Legislative Bulletin February 27, 1998

HOMESTEAD ‘REBATE’ GETS PUBLIC HEARING

On Tuesday, Governor King’s plan to provide tax relief got its public hearing before the Taxation Committee.

LD 2219 An Act to Reduce Income and Property Taxes would provide two types of tax relief to the citizens of Maine.

First, the bill would reduce the exposure people have to Maine’s income tax by raising the personal deduction over a two-year period from its current level of $2,150 to the federal level of $2,750. Increasing the personal deduction to "federal conformity" would save Maine’s income taxpayers approximately $30 million to $44 million a year during the period of implementation.

The other taxpayer relief measure proposed in LD 2219 is property tax relief.

As described in last week’s Legislative Bulletin (February 20th), the Governor elected to present to the Legislature a homestead rebate program rather than a property tax homestead exemption program as originally envisioned. Unlike a property tax exemption, this homestead rebate 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.

At the public hearing, the Governor’s Chief of Staff, Kay Rand, spoke in support of LD 2219 on behalf of the King Administration. Rand promoted the Governor’s "combo tax" cut as a prudent alternative to the one penny reduction in the sales tax rate, which would cost the state $40 million more each year than has been calculated as available for tax relief purposes. The Governor’s tax relief plan, on the other hand, lives within the state’s means. Rand also touted the combo tax cut for its delivery of powerful tax relief to the average Maine householder, who would see $220 of tax relief a year under the plan.

Rand approached the actual method of delivering the property tax relief with an open mind. She described the Governor’s plan as a "homestead rebate" system, and said that both the homestead rebate and homestead exemption systems offer advantages and disadvantages in the administration. The advantages of the centrally administered homestead rebate system, according to Rand, were: (1) uniformity of administration; (2) avoidance of a state mandate on the municipal assessing function; (3) municipal budgets would not be put at risk in the event of the Legislature underfunding the reimbursement; and (4) greater fiscal accountability at the state level.

MMA testified as to the enormous municipal support for a property tax homestead exemption. For years and even decades, MMA has been seeking some structural system to provide some relief for our residential taxpayers from the punishing burden of the property tax in many communities.

Today, the property tax generates 44% of the revenues generated by the three major taxes. The income tax generates 30% of that mix and the sales tax only 26%. With a $7,500 homestead exemption, that percentage of the property tax mix drops to 42%, which would be the first major movement toward equalization of burden since the 1991 recession. The property tax share of the mix has not been under 40% since 1989.

Where MMA and the Governor’s Office begin to diverge is with respect to the method of delivering the property tax relief. As supportive as municipalities are of homestead-based relief in principle, our first choice for the administrative implementation of the homestead exemption would not be the bureaucratically-centralized rebate program as presented in LD 2219. MMA’s first choice would be an administrative system that is administered locally just like the veterans’ exemption, a successfully operating homestead exemption that has been in place in Maine for most of this century. MMA’s goal from the outset has been to reduce our citizens’ exposure to the property tax, and we believe that would be accomplished by reducing their property tax bill rather than providing a rebate check after-the-fact.

When asked by the Committee, MMA responded to the alleged advantages of the homestead rebate program as described by the Governor’s Office as follows:

1)~Uniformity of Administration. The Administration correctly points out that there are 492 administrative systems that would implement a homestead exemption, representing the assessing function performed by each of the municipalities. The local administration of governmental function is a deep-structure tradition in Maine, and localized assessing does not mean municipal assessors can operate outside of established assessing parameters. Two very important mechanisms are constantly at work to ensure assessing uniformity. First, there is a natural tension between the assessor and the taxpayer that ensures an honest assessment. Second, the state analyzes each municipality’s assessments every year according to the actual sales of property in that municipality, and determines the municipal assessment ratio and the so-called "quality rating" of the municipal assessment. These are existing, state-administered systems that act to supervise and equalize municipal assessments.

