On Friday, May 5, LD 1614 was presented to the Judiciary Committee - An Act to Amend the Freedom of Access Laws. Representative Joe Brooks (Winterport) sponsored the bill and presented it to the Committee. Representative Brooks explained that having worked in the newspaper trade, the Maine Press Association and the Maine Daily Newspaper Publishers Association asked him to sponsor the legislative proposal. Although the bill was developed by the press groups, Representative Brooks and other proponents of the legislation wanted to impress on the Committee that LD 1614 wasn’t a "press bill," but rather the "public’s" bill.

LD 1614 would make a number of changes to Maine’s Right to Know Law, including:

• Requiring posted notice for all meetings of every governmental board or agency;

• Requiring the taking of minutes of every open meeting of every governmental board or agency, and those minutes must be made available within 6 days of the meeting;

• Requiring the taking of minutes of every executive session of every governmental board or agency, and those minutes must be made available within 72 hours of the executive session unless the board votes by a 2/3 majority to not release the minutes after determining the release would damage a person’s reputation or make a "proposed action" ineffective;

• Requiring all written licensing/permitting decisions or employment-related decisions (dismissal or refusal to renew contract) to be released within 5 days of making the decision;

• Requiring all charges and complaints regarding elected officials to be conducted in open session, even when such a discussion would reasonably cause a damage to their reputation;

• Requiring all board discussions regarding the appointment, reappointment, or assignment of public officials to be conducted in open session, even when such a discussion would reasonably cause damage to their reputation;

• Requiring boards to state the "specific language" under the executive session section of the Right to Know law that is the foundation for entering the executive session; and

• Other technical changes.

The proponents of LD 1614 included Doug Rooks, the editor of the Maine Times and the President of the Maine Press Association, a lobbyist for the Maine Association of Broadcasters, a school board member from Winterport, and a citizen associated with public access TV in Biddeford.

Generally, the proponents argued that LD 1614 was based on New Hampshire’s Freedom of Access laws and represented a moderate adjustment to Maine’s existing law. Those in favor of LD 1614 focused their testimony on the enhanced notice and minute-taking requirements. The proponents pointed out that Maine’s current law does not clearly specify the extent of posted notice of public meetings that must be provided, nor does Maine law require that minutes be taken of a public meeting. The proponents’ testimony did not dwell on the provisions of the bill that would authorize the release of confidential material to the press unless a super-majority of the board voted otherwise.

Opponents of LD 1614 included a representative from the Department of Administrative and Financial Regulation, the President of the Maine Superintendents’ Association, a lobbyist for the County Commissioners Association, the Corporation Counsels for the Cities of South Portland and Portland, a representative from the Workers Compensation Board, and MMA.

In summary, the opposition testimony was that: (1) there was no Freedom of Access crisis that needed to be cured by legislation; (2) much of the bill imposed significant mandatory requirements on boards almost entirely made up of volunteers ill-equipped to meet the bill’s demands for detailed written minutes, and decisions released in short turnaround periods; and (3) the provisions that authorized the release of confidential information based on political judgments of a particular board or agency represented extremely unsound and poorly thought out public policy which would expose municipal, county, and state government to extraordinary liability.

Questions coming from the Committee members during the public hearing indicated the Committee understood the bill to be severely flawed. On the other hand, several Committee members indicated a frustration with the practical difficulties in enforcing the Right to Know law against a board or agency that regularly conducts executive sessions without clearly enunciating the purpose of the session, or enters an executive session to discuss one issue, and then proceeds to discuss several other matters that may not be legitimate subjects of executive session discussion.

The Committee held a work session on LD 1614 on Tuesday. The more the Committee deliberated on the merits of the bill during the work session, the more flaws the Committee found with the measure.

The bill was finally voted out of Committee "ought not to pass" by a divided vote. With 2/3 of the Committee voting to reject the measure, 3 Committee members are reporting out a minority "ought to pass" amendment. The minority report was not available at the time this Legislative Bulletin went to press, but apparently it would replace the entire bill with a less far-reaching amendment that would require all boards and agencies to keep written minutes of all open meetings. These minutes would record all board members present at the meeting, matters of discussion, motions made, and the votes on all motions. A form of "minutes" would be required for executive sessions as well, which would be in essence a written record of the motion made to enter the executive session (a statement of the specific reason for entering the executive session), and the people attending the executive session. The minority amendment will also include some non-substantive changes to the current Right to Know law.

