As this issue of the Legislative Bulletin goes to press, it is apparent that the Legislature does not have the political will to even propose, much less enact, a tax reform measure this year. There has been much talk about relieving the burden on the property tax, which provides nearly the same amount of revenue to fund local government and education as the state’s sales and income taxes combined, but there will very likely be no action taken.

With dozens of studies behind them, all concluding that there is a need for tax reform, and after months of research and discussion, and after hearing extensive expert testimony on the propriety of tax reform, and after being presented dozens of legislative proposals that would, in one way or another, restructure the state’s tax code to reduce its conspicuous volatility and the over-reliance on the property tax, the Taxation Committee foundered in the last few days in the face of intense pressure from the business community and nonprofit entities, both of which quite clearly prefer the tax status quo.

On the Committee’s table when the week began was a concept proposal that would:

• Increase the Revenue Sharing pool from 5.1% of all sales and income tax revenues to 7.5%, and distribute the increased revenues by an adjusted Revenue Sharing formula that would target the extra $35 million a year to municipalities with higher-than-average mill rates;

• Authorize municipalities to apply an "in lieu" service charge, capped at 20%, against certain properties that are currently 100% exempt from taxation;

• Repeal some current sales tax exemptions, including the exemption-provided newspapers and magazines, basic cable TV, charitable nonprofit agencies, and certain service charges related to the custom installation, fabrication, and repair of certain products; and

• Expand the sales tax base by applying the sales tax to amusement and recreational services and certain personal services, and increasing the sales tax rate on prepared foods from 6% to 7%, which is the current rate for prepared foods when served in establishments that sell liquor.

In addition to this package, the Committee was interested in reducing the general sales tax rate from 6% to 5%. If that rate reduction was unaffordable at the $115 million annual price tag, there was some discussion of reducing the rate half a penny, to 5.5%.

As the week progressed it became evident that the package crafted by the Committee was more a wish-list than a work-in-progress. The first financial analysis of the package showed that the parts of the package that cost money (increased revenue sharing, reduction of the sales tax rate) far outweighed the ideas in the proposal that created revenue (repealed sales tax exemptions and expanded sales tax base). In fact, the projection showed that the Committee needed to find over $200 million to bring its proposal into financial balance over the biennium.

When the Committee convened to address that issue, it made several decisions that actually increased the size of the financial "hole" to nearly $250 million.

Bottom-line Time

In mid-week, the Committee convened again and Senate Chair Dick Ruhlin (Penobscot) placed before the group a decision that was central to the issue of tax reform. Instead of determining what the Committee wanted to do, and then try to fund it, Senator Ruhlin asked the Committee to what degree it was willing to expand the sales tax base to fund a tax reform effort. It is widely held that Maine’s sales tax base is inappropriately narrow and that expansion of the sales tax base is a fundamentally necessary element of any meaningful tax reform effort. The Committee heard testimony to this effect earlier in the year from several tax policy experts and economists, including representatives of the Bureau of Taxation, the State Planning Office, the University of Maine, and the Washington-based Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Despite the expert testimony, and despite the fact that the Committee had made many straw-poll votes over the last several weeks indicating an interest in some level of expansion of the sales tax base, when the decisive vote came, the Committee balked.

A majority of the Committee (Senator Peter Mills (Somerset), and Representatives John Buck (Yarmouth), Peter Cianchette (South Portland), Al Morgan (South Portland), Ken Lemont (Kittery), Bob Spear (Nobleboro), and John Tuttle (Sanford)) voted against the consideration of any change to the sales tax code.

A minority of the Committee (Senators Richard Ruhlin (Penobscot), Beverly Daggett (Kennebec), and Representatives Verdi Tripp (Topsham), Bonnie Green (Monmouth), Ken Gagnon (Waterville), and Steve Rowe (Portland)) voted to consider a package that would include some degree of expansion to the sales tax base in order to provide property tax relief.

The decision had the effect of sending the two groups out of the Committee room to develop over a 48-hour period any tax reform proposal they would want the full Committee to consider based on their respective decisions.

By late Thursday afternoon, with less than 24 hours before the final deadline, the group that voted not to alter the sales tax base told the Committee that it would have no substantive proposal to offer by the Friday deadline.

The minority group that is willing to take the position that the sales tax base should be expanded to reduce the volatility of the state tax system and provide relief to the property tax, indicated it would be presenting a proposal to the full Committee by the Friday (May 16th) deadline.

