Legislative Bulletin
March 24, 2000

Early in the session, the citizens’ initiative presented to the Legislature was a proposal to allow video gaming at horse race tracks. The Legislature is sending that one along to the voters in November.

The citizens’ initiative last week was the proposal regarding forest practices, and the Legislature will be sending that one along to the voters in November.

This week, the citizens’ initiative du jour was LD 2602, An Act to Repeal the Sales Tax on Snack Food Except Candy and Confections. This initiative would repeal the law enacted in the depth of the 1991 recession that applies the sales tax to certain "snack" foods. If repealed, there would be a reduction in state sales tax collections of over $15 million in the first year out.

LD 2602 had its public hearing this week before the Taxation Committee. The proponents of the repeal were many, including five legislators or former legislators, an attorney representing the "Don’t Tax Food Coalition," and the Maine Grocers Association, the Maine Farm Bureau, and the Maine Potato Board.

The opponents of the measure were two: the Maine Center for Economic Policy and the Maine Municipal Association.

The thrust of the proponents’ arguments was that the so-called snack tax should be repealed because it was a temporary gimmick to deal with the ravaging effects of the 1991 recession on the state treasury. The proponents believe that no type of food should ever be taxed and that the administration of the snack tax is confusing because there appears to be little rhyme or reason as to what is a "snack food" and what isn’t. The most often-cited example is that there is a tax on blueberry muffins but not on English muffins.

The opponents pointed out that the question to repeal this particular tax is being taken out of the broader context of the overall tax burden in Maine. While it may not be difficult to get voters to sign a petition calling for any kind of tax repeal, there are several deeper questions to consider, such as: (1) What are what those tax revenues used to accomplish? (2) What tax revenues will be called upon to take their place, especially when the next economic downturn occurs? And (3) Of all the tax burden that should be relieved, is the burden on people who buy cookies and potato chips the most acute?

MMA pointed out that the snack tax represents an incremental way to reasonably expand the base of the sales tax to mitigate the remarkable volatility of sales tax revenues which over-produce during good times, such as right now, and which plummet during down times. Unlike the sales tax rate increase, from 5% to 6%, which was enacted in 1991 as a temporary measure, the enactment of the snack tax contained no sunset provision or built-in repeal mechanism, and was enacted as a permanent change to the tax code.

MMA also pointed out that when the snack tax was enacted, the state was contributing 51% toward the operational costs of K-12 education. Nine years later, the state is contributing 45% toward those costs. Just to get the state’s share of the cost of public schooling back up to that 51% majority share of 1991 would require an extra appropriation this year for GPA of $84 million dollars. No GPA appropriation of that magnitude is forthcoming.

And it will be even more difficult for the state to honor that unfulfilled commitment with a repeal of the snack tax and a $15 million reduction in the capacity of the state to pay for education or any other program.

Both MMA and the Maine Center for Economic Policy asked the Taxation Committee to consider putting a competing measure out to the voters. A competing measure is a process authorized by the Constitution in the case of citizen initiatives whereby the Legislature could place an alternative course of action on the ballot next November beside the initiated question. Essentially, with a competing measure, the voters might be asked the following question: "Would you like $15 million of tax relief in the form of a repealed snack tax or in the form of property tax relief?" Other interests might feel the snack tax repeal should be compared against an equivalent $15 million income tax relief proposal. The idea is to let the voters, from where the initiative was triggered, choose the tax relief that is most meaningful to them.

Ironically, the proponents of the snack tax repeal who used to the citizens’ initiative process in the first place, pleaded with the Taxation Committee to enact the repeal in the Legislature and to keep any question, let alone a competing measure, off the ballot in November. Having gone to the citizen petitioners to trigger the question, the lobbyist proponents argued that tax policy questions are too complicated for the voters to decide and should be kept in the confines of the Legislature on the theory that the Legislature has a better grasp of the complexities of tax policy.

On Thursday the Taxation Committee took up LD 2602 in work session. The major issue of discussion at the work session was the fact that the citizen initiative actually exempts more "snack foods" from the sales tax than were exempt from taxation before the snack tax was enacted in 1991. Apparently, some prepared snack foods were taxable prior to 1991 when sold in sandwich shops that did a predominant amount of their business selling prepared foods for on-site or take-out consumption. Those snack products which were taxable before 1991 would become exempt under the citizens’ initiative. In response to that issue, the Maine Revenue Services recommended amending the proposal so that if enacted the taxable nature of snack foods would become exactly what it was before the snack tax was enacted 10 years ago.

