Collaboration, Supplemental Budget & From Out of Left Field

Tanya Emery, MMA’s Advocacy Manager, joins podcast co-hosts Rebecca Lambert and Amanda Campbell to discuss LD 2173, which seeks to amend LD 1829 housing development provisions enacted in 2025.  The team also reviews key elements of Governor Mills’ proposed FY 2026 – FY 2027 supplemental General Fund budget (LD 2212), including funding for code enforcement officer support, pre-K to grade 12 school programs, school bus passenger safety retrofits, and an expansion of the veterans’ exemption. Amanda provides updates on General Assistance-related initiatives, including increased state reimbursement for the assistance provided applicants (LD 978), and administrator access to a statewide database used to determine applicant eligibility (LD 1996). Rebecca provides an update on an effort to collaborate with the Maine Press Association to modernize public notice requirements (LD 2042).  The team also provides an update on an amended version of LD 2174, which seeks to preempt municipal regulation of renewable energy projects, which will receive a public hearing this week.  

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, and thanks everybody for listening. Much like our last few episodes, we're continuing with covering bills that are moving through the legislature for the second regular session. And as an added bonus today, we have our colleague, Tanya Emery, who's here to talk about the bills that she has been working on. 

What a special treat for our listeners to have three of us this week. 

The whole team. 

The whole team. If you missed our previous episode, it covered EMS services, housing, fixed legislation, and other stuff, please consider checking it out and while you're there, also consider liking and subscribing to our podcast. By doing this, you'll be notified when a new episode drops, so you will never miss any of this important information that we have for you. 

Don't forget, our legislative bulletin, always published on a Friday, which is a great place to get weekly information on what's happening at the State House.

So last time, we promised you that we would highlight parts of the governor's supplemental budget in this episode. And there are several initiatives that impact municipalities. 

The first one was within their realm of property taxation. On Thursday, the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, or AFA and the taxation committee held their joint public hearing on the section of the budget that pertained to taxation. Among other items are the unexpected streamlining of the homestead exemption application and administration of that program, as well as the expanded exemption program for veterans. So first, going forward the exemption applications for homestead, veteran, and blind exemptions would be combined into one application, sort of like a checklist.  But property owners who are already receiving one of those exemptions would not have to reapply. However, any veterans who may qualify for the expanded program would need to provide documentation.

Currently, the vet exemption is limited to those who served during statutorily specified war periods and only to those who are aged 62 or older. The expansion would remove those war time periods and would expand eligibility further by removing the age requirement, and in addition, the exemption value would increase if a veteran has a service-connected disability rating, with the value increasing as the rating increases. 

So, for a couple examples, under the new scheme, a veteran who has just separated from the service and is 30 years old and has no disability rating, would be eligible for a $5,000 exemption on the just value of their property. And a veteran with that same status, but who is 63 years old would be eligible for $6,000.

Any veteran who has a disability rating of 60% or higher would be eligible for between a $10,000 and $50,000 additional exemption. So, the LPC voted to oppose this section just like they did last spring for LD 888, which was the bill that was being worked in the taxation committee and led to this language being added to the budget.

And as our listeners can probably guess, it's not a fun place to be in as the advocate who stands up in opposition to a benefit for veterans. However, it's the principle of exemptions for certain specific groups of people that triggers the opposition, not the veteran’s program itself. Exemptions equal a tax shift, and when you give one group of taxpayers a benefit, everyone else, including those beneficiaries, ends up paying for it. 

So, with respect to public education matters contained in the supplemental budget, there were three sections that MMA testified on.

The first was Part C, which was the part that would fund 55% of the cost of K through 12 education, as calculated by the EPS formula. MMA supports this funding and sees it as essential to helping communities alleviate pressures on property taxpayers. As we all know, county and school assessments make up the majority of the municipal budget, and communities can use this funding to help mitigate overall mill increases.

The second part that generated support from the LPC was part T 1911. Specifically. Part T11 allocates $6 million in funding to retrofit school buses with crossing arms and anti-pinch door sensors. I don't think anyone can argue that school bus safety is a crucial aspect to keeping kids safe while being transported to and from school.

While many districts across Maine will benefit from this funding, a point was raised by the LPC that some districts contract transportation services with bus fleet providers and questioned whether those buses would also be included. We raised that concern in our testimony and suggested that language was added to include those buses. 

The last section that. MMA testified on was for Part SSS of the supplemental budget, which would set a minimum salary for teachers. We testified neither for nor against this part of the budget, but not because the LPC thinks teachers don't deserve a competitive wage. Teachers play a critical role in student success and municipal officials value educators. The concern lies in that teacher compensation is typically determined through a collective bargaining process at the local level. During that process, teachers and school boards work really hard to negotiate in good faith, and it takes a lot of work and compromise on both sides for a successful outcome. Recognizing that work and that these decisions are typically made locally is the reason for coming in neither for nor against on this proposal.

