Legislative Bulletin, January 30, 1998

INTERGOVERNMENTAL TASK FORCE PROPOSAL SCALED DOWN

The Governor’s Task Force on Intergovernmental Structure met on Tuesday this week to review the recent developments that have taken place regarding the Task Force recommendation, as presented to the Governor on December 16, 1997.

As municipal officials are well aware, the Task Force recommendation would: (1) create a county revenue sharing program so that the state services provided by county government would be paid for with state revenues; (2) require all counties that wished to participate in that revenue sharing system to adopt charters, establish the position of county manager or administrator, and establish minimum qualifications for the position of county treasurer; and (3) establish a continuing forum for state, county, and local government leaders to work out the differences that may exist between the levels of government and develop more efficient ways to deliver governmental services.

The Task Force recommendation carries with it a substantial fiscal note. Assuming all 16 counties eventually participated in the county revenue sharing system, the state’s General Fund would be tapped to the tune of $40 million annually.

Evan Richert, the Director of the State Planning Office and the chairperson of the Task Force, informed the group that a combination of circumstances has made it impossible for the Governor to recommend that the Legislature implement Task Force proposal in its entirety in 1998. The recommendation to the Task Force was to go forward with a much scaled-down version this year, and to "grow" the program in stages over subsequent years.

The first reason for this scaled-back approach was that the price tag associated with the Task Force recommendation was too large to accommodate within the $75 million that has now been identified as tax relief revenues that can be safely tapped year after year without creating structural deficits in future state budgets.

Although the details of the Governor’s tax relief package won’t be known until his State-of-the-State address on Monday, February 2, it is clear that the Governor intends to earmark a good chunk of that $75 million for "broad-based" tax relief. Broad-based tax relief could include reductions in the sales tax rate or increases to the income tax standard deduction.

The Governor has also expressed an interest in providing substantial property tax relief. Because the Maine Municipal Association has advanced the property tax homestead exemption as its top funding priority, the Governor found it impossible to fund an immediate, substantial property tax relief effort and the Intergovernmental Task Force proposal at the same time. The amount of money that is on the table simply can’t be stretched that far.

According to Evan Richert, the second reason the Governor has decided to scale back the implementation of the Task Force proposal is because there does not yet appear to be anywhere near sufficient legislative support to enact the Task Force recommendation. According to Richert, it would be far better to advance an incremental, scaled-down version of the Task Force proposal and be successful, rather than fail in the effort to advance the comprehensive package.

The Task Force members took in this new development with a little anger, much discouragement, and some patient optimism. The Task Force as a whole put an extraordinary effort toward the development and advancement of its proposal, spending nearly a year to develop the recommendation, crisscrossing the state during September and October to explain it and urge its consideration, and finally re-shaping the final draft in consideration of all the input it received during the public hearing process.

The patient optimism came from many Task Force members who recognized that the best ideas can take time to take root, and discovered much to be positive about in the development of the plan itself, and the thoroughly constructive working relationship that had developed among the members of the Task Force, who began the process in October of 1996 at completely opposite ends of the table.

As a result of the information provided by Evan Richert, the Task Force reshaped the proposal to accomplish the following:

1)~Amend a section of Title 30-A to clarify the general authority of county government to provide a broad array of services to municipalities that are willing to contract on a voluntary basis with the counties for those services.

2)~Continue the efforts of the Intergovernmental Task Force by executing a memorandum of agreement between the Governor, the Maine Association of County Commissioners, and the Maine Municipal Association. The proposal would seek the appointment of several legislators to the Task Force to more securely link the Legislature with the state-county-local effort.

3)~Create a modest grant program so that the counties along with a number of municipalities within them could apply for demonstration grants to help fund the creation of new service delivery systems on a regional basis.

4)~Explore retaining more of the Real Estate Transfer Tax at the county level. Currently, only 10% of the Transfer Tax collected by the county stays there. A proposal was enacted last session, but killed on the Appropriations Table, that would have increased the counties’ share to 25% of the Transfer Tax without affecting the appropriate level of Transfer Tax revenues that historically accrued to the Maine State Housing Authority. The Task Force expressed an interest in reviving that proposal to represent the state’s interest in paying a greater share for the services it demands of county government.