The Scuttlebutt

Beyond the posturing that can take place in the Committee room, the chit-chat in the halls of the State House indicate that the following scenario may be likely:

In the face of weak support for expanding the sales tax base for any reason, including providing relief to the property tax, the "tax reform" effort will be carried over to next session. As the Second Session, beginning in January, 1998, will be a short session in an election year, it is widely held that no significant tax reform effort would be enacted in 1998;

A three-way, highly-partisan conflict over the cigarette-tax debate may sweep in some property tax issues:

The Governor’s plan is to increase the tax on cigarettes and use a small part of that revenue to fund an anti-smoking program, and the rest of the revenue obtained to reduce the exposure of low-income Maine to the state’s income tax;

The "Republican" plan would move more of that money into an anti-smoking effort, a small amount into a change to the income tax code that would allow many very low-income residents to forego filing an income tax return altogether, and the remainder - about $30 million over the biennium - into the Revenue Sharing Program.

The "Democrat" plan would likely use the revenue obtained from the cigarette tax increase to fund health insurance programs for low-income Maine residents.

The partisan motives working behind these various positions might be, on the one hand, to force the Democrats to reject a property tax relief package in favor of "new state programs," or on the other hand to force the Governor to veto a health care program for poor people.

In the shuffle, the much-vaunted comprehensive Tax Reform effort becomes a watered-down and politically unfeasible property tax relief gesture, if even that. MMA was told that rank-and-file legislators were not getting the message from residential property taxpayers that the property tax was really a problem, which is a remarkable change from the days immediately after the November 1996 election, when many legislators said they heard from their constituents about a property tax problem loud and clear. In any event, the status quo looks to be the final outcome, with respect to both the sales tax and the cigarette tax.

It’s business as usual in Augusta.

Highway Bond to Fund 50% of Local Road Assistance

Working with the Transportation Committee and DOT, MMA has supported a transportation budget and bond package that will fund the Local Road Assistance Program with a combination of bond funds for local capital improvement projects and highway funds. This mix of funds gives municipalities the flexibility needed to both keep the roads open in winter and perform needed capital repairs. MMA supported this "one time" use of bond funds for local roads to enable DOT to move ahead on an aggressive program to improve the condition of our state’s roads and highways.

It is well understood that many bridges in Maine are decaying and with further neglect they will reach a state in which basic repairs and maintenance will no longer be an option. At the $30 million (biennial) level, this bond request gives appropriate priority to the bridge problem. MMA urges support of the plan to dedicate these bond funds to repairing this vital link in our transportation system.

At the work session on LD 1836, An Act to Facilitate Delegation of the Federal Waste Discharge Permitting Program, the Natural Resources Committee voted to carry the bill over into the second session of the 118th Legislature.

The Committee members agreed that receiving the bill late in the session did not give them enough time to adequately work through all the issues raised during the public hearing.

The bill, if enacted, makes a series of changes in Maine law needed to give the state future delegation of the Federal Discharge Licensing and Management Program. Currently, Maine is one of only nine states in the nation that does not have delegation for this program.

LD 1763, An Act to Establish the Local Option Lodging Tax , was given a breath of life by the Taxation Committee with a 9 to 4 "Ought to Pass as Amended" recommendation. Historically, local option taxation proposals have found little support in the Legislature. Of the half dozen local option bills presented to the Legislature over the last six years, most – if not all – have been killed in committee.

LD 1763 contains several features that distinguish it from previous local option proposals.

While the local option bills of the past have authorized communities to adopt a local general sales tax, adding as much as a percentage point over and above the state’s current 6% sales tax rate, LD 1763 would authorize a local option only with respect to a tax on lodging. Maine’s current lodging tax rate is 7% on the value of the living quarters of hotels, motels and other similar places of short-term lodging.

Most local option proposals of the past have also authorized, and in many cases required, a region much larger than a single municipality to authorize the application of a local option tax. Typically, these proposals require taxation to occur on a county-wide level, and therefore establish referendum procedures for county-wide votes and fiscal distribution systems which divide up the revenue pie according to certain prescribed formulas. Unlike those proposals, LD 1763 provides the local option only on a municipality-by-municipality basis, and the system of tax collection would merely piggy-back on the system currently in place for the state-level sales tax on lodging.