LD 1614 will likely be taken up by the full Legislature next week.

The Taxation Committee’s legislative package of tax reform is beginning to take shape.

As reported in last week’s Legislative Bulletin, the tax restructuring package framed by MMA - LD 1742 - was presented to the Tax Committee on April 30, and voted out "ought not to pass" on May 1. Although the bill was rejected, many of the ideas reflected in the bill remain alive and are at least being considered by the Committee as it frames its own legislation.

Aided by a set of decision-charts prepared by the chairmen, Senator Richard Ruhlin (Penobscot) and Representative Verdi Tripp (Topsham), the Committee began the construction of its own tax reform measure early this week by taking a series of votes on various components of the legislative proposal.

The first matter to be voted on was whether property tax relief should be part of the reform package. Representative John Buck (Yarmouth) indicated that he did not see the direct relationship between the property tax and the state-level taxes. On the same theme, Representative Robert Spear (Nobleboro) said that he felt the alignment of the tax mix was ‘out of whack,’ but he was not sure how far he was willing to go to use state-level taxes to readjust that mix. Similarly, Representative Peter Cianchette suggested that relief for the burden on the property tax might be found from another source other than the sales or income taxes, which are the two other major tax sources against which the property tax is often compared.

Several other members of the Committee spoke forcefully in favor of providing property tax relief, and when a vote was taken on the question, the Committee unanimously endorsed including property tax relief in its reform package.

After a series of votes over a two-day period, the following tax reform package began to take shape.

By a close margin, the homestead exemption was rejected as a method of providing property tax relief.

Instead of the homestead exemption, an additional Revenue Sharing program is to be considered. Called for the moment "Revenue Sharing II," this program would be funded by increasing the Revenue Sharing pool from its present 5.1% of all sales and income tax revenues to 7.5%. The additional 2.4% of sales and income taxes would generate approximately $34 million for municipalities in FY 97 (the current fiscal year) and $37 million for FY 98. This extra revenue would be distributed according to an amended Revenue Sharing formula. Instead of each municipality’s share being based on the municipal population multiplied by the municipality’s full value tax rate, the Revenue Sharing II formula would use the municipality’s population multiplied by the municipality’s full value tax rate minus 10 mills. This formula would have the effect of targeting the additional revenues to the high mill rate communities. Revenue Sharing II would be distributed in addition to the existing Revenue Sharing program, which would remain unchanged.

The 6% sales tax rate would be reduced to 5%. Reducing the sales tax rate from 6% to 5% would reduce state revenues from this source by $115 million.

An "in lieu" service charge on most tax-exempt property (excluding federal, church, open space, and municipal property) would be authorized, based on the value of municipal services provided to the exempt properties, but capped at 20% of the tax obligation that would apply if the property were not tax-exempt. Statewide, a service charge capped at this level would generate approximately $13 million in the first year, which would be used to reduce the commitment in those municipalities receiving the revenues.

Other changes to the exempt property statutes, such as eliminating the exemption for the fraternal organizations or properties owned by the chambers of commerce, or creating a statutory definition of "benevolent and charitable" organization, will apparently not be considered.

The Circuit Breaker program could be adjusted to increase the maximum benefit from its present level of $700 to $1,000. Adjustments to the maximum income threshold will also be considered. The current maximum income (indexed for inflation) for single taxpayers or renters is $25,000, which could go up to $30,000. The household income maximum of $35,000 could go up to $40,000.

With this outline as the base proposal, over $150 million would have to be generated each year to offset the reduced sales tax rate and fund the expanded Revenue Sharing and Circuit Breaker programs. The Committee’s first cut at expanding the sales tax base to allow for the lower rate (which would, at the same time, reduce the volatility of sales tax revenues) resulted in falling considerably short of that $150 million goal.

A series of votes on Tuesday resulted in some preliminary decisions that would repeal four existing sales tax exemptions (certain separately charged labor services, short term publications, basic cable TV, and sales tax exemptions provided to all non-profit charitable organizations) and apply the sales tax to amusement/recreational services and personal services.

Going in the other direction, the Committee voted to repeal the sales tax on snack foods, and create new sales tax exemptions for such items as electricity used on a farm, equipment bought by the bio-tech industry, and custom computer programming.

