Legislative Update & Farewell Grambo

In this episode of 'Potholes and Politics,' co-hosts dive into the messy world of local legislative sessions. They tackle intense debates about the state budget, revealing that the budget is safe and no government shutdown looms. Topics also include the dramatic Growth Management Act dialogues, General Assistance reforms, and jaw-dropping housing bills. Major highlights include a tussle over election reforms, public comment periods, and absurdly technical housing legislations. They humorously yet professionally dissect the implications for local governments and commiserate over the absurdities of legislative processes. Finally, the episode bids a heartfelt farewell to colleague Rebecca (aka the Notorious RG) with laughs, reflections, and promises of future guest appearances.

Transcript

[00:00:00] Welcome everyone to Potholes and Politics, local main issues from A to Z. I am your co-host, Rebecca Lambert. And with me is. Outgoing House, Rebecca Grant and Amanda Campbell and Kate two, four.

Okay. So today on our podcast, we are gonna discuss some of the hot topics that are coming out of the legislative session as the dust is settling. We've got the budget that's gonna come up, the citizen initiative update, the GA laws, what's going on with that? Some election reforms, the two minute rule, and of course housing.

We can't forget about housing. So first let's start off with the budget. Kate, do you wanna give us an update on that? I'd be happy to. There are two vital budget updates that, came to light last week as the legislature was starting to conclude its work. The first was with respect to whether or not there would be [00:01:00] a state government shutdown associated with the.

Citizens veto petition process. So that really kind of tied everything up for a while. But with the June 18th deadline having come and gone, we now have an answer. And the citizen petition process, or the petitioners, we're not able to meet the constitutional requirement to collect over 67,000, signatures.

And so that question has been answered. Those questions have been answered. Yes. We'll have a budget as of July 1st. As a matter of fact, that budget document does include FY 2025 supplemental funding, and so that was effective law as of June 18th. So budget question is. Taken care of, no state shut down.

The legislature also adopted the, what they're calling part two budget. So if you look at the part one budget was the, which was the, the bill that was the subject of the citizen veto. [00:02:00] That was basically baseline. And again, we've talked about this before. Baseline budgets are basically what you need to operate.

So in the last few. Last week actually, the legislature adopted the part two budget, which is over and above baseline. And when it comes to municipal government programs and other local government programs, we were treated very well. And so there's additional funding for. Revenue sharing in that there's a little more money for county jail operations in the form of $4 million for a mandate that the legislature placed on county, governments a few years ago that requires medication, assisted treatment.

And so you see the $4 million obligation or additional appropriations going to the counties, and it's very important to note. That's it for the county. So a couple of bills that sought to increase the state share of county jail operations. Those initiatives are still on the appropriations table, which will be [00:03:00] considered by the legislature, when they return in a, in a few weeks or so.

So, good news on the, the budget front with respect to the treatment of local governments. Well, that's good. Is that that 4 million was in the first budget because it was my understanding from committee that there was actually less than 4 million that was appropriated for that task. So that's good to know.

Well, the, the 4 million did come about as of LD two 10, so it was a supplemental. Okay. That came in the supplemental. Okay. Correct. 6 0 9 just had the flat 20. 0.3 million. The additional four for the mandate, came as part of two 10, which was just enacted last week by the legislature. So is there anything in play for the next session with the budget?

We won't know until we get to the next session for now, provided that the governor does sign, the supplemental or the part two budget, which is LD two 10. Everything is fine. We'll move forward. When the legislature re convenes in 2026, [00:04:00] they have an opportunity to again, do a second supplemental budget, which is normally, is based on what revenues have actually come in.

And so at the end of the. In December, we'll see the state's forecasters kind of looking at the economy and seeing what's going on, and so there could be more or less revenue, and so the supplemental budgets are not always positive documents. It doesn't mean there's more money to spend. There may be less money to spend, and so some curtailments have to take place.

So we'll know a little better in December once the forecasters have put their arms around what this economy is doing and whether or not there'll be more or less revenue in the coming years.

Another topic, that I actually forgot to mention was the Growth Management Act. And that is, that was something that was debated on the floor of the House and Senate rg. Can you tell us a little about that? Oh, I'd like to forget it. This is such a painful, excruciating process over the past couple of years.