In summary, the voters of any municipality would be authorized to apply an additional lodging tax in their community of either a half a percent, a percent, a percent and a half, or a two percent maximum on top of the 7% which is currently collected as a state lodging tax. If such a local tax were enacted, the additional revenues would be collected by the Bureau of Taxation along with the state-level revenues, and the municipal revenues would be returned to the municipal treasurer.

Another distinguishing feature of LD 1763 is that the revenues obtained by the application of the local option lodging tax could only be used for the purposes of financing in full or in part a "major capital expenditure." Defined as any construction project with a total value of greater than $1 million, a major capital construction project could include the building or rehabilitation of municipal office space, a municipal parking garage, civic center, or that kind of facility. Under LD 1763, as part of the referendum vote that would authorize the local option tax, the voters would also expressly dedicate those tax revenues to the financing of a specific capital project.

Representative George Kerr (Old Orchard Beach), the sponsor of LD 1763, along with other supporters, argues that LD 1763 represents nothing more than a moderate and home rule-based local option opportunity that can relieve the high level of property tax burden that is often found in the "service center" communities where commerce, government, social service agencies, and lodging establishments often congregate. The supporters also point out that a lodging tax is a largely "exported" and "progressive" form of taxation. It has also been observed that the 7% lodging tax rate in Maine is lower than the lodging taxes in many other states, including an 8% rate in both New Hampshire and Vermont, and a 12% rate in Connecticut. In many other states where local option taxes are authorized, the combined state, county, and municipal lodging tax rates reach as high as 13% in Michigan, 17% in Colorado, 18% in New York, and maxing out at as much as 25% in Florida.

Opponents of the measure, including the Maine Chamber and Business Alliance and the hotel and lodging industry, maintain this is simply an additional tax burden being levied on an already over-burdened state with respect to taxation. Opponents also claim that the local option would create a "patch-work quilt" type of taxation system in the state, which could end up pitting municipality against municipality.

Despite the favorable "Ought to Pass" report, LD 1763 could still face a substantial hurdle before the full Legislature because many communities in the state would find no direct advantage to the legislation, given that there would be no lodging in those municipalities to which such a tax might even apply. The outcome of LD 1763 will very much depend on whether the representatives of the rural parts of the state, where no lodging facilities exist to a substantial degree, will be willing to support a measure that would provide an additional revenue-collection opportunity for the 35 or so municipalities in Maine that might find some advantage with this particular tool.

LD 546, An Act to Impose a Statute of Limitations for Violations of Municipal Subdivision Ordinances, was originally passed out of the State and Local Government Committee with a single dissenting vote. The bill was reconsidered last week, amended, and unanimously passed by the Committee.

The bill places a statute of limitations on any action brought to enjoin the sale of property within a subdivision in violation of local ordinances, unless the action is brought within 20 years of the violation.

Working with the sponsor of the bill, Representative LaVerdiere (Wilton), MMA offered an amendment to tighten the language concerning the "record" of any enforcement or permit denial within a subdivision.

The enacted bill will grandfather subdivisions in existence for twenty years unless the municipality has acted to deny approval of the subdivision, denied a building permit to the lot owner or has had an enforcement action against property owner and the record of these actions has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds, or has taken the developer to court. Municipalities having subdivisions that may fall under this "amnesty" should act to ensure that any record of violation or denial has been appropriately recorded in the Registry.

The Natural Resources Committee has voted out LD 1705 with a slim majority "ought not to pass." A significant minority supported an amendment, replacing the original bill. We described the bill and our reasons for opposing it in last week’s Legislative Bulletin.

The amended bill requires municipalities to give 60 days' notice of any action to provide solid waste collection at commercial and industrial sites if said action would "displace" an existing private service. Furthermore, the existing private hauler would be given one year's notice before implementation.

The amendment does not make the bill any more palatable. The amendment would prohibit municipalities from making timely changes to their solid waste management policies. The 12-month delay before municipalities may implement any change to their solid waste management policy that affects a private waste company is a serious threat to local control and local government's ability to manage the services and operations vital to their community.

This bill establishes a new precedent that is a serious threat to the authority of local officials to make timely decisions affecting the management and financial interests of their communities.

The supporters of this bill are working hard to pass the minority amendment. We need every municipal official to contact their Senators and Representatives and express their opposition to LD 1705.

