EMS, Housing & Newspaper Notice

In this edition of the Potholes & Politics podcast, Rebecca Lambert and Amanda Campbell share updates on several bills of municipal interest that recently received public hearings and work sessions.  They cover initiatives seeking to fulfill a 12-year promise to adequately reimburse providers for ambulance services, including the care provided at the scene of an emergency and community paramedicine (LD 2119); the long-awaited fixes to recently enacted housing legislation (LD 2173); and efforts to ensure newspapers of record remain an effective tool for keeping residents informed about local issues (LD 2042).  In roughly 15 minutes, listeners will gain the key information they need to connect with their legislators and engage in important policy discussions.   

Transcript

Welcome everyone to Potholes & Politics, Local Maine Issues from A to Z. I'm your co-host Rebecca Lambert, and with me as always is my amazing colleague, Amanda Campbell. 

Hi, Rebecca. Thanks everybody for listening. The legislature is moving really quickly through its work, and we're happy to be here to provide our listeners with the next update.

Yes, thank you to all of our listeners. We definitely appreciate every single one of you. If you missed our last episode covering bills with a municipal impact that are moving through the legislature, please consider checking it out. And while you're there, also consider liking and subscribing to our podcast. Doing this will notify you when a new episode drops so you won't miss any of this valuable information that we have for you. 

That's right. And don't forget, on Fridays our legislative bulletin, which is a great place to get weekly information on what's happening at the State House. 

Yes, it is. 

All right. Shall we get started?

Yes, we shall. 

Okay. So, this week the HHS Committee is holding a public hearing on LD 2119, An Act to Expand Reimbursement for Treatment in Place, Community Paramedicine and Alternate Destination Transport, which is sponsored by Representative DeBrito of Waterville. The LPC unanimously supported this bill, which is somewhat like one of MMAs platform bills introduced during the first session. That bill, LD 1530, would've introduced the term non-transporting emergency medical service to the statute that governs reimbursable EMS costs. Rep DeBrito's bill repeals that entire section and rewrites it to clearly outline what ambulance services require reimbursement. The proposed language includes not only care given when a patient refuses transport but also adds community paramedicine services and transportation services for destinations other than a hospital. This bill would require the creation of the necessary billing codes that have been promised for almost a decade and put into place a mechanism to relieve some of the pressure on the property taxpayers for the delivery of emergency services.

There were two bills that were talked about on our last episode that were scheduled for work sessions on February 4th in the State and Local Government committee. The first one that I wanna talk about though is LD 2009, An Act to Allow a Political Subdivision to Enter into Federal Bankruptcy Proceedings sponsored by Senator Moore of Washington County.

This bill was brought forward in response to the financial issues that Washington County has been dealing with. But at the work session, before the analyst gave her bill summary, it was mentioned that an amendment was going to be offered by the sponsor. So, the committee brought up the sponsor, and she shared that after the public hearing, she realized that this bill would require a lot more work and that maybe the bill would be better suited for the next legislative session.

However, with that said, she said that she also feels like there needs to be some guardrails in place for accountability as it relates to the required county audits. Currently, in statute, there's a requirement for counties to conduct an audit. Once that audit is complete, a copy gets sent to the state auditor who then posts it to their website, and that is where the process ends.

She went on to add that looking at the website, it appears that some counties have not submitted an audit in some cases since 2020. So, what's being proposed in the amendment is that when a county would be required to submit an audit, if they did not do that, it could result in withholding state funds until the audit is completed. Of course, there'd be special considerations given if there was no auditor available to do the audit or situations that were out of the county's control. 

And that is sort of the case right now with so few auditors in the state and, withholding state funds from the county seems like it might have some serious repercussions.

It totally would, particularly as it relates to jails and the bill sponsor mentioned that she would like to hold municipalities to the same standard, but since there are approximately 485 municipalities, but only 16 counties, this avenue seemed like it was less of a lift. 

The state auditor was available by Zoom to weigh in, and he mentioned all the things that we've already gone over with regard to the lack of auditors available to do the work and that audits are already required in statute. He appreciates the provision that was included for extenuating circumstances, particularly since the amount of people getting into the auditing profession is, in his words, was the lowest in American history, which I thought was kind of interesting. When asked for his thoughts about withholding funds from counties he responded that decision should come from the executive branch and that his department must remain neutral, but that they would be able to make notifications like to the treasurer's office or the executive branch if an audit had not been completed. 

I'm glad the state auditor responded that way. My concern, as you mentioned from the sponsor, would be if they put in some sort of withholding penalty for the counties, they could do that for the municipalities next. And who exactly would be those audit police? 

Good point, and I'm not sure who the audit police would be.

The state auditor mentioned that they can notify the executive branch or treasurer's office if an audit hasn't been submitted, but they shouldn't be the ones to determine if state funds would be withheld. They're not comfortable with that. 