On the more central issue, Senator Peter Mills argued forcefully to his colleagues that they not embrace a tax policy change that was being dictated by the food manufacturing corporations who funded the citizens initiative. In an effort to bring some tax policy choices within the purview of the Maine citizenry, Senator Mills pleaded for some thoughtful consideration of the competing measure option.

His proposal was rejected by the rest of the Tax Committee members attending the work session. The panel voted 9-1 that the snack tax repeal ought to be enacted by the Legislature, not go out to the voters at all, and be put into effect as of January 1, 2001. By the end of the day, as other panelists signed on, the Taxation Committee’s vote was 11-2.

In its deliberation, the Taxation Committee did make at least one finding of significance, which is that the snack tax was not enacted as a "gimmick" or a temporary measure. The record indicates that it was enacted in 1991 as a permanent change to the tax code for the purpose of at least partially widening the sales tax base.

So much for tax reform. (GH)

MMA has heard from several communities and representatives of the wood-product industries that are concerned with the position taken by the Association’s Legislative Policy Committee in support of LD 2594, An Act Regarding Forest Practices. The citizen-initiated bill was given public hearing on March 13th, and a description of the bill, the public hearing, and MMA’s position on the matter was published in last week’s edition of the Legislative Bulletin.

In response to the concerns expressed from the several communities, the Chair of MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee, Biddeford City Manager Bruce Benway, and the Chair of the LPC Subcommittee that deals with natural resource issues, Wayne Town Manager Peter Nielsen, have agreed to reconvene the LPC subcommittee that deals with natural resource issues within the next couple of weeks for the purpose of reviewing any additional information that municipal officials and any other interested parties may wish to bring to the Association’s Policy Committee regarding the proposal.

In response to the concerns of the industrial representatives, two members of the Legislative Policy Committee and a member of MMA’s Executive Committee met with several representatives of wood product industries and small woodlot owners on Thursday this week to share the various points of view on the initiated proposal. In accordance with MMA’s open invitation to review and consider additional information regarding the initiative, particularly with respect to the proposed standard of sustainable forestry it would create, the industry representatives and small woodlot owners were encouraged to submit to the LPC subcommittee any data or analysis they felt should be brought to the attention of the Legislative Policy Committee.

All information received will be provided to MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee. Anyone interested in submitting information should mail it to Geoff Herman, Maine Municipal Association, 60 Community Drive, Augusta, ME, 04330 or e-mail to gherman@memun.org.

The election process for the 2000-2002 term of MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) begins in April. Nomination forms will be mailed to municipal officers in each MMA-member municipality. The municipal officers will be asked to nominate candidates. Participation in the election process is very important.

After the nomination process is complete, ballots will be mailed out in May. The new LPC will be elected by July 1, 2000, and members will begin working with MMA’s State and Federal Relations staff over the summer and early fall to formulate MMA’s advocacy platform for the 120th Legislature.

For more information about LPC activities or the election process, please contact Tina Means in MMA’s State and Federal Relations Department at 1-800-452-8786.

LD 2624, An Act to Increase Choice in the Designation of Public Safety Answering Points in the E-9-1-1 System, seeks to resolve a conflict arising over who will answer emergency calls. Currently, municipalities that do not have organized law enforcement may have their emergency calls answered by the county sheriffs’ office, or they may participate in a mutual aid arrangement whereby one municipality provides centralized call answering and dispatching services. The latter arrangement is the case for Winthrop, Monmouth, Wales, Mount Vernon, Fayette, Readfield, Vienna, Leeds, and Wayne, for which the Winthrop Regional Communication Center provides call answering and dispatch services.

It is estimated that when the E-9-1-1 system is fully developed, there will be between 50 and 60 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) sites in the state. In order to determine where calls should be answered, the Emergency Services Communications Bureau first considered whether the largest number of calls are for law enforcement or for emergency services. According to the design of the system, the Bureau would like to see, the selected PSAP be based on the largest number of law enforcement calls as opposed to calls for emergency services . If LD 2624 is not enacted, calls for two of the nine Winthrop Regional Communication Center towns will be answered by the Androscoggin County Sheriffs’ office and five will be answered by the Kennebec County Sheriff. All of those calls will be re-routed by the sheriffs to Winthrop.

