Legislative
Bulletin
October 27, 1997
TAXATION COMMITTEE HOLDS TAX RELIEF HEARING
The Legislature’s Taxation Committee hosted a public hearing on October 16th.
The purpose of the hearing was for the Committee to obtain ideas from the people of Maine about how to best provide tax relief for the state’s citizens using the $28.4 million that is currently available for that purpose.
The $28.4 million is the remainder of the state’s General Fund surplus for FY 1997, and it has been dedicated for citizens’ tax relief as part of the biennial budget that was enacted in the spring of this year (see sidebar on page 1 and table on page 3 for a complete description of the tax relief funds).
24 people made presentations to the Committee. Different people spell "relief" differently.
1 person asked for 2 new investigators for the Maine Human Rights Commission.
1 person asked for funding for housing programs administered by the Maine State Housing Authority.
1 person asked for higher benefit levels in the TANF (formerly AFDC) program.
1 person suggested all the surplus revenues be used to offset the unfunded liability in the Maine State Retirement System.
1 person suggested all the surplus revenues be placed in the state’s Rainy Day fund to offset future shortfalls in state revenue during the next recession.
2 people wanted the snack tax repealed.
3 people suggested implementing a state-level EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), a refundable income tax credit modeled on the federal EITC that benefits the working poor.
The remaining 13 people asked for property tax relief.
Education Funding and Property Tax Relief
The education community made a strong pitch for property tax relief.
Six school board members or superintendents from Machias to Bangor to Kingfield to Mexico asked for increased General Purpose Aid (GPA) funding for K-12 education for the stated purpose of property tax relief. Representatives from Bangor’s schools put some teeth into that claim by suggesting a condition be enacted along with additional GPA; a condition that would require any GPA increase provided for this fiscal year to be used to reduce the property tax rather than increase the schools’ budgets.
Representative Mike Brennan (Portland), a member of the Legislature’s Education Committee, presented a proposal he has crafted that would link education funding with the work that is presently being done to define the "essential services" provided by public education. Once those essential educational services are defined, Representative Brennan’s proposal would finance the state’s contribution to K-12 education so that no community would have to provide a mill rate effort above a specified and uniform level in order to cost share with the state for the "essential educational services."
The current average mill rate effort (equalized by state valuation) among all the municipalities for education is approximately 10.5 mills. Depending on the amount of money that could be infused into K-12 education, the local mill rate effort to obtain "essential services" would be set lower, according to Brennan’s plan. Assuming that the current $1.23 billion expended on K-12 education (44% state funds, 56% property tax) is being spent on "essentials," if the law set the local mill rate effort at 8 mills to provide the essential educational services, the state would have to increase its share of subsidy by $175 million annually. Setting the local contribution at 9 mills would cost the state $118 million annually. A 10 mill threshold would require an additional $75 million annually from the state’s General Fund. The goal of this proposal would be to make sure local voters are keenly aware whether they are voting for the essential educational services or, in a separate vote, deciding to spend local dollars for an education program that goes beyond the "essential" level.
This is essentially the same structure as the present system, with the "foundation allocation" allegedly representing core funding and the "local appropriation" representing extra funding beyond the core level. In the present situation, however, the "foundation allocation" has become completely insufficient to support education. As proof, Representative Brennan pointed out that in 1990, the purely local contribution to K-12 education (i.e., the locally-raised share that is above and beyond the local share needed to "match" the state’s allocation) was $96 million statewide. 6 years (and 1 recession) later, that figure had skyrocketed to $265 million.
Other Forms of Property Tax Relief
In addition to the testimony from the educational community, Fairfield Town Manager Terry York and Winthrop’s Police Chief Joe Young made a pitch for property tax relief through the restoration of an honest reimbursement system when local police officers (and county sheriff personnel) are required to be in District Court to prosecute traffic violations and other infractions of state law. Since 1991, municipalities have been reimbursed $10 a day for sending off-duty police officers to District Court, even though the average municipal cost for this effort is nearly $65. In FY 97, the revenues produced by traffic fines was over $1.8 million. Most of this revenue ($1.4 million) went into the state’s General Fund. Even though a great majority of traffic tickets are issued by local or county law enforcement, only 8% ($150,000) of the associated state revenue was returned to the municipalities in police "witness fees." The reduction from an hourly reimbursement rate to the $10/day reimbursement level was enacted by the Legislature in 1991 as a "budget balancing" measure.
