Legislative Bulletin
April 25, 1997

The Natural Resources Committee will hold a public hearing on LD 1730 - An Act to State Proposes to Protect Great Ponds with New Revenues and Watercraft Enforcement

Implement the Recommendations of the Great Pond Task Force - on April 28th at 1:30.p.m. in Room 113 of the State Office Building. The bill follows a year of work by the Task Force to develop a plan for protecting the quality of Maine’s lakes and great ponds.

Charged with developing a management strategy for protecting one of Maine’s most valuable natural resources, the Task Force examined a long list of environmental, quality of life, and funding issues. Task force members represented a variety of special interests, including the MMA, the Sportsman’s Alliance, Congress of Lakes Associations, Trout Unlimited and the Maine Marine Trade Association. All the Task Force’s meetings and hearings were well attended by interested members of the public, who were given ample opportunities to comment and participate.

During the Task Force process, several issues became lightening rods as participants presented their views on how to protect the environment, but two major issues emerged that will undoubtedly be the focus of the public hearing: regulation of water craft and the funding sources for a Lakes Heritage Trust Fund.

Personal Watercraft Banned. In response to the flood of opposition to personal watercraft, LD 1730 proposes to ban the use of personal watercraft on all great ponds within the unorganized territory of the state and on all ponds less than 200 acres within the organized territories, unless their use is "permitted by rule," which must be adopted before June 1, 1999.

LPC Opposes Method of Assessing New Revenues. The bill also proposes to fund the creation of a Lakes Heritage Trust Fund, as well as increase environmental protection and law enforcement, with several new revenues assessed by municipalities and counties:

Real Estate Transfer Tax. The Transfer Tax would be increased 44 cents, to $4.84 per $1,000 of value for property located within the watershed of a great pond. The Transfer Tax is assessed at the registry of deeds when property transfers are recorded. Seventy percent of the new revenues would be forwarded to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and the remaining thirty percent would be forwarded to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Motorless Watercraft fee. A one-time $10 fee on passive or non-motored watercraft, paid to the municipality in which the owner resides, to be forwarded to the State for the Lakes Heritage Fund. Municipalities would retain a $1 collection fee.

Water Quality Impact Fee. Each municipality would assess an annual $10 fee on each residential unit within the shoreland zone of a great pond. Municipalities would retain $1 as a collection fee, $3 would be dedicated to code enforcement officer training, and $6 would go to the Lakes Heritage Fund.

Additional revenues are raised by increasing the boat registration fee from $4 to $15, and licensing boat rental operators for a $50 annual fee.

Municipal officials across Maine undoubtedly support efforts to protect our great ponds. Municipalities are actively working to protect our lakes and ponds through shoreland zoning, code enforcement, and land use planning. Local Conservation Committees have played an important role in planning the preservation and protection of our natural resources. The condition of this natural resource is part of Maine’s quality of life and the link between water quality and property values is very apparent to local governments dependent on revenues from property taxes.

However, municipalities working to keep their tax bills down are opposed to assessing the fees to support new state programs. The $10 fee on canoes and the $10 annual assessment on shorefront properties will be perceived as municipal tax increases by the people upon whom these fee increases will fall. The fact that the state is imposing these new taxes will be lost on those citizens paying the fees in the town office or city hall.

Safety Zone Around Public Drinking Water Intakes Increased

In an effort to increase the protection of public drinking water supplies, the bill proposes to increase the safety zone around the water intakes from 200 feet to 1000 feet. The bill would ban all boat moorings and ice fishing within the zone; however, officials from the Department of Human Services have indicated the real issue is the need to control the level of body contact with the water. This is a critical issue for the seventeen water systems that have a filtration waiver for their drinking water supply. If the language in the bill restricting activities in the safety zone is too broad, it should be clarified to state its intent and avoid any confusion in the future.

