Legislative Bulletin
February 25, 2000

Municipal officials have been closely following the work of the School Governance Committee for over 6 months.

On February 16th, the final report of that working group was presented to the Legislature’s Education Committee by Jim Rier, the Chair of both the State Board of Education and the School Governance Committee.

The School Governance Committee was formed in 1999 by the State Board of Education at the request of the Education Committee to study the underlying causes of friction that can develop between municipal and school officials and the voting public, particularly in the context of developing and adopting the school budget. During the 1999 legislative session, two bills came to epitomize that friction, LD 1346, An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding the School Administrative District Budget Approval Process, and LD 1776, An Act to Establish a Standard Line Item Budget Format for All School Budgets. LD 1776 was ultimately voted "ought not to pass" by the Education Committee. LD 1346 was carried over for consideration this second legislative session, along with the recommendations of the School Governance Committee.

The nine-member School Governance Committee includes representatives of elected and appointed school and municipal governance, the Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the business community. The members representing the municipal perspective are Gary McNeil, a selectman from the town of Baldwin, and Mike Roy, Oakland’s Town Manager. The Committee has been meeting periodically since early September, 1999 and the comprehensive package of recommendations developed by the Committee are laid out in the working group’s final report.

The Maine Municipal Association believes the Committee’s report addresses a number of fundamentally important aspects of local government, including:

After Jim Rier presented the report to the Education Committee and laid out its several integrated recommendations dealing with school budget communication, development and adoption procedures, the House Chair of the Education Committee, Representative Mike Brennan (Portland), praised the School Governance Committee for producing what he felt was the most thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the issue ever conducted.

The Committee then instructed its legislative staff to re-draft LD 1346 by replacing the existing bill with all the statutory changes recommended in the School Governance Committee’s report. When that task is accomplished, a work session will be held on LD 1346. According to Representative Brennan, although a formal public hearing is not required for the re-drafted bill, an opportunity will be provided at the work session for people to comment on the proposal of the School Governance Committee, as translated into a legislative initiative.

The date of that work session has not been scheduled as of yet. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the School Governance Committee’s final report, please contact SFR’s Tina Means at 1-800-452-8786. (GH)

The Taxation Committee spent a work session this week developing its priorities with respect to the taxation policy changes that it believes should be included in the supplemental budget bill.

These recommendations will be formally presented to the Appropriations Committee on March 6. As the amount of revenue available to the Legislature to spend in the budget package swells from $250 million to $340 million (see related article in this issue of the Legislative Bulletin), the policy recommendations of the Taxation Committee take on an added significance because that is where the debate begins on how best to provide tax relief, which exemptions to grant, and by how much.

And as is the case with any legislative initiative, if the Committee’s recommendations are ultimately included in the budget bill, they stand a much better chance of becoming law than if they are enacted as separate pieces of legislation. The mammoth budget bill bestows legislative protections on the thousands of elements within it by virtue of its size and importance. Generally speaking, if a legislative initiative that has any financial implication for the state’s treasury can get into the budget bill, it is safe. For all those popular financial initiatives that don’t make it into the budget bill, their lot in life will be subject to a cold, lonely and unpredictable April night on the Appropriations Table.

Farmland Tax Exemption. The first measure taken up by the Taxation panel for inclusion in the budget is the farmland tax exemption proposal, LD 2426, which would reduce the minimum acreage threshold to enter the program from 5 acres to a mere 2 acres. LD 2426 would also reduce the current penalty for withdrawing property from the program to the constitutional minimum of up-to-5-years back taxes plus interest, making it a tax-deferral program in effect.

In addition, LD 2426 would extend the period of time over which the de-minimus penalty could be paid to equal the total number of years the property was enrolled in the farmland program. For example, if property was in the program for 15 years, the penalty of 5 year’s back taxes could be paid over a 15-year period.

Even though it would appear that two-acre farmland parcels and 20-year payback provisions make a mockery out of the program, the Tax Committee appears poised to recommend their inclusion into the biennial budget to become law.

The connection between this legislation and the budget bill is that a similar proposal is already in Governor King’s proposed budget, with the added provision that municipalities would begin to be reimbursed for the tax revenue lost because of the reduced "current use" farmland assessments. The cost to the state for providing this so-called "90% reimbursement," designed exactly along the lines of the Tree Growth reimbursement, is estimated to be just short of $300,000 per year.

