being asked. Ms. Cochran was of great

assistance to staff by providing an e-mail address for every county tax assessor in Pennsylvania

and even sent out an introductory e-mail to all of the tax assessors prior to the survey being

released to help encourage the assessment offices’ participation.

On Friday, May 21, 2010 staff released an e-mail survey to all county tax assessment

offices throughout Pennsylvania. Based on suggestions by Mr. Howe and Ms. Price, the survey

deadline was set at July 21, 2010. The survey asked for the following information from the

counties:

Number of CIOCs in the county, each municipality and each school district (school

district was needed to calculate the local taxes paid by residents in CIOCs);

-42-

Estimated real estate taxes paid by CIOC residents (using assessment data of each

CIOC community and municipal and school district tax mills); and

Number of homes currently in each CIOC.

As of final count, 21 (or 31.3 percent) of the tax assessment offices had responded to the

survey with data. Unfortunately, this even fell below the prediction of only getting a 50 percent

response rate due to the lack of resources in each county. Of the remaining 46 assessment

offices which did not provide data, reasons included not having the computer capabilities to

assist staff or the capability to pull CIOCs out into a separate category. Some counties had the

common areas in CIOCs listed as “exempt” and it fell in the same category as schools, municipal

buildings, churches and other tax exempt properties. Some offices are under difficult budget

constraints that prevent them from devoting necessary staff time to projects of this magnitude.

Others simply did not respond or asked follow up questions without providing data.

Treasure Lake

A petition was filed in Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas by the Treasure Lake

Property Owners Association to incorporate the community as a borough. While the

Pennsylvania Borough Code outlines the process by which a new municipality may be formed,

this is the first example of a CIOC wanting to incorporate as a private unit of government.86 The

judge has yet to rule on the legality of a borough “having the same boundaries as a privately

owned gated community.” The local municipality, Sandy Township, filed objections to the

petition. A five-person, fact finding advisory committee has been established, and a timeline has

been set for the process to move forward, and a vote could possibly appear on the ballot in

November 2012.87

Under the current plan to secede from Sandy Township, Treasure Lake readily admits to

the desire to keep the tax rates the same as the Township, as well as maintaining its annual dues

to the association. However, those tax dollars will stay within the new municipal boundaries for

their exclusive use, and not that of the entire Township.88 It is important to note that residents

would continue to pay a variety of taxes to their school district, county and state.

Sandy Township is a Second Class Township with a total area of 52.8 square miles. The

township’s population in 2000 was 11,556 people in 4,387 households. Treasurer Lake is a

private gated community encompassing 11.5 square miles. Treasure Lake’s population in 2000

86 Conference call with JSGC staff including Sandy Township Manager, Police Chief and Chairman of the Sandy

Township Board of Supervisors on March 3, 2010.

87 The Courier Express, “Schedule set in Treasure Lake’s borough quest,” November 10, 2011,

http://www.thecourierexpress.com/courierexpresscourierexpresslocal/939620-349/schedule-set-in-treasure-lakesborough-

quest.html, (accessed November 20, 2011).

88 Treasure Chest, “Special Borough Committee Report,” August 2011, http://www.treasurelakepoa.com/

images/stories/TLPOA-TreasureChest-August-2011_web.pdf, (accessed November 20, 2011).

-43-

was 4,507 people in 1,751 households. Treasure Lake’s 2000 population and number of

households were roughly 40 percent of Sandy Township’s population and number of households.

Sandy Township indicated that if Treasure Lake was successful in becoming a borough, the

township would likely end up in financially distressed, Act 47 status.89

Pike and Monroe County CIOC Data

Pike and Monroe County have been two of the fastest growing counties from 2000 to

2010.90 While Pennsylvania’s overall population increased 3.4 percent, Pike increased

23.9 percent and Monroe increased 22.5 percent. Along with an increase in population, came an

increase in the number of housing units. Pike and Monroe County had an increase in the number

of housing units of more than 10 percent from 2000 to 2010.91 Pike County currently has 38,350

housing units and Monroe County has 80,359.92

As shown in the Table 1 and Appendix A, Pike County has 192 CIOCs containing 25,928

homes. Of the types of sewer systems in Pike County CIOCs, 79.8 percent of the homes have an

individual on lot sewer system, 17.6 are on a central sewer system, 1.6 percent are unknown, and

1.0 percent are on a community sewer system. However, 47.2 percent of the homes are on a

central water system, 38.4 percent have an individual on lot water system, 8.9 percent are on a

community water system, and 5.5 percent are unknown. When comparing the number of overall

housing units (38,350) with homes in CIOCs (25,928), 67.6 percent of the homes in Pike County

are located within a CIOC.

Monroe County has 101 CIOCs containing 32,257 homes. See Table 1 and Appendix B.

The earliest was built in 1928, with more than two-thirds being built over the twenty-year period

from 1965-1984. The types of sewer systems varied by CIOC with 69.3 percent of the homes

having an on lot sewer system, but only 30.7 percent are on a central sewer system. Similarly,

63.5 percent of the homes have on lot water and 36.5 percent are on a central water system.

When comparing the number of overall housing units (80,359) with homes in CIOCs (32,257),

40.1 percent of the homes in Monroe County are located within a CIOC.