LD 755 An Act to Amend the Watercraft Registration Laws has been on the Tax Committee’s "table" since early March when it had its public hearing. As reported in the March 14th issue of the Legislative Bulletin, this bill would have required municipalities to subtract from a boat owner’s full-year 1997 watercraft excise tax obligation a prorated amount of excise taxes based on the number of months during 1996 that the owner’s boat was not registered.

The theory behind the bill is that when the Legislature changed the watercraft registration year from a staggered 12-month basis (like motor vehicle registrations) to a fixed calendar year basis, the excise tax year was somehow changed in the process. Some boat owners, particularly commercial fishermen who often have their boats in the water nearly year round, became concerned that when they registered their boats (and paid the excise tax) in the later months of 1996, and then had to register again (and pay the excise tax) in the first months of 1997, they were being asked to pay their excise taxes over an overlapping period of time. The boat owners’ concerns were expressed so loudly last year, it prompted some legislators to issue a memo to all municipal excise tax collectors suggesting they prorate the 1997 watercraft excise taxes in anticipation of the proration being required by legislation this year.

Although the legislation that changed the watercraft registration year confused boat owners, municipalities, and legislators alike, it turns out that there was no overlapping period of watercraft excise tax payment. For at least 15 years, the watercraft excise tax year has been the calendar year, and the change of the registration year simply aligned both the registration year and the excise tax year. Therefore, with or without a change to the registration year, when a person paid his or her boat excise tax in August, 1996 (for example) the tax payment covered a period of time from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996.

To test if any boat owner paid more excise taxes than they were supposed to, an excise tax collector should look at a consecutive 2-year period, from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997. During this period of time, a person who registered a boat for both years should have made only two excise tax payments, each of which covered the respective calendar year. Although those payments might have been made fairly close together because of the legislation that changed the registration year, there was no double taxation.

In light of this information, the Tax Committee rejected the mandatory proration process contained in LD 755. The bill was unanimously passed out of Committee "ought to pass as amended." The amendment strips off the mandatory proration process, but retains the other sections of the bill. Aside from a couple of technical amendments, LD 755 also provides that any watercraft being registered to a new owner after September 1 of any year should be assessed only 50% of the annual watercraft excise tax obligation.

-An Act to Realign the Tax Structure of the State -

Who will benefit from the homestead exemption?

Every Maine owner of residential property will have $20,000 exempted from the assessed value of their primary residence before their property taxes are figured, if it is at 100 percent of "just value;" if not it will be prorated. Industrial and commercial properties are not eligible, nor are non-residents and owners of second homes.

Why redirect monies to a homestead exemption? Why not redirect monies to school funding, since education costs are the primary cause of the rise in property taxes?

More state money for education would not guarantee property tax relief. The homestead exemption provides direct property tax relief. For the most part, the municipal officers have little control over how educational funds are spent.

Isn’t this just another tax increase?

Absolutely not! It is a revenue neutral tax "shift" from the overburdened property tax to:

A broadened sales tax base. Of the 155 services subject to the sales tax nationwide, Maine currently applies the tax to only 27 services. Only 14 states with sales taxes apply the tax to fewer services than Maine. The monies - more than $100 million - generated by taxes on services that are not currently subject to the sales tax (such as movie tickets, ski lifts, dry cleaning, accounting, lobbying and legal services) will be used to pay for the homestead exemption. Surplus revenues will be placed in a special Tax Relief Fund.

Certain tax exempt properties. Just as the sales tax is narrowly based, so too is the property tax. There is $10 billion of property in this state that is exempt from the property tax. Buildings owned by the state, colleges and hospitals, non-profit nursing homes, and others (churches would remain exempt) would be required to pay, in lieu of taxes, a service charge for the municipal services they now receive free.

Won’t the State just keep the money or adjust things like education aid and revenue sharing?

The State would reimburse the towns at 100 percent of the tax lost; should the State not do so, the program would be automatically repealed.

Towns would automatically - within 45 days - receive their reimbursement when they file their Municipal Valuation returns with the Bureau of Taxation

The Homestead Exemption would have no effect on General Purpose Aid to Education or Municipal Revenue Sharing.

