Legislative Bulletin
April 9, 1999

SCHOOLS PUMMEL LINE-ITEM BUDGET BILL

Rep. Richard Nass (Acton) presented LD 1776, An Act to Establish a Standard Line-item Budget Format for All School Budgets, to the Education Committee on Monday. In a reenactment of at least two other bills before the Committee this session dealing with municipal-school relations, the full 360 degrees of the educational lobby’s compass turned out to attack the measure.

LD 1776 would establish a simple line item format for school budgets, which under current law are typically presented on the voters’ warrant as a gross appropriation of revenue. The bill would ask the Department of Education to craft an easy-to-understand budget format so the voters would have some sense of the various elements of their school appropriation. The state budget, after all, is adopted by line-item format. The municipal budgets are adopted by line-item format. It is only the school budgets that are adopted most often as gross allocations of taxpayer dollars. The statutorily-prescribed wording of the articles on the school budget, which deal only with the local share and state share of the "foundation allocation" or "debt service allocation," really have nothing to do with the meat-and-potatoes of a school budget.

It should be noted that current law allows for the voters to impose an "alternative budget format" (i.e., a line-item format) by petition. The municipalities say it should not be the law that the voters have to petition their school boards to have the most significant budget they enact presented in the proper format. A reasonable line-item format should be the norm.

Rep. Nass, with back-up from Rep. Doug Ahearne (Madawaska) and Vassalboro Town Manager Gary Brown, said that where the line item format has been instituted, school-voter relations have improved remarkably, as the voters come to better understand the school budget and demonstrate their respect for a more accountable financial management system.

Phyllis Shubert, representing the Maine School Boards Association, said the bill was nothing more than an attempt to strip power and oversight from school boards and to pit one school program (such as athletics) against another (such as instruction). Shubert also said that if the voters were authorized to vote on a line for teachers salaries and benefits, it would take away the school board’s legal obligation to enter into good-faith bargaining with the teachers.

That kind of confusion between the labor contract and the budget is often played out on the town meeting floor, where voters are told they cannot change the amount of budget set aside for salaries because of the contract. That is not true, of course. There is no necessary relationship between the contract and the budget. The contract determines what the salaries will be. The budget determines the size of the work force the voters feel is necessary.

The list of opponents to LD 1776 included the superintendents of the Saco/Dayton school union and SAD #3, Kingfield school board member Jack McKee, a representative of the Maine Education Association (the teachers’ union), and Terry McCabe of Maine School Management, who recalled a budget debate in her community over special education that she did not believe should have taken place.

On Thursday afternoon at work session, the Education Committee voted 11-1 "Ought Not to Pass" on LD 1776. Rep. Mary Black Andrews (York) was the lone Committee member who saw merit to the legislation. With this lopsided divided report, the bill will be going to the floor in the weeks ahead. (GH)

 RIGHT-TO-KNOW BILL TARGETS MUNICIPALITIES

There must be another level of municipal government in Maine that MMA doesn’t know about. A system of local government where otherwise law-abiding people who make up the boards of selectmen and town councils, school boards and planning boards, conspire to do their business in the dark of the night, behind closed doors, anywhere but in the light of day.

This propensity of local officials to violate the law – in some towns, a few municipalities, from time-to-time – must be so often manifested that it doesn’t have to be documented. Specific examples don’t have to be given. It’s a claim that needs no evidence. It can be stipulated.

At least by implication, this was the message given to the Judiciary Committee this week when LD 1857, An Act to Amend the Freedom of Access Laws, was given its public hearing. LD 1857 would make the following changes to the Right to Know law:

• All public meeting notices would have to be posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Only "emergency meetings" could be held without that 3-day notice.

• The public meeting notice would have to include a printed agenda listing all items to be discussed at the meeting.

• There could be no discussion at the public meeting of any item not listed on the printed agenda.

• The financial penalty for violating the Right to Know law would be increased from $500 to $750 (first offense), $1,500 (second offense), and $5,000 (third offense), plus attorney’s fees.

• Anyone could sue a town to enforce the financial penalties for any violation of the Right to Know law. (Under current law, although any person with standing can go to court to seek governmental compliance with the Right to Know law, only the Attorney General or District Attorney can initiate an action for financial penalties.)