89 Supra note 86.

90 Pennsylvania State Data Center, Local 2010 Census Data Released for Pennsylvania: State Shows Continued

Population Growth. See

http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/sdc/pasdc_files/researchbriefs/2010_Census_PL94_Release_RB_FINAL.pdf, (accessed

September 13, 2011).

91 Pennsylvania State Data Center, Decennial Housing Unit Percent Change, Pennsylvania Counties, See

http://pasdc.hbg.psu. edu/sdc/pasdc_files/mapsofthemonth/Map_County_Total-HousingUnits-

PerChange_2000to2010.pdf, (accessed September 13, 2011).

92 Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2010 Census Summary File 1 Data, See

http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/sdc/pasdc_files/pastats/ rb_sf1_file_for_web.xls, (accessed September 13, 2011).

-44-

TABLE 1

NUMBER OF CIOCs AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS

FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TAX ASSESSMENT SURVEYS

BY COUNTY

County

Total number of HOAs or CIOCs

Total number of residential units

Armstrong 1 49

Beaver 51 1,544

Bedford 1 68

Cambria 1 281

Cameron 0 0

Centre 62 3,631

Chester 413 38,100

Clarion 0 0

Clearfield 1 2,083

Clinton 0 0

Dauphin 74 unknown

Elk 0 0

Erie 116 unknown

Fulton 4 71

Greene 3 42

Jefferson 1 20

Juniata 0 0

Lancaster 94 7,287

Lebanon 13 2,422

Lehigh 53 3,312

Lycoming 4 26

McKean 0 0

Mifflin 1 380

Monroe 101 32,257

Montgomery 799 unknown

Montour 4 89

Northumberland 9 208

Perry 6 unknown

Pike 192 25,928

Potter 0 0

Schuylkill 6 unknown

Snyder 9 269

Sullivan 3 65

Susquehanna 2 253

Tioga 30 unknown

Union 10 249

Venango 1 unknown

Warren 1 15

Washington 31 3,030

Total 2,097 121,679

Note: Some counties gave estimates for the number of CIOCs and/or residential units.

SOURCE: Data provided by the County Planning Commission or Tax Assessment Office. See Appendix D for

specific source by county.

-45-

Total residential assessment amounts paid in each CIOC were provided by Thomas Hill,

Chief Assessor of the Monroe County Tax Assessment Office, June 3, 2010. These data were

multiplied by the 2009 millage rates in the county, each municipality and school district to obtain

the taxes paid by residents in each CIOC. See Appendix C.

Some CIOCs straddle two school districts and/or municipalities. Monroe County Tax

Assessment Office indicated that it was too difficult to determine which households in each

community were in each municipality and/or school district. Therefore, for CIOCs that straddle

two school districts or municipalities, the taxes paid are given in a range based on the assessment

value of all residential properties within the community and multiplying the lowest millage and

the highest millage of the two districts or municipalities to that total assessment value.

There are 32,257 homes located within Monroe County CIOCs paying

$135,540,720 - $139,020,020 in real estate taxes. That is an average of $4,202 - $4,310 in real

estate taxes per home. County taxes totaled $14,280,436, municipal taxes ranged from

$6,628,341 - $8,821,673, and school taxes ranged $114,631,943 - $115,917,911. That is an

average of $443 in county taxes per home, $205 - $273 in municipal taxes per home and

$3,554 - $3,594 in school taxes per home. Taxes varied by CIOC from a high of $22,829 per

home in Keystone Hollow, to a low of $1,028 per home in Summit Pointe.

Homes built in CIOCs since 1988 averaged $7,928 per home in real estate taxes.

However, homes built in CIOCs prior to 1988 averaged a much lower $4,052 per home in real

estate taxes. As stated previously, more than two-thirds of the CIOCs were built over the twenty

year period from 1965-1984 and fall into the $4,052 per home range.

Data Conclusions

Unfortunately, Commission staff was unable to provide concrete CIOC data specifically

requested in HR 350. The data simply do not exist statewide and it would take significant

resources and a commitment from the county and municipal governments to locate the data

requested. Furthermore, no single state agency, county, or municipality is required to collect this

type of information. When combining the results of the county planning commission surveys

and the county tax assessment office surveys, however, 39 counties supplied data. This

represents nearly 60 percent of counties which supplied some type of data regarding CIOCs. As

shown in Table 1, there were 2,097 CIOCs containing 121,679 residential units. The majority of

CIOCs, 77.3 percent, were in Chester, Erie, Monroe, Montgomery and Pike Counties. When

removing the counties with unknown residential units, CIOCs contain an average of 114 homes

throughout the state. The number of homes in a CIOC ranged from one CIOC containing only

15 homes to one containing more than 2,000.

For a complete list of counties which provided data for the county planning commission

surveys and the county tax assessment office surveys, see Appendix D. Additional data received

from both county offices, the DOS and the CAI are available electronically, upon request.

-46-

Meaningful data is not currently collected on CIOCs, by any entity including the

Department of State through non-profit or incorporation filings, county planning or tax

assessment offices, CAI or other trade group of similar interest. It is recommended the task be

assigned to each county’s planning commission. While all declarants are currently required to

register with each county recorder of deeds, commission staff feels the planning offices are in a

better position to collect and report the required information.93 Since all development plans pass

through those offices, it makes sense to assign that task to them as the origination point of the

data. Presently, the county planning commission offices have access to the necessary data, but

lack a mandate to collect it.