What’s to keep municipalities from spending the additional revenues from the service charges?

The proposed legislation requires that all service charge revenues - an estimated $32 million a year statewide from state buildings and non-governmental properties alone - be used to reduce the municipal property tax commitment, just as is the case with State-Municipal Revenue Sharing. The direct and immediate result will be lower property tax mill rates. Businesses, especially those in service center communities, should see a drop in their property taxes as a result of the drop in their municipality’s mill rate.

Shouldn’t the taxpayers vote on this?

To be sure. Polling by the MMA indicated that taxpayers want a direct say in the matter of tax reform. That is why the proposal contains a referendum provision. After being shaped by the Legislature, LD 1742 proposes that the package put out to voters for ratification in November...

[actual structure/layout of tables not provided here]

Property Tax Savings from the Homestead Exemption

(1995 Data)

Assessed (Full) Value Tax Without Tax With Dollar Percent

Homestead Homestead Savings Savings

Wallagrass Plt (Aroostook County) Tax Rate: 12.88

(low) $22,000 $283.36 $ 25.76 $257.60 91%

(median) 44,000 566.72 309.12 257.60 45%

(high) 66,000 850.08 566.72 257.60 30%

Mount Vernon (Kennebec County) Tax Rate: 16.09

(low) $ 43,838 $ 705.35 $ 383.55 $321.80 46%

(median) 87,676 1,410.71 1,088.91 321.80 23%

(high) 131,514 2,116.06 1,794.26 321.80 15%

Portland (Cumberland County) Tax Rate: 24.97

(low) $ 59,564 $1,487.31 $ 987.91 $499.40 34%

(median) 119,128 2,974.63 2,475.23 499.40 17%

(high) 178,692 4,461.94 3,962.54 499.40 11%

Last week’s Legislative Bulletin (April 18th) described the public hearing of LD 474, a bill that would extend the deadline after which the state would no longer reimburse municipalities for the state’s share of landfill closure costs. Under current law, the zero-reimbursement deadline for landfill cap construction is January 1, 1998, In recognition of the special circumstances facing dozens of municipalities that may not be able to complete their landfill construction efforts in the 1997 construction season, LD 474 would extend that deadline to January 1, 2000.

Four days after the public hearing, the Natural Resources Committee gave a unanimous "ought to pass as amended" report to LD 474. The amendment, prepared by the DEP, extends the reimbursement program the two additional years proposed by LD 474. In addition, the amendment reorganizes the reimbursement statute to clearly delineate the various state reimbursement obligations during the recent history of the landfill closure reimbursement program.

Municipal Landfills vs. Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

On a somewhat related landfill issue, the Committee also took up LD 1095, An Act Concerning State Mandated Municipal Landfill Remediation. Sponsored by Representative John Tuttle (Sanford), this bill addresses the relationship between municipal landfills and "uncontrolled hazardous waste sites."

Under current law, municipalities are eligible for state reimbursement for 90% of the cost of remediating municipal landfills that end up polluting the environment. The exception to that rule is when the municipal landfill is designated an uncontrolled hazardous waste site by the DEP Commissioner. A municipal landfill that is also an uncontrolled hazardous waste site is a landfill that contains hazardous waste typically deposited there by one or more industrial sources. As a matter of state policy, the parties responsible for depositing the hazardous material are held financially responsible for most or all costs of remediating an "uncontrolled hazardous waste site" before the state taxpayers are asked to the cover those costs.

Representative Tuttle sponsored LD 1095 because the town of Sanford has a municipal landfill adjacent to the Mousam River that has been declared an uncontrolled hazardous waste site. The remediation costs of the Sanford landfill are projected in the $5 to $6 million range, which would pay for the engineering and construction costs of an underground barrier and a pumping system to move the polluting leachate to a wastewater treatment facility. LD 1095 seeks to provide the town of Sanford with the same 90% reimbursement for these costs that would be available from the state if the landfill had not been designated as a hazardous waste site.

