The Last Property Taxpayer

The burden of the property tax is a boat that each year needs to get to the other side of the river.

As originally designed, everyone in the boat pulled on the oars proportionately to the property they owned.

But now, as the waters have gotten choppier and the pulling is harder, more and more of the oarsmen are seeking relief from their full obligation to row. Fewer and fewer are left to pull with their full strength.

And the Legislature is glad to provide these dispensations. It is easy, from the vantage point of the State House, to relax the burden for special groups. There is no shortage of very clever reasons to do so. In every case, the reduction of the special group’s taxes is purported to make the world a better place. The special groups are very appreciative for their dispensations, and there is no one organized to complain. In fact, if one special group supports another group’s request for relief, that creates a broader base of legislative support to provide dispensation for both, and if those two groups support a third, the momentum for special treatment is even greater for all three, and so it goes.

In the end, when we get to the last fully-exposed taxpayers, those poor souls will literally be rowing for all they are worth.

If there was ever a question as to whether tax exemptions actually breed more tax exemptions, any doubt on that point was erased on Tuesday this week when the Taxation Committee approved an expanded tax exemption for veterans, gave preliminary unanimous approval for an expanded tax exemption for micro-farmers, and unanimously approved sending a tax relief proposal for fishermen out to the voters in November.

And this was all accomplished after the Committee unanimously agreed not to report out any bill to the full Legislature that would put standards of even the most fundamental kind into the law governing the tax exemptions for non-governmental corporations.

The Farmland Expansion. LD 2426, An Act to Institute Current Use Taxation on All Agricultural Land, sponsored by Representative Bonnie Green (Monmouth), makes two fundamental changes to the farmland "current use" tax law. LD 2426 would relax the penalty for withdrawal from the current-use program in the first five years of enrollment to the minimum constitutional penalty of 5 year’s back taxes plus interest. As presented by the sponsor, the bill would also drop the current requirement to have at least 5 contiguous acres of farmland to enroll in the program to a mere 2-acre minimum threshold.

MMA supported relaxing the withdrawal penalty to the Constitutional minimum.

What MMA does not support is mandating the reduction of the minimum acreage threshold to 2 acres. With the definition of "farmland" as open as it is, and with the $2,000 annual income-generation standard as loose as it is (where even "home use" gardens are considered to produce "income"), common garden lots, retail commercial nursery space, and other micro-agricultural operations would all qualify under the new law for this current use classification, creating a fundamentally different program than the farmland program as originally designed, and creating more unwelcome administrative work for the towns.

This is not to mention the impact of interrelated legislative initiatives circulating this session involving "disclosure" requirements, applicable to all registered farmland, whereby municipal assessors would be mandated to specially map farmland parcels and transfer bundles of disclosure forms to the owners of farmland for certain purposes (see related article in this issue of the Legislative Bulletin).

LD 2426 is running a parallel course with identical changes that are being proposed in Governor King’s supplemental budget bill, except LD 2426 recommends no municipal reimbursement for current use farmland assessments and the supplemental budget bill appropriates funds to begin reimbursing municipalities for the lost tax revenues associated with the farmland program for the first time in the 30-year history of the program.

The Taxation Committee appears poised to unanimously support LD 2426 at a work session on Tuesday, February 22. Municipal officials and assessors who are concerned about reducing the acreage threshold to 2-acre garden lots should communicate with their legislators today.

Current Use for Fishing Lands. The Committee also gave unanimous support to LD 2422, a resolution proposing to send out to the voters a Constitutional amendment that would add "waterfront lands used for commercial fishing activities" to the list of lands that are now allowed by the Constitution to be assessed at their "current use" value rather than their market value.

MMA took no position on the measure itself, letting it sink or swim with the voters on its own merits, except the municipalities were asking to be informed before election day on November 7 as to how this system would actually be designed, given that it will be implemented at the local level. The original bill, as printed, would have applied a "current use" methodology on both land and buildings associated with commercial fishing operations. Before endorsing the measure, however, the Committee accepted the suggestion of its sponsor, Representative David Etnier (Harpswell), to limit the current use methodology to waterfront lands only, provided they are used for commercial fishing activities.

