Legislative Bulletin, February 20, 1998

GOVERNOR CHANGES APPROACH TO HOMESTEAD

Over the last several weeks, this space has been devoted to explaining various elements of the homestead exemption bill as MMA understood the Governor’s proposal. On Tuesday of this week, the Governor’s actual printed bill became available to the Legislature as LD 2219 An Act to Reduce Income and Property Taxes.

With respect to the administration of the homestead exemption, the Governor’s printed bill has changed dramatically from the earlier drafts of the legislation provided to MMA shortly after the Governor’s State of the State address on February 2.

Income Tax Relief. First of all, and on a separate issue, LD 2219 provides for the income tax relief that the Governor also proposed during his State of the State address, and which the Democrats have also endorsed as part of their tax relief proposal. LD 2219 would increase the personal exemption under Maine’s income tax law (currently $2,150) to $2,400 for the income tax year beginning on January 1, 1998. An additional increase in the personal exemption to $2,750 would kick in for the income tax year beginning on January 1, 1999. This approach to income tax relief is projected to reduce state revenues by $30 million in FY 99, $38.6 million in FY 2000, and $44 million in FY 2001.

This bill also creates the Governor’s Homestead Exemption program.

Homestead Exemption, First Draft: The Governor’s original approach, as has been described in earlier Legislative Bulletins, created a homestead exemption paralleled on the existing veterans’ exemption. The homestead owner’s assessment would be reduced for the purposes of taxation by $7,500 in value, as adjusted according to the municipality’s certified assessment ratio. The adjustment of value would be accomplished locally so that the homeowner’s property tax bill would be less. The municipalities would be reimbursed by the state for 100% of the revenue lost in two installments: 80% of the total estimated revenue lost would be reimbursed by August 15th. The remaining 20% adjustment would be reimbursed by December 15th.

The Governor’s original bill included a cumbersome process regarding second-year and outlying-year eligibility for the exemption. The process included excessive mailings back and forth between the town and the taxpayers, and is not used with respect to any other property tax exemption (veterans’, benevolent and charitable, etc.). The excessive process raised the concern of several assessors and municipalities.

Homestead Exemption, Governor’s Printed Bill. The actual bill submitted by the Governor (LD 2219) creates a completely different administrative process. The municipalities would not reduce the property tax obligation of their resident home-owners. Instead, those homeowners would pay their full property taxes and then be entitled to a rebate for the value of their homestead exemption from the state. This administrative approach is contrary to the administration of any other property tax exemption (veterans’, benevolent and charitable, etc.), but similar in nature to the property tax "Circuit Breaker" program and the Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement (BETR) program.

The rebate check would be issued to the property taxpayer by the state after an application for that rebate has been filed by the homeowner either through a line on the state income tax form or as a separate application process for non-filers. The rebate amount would be based on a homestead exemption not to exceed $7,500 in value, adjusted by the municipality’s assessment ratio for developed residential property, multiplied by the municipal mill rate. Unlike the BETR program, the Governor’s bill does not create an entitlement to the $7,500 exemption. It sets $7,500 as the maximum benefit, but limits the actual homestead exemption to be granted each year according to the amount actually appropriated for that purpose in any given year by the Legislature. The bill purports to require the homeowner to actually pay their property taxes in order to be eligible for the rebate, although there is no precise language in the bill that establishes that requirement.

The advantage to the actual homestead exemption, rather than the rebate program, is that Maine’s citizens’ actual exposure to the property tax would be reduced. Their property tax bills would be less. They would recognize the benefit of the homestead exemption very immediately and directly when the property tax bills go out this late summer and fall. The excessive administration associated with the Governor’s initial proposal would presumably have been addressed as the proposal developed during the legislative process.

The purported advantages to the Governor’s printed bill is that the administration is taken entirely from the municipalities, thereby eliminating or vastly reducing the "unfunded mandate" impact. Another purported advantage is that under the system of state administration, where the state sends the homeowner the rebate check, the chances of the state underfunding the homestead exemption reimbursement system would be reduced. That being said, the "where funding is available" language in the Governor’s bill suggests that the actual size of the homestead exemption could be subject to variations from year to year as the appropriation to fund the exemption-rebate would be in competition with hundreds of other financial demands.