Aside from the bill’s sponsors, two individuals spoke in support of LD 1857, and two other people spoke in support of "the concept" in the neither-for-nor-against category.

Two former elected and appointed officials from Saco, Brad Littlefield and Attorney Eric Cote, spoke in favor of the bill on the testimony that the Right to Know law is a paper tiger and there is not enough of a financial threat to keep municipal boards in line. Douglas Carr, an attorney from Yarmouth who has served in elected office there, also testified that there was a need for some legislation along the lines of LD 1857, particularly to prohibit discussions by public boards about any matter not detailed on a printed agenda posted in advance.

The Maine Press Association, speaking neither for nor against the bill, but in support of the concept of enhanced Right to Know enforcement, responded to some Committee members’ concerns about the impact the bill might have on state agencies and the Legislature by offering suggestions as to how to target the bill just to municipal government. The press association also defended the thrust of the legislation on the rationale that punitive laws are enacted not for the many but for the minority few that might otherwise violate the law with impunity.

The King administration testified against the bill, citing the increased costs of publishing the full agendas of all the boards, commissions and committees operating in state government, and expressing concern over the exposure to stiffer penalties and attorney fees wherever a regulatory or licensing board trips over one of the procedural requirements.

MMA also testified against the bill, suggesting that LD 1857 seemed designed to categorize local government officials as lawbreakers as they implement a law that is not easy to administer as it balances public and private rights. The thought of not being able to discuss issues brought fortuitously or spontaneously to a local board by a citizen is totally foreign to the nature of local government. Ample advance notice of public meetings is already being provided…at least there was not a single example given to the contrary at the public hearing. Clearly detailed notice and public hearing procedures are a part of most charters in the town or city council communities, and the printing of agendas is typically done to the extent the community demands that type of notice or the board has some staff assistance or professional management. A majority of the several thousand local boards in Maine, however, have no staff assistance whatsoever.

MMA believes that the citizens of a community served by their local boards are perfectly capable of establishing their expectations regarding notice and agenda and mandating those expectations on the local boards.

At the core of the call for the increased penalties, attorney fees, and private right of action to enforce civil penalties, there is the claim that the current enforcement system is ineffective. At the hearing, Rep. Thompson said that the Attorney General and the District Attorneys simply will not prosecute Right to Know cases for the financial penalty. Why that is the case, however, was never explained.

The work session on LD 1857 is scheduled for Monday, April 12, at 1:30 p.m. (GH)

YEAR 2000 AND TORT LIABILITY

The Judiciary Committee was presented with two issues affecting the Maine Tort Claims Act this week, both of which could affect the municipal treasury.

LD 1148, An Act to Amend the Maine Tort Claims Act, would add an express immunity from liability to apply to governmental entities with respect to damage claims resulting from the failure of a computer to accurately recognize the correct date. The purpose of the bill is to protect the taxpayers from exposure to lawsuits that are expected to be filed against state and local governments for any damages incurred as a result of the disruption that might occur when computer-driven machinery and equipment fails to accurately recognize the correct date.

No one seems to know the extent of Y2K disruption that will occur. The experts disagree. Some people believe that there will be extraordinary failures with respect to power generation, communication systems, travel networks, financial security, etc. Others believe that the disruption will be much more limited, similar to the disruption that is occasioned by a severe storm. Because the Tort Claims Act exposes government to liability for the negligent operation or maintenance of machinery and equipment, the concern is that any disruption of operations of a wastewater treatment plant, for example, or traffic control system, or any of the computer-driven mechanical systems upon which the operation of municipal government rely, will be a potential "tort" if damage or injury can be claimed.

If a town’s or city’s exposure to this kind of liability could be covered by insurance, the need for immunity would not be so pressing. The problem is that the insurance companies, and the companies that provide insurance to the insurance companies (the re-insurers), appear reluctant to cover this kind of risk in part, perhaps, because of the sheer magnitude of the potential damages, and also because of what insurance people call "lack of fortuity." Insurance companies provide coverage for fortuitous events, which means an accidental circumstance which was not planned or intended. There has been so much hype surrounding the Y2K phenomenon, it is difficult for an insurance company to consider a Y2K phenomenon "fortuitous" or accidental.