For the record, MMA supports the reduction of the penalty to the constitutional minimum, even though such a change could present an administrative hassle of processing short-term tax deferrals. The farming community said the stiffer, early-withdrawal penalties were scaring farmers off from entering the program. MMA’s support for that element of the package was requested before the second legislative session began.

The information exchange before the session began was selective, however, because there was never any mention of reducing the minimum acreage threshold or extending the penalty pay-back period to last for decades. MMA does not support those provisions. For the most part, the municipalities believe those provisions advance no public policy benefit worthy of the mandate, the administrative complications, or the expanded exemption.

Revenue Sharing II. A complementary recommendation taken up by the panel concerns a proposal that has been developed in-Committee over the past several months, partially in response to the Committee’s study of property tax exemptions and partially in response to other legislative task force efforts to address the problem of high property tax mill rates in some communities which contribute to the phenomenon of "urban flight" and land development sprawl.

Second-tier municipal revenue sharing, or "Rev 2" as it is now nicknamed, would expand the pool of state revenues distributed to municipalities from 5.1% of state sales and income tax revenues to 5.3%. That .2% increase would amount to a $4 million annual boost to revenue sharing. As "Rev 2" is designed, the existing revenue sharing would continue to exist in its current form with respect to 5.1% of state sales and income tax revenues in FY 2000 dollars, annually adjusted for inflation. To the extent revenue sharing funds exceed that figure, those additional funds would be distributed according to a modified distribution formula that would target higher percentages of the extra revenue toward higher mill rate communities.

The Taxation Committee considers "Rev 2" to be an urban counterpoint to the rural farmland tax initiative, and will be proposing its inclusion into the supplemental budget to create a complementary package of tax proposals addressing issues of sprawl from both the out-migration and in-migration municipal perspectives.

Telecommunications Personal Property Tax. A third issue for the Committee’s review is a proposal in the supplemental budget to reduce the telecommunications personal property tax rate.

As was reported in the January 28th edition of the Legislative Bulletin, Governor King is proposing, through the supplemental budget, to reduce the state-imposed property tax on the personal property belonging to telecommunications companies by 37% over a four-year period.

The Taxation Committee also has in its possession a parallel measure, LD 2458 (An Act to Reduce the State Rate for Tax on Telecommunications Personal Property), which is sponsored by Rep. Ken Gagnon (Waterville).

The current state-imposed property tax on telecommunications personalty is 27 mills, and applies to "two-way" or interactive telecommunications equipment. Both the budget bill and LD 2428 would reduce the state mill rate to 25 mills in 2000, 23 mills in 2001, 21 mills in 2002, and the statewide average full value municipal property tax rate (which is currently just over 17 mills) in 2003. The Governor’s Office projects each phased-in reduction to cost the state $2.2 million per year, so that when fully phased in, the loss to state revenues will be approximately $10 million a year. The state’s property tax on telecommunications property is the only property tax the state imposes, outside of the unorganized territories.

The measure, both through LD 2458 and through the vehicle of the budget, is being supported as an effort to "level the playing field" between the state-imposed property tax on two-way telecommunications property and the municipal property tax that is applied to one-way, non-interactive telecommunications property, which is basic cable t.v.. Proponents say that when telecommunications was more of a regulated monopoly, disparate property tax rates were less of a problem.

The property tax was simply a cost of doing business that was taken into consideration during the rate-setting regulatory process. Now that there are so many competing telecommunication providers, differences in tax treatment have become more significant.

What the municipalities are watching is the telecommunications property tax base sliding away from municipal jurisdiction to state jurisdiction as the technology advances to make non-interactive telecommunications personal property a thing of the past.

On February 8th, the Taxation Committee amended LD 2438 to modify the phased-down mill rate so it would not drop from 21 mills to approximately 17 mills in the last year of implementation (2003). Instead, it would only drop to a flat mill rate floor of 20 mills.

Other Budget Matters. Several other budget related taxation issues were also approved by the Committee, including:

• BETR. Appropriate $3.56 million to fully fund the Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement Program (BETR) for FY 2001, bringing the total appropriation for that reimbursement for the next fiscal year to $51.53 million.

• Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. Expansion of sales tax exemption for electricity used for commercial agriculture, fishing or aquaculture. This measure carries an annual fiscal note of $240,000. Representative Bonnie Green (Monmouth) moved to expand this proposed exemption to include horticultural or nursery stock operations in the definition of "commercial agriculture" for the purposes of all sales tax exemptions, adding $100,000 to the annual fiscal note. That proposed expansion is still under discussion.

• Bracket Creep. Allow for cost-of-living indexing to the income tax brackets. Under current law, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases have to exceed 3.5% before any adjustments are made to the income tax brackets. Since the annual cost of living increases of that magnitude have not occurred, the income tax brackets have been frozen. The change, which is already in the Governor’s supplemental budget bill, would allow for the brackets to be increased annually at whatever the annual CPI actually provided, as they are under the federal income tax code. Fiscal note impact for FY 2001 is $2.87 million. The fiscal note grows to $10 million in FY 2002 and $17 million in FY 2003.

• Public Pension Exemption. Provide an income tax deduction for the first $10,000 of state, federal or military retirement pensions. If this proposal were to kick in with respect to tax year 2001, the lost tax revenue to the state would be roughly $20 million for the first year of implementation. This recommendation of the Taxation Committee differs from a similar proposal in the Governor’s proposed budget, which would exempt the first $6,000 of public pensioners’ benefits. For comparison purposes, if the Governor’s proposal were to kick in for tax year 2001, the fiscal note would be $13.5 million for the first full year of implementation. (GH)

Bill on Economic Development Incentive Standards Given Second Look

In last week’s edition of the Legislative Bulletin we reported that LD 2516, An Act to Improve Standards for Public Assistance to Maine Employers, was given a 6-4 "ought to pass as amended" vote by the Taxation Committee.

As the original bill was going to be amended, businesses that receive substantial economic development incentive benefits through either the BETR program, a municipal TIF, the Research Expense tax credit or the Jobs and Investment tax credit would have to provide for their employees the wages and benefits that are required to be provided in the state’s Employment Tax Increment Financing program (ETIF). The businesses would be essentially docked by a percentage of their economic development incentives that is the equivalent percentage of employees who do not receive wages or benefits meeting that ETIF standard. In addition, the amended version of LD 2516 would change the make-up of the Economic Development Incentive Commission (EDIC) to add an additional member from the public and an academic member. The amended bill would also retain a provision from the original bill that would prohibit the creation of a municipal TIF for a business that is relocating within 100 miles of its present location, without certain good-cause reasons.

When reviewing the amended version of LD 2516 this week, the Committee concluded that the wage-and-benefit component of the bill simply didn’t work. The ETIF standards created too high a bar for the kind of "living wage" accountability the Committee was looking for. The Committee is now seriously considering a complete amendment to the bill that would strip everything out of the printed bill and replace it with an alternative approach crafted by Tax Committee member Senator Peter Mills (Somerset Cty.).

Senator Mill’s revision would impose only two requirements on businesses that receive incentives under BETR, TIF, the research expense credit or the jobs and investment tax credit program:

1. the business must pay hourly wages equal to at least 1/60 of the average weekly wage in the applicable county. As an example, the statewide average weekly wage is presently $490, and 1/60 of that would equal $8.17 per hour; and
2. the business must provide a subsidized health benefit plan to its employees and the employees’ families. The business must pay at least 60% of the cost for each employee and at least 50% of the cost for the employees’ dependent children. This level of coverage must be made available to any employee who has been employed for 60 days or more on a schedule that averages at least 25 hours per week. In Senator Mill’s proposed amendment, the term "health benefit plan" is defined to provide at least five types of commonly provided comprehensive types of coverage (e.g., inpatient and outpatient hospital services, laboratory services, well-child care, etc.) and have an actuarial value that is no less than 80% of the actuarial value of the state employees’ health insurance program.

Although the Committee has yet to formally vote on the re-worked bill, there is certainly some sentiment among Committee members to replace the entire bill with Senator Mill’s proposed amendment, jettisoning the provisions regarding EDIC membership and the 100-mile municipal TIF buffer zone. (GH)

On November 2, 1999, the voters of Maine answered "yes" to the question: "Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to allow for reduced property taxes on property that will be maintained for historic preservation or for scenic views of significant vistas."