At this point, all that is certain is that LD 2219 will be the vehicle bill for the Taxation Committee to take up the homestead exemption proposal. A public hearing on LD 2219 is scheduled before the Taxation Committee for Tuesday, February 24th at 1:00 p.m.

The Legislature’s Office of Fiscal and Program Review issued a 12-page report to the Legislature in January entitled, "Summary of Major State Funding Disbursed to Municipalities and Counties." The report details the annual value of intergovernmental fund transfers over the last 20 years from the state to local government in the areas of transportation funding, education funding, Revenue Sharing, Tree Growth reimbursement, county jail reimbursement, etc.

In its introduction the report makes the following observation and provides the following supporting data.

"Total state funding disbursed to municipalities and counties has increased by an average of 2.0% per year (in normal dollars) over the ten year period from fiscal year 1989-90 to fiscal 1998-99. When these amounts are adjusted for inflation using the state and local government price deflator, the average growth in "real" or constant 1992 dollars was a negative 0.8% annually over this period."

These trends in the nominal and inflation adjusted totals are also illustrated in the graph on this page of the Bulletin.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this 12-page report should contact Tina Means at MMA, 1-800-452-8786.

On Tuesday, February 17th, the Transportation Committee unanimously voted that LD 2149 AN ACT to Implement the Recommendations of the Working Group on Motor Vehicle Fines, Enforcement and Reimbursement, "ought to pass as amended." This bill requires that municipalities be reimbursed at a rate of $40 per day for the expense of sending law enforcement officers to District Court for the purpose of providing testimony in court. Currently municipalities are reimbursed only $10 per day. (For more detail, see February 13 edition of the Legislative Bulletin). The Committee’s amendment requires that the additional reimbursement expenses be funded through the General Fund.

Although the Committee’s unanimous endorsement of LD 2149 is a critical step toward the ultimate enactment of this very important legislation, LD 2149 carries a fiscal note of $777,000 in FY 1999 and $841,000 in FY 2000, and will therefore end up on the Appropriations Table. It is very important that municipal officials let their legislators know that restoring an honest level of reimbursement for time municipal law enforcement officers spend in court is of utmost importance.

On Wednesday this week the State and Local Government Committee rolled up its sleeves and conducted a substantive work session on LD 1551 An Act to Limit the Amount of Retainage on Public Building Projects. As reported in the January 30 issue of the Legislative Bulletin, LD 1551 is a carry-over bill from the first session. In its original form, LD 1551 would have simply prohibited all state construction contracts and most contracts governing school construction projects from including any provisions that would allow the owner to temporarily "retain" from the general contractor 5% of the overall construction costs pending final acceptance of the constructed facility.

Late in the first legislative session, the Committee elected to carry LD 1551 into the second legislative session to give it a more thoughtful consideration. Prior to taking the bill up this session, a "technical advisory group" was formed, which included representatives of the engineering, architectural and construction industries, and a Deputy Commissioner of Department of Administration and Financial Affairs. Representatives of the school and municipal communities were not invited to participate on that technical advisory group.

The work product from the technical advisory group is a re-written version of LD 1551 that replaces the original bill. A complete description of what the new version of LD 1551 would do is provided below.

The Committee was informed on Wednesday that the Associated Constructors of Maine, Governor King’s Administration, and presumably the architectural and engineering interests that were on the technical advisory group, all support LD 1551 as redrafted.

MMA and the Maine School Management Agency have taken a position against LD 1551. For the municipalities, there are any number of concerns. Some of those concerns are:

~Municipal officials in many communities are closely involved in the contract development and school construction oversight process, so that even though this bill affects school construction only, the non-educational municipal community is involved.

~It is highly likely that the entire system of school construction financing is going to change in the near future so that all significant school construction projects not just new school construction will be financed partially by the state, and the level of state financial contribution will vary as the "circuit breaker" financing system is replaced. Therefore, this retainage template could soon apply to all school construction projects, even when the state is not contributing a majority of the funding.