Both the King Administration and a representative from the County Commissioners Association joined MMA in seeking Committee support for LD 1148. No one spoke in opposition of the measure. On the basis of the Committee members’ questions at the public hearing, however, the fate of LD 1148 is anything but certain. Rep. Richard Thompson (Naples), House Chair of the Judiciary Committee, suggested that municipalities and other governmental agencies could very easily defend themselves against tort actions filed against them by putting up a good-faith effort defense. Since the existing Tort Claims Act provides exposure to municipalities only with respect to the negligent operation and maintenance of machinery and equipment, Rep. Thomspson believes that municipalities will be easily able to defend themselves by demonstrating to a court the steps they took toward Y2K preparedness. Sen. Susan Longley (Waldo County), questioned whether the availability or unavailability of insurance was a legitimate criteria to use in determining whether there should be an immunity established under the Tort Claims Act.

The other bill regarding the Maine Tort Claims Act is LD 1577, An Act to Amend the Liability Limit Under the Maine Tort Claims Act, sponsored by Committee House Chair Thompson. LD 1577 would lift the cap on damages under the Act from $300,000 to $500,000.

The work sessions for LDs 1148 and 1577 were not scheduled when this Bulletin went to press. (GH)

MDOT AND MUNICIPAL COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVED

Thanks to the persistence of Rep. Gary Wheeler (Eliot), the Transportation Committee unanimously voted out a bill "ought to pass as amended" that will improve the process of setting speed limits on local roads.

As originally proposed LD 362, An Act to Allow Municipalities to Set Speed Limits and Determine Whether Passing Is Advisable on State Roads, would have authorized municipalities to set minimum and maximum speed limits and control traffic on municipal roads. MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee’s (LPC) decided to take a middle ground position on the printed bill. The LPC agreed that in order to preserve the continuity of speed limit decisions statewide, it was important to have the Department of Transportation (DOT) maintain the responsibility for setting the state’s speed limits. At the same time however, the LPC believed that the quality of the information exchanged between the municipality and DOT on issues of traffic control needed to be greatly enhanced.

Currently, if a resident requests that the speed limit on a road be reduced, the municipal officials will refer the request to DOT. What the municipal officials do not know is what criteria the DOT engineer uses to evaluate the request. Consequently the municipal officials often do not understand exactly why the specific determination was made and in turn cannot relate specific information to the resident.

DOT and Rep. Wheeler developed a compromise to increase municipal involvement and improve communication between the state and the municipalities. The amendment changes the bill title to, An Act To Require Written Explanation from the Department of Transportation when a Municipal Request to Change a Speed Limit is Denied and replaces the printed bill with language requiring DOT to inform a municipality in writing of the reason for which a speed limit change request was denied. The bill would also require the DOT to offer to meet with the municipal officials in the municipality to review the reasons for the denial. MMA believes that this dialogue will greatly improve the communication between the DOT and municipalities when addressing the setting of speed limits. (K.D.)

SLUDGE COMFORT SOUGHT

Using MMA’s bill, LD 909, An Act to Amend the Laws Governing the Land Application of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge, the Natural Resources Committee continued working to craft a solution to the public’s concerns with land application of sludge. The Committee was clearly split in its perception of the magnitude of public opposition to sludge spreading. Half of the Committee members believe that sludge problems are "much ado about nothing", while the other half was determined to report out a bill with provisions to give the public and municipalities a greater role in permitting and enforcement.

For background on the MMA sludge spreading proposal, please refer to the April 2 issue of the Legislative Bulletin. In summary, the bill would give municipalities slightly increased authority to adopt standards in their sludge spreading ordinances for local testing, with a $300 annual cap on the testing that might be required. The DEP would also be required under the bill to do more on-site inspection. Both provisions were developed in an effort to give more comfort to the citizens of the rural communities where the practice takes place that all proper precautions are being taken.

The Committee stripped out the bill’s requirement for increased DEP inspections of sludge spreading sites because they were concerned that the Legislature would be asked to fund a new position at DEP. The Committee also significantly changed the $300 limit on locally-required testing, and replaced it with a limit on the types of materials for which the testing can be required. More analysis of the financial implications of this Committee amendment is necessary.