At the end of the process, the Committee may have generated something in the $50 million range, or less than 1/3 of what it needs to fund the tax reform package.

The Committee will take up its task again this week, and by week’s end the final product is supposed to be in some semblance of rough completion. This would allow the Committee as much as a week to polish its tax reform bill before reporting it out to the full Legislature, where it could be debated and acted upon during the last weeks of the session.

With minor Committee amendments, it is anticipated that the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee will vote that LD 1731, An Act Amending the election laws, "ought to pass as amended." This bill comprehensively examines the election laws and makes minor and technical changes as well as policy changes to the existing laws. The following list summarizes the proposed municipal-relations changes approved and not approved by the Committee.

• Changes are made to the timing of appointment of the registrar of voters. Current law requires the municipal officers to appoint a registrar within 10 days of the regular election of municipal officials. This bill requires the municipal officers to appoint the registrar on a 2-year cycle, beginning January 1st of the off-election year.

• This section changes the cutoff date for mail-in voter registration from 15 regular days to 10 business days. This change was made to eliminate the confusion that occurs around Monday holidays by explicitly determining that only those days that the office is open are counted toward the cutoff date.

• These changes provide municipalities with the flexibility in determining the hours that the registrar’s office must be open during the last 5 business days the clerk’s office is open before an election. Current law requires the registrar to be open from 1-5 p.m. and 7-9 p.m. on 3 of the last 5 days. This bill requires that the registrar be open for 2 hours in the evening, anytime between the hours of 5 and 9 p.m. on 3 of those days.

• This change requires that parties hold their municipal caucuses and certify them to the Secretary of State by March 20th. Currently, party candidates have until March 15th to file their nomination petitions and this has apparently caused delays in the ballot printing process.

• This changes the method of announcing an election by replacing the warrant signed by the municipal officers with a notice of election attested by the municipal clerk.

• This change adds additional language for allowing a handicapped voter whose voting place is not handicapped accessible, to vote either by absentee ballot in the clerk’s office, or other location that has been designated handicapped accessible, as currently in law, or to vote by regular ballot at, if it exists, the central voting place even if not in that person’s ward if a central voting place exists.

• This change permits a member of the voter’s immediate family to make a written request for an absentee ballot for the voter. The clerk could then provide the ballot to the immediate family member.

• This change allows the clerk to mail or deliver an absentee ballot to a voter who has made a telephone request for a ballot.

• To incorporate technology, this change allows the voter or voter’s immediate family to submit an absentee ballot application or written request by facsimile.

• This change clarifies the restriction on political activities within 250 feet of the clerk’s office during the time that absentee voting is occurring, so that it is consistent with the restriction around the polling place on the election day.

• This change provides that if a municipality processes absentee ballots before the polls close on election day, any candidate or his or her representative, upon prior notification, is allowed to inspect the applications and envelopes of absentee ballots.

• The Committee voted to exclude from this bill language that clarifies that voters with a nontraditional residence, such as homeless voters, do not have to provide a mailing address to be registered to vote.

• The Committee voted to exclude from this bill provisions for allowing any voter to cast an absentee ballot in any election.

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 24 – AN ACT to Clarify the School Budget Approval Process – enacted 4/10/97; PL 1997, c. 68. This law allows school units to clarify the relationship between the warrant articles authorizing specific line item expenditures and the warrant articles summarizing the 3 major types of expenditures (foundation allocation, debt service allocation, additional local appropriation). The purpose of the law is also to avoid confusion that arises when voters approve specific line items but not the overall budget, or vice versa, leaving the status of the school budget unclear.

LD 854 – AN ACT Regarding the Obligation of the State to Fund Adult Education – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." The original bill directed the Legislature to restore full funding of the State’s obligation under the adult education law.

Under the amendment, which replaces the bill, funding for the state subsidy for public school adult education in fiscal year 1999-2000 and every year thereafter must increase in proportion to any increase in state funding for the general purpose aid subsidy for public schools for kindergarten to grade 12. If enacted, the Act would become effective July 1, 1999.

LD 857 – RESOLVE, to Determine the Appropriate Tuition Rate for Public High School Students Who Live in a Municipality without a High School – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." The amendment replaces and retitles the resolve ("Resolve, to Establish a Task Force to Determine the Tuition Rates of a Receiving School for a Student from Another School District"). It authorizes the Commissioner of Education to establish a task force to review the current methods used by the state and local school administrative units to determine tuition reimbursement rates for students who are educated in a school administrative unit other than their own or in a private school. In reviewing these methods, the task force will examine school finance and governance issues in public schools, kindergarten to grade 12.