County planning officers in the Commonwealth are required by the Pennsylvania

Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) to submit an annual report: “The commission shall keep a

full record of its business and shall annually make a written report by March 1 of each year of its

activities to the governing body.” The MPC should be amended to require planning commissions

to track certain information on CIOCs, including their community names, physical locations,

land area, lot size and number of units, presence of a mixed use development, infrastructure

including sanitary sewer, drinking water and stormwater systems, dedication of roadways and if

roads were built to specifications, common infrastructure and recreation facilities, and

registration information filed as non-profit or articles of incorporation with the DOS.94

The implementation of this amendment would have to be going forward and retroactive

registration of existing CIOCs would be required by a date certain, filing with their county

planning commission and providing the required data. A new law in the Utah requires HOAs to

register with the state by July 1, 2011, pay a registration fee of up to $37 and update association

director changes. Enforcement for non-compliance with registration requirements renders the

HOA unable to enforce liens against delinquent homeowners.95 The filing requirements should

be required of the HOA, once formed under Title 68, Section 5303 (c) and not by the developer.

93 68 Pa.C.S. § 5201.

94 Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247, § 207.

95 Curtis Kimble, “New Utah Law Requires Registration by HOA’s,” http://rkwlaw.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/newutah-

law-requires-registration-by-hoas/, (accessed September 12, 2011).

-47-

APPENDIX A:

PIKE COUNTY CIOC DATA

PIKE COUNTY

COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP COMMUNITIES (CIOC)

BY MUNICIPALITY

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

Blooming Grove

Camelot Forest 90 Individual on Lot 16 Community/IOL

Hitching Post 37 Community Central

Mel-Chris Woods 28 Unknown Unknown

Skytop Ranches 30 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

White Birch Run 12 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 197

Delaware

Birchwood Lakes 866 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Delaware Crest Preserve 12 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Highland Acres 37 Individual on Lot Community

Kemadobi 27 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Marcel Lake Estates 374 Central Central

Meadow Ridge Acres 33 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Old Marcel Lake 85 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Pocono Acres 42 Unknown Unknown

Pocono Mtn Lake Forest 337 Individual on Lot Central/IOL

Shepherds Dev 66 Individual on Lot Unknown

Traces of Lattimore 65 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Wild Acres 1,249 Individual on Lot Central

Total 3,193

Delaware-Leham

PMLE Sec. 5-7 158 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 158

Dingman

A. Miller 13 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Bluestone Ridge 23 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Conashaugh Lakes 551 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Country Club Woods 70 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Cranberry Ridge 30 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Crescent Lake 70 Individual on Lot 41 Community/29 IOL

Crooked Oaks 27 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

-48-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

Foxcroft Woods 23 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Gold Key Lake 985 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Indian Trails 54 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Lake Adventure 0 Central Central

Laurel Hills 37 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Log Tavern Lake 62 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Meadow View Acres 24 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Mount Haven Dev 12 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Nitche's Pond 23 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Oak Ridge Crossing 48 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Old Mill Estate 32 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Pederson Development 4 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Pocono Mtn Woodland Lake 1,188 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sawkill Crossing 11 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Shohola Lake Farms 9 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Spring Brook Estates 23 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Stone Hedge Farms 22 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sunrise Lake 760 126 Community/634 IOL 142 Community/618 IOL

Winding Brook 29 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 4,130

Dingman-Delaware

Auten 57 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Pocono Mtn Water Forest 332 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 389

Greene

Al's Acres 54 Individual on Lot Community/5 IOL

Bloss Acres 7 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Buena Vista Est 10 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Cold Hill 10 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Fawn Hill 17 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Game Ridge 9 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Grant Wilson 18 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Lake in the Clouds 129 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Lake Jamie 48 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Lake Wallenpaupack Est 98 Individual on Lot Community

Mountain View Est 8 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Panther Hills 7 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Panther Lake 62 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Pine Hill 20 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Rhoades Dev 65 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Rinehimer Dev 151 Individual on Lot Community

Robert Wilson 206 Individual on Lot Community

Rocky Acres 50 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Rose Dev 27 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sky View Lake 187 Individual on Lot Central

Split Rock 13 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sugar Hill 73 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sugar Hill Forest 8 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Top of the Mountain 47 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

-49-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

Tranquility Falls 57 Individual on Lot Community

Whitetail Ridge 16 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Woodland Meadows 30 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 1,427

Greene-Palmyra

Sand Spring Acres 21 Community Community

Total 21

Lackawaxen

Baisdenville Valley 13 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Cabin Ridge 8 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Canal Acres 12 Individual on Lot Central

Catchall Landing 33 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Farm Properties 10 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Fawn Lake Forest 745 Individual on Lot Central

Fred Kuhn Dev 18 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Friendly Acres 77 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Hickory Acres 14 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Holbert Dev 15 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Huggy Bear 47 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Hunters Ridge 23 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Lake Teedyuskung 76 Community Community

Laurel Ridge 9 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Long Pine Acres 12 Individual on Lot Central