In answering that question, the voters amended the State Constitution to add a paragraph in the Taxation section that reads: "The Legislature shall have the power to provide that municipalities may reduce taxes on real property if the property owner agrees to maintain the property in accordance with criteria adopted by the governing legislative body of the municipality to maintain the historic integrity of important structures or to provide scenic view easements of significant vistas."

On Wednesday this week, the Taxation Committee held a public hearing on a bill that would implement that new-found Constitutional authority. LD 2537 (An Act to Promote Historic and Scenic Preservation) would very simply give over to municipalities the authority to reduce the tax on properties that are deemed to have historic value however the municipality darn well pleases. On properties that provide "scenic views" or "significant vistas" that also have permanent deed restrictions on any development that would impair those scenic qualities, the municipality could also reduce the property tax obligation to whatever extent it felt like.

The sponsor of LD 2537, Senator Jane Amero (Cumberland County), was also the sponsor of the proposed Constitutional amendment in 1999 that went to the voters last November. Senator Amero testified in support of LD 2537 as an effort to provide property tax relief to preserve historic resources. Senator Amero underscored the home-rule element of her proposal, saying there cannot be too much local flexibility to encourage the effort of historic and scenic preservation. Senator Amero urged the Tax Committee to act promptly on the bill to ensure that the "will of the people" is promptly implemented.

Representative Art Mayo (Bath) also testified in support of the bill, saying that Bath has a historic district in the Washington Street-Middle Street area which people are afraid will be converted into commercial properties without the tax incentives that might be provided by the bill.

The Director of the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, the Executive Director of the private-sector Maine Preservation organization, and a lobbyist for the Maine Real Estate and Developers Association (MEREDA) all spoke in favor of the legislation.

MMA opposed the bill for the same core reasons that have been keeping MMA in the Taxation Committee’s room all legislative session — STANDARDS SHOULD GOVERN ALL TAX EXEMPTIONS. Home rule certainly has its place, but to ensure the maximum preservation of three fundamental principles of property taxation — equity, uniformity, and accountability — any home rule in the area of tax exemptions should be provided along with some element of structure. The request was made to the Committee that it put together a working group of interested parties, assessors and Maine Revenue Services to draft some implementing legislation that will work for the assessors who will be charged with dealing with this new property tax exemption.

Twenty-four hours after the public hearing, the Committee held a work session on LD 2537 and voted to convene a subcommittee made up of five legislators from the Taxation Committee, Maine Revenue Services, Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Maine Preservation, and MMA. The subcommittee will be asked to draft an amended version of LD 2537 for possible presentation back to the Tax Committee next week. (GH)

On February 22nd the Revenue Forecasting Committee conducted a reprojection of revenue and determined that the money generated by the state’s income tax, estate tax and interest earnings will increase by an additional $88.9 million in the present biennium (FY 2000-2001) and by an additional $92.2 million in the FY 2002-2003 biennium.

This reprojection of revenues, upon which the Legislature is allowed to rely, boosts the amount of money available for supplemental spending this legislative session from $250 million to $340 million.

An early projection for the present biennium, conducted in 1999, pegged total personal income tax revenues at $2.03 billion for the two-year period. That figure was bumped 8.4%, to $2.2 billion in a November, 1999 reprojection, and now another 2.5%, to $2.26 billion with this latest reprojection. Estate taxes and interest earnings are also coming in to the state Treasury at unexpectedly high rates.

This increase in income tax revenue will impact the amount of funds municipalities receive under the Revenue Sharing formula. In FY 2000 municipalities are estimated to receive an additional $1.6 million for a total appropriation of $106.3 million. The Revenue Sharing program is projected to grow slightly to $106.7 million in FY 2001, but significant increases of $113.3 million in FY 2002 and $120.2 million in FY 2003 are expected.