A proposal along these lines is currently being formatted as a legislative proposal to be presented to the Governor for his approval.

The Maine Education Association held a press conference on Wednesday this week to unveil the results of a public opinion survey it recently commissioned. The telephone survey was conducted among 501 Maine voters between December 5 and December 8, 1997 by the polling firm Kiley and Company of Boston, Massachusetts. According to the pollster, the responses are subject to a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5%, at a 95% confidence level.

The respondents were asked a series of questions about public education and tax relief. The poll elicited the following response this question: "If state leaders decide to use the (tax revenue) surplus to reduce taxes, which one of the following proposals would you support?"

~Reduce local property taxes: 41%

~Reduce the state income tax: 27%

~Reduce the state sales tax: 20%

~Repeal the snack tax: 8%

These results perfectly parallel the results of a similar poll conducted by the Maine Municipal Association in July of 1996. The results of that poll, conducted by the national, independent polling firm Command Research and surveying 600 Maine citizens, showed that property taxes were regarded as the most objectionable by a 2.5 to 1 margin over the income or sales tax.

Next week the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry will wrap-up their work on the Department of Agriculture’s proposed Animal Welfare legislation. One of the remaining issues before the Committee is whether or not language requiring municipalities to "designate a municipal employee to respond or act in the absence of the animal control officer" qualifies as a mandate upon municipalities. We feel that this proposed language, with associated increases to the financial penalties that may be assessed against municipal officials, is a very real mandate that piggybacks on a mandate passed to municipalities in 1993.

Just months after the voters of Maine amended the Maine Constitution to protect municipalities from the cost of new state mandates in 1992, the 116th Legislature passed into law a bill that holds municipalities responsible for "responding to reports of animals suspected of having rabies in accordance with Title 22, sections 1313 and 1313-A." This amendment not only shifted new responsibilities to ACO’s, but the cost associated with the transportation, quarantine, euthanasia and testing of a suspected rabid stray domestic animals. With the enactment of that law animal control officers (ACO’s) became responsible to: 1) control or capture suspected rabid stray domesticated animals; 2) coordinate with and transport sick stray animals directly to a veterinarian; 3) if authorized, shoot or otherwise humanely euthanize a suspected rabid animal; and 4) if testing to the suspected rabid animal is necessary, arrange for decapitation of the animal and assure transport of the animal to the Health & Environmental Testing Laboratory.

The Animal Welfare legislation now being reviewed by the Committee shifts a new mandate to municipalities by requiring municipalities to designate a municipal employee to act as "back-up" when the appointed ACO is unavailable. A complementary portion of the bill would increase by five-fold the financial penalty assessed against any "mayor, municipal officer, clerk, town or city manager, administrative assistant to the mayor, town or city councilor, dog recorder of unorganized territories, constable, police officer, sheriff or animal control officer" who refused or intentionally failed to comply with their mandated responsibilities. The selectmen, councilors, code enforcement officers, public work crews, and so on do not have the training necessary to "act" as the ACO. In order to meet the requirements of this new language, municipalities will be mandated to appoint another trained and certified animal control officer to respond to any circumstance when the ACO is "unavailable".

As proposed by the Department of Agriculture, the language that is moving forward through the committee would, on its face, require municipalities to designate untrained officials to perform functions that in other sections of this law require be performed only by trained and certified ACO’s. Municipal officials concerned about these proposed changes should contact their legislators immediately.

On January 23, 1998, MMA provided testimony to the Natural Resources Committee detailing the Legislative Policy Committee’s position in opposition to this bill. MMA’s opposition is based on the municipal desire to preserve land use regulation that flows from locally adopted policy and to preserve local interpretation of what uses are functionally water dependent.

After hearing supporting testimony of the sponsor (the Department of Environmental Protection) and a Greenville code enforcement officer and testimony in opposition from MMA, an environmental consulting firm, and a landscape architect, the Committee continued with a work session on the bill. The Committee, experiencing difficulty in reaching consensus, designated a subcommittee to consider the issues and report back. The subcommittee, consisting of Representatives Scott Cowger (Hallowell), Linda McKee (Wayne), and Cliff Foster (Gray), asked that MMA work with them in a meeting scheduled for February 2.