The Committee did discuss further amending the proposal to make it clear, one way or another, whether the affected municipalities would be reimbursed for the tax revenues they will lose if a current use method is adopted. At the end of the discussion, however, the Committee decided to keep that issue unresolved – to let the chips fall where they may.

Veterans’ Exemption. By a 10-2 vote, the Committee approved a proposal to expand the veterans’ property tax exemption to include all honorably discharged veterans over the age of 62, whether or not they served during a time of war. In addition to expanding the exemption to include both "peace time" and "war time" veterans, LD 2331, An Act to Expand Eligibility for the Veterans’ Property Tax Exemption, would create a 100% reimbursement to municipalities to cover the veterans exemption with respect to any veteran granted the exemption on or after April 1, 2000, regardless of whether that veteran was a "peace time" or "war time" veteran.

MMA has mistakenly pegged the state’s cost to reimburse the municipalities under this proposal in the $5 million range in previous articles in the Legislative Bulletin. According the Maine Revenue Services, the fiscal note for the state to honor the 100% reimbursement going forward for the next few years would be in the $1 million range over a biennium. (GH)

Special Tax Assessments for Historic Property and Scenic Vistas. On Wednesday, February 23, the Taxation Committee will be holding a public hearing on LD 2537, An Act to Promote Historic and Scenic Preservation.

This bill would implement the amendment to the state’s constitution approved by the voters in November, 1999 that authorizes reduced property taxes for historic properties and properties with scenic views. As written, the bill defines a "historic property or resource" as a building or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or designated on the local level as historically important. The bill goes on to simply allow the municipality to reduce the property taxes imposed on historic property without limits except that improvements to such partially exempt property must comply with U.S. standards for the treatment of historic properties. The bill also allows for the unlimited reduction in property taxes of property with a scenic view or significant vista if the owner agrees to permanently forgo development by placing permanent restrictions on the deed.

On February 17th, MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee voted to ask the Taxation Committee to convene a group of interested parties, including municipal assessors, to develop a more structured, guided, and thoughtfully-developed approach to implement the new partial property tax exemption approved by the voters.

For the second time since enactment of the recommendations of the Great Pond Task Force, the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee is considering municipally developed recommendations for surface water regulations on lakes. These recommendations are submitted by municipalities following a process that includes development of the proposals, public hearing, and a municipal vote to send the recommendations to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

For this second legislative session, 22 municipalities submitted recommendations for regulations that would apply to 56 water bodies. Eight categories of restriction were proposed. Most would prohibit the operation of personal watercraft (PWC), or rental PWCs, and some would extend the prohibition to all motorboats, or to motors over certain horsepower limits. One proposal would also institute two no-wake zones. Municipalities seeking a delegation of state authority to regulate inland waters had to submit a package of information identifying the water body, describing traditional use, the current level of use, wildlife value, environmental value, noise, safety, and plans for enforcement. The Warden Service submitted reports for each proposal that identified the current level of personal watercraft use, current level of general watercraft use, number of accidents, and access points along the shore.

Taking all this information into consideration, the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee will decide which of the proposals should be enacted through legislation the Committee will report out. As the Committee began discussing the proposals this week, they listened to the advice of the Department to: 1) review the municipal recommendations, 2) authorize those with a clear commitment to enforcement, and 3) extend the deadline for submission to allow more time to build the enforcement commitment. The Department finds itself overwhelmed with pressures on the Warden Service and will depend heavily on local enforcement of the new local regulations. The vehicle for the extension of time may be LD 2346, An Act to Extend the Time Period for Municipalities to Make Recommendations Concerning Great Pond Surface Use Restrictions, which MMA supported in public hearing late last month.

Representative Matthew Dunlap (Old Town) expressed his fear that the municipal recommendations seek to solve problems that do not exist. For example, Rep. Dunlap identified municipalities that propose to ban PWCs despite the lack of formal complaints related to the watercraft. Senator Marge Kilkelly (Lincoln Cty.) participated in a point-counterpoint exchange with Rep. Dunlap, asserting that it is not the duty of the Committee to assume why a decision was made, but rather to respect that the decision was made. According to Senator Kilkelly, it is a proper role for the Committee to require municipalities to provide resources but not to dishonor municipal decisions.