Apparently, on a national basis, about 84% of all calls are for law enforcement. Whether this percentage holds true for Maine seems to be much in dispute, and the basis for the problem underlying this bill. Winthrop Police Chief and Manager of the Winthrop Regional Communication Center, Joseph Young, testified this week that of the 800 calls received from the nine communities in 1999, only 18% were law enforcement related, while 82% were for emergency services. Al Gervenack, representing the Bureau, testified to statewide statistics that are almost exactly opposite Winthrop’s experience. The result of using the Bureau’s numbers is that seven of the nine mutual aid towns using Winthrop’s services would be routed through the sheriff’s offices first, then to Winthrop. Instead of promoting the efficiency of mutual aid arrangements, this strange designation of PSAPs would result in calls bouncing back and forth across municipalities and county lines. Fire Chiefs from Wales and Readfield joined Chief Young in supporting the bill. This is not just a Winthrop area problem, however, Butch Asselin, Skowhegan’s Chief of Police, testified to the same issue his area faces, where Skowhegan answers emergency calls for about half the population of Somerset County. It is likely that most mutual aid towns with centralized call answering arrangements will face the same problem.

Mutual aid arrangements among municipalities are the most efficient means of delivering emergency services to rural communities. That’s what the E-9-1-1 system is supposed to be all about – efficiency in responding to emergency situations. Proponents of this bill do not ask for the creation of new PSAPs, or some kind of specialized treatment; they simply ask the state to honor current efficiencies developed to respond to the needs of rural Maine rather than urban crime centers. (LL)

On Friday, March 17th the Criminal Justice Committee unanimously voted (9-0) that the Criminal Justice Academy’s (CJA) proposed law enforcement certification rules should not be adopted.

As proposed, the CJA rules would have replaced the existing two-tiered certification process with four levels of certification. Under the existing, two-tiered system there is a prescribed amount of training for "full time" police officers and another, less-intensive level of training for part time law enforcement personnel. Under the provisionally-adopted CJA rule, there was created a list of the duties that could be performed by the officer at each of the four levels of law enforcement, along with the amount of training needed for each level and supervisory requirements.

The rules also included grandfathering provisions for law enforcement officers sworn to duty before January 2002.

MMA provided conditional support for the rules. The concerns raised by MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee focused on the provision that part-time law enforcement officers, under the proposed rules, would have been grandfathered as Level #2 or Level #3 officers. The rules require that at minimum the municipality employ a Level #4 officer. The twenty-four municipalities that employ a single part-time officer would have been automatically mandated to hire an additional Level #4 officer. MMA testified that without an amendment enabling part-time officers to be certified as a Level #4 officer, the Association would be opposed to the rules.

Members of the Criminal Justice Committee, concerned about the impact that the proposed rules would have on municipal part-time departments, voted to oppose the proposed rules. (KD)

It is likely that next week members of the House will debate LD 529, An Act Regarding Retainage on Major State and School Construction Projects. Thus far in the process, the minority "ought to pass" report has been accepted in the Senate. In its current form the bill would dramatically change the practice whereby municipalities retain 5% of the cost of a school construction project from the General Contractor until the entire school project is completed.

As the bill is now before the Legislature, LD 529 would require a change in the administration of all school construction projects over $1 million in value. The construction project would have to be broken down into a number of discrete "lines", and when each line is completed and "accepted" by the owner, that line of the contract would have to be paid off at 100%. No amount of the contract price associated with that line could be retained to protect the owner if the construction project did not come together satisfactorily.

For example, if the contract included a $100,000 line item for foundation work, once the contractor had poured the foundation and the owner (municipality or school district) had accepted the work as complete, the owner would be required to pay the entire $100,000 contracted price. Under the existing law, the municipality could retain up to 5% ($5,000) to ensure that as the school was being built, the foundation was of the correct dimension, would adequately bear the weight of the completed structure, etc.

