Legislative Bulletin
March 3, 2000

Sometimes it seems as though we have been waiting for implementation of the E-9-1-1 system forever. While we have been talking about E-9-1-1 for 15 years or more, we’ve really only been doing something about it since 1995, when the State began staffing the Emergency Services Communication Bureau. If any effort proves the point that talking about something doesn’t get it done, this effort does.

Enhanced 9-1-1 consists of a statewide network, being developed through a state contract with Bell Atlantic, and 50-60 local public safety answering points (PSAPs). When fully implemented, the system will guarantee routing of a call to the appropriate PSAP within 6 seconds of dialing, and will provide enhanced information concerning locations of the emergency and response facilities. Maine is among the last states in the nation to implement an E-9-1-1 system and while that adds to our impatience, it provides the opportunity to learn from mistakes made in other states.

Task force reports submitted to the Legislature in the late 80’s recommended creation of the system, starting with $32 million and a 15 cents per month line charge on each telephone line. Some of the money would have been used to fund development activities and the balance would have built a reserve fund to pay for implementation. The Legislature was clear, however, in communicating its desire that the system be "pay-as-you-go." Initial funding consisted of a $3.2 million bond issue approved by the voters in 1988. The educated guesses of the 1980’s seriously underestimated both the time and financial commitments that would be required to bring the system to fruition. Further, the impact the 1991 recession would have was not predictable.

From 1988 to 1994 almost nothing happened to bring E-9-1-1 closer to reality. The state was understandably reluctant to initiate new programs at a time when it was suffering shut down days and productivity task forces. Finally, in 1994, the Legislature created the Emergency Services Communication Bureau, which was minimally staffed in 1995. The Bureau began its work of coordinating creation of the system with 493 municipalities, 16 county governments, 500 fire departments, 142 police departments, 24 telephone companies, 300 emergency medical services providers, and at least one post office in every town in the state.

The two major components of development of E-9-1-1 are: 1) development of the statewide system or network; and 2) local addressing. Bell Atlantic must create the infrastructure, which includes the wiring, computers, and redundancies. PSAPs receive all the necessary equipment from the Bureau, but must provide an adequate physical setting, including back-up generators, AC power and grounding, a secure building, recording equipment, and the ability to integrate E-9-1-1 into their system. The 50-60 PSAPs will consist of county sheriffs, 4 state police communications centers and approximately 35 of the largest municipal dispatch centers. The technology accomplishes nothing without local addressing, however.

About 70% of Maine’s population now has good physical addressing, meaning that their house address is tied to a physical location (rather than a mail route and box number) and the physical location is tied to a telephone number. While addressing is strictly a local concern, the state provides assistance through Eastern Maine Development Corp. (EMDC), Northern Maine Development Council (NMDC), the state’s Office of Geographic Information Services, and an addressing consultant. Municipalities that have not completed their addressing projects will not delay implementation of the system, but residents of those municipalities whose addressing is not secured will not be afforded the full protection of the system.

The next 18 months should show tremendous progress in implementation of E-9-1-1. According to Michael Kelly, Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, at least York and Oxford Counties will receive E-9-1-1 service this summer and "all Maine citizens and visitors will [benefit from] enhanced service by July 1, 2001." Bell Atlantic’s contract requires statewide implementation on July 1, 2001, but that could be accelerated if the company completes its contractual obligations ahead of time. In the meantime, the Bureau will be developing a curriculum to train 9-1-1 call takers on the new technology and a public information campaign to educate the public about the new service.

Municipalities have been dealing with these deadlines:

Phase 1: York, Cumberland, Androscoggin, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc Counties:

7/1/99 – all addressees turned in to the Post Office.

12/31/99 – telephone site matching accomplished (physical addresses match telephone addresses).

Phase 2: Oxford, Kennebec, Waldo, Knox, Franklin, and Somerset Counties:

12/31/99 – all addresses turned in to Post Office.

7/1/00 – telephone site matching accomplished.