Much of the legislation before the Health and Human Service Committee this session addressed one or more issues coming out of the new federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (the federal welfare reform act). As listed below, the welfare bills sought to address the issues of child support pass-through provisions, development accounts that might be created by AFDC families without jeopardizing their benefits, AFDC education and training, AFDC time limits and providing for Maine’s alien residents.

LD 333 - AN ACT to Implement the Recommendations of the Commission to Study Poverty Among Working Parents with Regard to Child Care Funding. Appropriates $500,000 in FY 98 and in FY 99 for child care services for parents working afternoon, evening and weekend shifts and needing child care in order to work. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 334 - Resolve, to Implement the Recommendations of the Commission to Study Poverty Among Working Parents with Regard to an Annual Report Card on Poverty. Requires the State Planning Office to report annually on poverty among children and adults, regional differences, change factors, and forecasts for the coming year. Committee Action: OTP

LD 445 - AN ACT to Assist Low-Income Working Parents. Provides for an increase in the amount of earned income that is disregarded in calculating the AFDC cash assistance benefit for a family with earnings. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 559 - Resolve, to Make Maine Welfare Laws Conform to Federal Welfare Laws. Requires DHS to review all laws and rules pertaining to public assistance, publicly provided health care, nutrition assistance and welfare-related employment and training assistance. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 579 - AN ACT to Ensure Equal Treatment of Lawful Aliens in Providing Medical Assistance and Aid to Needy Families. Prohibits discrimination against lawfully residing aliens because of their status as aliens for purposes of the Medicaid program, AFDC and ASPIRE. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 696 - AN ACT to Assist 2-parent Families in which At Least One Parent is Incapacitated. Requires DHS to provide direct aid to 2-parent families with at least one incapacitated adult member in the same manner as AFDC is provided. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 819 - AN ACT to Continue to Provide Emergency Assistance to Low-income Families with Children. Requires DHS to provide emergency assistance for basic necessities, such as utility termination, lack of shelter, fire and other natural disasters, to low-income families with children. This is currently being provided under the AFDC program. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 912 - AN ACT to Ensure Access to Child Support for Low-income Children. Extends the authority of DHS to pass-through the first $50 of child support each month without affecting eligibility for assistance under TANF or decreasing the amount of the cash assistance provided. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 1021 - AN ACT to Promote the Establishment of Individual Development Accounts by Low-income Families. Allows families receiving AFDC to set up individual development accounts (IDAs) to save for educational purposes, purchase of a home or vehicle for work or training related transportation, for an emergency that could cause a loss of shelter, employment or other basic necessities, or to capitalize a business. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 1117 - AN ACT to Assist Low-income Parents to Obtain Access to Education. Establishes the Parents as Scholars Program to offer an alternative to the AFDC program for low-income parents who want to participate in an education or training program. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 1199 - AN ACT to Ensure Adequate Nutrition and Support for Low-income Legal Immigrants. Provides state-funded food assistance and supplemental security income, as provided prior to the federal welfare reform termination of eligibility for these persons for aid funded through federal block grant funds, except for a limited group. Committee Action: Carried Over To Second Session

LD 1302 - AN ACT to Amend the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program. (1) Authorizes DHS to continue to operate an AFDC program, using federal TANF block grant funds or state funds or a combination. (2) Prohibits the 5-year time limit for benefits to families with dependent children and victims of domestic violence. (3) Places into law the due process and fairness protections currently provided in the AFDC program, but removed from the federal law. Committee Action: Carried Over To Second Session

The Committee unanimously voted to carry over this bill to provide the Department of Human Services the time necessary to gather statistics on the characteristics of AFDC recipients. The Committee intends to use the data to determine the effect of the 60-month time limits on recipients.

LD 1427 - AN ACT to Create Quality Employment and Business Ownership Opportunities for Social Assistance Recipients. Established the Quality Employment and Business Ownership Opportunities program to be administered by DHS. Grants would be made to organizations demonstrating effectiveness in targeting new jobs, building partnerships, coordinating services and providing individuals receiving social assistance opportunities for employment. Committee Action: OTP-A

The amendment to the bill reduces the duration of the demonstration project from three years to two years. The amendment also limits participation to persons receiving TANF (federal block grant) benefits and reallocates $300,000 from the $1.6 million budgeted for persons experiencing difficulties getting into the workforce as a result of a multiplicity of barriers.