According to DEP testimony, the city of Saco and the town of Winthrop are the only other communities with municipal landfills that have also been designated as hazardous waste sites. Both of these landfills were placed on the federal EPA’s Superfund list, which triggers an extensive process of determing all the "potentially responsible parties" (PRP’s) and determining what share of the total remediation costs are provided by each PRP. Maine’s uncontrolled hazardous waste site program is the state’s version of the federal Superfund program, but in the Sanford situation the town is reluctant to trigger a process that could adversely affect several major employers in the community. It is for that reason the town, through LD 1095, is asking to be provided the state reimbursement as though its landfill had never been separately designated.

MMA testified in support of LD 1095, but for reasons more generalized than the specifics of the Sanford situation. There is no clean statutory language that permits the DEP to label as an "uncontrolled hazardous waste site" what otherwise is simply a municipal landfill. There is the municipal landfill reimbursement law in one section of the law books and the uncontrolled hazardous waste site law in another, with nothing to expressly connect them.

Furthermore, there are no statutory standards of any kind that give either the DEP Commissioner or the municipalities any guidance as to when or why the DEP Commissioner may make such a determination. Because most municipal landfills of any size contain some amount of industrial waste, it would be possible that the discovery of any industrial-type pollution leaching from any municipal landfill could trigger the DEP designation, and jeopardize what otherwise appears to be a guarantee of state-share reimbursement.

The Committee unanimously reported LD 1095 "ought not to pass." Several members of the Committee indicated they were not supportive of the bill because of the town’s unwillingness to proceed with the process of identifying the responsible parties and seeking remediation cost recovery from them. It made little sense to the Committee to require all the taxpayers of Maine to chip in for the remediation costs, thereby letting the parties directly responsible for creating the pollution off the hook.

In a less formal way the Committee kept alive the issue of the statutory standards that should exist to guide the DEP with the determination of what constitutes an uncontrolled hazardous waste site. The Committee will be asking the DEP for a report describing what guidelines DEP uses when evaluating municipal landfills for the hazardous waste site designation. The report could contain any recommended legislation for the next session of the Legislature that might be necessary to better clarify that determination.

Last week’s Legislative Bulletin (April 18th) described the public hearing of LD 474, a bill that would extend the deadline after which the state would no longer reimburse municipalities for the state’s share of landfill closure costs. Under current law, the zero-reimbursement deadline for landfill cap construction is January 1, 1998. In recognition of the special circumstances facing dozens of municipalities that may not be able to complete their landfill construction efforts in the 1997 construction season, LD 474 would extend that deadline to January 1, 2000.

Four days after the public hearing, the Natural Resources Committee gave a unanimous "ought to pass as amended" report to LD 474. The amendment, prepared by the DEP, extends the reimbursement program the two additional years proposed by LD 474. In addition, the amendment reorganizes the reimbursement statute to clearly delineate the various state reimbursement obligations during the recent history of the landfill closure reimbursement program.

Municipal Landfills vs. Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

On a somewhat related landfill issue, the Committee also took up LD 1095, An Act Concerning State Mandated Municipal Landfill Remediation. Sponsored by Representative John Tuttle (Sanford), this bill addresses the relationship between municipal landfills and "uncontrolled hazardous waste sites."

Under current law, municipalities are eligible for state reimbursement for 90% of the cost of remediating municipal landfills that end up polluting the environment. The exception to that rule is when the municipal landfill is designated an uncontrolled hazardous waste site by the DEP Commissioner. A municipal landfill that is also an uncontrolled hazardous waste site is a landfill that contains hazardous waste typically deposited there by one or more industrial sources. As a matter of state policy, the parties responsible for depositing the hazardous material are held financially responsible for most or all costs of remediating an "uncontrolled hazardous waste site" before the state taxpayers are asked to cover those costs.