2)~Avoidance of a state mandate. The issue of the local costs of administering the homestead exemption was created in an early draft of the homestead exemption when the Governor was still contemplating the exemption (rather than a rebate) approach. In that early draft, at the insistence of the Administration, certain cumbersome and costly administrative systems were put in place that are not required for any other type of property tax exemption. For example, all applicants for the homestead exemption would be required to apply in person, setting up long lines in the municipal assessor’s office unnecessarily. After receiving the exemption in the first year, all recipients of the exemption would be required to reapply in writing every year thereafter, and if they failed to do so they would have to be disqualified formally by the municipal assessor through certified mail. These are administrative systems that would create a costly local mandate, but they are totally unnecessary. In short, the state mandate that the Governor’s new plan seeks to protect us from was a costly mandate of the Administration’s own making. The system could be administered responsibly, accountably, and much less expensively on the local level if the municipalities were given a chance to design the system.

3)~Municipal budgets at risk. The allegation is that the Legislature, facing tough financial choices during the next economic recession perhaps, would more quickly underfund the municipal reimbursement for the homestead exemption than it would cut the direct rebate to Maine’s citizens. MMA doesn’t think that’s true. Unlike the Tree Growth reimbursement program, which was underfunded from 1991 through 1997, the homestead exemption is of a sufficient magnitude that if the Legislature chose to underfund the reimbursement, the resulting mill rate shift to the property owners that are not eligible for the homestead exemption (businesses, owners of large, undeveloped parcels, owners of second homes, etc.) would be politically unacceptable. The Legislature’s moral obligation to abide by a 100% reimbursement would be front and center. In comparison, LD 2219 expressly allows the Legislature to fund the homestead rebate program at whatever level it pleases year-to-year. It is that approach that puts property tax relief at a greater peril.

4)~Greater fiscal accountability at the state level. The basis for this claim is not entirely clear to MMA. At the public hearing, the Governor’s Office referenced a clause in LD 2219 that links the actual value of the homestead rebate to whatever sum the Legislature chooses to appropriate for that purpose from year to year. As explained, the basis for this language was to protect the Department of Revenue Services from being required to issue rebate checks in the event the necessary level of funding was not appropriated. MMA pointed out that the Business Equipment Reimbursement Program (BETR) contains no such language. In fact, 36 MRSA, Section 6652 which lays out the business owner’s eligibility for reimbursement, establishes that eligibility as an "entitlement". For some reason, that same "entitlement" status is not being offered the residential homeowner in LD 2219.

Maine’s municipalities could not be more supportive of a property tax homestead exemption. It is critically important that the property tax burden is addressed. A homestead exemption is a tried-and-true method to deliver direct, accountable, and immediate property tax relief. If enacted, the distribution of tax burden among the three major tax systems would be adjusted in the direction of equity for the first time in nearly a decade. If constructed properly, a homestead exemption is simple and inexpensive to administer. A flat-rate homestead exemption carries with it a natural progressivity. All-in-all, a property tax homestead exemption accomplishes the goal of tax relief in compliance with many of the widely-recognized fundamental principles of sound tax policy.

At its February 12, 1998 meeting, MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee adopted the LPC Handbook. The Handbook was developed by a subcommittee of the LPC for the purpose of providing all LPC members with guidance as to the overall role of the LPC, the various responsibilities of LPC members, the procedures by which LPC members are nominated and elected into office, and the policy committee’s rules of procedure.

The four-page Handbook was developed primarily for the purpose of codifying long-standing practice under one cover for the benefit of all members of this important policy committee both LPC veterans and newly-elected members.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the Handbook should contact Tina Means of our State and Federal Relations staff at 1-800-452-8786.

LD 1836, An Act to Facilitate Delegation of the Federal Waste Discharge Permitting Program. In summary, this bill would facilitate the delegation of wastewater licensing from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to Maine DEP. Please see the February 6 Bulletin for more detail. MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) opposed the bill when first considered in January of this year, but at the request of the Natural Resources Committee, the LPC revisited this bill again at its February meeting and backed off from its initial opposition to a "no position" stance.

The Natural Resources Committee considered a new DEP amendment to this bill that provides for accountability and a phased-in approach to the new fees. DEP will have to report to the Committee by January 1, 2001 concerning the effectiveness of the program and recommendations for adjustments. Six of the eight new DEP staff members needed to operate the delegation program would be hired in the first year, the remaining two in the second year, and the license fee increases would follow the same step pattern. The Committee unanimously voted this bill "ought to pass as amended," including DEP’s latest revisions.