A related proposal was presented by Representative Linda McKee (Wayne): LD 2468, An Act to Establish the Watercraft Enforcement Fund. This concept draft would divert a portion of money collected for watercraft registrations to support the enforcement of boating regulations. The revenue in the fund would be used to support inland harbor masters, education, safety and the administration of the expanded rulemaking authority by the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. At this week’s public hearing, Representative McKee offered an amendment that would increase the registration fees with a surcharge, rather than diverting a portion of the existing fee. Some Committee members seemed intrigued with the idea of allowing municipalities with watercraft regulations and enforcement needs to adopt the surcharge locally. That way, the program would be locally funded, following the model of municipal shellfish programs, which are locally funded through user fees.

The Committee will continue to work the surface water regulation issues and the proposals before them may change many times before they are considered by the full Legislature. (LL)

The Taxation Committee has completed its study of property tax exemptions and the final report will soon become available.

The three major elements of the report are:

Revenue Sharing II. The most significant amendments that will be made to finalize the Committee’s draft report are related to the original Revenue Sharing II proposal.

The purpose of any second-tier revenue sharing proposal is for the state to financially recognize the disproportionately high property tax burden that falls on the residents and businesses of a community that provides its municipal services to the people of extended regions and to the large tax-exempt institutions that also provide regional, if not statewide, services.

As a starting point, the existing revenue sharing program distributes 5.1% of the state’s sales and income taxes (estimated to be $105 million this year) according to a formula that takes into account each municipality’s population and its full value tax rate.

As had been proposed in the Taxation Committee’s draft report on tax exempt property, Revenue Sharing II would capture .9% of state sales and income taxes (approximately $20 million per year) and distribute it according to a modified sharing formula that would count only the municipality’s municipal-side (non educational) mill rate.

The new "Rev 2" proposal in the Committee’s final report would capture .2% of state sales and income taxes (approximately $4 million per year) and distribute that additional revenue according to a sharing formula that discounts a flat 10 mills from the municipality’s full value tax rate.

In addition, the overall revenue sharing system would be split into two distributions. The threshold dollar figure that would separate the two distributions would be $105 million (this current year’s projected revenue sharing fund), adjusted annually by the cost of living index. In any given year, to the extent revenue sharing dollars become available, the original Revenue Sharing I distribution formula would apply to all revenues coming in under the threshold dollar amount (as adjusted), and the "Rev 2" formula would apply to revenues exceeding the threshold dollar amount.

The result is that all communities, in a normal economy, can expect at a minimum CPI-level growth to their revenue sharing income. When revenues come into the state at higher rates than expected, those extra revenues would be somewhat targeted toward municipalities with higher-than-average mill rates. If state revenues come in at lower-than-expected rates, the Rev 2 ceiling will not be reached, and the entire distribution would be accomplished according to the existing distribution formula.

On Thursday this week, MMA’s 70-member Legislative Policy Committee thoroughly reviewed the "Rev 2" proposal and voted near unanimously to support it.

Standards for the charitable exemption. Although a minority of the Taxation Committee believes some standards should be enacted to govern the property tax exemption (or "expenditure") for corporations organized as charitable non-profits under federal tax code, and even though the municipal officials came out in force on February 2 begging for some standards to govern this billion dollar tax break in Maine, there will be no legislation on standards for charitable corporations coming out of the Committee this session. The Legislature has spoken. Standards are not even going to be presented to the Legislature for enactment. The ball is now in the municipalities’ court as to how to proceed with this persistent, growing, and very troubling issue regarding tax policy and accountability.

Pollution Control Equipment. The third issue that is discussed in the final report is the essential ambiguity in the law governing the exemption for pollution control equipment. Under current statute, and under the Maine Supreme Court’s interpretation of that statute, the subjective intentions of the owner of industrial facilities must be taken into account to determine if normal production equipment was installed for the "primary" reason of reducing pollution. If that was, at least allegedly, the primary motive, then the production equipment should be eligible for a DEP certificate of property tax exemption according to the present sorry state of this law.

