Summer Lunch Program

Free Summer Lunch Meals will be offered to Children & their Adult Family members at these sites Monday thru Friday, June 17 – August 9:

PENOBSCOT BAY YMCA: 116 UNION STREET, ROCKPORT 11:30 TO 12:00

TEEN CENTER: 10 KNOWLTON STREET, CAMDEN 12:00 TO 12:30

YOUTH LINKS: 420 BROADWAY, ROCKLAND 12:00 TO 12:30

ROCKLAND REC CENTER: 61 LIMEROCK STREET, ROCKLAND 12:00 TO 12:15

SALVATION ARMY: 27 PAYNE AVE, ROCKLAND 12:00 TO 12:30

For more information contact:

Charles Butler, School Nutrition Director, RSU #13

207-542-9700 or chbutler@rsu13.org

In the early morning hours on Friday the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to a revised budget that increases funding to our schools above amounts in Governor LePage’s proposed budget.

Proposal to raise the sales tax by a half percent, from 5% to 5.5%, and increase the meals and lodging tax by 1%, from 7% to 8%.
A $16 million increase in direct funding to schools for each of the next two years. (This is $16 million over what the Governor had budgeted and is in addition to the $14.5 million in GPA per year already included in the Governor’s proposed biennial budget.)
ALL casino funds, as voters mandated, will flow through the funding formula to school districts . This sends an additional $13 million to schools in the first year and almost $14 million in the second (possibly more depending upon returns from the casino).
Beginning in FY ’16, the State must make incremental funding improvements to create a path to funding 55% of the costs of our schools. The new law will require a 1% increase to school funding each year until the state reaches the 55% mandate. The Department of Education will be prohibited from funding any new initiatives unless the state achieves the 1% increase each year.
The agreement does shift the cost of teacher retirement onto local schools districts (a cost of $29 million). However, with the additional funding this deal provides, along with the partial funding the Governor provided for the cost shift in his plan, districts will still come out on top.
To help the school districts that are “minimum state receivers”, the state will pick up another 5% of the cost of special education funds to those schools.
The Governor’s proposed “charter school legal defense money” of $1,000,000 will now be targeted to programs to help our students.

The budget will go to a vote of the full Legislature sometime in the next few days.

Augusta, Maine — Today in the House, we welcome our 2012 Maine Sea Goddess, Alexandra Dienesch-Calamari of Owls Head, and Sharon Lombardo, who keeps the coronation engine running, and who does such a fabulous job at the dinner with all the contestants for sea goddess at the Samoset- one of my very favorite events- and who does so much with the young women before we see the parade and the coronation. There’s so much more to what goes on! Everyone spends a lot of time together, getting to know each other, going to events, and spending time in the community. It’s more than what you think!

Senator Mazurek the Senator from Knox County, Rep. Elizabeth Dickerson the Representative from Rockland, 2012 Sea Goddess Alexandra Dienesch-Calamari of Owls Head, Rep. Chuck Kruger of the Representative from Thomaston, and Rep. Jeffrey Evangelos the Representative from Friendship.

Alex works at Jess’ Market, and has declared as a Political Science major at Stetson University in Florida. Representative Kruger and I talked with her about LD 1549, An Act to Provide an Exemption for Incidentally Caught Lobsters. As you know, I oppose this bill, though other members of the Marine Resources Committee support the bill. In fact, the majority of the committee supports, which I hope is prompting those emails, phone calls, and letters.

It’s so wonderful to see folks from home at the State House! You don’t get to see Sharon in the picture, since she was taking pictures…SHARON!

In the picture: “Coach”, as we call our senior statesman, Senator Mazurek the Senator from Knox County, Rep. Elizabeth Dickerson the Representative from Rockland, 2012 Sea Goddess Alexandra Dienesch-Calamari of Owls Head, Rep. Chuck Kruger of the Representative from Thomaston, and Rep. Jeffrey Evangelos the Representative from Friendship.

Augusta, Maine — I just got a letter from a constituent on this important issue. Currently, a town or municipality only has to follow MUBEC if the population is over 4,000. The proposal will reduce the population requirement to 2,000 and over. As always, you may contact me with your thoughts on the issue. The issue is that some code enforcement requirements may be more difficult for smaller towns to enforce, however, in order to create a standard of building and energy codes, the standard should be a standard. This bill should be coming soon.

An Act To Restore Uniformity to the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 10 MRSA §9724, sub-§1, as amended by PL 2011, c. 408, §4, is further amended to read:
1. Limitations on home rule authority. This chapter provides express limitations on municipal home rule authority. The Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code must be enforced in a municipality that has more than 4,000 2,000 residents and that has adopted any building code by August 1, 2008. Beginning July 1, 2012, the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code must be enforced in a municipality that has more than 4,000 residents and that has not adopted any building code by August 1, 2008. Beginning July 1, 2014, the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code must be enforced in a municipality that has more than 2,000 residents and that has not adopted any building code by August 1, 2008. The Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code must be enforced through inspections that comply with Title 25, section 2373.

Sec. 2. 10 MRSA §9724, sub-§1-A, as enacted by PL 2011, c. 408, §5, is amended to read:
1-A. Municipalities up to 2,000 residents. A municipality of up to 4,000 2,000 residents may not adopt or enforce a building code other than the Maine Uniform Building Code, the Maine Uniform Energy Code or the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or Title 25, chapter 314, the provisions of the Maine Uniform Building Code, the Maine Uniform Energy Code or the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code do not apply in a municipality that has 4,000 2,000 or fewer residents except to the extent the municipality has adopted that code pursuant to this subsection.