Ultimately, Rep. David Tobin (Windham) offered an amendment that would do the following:

1. Strike the annual DEP inspection requirement;

2. Allow municipalities to require annual testing of the material to be spread, with testing limited to a battery of tests required by the treatment facility’s license;

3. Require sludge spreading permits to be renewed every 5 years; and

4. Designate DEP’s Chapter 419 (sludge) rules as "major substantive rules," meaning that they would have to return to the Legislature for ratification before being implemented, giving the Committee another opportunity to strengthen them.

With an almost evenly divided Committee report, LD 909 joins the long queue of legislation that will be debated on the floor of House and Senate in the weeks ahead. (LL)

IN THE HOPPER

 Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

LD 2066 – An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to Slash Disposal Along Highways and Railroad and Utility Corridors (Sponsored by Rep. Cowger of Hallowell; additional cosponsors)

This bill would establish standards governing the placement of timber harvesting slash next to public roads, railroads, and utility lines. With respect to public roads, slash less than 3" in diameter would have to be removed from a 50 foot buffer adjacent to the road. Slash over 3" in diameter would have to be limbed and set separately on the ground, not in piles.

LD 2144 – An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue in the Amount of $50,000,000 to Finance the Acquisition of Lands and Interests in Lands for Conservation, Water Access, Outdoor Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Farmland Protection and to Access $25,000,000 in Matching Contributions from Public and Private Sources (Sponsored by Rep. Murphy of Kennebunk; additional cosponsors) (Governor’s bill)

This bill would send out to the voters a bond proposal for $50 million for the purpose of buying land and interests in land for conservation, water access, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife habitat and farmland protection. No more than $10 million in bonding could be accomplished in any year, and the bond package would require an additional $25 million in matching public and private contributions.

LD 2145 – An Act to Fund Continuing Public Access to Maine Lands (EMERGENCY) (Sponsored by Rep. Saxl of Portland)

This bill would expand the size and authority of the Land For Maine’s Future Board so that it could issue bonds on its own authority, within a financial limit, to purchase lands for public use in Maine. The municipal component of this bill is a clause that would clarify that the land acquired by the Board is subject to any municipal ordinances that might affect that property.

LD 2069 – An Act to Establish a Critical Incident Review Panel Regarding Physical Force Used by Officers Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death to Another Person (Sponsored by Rep. LaVerdiere of Wilton; additional cosponsors)

This bill would require law enforcement agencies to conduct reviews of incidents with law enforcement personnel that result in serious injury or death to be completed within 30 days. The bill would also establish a 5-member "critical incident review panel" which would also conduct an investigation of the incident and release a report to the public of its findings.

LD 2070 – An Act to Protect Library Materials in Circulation and to Designate Secure Archival Repositories (Sponsored by Rep. Dunlap of Old Town; additional cosponsors)

This bill would create a crime for the willful destruction or theft of library property, and establish a penalty range upon conviction up to $10,000, plus restitution.

LD 2093 – An Act to Authorize the Disposition of Forfeited Firearms (Sponsored by Rep. Schneider of Durham)

This bill would expressly designate all policy-setting authority to the law enforcement agency or the governing body that supervises the law enforcement agency with respect to the disposition of forfeited firearms.

LD 2098 – An Act to Improve the Safety of Firefighters (Sponsored by Rep. Duplessie of Westbrook; additional cosponsors)

This bill would require an emblem to be installed to the left of doorways into structures that have been built with truss construction to alert fire fighters about the structural elements of the building. The emblematic symbol would vary depending on the nature of the truss construction (roof, floor, roof and floor, etc.). The bill would also establish a system of uniform identification symbols that municipalities could adopt under a voluntary program to identify hazardous or vacant buildings which could require special fire fighting tactics.

LD 2083 – An Act Regarding Out-of-District Placement (Sponsored by Sen. Ferguson of Oxford County; additional cosponsors)

This bill would disallow under-appropriations or "percentage reductions" in the school funding distribution formula related to out of district special education placements and special education tuition.

LD 2150 – An Act to Ensure Community-based Services for Persons With Mental Retardation or Autism (Sponsored by Rep. Quint of Portland; additional cosponsors)

This bill would incorporate into statute portions of the 1994 Community Consent Decree for the protection of services to persons with mental retardation or autism. Consistent with the decree, the bill would establish a policy of providing education, training and support services and programs to persons with mental retardation or autism, with a focus on community-based services. While the thrust of the bill articulates the various responsibilities of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, the bill would also establish express authority for municipalities and other local governmental units to adopt and carry out a program of services, or to collaboratively develop a program of services, for persons of mental retardation or autism.