Proponents of the bill insist that municipalities will not lose the ability to retain the funds necessary to ensure that the project is adequately completed, although it is difficult to understand what leverage will remain to entice a contractor back to a job that has not come together properly if the contractors have been paid in full. The municipalities are told that they should be hiring more expert inspectors who could competently accept incremental elements of the project as the school is being built. The acceptance of those elements of the project, if nothing else, would put a cloud on any future ability to find liable fault with those elements of the project.

Ironically, to avoid a large fiscal note that would apply if the state had to follow this same system for state construction projects, the amended bill exempts state projects from the new retainage practices. The Office of Fiscal and Program Review decided that LD 529 was not a state mandate because although it would be prudent to hire more inspectors or more highly trained inspectors under the terms of this bill, a municipality would not be legally required to do so.

A remarkable amount of school construction and school renovation work has been authorized and will continue to be authorized in the years ahead in an effort to catch up with the school facility needs that went unaddressed throughout the recessionary years of the 1990s. To ensure that municipalities and school districts have the tools necessary to protect the taxpayer dollars, it is very important to maintain the simple authority which any business or homeowner enjoys to hold some of the final payment until the whole project is complete.

Please contact your legislators today and urge them to support the State and Local Government Committee’s majority "ought not to pass" report. Members of the House can be reached at 1-800-423-2900. Members of the Senate can be reached at 1-800-423-6900. (KD)

LD 1358, An Act to Promote Stability in Labor Management Relations in the Public Sector, is likely to do one thing in its current form: promote instability. Originally, the bill was a familiar attempt to continue all terms of expired public-sector labor contracts, including those directly related to municipal employer costs, such as wages. LD 1358 would allow grievances to be brought by the union to an arbitrator, rather than to the Maine Labor Relations Board (MLRB). On the face of it, it may not seem like a big deal, but it’s likely to cost the public sector some real money. It’s an example of how the Legislature complains about local tax burden and then adds to it.

LD 1358 is currently tabled in the Senate after receiving an Ought-to-Pass report in the House earlier this week.

When a public employees’ contract expires, it is no longer in effect. Because there is no agreement between the parties, there is no requirement to go to arbitration, with the exception of disputes concerning disciplinary measures. This makes sense because the contract is not in effect and is therefore not binding on either party. It is the arbitrator’s job, when one is sought, to interpret the contract only.

If a contract expires without a new one taking its place, a public employer is required by law to maintain the "status quo" on terms and conditions of employment. Status quo means that the employer cannot change any ongoing terms of the employment arrangement. This protects the employer from increases in cost. For example, while an employer may not decrease salaries during this time, the employer is not required to increase salaries, even if step increases were called for in the expired contract.

If an employer violates its obligation to maintain the conditions of employment, the unions have recourse by filing a complaint with the MLRB. As the agency charged with enforcing the Public Employee Relations Acts, the MLRB has the expertise to make these legal determinations.

LD 1358 would allow the union to bring this legal dispute to an arbitrator rather than the MLRB. The arbitrator’s expertise is in interpreting the four corners of the contract and not interpreting and enforcing labor relations laws.

For MLRB decisions, the fee is $250 per day for actual hearing and deliberation days and the staff performs the necessary research and decision drafting. For a two-day hearing, the public share (half) would be $375. Arbitrators, on average, charge $800 per day and spend two study days for each hearing day, and being required to interpret MLRB precedent and law could require even more of an arbitrator’s time. For the same two-day hearing, a municipality could pay $2400 for the same issue that could be adjudicated before the MLRB for $375. Because arbitrators lack expertise in interpreting law, the losing parties may feel compelled to appeal the decisions to the courts, incurring substantial litigation costs.

The use of arbitrators at this point also leaves unanswered several important legal questions about whether this bill would interfere with the employer’s legal right to implement its last best offer. The employer could be required to continue expensive provisions of the expired contract indefinitely, leaving the union no incentive to agree to a successor contract.

Labor negotiations for public employees are a delicately balanced dance with each step choreographed in state statute, the Municipal Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 MRSA §§961-974. Without a working knowledge of the dance, it can be extremely difficult to predict the consequences of even small incremental changes. It is still more difficult to explain the probable consequences to those who are not acquainted with the terminology and progression of events that make up the prescribed negotiations.