LD 1730 represents the recommendation of the Great Ponds Task Force. The bill had two major components: (1) establishing various restrictions on the use of "personal watercraft" (jet skis) on the great ponds; and (2) providing a variety of funding mechanisms to gather financial resources for a Lakes Heritage Trust fund, which would grant out those funds to organizations and groups that have ideas about improving the water quality of Maine’s lakes and ponds.

The funding mechanisms for these components, and restoration of the Lakes Program at the DEP, include requiring municipalities to assess a $10 fee annually to all dwelling units in shoreland zones, and an increase to the real estate transfer tax for properties sold in the watersheds of Great Ponds. Most troublesome to municipalities is the $10 assessment and MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee voted last week to oppose this bill on that basis.

In its January 26 work session, the Natural Resources Committee heard Evan Richert’s presentation of the State Planning Office’s latest iteration of this bill. Absent from the proposal is the $10 property assessment. Richert explained that he believed the bill would not pass with that provision because it is so unpopular with MMA and others.

The Committee split the issues in this bill, maintaining the personal watercraft issues in LD 1730 and re-referring this bill jointly to the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, with IF&W as lead. The Committee will use LD 80, An Act to Protect Internal Waters of the State, completely rewritten, as a vehicle for restoration of the Lakes Program. Some legislators, including Representatives Steve Rowe (Portland) and Linda McKee (Wayne), were not willing to give up on the $10 property assessment as a funding mechanism for the Lakes Program. The Committee asked DEP for some historical information on the former Lakes Program’s composition and funding and will entertain alternative funding mechanisms at the work session, scheduled for February 2.

The "delegation" bill testimony was heard at public hearing during the first legislative session. This bill facilitates the delegation of authority to administer the Wastewater Discharge Licensing and Management Program from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee voted, by a large majority, to oppose this bill. During its deliberations, the LPC indicated:

~Concern about the new fees that might be imposed by DEP to pay for delegataion;

~Belief there is value in having federal staff interpret federal rules;

~That delegation may create procedural efficiencies to wastewater treatment plant operators, but noted that the treatment plant operators often don’t handle the ultimate administrative aspects of wastewater treatment operations, such as the negotiation of regulatory consent agreements;

~Concern about the relationship with DEP;

~Belief that this would ask towns to subsidize a new layer of government, providing services that the federal government currently provides without cost.

Before working the bill, Representative Steve Rowe (Portland) asked those present how many would oppose the bill, even with amendments. Many responded, including MMA. As expressed at the work session, the overwhelming issue of concern was the magnitude of post-delegation licensing fees.

Continuing to work the bill on January 26, the Committee questioned DEP concerning the composition of the fee structure and the staffing needs of DEP in relation to the wastewater program. The Committee consensus is that delegation would be good for Maine’s environment as well as Maine’s license holders, but that "sticker shock" is the source of the strong opposition.

DEP’s proposed fee structure for post-delegation wastewater discharge licenses represents a choice of "fairness over simplicity", according to DEP. Fees equal the sum of a base fee (fixed rate for groups representing the most significant discharge), plus a discharge rate in which pollutants are evaluated separately, plus adjustments (for dilution factor, or fixed fee for each point source in same license).

The program cost is estimated to be just short of $1.7 million per year for 10 positions at DEP and a stipend for the attorney general’s office for legal support. The proposed funding sources are: $486,480 (29%) federal funds; $638,676 (39%) general fund; and $533,009 (32%) license fees.

LD 1972 is the legislative recommendation coming out of a DEP study of the practice of burning trash in outdoor burn barrels. Because the Legislative Policy Committee has not yet had an opportunity to take a position on this bill, MMA’s testimony was of an informational nature only, and did not state a position. Our testimony brought these issues to the Committee’s attention:

Setbacks. LD 1972 would require the administration and enforcement of a 300 foot set back between any burn barrel and a property line or residential property. The Interagency’s report on the subject determined that barrel burning generally occurs in rural communities. In many cases, a property line setback in rural towns makes little sense and is difficult to administer. MMA offered the proposition that the setback would be easier to administer if it applied to structures rather than property lines. Setback from a property line often has no bearing on exposure to air quality and health hazards associated with backyard burning.