~The proposed, mandatory retainage management structure flies in the face of open and free contract negotiations. Retainage is a tool to protect the taxpayers, and the structured management of retainage as proposed would weaken retainage as a tool to ensure prompt and adequate performance and only harm the general taxpayers’ interests.

~The municipal experience is that the problem this bill intends to address lies between the general contractor and the subcontractors, and yet the owners are getting pulled into the solution. In fact, the municipalities feel that they are in a better position to relieve subcontractors who are unfairly treated by the general contract under current law then they will be under LD 1551.

~There is a well-developed body of interpretive court decisions regarding retainage as it is presently applied under standard form construction contracts, and by adding a statutory contract management system, additional disputes and litigation would be engendered.

Contract Specifications, Initial Construction Process

In its redrafted form, LD 1551 would do the following:

~The proposed law would govern all state construction projects with a value over $100,000 and all school construction projects over $25,000 in value which involve any state financial participation. The reason for these disparate value thresholds is not clear. The bill would not govern non-school municipal projects or local school projects funded totally by local dollars.

~The law would specify that no amount of retainage could be withheld from the contractor for the purpose of curing warranty defects in construction materials; retainage could only be withheld for non-performance of the contract.

~Payment to the contractor and retention of that payment could be conducted only on contract line items, and those line items would have to be identified by the school unit and the general contractor prior to the start of the project.

~The retainage amount could never exceed 5% of any payment due, and when the school unit determines that the contractor’s performance for any payment had been completed or corrected, the school would be required to promptly pay for that performance. At the end of the performance period for each line item in the contract, the payment for that line item must be paid, except the school unit could hold the last five percent of payments due on that line item as "retainage".

Adjustment of Retainage Upon "Substantial Completion"

An adjustment of retainage would occur at the point the project is determined to be "substantially complete."

The determination of "substantial completion," under LD 1551, is a process that begins when the general contractor notifies the school unit that the project has reached that stage of completion.

Within 14 days of that notification, under this bill, the owner must have inspected the project and prepared a list with the contractor of incomplete or unsatisfactory elements of the project. This list is commonly referred to as the "punch list." Although it is not drafted in LD 1551 as of yet, it is apparently at this point in the process that the school determines if the project is substantially complete or not.

If the school unit determines the project is not "substantially complete", the school may continue to hold the five percent retainage.

If the school agrees that the project is "substantially complete", the remaining retainage would be adjusted in the following way:

~Within the next 14 day period, the school and the general contractor would be required to assign values to all items on the punch list.

~The school would turn over to the contractor all retained funds except 150% of the aggregate value assigned to the punch list (provided that sum was not greater than the 5% retainage).

~The contractor would be required to address the items on the punch list according to a mutually agreed upon schedule. Upon completion of each line on the punch list, the school would pay the contractor for that item in full.

Finally, as a rule of general application, any non-payments or late payments would be subject to the penalties of "Maine’s Prompt Pay" law, and to the extent those penalties were applied to the school, those costs would have to be borne locally and could not be passed onto the state. As another rule of general application, all school construction projects with any state financial contribution would have to use uniform construction documents prepared by the state.

The State and Local Government Committee has scheduled its final look at LD 1551 for March 2.

Calling it a "safety issue", representatives from Bangor Hydro, Maine Public Service Company, Central Maine Power, Dig Safe, Maine Utilities and Natural Gas and Maritimes and Northeast testified in force against LD 2025 AN ACT to Reduce Technical Violations of Maine’s Laws Regarding the Protection of Underground Utilities. The bill, as currently written, excludes the Department of Transportation, the Maine Turnpike Authority and municipal from civil penalties for technical violations of the State’s "dig safe" laws. This bill does not exempt DOT or municipalities from any costs or penalties associated with actually-damaged underground facilities.