A number of [00:05:00] conversations between special interest groups and. Practitioners that have taken place. And what was some really interesting, I guess you could say, last minute attempts to subvert? , The process, it, originally in the committee, the committee supported both bills, which are in direct conflict with each other, LD 1940 and LD 1757.

51, 17 51. 1751 was an update that used a lot of the terminology that other stakeholders, in 1940 wanted to have as part of the growth management, , process, and also was adopted and drafted by the practitioners who have to deliver on comprehensive planning processes within the municipal sphere and work with the volunteers who are not.

You know, elected to that office, but do a significant amount of work to try to understand and shape the [00:06:00] future of growth within a community through a comprehensive plan. This is becoming increasingly important for municipalities as they're dealing with climate changes and in some in climate change and climate related events.

In some communities it might mean that they need to move their entire downtown area out of harm's way. And there are many communities that are actually looking at relocating some of their historic districts as a result of that. So it requires a long-term planning approach. It requires, a lot of public engagement that's already in the process.

But what happened is a group or basically a functionally a generation of planners and, economic development professionals. That existed and started their work when there was no state planning office. And the state planning office was pretty crucial for municipalities, for being that technical support, for being the keeper of a lot of that information and a lot of the mapping needs that communities needed as they go through that process.

And for providing best practices for how to engage in, [00:07:00] their public connections around, comprehensive planning in general. The state planning office played a large role. When that went away, that basically largely fell to a lot of folks that filled that space, through consulting work and practiced municipal officials who had been through the process before and understood how the process developed.

So a lot of folks were focused on the statute as being. The end all be all, and a lack of state resources, both for municipal planning assistance, as well as, you know, changes to rulemaking existed. So in that vacuum there created a, a whirlwind of need to update the growth management act more in line with what some.

Professional consultants in there, misunderstood around how we got there to that location and really trying to focus a single approach to comprehensive planning in general that just doesn't fit all communities. So the planners worked hard [00:08:00] and the sponsors worked hard to try to understand the issues.

That were associated with it. And as a result, and a lot of keeping and hoeing and entrenchment on language, two bills were developed. So both bills had a battle on the floor as to their merits. One bill was really restrictive. For the planning process for the future, that was kind of decoupled from some state goals, which are really important to fight constitutional challenges around municipalities, telling people what they can and can't do with their property in certain areas.

Those need to be tied to state goal to withstand a challenge against that municipality. We heard from sponsors that the Attorney General's office felt it was defendable, but the attorney general doesn't defend municipalities. It is. Local municipal, council that defends a specific municipal decision.

The Ag G'S not ever involved in that process, so it might be able to defend a state goal, but it's definitely not gonna ever assist [00:09:00] municipalities. And that was kind of the bigger concern around some of, the issues with 19 40 1751 was again, a really comprehensive review of the complex statute.

So there's a lot of. Lack of understanding as to why certain things were changing. It was really complex, but the planners knew and know how to use those and know that interplay. And the department also needs to support all of those goals and needs to play a role in that for the future. And it's really important to, to note that the planning objectives that were expressed in 1940 are already allowable and happening in many communities, so therefore.

The law itself is not prohibiting communities from adopting that approach. Many communities don't want to adopt that approach, which would require the naming of place types, across the spectrum of municipality, which, which can be a significant lift and works well in urbanized areas. As we heard from planning officials does not work well in rural areas.

 1751 also kept the growth. Area exemption [00:10:00] that's really important for small communities and communities without a downtown. So, needless to say, it was a big old battle on the floor. Uh, there were a lot of interesting folks that were calling evidently around saying that they were municipal officials and I.

One bill was the way to go as though it was coming from MA. Um, that was not the case. We supported 1751 and we supported the planners version of that mostly because it's what our members also work within. And it didn't require the one size fits all. It allowed all planning approaches to exist, and that is functionally what was enacted in 1940.

Much to the disappointment, I think of a number of the sponsors, did not make it through for the same reasons that, we've already articulated. And that was a hard fought battle at one point in the Senate, they were tabling 1751 to advance a single member report, which would've completely upended, a lot of planning issues.

[00:11:00] But, rather than let it die. So at least we are in a place where I think moving forward we have support from the state. We have adequate resources that are in place or somewhat adequate resources in place to provide that technical support. And 1751 was an enacted to update that growth management act, and also make it clearer that place types and place type planning can occur.