Although the Revenue Forecasting Committee agrees the economic models used to monitor economic growth support these increases, some level of concern remains at the Committee level. At the November, 1999 meeting, the Revenue Forecasting Committee generously reprojected growth in income tax revenue with the expectation that little or no change would be needed in February, 2000. Now that a significant reprojection is in order, some members of the Committee are concerned because they cannot entirely explain the reason for the increase, which dramatizes the unpredictability of revenues associated with Maine’s volatile tax structure. (KD)

The following bills have been reported out of their respective committees with unanimous "Ought Not to Pass" reports, which all but guarantee a final rejection by the full Legislature (unanimous ONTP), or have been finally rejected by the full Legislature (final ONTP).

LD 35 – An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue to Create Affordable Housing (Sponsored by Rep. Brennan of Portland) (final ONTP)

LD 166 –An Act to Amend the Public Property Tax Exemption (Sponsored by Sen. O’Gara of Cumberland) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 269 – An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue for the Repair and Renovation of Schools (Sponsored by Rep. Brennan of Portland) (final ONTP)

LD 553 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Kennebec Water District (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon of Waterville) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 933 – An Act to Permit the Submission of Citizens’ Initiatives and Citizens’ Vetoes to School Districts (Sponsored by Rep. Glynn of South Portland) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 1080 – An Act to Direct State Capital Investments to Locally Designated Growth Areas (Sponsored by Sen. Longley of Waldo County) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 1166 – An Act to Establish Occupational Health and Safety Standards for Operators of Video Display Terminals (Sponsored by Sen. Rand of Cumberland) (final ONTP)

LD 1414 – Resolve, to Support Downtown Revitalization through the Location of State Facilities and Targeting Economic Development Funding (Sponsored by Sen. Treat of Kennebec County) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 1457 – An Act to Decrease Restrictions on the Sale of Land (Sponsored by Rep. Clough of Scarborough) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 1876 – An Act to Reform County Governance (Sponsored by Sen. Mills of Somerset County) (final ONTP)

LD 1940 – An Act to Create Standards of Eligibility Governing Tax-exempt Organizations and to Phase in a Reduction of the Rate of Exemption to Reflect the Cost of Providing Essential Municipal Services (Sponsored by Sen. Daggett of Kennebec County) (final ONTP)

LD 1952 – An Act to Simplify the Process of Determining the Eligibility of Homeless Persons for General Assistance (Sponsored by Rep. Kane of Saco) (final ONTP)

LD 1971 – An Act Regarding Property Tax Liens (Sponsored by Sen. Cathcart of Penobscot) (final ONTP)

LD 2023 – An Act to Authorize a Local Option Tax on Wages Earned in a Municipality (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon of Waterville) (final ONTP)

LD 2024 – An Act to Establish the Local Option Tax on Liquor, Meals and Lodging (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon of Waterville) (final ONTP)

LD 2159 – An Act to Reimburse Androscoggin County for Shortfalls in State Reimbursement for Jail Costs (Sponsored by Rep. Bolduc of Auburn) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2207 – An Act to Eliminate the Personal Property Tax and Make Other Changes in the Tax Laws (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon of Waterville) (final ONTP)

LD 2349 – An Act to Allow Video Lottery Terminals (Transmitted to the Clerk of the 119th Maine Legislature by the Secretary of State on November 16, 1999) (final ONTP)

LD 2384 – An Act to Protect State Taxpayers and State Jobs (Sponsored by Sen. Daggett of Kennebec County; additional cosponsors) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2411 – An Act to Allow Certain Public Utilities to Extend Their Service into Areas Serviced by Other Public Utilities (Sponsored by Rep. Murphy of Kennebunk; additional cosponsors) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2416 – An Act to Limit the Duration that Businesses May Hire Employees as Temporary Employees (Sponsored by Rep. Hatch of Skowhegan; additional cosponsors) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2488 – An Act to Support E-9-1-1 Database Development and Maintenance and to Lower Fees Charged to Users for Equipment Replacement Costs (Sponsored by Sen. Carey of Kennebec County) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2501 – An Act to Strengthen Maine’s Corporate Accountability Law (Sponsored by Sen. Pingree of Knox County; additional cosponsors) (unanimous ONTP)

In a work session scheduled for next week, the Natural Resources Committee will consider several proposals to change an existing program that replaces substandard home heating oil tanks. LD 2377, An Act to Prevent Contamination from Home Heating Oil Tanks, simply seeks renewed funding, not from the state’s general fund, but from the Ground Water Oil Clean Up Fund, money collected from a surcharge on petroleum products and dedicated to pollution prevention and remediation. Under current law, $1.5 million a year pays for replacement of substandard heating oil tanks in households that qualify by income criteria or by the environmentally sensitive nature of their locations. Despite the lack of opposition to renewed funding for this program, some members of the Committee seemingly cannot resist the urge to tinker with the program.

