Legislative Bulletin
February 4, 2000

They came from Presque Isle and Kittery, Machias and Milo, Lincoln, Ellsworth, Orono, and Rockland. They came from Stonington and Searsport, Sangerville and Standish, Portland, Mechanic Falls and Castine. They were Councilors and Selectmen, town and city managers, municipal assessors from Maine’s biggest cities and smallest county seats. Over 70 municipal officials from 25 municipalities packed a standing-room-only public hearing on Wednesday, and many of those attendees came to speak forcefully for some positive action this legislative session to deal with the complex of issues surrounding the state’s policy – such as it is – on tax exempt property.

The subject of the public hearing was the Taxation Committee’s published report that summarizes its 4-month review of the status of the property tax exemption law in Maine.

The Committee’s report contains six recommendations, with the primary recommendation being the development of a second-tier municipal revenue sharing program that would target additional state revenues to those communities in Maine that have relatively high property tax rates because of the services they provide to regions of the state beyond their own borders or to the large tax exempt institutions they host.

The Committee is split on its second recommendation in the report, which deals with the standards (or lack of standards) regarding the qualifications for non-governmental charitable organizations to obtain tax exempt status. A majority of the Taxation Committee recommends no change to Maine law regarding charitable institutions. A minority of the Committee is recommending a modest package of changes that would give the municipal assessors some basic qualifying standards to work with.

The testimony at the 4-hour hearing was largely centered on these two recommendations.

Revenue Sharing II. Overwhelmingly, the municipalities urged the Committee to continue its work developing a Revenue Sharing II proposal that could be considered by the Legislature this session.

Councilors Phil Brown and Elizabeth Schneider of Orono pointed out that over 50% of their community was exempt from taxation and the mill rate they have to work with, $23.70, is doing real damage to the citizens of their community.

Although his town is not a "service center" community by definition, Mechanic Falls Town Manager Dana Lee said that his community, which has little property to tax and a mill rate of $23.5, is headed for deep trouble in the years ahead because of school funding demands.

Two councilors from the City of Belfast explained how their shire town was the host to a set of exempt properties, most of which provided no services that directly or especially benefited the citizens of Belfast, and yet more than a few of those long-time citizens are under property tax pressures significant enough to force the sale of their property.

Glenn Aho, the Town Manager of Lincoln, spoke about the differential tax rate between the service center town of Lincoln and some of the surrounding communities and how the people of those towns rely on the services that Lincoln must provide. Milo Town Manager Jane Jones described the impending loss of the Dexter Shoe Factory in her community, which is leaving its population of 2,600 struggling with a mill rate of $23. Jane said that at the previous night’s meeting, the selectmen were discussing the 43 properties that were heading for foreclosure for nonpayment of taxes.

Councilor Carol Maines, of Rockland, said that the crush of tax exempt property in that community, and the mill rate that is heading toward $25 per thousand, is pushing the town to accept any type of growth that would help the tax rate, even if it might not be the right type of growth for the City in the long run.

Standards. The municipal support for the development of some standards to govern the exemption for charitable institutions was also very strong.

Liz Sawyer, South Portland’s assessor and the President of the Maine Association of Assessing Officers, explained that the lack of standards regarding the charitable exemption creates an increasingly difficult situation for the municipal assessor. Sawyer said that the lack of standards puts her in the position of having to resort to the courts to determine the charitability of an organization when the application doesn’t seem to fit the bill, which in turn requires the City and the exempt entity to burn up their scarce resources to find the answer. The veteran assessor also testified that she knows of institutions that she has found to be tax exempt that are treated as taxable in other communities, demonstrating a lack of uniformity the Legislature should be addressing.

The South Portland assessor also drew attention to a minority-report proposal by the Taxation Committee to do away with a special exception to the rules that is provided to hospitals, whereby the property they lease from private owners becomes exempt. Sawyer said the City was surprised to learn that at the last possible minute in 1999 before the April 1 day of assessment under Maine law, the Maine Medical Center leased the formerly taxable Jackson Brook Institute and with that stroke of a pen removed $7 million worth of property from the tax rolls, property that is not even owned by a charitable institution.

Brunswick Town Councilor Clem Wilson said that he didn’t want to hurt any of the worthy exempt institutions, but he asked the Committee what could be wrong with establishing some standards to demonstrate the accountability of the tax exempt system to the local taxpayers that most directly support those institutions.