Representative Tuttle sponsored LD 1095 because the town of Sanford has a municipal landfill adjacent to the Mousam River that has been declared an uncontrolled hazardous waste site. The remediation costs of the Sanford landfill are projected in the $5 to $6 million range, which would pay for the engineering and construction costs of an underground barrier and a pumping system to move the polluting leachate to a wastewater treatment facility. LD 1095 seeks to provide the town of Sanford with the same 90% reimbursement for these costs that would be available from the state if the landfill had not been designated as a hazardous waste site.

According to DEP testimony, the city of Saco and the town of Winthrop are the only other communities with municipal landfills that have also been designated as hazardous waste sites. Both of these landfills were placed on the federal EPA’s Superfund list, which triggers an extensive process of determing all the "potentially responsible parties" (PRP’s) and determining what share of the total remediation costs are provided by each PRP. Maine’s uncontrolled hazardous waste site program is the state’s version of the federal Superfund program, but in the Sanford situation the town is reluctant to trigger a process that could adversely affect several major employers in the community. It is for that reason the town, through LD 1095, is asking to be provided the state reimbursement as though its landfill had never been separately designated.

MMA testified in support of LD 1095, but for reasons more generalized than the specifics of the Sanford situation. There is no clean statutory language that permits the DEP to label as an "uncontrolled hazardous waste site" what otherwise is simply a municipal landfill. There is the municipal landfill reimbursement law in one section of the law books and the uncontrolled hazardous waste site law in another, with nothing to expressly connect them.

Furthermore, there are no statutory standards of any kind that give either the DEP Commissioner or the municipalities any guidance as to when or why the DEP Commissioner may make such a determination. Because most municipal landfills of any size contain some amount of industrial waste, it would be possible that the discovery of any industrial-type pollution leaching from any municipal landfill could trigger the DEP designation, and jeopardize what otherwise appears to be a guarantee of state-share reimbursement.

The Committee unanimously reported LD 1095 "ought not to pass." Several members of the Committee indicated they were not supportive of the bill because of the town’s unwillingness to proceed with the process of identifying the responsible parties and seeking remediation cost recovery from them. It made little sense to the Committee to require all the taxpayers of Maine to chip in for the remediation costs, thereby letting the parties directly responsible for creating the pollution off the hook.

In a less formal way the Committee kept alive the issue of the statutory standards that should exist to guide the DEP with the determination of what constitutes an uncontrolled hazardous waste site. The Committee will be asking the DEP for a report describing what guidelines DEP uses when evaluating municipal landfills for the hazardous waste site designation. The report could contain any recommended legislation for the next session of the Legislature that might be necessary to better clarify that determination.

Throughout the session, the Joint Committee on Utilities and Energy has scheduled and held a series of informational hearings and discussions on the many aspects and issues surrounding utility deregulation. Information was obtained from, among others, representatives of the utility industry, consumer groups, regulatory agencies and government representatives from both within Maine and from other states. On Monday, April 28th, the Committee will begin the regular public hearing process on the bills that have been submitted that offer different alternatives or approaches to deregulation or restructuring of the industry.

The five bills all have common themes in approaching deregulation, but there are some significant differences. Although it is impossible to comprehensively indicate the variations among these complex bills in limited space, the following chart will, hopefully, provide a generalized oversight of some of the commonalties and differences in the bills. It is our understanding that LD 1804 embodies the approach submitted by the Public Utilities Committee in its report to the Committee, and LD 1732 represents the approach offered by Central Maine Power Company.

[structure of table not available]

Description LD 1804 LD 1732 LD 1794 LD 1785 LD 1798

(PUC) (CMP)

Retail Competition By 2000 By 2000 By 2000 By 2000 or as By 2000

determined by

PUC

Customer Aggregation Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Not specifically Not specifically

addressed addressed

Deregulation of energy

generation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Continued regulation of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

transmission/distribution

Customer choice of Yes. Existing utilities Yes. Existing utilities Yes. Existing utilities Yes Existing utilities Yes. Limits existing

utilities

generation service excluded as of 2006 not excluded excluded as of 2000 excluded as of 2000 2000

Standard offer Companies bid to Companies bid to Companies bid to Established by Not specifically

provide. Existing provide. Existing utilities provide. Existing PUC. addressed

utilities excluded not excluded. utilities excluded.

after 2005.