The final report of the Taxation Committee asks the two pertinent state agencies, the DEP and Maine Revenue Services, to jointly develop a recommended change to the statute to clarify the legislative intent. There was some talk on the Committee level about simply fixing the law directly, as a Committee, but that direct response didn’t happen, and the call for a joint state agency review remains. (GH)

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 1149 – An Act to Require the Municipal Clerk to Attend at Least One Training Session that is Approved by the Secretary of State Every 2 Years Regarding the Conduct of Elections (Sponsored by Rep. Fisher of Brewer) (final ONTP)

LD 1313 – An Act to Give the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife the Sole Discretion to Determine the Need for and Location of Boat Launches (Sponsored by Rep. Clark of Millinocket) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 1453 – An Act to Expand the Homestead Exemption Program Based Upon the Level of Funds in a Homestead Tax Relief Fund (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon of Waterville) (final ONTP)

LD 1590 – An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue in the Amount of $10,000,000 to Support the Construction of the Gulf of Maine Aquarium (Sponsored by Rep. Rowe of Portland) (final ONTP)

LD 1662 – An Act to Protect the Public’s Health Through State-funded Rabies Testing (Sponsored by Sen. Kilkelly of Lincoln County) (final ONTP)

LD 1810 – An Act to Protect the Drinking Water Supply of the Portland Water District (Sponsored by Rep. Muse of South Portland) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 1921 – An Act to Promote Land Conservation at the Local Level (Sponsored by Rep. Etnier of Harpswell) (final ONTP)

LD 1990 – An Act to Require Economic and Taking Impact Analyses to Protect Individual Rights (Sponsored by Rep. Joy of Crystal) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2060 – An Act to License Home Building Contractors (Sponsored by Rep. Norbert of Portland) (final ONTP)

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) (final ONTP)

LD 2121 – An Act Regarding Regulations and Compensation to Property Owners (Sponsored by Rep. Joy of Crystal) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2265 – An Act to Allow a Person with a Disability to Ride in Vehicles Being Towed (Sponsored by Rep. Carr of Lincoln; additional cosponsors) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2299 – An Act to Set Minimum Air Quality Standards for Schools (Sponsored by Sen. Daggett of Kennebec County; additional cosponsors) (final ONTP)

LD 2338 – An Act to Clarify the Crosswalk Law (Sponsored by Rep. Powers of Rockport; additional cosponsors) (unanimous ONTP)

LD 2413 – An Act to Maintain Maine’s Traditional Town Line Signs (Sponsored by Rep. Rines of Wiscasset; additional cosponsors) (unanimous ONTP)

Since introduction in January 1999, LD 449, An Act Requiring Disclosures to be Made to Purchasers of Land Abutting Agricultural Land, has generated more draft proposals than any other one page bill this lobbyist has ever seen.

The intent of the original bill was to ensure that prospective buyers of land next to farmland receive clear notice that farming activities will be carried out in the area. The bill is intended to respond to one of the aspects of "sprawl," the increasing encroachment into traditional farming areas by residential development. As the suburbs expand into areas long devoted to farmland, new homeowners are not always tolerant of the odors, sounds, and dust that are characteristic of farming operations. The bill would have required that sellers of land abutting farmland provide notice to prospective buyers of the farmland adjacent to their new property.

The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (AC&F) Committee carried over LD 449 and between the sessions the Department of Agriculture, the State Planning Office, representatives of the real estate business, tax assessors and others met and exchanged draft after draft of proposals with various intents, including:

• Require 150 foot setbacks on property abutting farmland (or within 100 feet of farmland) with no notice to abutters, no compensation, and no clear definition of farmland; and/or

• Require municipal tax assessors to notify prospective purchasers of any adjacent farmland; and/or

• Require municipal tax assessors to identify parcels abutting farmland, maintain records of the same and notify abutters; and/or

• Piggyback the farmland adjacency program on the Farm and Open Space Tax Program, providing disclosure and setbacks for all property enrolled in the tax program.

In a January 28 work session, it became clear that the setback proposal was not among the first picks of the AC&F Committee. It is said that an earlier farmland adjacency effort, the Farmland Registration Program, failed because of the perception of farmers that imposing a setback on the property of neighbors would do more harm than good to community relations. That may have been among the reasons the Committee was not receptive to the current proposal, which would have prohibited certain types of building (homes, playgrounds, and wells) or expansion of any structure within the 150 setback area. Some Committee members seemed intent on developing an adjacency disclosure provision, however, and sent the various parties back to the drawing board with a directive to return with a consensus proposal.