Marylin Currie, the Presque Isle assessor and the President of the Maine chapter of the International assessing association (IAAO), implored the Committee to give her the tools she needs to work with to do her job correctly. Currie said that standards for the charitable exemption are just as important as a tape measure to an assessor, and giving definition to the tax policy of the state is the Legislature’s responsibility and should not be developed by the courts in the vacuum of clear state policy.

Christopher St. John, the Executive Director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy, a person who has worked for charitable non-profit organizations most of his working life, spoke forcefully in favor of putting some standards into the law governing the charitable exemption. St. John called the modest package of standards, which only received minority Committee support, somewhat "under ambitious", and he challenged the Committee to ask any one of the charitable organizations who spoke against those standards to explain in detail how the proposed standards would make their organization ineligible for exemption, because the claim that truly charitable organizations would lose exempt status under the proposed standards is false.

Standish Assessor Pat Dow provided the Committee with the documentation that provides the Iron Horsemen motorcycle club with tax exempt status as a charitable organization in that community.

Kittery Town Manager, Phil McCarthy, read back to the Committee its own findings from the report, which expressly recognize the lack of standards in the law, and then pointed out that the majority of the Committee was recommending that the current definition of "charitable institution" not be amended because the creation of standards could cause legal confusion. McCarthy pointed out that it doesn’t make any logical sense to recommend no amendments to a definition that doesn’t even exist. He also said it is the lack of clarity in current law that leads to a legal confusion, and it is precisely the legal confusion that the establishment of standards would address.

The Maine Hospital Association, Community Health and Counseling Services, The Maine Non-Profit Childrens’ Camps, the 17 YMCAs in Maine, the Maine Association of Nonprofits, the Home Care Alliance of Maine, and Eastern Maine Health Care all spoke in opposition to the creation of any standards in Maine law governing the property tax exemption that applies to their property or the property of their members.

The hospital association explained that the outward expansion of exempt properties that are spreading out from the primary hospital facilities represents a necessary extension of the hospital mission to meet needed outpatient services such as outreach care, long term care and other medical services to the community. The hospital representatives also alleged that the hospitals are subject to paper-thin operating margins, in part because of the inadequate rural hospital Medicaid rates established at the federal level. The hospitals said that they could be supportive of Revenue Sharing II as long at that law would formally embody a recognition that the revenues were being provided to address the statewide benefits of charitable institutions and that the Revenue Sharing II approach would result in a long-term solution to the charitable exemption issue.

A lawyer representing charitable summer camps told the Committee that there is no lack of standards in current law. He said what the municipal officials don’t understand, because they aren’t lawyers, is that the standards are not found in the statutes. Instead, they are found in the body of Maine Supreme Court decisions, which he claimed were coherent and consistent and easy enough to grasp for lawyers skilled at assimilating Law Court decisions. This from the lawyer that represented the Episcopal summer camp in the 1996 case before the Maine Supreme Court that resulted in a narrowest possible 4-3 decision of the justices granting an exemption to a summer camp. In the split decision, the a 3-justice minority of the court found the summer camp to be remarkably similar to the average for-profit summer camp with respect to service delivery.

MMA testified with two requests to the Committee. First, MMA asked the Committee to be honest with the municipalities by promoting a Revenue Sharing II proposal that has a chance of enactment. Too often, a committee of jurisdiction will report out a bill that hasn’t a chance of final enactment because of its fiscal note. The proposal in the Committee’s draft report, which would distribute $20 million a year toward the state’s service center communities, is apparently too expensive for political viability. The Governor, as a point of reference, put zero dollars for this purpose in his proposed supplemental budget.

MMA also asked the Committee, if it is unable to report out a set of standards governing the charitable exemption, to formally create a balanced working group of interested parties (exempt medical institutions, other exempt entities, service center communities, assessors, etc.) so that a dialogue could be created that might lead to a constructive solution to the accountability drive the municipalities are so earnestly seeking. (GH)

For municipal officials interested in state policy regarding economic development incentives, such as the Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement program (BETR) and the municipal Tax Increment Financing districts (TIF), a number of bills that seek to establish criteria governing these incentive programs will be given public hearing before the Taxation Committee on Wednesday next week, February 9, beginning at 1:15 p.m.

A copy or description of each of the bills being presented, LDs 2384, 2460, 2501, and 2516, can be obtained by calling SFR’s Tina Means at 1-800-452-8786, or by connecting with SFR’s LD List – 2000 on MMA’s web page at www.memun.org.