The Maine Municipal Association, as well as the Department of Transportation, supports this bill. We believe that is not the practice of municipalities to intentionally damage the underground facilities that service our residents. This bill acknowledges and supports the abilities of municipal engineers and public works crews to perform their duties competently. Who better to understand the public safety issues associated with excavation projects then trained municipal employees, with access to and familiarity with locations of underground utility facilities. Also, we find it ironic that under the current requirements of the Dig Safe law, municipalities could actually be punished for their efforts to maintain the municipal right of way, which private utilities are privileged to use for their purposes. Under Maine law, municipalities are entirely preempted from receiving any right-of-way fee for granting that privilege of use.

Although an amendment to change the definition of an "excavation" was recommended that would enable the Department of Transportation and municipalities to conduct routine, non-excavation tasks, the Maine Municipal Association believes that municipalities, not the utilities, should be entrusted to maintain the municipal rights of way without being exposed to financial penalties exacted by the power and telecommunications utilities.

The Utilities Committee has scheduled a work session for this bill on Monday, February 23 at 1:00 PM in Room 124 of the State Office Building.

On Friday, February 13th the Health and Human Services Committee held public hearings and unanimously reported that LD 2118 and LD 2137 "ought to pass as amended".

LD 2118 AN ACT to Increase Economic Security for the State’s Low-income Children and Families and Prevent Additional Costs to Municipalities, increases the maximum payment for families in the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program by 5%. Although this increase will have a minimum, positive fiscal impact on municipalities (an estimated $30,000 annual savings to General Assistance), the intent of this bill is to provide TANF benefits at something closer to an appropriate level. Not since 1988 have TANF (formerly AFDC) benefits been adjusted to reflect cost of living. The $20 increase may not be adequate to address the inflation that has occurred over the past ten years, however it is a good beginning. In order to maintain the costs, the Committee amended the bill to include a provision that only those families currently receiving TANF benefits would be eligible to receive the $20 increase.

LD 2137 AN ACT to Address the Crisis in Access to Dental Care for Low-income Children, as written and proposed by the sponsor, this bill would require the Department of Human Services to establish a toll-free telephone referral system for children’s dental service under the Medicaid program. The Committee also amended the bill to require state dental associations and groups to work with the Department of Human Services to provide for an adequate number of dentists to accept Medicaid clients and to report annually to the Committee on the progress of their efforts.

Bills before the Natural Resources Committee this week included: LD 2111, An Act to Reauthorize the Toxics and Hazardous Waste Reduction Laws; LD 2095, An Act to Clarify Certain Laws Pertaining to the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management; and LD 2105, An Act to Reduce Groundwater Contamination from Leaking Oil Storage Tanks.

LD 2111. Senator Sharon Treat (Kennebec) introduced this bill by describing the shortfalls in existing toxic use reduction (TUR) laws that this reauthorization bill seeks to address:

1.~DEP’s database of toxic use and waste reduction is weak and the public lacks access to the information.

2.~Due to the voluntary nature of the program, TUR goals have not been met.

3.~There is not enough TUR planning (or it is not reported).

4.~There is no reward/punishment system.

5.~Confusion exists as to which chemicals are covered in existing programs.

Ned Sullivan, DEP Commissioner, called the TUR program the "centerpiece" of DEP’s pollution reduction program. DEP’s 1995 numbers show a 51% reduction in the amount of toxics released, a 26% reduction in toxic waste generated, and a 9% reduction in toxic use. Representatives of the industries that generate the waste testified that their figures, which include 1997 data that is not yet available to DEP, show a much more dramatic reduction scenario.

The portion of the TUR reauthorization bill that disadvantages municipalities is removal of the exemption from reporting requirements that has been part of the TUR law for drinking water supply treatment facilities and municipal wastewater treatment facilities. It makes no sense to require these facilities to report chemical use that is otherwise limited by their licenses and required to protect public health. MMA staff and the Maine Waste Water Control Association offered testimony to that effect. DEP apparently anticipated and agreed with this logic because the Department offered an amendment at the public hearing that would restore the exemption for these facilities.

Those who testified agreed that the printed bill requires revision to be workable. The Maine Petroleum Association testified that the expanded list of reportable chemicals and lowered reportable quantities could require all large users of gasoline products to report usage. This group could include municipal garages. Drafters of this bill probably did not intend such an outcome and will likely remedy this aspect with other proposed amendments.