And, communities still will have their growth. Exemptions, that they need. So would you say it is a win or maybe more of a soft win?

I think the planners would feel that it was a win. It was a hard fought battle. I think it's probably fair to say in light of everything else that it, that MMA has been, addressing that impacts municipalities. It was a lower level, priority for us. Within the grand scheme of things, we obviously want our practitioners to be the ones that are informing all public policy that impacts their jobs because ultimately that costs municipalities more when [00:12:00] they are not involved and it also makes it harder for them to do their job.

And sometimes might be harder for us to find people to fill those roles. So we have a stake in it, but there's definitely a lot of other, as I'm sure we'll dive into. Crap bills that impact municipalities that we care a lot more about this one. So that might just be, maybe ga that would probably affect municipalities.

What have you got for ga, Amanda? Uh, so. At this point, there's, four bills, one that's become law and three others that we're gonna keep paying attention to at this point. I'll start with 10 81, which has been, was signed by the governor. And so is now law and, really just, amended language from, last sessions bill with regard to, applicant access to the GA office and to the.

Certain timing for, completing an application. Instead of, there was a lot of, pushback from the GA administrators that, they had to be available to accept [00:13:00] and process an application during regular business hours. And did that mean that my office is open until five and someone comes in at four 50 that I'm sitting here?

Now completing this application with an applicant, well beyond the time that my office is, is technically open. So, there was language, fixed in, in 10 81 that addressed that issue. And so, applications must always be obtainable during regular business hours, but applicants can make appointments if the GA administrator is not a full-time.

Employee in the office if it's a, you know, a lot of our more rural, smaller communities have someone that's there on call or someone that's there once a week. And so the change in this language really sort of helps them out so that, I think that that's a win. There was some concern from the, other stakeholders that it was gonna limit access for applicants, but I don't think that that's true.

Based on how the, the application process works. So I think that that was a good change. And we'll, we will [00:14:00] work out well for, for everybody. Applicants and the administrators. One that we were really watching was, LD 9 78, Which. I thought was gonna go right through.

It was a house, bill, a representative Zieger out of Portland, that originally was going to increase reimbursement for the five or six communities that received the most ga, to, A larger percentage and everybody else to a different percentage, but they amended it.

There were two, two ought to pass as amended reports. I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone that they moved the majority, which was, party line, bill, they were part, both were party lines. It was split right down the middle. And so nine 70 eights majority report would, . Limit regular housing assistance to 12 months in a 36 month period.

It would increase the reimbursement on starting July 21, 25, so, you know, two weeks from now, to 75%. And then in 2027 to [00:15:00] 80%, . But most importantly, it also repealed all of the requirements that were put in place last session for the statewide database, which is a real blow. And just sort of, you know, how can you be, how can you be held accountable for anything if you can't confirm that someone has already received aid from another community, so that that's.

Something that I hope will be addressed going forward. So this bill was actually passed, to be engrossed in the house and I expected it to run through the Senate as well. And when it got there, the Senate chair of HHS, moved to have the bill committed back to HHS, and all its accompanying papers.

So that takes the bill and all of its amendments and it's, it will go back to the committee, which . As an advocate in the maiden voyage of a first session. I had never seen, I didn't know you could do that, so, that's sort of interesting that it's getting sent back to the committee. And I'm sure that has something to do with the fact that it was gonna have a massive [00:16:00] fiscal note, and would probably just sit on the table.

And so this is, I'm sure it was preemptive to try and get some more work done, or at least I hope that that's the case. LD 10 17, which is, an act to include food provided or served at emergency shelters in GA reimbursement. Our LPC actually didn't take a position on this one because it wasn't really sure where this was gonna go.

This did get moved to the table, to the appropriations table, and is sitting there, but unfortunately because the fiscal note says, . That it would require DHHS beginning July 1st, 2026, to include the cost of food provided or served at an emergency shelter in the reimbursement. But they're saying that because of, a more precise estimate of the fiscal impact is not possible because GA recipient data is kept at the municipal level and varies over time.