The Committee was reminded through MMA’s testimony that in response to the reduced state revenues resulting from recession of the early 1990’s the Legislature enacted a series of "budget balancing" measures that had the accumulated effect of placing a serious burden on the property tax. A graph was submitted plotting the revenues produced by the 3 major tax sources over the last 15 years (see graph on page 2).
The graph clearly demonstrates that before 1991 the pressure on the property tax was not nearly as great as it has been over the last half-decade. In addition to the effective 5-year freeze in state support for K-12 education mentioned by Representative Brennan, MMA cited the following as root causes of the current over-reliance on the property tax:
• The Revenue Sharing Program was first temporarily curtailed in 1991-1992 (to the tune of $18 million) and then permanently cut with the repeal of a statutory transfer to the Local Government Fund of over $2.8 million a year.
• A series of curtailments, underfundings, delays, and cuts to financial "partnership" programs such as Community Corrections, Tree Growth, Police reimbursement in District Court, Sand/Salt shed reimbursement, landfill closure reimbursement, etc. Although many legislators point to recent corrections this biennium to most examples of reduced state funding in these areas, the accumulated impact of the last five years is dramatically apparent in the relative burden among the 3 taxes.
• A Property Tax Relief fund enacted in 1989 has been effectively repealed. This Fund appropriated 50% of surplus state revenues to direct property tax relief.
There is some irony with respect to this last item. In 1989, when the Property Tax Relief Fund was created, property tax revenues represented 39% of the total revenues generated by the 3 major taxes. Today, property tax revenues have jumped to 44% of that total, and yet a share of the state’s surplus revenues are no longer dedicated to the property tax as they used to be before the recession.
MMA’s Recommendations
Because it is so frequently mentioned that the tax relief funds are "one-time," "fixed," or "dwindling" revenues, the MMA recommendations attempted to oblige by promoting relief options that are one-time or easily adjustable depending on future circumstances.
First among those recommendations was a supplemental increase to the Revenue Sharing program. The Revenue Sharing formula targets relief to municipalities with greater demands, and Revenue Sharing funds are required to be used to reduce the local tax commitment. Other suggestions from MMA included:
• A modest homestead exemption ($5,000) that fits within available relief revenues;
• A PILOT program (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) similar to those in place in the other New England states (with the exception of New Hampshire) whereby the state would provide some funding to those municipalities where large tax-exempt properties are located, such as hospitals, colleges, and significant state facilities;
• Further expansions to the Circuit Breaker program; or
• State revenue contributions to pay for the state services (corrections, District Attorney, net costs of the Registries of Probate or Deeds, etc.) provided by County government.
This last suggestion was echoed by Kingfield selectman Bill Brown, who testified that a reduction in the county assessments on the communities would translate to an administratively elegant and immediate mill rate reduction to the property tax.
Where is Tax Reform?
Phil McCarthy, the Town Manager of Kittery and the Immediate Past President of MMA, followed MMA’s testimony with a plea to the Committee not to lose sight in the larger goal of tax reform. McCarthy asked the Committee to put together a game plan whereby the tax relief provided today could open the door or provide opportunities to move incrementally toward tax reform in the next legislative session. Using the relief funds to send tax rebates back to people may be tax relief but it isn’t reform. Reform is accomplished when the state’s entire tax code is progressively reorganized so the tax burden falls more equitably in the first assessment, and rebate checks become unnecessary.
The Taxation Committee is scheduled to continue its deliberations on October 30th.
HOW MUCH TAX RELIEF?
The $28.4 million discussed in this article is the remainder of the state’s General Fund surplus from FY 97. The total surplus was nearly $60 million, but the law that created the surplus-revenue relief fund designated just 75% of that surplus for tax relief. The remaining 25% was dedicated to a reserve fund for the Maine State Retirement System.
Last session, the Legislature appropriated $16.4 million of the tax relief money to:
• Remove the income tax filing obligation for anyone with less than $2,000 of taxable income;
• Expand the Circuit Breaker program to provide upwards of $25 million in property tax relief each year (up from $20 million) to Maine’s lower-income and elderly property taxpayers and renters;
• Create 2 new sales tax exemptions for the computer programming and "bio-tech" industry; and
• Create 2 new income tax exemptions for Maine’s "high-tech" industries.