As collective bargaining currently plays out in Maine, the arbitrator’s job is to interpret the contract that governs interaction between the parties. That interaction, however, is governed by more than the contract; it is also subject to state statute and case law. The MLRB’s job (and area of expertise) is to interpret and enforce state law. LD 1358 takes the authority, but not the expertise, from the MLRB and bestows it on the arbitrator. The arbitrator would be required to interpret and enforce statutory collective bargaining law as well as contract terms.

Another problem created by this bill is the issue of judicial review for the arbitrator’s decisions. The bill states that the arbitrator must follow the precedent of the MLRB in interpreting statute and case law. However, if the employer were to appeal the arbitrator’s decision, the employer would be required to make and defend the difficult argument that the arbitrator did not act as the MLRB would have acted on the same set of facts. Arbitrator’s decisions have traditionally received great deference by the courts.

A single clear implication of LD 1358 is that it will upset the balance between management and labor prescribed by the Municipal Employees Labor Relations Law. All this for a problem yet to be identified. The union representatives seem to offer only one rationale for this change: that it will make it "easier" for unions to bring grievance actions because the arbitrator’s process is less formal. (LL)

As a matter of law, about 11.5% of the state’s overall contribution to K-12 Education is dedicated to cover the state share of debt service costs for school construction projects. In terms of dollars, $72 million is the current debt service limit within the overall General Purpose Aid to Education (GPA) subsidy, which in total was $622.7 million this year. Current law increases that debt service limit to $74 million for FY 01 and it would then be fixed at that level for the outlying years.

The type of school construction that is financially supported by the debt service capacity contained in that $74 million is new construction and major school additions. Health, safety and ADA renovations, and other rehabilitation-type school construction projects are eligible for some state-share funding through the School Revolving Renovation Fund. Unlike the debt service subsidy provided through GPA, the school renovation program is a partial grant/partial loan fund administered by the Maine Municipal Bond Bank.

According to Jim Rier, the Chair of the State Board of Education, these two school construction programs can work together to achieve the same goal. Despite the fact they are funded through separate appropriations, administered by different agencies, maintained on different accounts, and have somewhat distinguishable purposes (new space construction vs. existing space rehabilitation), the goal of both programs is the same…to create safe, adequate, serviceable, and conducive learning environments for the state’s public school students.

Rier, of the State Board, the Department of Education and the Legislature’s Education Committee met on Monday this week to wrestle with the issue of whether the construction debt service limit of $74 million should be increased and, if so, by how much. The bill that carries that question is LD 870, An Act to Improve School Safety and Learning Environments. LD 870, sponsored by Senator Mark Lawrence (York Cty.), was introduced to the Legislature in 1999 and carried over into the current legislative session. As printed, LD 870 would increase the school construction debt service limit from its current level of $72 million to $80 million by 2003. As the bill awaits action by the Education Committee, in sits in the midst of a cluster of decisions that need to be taken by the Legislature regarding support for K-12 education for 2001 and well beyond.

The process for major school construction projects begins with a point system that is used to determine the relative need for any school construction project. In 1999, 59 school systems submitted applications for 70 separate "major capital improvements" seeking project approval by the State Board of Education. The application of the point system, which involves physical inspection of all the existing buildings by a team of three independent evaluators, prioritized those 70 projects according to need. A list of the top 30 school construction projects on that priority list are found in a sidebar to this article.

According to the information presented to the Education Committee, if the debt service cap of $74 million is not increased, the State Board could approve $50 million worth of school construction projects in FY 01 and another $50 million worth in FY 02. That combined $100 million worth of construction projects would allow the first ten projects on the priority list to get underway.

On the other hand, if the Legislature is willing to look five years out and move the construction limit from $74 million to $84 million over that period of time, $200 million worth of school construction projects could be approved over the next two years by the State Board of Education. At the $200 million level, the top 22 projects could be picked off the priority list.

Proponents of the boosting the debt service limit to address the state’s school construction needs point out that the debt service limit has grown at a rate of less than 1.5% per year since 1992, and the construction needs of those schools, at least on the top half of the priority list, are so great that the existing conditions could be fairly described as somewhere in the dangerous, deplorable or downright embarrassing categories. To jump from $74 million to $84 million over the next four years represents an annual increase in debt service capacity of less than 3.5% per year, which compares conservatively with the 6% annual increases to GPA that have been approved by the Legislature in recent years, as the state works to get GPA back on track.