Phase 3: Penobscot, Piscataquis, Hancock, Washington, and Aroostook Counties

4/1/00 – addresses turned in to Post Office.

12/31/00 – telephone site matching accomplished.

As for the "pay-as-you-go" premise of the program, it has evolved as follows:

1994 – $3.2 million bond issue and 2 cents per line, per month charge for creation and operation of the Bureau.

1996 – Line charge raised to 20 cents per line, per month in order to create a revenue reserve to offset implementation costs.

1998 – Line charge raised to 32 cents per line, per month as cost projections improved.

1999 – Line charge ended in September with sunset provision in statute.

The line charges, when they are reactivated, will continue to increase, and after full implementation, approximately 50-60 cents per line, per month will be required to fund the system. In some states, the E-9-1-1 line charge is as much as $1-3 per month. The national average is currently 67 cents.

No one seems to know how or why Maine’s E-9-1-1 line charge was repealed. It could have been something as simple as a drafting error. Whatever the reason, a bill introduced into this legislative session, LD 2389, An Act to Facilitate the Implementation of the E-9-1-1 System, would restore the 32 cent line charge to fund Maine’s system. The bill also clarifies telephone directory publication provisions and allowable use of the number 9-1-1 for commercial purposes. It requires the Bureau to study and report back the costs that may be incurred by wireless telecommunications providers in development of the E-9-1-1 system and federal requirements and funding sources.

The Utilities and Energy Committee unanimously voted LD 2389 ought-to-pass-as-amended and it now awaits emergency enactment. The original bill would have restored the line charge retroactively to last September, but in its amended form, LD 2389 will simply reinstate the line charge as soon as the legislation is enacted and signed into law by the Governor. MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee voted on February 17 to support the bill. We are all impatient with waiting for E-9-1-1; talking doesn’t get it done. MMA urges full legislative support for LD 2389’s emergency enactment. (LL)

The Education Committee took up the report of the School Governance Committee for a second time at a work session on Thursday this week. At this point it would appear that the Education Committee will be giving a positive report to a bill that is being developed to put the recommendations of the School Governance Committee into the form of legislation, but the Committee would like to see two changes to the proposed package.

As reported in last week’s issue of the Legislative Bulletin, the full report of the School Governance Committee was presented to the Legislature’s Education Committee on February 16th. For a more complete discussion of the work of the School Governance Committee, please refer to that issue of the Bulletin, an article on the subject in the December, 1999 issue of the Maine Townsman, or the actual report of the School Governance Committee, which can be obtained by calling SFR’s Tina Means at 1-800-52-8786.

In summary, the School Governance Committee report recommends a number of changes to the existing system that governs how school budgets are developed and adopted, particularly on the school district level (SADs or CSDs). Specifically:

• All school units, whether municipal or district systems, would be required to develop a policy governing the school budget development process that provides for several organized opportunities, beginning eight months or more before the school budget is finally adopted, for school officials, municipal officials, and the general public to exchange information about the programmatic and financial needs of the schools and the towns, the available revenues to fund education beyond the property tax, and the financial capacity of the property taxpayers to meet the identified needs.

• For SADs or CSDs (or even municipal school systems, for that matter) that are not satisfied with the school budget format they are currently using, whether the lump sum format required by statute or a home-grown "line item" format adopted by the voters, a model cost center school budget format that breaks the budget into six commonly recognized expenditure categories would be established in law as a preferred option.

• For SADs or CSDs that are interested in exploring alternative budget adoption procedures, a process would become available that begins with an open district meeting and a school budget presented to the voters in the cost center format described above. At local option, the voters of a school district could add to that process a referendum ratification procedure, whereby the school budget adotped by the district meeting could be ratified or validated by the voters of the school district with an up-or-down referendum vote held three business days after the district meeting.

And this optional budget format and this optional referendum ratification procedure would be just that…optional. No school district that is comfortable with the budget format (whether lump sum or line item) or adoption procedure (whether district meeting or referendum) it is currently using would be required under this proposal to change either.