LD 1432 - Resolve, to Encourage Nonprofit Entities to Work Together in a Community P.R.I.D.E. Program. Requires state agencies to encourage nonprofit entities to work together in a statewide community building program to help Maine residents secure food, clothing, counseling, child care and educational, job training and medical services. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 1701- AN ACT to Promote Economic Independence for Low-income Families. Requires that DHS contract with a nonprofit corporation to provide nontraditional job training and placement service for women receiving assistance under AFDC. Committee Action: OTP

LD 1757 - AN ACT to Further Maine’s Welfare Reform Initiatives and Establish Maine’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. Comprehensive bill that incorporates the changes resulting from the passage of the federal welfare reform. Committee Action: ONTP

LD 1859 - AN ACT to Prevent Hunger Among Unemployed Maine Works. This bill addresses the federal Food Stamp "reform" that requires the discontinuation of food stamp benefits to recipients between the ages of 18 and 50 who have no dependents and are not working or participating in a work program at least 20 hours a week, who have received 3 months of aid in a 3-year period. To assist states to continue to provide benefits to this group, the welfare reform act enables states to seek waivers of the provision causing ineligibility for individuals in areas that do not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment. To date the Department of Human Services has applied and received waivers for eight counties and the Penobscot Nation. This bill instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to apply for additional waivers for Kennebec County, Penobscot County and the Sanford labor market area, as well as to seek a waiver for certain categories of individuals who, because of particular hardships, are unlikely to find jobs. The bill also requires DHS to: 1) coordinate with other public or nonprofit agencies to develop and supervise opportunities for the placement of those losing benefits into volunteer positions: and 2) evaluate the social and economic impacts of this federal provision on municipalities and the Maine economy. Committee Action: OTP-A

The amendment, which replaces the bill, requires that nonprofit agencies assisting in the creation, administration and supervision of volunteer community placements for current or former Food Stamp recipients also provide volunteer placement services and that they be paid on a contract basis based on the volunteer placements completed. The amendment replaces the provision requiring DHS to identify and locate persons who lose Food Stamp eligibility, with requiring that the department to the "extent feasible" identify and locate these people. It also authorizes the department to set up a dedicated account for receiving public and private funds to be used for the purposes of evaluating the impact of the food stamp changes..

Aside from the six bills either carried over into the next session (LDs 1302 and 1199) or voted unanimously "ought to pass/ought to pass as amended" (LDs 34, 1427, 1701 and 1859), the Committee agreed to incorporate into a "Committee Bill" those issues raised in the other bills voted "ought not to pass." As the Committee finalized their discussions on Welfare Reform on Wednesday, a completed document outlining all changes and provisions of the Committee’s bill is not yet available. However, the following outlines some of the larger issues debated and concluded upon by the Committee, the Department of Human Services and several interest groups.

Renaming - The Committee renamed the program formally known as "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (AFDC) to its new federally created name of "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" (TANF).

Interdepartmental Welfare Reform Committee – The bill creates a list of organizations and state agencies that the Department of Human Services will work with collaboratively to provide efficient and effective service which lead to self support to Maine’s TANF families. Municipalities are included on that list.

Family Development Accounts – Through the creation of a Family Development Accounts Program, recipients of TANF benefits at or below 200% of the poverty level will be able to open accounts for family savings. The accounts must be used for education, training, to capitalize a business, purchase an automobile for work or education purposes, purchase or repair a home and/or to pay for medical expenses. The accounts are capped at a savings level of $10,000. The program encourages organizations to make matching contribution to these funds, further providing that if funds are removed for reasons other than stated in the intent as well as in the emergency clause of the program, that all matching funds will be lost, as well as the assessment of a 15% penalty on remaining funds. This program enables recipients of TANF benefits to set goals for themselves and to make major purchases without jeopardizing benefits.

Time Limits - The Committee agreed to accept the Department of Human Services language that limits recipients of TANF benefits to the 60-month lifetime time limit. This agreement was made in light of the decision to carry over LD 1302, an Act Amending the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. The Committee, with data generated by the Department of Human Services on the characteristics of recipients, will further analyze additional provisions that may have to be made in order to continue to provide benefits to those in need over and beyond the 20% maximum. (According to the federal program, states will be able to keep up to 20% of the caseload on the TANF rolls beyond the 60-month time limit. Through its analysis, the Committee along with the Department of Human Services will determine whether or not provisions for benefits will need to be extended beyond the provided 20%. Benefits extended to those beyond the federally allowed 20% would be paid with State funds.)