Laptops. In an action that is at least tangentially related to school facility needs, the Education Committee on Tuesday voted its non-support for Governor King’s controversial proposal to appropriate $50 million of surplus state revenues into an endowment, the interest from which would be used to purchase laptop computers for all the state’s seventh graders.

By an 11-1 vote, the Committee decided to recommend to the Appropriations Committee that the laptop proposal not be included in the supplemental budget. Before the Education Committee voted on the matter, several members expressed an interest in salvaging the element of the proposal that would act to bridge the so-called "digital divide" where students without access to computers at home find themselves at a distinct disadvantage in a classroom of technologically literate students.

Despite those interests in creating heightened equal access to technology, the Committee decided that there were far greater educational priorities than a laptop giveaway program, particularly in the area of school renovation and construction.

The day after its vote against the laptop proposal, the Education Committee transmitted its negative recommendation to the Appropriations Committee. At the moment, the entire K-12 education package for 2001 has yet to come into focus. The only decisions that have been made as of yet are the ranges of possibility.

For GPA: The Governor is proposing using $12.5 million to increase the FY 2001 GPA appropriation to be 5% greater than the FY 2000 appropriation. The Education Committee is proposing an increase in the 7% range.

For School Renovation: The Governor is proposing a $20 million one-time appropriation for school renovation. The Education Committee is proposing a $27 million appropriation. There is some speculation that the Governor may be willing to increase the school renovation proposal to $35 million with some of the revenue that was originally targeted for the laptop proposal.

For School Construction: This is not an appropriation issue. The debt service limit is merely a share of the overall GPA appropriation. The range of possibility is to either increase the $74 million limit to $0 million in FY 03 or plan out two years further by setting an $84 million limit for FY 05.

The tension in the decision-making process lies in the design of the GPA distribution system which includes funds for the operational, programmatic and debt service costs of public schools. The multiple funding systems bound into a single appropriation can have the effect of playing each component directly against the other. From the perspective of a community that has a great need for new space construction, increasing the debt service limit in GPA is high priority. In contrast, for communities that have only facility maintenance or rehabilitation needs, the increased debt service limit can be perceived as reducing the amount of GPA that is available for the operational and program needs of the local schools. (GH)

School Facilities Priority List
(top 30 of 70 listed projects

1 Edgecomb Edgecomb Eddy School 141.16

2 SAD 54 – Skowhegan Skowhegan Middle School 134.13

3 SAD 17 – Hebron Hebron Elementary School 130.92

4 Old Town Elementary Consolidation K-5 130.34

5 Biddeford Biddeford Middle School 125.90

6 Bucksport Walter H. Gardner Middle School 124.44

7 SAD 8 – Vinalhaven Vinalhaven Community School 122.39

8 Union 51 Middle School 122.27

9 SAD 47 – Oakland Messalonskee Jr High School 117.02

10 Gorham Gorham Middle School 114.68

11 Winthrop Winthrop High School 114.27

12 SAD 31 – Howland Penobscot Valley High School 111.98

13 Calais Calais Middle School 111.91

14 SAD 34 – Belfast K-2 Pierce & Anderson 110.91

15 SAD 71 – Kennebunk Elementary School 110.80

16 SAD 74 – N. Anson Mark Emery Elementary School 109.85

17 Lisbon Lisbon/Morse Elementary Schools 107.85

18 SAD 51–Cumb/N Yarm Middle School 107.00

19 Windsor Windsor Elementary School 106.54

20 SAD 56 – Searsport Searsport High/Middle School 106.29

21 Sabattus Sabattus Elementary School 105.39

22 Windham Windham High School 104.81

23 Auburn Lake Street School 104.29

24 SAD 46 – Dexter Dexter Middle School 102.85

25 SAD 57 – Waterboro Massabesic Middle School 102.43

26 SAD 3 – Unity Mount View High School 102.33

27 Augusta Cony High School 100.92

28 SAD 16 – Farmingdale HallDale Elementary 100.82

29 Jefferson Jefferson Village School 100.69

30 Chelsea Chelsea Elementary School 97.76

LD 2637 – An Act to Fund the State’s Share for Salt or Sand-salt Storage Facilities Construction (EMERGENCY) (Sponsored by Rep. Bumps of China; additional cosponsors)

This bill would appropriate $1.8 million to provide the state share of municipal sand-salt facilities to cover the state’s obligation for all priority #1 and #2 projects. (Public hearing and work session held Friday, March 24.)