LD 2095. This bill addresses several solid waste management issues within the DEP. Of the seven sections of this bill, three were of particular municipal interest:

~Continues a record keeping requirement for DEP staffers to keep a log that records the amount of time they spend providing services to their several customers for "matters worked on, services performed and the amount of time devoted to those matters and services, as well as amounts of money expended in performing those functions". Also continues the fee schedules.

~Revises the statutory language to clarify that municipal intervention in solid waste landfill initial permitting proceedings and expansion permitting proceedings will be funded by applicants. The problem to be solved is that the statute allows funding for municipal intervenors, but does not clearly state that the permit applicants pay the reasonable costs of that participation. The DEP has denied some funding requests for lack of authority to recoup the funds from the applicant.

~Allows revocation of licenses when the fee is 30 days overdue.

At public hearing, there was no opposition to this bill. Testimony neither for nor against was offered by a Norridgewalk citizen who believes that intervenor funding should be available for landfill abutters as well as municipalities. MMA questioned the implications of the license revocation and supported the record keeping function. We believe that public availability of these records would improve the relationship between DEP and municipal licensees because it would provide a missing link from fees to DEP effort expended.

At the work session, DEP surprised us by recommending that the record keeping and fee schedule oversight be dropped from the statute in its entirety. DEP said that they do not keep such records, that they do not have the time to keep detailed records, that even if they did, they did not have the computer system to track the information, and that the work involved would add no value. Representatives Scott Cowger (Hallowell) and Steve Rowe (Portland) took exception to DEP’s request to eliminate the accounting functions, calling the record keeping just the kind of accountability we should require of all public programs.

The intervenor funding clarification was supported by the Committee. A compromise was constructed that would cross reference the license revocation to statutory language that provides a defined process for revocation, including notice and opportunity to respond before any license revocation takes place. The Committee will vote after a re-draft of the amended bill.

LD 2105. This pollution prevention bill, described in more detail in the February 12 issue of the Legislative Bulletin, allows groundwater fund money to be used to prevent leaks from underground storage tanks. At the work session held this week, stakeholders proposed a two-year pilot program using $1 million from the Ground Water Oil Clean-up Fund in FY1999 and FY2000. $750,000 will fund programs through the CAP agencies to address residentially-owned kerosene tank conversions, and $250,000 will be dedicated to DEP programs. The Fund Insurance Review Board will report to the Committee January 1, 2000 on the results of the pilot. The Committee unanimously voted the bill "ought to pass as amended".

LD 2146, An Act to Amend the Laws Concerning Participating Local Districts in the Maine State Retirement System.

This bill provides union-covered employees in all Participating Local Districts with the option of participating in a qualified pension plan other than the Maine State Retirement System. Elected and appointed municipal officials as well as non-represented municipal employees have had this option for several years. The option allows employees greater pension portability and retention of the municipal contribution on separation if they are vested with three years of service.

The proposed change was unanimously supported by labor and management representatives on the Participating Local Districts Advisory Committee in September 1997. At this week’s public hearing, Representative Pamela Hatch (Skowhegan), Representative Mike Saxl (Portland), the City of Portland, and MMA provided supportive testimony. No one opposed the bill.

LD 2186, An Act to Create the Maine Temporary Disability Benefits Law.

This bill would establish a state plan, administered by the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, to provide temporary disability benefits to workers who are covered under unemployment compensation but who cannot work because of sickness or injury that is not compensable under workers’ compensation law. Employers could opt out of the state plan, with the approval of their employees, by providing a private plan that meets minimum standards.

At this week’s public hearing, Representative Robert Pendleton (Scarboro) presented the bill in the absence of the sponsor, Representative Rob Cameron (Rumford). Only one proponent testified and little enlightenment was available as to the detailed workings of the program, experience in the six states that have similar programs, or the likely impact of such a program in Maine.

The Department of Labor, the Maine Chamber and Business Alliance, and UNUM testified against the bill, characterizing the costs as prohibitive and the administrative burdens as unacceptable. MMA staff, lacking the LPC’s input, did not testify with a position, but provided information concerning the high costs and complicated interpretations of similar programs in New York and New Jersey.