MMA also pointed out that a set back of any kind represents a new mandated requirement to municipalities. If enacted, the fire chiefs and code personnel will have to permit backyard burning on the basis of the setback provision and enforce the setback provision with on-site visits either randomly, periodically, or on a by-complaint basis.

Municipal Incentives. LD 1972 would create a preference for solid waste management grants, administered now through the State Planning Office, to those municipalities with house-to-house trash pick-up. From MMA staff perspective, this incentive is not properly connected to the goal. The implementation of house-to-house trash pick-up makes no financial sense to hundreds of municipalities that, nonetheless, do not allow backyard burning, either by ordinance, or practice of the local fire chief. Those municipalities should have the same access to solid waste management grants as municipalities with house-to-house pick up. From our perspective it would be much more straightforward to provide the grant preference simply to municipalities that ban backyard burning, if that’s the goal.

As the study group developed its report, the Natural Resources Committee members were asked to assist in developing the recommendations. Consequently, the Committee has considerable buy-in. Even though the Department of Environmental Protection representative presenting the report, Jim Brooks, stated that DEP would be satisfied with a 148 foot setback, based on the scientific information it has analyzed, the Committee members providing input to the study group apparently pushed for the 300 foot setback provision. The explicitly stated purpose of the 300-foot setback is to eliminate most urban and suburban burning.

The Taxation Committee met on Thursday this week in a continuation of its ongoing effort to develop a recommendation for the distribution of nearly $185 million of tax relief and tax surplus revenues that are projected to accrue to the state over the next two years.

As reported in last week’s Legislative Bulletin, the Committee has already made a recommendation for the distribution of $28.4 million of that total sum. The $28.4 million represents money that has already accrued to the state’s treasury as surplus General Fund revenues from fiscal year 1997. The Committee recommended last week that $4.5 million of that money be diverted into the state’s Rainy Day Fund, $11.3 million be added to the FY 99 appropriation for General Purpose Aid to Education, and the remaining $12.6 million be included with the remaining money on the table to help finance the more comprehensive tax reduction and tax reform recommendations that the Committee has yet to develop.

With those decisions in place, the Committee still has the task before it of determining how approximately $170 million be used to provide tax relief to the citizens of the state.

On the basis of the Committee’s discussion on Thursday, it would appear that a consensus report is going to be very difficult to achieve, and that at least two competing reports will come out of the Committee that are very much oriented along party lines.

Senator Richard Ruhlin (Penobscot), Senate Chair of the Taxation Committee, suggested that it was his impression that the Republican party was strongly and uniformly in favor of utilizing all available tax relief and reform revenues for the purposes of reducing the sales tax rate from 6 percent to 5 percent. This single change would reduce state revenues by $115 million a year.

Senator Ruhlin indicated that the majority, Democratic party was in the process of reaching consensus on a different approach. The majority report, it was explained, would involve segregating the available revenues to achieve three purposes: (1) one-time expenditures that would reduce the state’s ongoing obligations, including reductions in the state’s unfunded liabilities in both the Workers Compensation and Maine State Retirement systems; (2) substantial investments in public education, such as increases to the General Purpose Aid to Education account and capital improvements to public school facilities; and (3) structural tax relief and reform proposals that will likely include income tax relief by increasing the value of the standard deduction from its present level of $2,150 to the federal level of $2,650, and a property tax homestead exemption. Senator Ruhlin explained that the Senate Democratic caucus and the House Democratic caucus had yet to come to consensus on the precise details of the homestead exemption. This "majority" party recommendation, according to Ruhlin, would not impose year-after-year financial obligations to the state treasury that would exceed the level of on-going, extra state revenues that have been identified.

Several Republican legislators on the tax panel, including Senator Peter Mills (Somerset) and Representatives Robert Spear (Nobleboro), John Buck (Yarmouth), and Peter Cianchette (South Portland), indicated that although the Republican caucus was strongly in favor of the one penny sales tax reduction, the stated goals of the Democrats’ plan were also of interest to the Republican party, and that they felt there were enough available revenues to accomplish all of those purposes. That stated capacity of the available revenues to accomplish all of those goals was somewhat contradicted by the information then provided by the Committee’s non-partisan analyst, Kevin Madigan, who reviewed the actual breakdown of the available revenues by source and amount. The review indicated that no more than $75 million a year could be counted on in the outlying years for the purposes of ongoing tax relief or reform.