In its current form, the program provides free replacement of substandard home heating oil tanks to low income homeowners throughout the state. Not infrequently, what is being replaced is a 55-gallon drum and a garden hose. The potential for oil spills into the groundwater is obvious in such cases, as is the environmental benefit.

The focus of the Committee’s attention is a second phase of the program that provides the same free replacement, with no income requirement, to homeowners in environmentally sensitive areas such as islands. Some members of the Committee clearly were offended by the provision of funds to those who, by virtue of owning waterfront property, presumably could afford to replace their own tank. Theissues are more complicated and larger, however, than unfair distribution of Ground Water Oil Clean Up Fund money to those who theoretically could afford to pay.

Maine’s islands and peninsulas typically have very little topsoil. Sources of pollution quickly pass through the topsoil, into the bedrock and contaminate the groundwater. Once an island’s source of drinking water is contaminated, the prospects are frightening: desalinization of seawater; ferrying in drinking water; or expensive filtration systems. These are truly fragile ecosystems.

Harpswell has already faced the monster and about 40 homes in Lowell’s Cove make use of a special filtration system. While the correlation is not being made between Lowell’s Cove’s problem and leaking home heating oil tanks, Harpswell believes the tanks endanger other areas of the municipality. According to Katherine Chaterjee, Harpswell Selectperson, without DEP’s tank replacement program, homeowners will not volunteer their cooperation.

Not only does the program help eliminate the potential for groundwater contamination from leaky home heating oil tanks, but it can raise public awareness and stimulate self-help activities, as it has in Matinicus Isle Plantation. Because ferrying costs would add to the price tag for piecemeal tank replacements, Matinicus residents voted to purchase tanks and replacement supplies in bulk using municipal funds, to be repaid from the home heating oil tank replacement program. This bulk purchasing program has brought the cost down to about $500 per replacement, just half of the per unit cost of the low income replacement program. At the same town meeting in which Matinicus residents voted to approve the bulk tank purchase, they voted to dedicate $10,000 in municipal funds for removal of junk automobiles, another potential source of groundwater contamination.

Absent the funding, there is no way to ensure that substandard tanks will be removed from the sensitive coastal and island areas. There is no penalty for failing to replace such a tank. Owners of substandard tanks do not volunteer the information. Heating oil dealers, who are supposed to refuse to provide oil to homes with faulty tanks, are not always in a position to know, especially if the tank is enclosed.

This program is not broken and does not need fixing. Proposals being considered to create loan programs or institute means testing for the environmentally sensitive areas are unnecessary and would weaken the program. It should be remembered that the program is not funded by general fund money, but instead from the Ground Water Oil Clean Up Fund. MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee voted on February 17 to support a continuation of the program without any of the proposed changes. It’s the right thing to do. (LL)

LD 2555 – An Act to Make Supplemental Allocations from the Fund for a Healthy Maine and to Change Certain Provisions of the Law Necessary to the Proper Operations of State Government for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2001 (Sponsored by Rep. Murphy of Kennebunk; additional cosponsors) (Governor’s bill) (EMERGENCY)

This bill is the Governor’s proposal to spend the tobacco settlement money that has accrued to the Fund for a Healthy Maine. This proposal spends $47 million from that fund for statewide smoking prevention programs, the expansion of home visiting services to the parents of newborn children, financial support to schools that develop coordinated health programs, and financial incentives to Medicaid health care providers that develop high-level preventive services. Of that $47 million, $6.5 million would be allocated for community-based initiatives that use effective prevention measures to reduce rates of tobacco addiction, physical inactivity and poor nutrition, and $18 million would be used to pay the state share of an anticipated Medicaid shortfall.