The public hearing will be held in the Taxation Committee’s temporary quarters in the City Council chambers in Augusta City Hall.

A cynic might think, from time to time, that committees are formed around controversial issues as an alternative to taking any meaningful action.

That view is about as far off the mark as could possibly be reached when it comes to the work of the School Governance Committee.

The nine-member School Governance Committee was formed by Jim Rier, Chairman of the State Board of Education, in response to a request last year by the Legislature’s Education Committee. The Education Committee wanted some thoughtful study of the issues that were causing friction between the schools, the municipalities, and the voters, particularly with respect to school budget adoption process on the school district (SAD or CSD) level.

A string of legislative proposals addressing the school budgeting process has been introduced during the 1990’s. The most recent initiative on the subject was LD 1346, An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding the School Administrative District Budget Approval Process, sponsored by Rep. Joe Brooks (Winterport). LD 1346 was submitted in 1999, carried over into this second legislative session, and is potentially the vehicle for any legislative changes coming out of the Committee’s recommendations.

On Tuesday this week the Committee finalized its work product as a 30-page report containing seven detailed recommendations. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of the report should contact SFR’s Tina Means at 1-800-452-8786.

The recommendations of the School Governance Committee, if implemented by the Legislature, will provide opportunities for school districts to choose a new way to develop, present and adopt the school budget. This freshly-designed process: (1) maximizes information exchange with the affected municipalities and the voters; (2) utilizes the open district meeting as the forum to resolve differences of opinion over specific budgetary items; and (3) allows for the voters to approve or disapprove by referendum the budget adopted at the district meeting, but only if the voters believe such a referendum ratification process is necessary.

Beyond the narrower focus of the SAD or CSD process, the Committee’s recommendation includes a preferred cost center school budget format, for either districts or municipal school systems to adopt if they wish, that is an enormous improvement to the nearly incomprehensible lump-sum school budget format ("foundation allocation," "debt service allocation," "local option") that is currently favored by Maine law.

And to top it all off, there’s not a mandate of any significant kind in the mix. If the school board and voters are satisfied with whatever budget format or voting process they have currently in place, there is nothing in the Committee’s proposal that would force a change. On the other hand, if the school board or the voters believe a change in process is warranted, the new system of choices developed by the Committee provides a process that stresses dialogue and exchange, the best elements of traditional town meeting process, and a referendum ratification process that respects the integrity of the referendum authority if the voters believe that referendum oversight is necessary.

A complete description of the major elements of the Committee’s work can be found in the December, 1999, issue of the Maine Townsman. In finalizing its work on Tuesday, the Committee made one amendment to its recommendation related to the three-year sunsest of the referendum ratification process.

Initially, the Committee had decided that after the referendum process sunsetted at the end of the 3-year period, the voters would have to re-petition and re-vote for the referendum process in order to keep it in place. In the process of refining their proposal, the Committee members become concerned that forcing a re-petitioning process could unnecessarily inflame divisions and animosities in the community. As a less disruptive alternative, the Committee on Tuesday amended the recommendation to establish a less disruptive procedure whereby the voters would simply be given a separate article on their ballot on the third referendum year that would ask if they wanted to continue with the referendum process for another three years. If the voters said "yes," the referendum ratification would remain for three years. If the voters said "no," the school budget would be finally adopted at the district meeting for the next three-year period, and petitions to return to the referendum process would not be entertained until that three-year cycle concluded.

It is impossible to review the report of the School Governance Committee and not conclude that it is an extremely impressive piece of work. The next step in the process is for the report to be delivered to the full State Board of Education and then be scheduled for a presentation to the Education Committee.

The comprehensive proposal of the School Governance Committee is expressly designed to create an ongoing, year-long system of dialogue, communication and open democratic process as a new approach that can move the school budget debate out of the poisonous, power-play atmosphere that can too often develop under the current procedures. Even though the set of recommendations is endorsed by consensus among all the participating members of the School Governance Committee, most of whom are somehow associated with school management, a representative of the Maine School Management Association told the Committee on Tuesday that some superintendents are concerned about what they refer to as the "closure" issue. Those superintendents do not want to lose the option of discontinuing the referendum process put into place by the voters, so that they can finalize, or "close", the school budget in an open district meeting. Concern has also previously been expressed by some superintendents and a representative of the Department of Education that the cost center budget format developed by the Committee puts the schools’ administrative expenses in a single cost center, under the term "leadership," and it would be better not to segregate that particular article but consolidate it, instead, under the "instruction" cost center category.

MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee has given its overwhelming support to the good work of the School Governance Committee. Opportunities to improve the school budgeting process, from the municipal perspective, are long overdue. (GH)

The Natural Resources Committee works very hard to reach consensus, otherwise its bills have a tough time surviving the challenge of partisan politics in the House and Senate. This week, the Committee found itself neatly sliced into partisan camps over LD 2442, An Act Regarding the Requirement of Notice in the Acquisition of Solid Waste Hauling, Incineration Residue Disposal and Related Assets. The Consumer and Anti-trust Division of the Attorney General’s (AG’s) office requested submission of this bill as a means of dealing with the major changes in the solid waste industry expected to take place in the near future as they have in the last year or two.

Basically, this is about Casella Waste Systems, Inc.’s acquisitions of solid waste-related assets, creating a vertically integrated business capable of wielding monopoly power as it controls virtually all aspects of solid waste handling. According to the Attorney General:

The Attorney General’s fears are of anti-competitive acts and predatory pricing. Enactment of the bill would require that the AG’s office be notified 30 days prior to new acquisitions. With that notification, the AG’s office could stop potentially illegal, but irreversible transactions, or place requirements on the post-acquisition dealings in order to protect consumers.

The Maine Pulp and Paper Association provided the only testimony opposing this bill. They pointed out that the bill was overly broad and could apply to paper companies, bottle redemption centers, and recycling facilities. A representative of Casella testified "neither for nor against" the bill, requesting an opportunity to provide a response to the comments made in direct reference to his company at a later date.

At the work session, legislators who supported the bill called it "pretty gentle regulation" and seemed puzzled by the level of opposition expressed by the other side of the arguments. Those opposed characterized the proposal as "micro-managing" and an unfair targeting of a single company. Representative Robert Daigle (Arundel) went so far as to say that Casella is investing a lot of money in this state and this is a terrible welcome; "no good deed goes unpunished." Daigle said that this kind of unfair targeting "stigmatizes the state."

Senator John Nutting (Androscoggin), a supporter of the notice requirement, said that he didn’t care whether it’s hauling trash or hauling milk from his farm, "when you’re down to one hauler, he’s going to have his way with you." A representative of the municipal review committee that oversees PERC operations, Greg Lounder, described the anti-competitive behavior they have already experienced. Casella is now a part owner of PERC and also controls hauling. According to Lounder, PERC has refused to contract for best available price. Instead, they have chosen an expensive option that favors their own affiliate. Representative Ed Povich (Ellsworth) said that in his area, haulers were refusing to pick up trash altogether.

Ultimately, the Natural Resource Committee’s majority settled on an amended version of the bill that would:

1. Narrow the scope of the bill to affect the waste industry only;

2. Charge a study to investigate market domination and the advisability of Public Utilities Commission-style regulation;

3. Enact the notice requirement with a sunset provision that coincides with return of the study report; and

4. At the time the study is returned, report out regulation or continuation of the notice requirement.

The minority will offer its own alternative, the study of rate-of-return (PUC type) regulation only, with no notice requirement in the interim. (LL)

Whether or not one believes that economic development incentives are effective seems to be a matter of faith. Either you believe in them, or you don’t. It may be impossible to determine what all the elements are that a business must take into account when making investment decisions – elements such as distance from raw materials and markets, availability of an appropriate labor pool, and regulatory burdens. Falling short of being able to grasp a direct correlative relationship because so much is based upon value judgments, we ask that the jobs at least be "quality jobs" or that incentives only be provided to "responsible" employers. This struggle has prompted the submission of many bills in recent legislatures and in the 119th, including LD 2433, An Act to Penalize a Company that Does Not Submit the Report Required by Law Regarding State Assistance.

The Legislature created the Economic Development Incentive Commission in 1998 and charged it with gathering data that would shed light on the relationships between state and local dollars devoted to economic development incentives and public benefits that result. Working together, four state agencies (the Departments of Economic and Community Development and Labor, Maine Technical College System and Maine Revenue Services) created a reporting form to be completed and returned by every business in the state that received $10,000 or more from any one of seven incentives during the reporting year. Businesses were asked to provide such information as the numbers of jobs created or retained, employee benefits provided, and the impact of the incentives on their operations. In March of 1999, reporting forms were mailed to 267 businesses identified as having received the $10,000 level of assistance in 1998. To date, 22 companies of the 267, or 8 % have failed to file reports. Still, LD 2433 would penalize not just this 22, but any business receiving any level of economic development incentive that had failed to file any report to any federal, state or local government entity. This particular legislative proposal is too broad in its targets and in its requirements. Other bills offered this session may be better tailored to provide the research data that will increase confidence in the effectiveness of incentive programs, or make it obvious which programs are ineffective and should be discontinued.