Consensus was not in the cards for the representatives of the Department, the State Planning Office, real estate concerns, and municipalities. In a work session on February 11, most members of the AC&F Committee were convinced that the latest version of the adjacency notification proposal, advanced by the Department and not supported by real estate or municipal representatives, goes too far. Instead, the majority voted out an amended version that would require blanket disclosure during every real estate transaction. The disclosure would advise purchasers of the possibility of farming activities (including dust, odors, and noise) taking place near the transferred property. Prior to execution of the sales contract, the seller or real estate agent would provide the notice (prepared by the Department of Agriculture) to the purchaser.

This proposal was viewed by its supporters as a temporary measure to assist in adjacency problems until more farms are registered in the Farm and Open Space Tax Program, or some other way is found to make them easier to identify.

Senator John Nutting (Androscoggin Cty.) and Representative Wendy Pieh (Bremen), the Committee’s Chairs, voted to report out a minority bill consisting of the latest draft of the Department of Agriculture’s proposal.

The minority bill would create a record of farmland properties based upon enrollment in the Farm and Open Space Tax program. Enrolled farms would be provided with notification materials developed by the Department of Agriculture and distributed by municipal tax assessors at the time of enrollment in the program. The materials would consist of descriptions of various farm operations that could be expected to take place and policy statements concerning the state’s commitment to protect farms. It would be the farmer’s responsibility to distribute the notification materials to abutting property owners. Farmers already enrolled in the Farm and Open Space Tax program would be required to return to the municipal tax assessor to provide more information and to pick up notification materials for distribution to abutters. At the time any abutting property is offered for sale, it would be the responsibility of the abutter to notify prospective purchasers by passing on the disclosure materials. If the materials were provided by the farmer to the abutter, but not provided by the abutter to the purchaser, then the purchaser would have the right to terminate the sales contract prior to closing and demand a return of the earnest money deposit. Once the sale transaction is complete, the disclosure requirement would end.

There are approximately five municipal mandates embedded in this proposal, including:

1. Creation and maintenance of a map of farms enrolled in the Farm and Open Space Tax Program;

2. Distribution by the municipal assessor of notification materials to be provided by the Department;

3. Assessors must call in farmers currently enrolled in the program and require them to provide more information about their farming activities and notify abutters;

4. Assessors must keep a file of abutters who have been notified (though there is no provision for making that information available to assessors); and

5. Assessors must send a copy of Farm and Open Space file to the Department of Agriculture annually.

Agriculture Commissioner Robert Spear provided the following scenario as justification for requiring farmland disclosure: A family purchased land and built a home next to a blueberry field that had been in continuous cultivation for 40 years. The homeowners’ daughter became ill with exposure to the pesticides used on the field. Presumably, prior notice of the possible presence of "dust, noise and odors" would have prevented the incompatible use that resulted in their daughter’s illness. However, on hearing this example, a member of the Agriculture Committee pointed out that the only notice that may have been effective in that case would be one that advised the prospective homeowners that potentially dangerous pesticides could be expected to bother adjacent landowners, presenting an issue of incompatible use going far beyond "dust, noise and odor". (LL)

On Wednesday, February 16th the Taxation Committee reported four economic development incentive bills of municipal interest out of Committee, sending them toward the full Legislature. Two bills were voted out unanimously "ought not to pass", one voted unanimously "ought to pass as amended" and the last bill received a split vote (6-4) "ought to pass as amended."

LD 2460, An Act to Establish Criteria for Tax Incentive Program. (Sponsored by Rep. Gagnon, Waterville). Unanimous Ought to Pass as Amended. As printed this bill establishes seven standards that must be met when new tax incentive programs are created. The bill requires that the program be appropriately named, clearly state the employment, wage and benefit objectives, provide methods to ensure that those objectives are met, establish penalties for businesses that do not meet the objectives and provide an analysis of the long term costs of the program.

As amended by the Committee, LD 2460 also incorporates some of the objectives found in LD 2501, An Act to Strengthen Maine’s Corporate Accountability Law (Sponsored by Sen. Pingree, Knox Cty.). Now included in LD 2460, as amended, are six new provisions.

• Reimbursements to BETR recipients would be withheld to businesses that do not file appropriate reports until those reports are filed.

• The Economic Development Incentive Commission (EDIC) would be funded with a $20,000 annual appropriation to conduct necessary research.