LD 1918, An Act to Clarify the Definition of Functionally Water-dependent Use as it Pertains to the Shoreland Zone. The Committee labored all week to remedy members’ confusion concerning the current language of the statute and the changes they are asked to make by the proposed legislation. Representative Linda McKee (Winthrop) told the Committee that the original intent in developing the shoreland zoning law was establish a ban on boathouses in the zone, except for commercial uses in commercial zones. The current statute has been interpreted by some Code Enforcement Officers to allow boathouses in residential zones if they are "functionally water dependent". DEP believes it has the authority to ban boathouses through rulemaking, but would rather do so through legislation because the legislation can "deem" inclusion of the ban in all currently effective municipal ordinances. Alternatively, each town would have to amend its shoreland zoning ordinance, and DEP believes compliance would not be universal and the process would allegedly take five years and an undetermined amount of money to accomplish.

At a February 25 work session, Representative Steve Rowe (Portland) offered a new amendment that would make the "functionally water-dependent uses" language applicable to inland waters and add retaining walls to the examples of functionally water-dependent uses. However, the Committee voted to use an earlier-offered DEP amendment with some revision that would specifically exclude recreational boat storage buildings from the definition of functionally water-dependent uses. This amendment includes a "deemer" clause that would make the new setback requirements a part of every municipal ordinance automatically.

MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee opposed the DEP’s approach, which the Committee has ultimately adopted, as an unwarranted intrusion of the state’s proscriptive approach to land use regulatory authority in this zone.

The Committee voted the amended bill out with only one member dissenting. Representative Ed Dexter (Kingfield) supported a minority report that would amend the original bill with Representative Rowe’s amendment. Representative Rowe was absent from the committee room when the vote was taken. Next week, the Committee will revisit the bill for a technical reading before sending it to the House.

LD 2095 An Act to Clarify Certain Laws Pertaining to the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management. In summary, this bill would make several revisions to solid waste management issues, including intervenor status in landfill expansion permitting processes and terms for license revocation. Please refer to the February 20 Bulletin for background on this bill. At work session, committee members disagreed among themselves as to whether the amended bill needed to be an emergency bill in order to apply to the Hampden landfill, which intends to file an expansion application in the near future. The Committee sought assurance from DEP staff that the Department would hold a public hearing on the Hampden application, even if it were filed prior to the effective date of these changes to the law. The Committee reported this bill unanimously "ought to pass as amended" incorporating a provision that would require the DEP to hold a public hearing upon request of a resident or taxpayer of the municipality in which the facility is located.

Draft Legislation, Non-point Source Pollution: Following up on the Non-point Source Pollution Report, described in the February 13 Bulletin, this week the Committee considered a draft bill, An Act to Reduce Non-point Source Pollution from Existing Sources. As drafted by the Committee, the bill will be printed and scheduled for public hearing. The drafted bill combines the goals of reducing pollution from non-point sources and alters the shoreland zoning laws. The draft authorizes the Municipal Bond Bank to make loans from the clean water revolving loan fund (currently restricted to municipalities, water utilities, and public water systems) to any nonprofit organization proposing to reduce non-point source pollution, such as a phosphorus loading from entering an inland water body. This bill would also make it illegal to use fertilizer containing phosphorus on a lawn or similar landscaped area within a lake or pond watershed except for initial establishment of the lawn or when a soil test indicates that phosphorus is needed to maintain vegetation.

Lastly, the bill provides for an alternative expansion requirement for use in the shoreland zone. Municipalities may adopt an ordinance that permits the expansion of principal and accessory structures that do not meet the water setback requirements approved by the board if the ordinance is no less restrictive than the requirements described in the bill. Instead of allowing expansions up to 30% of the existing footprint, the alternative would create maximum aggregate structural square footage allowances. Within the first 75’ setback, the maximum aggregate structural allowance would be 1,000 square feet. Within the 100’ setback, the maximum aggregate structural allowance would be 1,500 square feet. A special expansion allowance would be allowed if the property owner created and maintained a 50’ buffer strip of vegetation along the shoreline. In those cases, the maximum aggregate structural square footage allowance would increase by 500 square feet (to 1,500 square feet within 75’ of the shoreline, and 2,000 square feet within 100’ of the shoreline). The bill establishes standards for the expansion of nonconforming structures, including floor area and height limits. A written plan to implement measures to mitigate non-point source pollution must also be approved by the planning board for certain expansion. The buffer requirement will require planning board interpretation, as well as enforcement.