There are also some notable provisions in the supplemental budget related to the Maine Office of Community Affairs or MOCA. One initiative that the LPC supported would provide $135,000 in fiscal year 2027 for one resource management coordinator for the Division of Building Codes and Standards, which manages the training and certification of municipal code enforcement officers, local plumbing inspectors, and third party inspectors. 

In a related measure, Part T, Section 21 would provide one-time funding of $500,000 per year in fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for a three year pilot project to incentivize regional code enforcement. The LPC certainly welcomes support for regional code enforcement but has a strong preference for sustainable funding and not one-time pilots.

Lastly, there's a proposal to provide $350,000 in fiscal year 2027 for a partnership program supporting municipalities to assess needs and opportunities related to the use of artificial intelligence through grants, technical assistance, and information sharing with priority toward expedited permitting for housing development and improved cybersecurity.

The LPC was neither for nor against this provision, as there is concern that this could be a prescriptive measure and require certain integration with state priorities, particularly related to accelerated housing permitting. 

To get away from the budget a bit, there's a bit of positive news where general assistance legislation is concerned. I say that with all my fingers crossed while I'm knocking on my desk. This is discussed in last Friday's bulletin, so for the deep dive, check that out and we'll drop the link to that issue in the show notes. But in a nutshell, the committee unanimously passed out an amended report to try and save the statewide database. The amended language moves the implementation date out to 2028 and provides both one-time funding to create the database and ongoing funding to maintain it. As a unanimous report, the bill will be placed on the house consent calendar and could only be up for debate if someone objected and asked for a floor vote. Once it clears the House and Senate, it goes to the appropriators, which is who we really need to worry about. My preference, although unsurprisingly, no one has asked my opinion, would be to add this as an initiative to the supplemental budget, which they could do.

This would be a good time for local officials to contact their legislators or the members of  AFA to talk about GA funding. And we'll drop a link to the AFA committee page in the show notes, too. 

The HHS committee also reworked LD 978, which was reported out with three reports. This is the bill that you may remember, made it through the House and Senate last session, and then was recommitted back to, HHS by the Senate at the end of the session and carried over. The majority report now proposes an increase in reimbursement to 75% for general assistance aid. One of the minority reports proposes that same increase but excludes the six communities that receive the most GA reimbursement, and the final report was simply an ought not to pass.

This is also one to closely watch as, if the majority report clears the chambers, this bill will also end up with the appropriators, so stay tuned. 

All fingers crossed for the database. 

Indeed. 

One thing I wanted to briefly bring up, and it was written about in the legislative bulletin and talked about in the last episode of the podcast, but for those who haven't heard yet, this is about the bill that would've removed the requirement to place public notices in a printed newspaper, which is LD 2042.

We shared that MMA and the Maine Press Association were going to meet and try and work out a compromise regarding this bill. And as a result of that meeting, the two parties came up with a solution that would address the timing issues that had been identified. Now, the notice can be placed on the newspaper's website or the statewide repository for legal notices online as long as it's followed up in the next printed edition of the newspaper.

Although this wouldn't address the cost issues that have been identified by several municipalities, it does address legitimate timing concerns. So, we're considering this a small win for municipalities. 

Small wins are better than no wins. 

That's right. 

This week, the Housing and Economic Development Committee held the long-awaited public hearing on LD 2173, abill aimed at updating Maine’s housing and accessory dwelling unit laws, commonly referred to as the 1829 fix bill. The proposal is designed to increase housing production statewide, but it drew significant and sometimes conflicting testimony. Supporters say the bill reduces regulatory barriers and helps address Maine’s housing shortage.

Municipal officials, many of them directly raised concerns about local control, infrastructure capacity, and public safety impacts. MMA has taken a neutral position, acknowledging improvements over last year's proposal, while recommending changes to growth rate calculations, density requirements outside of service growth areas, and compliance deadlines.

There's also concern about the cumulative impact of ongoing state zoning mandates on municipal home rule authority. Water districts and local districts testified against provisions that would limit stricter, local septic standards in wellhead protection areas, warning of potential risks to drinking water.

Fire officials also caution that increased density and building height could strain local departments if review authority and resources aren't clearly addressed. Key issues heading into the work session for this bill include rate of growth calculations, exemptions for floodplains and source water areas from density provisions, wastewater standards, fire and life safety review authority, and how affordability outcomes are measured.

LD 2173 continues the legislature's push to expand housing supply, but significant concerns and questions remain about local authority, infrastructure, environmental protection, and funding support. 

Phew. That's a lot. 

That's a lot. 

So, during our last episode, I talked about LD 2124, which was also heard by the housing committee, a place I don't usually go… Which proposes to divert real estate transfer tax funds for emergency shelter funding through the Maine State Housing Authority.