Municipal officials have been closely watching the development of this proposal and recognize that the package of changes offers a comprehensive budget development and adoption process that is far superior to the budget adoption process currently established by law. The resistance to the proposal is coming from some superintendents and school board members who object to allowing the voters referendum oversight of the school budget without the so-called "closure" provision in current law that allows the budget to be finally adopted in an open district process whenever the voters reject the budget at referendum.

At Thursday’s work session, the Education Committee asked for the following amendments to be made to the initial package of recommendations as they are being translated into legislation.

Absentee voters. As proposed, the referendum validation, if put into place by the voters, would be pre-scheduled to occur just 3 business days after the district meeting and is designed as an extension of the district meeting itself. For that reason, the School Governance Committee concluded that the referendum procedure need not involve an absentee voting process, which typically involves the preparation and distribution of pre-printed ballots over an extended period of time before the referendum election.

Senator Robert Murray, Jr. (Penobscot Cty.), along with several other Education Committee panelists, objected to the exclusion of absentee voters from the referendum process, and the Committee has instructed the legislative analyst drafting the bill to include a process allowing absentee balloting, without extending the 3-day turnaround between the district meeting and the referendum ratification vote.

Because the referendum ballots are merely yes-or-no voting documents asking if the voter approves or disapproves of the school budget adopted at a certain district meeting, they can easily be printed and made available well in advance, as soon as any referendum vote is scheduled.

The odd part of the absentee ballot process being asked for by the Education Committee is that there will be no way to know if or how the absentee voter knows anything about the school budget, either as proposed or as provisionally adopted at the district meeting.

Reversion clause. The other change to the School Governance Committee’s proposed package that is being requested by Representative Irvin Belanger (Caribou) and several other members of the Education Committee could be called a reversion clause.

Under the original proposal, no school district would be mandated to adopt the preferred cost center budget format or the referendum ratification process. If a school district elected to adopt the new budget format, that decision would be effectively permanent. The school district could not subsequently decide to go back to a lump sum format or to whatever home grown line item format it previously used.

If the school district adopted the cost center format along with the referendum ratification process, the referendum process would be used for a 3-year period, at which time the voters would be formally asked if they wished to continue with the referendum process for another 3 years.

The change the Education Committee wants to make is to provide an opportunity, after a three year period, for the voters of a school district that has adopted these new budget procedures to return to whatever budget format and adoption procedure was previously in place.

LD 2182, An Act to Improve Air Quality Through Market Incentives for the Purchase of Cleaner Vehicles, left the Natural Resources Committee this week with a divided ought-to-pass-as-amended report. If approved by the Legislature, and if it survives its journey to the appropriations table, it will create the "High Pollution Vehicle Retirement Program" as part of a "Clean Car Incentives Program".

The original version of the bill sought to create the "Cleaner Car Rebates Program", which would have rewarded purchasers of new low-emission vehicles with $1000 to $3000 rebates funded by a surcharge of $3 or $5 on motor vehicle excise tax, depending on the model year being purchased.

MMA’s Legislative Policy Committee voted to oppose the bill because it would have required municipalities to collect the surcharge to run the program; because it did not correctly target older gas-guzzling, smoke-producing vehicles that are so common in Maine; and because requiring every person who re-registers a vehicle to contribute to the rebate for those who purchase new cars seemed inherently unfair.

Thanks to the insight of Larry Record, the Director of Maine Revenue Services’ Property Tax Division, a resolution to the issues surrounding the implementation of a property tax break for historic and scenic properties was easily agreed to by all interested parties.

On November 2, 1999, the voters of Maine approved an amendment to the state’s Constitution that authorized the Legislature to allow municipalities to provide property tax reductions for historic properties as long as the property owner agrees to maintain that historic property in accordance with standards adopted by the municipality. The constitutional amendment also authorized the Legislature to allow municipalities to reduce the property taxes on real estate that has been encumbered by easements for the purposes of protecting significant vistas.