On behalf of York County, Representative Howard Chick (Lebanon) submitted a bill this session (LD 1976) that would have allowed York County to assess all the municipalities twice during its fiscal year instead of just the single assessment, which under general county law may be assessed no earlier than September 1.

York County’s interest in this bill was to improve its cash flow position, reduce its need for borrowing, and thereby reduce its operating costs.

From the outset, the county representatives made it clear to the State and Local Government Committee that LD 1976 was absolutely not intended to financially disadvantage any York County municipalities on the long term or even during the implementation stage of the two-tax-billing system.

From the municipal perspective, the problem with LD 1976 is that there is no way to implement a multiple-installment tax billing system for county government without demanding from those municipalities that are now operating on a state fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) an implemention-year assessment that is 150% of the normal annual assessment.

York County officials, the Committee’s legal analyst, MMA, and Senator Jill Goldthwait (Hancock) of the State and Local Government Committee worked every angle of implementation and were unable to come up with an plan that would get the County to an improved cash flow position without imposing significant property tax impacts on the local level, especially among the larger York County municipalities that tend to be on a state fiscal year and shoulder large annual county assessments.

After a few implementation plans were floated and their flaws discovered, York County approached the bill’s sponsor and asked him to withdraw the legislation. Technically, a bill can’t be withdrawn at this stage in the process, but the Committee recognized the inherent problem with the bill and voted it out of Committee "ought not to pass".

On Tuesday, February 24 the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee unanimously voted that LD 2069, An Act to Improve Public Health Protection Against Rabies Infection, "ought to pass as amended".

This bill addresses two important municipal issues, first it requires that once an owner identifies a dog as a wolf-hybrid it is to remain so all of its life. Since a vaccination protecting wolf-hybrids against rabies has not yet been created, the law requires that when a wolf-hybrid bites a person or other domesticated animal, the wolf-hybrid must be euthanized. Currently, when faced putting down their pet, many owners are inclined to maintain that the animal in question is not a wolf-hybrid. This change in definition would enable the ACOs to reference the law prohibiting that change in status and act accordingly. Second, the bill also authorizes municipalities to place a lien on the property belonging to the owner of an improperly quarantined animal in order to recover the municipal costs for enforcement of the quarantine.

Both the Department of Human Services and Department of Agriculture recommended that LD 2069 be amended to included additional rabies provisions. The bill as amended: 1) requires that unless there exists an immediate threat to public health and safety, an animal required to be euthanized is to be removed from the premises before such action is taken; 2) makes changes throughout the bill adding language that requires a wolf-hybrid be euthanized under the same circumstances which require other domesticated animals to be quarantined; 3) requires animal control officers to apply, at the owners expense, to District Court or Superior Court for an immediate order to seize an animal when the owner fails to comply with a requirement to quarantine or euthanize an animal; 5) changes the requirement to vaccinate a cat against rabies from every two years to intervals recommended by a national association of state public health veterinarians; and 6) exempts the owner of a cat from the rabies vaccination requirement when a licensed veterinarian provides a written statement that, for a medical reason, the cat can not be vaccinated. The Committee supported these amendments proposed by the two state agencies.

LD 753, An Act to Allow Police to Take Intoxicated Persons into Custody. As originally written, this bill would allow law enforcement officers to take intoxicated persons into protective custody by placing them in a municipal or county jail or lock-up, and holding them there for up to 12 hours. The Committee’s amended version creates a new bill, An Act to Require Law Enforcement Agencies to Collect Data Regarding Public Intoxication, to Extend Immunity from Liability to Law Enforcement Officers and to Establish a Group to Study Involuntary Commitment of persons Suffering from Chronic and Life-threatening Substance Abuse. This new bill carries both mandate and emergency preambles, because it imposes a mandate on municipalities and the Committee believes that the data collection required in the new bill is needed immediately.