Maplewood Estates 9 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Masthope Rapids 1,188 Central Central

Mountain View Est 13 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Riverview Acres 23 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Roland Acres 5 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

St. Vincents Point 15 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Tink Wig 302 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Tuscorora 17 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Welcome Lake 24 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Westcolang Park on the Dela 17 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Woodledge Village 53 Individual on Lot Central (AQUA PA)

Woodloch Pines 389 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 3,167

Lackawaxen-Blooming Grove-

Palmyra

Blue Heron Woods 1 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 1

Lehman

Glen at Tamiment 400 Central Central

Pine Ridge 1,065 Individual on Lot Central

Pocono Mtn Lake Estates 653 Individual on Lot 107 Central / 546 IOL

Pocono Mtn Lake Estates - 5A 55 Individual on Lot Community

Pocono Ranch Lands 716 Individual on Lot Central/ Rest IOL

Rustic Acres 170 Individual on Lot Central

-50-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

Saw Creek Estates 2,202 Central Central

Stony Hollow Village 112 95 Central/71 IOL 95 Central/71 IOL

Sunset Acres 20 Individual on Lot Central

Total 5,393

Lehman-Delaware

Mountain Shadows 16 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 16

Milford

Emery Dev 15 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Greenwood Hills 33 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Hickory Hills 47 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Pine Acres 29 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sawkill Run 22 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

School House Ridge 29 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 175

Milford-Westfall

Keystone Park 63 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 63

Palmyra

Al-Wa-Da-East 22 Individual on Lot Community/IOL

Anns & Howells Sub 33 Individual on Lot Community/IOL

Beechwood 22 Individual on Lot 3 Community/ Rest IOL

Big Woods 70 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Claude Seeley Dev 14 Individual on Lot Community

Colony Cove 38 Individual on Lot Community

Coutts Brothers Dev 16 Individual on Lot Community

Deerwoods 22 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Dirk Dev 33 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Earl Unger Dev 13 Individual on Lot Community

Fairview Lake - Westbrook Plan 21 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Hemlock Grove 69 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Hemlock Point 68 Individual on Lot Central/2 Community

Illigasch 21 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Ivywood 14 Individual on Lot Community

L. Ansley Dev 38 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

L. Simons Dev 47 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Lake Wenonah 14 Unknown Unknown

Lakeview Acres 49 Individual on Lot Community

Lenape Village 15 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Lynndale 83 Individual on Lot Community

Millbrook 141 Individual on Lot Community/2 IOL

Oak Hill Estates 15 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Otter Springs 42 Individual on Lot Community

Paupack Gardens 46 Individual on Lot 43 Central/3 IOL

Penn Wood Dev 95 Individual on Lot Community

Preston Flury Dev 65 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

-51-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

R Perry Dev 34 Unknown Unknown

R. Tragus Dev 22 Individual on Lot Unknown

Spinnlers Point 120 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sunset Acres 10 Individual on Lot Central

Sunset Point 66 Individual on Lot Community

Tafton Heights 17 Individual on Lot Central

Tafton View 51 Individual on Lot Community

Tanglwood Lakes 649 Individual on Lot Central

Tauschman 62 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Whispering Pines 28 Individual on Lot 5 Community/IOL

White Sands Beach 30 Individual on Lot Community

William Soose Dev 20 Individual on Lot Community

Wilson Hill Dev 88 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Zimmerman Pines 13 Individual on Lot Community

Total 2,336

Palmyra-Blooming Grove

Steiner Dev 17 Individual on Lot Community

Tanglwood North 296 Individual on Lot Central

Total 313

Palmyra-Greene

Escape 406 Central Community

Laurel Lane 135 Individual on Lot Community

Total 541

Porter

Blue Heron Lake 50 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Earl Ness 50 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Eilenberger Dev 61 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Spruce Run Creek 42 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 203

Porter-Dingman-Blooming Grove

Hemlock Farms 3,150 5-Community/Rest IOL Central

Total 3,150

Shohola

Between the Lakes 29 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Brandtwood 23 Individual on Lot 3 Community/20 IOL

East Cove 12 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

East Cove Woods 27 Individual on Lot Community

Evergreen Park 12 Individual on Lot Community

Happy Hollow 73 Individual on Lot 71 on 1 Community

Hinkel Estates 37 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Maple Park 43 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

PA Lakeshores 196 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Sagamore Estates 180 Community/IOL Central

Shohola Acres 17 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Shohola Heights 26 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Symphony West 10 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

-52-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

Trails End 0 Central 6 Community

Twin Lake Preserve 20 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Twin Lake Woods 48 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Twin Lakes Park 43 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Walker Lake 134 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 930

Westfall

Farmstead 21 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Fieldstone Ridge 21 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Glass House Hill 39 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Riverside Estates 30 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Valley View 14 Individual on Lot Individual on Lot

Total 125

Grand Total 25,928

SOURCE: Data provided by the Pike County Planning Commission.