LD 77 An Act to Change the Budgeting Process for York County. Died in non-concurrence.

LD 989 AN ACT to Grandfather Existing Structures in Relation to Fire Doors and Exits (Sponsored by Rep. Tuttle of Sanford). Final ONTP.

This bill would have grandfathered structures existing before September 1, 1994, from Life Safety Code 101 requirements regarding fire doors and exits.

LD 1370 RESOLVE, to Create Pension Portability for State and Local Government (Sponsored by Rep. SAXL of Portland). Final ONTP.

This resolve would have established a commission to study pension portability for public sector employees.

LD 1915 An Act to Amend the Law Governing the Filing of Municipal Campaign Reports. Enacted in the House and Senate.

Under current law, political action committees involved with municipal referenda campaigns can file copies of their reports with the municipal clerks. This bill requires them to file the actual reports.

LD 1917 An Act to Amend the Election Laws. Enacted in the House and Senate.

This bill was submitted by the Secretary of State’s Office to make several changes to the laws governing the filing of petitions. The proposed changes, outlined in the January 16 Legislative Bulletin, would impact the citizen petition process that is primarily within the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction. Amendments to this bill clarify the procedure for submitting an application for a citizens' initiative to include a submission of written consent to the final language of the proposed law. The amendment further clarifies that written consent to the final language is needed for a citizen’’ initiative but not for a people’’ veto referendum.

LD 2028 An Act to Clarify the Authority of the Chief of the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement to Conduct Appeal Hearings. Enacted in the House and Senate.

This bill specifically establishes an authority with the Chief of the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement to conduct hearings or appoint a hearings officer to conduct hearings from appeals regarding licensing decisions by municipal officers. Under current law, it would appear that the Bureau must appoint a hearings officer for that purpose.

On Thursday, February 19th the Education Committee voted, 8 to 3, that LD 1601 RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine to Require the Legislature to Provide a Statewide System of Uniform and High Quality Education, "ought not to pass". LD 1601 proposed changes to the Maine Constitution that would have added language creating a partnership relationship between the state and municipalities, and would have held both entities responsible for providing an "equitable and adequate" K-12 education. After much debate the Committee decided that the constitutional changes proposed by the bill were premature and could be more properly addressed after the Education Committee received information on the cost of funding essential services, which will be made available next year. However, a minority report recommending that a task force be created to study this issue further will be submitted.

Monday, February 23

Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Room 109, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1312

LD 2069 An Act to Improve Public Health Protection Against Rabies Infection (Sponsor: PARADIS). (Department bill)

Business and Economic Development

Room 124, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1331

LD 2198 An Act to Implement the Recommendations Relating to the Review of the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation’s Office of the Commissioner, Office of the Consumer Credit Regulation and Office of Licensing and Registration under the State Government Evaluation Act (Submitted by the Joint Standing Committee on Business and Economic Development)

LD 2203 An Act to Create the Maine Economic Opportunity Advisory Committee (Submitted by the Task Force to Study Equal Economic Opportunity for all Regions of the State).

Education and Cultural Affairs

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

Tel. 287-3125

LD 2163 An Act to Require the State to Be Responsible for the Costs of School Employee Record Checks and Fingerprinting (Sponsor: LEMAIRE).

LD 2142 An Act to Provide Educators More Authority to Remove Violent Students from Educational Settings (Sponsor: GREEN).

State and Local Government

Room 334, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1330

LD 2112 An Act Creating the InforME Public Information Act to Ensure Access to Electronic Public Records (Sponsor: PRESIDENT LAWRENCE) (Agency bill).

Taxation

Room 221, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1552

LD 2010 An Act Regarding the State Valuation of the Town of Orono (Emergency) (Sponsor: CATHCART).

LD 2035 An Act Regarding the State Valuation of the Town of Ashland (Emergency) (Sponsor: DESMOND).

LD 2100 An Act to Permit a Local Development Commission to Assess a User Fee (Sponsor: PINGREE).