The most irksome issue disclosed by LD 2433 is the lack of responsiveness of a few of the "recalcitrant 22" companies that have failed to file required reports. As Representative Stavros Mendros (Lewiston) pointed out during this week’s public hearing on the bill, the worst offenders seem to be companies like WalMart and Rite Aid. Representative Mendros was clearly distressed that these companies would come to Maine, plow under homegrown competitors, collect $81,663 and $92,485 respectively in State reimbursements for personal property taxes and thumb their noses at the reporting requirement.

Three more bills will be heard next Wednesday with similar goals of policing corporate use of state and local economic development incentives: LD 2384, An Act to Protect State Taxpayers and State Jobs, LD 2501, An Act to Strengthen Maine’s Corporate Accountability Law, and LD 2516, An Act to Improve Standards for Public Assistance to Maine Employers. (LL)

Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee voted 12-0 on February 1 that LD 2298, An Act to Clarify the Law Relating to the Renewal of Liquor Licenses, "ought to pass as amended."

Under existing statutes, if municipal officials do not act within 60 days upon receiving a liquor license renewal application, the application is automatically deemed renewed. The printed bill would exempt municipalities from the 60-day automatic renewal provision in circumstances where the municipal officials had extended the existing license in order to work out issues with the business owner. This change in law strengthens municipal involvement in the liquor licensing process by enabling municipal officials to work with business owners to resolve those problems rather than denying the renewal application.

The Committee amended the printed bill by including a 120 day cap on the time municipalities have to work out issues and to make a final decision on the renewal application. (KD)

LD 2510 – An Act to Make Supplemental Appropriations and Allocations for the Expenditures of State Government 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) (Sponsored by Rep. Townsend of Portland; additional cosponsors) (Governor’s bill)

This bill is the Governor’s proposed supplemental budget that would amend the biennial budget for FY 2000—2001. At issue is how to spend roughly $250 million in additional state revenue which was re-projected by the Revenue Forecasting Commission in the late fall of 1999. For details, see the 1/14/00 issue of the Legislative Bulletin.

LD 2538 – An Act Requiring Professional Development for Administrators, Teachers and Educational Technicians (Sponsored by Sen. Mills of Somerset County)

This bill would require every school administrative unit to provide professional development to the school’s administrators, teachers and education technicians through the development and implementation of a professional development plan. The bill also would appropriate $2.5 million for the purpose of giving funds to the Department of Education for the purpose of monitoring the schools’ professional development plans and to give grants to the schools to bring their plans up to standards or meet special professional development needs.

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 (Sponsored by Rep. Tuttle of Sanford)

Current law requires local approval of an initial application for a liquor license before the state issues the license except in the case of off-track betting facilities, which obtain their license directly from the state. This bill would expand the list of businesses or facilities that obtain their liquor license directly from the state, by-passing local approval, to include bowling centers and pool halls, as well as off-track betting facilities. This bill would also expressly exempt those three facilities from the provisions of Maine law that generally prohibit smoking in establishments that serve food.

LD 2526 – An Act to Establish Minimum Environmental Compliance Standards for Subsidized Employers (Sponsored by Rep. Norbert of Portland; additional cosponsors)

This bill would require businesses that receive economic incentives, such as BETR or TIF benefits, to be certified by DEP as in full compliance with environmental laws. Failure to obtain certification results in a discontinuation of benefits until compliance is attained for at least three consecutive months. As a general rule, employers who have committed three or more major violations of environmental laws would be ineligible under this bill to receive economic development incentives for a five-year period.

LD 2516 – An Act to Improve Standards for Public Assistance to Maine Employers (Sponsored by Sen. Pingree of Knox County; additional cosponsors)

This bill would require businesses that receive economic development incentives (e.g., TIF or BETR benefits) to certify that they provide a living wage (defined as greater than the average wage in the labor market area) to its employees, retirement benefits of a certain minimum threshold, and at least 50% of the cost of each employee’s health insurance. Failure to provide such a certification results in termination of the incentives and certain pay-back requirements. This bill would also disqualify a business from receiving TIF benefits when it relocates to another municipality within 100 miles unless it can show that the relocation involves an expansion that could not have been accomplished in the first municipality.