-53-

APPENDIX B:

MONROE COUNTY CIOC DATA

MONROE COUNTY

COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP COMMUNITIES (CIOC)

BY MUNICIPALITY

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

Approximate year community construction began

Barrett

Buck Hill Falls 250 central sewer central water 1953

Lake in the Clouds 64 on lot sewer on lot water 1969

Skytop Meadows 48 central sewer central water 1989

Spruce Hill Farms 77 on lot sewer on lot water 1969

Wildwood Manor Estates 38 on lot sewer on lot water 1981

Total 477

Chestnuthill

Birches III 170 on lot sewer on lot water 1980

Birches West 91 on lot sewer on lot water 1978

Lenape Hills 96 on lot sewer on lot water 1974

Pohopoco Creek Estates 81 on lot sewer on lot water 1976

Robinwood Village 49 central sewer central water 1985

Weir Lake Dev 81 on lot sewer on lot water 1928

Total 568

Chestnuthill/Tunkhannock

Birch Brier 286 on lot sewer on lot water 1980

Sierra View 1,094 on lot sewer on lot water 1976

Total 1,380

Coolbaugh

Mushroom Farm 73 on lot sewer on lot water 1974

Pocono Country Place 3,886 central sewer central water 1973

Pocono Farms Country Club 2,268 on lot sewer central water 1980

Pocono Forest Sports (Lehigh River Est) 76 central sewer central water 1965

Pocono Summit Lake 107 on lot sewer on lot water 1956

Riverside Estates 86 on lot sewer on lot water 1977

Whispering Glen 70 on lot sewer on lot water 1984

Total 6,566

-54-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes

Type of Sanitary Sewer System

Type of Drinking Water System

Approximate year community construction began

Coolbaugh/Tobyhanna

Lake Naomi Club Timber Trails 2,050 on lot sewer on lot water 1973

Stillwater Lake Civic Association 1,186 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Timber Trail Community Assoc. 487 on lot sewer on lot water 1973

Total 3,723

E. Stroudsburg

Stones Throw 119 central sewer central water 1986

The Oaks Property Owner Assoc. 71 central sewer central water 2003

Total 190

Hamilton

White Oak Country Estates 69 central sewer on lot water 1996

Total 69

Hamilton/Chestnuthill

Meadow Lake Park Assoc 73 on lot sewer on lot water 1966

Total 73

Jackson

Camelback Village 308 central sewer central water 1981

Total 308

Jackson/Pocono

Barton Glen 273 on lot sewer on lot water 1964

Northridge at Camelback 313 central sewer central water 1990

Total 586

M. Smithfield

Country Club of Poconos (Great Bear) 279 central sewer central water 1988

Keystone Hollow 22 central sewer on lot water 1996

Leisure Lands 281 on lot sewer on lot water 1975

Northpark Estates 99 on lot sewer on lot water 1992

Northslope III Owner Association 187 central sewer central water 1988

Pocono Heights 64 on lot sewer on lot water 1964

Wilderness Acres 252 on lot sewer on lot water 1978

Winona Lake 660 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Lake of the Pines 431 on lot sewer on lot water 1972

Maple Lane 21 central sewer central water 1987

Monroe Lake Shores 404 on lot sewer on lot water 1958

Mountaintop Estates 183 on lot sewer on lot water 1985

Saw Creek Estates 205 central sewer central water 1981

Total 3,088

M.Smithfield/Price

Pocono Highland Lake Estates 279 on lot sewer on lot water 1951

Pocono Wild Haven 235 on lot sewer on lot water 1967

Total 514

-55-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes Type of Sanitary Sewer System 

Type of Drinking Water System Approximate year community construction

began

Mt Pocono

Villas at Pine Hills 20 central sewer central water 1984

Total 20

Mt Pocono/Coolbaugh

Summit Pointe 221 central sewer central water 1978

Total 221

Mt.Pocono

Foxfire Condominium Assoc. 135 central sewer central water 1984

Snowshoe Condominiums 53 central sewer central water 1987

Total 188

Paradise

Log Cabin Estates 30 on lot sewer on lot water 1971

Timber Hill Community Assoc. 183 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Total 213

Paradise/Pocono

Ski Haven Lake 26 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Total 26

Pocono

Alpine Lake 147 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Crescent Lake 97 on lot sewer on lot water 1957

Deer Mountain Lake 72 on lot sewer on lot water 1973

Glenoak Forest 70 on lot sewer on lot water 1974

Mountain View Village 39 central sewer central water 1981

Pocono Laurel Lake 201 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Ski Side Village 50 central sewer central water 1983

Stone Row 25 central sewer central water 1986

Sunset Pocono Highland Estates 111 on lot sewer on lot water 1973

The Woodlands-Cranberry Comm 150 on lot sewer on lot water 1973

Total 962

Polk

El-Do Lake Prop. Assoc. 144 on lot sewer central water 1986

Evergreen Lake Estates 158 on lot sewer on lot water 1970

Foxwood 29 on lot sewer on lot water 1987

Hemlock Lake 70 on lot sewer on lot water 1957

Pleasant View Lake 131 on lot sewer on lot water 1967

Pleasant Valley Estates 384 on lot sewer on lot water 1970

Robin Hood Lake 330 central sewer on lot water 1975

Total 1,246

Polk/Chestnuthill

Birch Hollow Estates 329 on lot sewer on lot water 1982

Total 329

Price

-56-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total Number of Homes Type of Sanitary Sewer  System Type of Drinking Water