LD 406 – AN ACT to Amend the Election Laws Pertaining to Absentee Ballots – enacted (as amended) 4/25/97; PL 1997, c. 120. This law allows a third person to have no more than 5 absentee ballots for voters in a municipality at any time (the original bill would have increased the number of absentee ballots from 2 to 10).

LD 482 – AN ACT Regarding the Harvesting of Periwinkles in the Unorganized Townships – majority "Ought to Pass as Amended." Committee Amendment H-252 replaces and retitles the bill, "An Act to Allow Municipalities and Unorganized Townships to Adopt Ordinances Regulating the Harvesting of Periwinkles." It provides municipalities and unorganized territories authority to adopt ordinances regulating the harvesting of periwinkles in the intertidal zone. It also requires the Commissioner of Marine Resources to adopt rules by January 1, 1998 regarding the conservation and propagation of periwinkles. It permits the harvesting of periwinkles for personal use without a state commercial fishing license.

House Amendment H-319 to the committee amendment clarifies that the county commissioners act as the legislative body for an unorganized township for the purposes of enacting an ordinance regulating the harvesting of periwinkles.

LD 946 – AN ACT to Protect the Confidentiality of Financial Records – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." Under the bill, confidentiality given to applicants for certain grant and loan programs supervised by the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) is expanded to include applicants who are individuals, certain partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations.

The amendment establishes that the confidentiality of information provided to a municipality during the course of the application process with DECD is governed by that department’s confidentiality law.

LD 306 – AN ACT to Guarantee That Real Estate Taxes Are Paid – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." Under the original bill, the taxes on property would have to be paid at the time the property is sold, and if a property tax bill had not been issued at the time of closing on a real estate transaction, the property taxes would be prorated using the previous year’s bill. Any difference would be paid by or refunded to the purchaser.

The amendment replaces the bill with language that merely authorizes an existing legal practice whereby the municipal assessor identifies a new owner of property for purposes of issuing tax bills to the proper person. There is nothing mandated in this bill. Its purpose, perhaps, is to encourage municipalities to notice both the record owner and new owner, and thereby avoid the filing of liens in situations in which a tax bill was sent only to the owner of record as of April 1st rather than to a new owner.

LD 405 – AN ACT to Create an Historic Preservation Tax Credit – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." Under the original bill, a tax increment financing district (TIF) could be created in order to rehabilitate an historic property. The bill made the development of the property eligible for a state income tax credit equal to 30% of the federal tax credit for the preservation of property placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The amendment changes the amount of the allowable tax credit to 25%.

LD 1347 – AN ACT to Require a Vehicle to be Registered in the Town in Which the Owner Resides – unanimous "Ought to Pass as Amended." Under the original bill, a registration from another state that lists only a post office box as an address would be invalid for the purpose of fulfilling the registration requirement in Title 29-A MRSA, section 351. The bill required a vehicle that is principally garaged in this state to be registered in this state.

The amendment replaces and retitles the bill ("An Act Regarding Residency and Motor Vehicle Registration"). It states that in determining whether a person has evaded motor vehicle registration fees or excise taxes, the Secretary of State may determine whether any minor child of a person required to register a motor vehicle in the state is enrolled in any public school within the state or whether that person has declared Maine residency on any form, document or application.

LD 224 – AN ACT Regarding Charges Assessed Against Owners of Sprinkler Systems – carry-over request.

The Natural Resources Committee heard LD 1705 - An Act Regarding Just Compensation for Private Waste Companies last Friday, May 2. The bill would place further restrictions on the options available to municipalities to manage the disposal of solid waste. MMA testified in strong opposition to the bill.

Municipalities in Maine are required by law to "provide solid waste disposal services."

To meet this obligation and facing the closure of local landfills many municipalities worked together to build regional waste disposal facilities. Over 170 municipalities entered into agreements requiring member cities and towns to deliver all the solid waste generated within their community to the publicly supported regional disposal facilities. This dedicated waste stream guaranteed the revenues needed to pay off the bonds used to build the facility. This guaranteed waste stream was disrupted in 1994 when the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the Interstate Commerce Act, struck down these so-called "flow control" ordinances.