LD 2537 – An Act to Promote Historic and Scenic Preservation (Sponsored by Sen. Amero of Cumberland County; additional cosponsors)

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.

LD 2517 – An Act to Fund the Local and State Share of Minor Collector Road Reconstruction (Sponsored by Sen. Mitchell of Penobscot County; additional cosponsors)

This bill would appropriate $1 million to be distributed by the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation to municipalities with low valuation for the purposes of being the local share of minor collector road construction projects. Under current law, the local share is met by allocating funds on the local level for that purpose from the Rural Road Initiative component of the municipality’s Local Road Assistance Program funding.

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 (Sponsored by Rep. Jabar of Waterville; additional cosponsors) (Governor’s bill)

This is the proposed supplemental budget bill with respect (generally) to the Highway Fund, which is primarily composed of fuel tax revenues and motor vehicle registration fees and is used to support several state agencies, but most especially the Department of Transportation. Of municipal interest, this bill proposes to allocate $6 million from the state’s General Fund for the state’s share of the initial phase of the minor collector road program, which was initiated in 1999.

LD 2525 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Small Point Water Company (Sponsored by Rep. Etnier of Harpswell; additional cosponsors)

This bill would allow the Small Point Water company, a for-profit water utility, to convert to non-profit status.

LD 2484 – An Act to Limit the Issuance of Concealed Firearms Permits (Sponsor: SAXL, M.)

WORK SESSION: LD 2377 – An Act to Prevent Contamination from Home Heating Oil Tanks (Sponsor: NUTTING, J.) (Submitted by the Department of Environmental Protection)

LD 2339 – An Act to Provide Assistance in the Cleanup of the Plymouth Waste Oil Site (Sponsor: CAMPBELL)

LD 2343 – An Act to Make a One-time Energy Appropriation to Support Shortfalls in the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program (Emergency) (Sponsor: BERRY, R.)

LD 2502 – An Act to Support the Maine Rural Development Council and its Community Capacity Building Work in Distressed Rural Areas in the State (Sponsor: LAWRENCE)

WORK SESSION: LD 2458 – An Act to Reduce the State Rate for Tax on Telecommunications Personal Property (Emergency) (Sponsor: GAGNON) (Submitted by the Department of Administrative and Financial Services)

WORK SESSION: LD 2355 – An Act to Repeal Certain Archaic and Unenforced Laws Related to the Duties of the Secretary of State (Sponsor: KONTOS) (Submitted by the Secretary of State)

WORK SESSION: LD 2482 – An Act to Enhance Maine’s Historic Districts by Efficiently Installing Underground Delivery Systems During Road Construction (Sponsor: LEMOINE)

WORK SESSION: LD 2182 – An Act to Improve Air Quality Through Market Incentives for the Purchase of Cleaner Vehicles (Sponsor: WATSON)

LD 1876 – An Act to Reform County Governance (Sponsor: MILLS)

LD 2384 – An Act to Protect State Taxpayers and State Jobs (Sponsor: DAGGETT)

LD 2460 – An Act to Establish Criteria for Tax Incentive Programs (Sponsor: GAGNON)

LD 2501 – An Act to Strengthen Maine’s Corporate Accountability Law (Sponsor: PINGREE)

LD 2516 – An Act to Improve Standards for Public Assistance to Maine Employers (Sponsor: PINGREE)

LD 2468 – An Act to Establish the Watercraft Enforcement Fund (Sponsor: MCKEE)

LD 2416 – An Act to Limit the Duration that Businesses May Hire Employees as Temporary Employees (Sponsor: HATCH)

WORK SESSION:  LD 166 – An Act to Amend the Public Property Tax Exemption (Sponsor: O’GARA)

LD 2517 – An Act to Fund the Local and State Share of Minor Collector Road Reconstruction (Sponsor: MITCHELL, B.)

LD 2389 – An Act to Facilitate the Implementation of the E-9-1-1 System (Emergency) (Sponsor: KONTOS) (Submitted by the Department of Public Safety)

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 (Sponsor: CAREY)

WORK SESSIONS on LD’s 2389 and 2488