System Approximate year community construction began Hallowood Acres 48 on lot

sewer on lot water 1970

Hamlet 134 on lot sewer on lot water 1972

Pine Creek Estates 110 on lot sewer on lot water 1975

Snow Hill Falls 82 on lot sewer on lot water 1967

Total 374

Smithfield

Valhalla Lake 194 on lot sewer on lot water 1957

Shawnee Village 419 central sewer central water 1977

Spring Lake Estates 67 on lot sewer on lot water 1972

Twin Lake Estates 60 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Village of the Eagle 29 on lot sewer on lot water 1973

Total 769

Stroud

Blue Mountain Lake Reserve 99 central sewer central water 1993

Cornerstone Conservancy 32 central sewer central water 2007

Olde Mille Run 63 on lot sewer on lot water 1978

Walnut Grove 45 central sewer central water 1994

Wigwam Lake Est 131 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Woodhaven Estates 28 on lot sewer on lot water 1969

Total 398

Stroud/Pocono

Penn Estates 1,657 central sewer central water 1977

Total 1,657

Stroud/Smithfield

Blue Mountain Lake Estates 561 central sewer central water 1993

Total 561

Stroud/Stroudsburg

Labar Village 108 central sewer central water 1984

Total 108

Tobyhanna

Camelot Forest 213 on lot sewer on lot water 1971

Fawn Ridge Estates 47 central sewer on lot water 1994

Forest Glen 89 on lot sewer on lot water 1964

Greenwood Acres 144 central sewer on lot water 1984

Locust Lake Village 1,090 on lot sewer on lot water 1967

Pine Crest 270 on lot sewer on lot water 1998

Pocohanna Colony 81 on lot sewer central water 1958

Wagner Forest Park 116 on lot sewer on lot water 1969

Total 2,050

Tobyhanna/Coolbaugh

Arrowhead Lake 2,397 on lot sewer on lot water 1964

-57-

Municipality and CIOC Name

Total

Number

of

Homes

Type of

Sanitary Sewer

System

Type of

Drinking Water

System

Approximate

year community

construction

began

Total 2,397

Tobyhanna/Tunkhannock

Emerald Lake 1,446 on lot sewer on lot water 1971

Total 1,446

Tunkhannock

Brier Crest Woods 490 on lot sewer on lot water 1969

Stonecrest Park 243 on lot sewer on lot water 1965

Total 733

Tunkhannock/Chestnuthill

Indian Mt. Lake 1,017 on lot sewer on lot water 1973

Total 1,017

Grand Total 32,257

SOURCE: Data provided by the Tax Assessment Office of Monroe County.

-58-

APPENDIX C:

MONROE COUNTY REAL ESTATE TAX ESTIMATES

MONROE COUNTY

REAL ESTATE TAXES

BY CIOC AND MUNICIPALITY

Municipality and CIOC Name County Taxes Municipal Taxes School District Taxes Total Taxes

Barrett

Buck Hill Falls $210,835 $226,112 $1,622,509 $2,059,456

Lake in the Clouds $29,594 $31,738 $227,742 $289,074

Skytop Meadows $42,525 $45,607 $327,261 $415,393

Spruce Hill Farms $34,279 $36,763 $263,801 $334,843

Wildwood Manor Estates $17,044 $18,279 $131,164 $166,487

Total $334,277 $358,499 $2,572,477 $3,265,253

Chestnuthill

Birches III $61,830 $14,337 $485,681 $561,848

Birches West $33,295 $7,720 $261,531 $302,546

Lenape Hills $38,882 $9,016 $305,421 $353,319

Pohopoco Creek Estates $32,924 $7,635 $258,619 $299,178

Robinwood Village $21,446 $4,973 $168,462 $194,881

Weir Lake Dev $15,169 $3,517 $119,153 $137,839

Total $203,546 $47,198 $1,598,867 $1,849,611

Chestnuthill/Tunkhannock

Birch Brier $160,316 $37,175 - $106,877 $1,233,733 - $1,259,291 $1,431,224 - $1,526,484

Sierra View $484,098 $112,255 - $322,732 $3,725,450 - $3,802,625 $4,321,803 - $4,609,455

Total $644,414 $149,430 - $429,609 $4,959,183 - $5,061,916 $5,753,027 - $6,135,939

Coolbaugh

Mushroom Farm $25,349 $10,507 $195,079 $230,935

Pocono Country Place $1,540,124 $638,370 $11,852,257 $14,030,751

Pocono Farms Country Club $979,866 $406,147 $7,540,704 $8,926,717

Pocono Forest Sports (Lehigh ) $12,926 $5,358 $99,476 $117,760

Pocono Summit Lake $36,400 $15,088 $280,125 $331,613

Riverside Estates $35,131 $14,562 $270,357 $320,050

Whispering Glen $36,913 $15,300 $284,073 $336,286

Total $2,666,709 $1,105,332 $20,522,071 $24,294,112

Coolbaugh/Tobyhanna

Arrowhead Lake $749,031 $310,468 - $627,015 $5,764,280 $6,823,779 - $7,140,326

Lake Naomi Club Timber Trails $1,084,464 $449,502 - $907,806 $8,345,658 $9,879,624 - $10,337,928