The Committee concluded its efforts for the day without taking any further steps to develop a recommendation. It would appear that the two parties are still trying to formulate the details of their respective recommendations, and that both are waiting for the Governor’s proposed tax relief and tax reform plan, which should be announced in his State of the State address on Monday, February 2.

The State and Local Government Committee took up a carry over bill this Wednesday that in its printed form would prohibit any provision in a construction contract for a state public facility that allows the owner to withhold a percentage of the total contract (typically 5%) pending acceptance of the project.

LD 1551 An Act to Amend the Amount of Retainage on Public Building Projects-is sponsored by Representative Debra Plowman (Hampden) and supported by the Associated Constructors of Maine, among others.

In its printed version, LD 1551 would have applied only to contracts between general contractors and the State of Maine. Last session, the bill was amended by the Committee to sweep in county and local governments as well. At the last minute, the Committee decided to carry the bill over into the second session rather than report it out to the full Legislature in its amended form.

The purpose of "retainage" provisions is to allow the owner to review a constructed project at the final stage, develop a "punch list" of final alterations or repairs that need to be performed under the contract, and otherwise finally inspect the project before accepting it. From the municipal perspective, retainage is a freely and openly negotiated contract provision that serves to protect the interest of the taxpayers by creating an effective protection system against poor workmanship or inadequate performance.

The proponents of LD 1551 argue that retainage provisions are unfair to subcontractors, especially those subcontractors who perform their work at the beginning of large construction projects, because the general contractor withholds the subcontractor’s share of the overall retainage until it is released by the owner, which in the case of large construction projects can be many months to over a year.

Between the first and second legislative sessions, a working group was established, unbeknownst to MMA or any other entity representing owners of local government public facilities, to re-craft LD 1551. This "Technical Advisory Group" consisted of Representative Richard Campbell (Holden), the Executive Director of the Associated Constructors of Maine, another representative of that group, an electrical contractor, two engineering companies, an architect, the architect for the Department of Education, the Director and an engineer of the state’s Bureau of General Services, and the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Administration and Financial Services.

As explained to the Committee on Wednesday, the working group began with an understanding that contractual retainage provisions have to be controlled, to some extent, by state law. It was also mentioned that the principal focus of the concerns from the construction community was school construction projects.

The actual legislation implementing the recommendation of the working group has yet to be drafted. The recommendation, in concept, presented to the Committee would accomplish the following:

~The changes to the law governing contractual retainage provisions would pertain only to school construction projections and projects where the state is owner. From what we can tell, the recommended changes would apply whether the school construction project is funded largely with state funds or entirely with local funds, as is the case with many renovation projects.

~The changes would apply only to construction projects that cost over $100,000.

~The law should require that the reason for retainage should be an explicit part of the contract. The withholding of retainage should be only to deal with incomplete elements of the project or poor performance, not warranty performance.

~Retainage should be withheld by line item, and those lines should be identified at the start of each project.

~There should be a maximum of 5% retainage on each line item. The remaining 5% should be released upon "substantial completion" of each line, less 150% of the value of the punch list and less 100% of the value of unfinished items. The owner would be allowed to retain 5% at any time for poor performance, and release that 5% at the owner’s discretion if the problem is corrected.

~There should be the same retainage relationship between the general contractor and the subcontractor that exists between the owner and the general contractor.

~There should be uniform construction contracts, adopted by rule, for all school projects regardless of funding source. This recommendation is allegedly consistent with the recommendations of the Governor’s School Facilities Commission.

~An "owner’s representative" should be required on each project. Owner’s representatives should be selected from a list approved by the Bureau of General Services.

~Interest penalties resulting from delayed payment of retainage on a school project should be consistent with the "prompt pay" law and be paid directly by the owner (i.e., the municipality or school unit) and not passed on in any part or in any way to the state.

Because no municipal or school representatives were invited to participate in the development of this new proposal, the Committee was particularly interested in getting this proposal out to these two affected groups for reaction.

Any municipal or school official reading this article who has questions about the recommendation or would like to provide feedback for MMA to take to the Committee should contact Geoff Herman at 1-800-452-8786 at their earliest convenience.