When the private waste companies began diverting commercial and industrial trash to facilities other than the one the municipality was obligated to support, the revenues lost by this diversion had to be made up through the property tax. This loss in revenues at the disposal facility has meant some municipalities have had to use hundreds of thousands of property tax revenues to fill the hole.

Maine’s municipalities are left with few alternatives; they can continue to subsidize the loss of revenues with property tax dollars or they can consider several options; municipalities can opt to collect all residential and commercial solid waste in order to guarantee its delivery to the local facility.

LD 1705, if enacted, would prohibit municipalities from prohibiting private waste collectors from providing trash collection services if the municipality also provides collection services. If a municipality were to expand its collection services to commercial properties, to guarantee its solid waste is delivered to the appropriate facility, it must give notice and compensate any private companies who lose business as a result of their expansion.

By limiting the options and placing an additional price tag on municipalities acting to manage their solid waste stream, Maine’s towns would lose the ability to manage solid waste disposal in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Towns and cities pumping property tax dollars into the hole created by the loss of flow control would find themselves with no options or alternatives under the provisions of this legislation.

MMA and representatives from the 170 plus cities and towns that committed to supporting environmentally safe and efficient waste disposal facilities have been contacting their Representatives to the House and Senate to express their opposition to LD 1705. Maine’s municipalities cannot afford to lose the ability to manage their services in the most cost-effective manner possible.

On Monday, the Natural Resources Committee voted 9 to 2 that LD 1503, An Act amending the site location of development laws, "ought to pass as amended." The amendment addresses two issues. First, the language requiring that municipalities requesting permits to conduct subdivision review have site law ordinances that require the review for impacts on fisheries and wildlife habitat, unusual natural areas and archaeological and historic sites is replaced with language that determines that municipal comprehensive land use plans and land use ordinances are consistent with Title 30-A, Chapter 187. Such certification ensues that those ordinances will provide for the protection of wildlife habitat, fisheries, unusual natural areas and archaeological and historic sites.

Second, the amendment restores into law the language creating a presumption that municipalities over a certain population threshold have the capacity to conduct site law reviews after January 1, 2003. The amendment raises the population threshold for "deemed capacity" from 2,500 to 5,000, and strikes the word "irrebuttable" from the concept of "deemed capacity." Although this amendment continues to presume municipalities (as of 2003) with a population over 5,000 will be able to undertake site law reviews of subdivisions 3 to 7 acres made up of 15 or more lots for single-family, detach residential housing review that was formerly conducted by DEP, the amendment provides that municipalities unable to conduct such site reviews will receive necessary assistance from state agencies.

The Labor Committee held work sessions on several bills we reported on in last week's Legislative Bulletin. While all the bills came out with split votes, the majority of Committee members were clearly opposed to passing any unfunded mandates onto municipalities.

LD 1578 - An Act to Protect Workers and Establish Labor Standards for "Workfare" Participants - proposed to give workfare participants public-employee status for workers compensation coverage.

After hearing testimony that requiring workers compensation coverage for workfare participants would effectively kill the program, the Committee agreed to remove that provision from the bill. The Committee has not settled all the issues in the bill but some of the bill's requirements, such as a minimum wage rule, are already covered in the general assistance workfare program.

The testimony of the welfare directors from Biddeford, Bangor, Portland, Waterville, Auburn and Windham clearly convinced the Committee that workfare is working at the local level and the added administrative and insurance costs would doom a successful program.

LD 1448 - An Act to Provide for Binding Arbitration for County Employees with Respect to Monetary Issues. The bill proposed to mandate binding arbitration on all issues concerning salary, retirement and insurance for all municipal, county, special district, turnpike, and school bargaining units.

The majority of the Committee quickly agreed that the issues of determining salary and benefits for municipal employees was the responsibility of the local elected officials and binding arbitration was an unfunded mandate that should not be imposed on local units of government.

Committee members in the minority will craft an amendment to give binding arbitration to fire and police bargaining units.

Municipal officials should urge their Legislators to reject LD 1448 in any form.

LD 1454 - An Act to Amend Prevailing Wage Laws. To the already-existing federal and state mandate that establishes hourly wages on a regional basis for public works projects, this bill would add fringe benefits to the "prevailing wage" provisions of Maine law.