Stillwater Lake Civic Association $460,445 $190,851 - $385,439 $3,543,427 $4,194,723 - $4,389,311

Timber Trail Community Assoc. $362,742 $150,354 - $303,652 $2,791,536 $3,304,632 - $3,457,930

Total $2,656,682 $1,101,175 - $2,223,912 $20,444,901 $24,202,758 - $25,325,495

-59-

Municipality and CIOC Name County Taxes Municipal Taxes School District Taxes Total Taxes

E. Stroudsburg

Stones Throw $55,980 $42,188 $529,685 $627,853

The Oaks Property Owner Assoc. $41,758 $31,470 $395,113 $468,341

Total $97,738 $73,658 $924,798 $1,096,194

Hamilton

White Oak Country Estates $52,266 $3,030 $440,700 $495,996

Total $52,266 $3,030 $440,700 $495,996

Hamilton/Chestnuthill

Meadow Lake Park Assoc $28,921 $1,677 - $6,706 $227,175 - $243,857 $257,773 - $279,484

Total $28,921 $1,677 - $6,706 $227,175 - $243,857 $257,773 - $279,484

Jackson

Camelback Village $118,134 $61,635 $909,114 $1,088,883

Total $118,134 $61,635 $909,114 $1,088,883

Jackson/Pocono

Barton Glen $98,301 $51,287 - $76,162 $756,489 $906,077 - $930,952

Northridge at Camelback $222,269 $115,967 - $172,210 $1,710,506 $2,048,742 - $2,104,985

Total $320,570 $167,254 - $248,372 $2,466,995 $2,954,819 - $3,035,937

M. Smithfield

Country Club of Poconos (G. Bear) $247,548 $64,578 $2,342,303 $2,654,429

Keystone Hollow $46,838 $12,219 $443,181 $502,238

Leisure Lands $97,688 $25,484 $924,325 $1,047,497

Northpark Estates $56,237 $14,670 $532,114 $603,021

Northslope III Owner Association $139,306 $36,341 $1,318,121 $1,493,768

Pocono Heights $16,462 $4,294 $155,762 $176,518

Wilderness Acres $108,504 $28,305 $1,026,665 $1,163,474

Winona Lake $274,419 $71,587 $2,596,558 $2,942,564

Lake of the Pines $199,804 $52,123 $1,890,551 $2,142,478

Maple Lane $9,441 $2,463 $89,332 $101,236

Monroe Lake Shores $114,302 $29,818 $1,081,530 $1,225,650

Mountaintop Estates $56,179 $14,655 $531,563 $602,397

Saw Creek Estates $94,085 $24,544 $890,233 $1,008,862

Total $1,460,813 $381,081 $13,822,238 $15,664,132

M.Smithfield/Price

Pocono Highland Lake Estates $105,832 $18,406 - $27,608 $1,001,389 $1,125,627 - $1,134,829

Pocono Wild Haven $92,663 $16,115 - $24,173 $876,782 $985,560 - $993,618

Total $198,495 $34,521 - $51,781 $1,878,171 $2,111,187 - $2,128,447

Mt Pocono/Coolbaugh

Summit Pointe $22,136 $9,175 - $34,647 $170,349 $201,660 - $227,132

Total $22,136 $9,175 - $34,647 $170,349 $201,660 - $227,132

-60-

Municipality and CIOC Name County Taxes Municipal Taxes School District Taxes Total Taxes

Mt.Pocono

Foxfire Condominium Assoc. $33,475 $52,395 $257,609 $343,479

Snowshoe Condominiums $11,136 $17,430 $85,697 $114,263

Villas at Pine Hills $4,635 $7,255 $35,671 $47,561

Total $49,246 $77,080 $378,977 $505,303

Paradise

Log Cabin Estates $16,189 $5,866 $124,583 $146,638

Timber Hill Community Assoc. $84,700 $30,689 $651,824 $767,213

Total $100,889 $36,555 $776,407 $913,851

Paradise/Pocono

Ski Haven Lake $10,523 $3,813 - $8,153 $80,983 $95,319 - $99,659

Total $10,523 $3,813 - $8,153 $80,983 $95,319 - $99,659

Pocono

Alpine Lake $55,154 $42,733 $424,448 $522,335

Crescent Lake $32,274 $25,006 $248,371 $305,651

Deer Mountain Lake $31,563 $24,454 $242,897 $298,914

Glenoak Forest $32,392 $25,097 $249,275 $306,764

Mountain View Village $10,486 $8,124 $80,693 $99,303

Pocono Laurel Lake $73,791 $57,172 $567,869 $698,832

Ski Side Village $19,567 $15,160 $150,577 $185,304

Stone Row $10,254 $7,944 $78,908 $97,106

Sunset Pocono Highland Estates $46,504 $36,030 $357,875 $440,409

The Woodlands-Cranberry Comm $126,420 $97,948 $972,885 $1,197,253

Total $438,405 $339,668 $3,373,798 $4,151,871

Polk

El-Do Lake Prop. Assoc. $52,079 $9,963 $409,081 $471,123

Evergreen Lake Estates $62,897 $12,032 $494,057 $568,986

Foxwood $11,302 $2,162 $88,776 $102,240

Hemlock Lake $12,984 $2,484 $101,988 $117,456

Pleasant View Lake $130,562 $24,977 $1,025,571 $1,181,110

Pleasant Valley Estates $33,402 $6,390 $262,378 $302,170

Robin Hood Lake $74,665 $14,284 $586,500 $675,449

Total $377,891 $72,292 $2,968,351 $3,418,534

Polk/Chestnuthill

Birch Hollow Estates $139,173 $26,624 - $32,272 $1,093,213 $1,259,010 - $1,264,658