The Taxation Committee is charged by law with the responsibility to make a recommendation to the full Legislature as to how the $28.4 million in citizens’ tax relief should be provided. The tax relief effort does not end with this $28 million, however. The surplus-revenue tax relief account could continue to grow, depending on the state’s collection of income tax revenues. While the controlling law put the lion’s share of all General Fund surpluses for FY 97 into a tax relief fund, in the following years only the surpluses in the individual income tax line will be siphoned off for tax relief. For the present fiscal year, for example, any excess revenues in the individual income tax line over the $724.4 million projected to be received will be devoted to the tax relief account.
In addition, the Taxation Committee has the same jurisdiction over yet another tax relief account. The Tobacco Tax Relief Account is the repository for the additional cigarette tax revenues that will begin coming into the state’s treasury after November 1, when the additional 37-cents-per-pack tax is imposed. The first $3.5 million of that new revenue is earmarked each year for a program to reduce teen smoking, but the remainder of the new cigarette tax funds is dedicated to tax relief in the same way as the surplus revenues.
In this fiscal year, because the tobacco tax doesn’t kick in until the year is 1/3 over, the estimated cigarette tax money available for tax relief is $14.5 million. In FY 1999, that amount should be $27 million.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TASK FORCE READY TO FINALIZE PROPOSAL
The Task Force on Intergovernmental Structure, created by an Executive Order of Governor Angus King, met in Biddeford on October 23, 1997 in an effort to finalize its restructuring proposal.
The preliminary proposal of the Task Force has been "on the road" over the last six weeks. From Machias to South Paris, Houlton to Alfred, the Task Force explained its proposal at public meetings held in each of the 16 county seats. Numerous other meetings with various interest groups and legislative committees were also held during this period. The purpose of the regional meetings was to take comments, criticisms, and suggestions regarding the Task Force proposal from the 650 people who turned out to the educational forums. At each meeting, the Task Force made it very clear that the preliminary proposal was a "work in progress," and the input received at the regional meetings would shape the final product very significantly.
The public commentary on the preliminary proposal was ample, and although the Task Force is scheduled to meet one more time, on November 7th, to review the final draft, the working group was able to reach consensus in Biddeford on the major amendments.
What follows is a description of the proposed governmental restructuring as finalized by the Task Force. An attempt will be made to highlight those areas where the preliminary proposal was significantly changed in response to the public commentary. In summary, the Task Force amended the preliminary proposal to:
• De-emphasize the recommendation to move from elected to appointed positions in county government (below the commissioner level), leaving those decisions up to the county charter process;
• Replace an express recommendation to adopt a tax revenue targeting system with a statement supporting the restructuring effort’s overall "tax burden neutrality;" and
• Give definition to the term "full-time police department," an issue related to the apportionment of the county assessment among municipalities with and without full-time police departments.
Goal: The overall goal of the Task Force proposal did not change. The goal is to remove obstacles in the current state-county-local intergovernmental relationship that impair the ability of governments at different levels to work together cooperatively to make sure that the governmental services the citizens need will be provided with optimum efficiency and effectiveness.
The Task Force’s final proposal would accomplish that goal by:
Establishing a county revenue sharing program that would provide counties with a majority share of funding from state tax revenues rather than the property tax.
In 1997 dollars, the property tax provided $60 million to county government. If the Task Force proposal were in place today, the counties would be receiving 62% of that financial support (nearly $38 million) from the new county revenue sharing program instead of property tax assessments. To obtain that level of financial support, 2.5% of sales and income tax revenues would have to be shared with the 16 counties. County revenue sharing would be in addition to the 5.1% of sales and income tax revenues that is presently shared with the municipalities.
This revenue sharing support is designed to replace a share of financial support that is currently provided by the property tax. All other county revenues that are received from other sources (e.g., fees or reimbursements for housing prisoners, transfer tax revenues, etc.) would continue to be provided to the counties.