The first cut at implementing the newly-established constitutional amendment was presented to the Taxation Committee last week in the form of LD 2537, An Act to Promote Historic and Scenic Preservation, sponsored by Senator Jane Amero (Cumberland County).

As printed, LD 2537 created a subchapter in Maine’s property tax code that would provide some general guidelines as to how historic and scenic-view properties might be identified, and then authorize the municipalities to provide any level of property tax reductions for the historic properties and any level of reductions in assessed value for the scenic view properties.

MMA opposed the printed bill because it appeared to provide an "anything goes" approach to tax assessing with respect to loosely-defined historic and scenic view properties, and the municipalities are already deeply concerned about the lack of common standards governing other property tax exemptions, not to mention a seemingly chronic erosion of the equity principle in property taxation as exemptions are created and expanded for several narrow property tax interests. Other concerns were expressed with the idea of approaching this property tax reduction through the manipulation of the assessed values of these properties because of the unintended consequences that might arise as a result of the way General Purpose Aid to Education, Revenue Sharing, and county property tax assessments are distributed to municipalities on the basis of their taxable value.

To explore alternative ways municipalities might use their home rule authority to provide this property tax reduction, the Taxation Committee formed a subcommittee made up of several legislators, Maine Revenue Services, Maine Municipal Association, Maine Preservation, and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust.

On Tuesday this week, the subcommittee met and kicked off its deliberations with a presentation by Maine Revenue Services’ Larry Record which outlined the several difficulties in implementing this property tax reduction through a system of reduced assessments. Record’s alternative proposal was to move the implementation of the constitutional amendment over to the title of law dealing with municipal government generally, Title 30-A, rather than the title of law dealing with property tax assessing, which is Title 36. Record’s recommendation was to add a single sentence to a section of law in Title 30-A that generally authorizes municipalities to appropriate revenues for specific purposes.

The single additional sentence recommended by Record would expressly authorize municipalities to appropriate funds to reimburse a portion of taxes paid on real property that is maintained as a qualified historic preservation or scenic view property. The express authority created by this single sentence would be provided under a subheading, "Board of Historic and Scenic Preservation," suggesting that the operational mechanics of the system would be that the municipality, if it wanted to, would enact an ordinance creating this Board of Historic and Scenic Preservation. On an annual basis, just as the municipal legislative body appropriates sums for hundreds of other purposes, the municipality would be authorized to appropriate money to be provided to this Board of Historic and Scenic Preservation, for the purpose of reimbursing property owners for some portion of their property tax obligation in accordance with whatever criteria and whatever procedures the municipality may wish to incorporate in its home rule ordinance.

The subcommittee quickly gravitated to this proposal as an elegantly simple way to implement the constitutional amendment without wading into the "morass" associated with manipulating the assessed values of certain qualifying properties. After carefully reviewing the wording of the constitutional amendment that was ratified by the voters last November, the subcommittee recognized that no specific limitations could be placed by the Legislature on the municipal home rule authority to implement this property tax reduction if the municipality wished to do so, but by moving the whole approach from a system of assessing to a simple authority to appropriate revenue to accomplish this public purpose, all the concerns that MMA had were immediately erased.

Ironically, it is doubtful that the Constitution had to be amended in the first place in order to effect this type of public purpose expenditure under the broad home rule authority that was enacted into the Constitution in 1969.

The subcommittee agreed to add just one sentence to the Record proposal, which it lifted from LD 2537 as originally printed, that advertises the availability of the Maine Historic Preservation Commission to provide guidance or assistance to municipalities that are interested in implementing this newly articulated authority.

On Thursday this week, the subcommittee’s proposal was presented to the full Taxation Committee, which unanimously supported the subcommittee’s recommended amendment to LD 2537.