LD 2124 – An Act to Change the State Retirement System from a Defined Benefit Plan to a Defined Contribution Plan (Sponsored by Rep. Mack of Standish; additional cosponsors)

This bill would switch the Maine State Retirement System over to a defined contribution retirement system as of July 1, 2000. Active employees on that date would have the choice of remaining in the current plan or switching to the defined contribution system, where the employer would match the employee’s contribution of 6% of salary.

LD 2131 – An Act to Ensure that Agency Use of Collaborative Decision-making and Stakeholder Processes is Fair and Consistent with the Goals of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act (Sponsored by Sen. Treat of Kennebec County; additional cosponsors)

This bill would create some structure with respect to the "stakeholders" process that is sometimes used by state agencies to develop rules, inform state policy, or craft recommendations to be considered by the legislature. Specifically, the bill would require the state agency to develop procedural rules that would identify the stakeholders, obtain some level of commitment-to-participate from the state agency and the "stakeholders", establish a facilitator, require records of stakeholders’ meetings, and provide some opportunity for appeal of the agency action if a stakeholders’ process is used but the procedural rules are not followed.

LD 2162 – RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine to Allow Persons with Mental Illness to Vote (Sponsored by Rep. Brennan of Portland; additional cosponsors)

This resolution would send out to the voters a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would repeal a clause that prohibits persons under guardianship for reasons of mental illness from voting at statewide elections.

LD 2151 – An Act to Revise the State’s Water Quality Standards (Sponsored by Sen. Ruhlin of Penobscot; additional cosponsors)

This bill would establish an allowable mercury discharge standard that parallels the federal standard established in the Water Pollution Control Act.

LD 2114 – An Act to Reduce Sales and Use Taxes and Address Volatility Within the State’s Revenue System (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon of Waterville; additional cosponsors)

This bill in "concept draft" would reduce the rate of the sales tax and subject the sales tax base to a review of existing exemptions and exclusions for the purpose of considering expansions to the base for the purpose of reducing the volatility of sales tax revenues.

LD 2165 – An Act to Provide a Sales Tax Credit on the First $2000 of the Purchase Price of Certain Automobiles (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon of Waterville; additional cosponsors)

This bill would exempt from the motor vehicle excise tax the first $2,000 in value of a newly purchased vehicle. The bill would also require the state to reimburse the municipalities for the revenue lost to this exemption.

LD 2132 – An Act to Consolidate Traffic Movement Permits within the Department of Transportation (EMERGENCY) (Sponsored by Sen. O’Gara of Cumberland County; additional cosponsors)

This bill would implement the transition of state agency development review of traffic impact from the DEP to the DOT under the Site Location of Development law. With modest changes, the municipal position in that review process would remain the same.

LD 2135 – An Act to Make Supplemental Allocations from the Highway Fund and Other Funds for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1999 (EMERGENCY) (Sponsored by Sen. O’Gara of Cumberland County; additional cosponsors) (Governor’s bill)

This bill would make supplemental deallocations and allocations from the Highway Fund to balance the Highway Fund budget for FY 99.

LD 2146 – An Act to Exempt from Registration Agricultural Motor Vehicles (Sponsored by Rep. Desmond of Mapleton; additional cosponsors)

This bill would exempt a motor vehicle used solely for farming purposes from the registration, inspection or licensing requirements. To be qualified for this exemption the vehicle could not be operated on roads with a posted speed over 45 mph, and could not otherwise be operated over 35 mph. The vehicle could only be operated on the public way during daytime hours between May 1st to October 31st and it could only be operated between farm lots or to or from filling stations or a garage.