This level of state funding was derived by using 1997 as a base year, and calculating the costs of county government for that year attributable to those services that are demanded of county government by the state. Those state-mandated services provided by the counties are defined by the Task Force as:
• Support services relating to the District Attorney’s Office
• Court rents and services
• Net costs (after fee revenue) of the Registry of Deeds
• Net costs (after fee revenue) of the Registry of Probate
• Corrections: Jails and other support for prisoners
• 40% of Sheriff’s non-jail, non-contract services
• 50% of maintenance of general facilities
Freezing by mill rate the level of county assessments that can be levied on the municipalities.
After the counties start receiving revenue sharing, they will need much less financial support from the municipalities for the core programs counties currently provide; that is, the mill rate demand the counties place on the municipalities will be reduced. The Task Force proposal would freeze the required municipal contribution at that reduced mill rate, using 1997 as a base year. [To see a fairly typical example, see printed copy.] Under this proposal, all municipalities would see significant reduction in the size of their county assessments, but the specific rate of reduction will vary from county to county. Based on the Task Force’s analysis of county budgets, the new, frozen mill rates would be reduced 50% to 85% for municipalities with police departments. For municipalities without police departments, the frozen mill rates would demand anywhere from 25% to 60% less than current county assessments.
Adjusting the apportionment of county government to reflect the level of sheriff’s patrol received by municipalities without police departments.
Under current law, the apportionment of county assessments among the municipalities is based on municipal valuation. The Task Force proposal infuses an element of targeting to the apportionment formula.
As discussed above, the Task Force proposal shifts the funding obligation from the municipalities to the state for county-provided state services, including corrections, District Attorney support, etc., and 40% of the sheriff’s (non-jail and non-contract) department.
The funding calculation leaves the property tax responsible for the core services that counties provide to local government and the county region. Those services are:
• Local share of Emergency Management
• County administration, including the Commissioners and the Treasurer
• Management information system
• 50% maintenance of general facilities
• Debt service
• Grants to organizations, county share of bridges, other miscellaneous programs; and
• 40% of the sheriff’s department (non-jail, non-contract)
All of these listed services would be paid by all the municipalities in the county (within the confines of the frozen mill rates discussed above), with the costs apportioned by the valuation-based assessment system currently in place.
With 40% of the sheriff’s office covered by state funding and 40% covered by all the towns in the county, the remaining 20% of the sheriff’s department would be assessed to the municipalities in the county that do not have full-time police departments.
Over the last six weeks, the Task Force heard testimony on both sides of this issue and concluded in Biddeford that the proposed apportionment formula is more fair than the present system.
On a related issue, however, the Task Force did spend some time in Biddeford working on the definition of "full-time police department." As a first cut, the proposed definition would describe a "full-time" department as any department with at least one full-time police officer certified by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and that provides no less than 16 hours a day of coverage, 7 days a week. A municipality that contracts for an equivalent level of service would be considered to have a "full-time police department."
At the Biddeford meeting, concern was expressed that this definition was not tight enough. According to some Task Force members, an effective full-time department is not necessarily constituted by one full-time officer and a stable of part-time officers with the less-intensive 100-hour training course from the Academy. The proposed alternative would require 16-hour-a-day coverage for 7 days a week, with at least one Academy-certified officer on duty throughout the coverage period.
The Task Force will be finalizing this standard at its meeting on November 7th.
Invigorating the County Charter process; establishing minimum qualifications for County Treasurer.
The Task Force proposal has from the beginning left it up to the voters of each county as to whether the county will move toward the new revenue-sharing system. If the voters of the county are unwilling to adopt a county charter that meets a few minimum qualifications, the county-municipal system would remain entirely status quo.
The final Task Force proposal will establish the following minimum criteria for any county to participate in the new fiscal system:
• The county voters must adopt a charter. At this time, there is only one county with a charter (Aroostook).
• The county charter must establish the position of county administrator, appointed by the commissioners. At this time, 3 of the 16 counties have created the position of county administrator (Aroostook, Cumberland, and York); and
• The county treasurer, whether appointed or elected to that office pursuant to the county’s charter, must meet the minimum qualifications for office, which would be enacted into Maine law as part of the Task Force recommendation.
As finalized, the Task Force recommendation backs off, at least in emphasis, from its preliminary recommendation. The preliminary proposal would have required the appointment of all county treasurers. It also recommended that county voters consider appointing the registrar of deeds as well. The preliminary proposal also recommended a proposed amendment to Maine’s Constitution that would, if adopted by the state’s voters, allow county voters to make the office of sheriff an appointed position as well. Under the Maine Constitution, the sheriff, judge of probate, and registrar of probate must be elected to office.