The Committee passed the bill, indicating it was not an unfunded mandate on local governments, stating it only applied to "state contracts."

Still unclear is whether this would apply to public works projects that the state participates in financially. Few major public works projects are undertaken today without local and state sharing in the financial investment..

LD 1498, An Act to Require Step-pay Increases in Wages in Expired Collective Bargaining Agreements, would require public employers to pay wage increases according to the wage plan of an expired collective bargaining agreement. The bill was amended to affect state and university employee contracts, avoiding an unfunded mandate for municipalities.

As amended, LD 1498 will require the state to continue any scheduled step increases or wage escalator clause while an expired contract is in mediation or arbitration.

While municipalities have escaped from the provisions of the bill, we remain opposed to its passage. We feel this establishes a statutory precedent that will affect the tenor of bargaining across all public sector negotiations.

After LD 1530, An Act Requiring Banks to Forward Copies of Mortgages to Municipalities, failed passage in Committee, the President of the Maine Association of Community Banks contacted MMA and the bill’s sponsor, Representative Stephen Stanley (Medway) to express their interest in working with municipalities on the problem of keeping the municipal record of mortgagees current.

Rep. Stanley, a selectman in Medway, is familiar with the problem towns have notifying mortgage holders of any liens against property when new mortgages are issued or old ones are sold to another institution, without notifying the town.

The original bill required banks to forward a copy of the mortgage to the town whenever a new mortgage was filed. MMA worked with the sponsor to simplify the paperwork and require banks issuing mortgages to forward only the name of the owner and the mortgagee.

As the issue became more complicated amid concerns over out-of-state banks and the number of mortgage lenders other than banks, the bill failed under its own weight and the strong opposition of the financial and lending institutions.

However, to their credit, the banking industry has stepped forward and offered to work with municipal officials to improve the exchange of information between the towns and the banks issuing mortgages. We look forward to the opportunity to bring Maine’s tax collectors and finance officers together with the banking industry to discuss ways to improve the flow of information.

The State and Local Government Committee has acted on LD 1720 - An Act to Repeal the Requirement that Victualers be Licensed by a Municipality. This bill, presented by Senator Jill Goldthwait (Hancock), was voted out of Committee this week "ought to pass." The intention of the bill’s sponsor was merely to remove the requirement in law (found at 30-A MRSA §3811-3814) that municipalities annually license all establishments that serve prepared foods. The change to the law is not intended, nor does it, pre-empt a municipality’s power to regulate and license victualers by ordinance.

An MMA Legislative Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for

Thursday, May 15, 1997

1:00 - 4:00 p.m.

MMA Conference Room

Please contact your LPC representatives or MMA’s State and Federal Relations staff if there are legislative issues you would like to have discussed.

On Monday, the Natural Resources Committee held the public hearing on LD 1836 – An Act to Facilitate Delegation of the Federal Waste Discharge Permitting Program.

This bill 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.

Under the regulatory process in effect today, municipalities and industrial operations discharging wastewater must obtain licenses from both the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection, and are subject to separate inspection and compliance programs. Delegation gives the state the authority to administer the federal program, and the need for federal permits would be eliminated.

The bill, submitted by the Governor’s Office, and presented by Rep. Cowger (Hallowell), is the result of a year's work by the DEP and representatives of Maine’s municipal and industrial wastewater facilities operators.

An amendment was offered by Rep. Cowger during his presentation to resolve one controversial proposal in the bill. The bill had proposed to fill a $250,000 shortfall in the DEP’s budget with the new fees collected from wastewater discharge permits. Even the bill’s supporters were opposed to using new revenues to pay the state’s financial shortfalls from the past. The amendment moved the shortfall into the general fund, erasing a significant point of opposition to the proposal.

The bill proposes to significantly raise the fees for wastewater discharge permits. The additional revenues are needed to build DEP’s capacity to administer the expanded licensing program. Supporters of the bill testified that the additional fees were worth the price considering today’s requirement to go through both a state and federal permitting process. However, several persons expressed their opposition to a proposal in the bill to give the Commissioner of DEP the authority to annually adjust the fees using the Consumer Price Index. This would guarantee a growing revenue stream for the DEP.