LD 2156 – An Act to Amend the Laws Governing the Construction of Salt and Sand Storage Facilities (Sponsored by Sen. O’Gara of Cumberland; additional cosponsors)

This bill is the product of a working group process made up of legislators, DEP and DOT representatives, several municipalities and MMA. The bill would amend the laws governing the municipal construction of sand/salt storage facilities in the following way: (1) repeals the current mandate that municipalities or counties with Priority #4 or Priority #5 sand-salt storage sites building a storage building; (2) replaces the mandate on priority #4 and #5 storage areas with a requirement that the municipalities and counties with those sites follow best-management-practices, as adopted by rule, with respect to the management of those sites if they want to retain their exemption from DEP licensing requirements and groundwater classification violations; (3) requires the DEP to reassess the priority list given the repeal of the mandate to build storage facilities for Priority #4 and #5 storage areas to make sure they are correctly classified; and (4) establishes a clear priority list for funding sand-salt storage sites depending on the priority of the site and the time of actual construction. Specifically, the first in line for available funds are the remaining priority #1 projects, followed by the remaining priority #2 projects, followed by the priority #3 projects that have been designated as such up to now; followed by the priority #4 projects that have already been constructed, followed by any new priority #3 projects that were formerly priority #4; followed by priority #5 projects that have already been constructed.

LD 2161 – An Act to Prohibit a Telephone Company from Charging a Toll-call Rate for a Telephone Call Made from a Municipality to a Point in that same Municipality (Sponsored by Rep. Mack of Standish; additional cosponsors)

This bill would prohibit a telephone utility from charging a toll call rate for a telephone call made from a municipality to a point in the same municipality.

LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS

LD 2089 – An Act to Authorize Department of Transportation Bond Issues in the Amount of $56,616,000 to Match Available Federal Funds for Improvements to Highways and Bridges, Airports and State-owned Ferry Facilities; Development of Rail Corridors and Marine Infrastructure; and Replacement of Public Transportation Fleets Statewide (Sponsor: O'GARA). Governor's Bill.

LD 2107 – An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue in the Amount of $20,500,000 to Construct Water Pollution Control Facilities and Make Other Environmental Improvements. (Sponsor: MICHAUD). Governor's Bill.

LD 2011 – An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding Asset Forfeiture (Sponsor: SCHNEIDER)

LD 2069 – An Act to Establish a Critical Incident Review Panel Regarding Physical Force Used by Officers Causing Serious Bodily Injury or Death to Another Person (Sponsor: LAVERDIERE)

LD 2070 – An Act to Protect Library Materials in Circulation and to Designate Secure Archival Repositories (Sponsor: DUNLAP)

LD 2093 – An Act to Authorize the Disposition of Forfeited Firearms (Sponsor: SCHNEIDER)

LD 2098 – An Act to Improve the Safety of Firefighters (Sponsor: DUPLESSIE)

LD 1958 – An Act to Establish Educational Excellence for the Towns of Mechanic Falls, Minot and Poland (Sponsor: SNOWE-MELLO)

LD 2083 – An Act Regarding Out-of-District Placement (Sponsor: FERGUSON)

LD 1952 – An Act to Simplify the Process of Determining the Eligibility of Homeless Persons for General Assistance (Sponsor: KANE)

LD 2056 – An Act to Amend the Laws Governing Secession (Sponsor: BUMPS)

LD 2127 – An Act to Allow the Direct Submission to Voters of Municipal Charter Revisions (Sponsor: TUTTLE)

LD 1940 – An Act to Create Standards of Eligibility Governing Certain Tax-exempt Organizations and to Phase in a Reduction of the Rate of Exemption to Reflect the Cost of Providing Essential Municipal Services (Sponsor: DAGGETT)

LD 1953 – An Act to Fully Fund Primary and Secondary Education in the State (Sponsor: VOLENIK)

LD 1956 – An Act to Limit the Number of Appeals Concerning a Property Tax Assessment (Sponsor: PIEH)

LD 1959 – An Act to Require Payment of the Excise Tax for First-time Vehicle Registration Only (Sponsor: SNOWE-MELLO)

LD 2023 – An Act to Authorize a Local Option Tax on Wages Earned in a Municipality (Sponsor: GAGNON)

LD 2131 – An Act to Ensure that Agency Use of Collaborative Decision-making and Stakeholder Processes is Fair and Consistent with the Goals of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act (Sponsor: TREAT)

LD 1977 – An Act to Create the Farmington Falls Standard Water District (Sponsor: BENOIT)

LD 2040 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Norridgewock Water District (Sponsor: MILLS)

LD 2044 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Pleasant River Standard Water District (Sponsor: CASSIDY)

LD 2091 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Richmond Utilities District (Sponsor: SHIAH)

LD 1888 – An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to Development and Centralized Listing of Municipal Ordinances that Apply to Forestry Practices (Sponsor: KILKELLY)