LD 2628 – Resolve, Regarding Legislative Review of Chapter 6: Certification of Law Enforcement Officers, a Major Substantive Rule of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy (Reported by Rep. Povich for the Maine Criminal Justice Academy pursuant to 5 MRSA §8072.

This resolve allows for the Legislature to review the "major substantive rules" promulgated by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy Board pertaining to the certification of law enforcement officers. (Public hearing held on Friday, March 17; reported out of Committee "ought to pass as amended." See related article in this issue of the Bulletin.)

LD 2639 – An Act Relating to the Cleanup of the Wells Waste Oil Disposal Site (EMERGENCY) (Reported by Rep. Martin for the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources)

This bill relates to the program created by the Legislature in 1999 to provide financial assistance to the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who were exposed to monetary obligations under a settlement agreement to remediate a waste oil disposal site located in the town of Wells. Under the 1999 legislation, a subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee was charged with continuing to study the circumstances surrounding the uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in Maine and authorized to submit supplementary legislation during this second legislative session. This bill is the legislation submitted by the subcommittee, and the bill would extend the date of the final disbursement of the financial assistance from the Wells Waste Oil Clean-up Fund from April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000. The bill would also clarify that the only participants eligible to receive funds through the distribution would be parties that participated in the settlement agreement. (Public hearing held Tuesday, March 21; reported out of Committee "ought to pass.")

LD 2626 – An Act to Modify Adjustments in Property Valuation (EMERGENCY) (Sponsored by Rep. Duplessie of Westbrook; additional cosponsors)

Typically, it takes two years for an upward or downward change in a municipality’s valuation to be reflected in that municipality’s "state valuation," which is the valuation that drives the distribution of GPA and Revenue Sharing, as well as the municipality’s share of the county assessment. In 1998, the Legislature enacted a law that expedites by one year a municipality’s state valuation when a "sudden and severe disruption" causes a significant downturn in the municipal valuation due to the closure or general shutdown of the facilities of a single taxpayer. The expedited adjustment is designed to affect the municipality’s valuation for the purposes of Revenue Sharing and GPA distribution, but not for the purposes of county assessments. This bill would allow for continued and ongoing expedited adjustments of that municipality’s valuation after the initial expedited adjustment if the facility in question is continuing to lose value. (Public hearing held Wednesday, March 22; work session held March 23.)

LD 2643 – An Act Ensuring that Certain Land Transfers Accomplished through Stock Transfers are not Exempt from the Transfer Tax (Sponsored by Sen. Michaud of Penobscot County; additional cosponsors)

This bill would extend the Real Estate Transfer Tax to cover the transfer of controlling interests in an entity, such as when one corporation buys the subsidiary of another, and that purchased entity has a fee interest in real property. The application of the Real Estate Transfer Tax in those circumstances would apply to the real property that would fall under the Real Estate Transfer Tax as if that transfer of interest was accomplished by a transfer of deeds rather than a transfer of interests in the controlling entity. The fiscal note on the bill projects that the enactment of the measure would increase Transfer Tax revenues by $1.375 million in FY 01, with 10% ($137,500) accruing to the counties where the transferred property is located, 45% ($619,000) accruing to the Maine State Housing Authority’s HOME program, and 45% accruing to the state’s General Fund. (Public hearing scheduled for Monday, March 27.)

LD 2649 - An Act to Allow Registration of Low-speed vehicles (Sponsored by Rep. Dudley of Portland; additional cosponsors)

This bill would create a new registration for motor vehicles called "low-speed vehicles", which are motor vehicles that can not exceed 25 miles per hour or be operated on a public way with a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour. Under the bill, a municipality may prohibit the operation of a low-speed vehicle on any public way under its jurisdiction if the municipality determines such a prohibition is necessary in the interest of public safety.

LD 2624 – An Act to Increase Choice in the Designation of Public Safety Answering Points in the E-9-1-1 System (Sponsored by Rep. McKee of Wayne)

This bill would allow a municipality that receives dispatch services from an agency approved as a public safety answering point to choose to have that agency designated as that municipality’s public safety answering point (PSAP). (Public hearing held Tuesday, March 21; see related article in this issue of the Bulletin.)