Wouldn't it be convenient if we had some sort of database? Um, so. That's sitting on the table with no dollars attached to it because they can't [00:17:00] predict what that would cost. So we'll see. Since we don't know if those, well, the bills on the table will automatically get carried over, is that correct?

Does that, is that how that works? If they go to move to carry them over? So there has to be an order to carry them over. But my question on that is, if the state is reimbursing municipalities for up 70% of the ga, how can there not be data at the state level on general assistance? Well, the data that they receive is right now is based on, a monthly report that the administrator sends in.

It's just not broken down into. I have no idea what the state does with that information once they receive it. I don't know if they're inputting it somewhere and keeping track or if it just goes in a pile for, I have, I really don't know the answer to that. Again, if there was a database, it would be in real time and it would all be right there for everybody.

And, it's just unfortunate that that was such a priority and felt like such a win during the one 31st that. For them [00:18:00] to come in and say that, oh, all of a sudden we can't do this for you. It's it. I think now with some of these other bills, they're starting to see why I at least hope they're starting to see why that's such an important part of this whole process.

But we'll see what happens. So that's 10 17. And then the last one, is ld. 1959. Which is, act to prohibit the department from reducing JA reimbursement maximums for the payment of costs for providing emergency shelter. And it would sen, this bill would essentially, strike out any sort of maximum for emergency shelter costs, which the LPC chose to oppose because,

you can't pay for what you don't know how, you can't budget for what you don't know how much it's gonna cost. And so we didn't think that taking that sort of cap away made an awful lot of sense. However, this bill also is a direct reflection on the fact that the GA rules that were proposed last November,

really were more [00:19:00] major substantive than they were routine technical. And this bill is trying to address the fact that the department shouldn't be able to make, changes in rulemaking that essentially are major substantive because of the result, the results that will happen financially in this case, specifically to Portland.

With those kinds of rule changes and no legislative oversight. So while the LPC opposed the, the basis of the, the dollar part of this bill, we did submit, significant comments and testimony to, the department in response to the rule change, which consequently and subsequently, those rules were adopted with no changes and no, no.

Acknowledgement of the fact that the rule changes really were major substantive. So this bill has been, was requested to be carried over. It's still listed as a request, so I don't know, when that change gets made or if that approval, when that approval is made by, leadership. So, more to come on ga.

 The difference between [00:20:00] rulemaking is becoming and its interpretation of departments is becoming quite a problem considering that routine and technical is supposed to be how the department functions. And they are not supposed to be actionable items. They're not supposed to stand up to, to court scrutiny.

They can change, but they're not supposed to be what I would refer to as just disable and. Major and substantive are intended to be this, the, the weight of law. They both have the weight of law, but one is intended to withstand court action and the other is not. And doing things that are subsequently significant and cost a significant amount of money for those who actually have to enact them outside of state government, just through routine and technical is a significant problem.

Seems to be showing up across policy area and across committee at this point, which is interesting. Problematic, I would say indeed, indeed.

So next up, elections. There was a big bill LD 1977 that came [00:21:00] out, towards the end of the committee work. That was couched as a big housekeeping bill and it was largely a housekeeping bill. It has been amended, some of the provisions, like the confidentiality of a digital cast vote record.

And except for rank choice voting, that, that it becomes public. When the Secretary of State completes the tabulation of the vote that has been removed. It does clean up a lot of language and adds online voter registration to the types of voter registration. So it just cleans up a lot of stuff that are in practice now.

And also for municipalities. There was LD 10 91. And that was a bill that would require municipalities to have a public comment period, a two minute public comment period at all of their meetings. This also was amended. And so now it requires a municipality, to have a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, on matters addressed by that governing [00:22:00] body at their, scheduled public meetings.

So it doesn't require that it's two minutes long now, but it does require that a public comment period, which I think most municipalities do at their town meetings, or excuse me, their select border council meetings. Anyway. Another case of legislators wanting to be municipal officials because they clearly don't realize that they already know how to do their job.

Well, they have that opportunity. They do. Yeah. I think there's plenty of vacancies that they could apply for. Absolutely. And another thing is the LD 2003 redo rg. Oh. Yes, the haunting of LD 2003, which evidently suffered from a lack of appropriate language last time. Surprise. That's what happens when you don't engage the practitioners, or listen to them or accept that.