The next work session on LD 1551 has been tentatively scheduled for February 17th.

LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS

Criminal Justice
Room 105, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1122

LD 1992 An Act Relating to Forfeited Firearms (Sponsor: POVICH) (Department bill).

Education and Cultural Affairs
Room 120, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-3125

LD 1967 An Act to Allow for Greater Efficiency in School Construction (Sponsor: PINGREE).

State and Local Government
Room 334, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1330

LD 1976 An Act to Allow the York County Commissioners to Send Out Tax Bills to Towns Twice a Year (Sponsor: CHICK).

Taxation
Room 221, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1552

LD 1909 An Act to Ensure That Temporary Structure Property is Subject to Taxation (Sponsor: NUTTING).

LD 1927 An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding Tax Exemptions for Pollution Control Equipment (Sponsor: CAREY).

Transportation
Room 122, State Office Building, 1:30 p.m.
Tel. 287-4148

LD 1979 Resolve, Requiring the State to Reimburse Towns for the Construction of Salt and Sand Storage Facilities (Sponsor: RINES).

Utilities and Energy
Room 124, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-4143

LD 1912 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Guilford-Sangerville Water District to Increase the Bond Authorization (Emergency) (Sponsor: JONES SL).

LD 1937 An Act to Restore the Requirement That Certain Expenditures of the Waldoboro Utility District Be Approved by District Vote (Emergency) (Sponsor: SPEAR).

LD 1957 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Sanford Sewerage District (Sponsor: MACKINNON).

LD 1985 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Bath Water District (Emergency) (Sponsor: MAYO).

LD 1990 An Act to Amend the Charger of the Bingham Water District (Sponsor: DEXTER).

Legal and Veterans Affairs
Room 425, State House, 1:30 p.m.
Tel. 287-1310

LD 2028 An Act to Clarify the Authority of the Chief of the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement to Conduct Appeal Hearings (Sponsor: DAGGETT) (Department bill).

State and Local Government
Room 334, State House, 9:30 a.m.
Tel. 287-1330

LD 2085 An Act to Provide for the Continuation of Town Government Despite a Failed Budget Referendum (Emergency) (Sponsor: WRIGHT).

Transportation
Room 122, State Office Building, 9:00 a.m.
Tel. 287-4148

LD 2031 An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Laws (Sponsor: O’GARA) (Department bill).

LD 2055 An Act Regarding the Delayed Reregistration of Certain Trucks (Sponsor: BARTH).

LD 2066 Resolve, Concerning Highway Construction in Aroostook County (Sponsor: PARADIS).

Legal and Veterans Affairs
Room 425, State House, 1:30 p.m.
Tel. 287-1310

LD 2046 An Act to Improve Voter Participation (Sponsor: TESSIER) (Department bill).

LD 2054 An Act to Make Voting Places Handicapped Accessible (Sponsor: STEVENS).

Health and Human Services
Room 437, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-4149

LD 2092 An Act to Clarify Certain Laws Pertaining to the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality (Sponsor: COWGER) (Department bill).

LD 2095 An Act to Clarify Certain Laws Pertaining to the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management (Sponsor: SHIAH) (Department bill).

LD 2105 An Act to Reduce Groundwater Contamination from Leaking Oil Storage Tanks (Emergency) (Sponsor: NUTTING) (Department bill).

State and Local Government
Room 334, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1330

LD 1974 An Act to Require Abutting Landowners to Pay a Fair Share of the Costs of Maintaining a Private Road (Sponsor: AHEARNE).

Taxation
Room 221, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1552

LD 2120 An Act Concerning Technical Changes to the Tax Laws (Emergency) (Sponsor: RUHLIN) (Department bill).

LD 1963 An Act to Require the Bureau of Revenue Services to Report on the Incidence of Tax Burdens to Business Sectors of the State’s Economy and to Income Classes of Citizens (Sponsor: MILLS).

LD 2077 An Act to Create an Economic Development and Expansion Zone in Aroostook County (Sponsor: BELANGER D).

Transportation
Room 122, State Office Building, 1:30 p.m.
Tel. 287-4148

LD 1947 An Act to Improve Traffic Safety (Sponsor: RAND).

LD 2149 An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Working Group on Motor Vehicle Fines, Enforcement and Reimbursement (Sponsor: LEMONT).