Next, the committee brought up the representative for the County Commissioner's Association. It was the first time he had seen the amendment, so he hadn't had a chance to talk to any of the commissioners to get their view on it, but he brought up the concern of the jail funding, mentioning that over half of county budgets are made up of jail funding, and with the state contributing less and less to that, the burden winds up falling to the property taxpayer-essentially taking away county funding would hurt taxpayers the most. 

After hearing all the discussion, it was recommended that the committee give time for the sponsor and the county commissioners to work on language. And because the bill will have changed from its original form so significantly, the committee may hold another public hearing on the amendment just to give stakeholders a chance to weigh in on the changes.

That's an interesting development. Has that ever happened to a bill of yours before that they've held a second public hearing? 

I don't believe so. This would be a new one for me. 

Interesting. I've not seen that before either. 

So, switching over to housing, the long awaited bill seeking to ease the housing development related changes that were enacted last year in LD 1829 and to some extent long ago in LD 2003, is up for a public hearing tomorrow at one o'clock, Tuesday. And prior to seeing any language, this bill was tossed around as the “fix” bill for 1829. But it doesn't seem like it fixes too much. There's a lot of very specific language which we think would be really hard to digest in this format. So, we're gonna link the bill text in the show notes and listeners should be sure to read last week's bulletin article, which outlines all of the proposed changes that staff is following. The upcoming public hearing though, is a critical opportunity for municipal officials to provide feedback to the committee, particularly with specific local examples and regional concerns.

And if you have any questions about testifying or attending a hearing, resources for testifying can be found on the advocacy section of the website, which we’ll also include in the show notes.

Back to the state and local government committee. The second bill that had a work session was LD 2042, An Act to Eliminate the Requirement for Municipalities to Provide Public Notice in the Newspaper was sponsored by Senator Black of Franklin County. He brought this bill forward on behalf of the Town of Farmington and it would also do just what the bill title says, allow municipalities to use alternative methods for providing public notice. 

The Maine Press Association was asked to come forward at the work session and indicated to the committee that they would like to work with MMA on a compromise that would recognize the transparency and oversight that the newspapers provide but understand that cost is a driving issue for many towns and cities.

During discussion, the committee was split on this bill with some members concerned about senior citizens and those who only rely on print newspapers or don't have digital literacy. They asked for MMA to comment on working with the press association. And, this bill was in my purview, but I got pulled away to another committee.

So luckily, our colleague Tanya was able to attend in my place and she shared that MMA understands the press association's concern and touched on that municipalities are under pressure to reduce costs. She was also able to provide a real-world example from her time in Bangor that required a public notice that wound up costing upwards of $8,000 to print and agreed there's value in having a conversation with the association to work on a compromise.

With that the bill was tabled, and just so our members know, a meeting with the press association was already scheduled, and we're going to discuss this bill to hopefully work out a compromise. 

So, also this week, criminal justice will be hearing LD 2090, An Act to Establish a One Year Probationary Period for Public Safety Dispatchers sponsored by Representative Bunker from Farmington, which looks to do, also, what the title implies.

Currently all municipal officials other than law enforcement officers are subject to a six-month probationary period. And this bill would bring the dispatcher's probationary timeline in line with other law enforcement professionals. This is important because well, dispatchers have a pretty important job, right?

Mm-hmm. 

Sometimes life and death situations and having a longer period of time for coaching and supervision, especially during stressful incidents, is a benefit to both the dispatchers and the public that they serve. When the LPC debated this bill, a couple of really good questions did come up. Like, when does the 12 months start and what happens if a dispatcher is currently working under a contract or a collective bargaining agreement with only a six-month probation? So those details will need to be discussed in an upcoming, work session with the committee. 

On Monday, February 2nd, the Maine Office of Community Affairs, or who we refer to as MOCA, held an information session regarding the Municipal Ordinance Development grant program, which laid out the timeline and details for how municipalities can apply to be reimbursed for the costs of amending land use ordinances to comply with recent housing legislation.

However, it's a super short turnaround and costs incurred prior to being under contract with MOCA will not be eligible for reimbursement. Applications close on March 4th, and contracts are expected by April 1st. All of the details are in last Friday's legislative bulletin and we’ll post the program statement and MOCA's website into the show notes.

Regardless of what your community has spent or if you are applying for funding, MMA encourages communities to continue tracking time and expenses closely that are related to all land use ordinanc amendment work for the purposes of demonstrating to the state the true costs of their mandates. 

Really great suggestion to all of our members.

And, speaking of housing, I get the privilege of testifying in the housing committee this week, something that very rarely happens, to provide MMAs position on LD 2124, An Act to Support Emergency Shelter Funding Using Revenue From the Real Estate Transfer Tax sponsored by Representative Gatinne from Westbrook.

This bill was hotly debated by our LPC because municipal officials recognize both sides of this argument; that communities hosting emergency shelters need help in maintaining those services, but also counties need all the revenue they can get. After lots of discussion and two votes, the LPC landed on a position of opposition based solely on the implications to the property taxpayers should the amount of the real estate transfer tax that counties can retain is reduced, and that's essentially what this bill does.