So there was another attempt to amend the exact same statutes. And honestly, from my personal view, what happened is the housing [00:23:00] opportunities program reviewed the ordinances that municipalities adopted, through adopting accessory dwelling unit ordinances in their own unique ways to deal with their own unique resources, as well as, realities.

And made some value judgements on those, ordinances and. Then use this statute or use this bill, LD 1829, which was passed under the hammer in both bodies. No roll call votes, no mandate preamble. And the submitted information around the fiscal impact was completely ignored by the committee as well as the sponsor, to amend that section of law.

Functionally to address those communities and what they had adopted, some of which was to prevent the use of accessory dwelling units for short-term rentals. If you wanted to have them on a interior lot, some of them required that, a length of time that they'd be rented out, some of them [00:24:00] required, the same size lot as the original dwelling unit.

So if you had a four acre minimum, then the accessory dwelling unit had an additional four acre lot minimum in some communities. And largely those are ways in which those geographic areas deal with water and wastewater resources where they don't have a full-time planning department and they have finite like Peninsula communities resources and they don't necessarily know.

But there are only so many straws you can stick into those. Peninsula Resources before is second drive for everyone, and many communities already wrestle with that. Southport, for instance, is now looking at running and burying, which is a huge challenge when it's mostly granite, water lines all the way around the island because all of the wells, are, you know, at their extreme limit on the island in general.

And that is, and it's such a finite, resource that that once inundated with salt water can never be recovered. So it creates a [00:25:00] huge expense. Either you need to install water, which is no small challenge, getting it to some locations or you need to limit growth. And when you're a part-time community, you do that through.

The use of lot size minimums and that's kind of what has been done. So LD 1829, preempts also any local fire suppression ordinances for accessory dwelling units unless that unit is located within a structure of two or more dwellings, which is ironic because, communities that have adopted. Residential sprinkler requirements did so with the consultation of their community.

Those communities had to vote. All of the residents had to vote to say, yes, we're going to accept a fire suppression ordinance that requires residential installation of sprinklers. But if it's an accessory dwelling unit as defined by statute, which does not mean it's subservient to a, another use, it is exclusively just another dwelling unit on a lot.

It doesn't have to have fire suppression, even though the primary [00:26:00] dwelling unit might have to. So unless they add on to that residence that ha has the sprinkler system or chunk off another part, this bill preempts, the requirement that accessory dwelling units have a sprinkler system installed.

And these are usually places that have historic. Overdevelopment and, very tiny setbacks between buildings where that fire suppression means the difference between that building, catching fire before fire can arrive, people getting out and the rest of the entire neighborhood going up. So that, that's one problematic aspect of 1829.

Another one is that it prevents municipalities from limiting any residential development through a rate of growth ordinance. If they have defined a growth area, even if that growth area is defined specifically for an incompatible use, so like it's an industrial use, you have a, you have a defined growth area, but your growth area intention for that definition was for commercial use and not residential use.

 Or [00:27:00] you have. Aging septic system that can't actually take on new, but you need to be able to plan for growth in this area for certain types of activity. So it's also to use to manage capital investment needs. This prevents, any municipalities from limiting any residential development units through those same rate of growth ordinances as long as it's within a growth area.

It also requires on municipalities to allow at least 14 extra feet or another story above their existing height restrictions for any affordable housing development, but did subject that to a review of a municipal fire official or designee. So at least maybe the fire chief can say, no, we don't have a tower trucks and you can't have your 14 feet.

That's at least one thing. It requires the allowance of three dwelling units for any lot, including detached or attached and up to four units if the lot is designated in that growth area that I described or served by public special district or other centrally managed water [00:28:00] system. So there are, again, small, as we found in synagogue, a small.

Managed sew systems and water districts designed for the protection of the resource and not necessarily capable of adding more units to it, that would now no longer be an exemption. It also prevents the lots in those same areas from exceeding 5,000 square feet for the first four units. And outside of that area, it prohibits more than 5,000 square feet for the first two dwelling units.

And that also doesn't include any accessory dwelling units on that lot, and it restricts them basically to 20,000 square feet, which is the lot size minimum for Shoreland Zone and under Subdivision law, existing subdivision law. It also prevents planning board reviews for four or fewer dwelling units.