In its final form, the Task Force recommendation makes no reference to the constitutional county offices. The written report of the Task Force will include the statement that "The Task Force takes no position on the election or appointment of county officials, leaving these decisions to the county charter commission and the county voters."
Tax Burden Neutrality
Perhaps the thorniest issue facing municipalities in the Task Force’s recommendation is the "tax revenue targeting" proposal. Tax revenue targeting is a method of controlling the overall tax burden in Maine. Tax revenue targeting was expressly endorsed in the preliminary proposal as a method of ensuring that the property tax savings that result from the establishment of the county revenue sharing program would be passed along to the property taxpayers. In the final Task Force report, the endorsement of tax revenue targeting as the method of ensuring tax burden neutrality will be more implied than stated.
Establishing the Targets: Tax Revenue Targeting is a system by which the Legislature makes a conscious decision at the beginning of each biennium about what the overall state and local tax burden will be in Maine, measured in terms of total taxes collected (and not rebated) as a percentage of the state’s total personal income. In addition, the Legislature would decide how much of that overall tax burden should be levied by state government and how much should be levied by municipal government. After these decisions are made, the state’s biennial budget would have to be enacted in compliance with the established state and local "targets." In other words, the Legislature could not establish targets that purport to reduce the overall tax burden and then enact a state budget that makes it impossible to meet those targets.
After the targets are enacted by the Legislature, it is a simple mathematical calculation to determine the property tax targets; that is, the overall increase to property tax collections statewide that would be allowed during the biennium without incurring a financial penalty.
Enforcing the Targets: The tax revenue targeting legislation initiated by Governor King during the last session of the Legislature (and which has been carried over into the second session, beginning in January) would enforce the established targets by identifying any tax revenue collected over the established targets and redistributing that excess revenue back to the taxpayers.
The over-target state tax revenues would be redirected as follows: (1) the first 50% of those excess revenues would be deposited in the state’s Rainy Day fund; (2) the first use of the remaining revenues would be to fully fund any municipal transfer obligations that were underfunded during the previous biennium (e.g., Tree Growth, Community Corrections, etc.); and (3) the remaining excess state revenues would be placed in a taxpayer relief account, to be distributed in a method determined by the Legislature.
If the municipalities, in aggregate and over the course of a biennium, collect more property tax revenues than the targeted level, a revenue sharing penalty would be triggered to take effect in the subsequent biennium. The dollar amount of property tax collections in excess of the targeted level would be subtracted from the revenue sharing distribution of the next biennium. 50% of the amount deducted from revenue sharing would be redistributed, as an incentive, to those municipalities that did not exceed the municipal target level during the preceding biennium. The remaining 50% of the revenue sharing deduction would be placed in a property tax relief account to be distributed in a method determined by the Legislature.
Pros and Cons: It is this aspect of the tax revenue targeting proposal that is generating the greatest concern among municipal leaders. Although Maine law places a condition on the use of revenue sharing (to reduce commitment), there has never been a condition placed on the receipt of revenue sharing.
Furthermore, inherent to the philosophy behind tax revenue targeting is the idea that governments are able to impose tax burdens on the citizens of the state that are harmful to those citizens and therefore a discipline has to be self-imposed. The idea of the people in a municipality imposing a burden on themselves that is harmful to them does not resonate with municipal officials because those decisions are made so directly by the taxpayers themselves. The people at town meeting or before a city council seem to be well aware of the tax burden they are and are not willing to self impose, and entirely competent in that regard.
On the other hand, tax revenue targeting is perceived by some key members of the Legislature as well as the Governor as a necessary tool to have in hand before launching any effort to modernize the state’s tax code. In addition, the measure would require the Legislature to consciously decide where the overall property tax burden should fall. Since the recession of 1991, the property tax burden has grown by default, as the state backed off on many of its intergovernmental funding obligations. It is also true that the tax revenue targeting measure lists in one place the various programs involving state financial support to the municipalities and places a more pronounced statutory obligation on the state to abide by its financial promises.