Utilities and Energy
Room 124, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-4143

LD 1989 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Houlton Water Company (Sponsor: CLUKEY).

LD 2029 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Van Buren Light and Power District (Sponsor: PARADIS).

LD 2003 An Act to Clarify and Enhance Certain Municipal Powers Regarding Solid Waste Disposal (Emergency) (Sponsor: SAXL J).

LD 2134 An Act to Amend the Charter of the Kennebunk Light and Power District (Sponsor: MURPHY).

Legal and Veterans Affairs
Room 425, State House, 1:30 p.m.
Tel. 287-1310

LD 2082 An Act to Improve the Integrity of the Citizen Initiative Process (Sponsor: KONTOS) (Agency bill; submitted by the Secretary of State).

LD 2091 An Act Providing for Additional Elections for Ties for School Board Membership (Sponsor: WRIGHT).

Marine Resources
Room 113, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1337

LD 2127 An Act to Make a Nonresident Municipal Shellfish License Fee No More than 1¿ times the Resident Fee (Sponsor: CHARTRAND).

Appropriations and Financial Affairs
Room 228, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1635

LD 2104 An Act to Ensure Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment Assistance for Public Schools (Sponsor: SMALL).

Education and Cultural Affairs
Room 120, State Office Building, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-3125

LD 2048 An Act to Provide Property Tax Relief and to Ensure Equitable School Funding (Sponsor: BRENNAN).

Health and Human Services
Room 436, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1317

LD 2005 An Act to Conform Maine’s Safe Drinking Water Laws with the 1996 Amendments of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (Sponsor: BROOKS) (Department bill).

State and Local Government
Room 334, State House, 1:00 p.m.
Tel. 287-1330

LD 1984 An Act to Amend the Laws Governing Secession (Sponsor: DUTREMBLE).

Appropriations and Financial Affairs
Room 228, State House, 9:00 a.m.
Tel. 287-1635

LD 1958 An Act to Reimburse Kennebec County for the Costs of County Jail Construction (Sponsor: TREAT).

LD 2167 Resolve, to Encourage High-performance Work Organizations and Quality Jobs in Rural Maine (Sponsor: ROWE).

1:00 p.m.

LD 2063 An Act to Create the Partnership to Rebuild Maine’s Schools (Sponsor: SPEAKER MITCHELL).

Labor
Room 134, State House, 10:00 a.m.
Tel. 287-1333

LD 1994 An Act to Establish a Migrant Worker Assistance Office in Central Maine (Sponsor: LEMAIRE).

LD 2116 An Act to Improve Public Sector Labor Relations (Sponsor: HATCH)

Friday, February 13.

Health and Human Services
Room 436, State House, 9:30 a.m.
Tel. 287-1317

LD 2118 An Act to Increase Economic Security for the State’s Low-income Children and Families and Prevent Additional Costs to Municipalities (Sponsor: RAND).

LD 2167 Resolve, to Encourage High-performance Work Organizations and Quality Jobs in Rural Maine (Sponsored by Rep. Rowe of Portland; additional cosponsors).

This bill would appropriate $350,000 to create a program whereby workplace evaluations could be conducted by non-profit organization, such as the Maine Quality Center, for businesses seeking any kind of assistance from the state. The Department of Labor would also be required to establish a program to assist local and regional economic development efforts which have the goal of assisting employers and workers in the development of high-performance workplace organizational practices.

LD 2163 An Act to Require the State to be Responsible for the Costs of School Employee Record Checks and Fingerprinting (Sponsored by Rep. Lemaire of Lewiston; additional cosponsors).

Under current law, the Department of Education’s process to certify and renew the certification of professional and semi-professional education staff in local schools, beginning in FY 2000, will have to include fingerprinting and criminal records checks. This bill would transfer the costs of those procedures from the applicants to the Department of Education.

LD 2082 An Act to Improve the Integrity of the Citizen Initiative Process (Sponsored by Rep. Kontos of Windham; additional cosponsors).

This bill changes the time period for submission to the Secretary of State of a direct citizens’ initiative, and the validity of the application for a direct citizens’ initiative, from 3 years to one year, to correspond to the time for validity of petition signatures set forth in the Constitution of Maine.