So if you have a multi-family structure, you couldn't even trigger a review as to whether or not you had adequate resources in that area. And it also requires all municipalities to go and attend training within a hundred and [00:29:00] day, 80 days of election or of appointment. It also requires all municipalities to amend their conflicting ordinances by July.

First 2026, if they're a town council town, or July 1st, 2027 if they are a town meeting town. And it also expands the amount of units to trigger local subdivision as well as state level subdivision standards. From three or more uses to five or more uses.

 So that is served to municipalities with no funding, no mandate preamble, no constitutional, two thirds override of that mandate on municipal government and therefore functionally if signed by the governor, voluntary for municipalities to do and that. Will be something, I think it'll be a challenge to communicate to municipalities because when they look at the statute, there's no flag on there that says, Hey, this was an improperly enacted mandate.

Legislature didn't do their job. You [00:30:00] don't need to either. Hmm. That's something that you have to go back through the legislative history to understand. But I think, you know, this is so egregious and so, intentional because all of it was, was identified as a mandate from the start. That there was a conscious decision to strip the mandate preamble off of it, and a conscious decision not to fund that activity.

As we know last time, they only provided five and $10,000 depending upon your town makeup, and we heard from municipalities, and it was testified by some of our municipal members that those costs exceeded well over 38,000 that that $10,000 amount even provided last time was not adequate. To address both the legal review, the staff time, the volunteer time, and the actual drafting, as well as the public hearings.

One of the things that came out during the public, hearing on this bill was. This perception that because you're amending an ordinance, it's nowhere near as a, it is a different process than if you're [00:31:00] adopting an ordinance in full, which is ridiculous. Amending or adopting is the same process. You have to do public notice, you have to hold public hearings, and you have to have a vote of the legislative body on whether it's an A line, an amendment or not.

So, there again is a functional disconnect between legislators and. Municipal officials and understanding what is required at the municipal government level, but a lot of desire for legislators to be municipalities and tell them what to do without a real good grasp.

How's that for salty?

I can't stop shaking my head.

Huh? Yeah. I, it's fair to say that most of the housing bills that came through that committee really pushed more duties and didn't actually create more housing. There's a couple of bills that were enacted that funded housing, and what we're seeing is municipalities figuring out how to do that on their own without the legislature needing or even helping.

One bill, which I don't have the number in front of me, but basically changed the statute for municipal bonding [00:32:00] to allow bonding for housing projects. Rockland or Rockport. One of them is already, taking out a loan to do just that in consultation with their residents to say, this is a priority and we're gonna fund that, which is really the only way that any affordable housing is going to get developed.

In a meaningful way and otherwise the profit interests are always front and center, and most of the municipal assistance through TIF arrangements are really based on preserving that for financing requirements. There was really not a lot of change. There's just a lot of, here do this because you are standing in the way of building housing when in fact they're the only ones municipalities, the only ones building housing.

And advancing the projects in a meaningful way.

Well, well, well, the only thing that we have left is our official final farewell to our illustrious colleague, Rebecca Graham. Also known as Gran,

the Notorious rg. Yeah, those are among my favorite monikers. I'm sure that there are others that I'm unaware of.

Well, those don't matter, so no, they [00:33:00] make me happy though. I am going to miss you guys and I'm going to miss debriefing via the podcast, and also a different way of sending out messages to municipal officials who can at least listen in about, our action alerts in their car without needing to read their email right, and listen to our lovely voices all at the same time.

We'll have to have you on as a special guest. Well, I'll be happy to come talk about public safety policy, the future date. Fantastic. It's a deal. As long as I get permission, you know how that goes.

Well, thank you guys for everything and thanks Kate for letting us explore this platform, which I think is, is useful as much as it is a challenge to get out during insane SE sessions, but I think it's helpful. Hopefully our members too. Yeah, I mean, our members. Taking information differently. Um, and so being a, you know, statewide membership organization, it's really important that we meet our members where they are.

Some people like the magazine, some people like the Bulletin. Some people like emails, and some people [00:34:00] like to listen to our lovely little voices on their commutes home and to work. So we're a full service organization. Aim to please. All but the legislatures, huh? There we are. Then there we are. Then there we're then.

All right. Till next time, ladies. Bye. Thank you. Bye.