LD 2066 – An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to Slash Disposal Along Highways and Railroad and Utility Corridors (Sponsor: COWGER) (Department bill; submitted by the Department of Conservation)

LD 1132 – An Act to Establish Minimum Criteria for Siting Community Living Arrangements (Sponsor: TUTTLE)

LD 2046 – An Act to Amend the Powers of Hospital Administration District No. 1 (Sponsor: CATHCART)

LD 301 – An Act to Amend the Open-burning Laws (Sponsor: FULLER, by request)

LD 342 – An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding the Fee Paid When Purchasing a New Tire or Battery (Sponsor: MCKENNEY)

LD 1170 – An Act Concerning the Review of State Solid Waste Management Policies (EMERGENCY) (Sponsor: MITCHELL, B.)

LD 1209 – An Act Regarding Property Owners Whose Land Abuts a Solid or Special Waste Landfill (Sponsor: TRACY)

LD 1714 – An Act to Clarify and Improve the State’s Solid Waste Management Laws (Sponsor: MARTIN) (Department bill; submitted by the Department of Environmental Protection)

LD 2136 – An Act to Create the Capital Riverfront Improvement District (Sponsor: DAGGETT)

LD 1123 – An Act to Set Fees for Services for Tax-exempt Property in Municipalities (Sponsor: MCNEIL)

LD 1556 – An Act Relating to Property Tax Exemptions and Service Charges (Sponsor: MILLS)

LD 1773 – An Act to Allow for a Prorated Application of Property Tax Exemptions for Charitable and Benevolent Institutions and Literary and Scientific Institutions (Sponsor: MAYO)

LD 2071 – An Act Concerning Penalties Under the Maine Tree Growth Law and the Farm and Open Space Law (Sponsor: MCKENNEY)

LD 2114 – An Act to Reduce Sales and Use Taxes and Address Volatility Within the State’s Revenue System (Sponsor: GAGNON)

LD 2081 – An Act to Make Commercial Vehicle Weight Limits Consistent with Federal Law (Sponsor: PRESIDENT LAWRENCE) (Department bill; submitted by the Department of Transportation)

LD 2132 – An Act to Consolidate Traffic Movement Permits within the Department of Transportation (EMERGENCY) (Sponsor: O’GARA) (Department bill; submitted by the Department of Transportation)

LD 2135 – An Act to Make Supplemental Allocations from the Highway Fund and Other Funds for the Fiscal year Ending June 30, 1999 (EMERGENCY) (Sponsor: O’GARA) (Governor’s bill)

LD 2139 – An Act to Allow Authorized Emergency Vehicles to Display a Blue Light on the Rear of the Vehicle (Sponsor: BULL)

LD 2146 – An Act to Exempt from Registration Agricultural Motor Vehicles (Sponsor: DESMOND)

LD 2073 – An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Laws Pertaining to Attorney’s Fees (Sponsor: HATCH)

LD 1869 – An Act to Establish the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund (Sponsor: NORBERT)

LD 1848 – An Act to Require the Display of the Prisoner of War – Missing in Action Flag (Sponsor: CHIZMAR)

LD 1938 – An Act to Recognize Veterans of the Persian Gulf Conflict (Sponsor: PRESIDENT LAWRENCE)

LD 1997 – An Act to Amend the Election Laws to Prohibit Signing Nomination Papers for More than the Number of Seats Available (Sponsor: RINES)

LD 1868 – An Act to Preserve Public Access and Job Opportunities in the Maine Woods (Sponsor: COWGER)

LD 1193 – An Act to Ensure that Land for Maine’s Future Acquisitions Include Lands of Local or Regional Significance (Sponsor: LONGLEY)

LD 1737 – An Act to Eliminate the Use of Nongovernmental Entities in Acquiring and Managing Lands (Sponsor: JOY)

LD 2095 – An Act to Stagger Registration for Watercraft, All-terrain Vehicles and Snowmobiles (Sponsor: POVICH)

LD 620 – Resolve, to Allow James E. Segien of Eastport to Sue the State and the Town of Eastport (Sponsor: GOODWIN)

LD 1945 – Resolve, Authorizing the Family of Adam Wilson to Sue the Town of Rockport (Sponsor: SAVAGE)