Consumer renewable energies . Determined Yes. Determined Yes. 30% Not specifically Determined

purchase requirement by PUC by PUC minimum addressed by PUC

Low Income Protection Yes. Yes. Yes. Not specifically Determined

Program Funding Rate payer funded Rate payer funded Capped addressed by PUC

Rate payer subsidized Yes. Set by PUC Yes. Set by PUC Required by bill Not specifically Determined

conservation program addressed by PUC

Rate payer subsidized R&D Not specifically Not specifically Required by bill Not Addressed Determined

of renewable energy required requried by PUC

Sale of generation Separation by 2000 Separation by 2000 Sold by 2000 Sold by 2000 Sold by 2000

facilities Sold by 2006 Sold by 2006

Limited stranded Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed

cost recovery

Exit fees for stranded None proposed Yes, for largest Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited

costs consumers

Securitization Not addressed Allowed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed

The following are brief updates on the status of some legislative proposals that MMA is tracking.

Note: No further action will be taken by the Legislature on bills that are reported as enacted, unanimous "Ought Not to Pass," or final "Ought Not to Pass." Bills that are reported with divided reports (where both a "majority" and a "minority" report come out of the committee) may face debate and further action on the floor of the House and Senate. Bills that are reported as unanimous "Ought to Pass" or as unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended" will likely be enacted as reported out of committee, but could be taken up for debate and amended by the full Legislature.

LD 1232 – AN ACT to Provide Relief from Barking Dogs – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." The original bill would have required all municipalities to enact a barking dog ordinance. The amendment replaces the original bill and makes keeping a dog that repeatedly disturbs people a civil violation subject to a fine.

Criminal Justice

LD 64 - AN ACT to Provide Reimbursement to Counties for Persons Jailed on Probation Revocations – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." The amendment removes the emergency clause from the bill.

LD 725 - AN ACT Requiring State Reimbursement for Certain Services Provided by Counties – majority "Ought Not to Pass."

LD 392 - AN ACT to Prohibit Schools from Charging Activity Fees for Participation in Extracurricular Events – majority "Ought Not to Pass."

LD 411 - AN ACT to Bring Certain State Retirement Laws into Compliance with Federal Laws – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." The amendment added an emergency preamble.

LD 677 - AN ACT Regarding the Penalty for Failure to Allow a Terminated Employee to Review Certain Files – majority "Ought to Pass as Amended." The original bill would raise the daily civil penalty for noncompliance to $50 and remove the $500 cap. It also made the civil penalty payable to the employee and authorizes the court to order the employer to pay any legal costs incurred by the employee. The amendment eliminates the following provisions in the original bill: (1) that the civil forfeiture be payable directly to the employee or former employee; (2) the increase in the amount of the forfeiture for each day that a violation continues from $25 to $50, and (3) that the employee be authorized to bring a civil suit to recover the forfeiture. The amendment reinstates the $500 cap on the total forfeiture. The provision in the original bill allowing the employee to recover costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees from the employer is limited to suits in which the employee receives a judgment in the employee’s favor.

LD 601 - An Act to Provide Municipal Notification of Utility Services – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended" by combined action of the State and Local Government Committee and the Utilities and Energy Committee. As amended, the bill preserves the existing requirement that a utility company cannot install utility services in shoreland zones and within subdivisions until it receives written authorization from the municipal officers that all required local permits are current and valid. However, the amendment allows for other procedures or arrangements to be followed instead if such arrangement has been agreed to in writing between the municipal officers and the utility company.

LD 357 - AN ACT to Amend the Laws Regarding Penalties for Late Filing by a Municipality under the Maine Tree Growth Tax Law – unanimous "Ought Not to Pass."