Parents As Scholars Program - The Parents as Scholars Program is a separate program, similar to ASPIRE, that would allow participants to receive an education and TANF benefits, without having the benefit time count toward their 60-month time limit for benefits.

Disregards - The Committee bill instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to establish two disregard formulas. The first formula, a pilot project in Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, Waldo, York, Kennebec, Penobscot and Piscataquis Counties, would establish a 50% work incentive disregard less a $150 work-related standard. All other counties would receive a 20% work incentive disregard less a $134 work-related standard. The purpose of the pilot project is to determine whether or not the higher disregard will enable people to move off of TANF at a rate which balances the disregard cost-to-benefits-costs ratio.

Domestic Violence – The Committee bill includes language which provides an exception to victims of domestic violence from meeting the TANF work requirements, when the victim’s safety is at risk.

Child Support - Extends the authority of DHS to pass-through the first $50 of child support each month without affecting eligibility for assistance under TANF or decreasing the amount of the cash assistance provided.

Last week’s Legislative Bulletin reported on LD 1614 - An Act to Amend the Freedom of Access Laws. The Committee has reported out the bill with a strong 10-3 majority "ought not to pass" report. The minority report has been made available, and the bill should be debated and acted upon by the full Legislature within the week.

Aside from some minor technical amendments, the minority report on LD 1614 would substantively amend Maine’s Right to Know law in three ways:

1) No member of a board or agency would be entitled to an executive session discussion regarding any evaluative or disciplinary matter that might be discussed that would damage that person’s reputation. Unsubstantiated allegations, discussions regarding a board member’s medical problems, or family problems leading to that board member’s resignation are examples of issues that would have to be discussed openly, regardless of any privacy or confidentiality interests that board member might have.

2) Minutes would have to be taken of every meeting held by every municipal board. A board member or the member’s "designee" (a secretary or staff person) would be required to take those minutes and prepare them for public inspection. The minutes must include the names of the members present, the names of the persons appearing before the board, the text of any motion made, the vote on every motion made, and a brief description of the subject matter discussed. The minutes would have to be made available for public inspection within a "reasonable time" after the public proceeding.

3) Minutes of executive sessions would also be required. Those minutes would have to include a list of the board members present and a brief description of the "permitted deliberation" while in the executive session. If by a 2/3 vote of those board members present and voting in the public proceeding it is found that the release of the executive session minutes would not "adversely affect" anyone’s reputation (other than the reputation of any board member, which would not count), violate anyone’s right to privacy, or "otherwise render the proposed action" ineffective, the minutes of the executive session "may" be released. This part of the minority report’s proposal could effectively require a board to create a document containing information that may not be released as a matter of law, and yet allow its release on the basis of a political judgment. To protect itself against law suits on breach of confidentiality grounds, those boards conducting executive sessions would have to be very careful about the wording of the written minutes.

The requirement to take minutes of open meetings is merely a mandate.

The provision excluding the volunteer public officials who make municipal government work from certain very limited privacy and confidentiality protections fails to recognize the human problems that have to be dealt with from time to time in the administration of local government.

The provision authorizing the release of information that is potentially confidential as a matter of law is simply bad public policy. It puts local officials in a cross-fire.

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.

Bills that are requested to be carried over are reviewed by the Legislative Council for final carry-over approval.

LD 1052 - Resolve, Establishing a Task Force to Examine the Desirability of a Model Municipal Building Code – finally passed in House and Senate as amended. Committee Amendment "A" added representatives from the Consulting Engineers of Maine and the Home Builders to the task force. Senate Amendment "A" removed the bill’s emergency preamble (requiring a 2/3 vote).

LD 813 – AN ACT to Define the Projects that Public Works Departments May Undertake Without Procuring the Services of a Registered Professional Engineer – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." Current law provides that public works departments may engage in construction without using a registered professional engineer as long as the contemplated cost for the project does not exceed $5,000. The original bill would have changed the law to permit public works departments, without using a registered professional engineer, to engage in maintenance, construction and repair of roads and sidewalks and other routine construction whose costs do not exceed a value of 100 times the state’s average weekly wage.

The amendment replaces the bill and changes the law to permit public works departments to undertake projects without engaging the services of a registered professional engineer, provided the contemplated cost for the project does not exceed $100,000 and the work does not create an undue risk to public safety or welfare, or a state agency does not require the services of a registered professional engineer to meet any provision of law or rule.