The Committee heard testimony in support of Maine receiving delegation authority from the Maine Waste Water Control Association, Maine Chamber and Business Alliance, Central Maine Power, and the Maine Pulp and Paper Association. Many supporters cited the benefit of needing to undertake a single permitting process and problems with federal and state permits that require different and sometimes conflicting standards.

The only opposition to the bill came from the Georgia-Pacific paper company. While supporting the concept of Maine receiving delegation for permitting, Georgia-Pacific felt strongly that the fee increases for industrial wastewater facilities were excessive. Some industrial operators could experience a 20-fold increase in permitting fees.

Several persons rose to voice their opinion in the "neither for nor against" portion of the testimony. Several members of the wastewater community felt the bill did not reflect a "consensus" of the regulated facilities. Representatives from the City of Bangor expressed their support of "delegation," but with the first printed copies available only 3 days before the hearing, many felt they have not been given adequate time to review the proposal.

(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 1861 – RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine to Provide Equal Educational Funding (Sponsored by Sen. Paradis of Aroostook; additional cosponsors)

This resolution amends the Constitution of Maine to require that the Legislature ensure that funding is available to provide equal educational opportunities to students at public schools throughout the state.

LD 1859 – AN ACT to Prevent Hunger Among Unemployed Maine Workers (Sponsored by Rep. Colwell of Gardiner; additional cosponsors) (EMERGENCY)

The new federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 limits food stamp program eligibility for certain unemployed individuals to 3 months in a 3-year period. The Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture to grant waivers of this provision to states for areas that do not have a sufficient number of jobs for individuals subject to this provision. Maine has already received a waiver for 8 counties and the Penobscot Nation. This bill requires the department to seek a waiver of 3 additional areas on the basis of insufficient jobs: Kennebec County and Penobscot County, and the Sanford labor market area. It also instructs the department to seek a waiver for certain categories of individuals who, because of particular hardships, are unlikely to find jobs.

Additionally, this bill requires the Department of Human Services to coordinate with other public and nonprofit agencies to develop and supervise volunteer placements for person who would otherwise become ineligible for food stamps. Finally, it requires the department to arrange for an independent evaluation of the social and economic impact of this new provision on individuals losing assistance, municipalities, and the Maine economy.

LD 1863 – AN ACT to Encourage Major Investments in Shipbuilding Facilities and to Encourage the Preservation of Jobs (Sponsored by Sen. Small of Sagadahoc; additional cosponsors)

This bill provides incentives for major investments in shipbuilding facilities and for preservation of substantial numbers of jobs by allowing a certified applicant a tax credit of $3,000,000 per year against remission of state income taxes withheld, for up to 20 years, provided that the certified applicant meets various eligibility requirements such as making a $150,000,000 investment in a shipbuilding facility and preserving a minimum number of 3,500 jobs. The bill also authorizes the Governor to lease or otherwise convey 15 acres of submerged land under the Kennebec River adjacent to Bath Iron Works for the purpose of that shipyard’s expansion.

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

Tel. 287-1317

LD 1859 – An Act to Prevent Hunger Among Unemployed Maine Workers (Sponsor: COLWELL) (EMERGENCY)

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

Tel. 287-1330

LD 1851 – An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding Proposed Unaccepted Streets (Sponsor: AMERO)

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

Tel. 287-4148

LD 1382 – An Act to Reimburse Law Enforcement Agencies for Their Costs Related to the Prosecution of Criminal and Traffic Violations (Sponsor: CLEVELAND) (MMA bill)

LD 1842 – An Act to Authorize Department of Transportation Bond Issues in the Amount of $40,500,000 to Match Available Federal Funds for Improvements to Municipal and State Roads and State and Local Bridges

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

Tel. 287-1314

LD 1849 – An Act to Clarify the Charitable Status of Nonprofit Hospital and Medical Service Organizations, to Permit Their Creation of Health Insurance Affiliates and Their Conversion to Stock Insurers, and to Ensure Regulatory Equity (Sponsor: SAXL, M.)

LD 1566 – An Act to Require Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine to Report Annually to the Legislature Regarding the Fulfillment of Its Charitable Mission (Sponsor: MILLS)

Room 438, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-1327

LD 1412 – An Act to Reinstate Municipal Courts for Specific Traffic Infractions (Sponsor: LEMKE)

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

Tel. 287-1552

LD 1833 – An Act to Reform the Administration of the Maine Residents Property Tax Relief Program (Sponsor: SAXL, M.)

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