Total $139,173 $26,624 - $32,272 $1,093,213 $1,259,010 - $1,264,658

Price

Hallowood Acres $26,073 $4,534 $246,704 $277,311

Hamlet $64,138 $11,154 $606,878 $682,170

Pine Creek Estates $42,410 $7,376 $401,281 $451,067

Snow Hill Falls $28,882 $5,023 $273,279 $307,184

Total $161,503 $28,087 $1,528,142 $1,717,732

Smithfield

-61-

Municipality and CIOC Name County Taxes Municipal Taxes School District Taxes Total Taxes

Valhalla Lake $178,177 $41,316 $1,685,914 $1,905,407

Shawnee Village $40,753 $9,450 $385,611 $435,814

Spring Lake Estates $49,124 $11,391 $464,810 $525,325

Twin Lake Estates $76,707 $17,787 $725,805 $820,299

Village of the Eagle $17,655 $4,094 $167,049 $188,798

Total $362,416 $84,038 $3,429,189 $3,875,643

Stroud

Blue Mountain Lake Reserve $74,002 $57,914 $624,188 $756,104

Cornerstone Conservancy $35,703 $27,942 $301,149 $364,794

Olde Mille Run $51,465 $40,277 $434,093 $525,835

Walnut Grove $15,056 $11,783 $126,997 $153,836

Wigwam Lake Est $33,378 $26,122 $281,540 $341,040

Woodhaven Estates $14,698 $11,503 $123,973 $150,174

Total $224,302 $175,541 $1,891,940 $2,291,783

Stroud/Pocono

Penn Estates $890,907 $690,259 - $697,231 $6,856,109 - $7,512,023 $8,437,275 - $9,100,161

Total $890,907 $690,259 - $697,231 $6,856,109 - $7,512,023 $8,437,275 - $9,100,161

Stroud/Smithfield

Blue Mountain Lake Estates $430,822 $99,901 - $337,165 $3,632,644 - $4,076,454 $4,163,367 - $4,844,441

Total $430,822 $99,901 - $337,165 $3,632,644 - $4,076,454 $4,163,367 - $4,844,441

Stroud/Stroudsburg

Labar Village $87,929 $68,814-$180,956 $741,408 $898,151-$1,010,293

Total $87,929 $68,814-$180,956 $741,408 $898,151-$1,010,293

Tobyhanna

Camelot Forest $85,670 $71,715 $659,288 $816,673

Fawn Ridge Estates $40,206 $33,656 $309,411 $383,273

Forest Glen $18,090 $15,143 $139,216 $172,449

Greenwood Acres $69,979 $58,580 $538,538 $667,097

Locust Lake Village $377,145 $315,709 $2,902,377 $3,595,231

Pine Crest $182,736 $152,969 $1,406,277 $1,741,982

Pocohanna Colony $19,147 $16,028 $147,346 $182,521

Wagner Forest Park $66,271 $55,476 $509,999 $631,746

Total $859,244 $719,276 $6,612,452 $8,190,972

Tobyhanna/Tunkhannock

Emerald Lake $662,484 $441,656 - $554,566 $5,098,248 $6,202,388 - $6,315,298

Total $662,484 $441,656 - $554,566 $5,098,248 $6,202,388 - $6,315,298

Tunkhannock

Brier Crest Woods $169,411 $112,940 $1,303,726 $1,586,077

Stonecrest Park $91,391 $60,927 $703,310 $855,628

Total $260,802 $173,867 $2,007,036 $2,441,705

Tunkhannock/Chestnuthill

-62-

Municipality and CIOC Name County Taxes Municipal Taxes School District Taxes Total Taxes

Indian Mt. Lake $419,199 $97,205 - $279,466 $3,226,007 - $3,292,836 $3,742,411 - $3,991,501

Total $419,199 $97,205 - $279,466 $3,226,007 - $3,292,836 $3,742,411 - $3,991,501

Grand Total $14,280,436 $6,628,341 - $8,821,673 $114,631,943 - $115,917,911 $135,540,720 - $139,020,020

Note: Total Residential Assessment Amounts paid in each CIOC were provided by Thomas Hill, Chief Assessor of the Tax Assessment Office of Monroe

County, June 3, 2010. These data were multiplied by the 2009 millage rates in each municipality and school district to obtain the taxes paid by residents in

each CIOC. Some CIOCs straddle two school districts and/or municipalities. Monroe County Tax Assessment Office indicated that it was too difficult to

determine which households in each community were in each municipality and/or school district. So, for CIOCs that straddle two school districts or

municipalities, the taxes paid are given in a range based on the assessment value of all residential properties within the community and multiplying the lowest

millage and the highest millage of the two districts or municipalities to that total assessment value.

SOURCE: Assessment data provided by the Tax Assessment Office of Monroe County.

-63-