Task Force Recommendation: The preliminary Task Force proposal expressly required municipalities to reduce their property tax demands by the amount of savings the municipality would enjoy through the reduced county assessments made possible by the county revenue sharing system. The system to enforce this requirement was the tax revenue targeting system of Governor King’s. In response to the many concerns and obvious confusion expressed at the public meetings regarding the tax revenue targeting system, the Task Force amended the language of its final proposal to delete references to "tax revenue targeting" and say simply: The Task Force proposal will "assure that the shift in funding for county services from the property tax to broad-based state taxes does not translate to an increase in the overall tax burden in the state."
Conclusion
It is not possible in this article to address all the details of the Task Force proposal. The structure of the county budget committees, and the degree of authority provided to them, would be left up to the county charter process. The concept of creating a permanent, legislatively-created intergovernmental task force to continue monitoring and supporting the effort of improving intergovernmental relations was trimmed back to a task force created by "memorandum of agreement" between the municipalities, the counties, and the Governor’s Office. The final report of the Task Force will expand on continuing an important role in the entire service delivery system provided by the regional planning agencies. The list of details goes on.
MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) is scheduled to meet next on December 11, 1997. At that time, the LPC will be asked to take a position on the Task Force’s restructuring proposal. It has become apparent that the Task Force proposal must be connected with the Governor’s tax revenue targeting proposal in order to receive the Governor’s support. Because of the necessary relationship, as far as the Governor is concerned, between tax revenue targeting and virtually any property tax relief proposal that uses state tax revenues to provide property tax relief, it is clear that municipal officials need to be more fully informed about the tax revenue targeting system so that the decision the LPC makes on December 11th will be made with an optimum of information and maximum input. To that end, MMA intends to organize a number of public meetings statewide during the month of November so that the tax revenue targeting system will be fully understood when the hour of decision is at hand.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION RULES
The Division of Health Engineering has issued a proposed rule change regarding the inspection of subsurface waste disposal systems. A public hearing was held on the proposed rules on October 7, 1997.
In summary, the revisions amend the State’s Plumbing Code to require a minimum of 2 LPI inspections during the installation of a septic system, and one post-installation inspection. The current rule requires a minimum of only one (pre-backfill) inspection. Under the proposal, the second installation inspection to be required would be "while the soil interface is being prepared." A post-installation inspection, to ensure that the site has been "properly stabilized," would have to occur within 3 months of the installation.
The increased inspections required by these proposed rules are being promulgated in response to PL 1997, chap. 106, which increased the maximum fee to the consumer for a permit for non-engineered systems from $60 to $100. Because the state-local share on the plumbing fee is 25%:75%, the increased revenue to the municipality for the 2 additional required inspections is $30.
According to the notice of state agency rule-making, the proposed changes will have a fiscal impact on municipalities.
MMA first heard about this proposed rule change after the October 7th public hearing. We filed written objection to the promulgation of these rules as printed, because of the manner in which they were developed and because in many circumstances the substance of the proposed rules is unworkable and represents an unfunded state mandate.
Process Objections: It is apparent from the calls we have received from municipal plumbing inspectors that these proposed changes to the current rules were not developed with any meaningful input from the municipal community. From our perspective, that is very unfortunate. It doesn’t seem too much to ask for an informal meeting bringing together some municipal inspectors and representatives of the contractors’ community; that is, the people who are expected to carry out the newly-imposed requirements.
Substantive Objections: According to a survey we conducted among our members, 75% of the municipal respondents either strongly oppose the proposed rules or oppose some aspect of the rule change. 25% of the municipal respondents supported the rules.
• Many municipalities do not have adequate staff to undertake the additional inspections. The additional $30 in permit fees is insufficient in those communities to hire additional qualified staff necessary to comply with the additional inspection requirements.
• Inspectors in the rural communities and regional inspectors note that the additional "soil interface" inspection will require an additional day’s inspection. Many of these inspectors must travel significant distances to perform the inspection. When the time and cost of travel is added onto the time taken to provide the inspection, the additional $30 in fee is insufficient to support the additional inspections.
• The "soil interface" inspection will involve a level of additional soil-science training for the LPIs. The need for additional training is a ripple-effect of the proposed rules that does not appear to have been thought through entirely.
• The post-installation stabilization inspection that would be required by these rules will not work in certain times of the year. The time period for a final inspection should allow for some common-sense flexibility on the part of the inspector.
• The "soil interface" inspection will add to the contractor’s down-time at the site. Those costs will be transferred to the applicant along with the $40 increase to the permit fee.