With the all-but-certain adoption by the full Legislature of this revamped implementation of the constitutional amendment authorizing locally controlled property tax reductions for historic and scenic view properties, it now falls upon the Maine Municipal Association, the Maine Historic Preservation Commission and the Maine Preservation organization to work together to develop some model ordinances that will help municipalities put this new program into place if they wish to do so. (GH)

On Tuesday, February 29th, Commissioner Janet Waldron of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services, outlined for the Appropriations Committee the Governor’s proposed changes to the supplemental budget, as well as the Governor’s proposed bond proposal for this year. The so-called "change package" predominately focuses on the $89 million in brand-new revenues made available by the Revenue Forecasting Committee’s recent reprojections of revenue for the 2000-01 biennium. The Governor is proposing to use that money for one-time expenditures on a psychiatric treatment center, education technology and school renovations. The changes are proposed to be made to the printed budget bill (LD 2510).

$33 million of this revenue is proposed to fund a new psychiatric treatment center. It is anticipated that the state will be able to recover from the federal government two-thirds ($22 million) of the cost of the project over a thirty year period. However due to federal guidelines, the recovery of the funds will only begin to take place once the building is occupied.

$30 million is proposed for education technology, raising the total proposed appropriation to $50 million. This proposal, which drew several questions from members of the Appropriations Committee, would provide funds to buy computers for schools in order to give students and teachers equal access to education technology and integrate that technology into teaching and learning practices. Many Committee members expressed concern with this proposal, stating that the funds would be better used to fund General Purpose Aid for Education or other, more compelling educational priorities.

Sen. Mary Cathcart (Penobscot Cty.) stated that the $30 million should focus on existing issues, such as the burden of education on local property taxpayers and the deplorable condition of some of the state’s school buildings, rather than focusing on technology. Commissioner Waldron explained that the change package focused on one-time appropriations and that the Governor would be meeting with the Committee himself to discuss the importance of this appropriation.

The change package also implements an appropriation the Governor has suggested he has been recommending right along, and that is $20 million to be placed in a non-lapsing school renovation revolving loan fund. A related article in this issue of the Legislative Bulletin reports that the Education Committee’s recommendation on this appropriation is $27 million. Rep. Richard Nass (Acton) questioned when the state would experience the revolving portion of the fund.

Also under this change package $10 million in interest earnings calculated as part of the Revenue Forecasting Committee’s reprojection will be returned to the Rainy Day Fund. The cap on the fund was proposed in the original bill (LD 2510) to be increased to 8% of the previous year's General Fund revenue. The cap is currently at 6% and there is presently about $134.2 million in the Rainy Day Fund.

Concern was raised with the Governor’s decision to delete from the budget the $5 million proposal for the Department of Economic and Community Development’s speculation building program. In essence, this program would provide, on a sliding scale, grants to municipalities to erect buildings to attract businesses to their communities. The Department of Economic and Community Development stated that this grant program was an important tool for securing economic development in certain sections of Maine. From the municipal side, the only question was why not simply use that $5 million to fund, for the first time in its 10-year history, the dormant Municipal Infrastructure Trust fund.

Rep. Paul Tessier (Fairfield) expressed his frustrationwith this deletion. According to Rep. Tessier, many municipalities in the northern part of the state are unable to attract businesses due to the lack of existing facilities. Sen. Cathcart added that Orono had recently been able to secure 500 new jobs created by Envision Net because the city had sufficient space immediately available, and this opportunity should be extended to other communities.

David Keeley of the State Planning Office provided the Committee with information on the Governor’s proposed $41.45 million bond package. The Governor is proposing to put two bond issues before the voters in June.

One proposal is a $17.25 million environmental bond. The $17.25 million proposed bond package includes: $8 million for water pollution control, matching $12.5 million in federal funds; $1.25 million to cap landfills; $3 million for the drinking water program, matching $15 million in federal funds and $5 million for proper storage of manure stockpiles.