LD 434 - AN ACT to Amend the Veterans’ Estate Tax Exemption – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." As reported in the March 21 Legislative Bulletin, this bill would allow veterans to be eligible for the veterans exemption if they turn 62 at any time during the calendar year. Under current law, a veteran is eligible only if he or she turns 62 before April 1, the statutory date of assessment. The amendment merely clarifies that purpose and establishes a fiscal note for the state to reimburse municipalities for 50% of the revenue lost to the expanded exemption and other administrative costs.

LD 770 - AN ACT Relating to the Application of the Real Estate Transfer Tax to Mobile Home Transfers – unanimous "Ought Not to Pass."

LD 1339 - AN ACT Relating to Municipal Excise Tax Reimbursement – unanimous "Ought to Pass" (now referred to Transportation). This bill establishes a municipal reimbursement program related to heavy truck excise taxes. When the Legislature amended excise tax law in 1995 to make the excise tax obligation based on the purchase price rather than the list price, a program was to be implemented to reimburse municipalities for the lost revenues from a fund available to the state that collects interstate trucking excise fees. This bill implements that reimbursement program. The bill was referred jointly to the Taxation Committee and the Transportation Committee. It has left Taxation with a positive vote and has now been referred to Transportation.

Transportation

LD 914 - AN ACT Regarding Penalties for Failure to Yield the Right-of-way to an Emergency Vehicle – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." The amendment clarifies the original language to make the failure to yield to an emergency vehicle a Class E crime. The registered owner of a vehicle reported as failing to yield by an emergency vehicle operator is presumed to be the operator of the vehicle in violation. The bill spells out the conditions under which a registered owner charged with a violation may rebut the charges, showing that they were not the operator at the time of the violation.

NOTE: The Legislature will be on break and there will be no public hearings the week of April 21st. The following list of public hearings begins with Monday, April 28th.

Room 427, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-1314

LD 1741 – An Act to Establish the Maine Single-payer Health Care Plan and to Restructure the State Tax System (Sponsor: VOLENIK)

Room 436, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1317

LD 530 – An Act to Extend Medicaid Coverage to Certain Children (Sponsor: KANE)

Legal and Veterans Affairs

Room 425, State House, 3:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1310

LD 1731 – An Act to Amend the Election Laws (Sponsor: DAGGETT) (Department Bill)

Room 113, State Office Building, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-4149

LD 1730 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Great Pond Task Force (Sponsor: TREAT)

LD 1217 – An Act to Protect the State’s Lakes, Rivers and Coastal Wetlands Through a Comprehensive Watershed Protection Program (Sponsor: FULLER)

Room 124, State Office Building, 12:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-4143

LD 1732 – An Act to Provide Choice to Maine’s Electricity Customers (Sponsor: CAREY) (EMERGENCY)

LD 1785 – An Act to Provide for a Simplified Restructuring of the Electric Industry (Sponsor: USHER)

LD 1794 – An Act to Create a Competitive Market for Electricity While Protecting Consumers and the Environment (Sponsor: KONTOS)

LD 1798 – An Act to Permit Electric Utilities to Restructure in Ways that Improve the Economy of the State (Sponsor: DEXTER)

LD 1804 – An Act to Restructure the State’s Electric Industry (Sponsor: JONES, K.)

Tuesday, April 29

Room 134, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1333

LD 1406 – An Act to Clarify Laws Relating to Unemployment Compensation for Service with Nonprofit Organizations, Educational Institutions, State Government and Local Governments (Sponsor: DUNLAP)

Transportation

Room 122, State Office Building, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-4148

LD 1586 – An Act Regarding Reimbursement for Sand and Salt Storage Facility Construction (Sponsor: PIEH)

Room 105, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1122

LD 1527 – An Act to Authorize a Police Officer to Impound the Motor Vehicle of a Person Arrested for Operating Under the Influence or Driving with a Suspended or Revoked License (Sponsor: BUTLAND)

LD 1679 – An Act to Assist the Law Enforcement Community in Locating Missing Children (Sponsor: SMALL)

Room 437, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-4149

LD 1455 – Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Chapter 500: Stormwater Management, a Major Substantive Rule of the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality (EMERGENCY)