During the public hearing, committee members asked for shelter funding data from both the county representatives and MMA. And in response, I sent out a survey that provided some very interesting information. With approximately 20% of our members responding, municipalities are spending over $1.3 million on shelter funding through either a standing budget line or in response to a third-party request. Citing a need for additional data the committee voted to table the discussion and so far, no date for the next work session. If we have more data, we'll be sure to provide it. 

In the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on Friday, there was a work session held for LD 2160 An Act to Modify Provisions of Law Affecting Small Distilleries, which was sponsored by Representative Geiger of Rockland.

This bill was originally a bill we were just tracking, but there was a provision in the bill that would allow a small distillery to offer beer, wine, or spirits of other small manufacturers at their establishment. Currently, if a small distiller wants to do that, it would require them to obtain a license similar to a restaurant, bar or tavern, and that does require municipal approval. As the bill is drafted, it would allow the sale of outside products effectively converting these businesses into a hybrid retail establishment without subjecting them to the same local review or community input. The LPC decided to submit testimony in opposition to the bill, and that was done after the public hearing had already occurred.

So, at the work session, the committee heard from BABLO and from the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry who provides the inspection for any food related businesses, and that includes breweries and distilleries. The analyst provided her bill summary noting that the bill had some technical issues that would need to be addressed.

Through discussion committee members agreed and questioned whether this bill would be better to come in the next session when there would be more time to address the issues and have a better drafted proposal for them to consider. Ultimately, the bill was voted out of committee ought not to pass with a unanimous vote by those present.

And I'd just like to mention here that this was a track bill for us until BABLO reached out to MMA and asked us to review it, which to me speaks volumes about the working partnership between state and local government agencies that we are always going on about. So, yay us. 

Yay us. Indeed.

The Housing and Economic Development Committee also took up LD 2097 last week, a bill that changes how a code enforcement officer's state certification can be revoked. Currently, that authority sits within the district court. As originally drafted, the bill would've shifted that power to the director of the Maine Office of Community Affairs, MOCA, or to a review committee appointed by the director.

Following collaboration among MOCA, the Maine Building Officials and Inspectors Association and MMA, an amendment was introduced during the work session to address key concerns. Instead of placing decertification authority with the politically appointed MOCA director, the amended version moves the responsibility to the most senior employee of the Division of Building Codes and Standards, along with the certification review committee.

The amendment also clarifies that the process applies not only to code enforcement officers, but also to local plumbing inspectors and third-party inspectors, ensuring consistency across these key roles. Another major issue was the potential for decertification based on unmet certification or recertification requirements, particularly given ongoing challenges with state provided training.

To address that the committee reached consensus on allowing the division to grant a two-year waiver for those working towards compliance. The committee voted ought to pass as amended with broad support signaling progress on bills that meet departmental priorities while recognizing the workforce realities facing Maine municipalities.

And similarly to the previous conversation, I just wanna note that it was very productive, working relationship between MBOIA, MMA and MOCA that led to such a great amendment that got broad support on this challenging bill.  

And so last but not least on this episode, we have another track bill that has taken another wonky route and has been sent to the LPC for consideration.

LD 2174 was originally titled an Act To Replace the Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act with the Maine Renewable Energy and Associated Transmission Development and Conservation Act, and intended to repeal the Waterway Act, which governs permits and certifications for hydropower projects, as drafted.

The original bill would prohibit the construction, reconstruction or expansion of a renewable or clean energy project without a DEP permit. It defines renewable and clean energy projects and directs DEP to begin a rule making process for a permit by rule process for clean energy projects. And the original bill summary indicates that the language in the bill did not address important statutory items like cross references or corrections to portions of law that would've been repealed.

And so last week, the analyst for ENR sent out an amendment from the sponsor, Rep. Kessler from South Portland, which changes the title and strays from the original bill. The new title is An Act to Increase Predictability in the Permitting of Renewable Energy Development and of interest to municipal officials, the bill now includes a section that would prohibit the enactment or enforcement of a local land use or zoning ordinance that relates to certain clean energy development, if that ordinance is more stringent than state law allows. It would also nullify any of those ordinances that already exist. I'm still digging into the nuts and bolts of this bill and its specific impact, but it seems like another day in Preemption Paradise.

So stay tuned.

This will do it for this episode of Potholes & Politics. And remember that this is just a sample of the bills that we have been working on.  So keep an eye out for the legislative bulletin that will be coming at you this Friday. 

Yes, and a big thanks to Tanya for making time in her schedule to join us this week. And we hope you found all of this information helpful. And thanks so much everybody for listening. 

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

MMA Budget Summary on the LD List – See LD 2212 for initiatives that impact municipalities.

Legislative Bulletin Feb. 20 Edition

AFA Committee page with committee member contact information