The second proposal is a $24.2 million higher education bond. The $24.2 million proposed bond package includes: $7 million for the Maine Maritime Academy’s capital campaign; $9 million for the University of Maine’s Orono site; $2 million for a technical college in Houlton; $3.5 million for the University of Southern Maine’s Lewiston/Auburn branch; $1.7 million for a technical college in Dover-Foxcroft; and $1 million for the University of Maine at Fort Kent. (KD)

On Thursday, March 2nd, the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee held an informational meeting on a proposal, LR, 4045, An Act to Create Equity in the Distribution of Gas Tax Revenue Attributable to Snowmobiles, All-Terrain Vehicles and Watercraft. The Legislative Resolve (LR) has not yet been drafted as a Legislative Document (LD).

Although the bill has not been drafted, the Committee wanted to hear public reaction to a proposal to increase the amount of fuel tax revenue dedicated to serve recreation vehicles for the stated reason to more equitably reflect those industries’ contribution to the fuel tax.

Under current law, 2%, of fuel tax revenue, up to $2 million, is dedicated to support boating activity, .5% is used to support snowmobiles and .045% for ATVs. The fuel tax revenues associated with boats, after refunds are paid to commercial motorboat operators, is distributed between the Department of Marine Resources’, which receives 20% of that revenue, and the Department of Conservation’s Boating Facilities Fund, which receives the 80% remainder.

Ten percent of the snowmobile portion of the fuel tax revenue is dedicated to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to support the snowmobile registration program, while the remaining 90% is dedicated to the Department of Conservation’s snowmobile trail fund. The entire ATV generated fuel tax revenues are dedicated to the Department of Conservation for the administration of the ATV recreational management fund. Senator Marge Kilkelly (Lincoln Cty.) led the discussion by introducing the legislative initiative. Sen. Kilkelly believes that the fuel tax is a fee for services and those fees should rightfully be returned to the users in formats that support recreational opportunities.

Proponents of the bill sent a similar message, stating that although it is true that Maine’s road infrastructure, which is primarily funded through the Highway Fund, is important, the funding of recreational opportunities is equally crucial. The Maine Audubon Association, Coastal Conservation Association of Maine, Congress of Lakes Association and Maine Snowmobile Association all provided testimony in support of this initiative. Most of the testimony focused on the importance of these recreation activities to Maine’s economy.

George Smith, representing Sportsman Alliance of Maine, also supported increasing the level of dedicated fuel tax revenue. Smith also accused municipalities of squandering the funds collected from watercraft excise tax on other municipal services, rather than in investing the revenue in providing access for boaters. Unfortunately, Smith neglected to inform the Committee that annually the 493 municipalities collect only $2.1 million in excise tax revenue, and that most municipalities collect only several hundred to a few thousand dollars in watercraft excise tax revenue annually.

Opponents to the concept stressed the importance of keeping the fuel tax revenue in the Highway Fund for transportation related purposes. According to the Department of Transportation’s testimony, 4,200 of the state’s 8,300 miles are in deplorable condition and are in great need of repair. Any diversion of transportation related revenue would impact the Department’s ability to strengthen Maine’s infrastructure, and therefore impair Maine’s economic vitality.

MMA also provided testimony in opposition stating that the changes the Legislature had made to the state/municipal road partnership would be impacted by any diversion in the fuel tax revenue.

As part of the changes that took place last year, the flat funded state aid to municipalities’ formula was replaced with an indexed formula. The state funds are now distributed to municipalities based on a percentage of highway-related funds dedicated to the Department of Transportation. Any diversion of the fuel tax revenue will reduce the amount of state funding for municipalities and ultimately shift that revenue loss to the property taxpayer.

Maine Better Transportation also provided testimony in opposition, stating that although it is true that these recreational opportunities have a positive impact on Maine’s economy, there is no data available to prove that it is due to fuel tax payments. Many of the snowmobile enthusiasts and boaters coming to Maine also pay sales and lodging taxes, and therefore it might be more appropriate to request General Fund revenue to support programs for these recreational vehicles.