New law enforcement agency responsibilities flowing from this bill include: 1) records must be kept of all incidents of public intoxication; and 2) beginning in April, 1998, monthly reports of public intoxication must be submitted to the Department of Public Safety that detail number of cases, number of repeat cases, number of persons transported to a treatment facility, number of persons transported to their residence, and the number of persons left at the scene of the incident. The bill purports to grant immunity from liability to any law enforcement officer who fails to provide assistance to an intoxicated person if that person refuses assistance, suggesting by implication that law enforcement liability exists whenever intoxicated persons do not refuse police assistance.

The study group required by this legislation would include law enforcement representatives along with state agency members and one advocacy group representative. Their work product would include both recommendations and implementing legislation for the development of a comprehensive network of services for persons who are found publicly intoxicated and who are chemically dependent and may pose a threat to themselves or others. Services examined are to include involuntary commitment.

On February 12, the LPC voted to oppose the original version of this bill because of the lack of immunity under federal law for police officers imposing protective custody. Unfortunately, this bill has not received the attention it deserved from MMA and we find the amended version to be as problematic as the original bill, but for different reasons. We would like to see the study group include representation of the municipal offices as well as municipal law enforcement personnel because the study could result in recommendations that have an overall municipal impact. Also, the immunity provision in the new bill, which gives immunity to officers that do not provide assistance when assistance is refused, could be worse than no immunity provision at all because it implies that there is no immunity for situations not listed (for example, if assistance is requested but not provided).

The Committee held public hearings on two bills this week that if enacted, will require municipal attention:

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 Consumer Credit Regulation and Office of Licensing and Registration under the State Government Evaluation Act. This bill is the product of the 10-year evaluation of the Department by the Business and Economic Development Committee and makes a number of housekeeping changes to the Department’s enabling statutes. This legislation moves oversight of the internal plumbing code from the Department of Human Services (DHS) to the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation (DPFR) and gives the regulating board joint authority, along with municipalities, to enforce the rules. The subsurface plumbing code would remain under the authority of DHS, causing a split in agency contact that municipal local plumbing inspectors would have to deal with. While this bill grants rulemaking authority for plumbing and plumbing code rules to the Board, it does not preempt the authority of municipalities to adopt more restrictive ordinances.

LD 2203, An Act to Create the Maine Economic Opportunity Advisory Committee, would continue the work of the Task Force to Study Equal Economic Opportunity for All Regions of the State. A member representing the Maine Municipal Association would work with the 17-member committee. There was very little testimony, and no opposition to this bill at public hearing.

During this week’s work session for LD 2186, An Act to Create the Maine Temporary Disability Benefits Law, described in more detail in the February 20 Bulletin, Sponsor, Representative Rob Cameron (Rumford) told the Labor Committee that this bill is too complicated to be adequately considered in the time remaining, and that he is not certain that this bill would remedy the perceived problem. Responding to his request to withdraw, the Committee unanimously voted this bill "ought not to pass."

On Tuesday, February 24, the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee unanimously voted that sections of the Animal Welfare bill carried over into the second session "ought to pass as amended". After much redrafting, the Committee reported out a piece of legislation that balances the needs of the Department of Agriculture and protects the best interest of the municipalities. Although several changes were made to the existing law, two in particular are of municipal interest.

First, as originally proposed, municipalities would have been required to designate a municipal official or employee to respond when the appointed ACO (animal control officer) was unavailable. As written, this provision would have required municipalities to have on staff two trained ACOs rather than the one currently required. The Committee amended the language to require municipalities to provide coverage, through a mutual aid agreement or other means, in the absence of the appointed ACO.

Second, although fines on municipalities for noncompliance to the responsibilities of the ACO were increased fivefold, the Committee did agreed to remove from the list of ACO responsibilities references to chapters 733 (Transportation of Animals) and 739 (Cruelty to Animals) of Title 7 M.R.S.A. Both chapters 733 and 739 require the ACO to enforce a criminal code, which is an authority ACO’s generally do not possess unless appropriately trained at the Criminal Justice Academy.