The amount has been reduced once, last session, from the 10% that's been in place since the real estate transfer tax was enacted and was reduced to 9.2%. That reduction is scheduled to sunset in 2027 back to the 10%. LD 2124 would further reduce that retainment to 8.2% and there would be no sunset.

So, my testimony is gonna reflect that municipal officials know that communities need assistance with emergency shelters but are concerned that any reduction in county revenue will increase property taxes. And I've spoken with the sponsor and many other legislators about this bill, but at this point, I can't predict at all how this will play out.

Hmm. That was a tricky one. 

Indeed. 

The Veteran and Legal Affairs Committee held a work session for the carryover bill LD 1365, which I've talked about before, An Act to Allow Consumption of Adult Use Cannabis and Locally Approved Hospitality Lounges sponsored by Representative Boyer of Poland. This bill has had two work sessions since we last talked about it. At the first work session, there was a 30 plus page amendment that was released just shy of an hour after the work session was supposed to start. Luckily, the committee recognized that the public and other stakeholders didn't have enough time, or any time, to digest the amendment and tabled the bill for a later date.

They also asked for any stakeholder feedback to be sent in before the next work session. So, MMA took the opportunity to provide feedback, and it was based on our legal department's interpretation of the bill. As written about in the legislative bulletin last week, there was a conflict identified in the section of the amendment providing that smoking is allowed if a municipality quote “has not expressly prohibited smoking at cannabis lounges within that municipality,” and a shared concern over the timeframe when a municipality fails to act on a local authorization.

The concern is, is that in some cases, the municipal authorization and permitting process could take longer than 90 days, particularly if the applicant needs to go through a site plan review or another local zoning process. The committee took into consideration MMAs feedback, but the bill sponsor clarified that it was his intent to have smoking allowed in cannabis hospitality lounges unless the municipality expressly prohibited it. So, it's an opt-in to allow the lounges and an opt out of smoking. He did, however, agree to extending the timeframe from 90 days to 120 days for the failure to act on local authorization. At this point, I assumed that the bill was posturing to sail through committee, and they invited the Office of Cannabis Policy to come up and provide their thoughts on the bill.

They still remain opposed to the bill and do not wanna see any expansion into the programs until it matures and they can also get the illegal grows under control. 

Senator Timberlake of Androscoggin County made a motion of ought not to pass based on his feeling that this was bad public policy and also bad for public safety, mainly because law enforcement does not have a way to test for cannabis intoxication like they can for alcohol. A majority of the committee agreed with the motion. There was a minority report offered of ought to pass as amended, and it included the extended timeframe for a failure to act on local authorization and clarified that a municipality would have to opt out of smoking in the cannabis lounges.

Well, that's a lot to digest. 

Yeah. Sorry. 

So, will there be another work session at this point or they will just come out with their divided report? 

I think they're just coming out with their divided report. The majority report was ought not to pass. 

Interesting. So, we'll see what happens on the floor. 

Yeah.

One of the last things we want to talk about today is one of the bills that our team was tracking. When we track a bill, it means that the LPC doesn't debate it, and we as a team don't participate in any of the hearings. And this particular bill, LD 2023, was a Resolve, to Establish a Working Group to Identify Ways to Manage Moorings on Inland Waters, which was sponsored by Representative Dill from Old Town on behalf of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department. 

Overall, this bill looks to clarify and establish the authority and processes for permitting and enforcing moorings on inland waters. And, generally speaking, that kind of enforcement falls to the warden service, although several communities have established their own ordinances to govern this issue. 

After reviewing the public hearing and hearing the department testimony mentioned the word municipality many times, our team went into action. I sent a memo to the chairs and sponsor of the bill requesting that the working group membership be amended to include at least one municipal official, although two would be ideal, and including officials from communities that border inland waters that both have and don't have an ordinance can help the working group understand the parameters of why one community may want to govern inland moorings, and why other communities may not. 

And we're pleased to report that the committee heard our request and, through two different work sessions, amended the resolve to include two municipal officials in the membership of the working group.

So, yay us.

That's great. We like small wins. 

Small wins are big wins sometimes. 

That's right. 

So just like our last episode, this is just a sample of the bills we've been working on this session. But that's gonna do it for this episode of Potholes & Politics. 

We really hope you find this information helpful. And our next episode will be more of the same, but with the added bonus of discussing the governor's supplemental budget. Dun dun duh. So, thanks so much for listening and we look forward to presenting you with more information next time. 

Yes, thanks for listening. Have a great week everyone.  

February 6, 2026 Legislative Bulletin

LD 2173 (the LD 1829 “fix” bill)

Maine Office of Community Affairs (MOCA)

MOCA’s Municipal Ordinance Development Grant info can be found on THIS page of the MOCA website under “Housing Legislation Resources”

Advocacy Tools on the MMA website are HERE.