The Committee intends to meet to discuss the comments provided and make a decision on what to do next. At this point, there appear to be two options. The Committee could go forward and submit a bill increasing the amount of fuel tax revenues dedicated to snowmobiles, ATV’s and boats or create a commission to study the contributions these recreational vehicles actually make to fuel tax revenue and whether the existing support from the Highway Fund for their respective programs is somehow inequitable. (KD)

The Education Committee met with the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, March 1st to present a $100 million supplemental spending package for education programs during the remainder of this biennium.

The proposed package focuses on three areas: 1) $73.8 million additional for K-12 education; 2) $4.4 million for the Maine Technical College System; and 3) $22.4 million for the University of Maine System.

Of the proposed $73.8 million K-12 proposal, $44.3 million would be dedicated as an enormous boost to General Purpose Aid for Education (GPA). The Education Committee’s proposal is an increase of $31.8 million over the Governor’s proposed $12.5 million increase. Under the Governor’s proposal, GPA would increase 5% from this year to next. Under the Education Committee’s proposal, the GPA increase for FY 2001 would be 7.1%.

The Education Committee made the argument to the Appropriations Committee that this level of funding is necessary to meet the multi-year funding target to shift some of the burden for the cost of education off the backs of the property taxpayers and onto the broad-based tax resources of the state. A side-by-side spreadsheet comparing GPA distributions on a school unit basis with respect to a $12.5 million, $28.2 million and $44.3 million increase is available on the Department of Education’s web site, or by calling SFR’s Tina Means at 1–800-452-8786.

The Committee also recommended that $27 million be added to the school renovation fund. The Governor’s change package includes $20 million for school renovations. House Education Committee Chair, Michael Brennan (Portland), stated that this increased allocation was necessary to meet the four-year goal of developing a $100 million school renovation revolving loan fund. This fund was established in 1998 to provide funds to school districts needing to address health and safety, accessibility and other renovation needs. Thus far, $43 million has been put into the renovation fund by the state.

The K-12 education proposal also includes additional allocations for professional development ($1 million), adult education ($242,794), the ATM distance learning network ($512,000) and teacher recruitment and retention ($120,000). (KD)

LD 2594 – An Act Regarding Forest Practices (Initiated bill)

This bill, which is before the Legislature by a citizens’ initiative, would require landowners to obtain a permit from the Maine Forest Service before initiating a forestry "clear cut" as that term is defined in law. The criteria for obtaining the permit is a finding that the clear cut is silviculturally justified, will not result in undue ecological damage, and there are no reasonable alternatives. The initiative would also establish that no timber harvesting activities on land enrolled under the Tree Growth tax law may exceed sustainable cutting levels over any rolling 10-year period. The term "sustainable level" means that the yearly allowable cut levels may not exceed the average annual growth during the past 10 years. Both these requirements would be developed into rules by a 9-member panel made up largely of loggers, foresters, and forestry scientists. If the Legislature does not enact the proposed initiative as written, the proposal will go before the voters on the November 7, 2000 statewide ballot.

LD 2597 – An Act to Improve Public Water Supply Protection (Reported by Rep. Martin for the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources)

This bill is the work of a public drinking water supply task force and would make a number of changes to the state’s drinking water protection program including transferring the fundamental management of the drinking water program from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Environmental Protection. In addition, this bill would mandate that municipalities expressly notify public drinking water suppliers whenever: (1) applications are filed for junkyard, automobile graveyard or automobile recycling businesses within a source water protection area; (2) areas within any source water protection area are proposed to be rezoned; or (3) a land use application within a source water protection area is submitted to the municipality and the municipality, as a matter of local ordinance, notifies all abutters of the land use application. A "source water protection area" according to the bill is an area that contributes recharge water to a surface water intake or public water supply well for a public drinking water supply. These areas must be specifically mapped by the Maine Drinking Water Program and that mapped information must be given to the municipality in order for this mandate to apply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD 2592 – An Act to Amend the Charter of the Kennebunk Sewer District (Emergency) (Sponsor: MURPHY, T.)

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

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

LD 2594 – An Act Regarding Forest Practices (Initiated bill)