LD 1471 – Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Chapter 502: Direct Watersheds of Waterbodies Most at Risk from New Development, and Sensitive or Threatened Regions or Watersheds, a Major Substantive Rule of the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality (EMERGENCY)

LD 1503 – An Act to Amend the Site Location of Development Laws (Sponsor: SHIAH) (EMERGENCY)

LD 1582 – An Act to Clarify and Amend the Storm Water Management Laws, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Laws, and the Site Location of Development Laws (Sponsor: ROWE) (Department Bill) (EMERGENCY)

Room 334, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-1330

LD 1561 – Resolve, to Establish a Devolution Review Board (Sponsor: JENKINS)

LD 1605 – An Act to Prohibit Towns from Canceling Health Insurance Provided to Retired Employees (Sponsor: OTT)

LD 1720 – An Act to Repeal the Requirement that Victualers be Licensed by a Municipality (Sponsor: GOLDTHWAIT)

LD 1733 – An Act to Allow Municipalities the Option to Require Residency for Those Who Submit Major Budget Requests to the Municipality (Sponsor: WINGLASS)

Room 113, State Office Building, 12:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-1552

LD 1742 – An Act to Comprehensively Realign the Tax Structure of the State (Sponsor: VIGUE)

Room 124, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-4143

LD 1770 – An Act to Create the Pleasant River Standard Water District (Sponsor: BUNKER) (EMERGENCY)

LD 1771 – An Act to Extend the Electric Rate Stabilization Program (Sponsor: KONTOS) (EMERGENCY)

Room 134, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1333

LD 1448 – An Act to Provide for Binding Arbitration for County Employees with Respect to Monetary Issues ( Sponsor: MUSE)

LD 1498 – An Act to Require Step-pay Increases in Wages in Expired Collective Bargaining Agreements (Sponsor: COWGER)

LD 1454 – An Act to Amend the Prevailing Wage Laws (Sponsor: WRIGHT)

LD 1578 – An Act to Protect Workers and Establish Labor Standards for "Workfare" Participants (Sponsor: SAMSON)

Room 334, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-1330

LD 1450 – An Act to Deorganize the Town of Cooper (Sponsor: GOODWIN)

Room 122, State Office Building, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-4148

LD 1617 – An Act to Amend the Sensible Transportation Policy Act (Sponsor: JOYCE)

LD 1475 – An Act to Amend Certain Motor Vehicle Laws (Sponsor: O’GARA) (Department Bill)

LD 1690 – An Act to Allow Law Enforcement Agencies Access to Motor Vehicle Insurance Information (Sponsor: LABRECQUE)

Room 105, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1122

LD 1707 – An Act to Repeal the Requirement of Concealed Weapon Permits (Sponsor: MACK)

LD 1719 – An Act Concerning Firearm Purchase Background Checks (Sponsor: HALL)

Room 120, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-3125

LD 1325 – An Act to Make the State Board of Education Elected (Sponsor: LEMKE)

LD 1725 – An Act to Authorize Interlocal Agreements for Construction and Operation of Public Education Fiber-optic Transmission Systems (Sponsor: PARADIS)

LD 1671 – An Act Concerning the Calculation of the State’s Share of School Funding (Sponsor: SKOGLUND)

LD 1739 – An Act to Amend the Formula Determining the Local Share in the School Funding Process (Sponsor: PLOWMAN)

Room 438, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1327

LD 1614 – An Act to Amend the Freedom of Access Laws (Sponsor: BROOKS)

LD 1559 – An Act to Establish the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Sponsor: TAYLOR)

Room 134, State House, 9:30 a.m.

Tel. 287-1333

LD 1661 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Hunger and Food Security (sponsor: BENOIT)

LD 1755 – Resolve, to Study the Efficiency of the State’s Work Force Development Programs (Sponsor: WINN) (EMERGENCY)

Room 437, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-4149

LD 1705 – An Act Regarding Just Compensation for Private Waste Companies (Sponsor: KERR)