• The sunset provision on the EDIC would be removed in order to continue that Committee’s work indefinitely.

• The EDIC voting procedures would be changed so that if the Commission acts on a policy matter, the DECD Commissioner and Maine Revenue Services Director, rather than their designees, must attend the meetings to provide cabinet level input on the proposed policy initiatives and cast a vote.

• The Office of Fiscal and Program Review (OFPR) would provide staffing for the EDIC.

• The report prepared by Maine Revenue Services and submitted to the Legislature and the EDIC outlining the public funds spent on initiatives would be filed annually rather that in every other year.

The Committee further clarified that the provisions of the bill applied to both existing and future programs. The bill will include a directive that the appropriate state agencies develop and apply these standards to existing programs.

LD 2501, An Act to Strengthen Maine’s Corporate Accountability Law. (Sponsored by Sen. Pingree, Knox Cty.). Unanimous Ought Not to Pass. The provisions found in this bill were amended as part of LD 2460, described above. The Committee also voted ought-not-to-pass on LD 2384, An Act to Protect State Taxpayers and State Jobs, which was a "concept draft" proposal focusing on allowing state and local governments to obtain reimbursement of economic development incentives under certain circumstances from the businesses that receive them.

LD 2516, An Act to Improve Standards for Public Assistance to Maine Employers. (Sponsored by Sen. Pingree, Knox Cty.). 6-4 Vote Ought to Pass as Amended. As printed this bill required that employers receiving economic incentive funds provide employees with living wage and retirement benefits. The Committee amended the bill by making three changes. First, the Committee decided that the wage and benefit provisions would apply only to four of the economic development incentive programs in the stable of such programs that fall under the oversight of the EDIC. Those four programs would be the municipal TIF program, BETR, Research Expense Tax Credit, and the Jobs and Investment Tax Credit. With respect to those four programs, the Committee voted to apply the wage and benefit standards already found in the employment tax increment financing program (ETIF). Second, the benefits received by the business under the incentive program would be proportional to the number of jobs meeting the wage and benefits provisions. For example, if 85% of employees earned a "living wage" and received qualifying retirement benefits, then the employer would receive 85% of the economic incentive funds. Third, the Committee voted to expand the membership of the EDIC to include one member of academia and one member of the public.

At its monthly meeting on February 17th, MMA’s 70-member Legislative Policy Committee voted overwhelmingly to oppose LD 2516. (KD)

LD 2552 – An Act to Allocate from the Fund for a Healthy Maine (Sponsored by Speaker Rowe of Portland; additional cosponsors) (EMERGENCY)

This bill is one of at least two proposals to spend the proceeds of the tobacco settlement money that has been distributed to Maine by the cigarette manufactures and has accrued to the Fund for a Healthy Maine, which was established by the Legislature to separately hold and account for that revenue. This bill would allocate $67 million from that fund to be spent on a variety of programs, including $6.4 million to be allocated for grants to community-based and school-based smoking prevention programs, and $560,000 would be allocated for grants to regional and local law enforcement agencies for enforcement of tobacco control policies. This bill would also allocate $27 million from the Fund to be carried over for use in future years.

LD 2568 – An Act to Provide Temporary Relief from the Excise Tax on Diesel Fuel (Sponsored by Rep. Winsor of Norway; additional cosponsors) (EMERGENCY)

This bill would temporarily suspend the state 23 cents per gallon tax on diesel fuel. The suspension of the tax would be for the benefit of the trucking industry and would be applied for a 30-day period after the enactment of the bill. A 15-day extension of the fuel tax suspension could be accomplished by the Governor if at the end of the first 30-day suspension the average price of diesel fuel, including the tax, was over $1.50 per gallon.

LD 2557 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission to Establish a Comprehensive Internet Policy (Reported by Sen. Kontos of Cumberland County for the Joint Standing Committee on Business and Economic Development pursuant to Resolve 1999, c. 89)

This bill would require all state departments and state agencies, but not municipalities, to implement systems whereby goods, services, fines, forfeitures and other fees to be paid to the state can be paid electronically. The bill also comprehensively establishes the rules governing the use and validity of electronic transactions, including provisions regarding electronic records, electronic signatures, electronic notarization, etc. Although the decision on the governmental level to accept electronic records and signatures is generally optional, this bill would require all governmental agencies, including municipalities, to determine if and to what extent they wish to send and accept electronic records and signatures, and authorizes those governmental agencies to create certain conditions and controls on its use of electronic records and signatures.