LD 2582 – An Act to Correct the Inadvertent Repeal of the Abandoned Property Disposition Process for Municipalities (Sponsored by Rep. Campbell of Holden; additional cosponsors)

The enactment of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (PL 1997, c. 508, Part A) caused the inadvertent repeal of a provision of abandoned property law that created a process for municipalities to follow when seeking to dispose of the abandoned personal property that is typically found in tax acquired or condemned real estate. This purpose of this bill is to restore that process.

LD 2581 – An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Milfoil into State Waters (Sponsored by Rep. Thompson of Naples; additional cosponsors)

For municipalities concerned about the introduction of Eurasian Water Milfoil into the lakes and ponds in Maine, this bill would make it a civil violation to transport the plant into any of the state’s surface waters. The bill also directs the Departments of Environmental Protection and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to post a notice at all the public boat launch sites in the state which explains that the importation of milfoil is prohibited and explains the milfoil-eradication steps that should be taken before launching a boat that may have been exposed to the plant in other waters.

NOTE: You should check your newspapers for Legal Notices as there may be changes in the hearing schedule. Weekly schedules and supplements are available at the Senate Office at the State House and at the Legislature’s web site at http://janus.state.me.us/legis. If you would like to be notified by e-mail of updates to the schedule and web page, send your name, e-mail address, and a message that includes "ANPH UPDATE" to the Senate Webmaster at webmaster_senate@state.me.us.

LD 2552 – An Act to Allocate from the Fund for a Healthy Maine (Emergency) (Sponsor: Speaker Rowe)

LD 2555 – An Act to Make Supplemental Allocations from the Fund for a Healthy Maine and to Change Certain Provisions of the Law Necessary to the Proper Operations of State Government for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2001 (Emergency) (Sponsor: MURPHY, T.) (Governor’s bill)

287-4149

LD 2526 – An Act to Establish Minimum Environmental Compliance Standards for Subsidized Employers (Sponsor: NORBERT)

LD 2560 – An Act to Amend the Acreage Requirements for a Cemetery to Contain a Columbarium (Sponsor: SULLIVAN)

LD 2557 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission to Establish a Comprehensive Internet Policy (Submitted by the Joint Standing Committee on Business and Economic Development)

287-4143

LD 2446 – An Act to Encourage Energy Efficiency in Government Facilities (Sponsor: DAVIDSON)

LD 2525 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Small Point Water Company (Emergency) (Sponsor: ETNIER)

LD 2529 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Moscow Water District (Sponsor: MCGLOCKLIN)

Wednesday, March 1

287-1552

LD 2556 – An Act to Increase Public Participation in the Maine Residents Property Tax Program (Sponsor: ETNIER)

LD 2567 – An Act to Establish Municipal Cost Components for Unorganized Territory Services to be Rendered in Fiscal Year 2000-01 (Emergency) (Submitted by the Department of Audit)

(NO LD) An Act to Create Equity in the Distribution of Gas Tax Revenues Attributable to Snowmobiles, All-terrain Vehicles and Watercraft Travel

287-1310

LD 2533 – An Act to Create a New Category of Liquor License and to Exempt Pool Halls, Bowling Alleys and Off-track Betting Facilities from the Prohibition Against Smoking (Sponsor: TUTTLE)

287-1122

LD 2573 – An Act to Prohibit Persons Under 21 Years of Age from Purchasing Handguns (Sponsor: PINGREE)

LD 2581 – An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Milfoil into State Waters (Sponsor: THOMPSON)

LD 2565 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Task Force to Review Solid Waste Management Policy (Sponsor: MITCHELL, B.)

LD 2568 – An Act to Provide Temporary Relief from the Excise Tax on Diesel Fuel (Emergency) (Sponsor: WINSOR)

LD 2534 – An Act to Make Supplemental Allocations for the Expenditures of State Government, Highway Fund, and to Change Certain Provisions of the Law Necessary to the Proper Operations of State Government for the Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2001 (Emergency) (Sponsor: JABAR) (Governor’s bill)

287-4143

LD 2566 – An Act to Repeal the Fort Kent Utility District (Sponsor: MARTIN)

287-1327

LD 2563 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Court Unification Task Force (Submitted by the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary)

287-1330

LD 2569 – Resolve, to Authorize the Waldo County Commissioners to Borrow not more than $400,000 to Build a Waldo County Communications and 9-1-1 Center (Emergency) (Sponsor: LINDAHL)