LD 2192 An Act to Create a Non-legislative System to Adjust Municipal Valuations in the Circumstance of Sudden and Severe Valuation Disruption (Sponsor: VIGUE).

Transportation

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

Tel. 287-4148

LD 2193 An Act to Allow Tow Trucks on Posted Roads (Emergency) (Sponsor: SPEAKER MITCHELL).

LD 2195 An Act Concerning Enforcement of Parking Spaces for Persons with Physical Disabilities (Sponsor: MURRAY).

LD 2199 An Act to Make Supplemental Allocations from the Highway Fund and Other Funds for the Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1998 and June 30, 1999 (Emergency) (Sponsor: DRISCOLL) (Governor’s bill).

Tuesday, February 24

Taxation

Room 221, State House, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1552

LD 2219 An Act to Reduce Income and Property Taxes (Sponsor: TRIPP) (Governor’s bill).

Wednesday, February 25

Judiciary

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

Tel. 287-1327

LD 1913 An Act to Clarify the Confidentiality of Public Employee Information (Sponsor: THOMPSON).

Friday, February 27

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (287-1338)

Natural Resources (287-4149)

Room 113, State Office Building, 10:30 a.m.

WORK SESSION on LD 1730 An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Great Pond Task Force

Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife along with the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources will jointly conduct a work session on LD 1730. A public hearing on this bill was held on April 28, 1997 and the bill was subsequently carried over for further consideration this year. A second public hearing will not be held on this bill this session, but members of the public who are interested in this issue are invited to attend the work session.

Monday, March 2

Utilities and Energy

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

Tel. 287-4143

LD 2214 An Act to Repeal the Laws Governing the Jackman Water District and the Jackman Sewer District (Submitted by the Clerks of the Jackman Water District and Jackman Sewer District).

Thursday, March 5

Legal and Veterans Affairs

Room 425, State House, 1:30 p.m.

Tel. 287-1310

LD 2202 An Act Regarding Veterans’ Benefits (Sponsor: TUTTLE).

Appropriations and Financial Affairs

LD 2224 An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue in the Amount of $16,000,000 to Construct Water Pollution Control Facilities; to Close and Clean Up Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; to Clean Up Tire Stockpiles; to Investigate, Abate, Clean Up and Mitigate Hazardous Substance Discharges; to Mitigate Storm Water Pollution through a Comprehensive Watershed Protection Program; and to Make Drinking Water System Improvements (Sponsored by Sen. Michaud of Penobscot; additional cosponsors) (Governor’s bill).

This is a $16,000,000 environmental bond issue. $6,000,000 would be used for water pollution control facilities (matching $10,000,000 in federal funds), $3,000,000 would be used to help with the construction of improvement to public drinking water facilities (matching $15,000,000 in federal funds), $3,500,000 would be used to help municipalities close solid waste landfills, $1,500,000 would be used to clean up tire piles, $1,500,000 would be used to abate hazardous waste discharges, and $500,000 would be used to fund a comprehensive lake watershed protection program.

Taxation

LD 2219 An Act to Reduce Income and Property Taxes (Sponsored by Rep. Tripp of Topsham; additional cosponsors) (Governor’s bill).

This is the Governor’s tax relief bill. It would increase the personal exemption under Maine’s income tax law (currently $2,150) to $2,400 for the income tax year beginning on January 1, 1998. An additional increase in the personal exemption to $2,750 would kick in for the income tax year beginning on January 1, 1999.

This bill also creates the Governor’s Homestead Exemption program. Unlike other property tax exemptions, but similar to the Circuit Breaker and BETR program, this homestead exemption would be administered entirely by the state. The property taxpayer would not receive an assessment reduction of $7,500. Instead, the taxpayer would pay the full property tax bill, and then file for a rebate from the state either on the income tax form or, for non-filers, on a special application form. The Department of Revenue Services would calculate each applicant’s homestead exemption rebate on the basis of a $7,500 reduction in that homeowner’s assessment, unless an insufficient amount was appropriated by the Legislature to honor that level of homestead exemption.