• An alternative approach that would more directly address the core problem is to require contractors to be properly educated and certified before they would be permitted to install these systems.
Our recommendation to Health Engineering was to convene a group of the interested parties in order to explore the possibility of a more targeted and flexible system of increased septic installation inspection that mitigates the technical and financial concerns expressed by the municipal folks who actually do the job.
FACT SHEET ON QUESTION #2
BALLOT QUESTION #2: On November 3, 1997, voters will be asked to consider the following question: "Do you favor a $7,000,000 bond issue, which will match $15,000,000 in federal funds, to construct water pollution control facilities, to clean up tire stockpiles and to make drinking water improvements?"
USE OF BOND PROCEEDS: The proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used to protect and improve water quality by constructing, upgrading and modernizing sewage treatment plants and to abate combined sewer overflows. Bond money will also be used to protect the public health threat posed by unmanaged, illegal tire stockpiles. In addition, funds will be used to ensure that sewer user fees are affordable for the citizens of Maine and that federal requirements for safe drinking water supplies do not pose unreasonable financial burdens on Maine communities.
OBJECTIVE: $4,500,000 will be made available for the planning, design, and construction of water pollution control facilities. These funds will be administered by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Bureau of Land & Water Quality). The bond proceeds will be disbursed by DEP as follows:
$2.0 million for large facilities grants (LFG)
$2.5 million as the state match for an additional $12.5 million in federal dollars for the State Revolving Fund.
Large Facilities Grants
These grants are used to subsidize the cost of new sewer plant construction and plant upgrades. This assistance helps keep sewer user fees affordable in Maine.
State Revolving Fund
This is a loan program that is used to upgrade sewage facilities and abate combined sewer overflows. This program allows municipalities to borrow money at a lower rate thereby lowering the cost to the rate payers.
OBJECTIVE: $2,000,000 will be used to clean up tire stockpiles throughout the state.
The 1997 funds will be used to continue the cleanup of tires currently stockpiled at various sites across the state. A tire stockpile poses a tremendous health and environmental risk if it were to catch fire. Toxic materials contained in the tires would be released into the air, causing significant air pollution problems, and into the groundwater, posing risks to drinking water supplies.
All tire removal bond proceeds will be disbursed under the direction and supervision of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management).
OBJECTIVE: $500,000 will match $2.5 million in federal funds to be used in upgrading public drinking water supplies to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These funds will be administered by the Maine Department of Human Services (Bureau of Health/Division of Health Engineering).
These funds are deposited in a revolving loan program (SRF) to fund Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required water system improvements. As a part of the SDWA reauthorization, federal funds are set aside for state programs around the country. Reauthorization requires that each state provide a 20% match for the federal monies.
The amended SDWA states that these funds will be made available to community water systems, both publicly and privately owned, and non-community, non-profit systems. As many as 800 public water systems throughout the State of Maine may be eligible to receive SRF funds from this program. A priority system to identify the water systems eligible for the monies available has been developed.
Communities Eligible for 1997 Bond Funds
State Revolving Loan Fund for Waste Water Treatment: Auburn Sewer District; Augusta Sanitary District; Brewer; Lewiston; Madawaska; Oakland; Presque Isle Sewer District; Saco; Sanford Sewage District.
Waste Water Major Construction Grant Program: Mapleton.
Tire Stockpile Abatement:
(piles of highest priority, each estimated to be greater than 1,000,000 tires): Bowdoin; Durham; Greenwood; Meddybemps.
(possible assistance under new, voluntary Small Site Tire Stockpile Program: piles each estimated to be greater than 60,000 tires): Auburn; Augusta (2 sites); Baldwin; Buxton; Cumberland; Dexter; Fort Fairfield; Freeport (2 sites); Gorham; Lewiston; Old Orchard Beach; Oxford; Porter; Windham.
Revolving Loan Fund for Drinking Water Improvements (contact DHS):
Alfred Water Company ($468,900 for provision of redundant water supply source); Boothbay Harbor Water System ($535,000 for replacement of storage); Eustis Water Department ($150,000 for redundant supply source); Madawaska Water District ($1,621,600 for upgrades to treatment plant); Mount Desert Water District North ($120,000 for upgrades to treatment plant).
Prepared by DEP