LD 976 – AN ACT to Amend the Enhanced 9-1-1 Laws – divided "Ought to Pass as Amended reports." The original bill amended the current laws governing the E-9-1-1 system by increasing the membership of the E-9-1-1 Council from 15 to 17 members (adding a county official and a representative of the cellular or wireless service providers); defining the confidentiality of E-9-1-1 databases and information received from callers by public safety answering points; providing immunity to entities and personnel within the E-9-1-1 system; and creating a prohibition against repeated dialing of the emergency 9-1-1 number for non-emergency matters.

The Majority Committee Amendment changes the immunity and confidentiality provisions of the bill, and provides that audio recordings of emergency calls to the E-9-1-1 system are confidential and subject to limited disclosure, including pursuant to a court order on a finding of good cause. Non-confidential information contained in those audio recordings must be disclosed in transcript form.

Two Senate Amendments to the bill deal with the comparative liability of cellular service providers vis a vis traditional telephone service providers.

LD 1579, AN ACT to Ensure Stable Funding of Pollution Abatement Programs, would end state coverage of clean-up costs for discharges from substandard oil or gas tanks. Under current law, the Ground Water Oil Clean-up Fund pays all clean-up costs - up to $1 million per incident - less a deductible amount that varies depending on the extent to which the leaking tanks conform with statutory design and construction standards.

The Fund was established to meet federal insurance requirements for owners of underground tanks, and to ensure prompt removal of old steel oil and gas tanks that were routinely installed underground over past decades at governmental (e.g., municipal), commercial, industrial, and agricultural operations throughout the state. These tanks are not corrosive resistant and will leak over time. The Fund is paid for by a per-barrel assessment on most petroleum products at the point of transfer at petroleum terminals.

LD 1579 creates a fund eligibility deadline of October 1, 1998 for substandard tanks. Property owners, such as municipalities, must report discharges from substandard underground tanks to the DEP Commissioner by that date if they wish to participate in the insurance program. A one-year extension may be requested if removal is delayed due to the non-availability of financing to do the work or because qualified tank experts are not available to oversee the work.

According to David Maxwell of the DEP, the need for the underground oil tank clean-up program is winding down because most of the identified underground tanks have been removed or are scheduled for removal. The DEP feels that the next priority in this area toward which these resources should be directed is faulty above-ground oil tanks.

LD 1579 has been reported out of the Natural Resources Committee with a unanimous "ought to pass" recommendation. With this legislation, municipalities should put both themselves and their constituents on notice that the deadline for obtaining financial assistance to deal with substandard underground oil tanks has been established.

The Transportation Committee amended and passed, with all members present voting in support, LD 1227, AN ACT to Require the Department of Transportation to Improve the Conditions of Any Road That May be Turned Over to Municipality.

The amended bill, crafted during negotiations between municipal officials from Freeport, Standish, and Buxton and the Department of Transportation, establishes in statute the policy that state roads will not be turned over to the towns until they are in a condition of "good repair."

The critical element of the bill is the definition of "good repair" used to evaluate the condition of a road. Under this language a road in "good repair" is in a condition that will not require any non-routine maintenance for a period of 10 years. In evaluating a road, DOT must consider the condition of the road’s ditching, culverts, any major structural defects and a pavement rating of 3.3 or greater.

This new policy means that roads scheduled to be turned over to towns when their population reaches 6000 may not be turned back until the road meets the definition of "good." The enactment of this legislation will mean the towns scheduled to receive roads as a result of the last census and the 23 expected to be impacted by this in the year 2000 will not be spending property tax dollars to maintain state roads in need of major repair.

IN THE HOPPER

(The bill summaries are written by MMA staff and are not necessarily the proposed bill’s statement of fact or an excerpt of the statement of fact.)

LD 1874 – AN ACT to Establish Limitations on Swine-feeding Operations (Sponsored by Sen. Paradis of Aroostook)

This bill, which is based on South Carolina law, establishes siting requirements (including set-backs) on swine feeding operations.

Room 221, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-1552

LD 1863 – An Act to Encourage Major Investments in Shipbuilding Facilities and to Encourage the Preservation of Jobs (Sponsor: SMALL)

NOTE You should check your newspapers for Legal Notices as there may be changes in or additions to the hearing schedule.

Weekly Schedules and Supplements are now available at the Legislature’s Internet Web Site: http://www.state.me.us/legis