The bill also makes the following changes: 1) amends the definition of breeding kennels to include cats; 2) enacts the definition of dog to include wolf hybrids; 3) allows an animal control officer to take a dog running at large to an animal shelter when the owner is known if the dog has been found running at large three or more times in a 6-month period; 4) amends provisions pertaining to euthanasia; 5) increases fines for violations pertaining to uncontrolled dogs; 6) removes the requirement that a dog wear a rabies tag and replaces the tag with a sticker; 7) removes the requirement that notices of violations of licensing provision be sent by certified mail; 8) includes an assault against a domesticated animal in the provisions pertaining to dangerous dogs; 9) repeals provisions in statute regarding ferrets; 10) changes the time a person has to remove an animal in violation of the trespass law from 6 to 12 hours; 11) allows a court to order restitution to a person whose property is damaged by a trespassing animal; 12) makes cruelty to birds a Class D crime with a minimum mandatory fine of $100 and 13) provides for a minimum mandatory fine of $500 for animal fighting.

LD 515 AN ACT to Set a Fixed Rate for Housing of State Prisoners. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 537 AN ACT to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue in the Amount of $25,000,000 to Build 3 Regional Psychiatric Facilities. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 968 AN ACT to Require Recommended Silvicultural Stocking Standards on Land Ownerships Enrolled under the Tree Growth Tax Laws. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1325 AN ACT to Make the State Board of Education Elected. Accepted majority "Ought Not to Pass" committee report in House and Senate.

LD 1358 AN ACT to Amend the Procedures for Finalizing the Kennebec County Budget. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1359 AN ACT to Amend the Androscoggin County Budget Process. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1416 AN ACT Concerning Eligibility for Service on a School Board. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1732 AN ACT to Provide Choice to Maine’s Electricity Customers. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1811 AN ACT to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue in the Amount of $10,000,000 for Construction of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1912 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Guilford-Sangerville Water District to Increase the Bond Authorization. Emergency enacted in the House and Senate.

LD 1934 Resolve, to Transfer Spectacle Pond from the State of Maine to the Town of Vassalboro. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1937 An Act to Restore the Requirement that Certain Expenditures of the Waldoboro Utility District Be Approved by District Vote. Emergency enacted in the House and Senate.

LD 1921 An Act to Reduce the Cost of Archery Hunting Licenses for the Special Archery Season on Deer. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 1979 Resolve, Requiring the State to Reimburse Towns for the Construction of Salt and Sand Storage Facilities. Accepted majority "Ought Not to Pass" committee report in House and Senate.

LD 1985 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Bath Water District. Emergency enacted in the House and Senate.

LD 1990 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Bingham Water District. Enacted in the House and Senate.

LD 1992 An Act Relating to Forfeited Firearms. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 2055 An Act Regarding the Delayed Reregistration of Certain Trucks. Ought Not to Pass.

LD 2065 An Act Relating to the State Valuation of the Town of Wiscasset. Indefinitely postponed.

LD 2066 Resolve, Concerning Highway Construction in Aroostook County. Ought Not to Pass.

The utilities industry may have successfully lobbied against the original intent of LD 2025 An Act to Reduce Technical Violations of Maine’s Laws Regarding the Protection of Underground Utilities.

As described in last week’s Legislative Bulletin, LD 2025 would correct an overreach of the utilities companies enacted in 1997 which allows the utility companies to financially punish municipalities for excavation work municipalities do when maintaining the municipal right-of-way.

Ironically, many of the utility representatives providing testimony in opposition to the bill were well aware of the bill’s corrective intent, and had four months prior to the public hearing supported the language found in LD 2025. On October 23, 1997 representatives from DOT, MMA, MTA (Maine Turnpike Authority), members of the Dig Safe board, Central Maine Power and AT&T met to discuss the issues. It was the understanding of DOT, MMA and MTA that all parties reached consensus on the language found in LD 2025. Although not every utility provider took part in the discussion, the bill was the result of a thoughtful process and not written impulsively to exempt DOT and municipalities from the Dig Safe laws. This bill would merely enable DOT and municipalities to work on their own roads without being subject to a civil forfeiture of up to $1,000.