LD 2560 – An Act to Amend the Acreage Requirements for a Cemetery to Contain a Columbarium (Sponsored by Rep. Sullivan of Biddeford; additional cosponsors)

Under current law, before a community mausoleum, crematory, columbarium, or other structure that holds the remains of the dead or cremation urns can be constructed within a cemetery, the cemetery must be at least 20 acres in size. This bill reduces that acreage threshold to 5 acres.

LD 2573 – An Act to Prohibit Persons Under 21 Years of Age from Purchasing Handguns (Sponsored by Sen. Pingree of Knox; additional cosponsors)

This bill would prohibit the sale of handguns in Maine to anyone under the age of 21.

LD 2563 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Court Unification Task Force (Reported by Rep. Thompson for the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary pursuant to Joint Order H.P. 1786)

This purpose of this bill is to streamline the court system by eliminating some classes of cases from Superior Court jurisdiction. One way in which it accomplishes this goal is by limiting the types of appeals from District Court to Superior Court. For example, civil violation cases (such as land use cases under Rule 80 K and others under Rule 80 H) that are heard in District Court would only be appealed directly to the Maine Supreme Court. The Superior Court would no longer would hear the appeal. The Superior Court, however, will continue to have jurisdiction to hear Rule 80B and 80C appeals from administrative decisions, and the District and Superior Courts will continue to have concurrent jurisdiction over Rule 80 K cases.

LD 2565 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Task Force to Review Solid Waste Management Policy (Sponsored by Sen. Mitchell of Penobscot County; additional cosponsors)

This bill would establish that when the State Planning Office determines that there is less than 4 years of landfill capacity in Maine for municipal solid waste, or when the remaining landfill capacity exists or is soon to exist within only one facility in Maine, the Office shall submit a report to the Legislature recommending construction of the state-owned, Carpenter Ridge, landfill. This bill would also expressly authorize the State Planning Office to provide technical assistance to a regional association that is trying to establish an approved waste facility, and if the regional association is unable to locate or site a needed demolition/bulky waste landfill, this bill would authorize the State Planning Office to submit to the Legislature a report recommending the siting and construction of such a landfill, for the Legislature’s consideration and action.

LD 2556 – An Act to Increase Public Participation in the Maine Residents Property Tax Program (Sponsored by Rep. Etnier of Harpswell)

This bill would allow Maine Revenue Services to set aside .5% of the funds appropriated for the Circuit Breaker Program to be used to advertise and promote the program through the printed and electronic media.

LD 2553 – Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Chapter 305: Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Traffic Movement Permits, a Major Substantive Rule of the Department of Transportation (Reported by Rep. Jabar for the Department of Transportation pursuant to MRSA Title 5, section 8072) (EMERGENCY)

This resolve permits the legislative review of the Department of Transportation’s provisionally-adopted rules pertaining to traffic movement permits that are issued under the state’s Site Location of Development Act.

LD 2142 – An Act to Change Laws Pertaining to the Loring Development Authority of Maine (Sponsor: O’NEAL)

LD 2553 – Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Chapter 305: Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Traffic Movement Permits, a Major Substantive Rule of the Department of Transportation (Emergency) (Submitted by the Department of Transportation)

LD 2494 – Resolve, to Create a Commission to Study the Regulation of Firearms in Maine (Sponsor: MUSE)

LD 2538 – An Act Requiring Professional Development for Administrators, Teachers and Educational Technicians (Sponsor: MILLS)

LD 2390 – An Act to Target Public Assistance to Responsible Employers (Sponsor: DOUGLASS)

LD 2537 – An Act to Promote Historic and Scenic Preservation (Sponsor: AMERO)

LD 2541 – An Act to Provide Revenue Sharing to Relieve the Municipal Service Component of the Property Tax (Sponsor: MILLS)

LD 2545 – An Act to Reduce the State Tax Valuation for the Town of Standish (Emergency) (Sponsor: O’GARA)

LD 2551 – An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the Committee on Sawmill Biomass (Sponsor: LAVERDIERE)

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)

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