On Monday, February 23 the Utilities Committee held a work session on LD 2025 and voted to table the bill until the amendments proposed during the work session could be drafted. The Committee is seriously considering replacing the language found in the bill with provisions entirely unrelated the original intent of the bill. The proposed amendments would enable mining and the pulp and paper industries to apply for a one-year application to operate in areas without underground utilities. Currently, whether a utility exists or not, the mining and paper companies are required to file with Dig Safe on a monthly basis. The amendment would also include a provision to revoke the annual application if necessary. The Committee will meet either next Wednesday, March 3 or Friday, March 5 to complete their work on this bill. Municipal officials are encourage to contact their legislators in order to gather support for LD 2025 as it was originally written and, at least at one point in time, supported by some of the utilities that are now opposed to its passage.

On Wednesday, February 25, the Transportation Committee unanimously voted that LD 1947 AN ACT to Improve Traffic Safety, "ought not to pass". LD 1947 would have provided an opportunity for municipalities to incorporate technology in their efforts to protect residents. Through the use of cameras strategically placed at intersections, law enforcement agencies could reduce the danger and injuries involved with running red lights, illegal stops, and driver inattentiveness. This bill would have provided municipalities with a mechanism to utilize a cost-effective alternative for accurately and consistently monitoring busy residential streets without hiring additional law enforcement officers.

Although many of Committee members raised concerns that the use of cameras could be viewed as an invasion of privacy, and the process outlined in the bill would place the violators in the position of being guilty until proven innocent, they did express some interest. The Committee recommended that the City of Portland setup the cameras on an experimental basis without being able to use any information generated for enforcement purposes, and submit to the 119th Legislature its findings. The Committee felt that this trial period would generate much-needed feedback from the law enforcement agency and provide citizen reaction as well. What the Committee may not have considered is the likelihood of a municipality investing in both the hard and soft costs of this kind of project with no apparent likelihood of actually putting it to use.

On Monday this week the Judiciary Committee wrapped up its work on LD 1670 An Act to Limit Indemnification in Construction Contracts.

As described in more detail in the January 23 Legislative Bulletin, LD 1670 would prohibit indemnification clauses in construction contracts between municipalities and general contractors that place the burden of liability protection on the general contractor for the period of time the contractor controls the construction site.

MMA and others representing "owners," including the Maine Pulp and Paper Association, opposed LD 1670 because without the freedom to negotiate meaningful indemnification clauses in the contract development process, the owners can become the "deep pocket" drawn into litigation even though they have only the fractional "owner’s" share of responsibility.

LD 1670 is similar in nature to another bill that is presently before the State and Local Government Committee, LD 1551 An Act to Limit the Amount of Retainage on Public Building Projects. Both pieces of legislation attempt to limit and manage the contractual relationship on construction projects to the disadvantage of the owner.

A majority of the Judiciary Committee voted "Ought Not to Pass" on LD 1670. In making the ought-not-to-pass motion, Senator John Benoit (Franklin) said that he felt his job as Senator was to represent the interests of his constituents, and that the constituent response he received on this proposal, including the municipal response, was negative.

It appears that the Committee’s ought-not-to-pass vote will be 10-3. Representatives Plowman (Hampden), Nass (Acton), and Madore (Augusta) will be signing on to an amended version of LD 1670 as a minority report.

Monday, March 2

Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Room 113, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.

Tel. 287-1312

LD 1874 An Act to Establish Limitations on Swine-feeding Operations (Sponsor: PARADIS).

The Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to LD 1874. The amendment changes the title to "An Act Regarding Nutrient Management" and proposes requirements for nutrient management plans for certain livestock operations and restrictions on manure spreading during the winter. The amendment also proposes a moratorium on new swine operations with greater than 500 swine.

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 the Jackman Sewer District).

LD 2221 An Act to Dissolve the Ogunquit Sewer District and Establish a Sewerage Department (Emergency) (Sponsor: WHEELER G).

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).

Health and Human Services

LD 2225 An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Maine Commission on Children’s Health Care (Reported by Rep. Berry for the Maine Commission on Children’s Health Care pursuant to Public Law 1997, c. 560, Part B).

In two steps, this bill expands the level of Medicaid coverage for Maine children. First, Medicaid heath care coverage would be made available to children over one year in age and under 18 years of age whose family income is less than 150% of the federal poverty level. Second, a "Cub Care" program would be created to provide a premium-paid level of health care coverage for children of that same age bracket whose family income is less than 185% of the federal poverty level.