Sec. 3. 25 MRSA §2373, first ¶, as amended by PL 2011, c. 408, §6, is further amended to read:

The code must be enforced in a municipality that has more than 4,000 2,000 residents and that has adopted any building code by August 1, 2008. Beginning July 1, 2012, the code must be enforced in a municipality that has more than 4,000 residents and that has not adopted any building code by August 1, 2008. Beginning July 1, 2014, the code must be enforced in a municipality that has more than 2,000 residents and that has not adopted any building code by August 1, 2008. The code must be enforced through inspections that comply with the code through any of the following means:

SUMMARY

Current law requires the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code to be enforced in a municipality that has more than 4,000 residents; a municipality with 4,000 or fewer residents that has not adopted a building code is exempt. This bill requires the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code to be enforced in all municipalities with more than 2,000 residents, beginning July 1, 2014. A municipality with 2,000 or fewer residents is exempt, but, if a building code is adopted in such a municipality, it must be the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code.

Augusta, Maine — Just got a note from House Chair Walter Kumiega on that. My bad! But, same deal.

Here’s the bill text. I’m in the house working, so won’t comment now, but, I do still oppose this bill.

An Act To Provide an Exemption for Incidentally Caught Lobsters

Emergency preamble. Whereas, acts and resolves of the Legislature do not become effective until 90 days after adjournment unless enacted as emergencies; and

Whereas, under current law a lobster caught as by-catch by a commercial fisherman must be released immediately; and

Whereas, allowing those incidentally caught lobsters to be sold outside of Maine can help sustain the commercial fishing industry; and

Whereas, it is important to provide financial assistance to Maine’s commercial fishing industry as soon as possible; and

Whereas, in the judgment of the Legislature, these facts create an emergency within the meaning of the Constitution of Maine and require the following legislation as immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety; now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §6501, sub-§2, as amended by PL 2001, c. 421, Pt. B, §25 and affected by Pt. C, §1, is further amended to read:
2. Licensed activity. The holder of a commercial fishing license may fish for or take fish or possess, ship, transport or sell fish that the holder has taken or take, possess or sell lobsters pursuant to section 6952-A, subsection 3, paragraph C. The license authorizes crew members aboard the licensee’s boat when it is engaged in commercial fishing to undertake these activities, if the license provides for crew members.

Sec. 2. 12 MRSA §6952-A, sub-§3, as amended by PL 2011, c. 266, Pt. A, §22, is further amended to read:
3. Exceptions; boats. This section does not apply to:
A. A boat rigged for dragging, trawling, dredging or seining if all nets, drags and dredges are removed from the boat; or
B. A boat rigged for netting if there are no finfish taken by gill net aboard . ; or
C. A boat participating in the federal northeast multispecies fishery under 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 648 (2012) or successor regulations if all fishing activity during the trip has occurred in the federal lobster management area Area 2/3 Overlap or EEZ Offshore Management Area 3 delineated under 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 697 (2012). A lobster taken under this paragraph may not be first sold in this State.

Emergency clause. In view of the emergency cited in the preamble, this legislation takes effect when approved.

SUMMARY

This bill allows the holder of a commercial fishing license while on a boat participating in the federal northeast multispecies fishery fishing exclusively in specific lobster management areas delineated under federal regulation to take, possess or sell lobsters but prohibits the first sale of those lobsters in Maine.

Augusta, Maine — LD 1097, An Act to Allow the Sale of Incidentally Caught Lobsters, was voted out of my committee (Marine Resources) last Wednesday to a tie vote. Senator Woodbury was not present, and if he votes to support, then this bill will have a majority Ought to Pass report by one vote.

On the face of it, I can understand why Senator Haskell of Cumberland has presented this bill. She’s trying to help a ground fishing fleet of roughly twelve vessels to either stay in or relocate to the Portland Fish Pier, which would provide economic opportunity. Currently, incidentally caught lobsters in one particular zone can not be on board, and can glean a fine of up to 50,000 dollars. However, the irony as near as I can understand (because it really makes no sense) is that a vessel home ported in say, Gloucester, can come into the zone, retain incidentally caught lobsters, head home, and unload them in Massachusetts with no potential for penalty and with the added value of having another species to sell.

Unfortunately, this particular zone is regulated by the Feds, so Maine can’t tell Massachusetts to employ means not to entangle lobsters when dragging.

So, given that we can’t stop the Massachusetts fleet from “incidentally” catching lobster, doesn’t it make sense to bring the fleet home and have the benefit of all the economic activity on Maine soil?

That’s what the Department of Marine Resources seems to think. But, I don’t, and I won’t support it. Neither will several of my committee colleagues, as mentioned, one of whom is a marine biologist, and one of whom is our own senator.

Here’s why.

As near as I can tell, there’s nothing really “incidental” about catching lobsters, either in a trap or dragged. When a dragger drops the net, there are these big gigantic “doors” and there are also weights that hold the net down. The operators of the vessel can control whether those doors hit the bottom and the net drags the bottom, or whether the whole thing hovers up above the bottom. Most fish don’t swim by crawling along the bottom of the sea bed. But, our state bug does. (No, not the black fly.) And lobsters get caught in the nets when the doors are down on the floor of the sea bed.

So if Maine vessels aren’t allowed to keep lobster caught in drags, instead of the whole fleet moving to Massachusetts, or staying there, couldn’t they just throw the lobsters back? Well, a lobster that has been caught in a drag probably won’t survive if thrown back. Think about it- you’re caught in a net, and dragged along the floor of the ocean, crammed in with other fish, seaweed, whatever. Their gills get filled with mud. Their shells cracked. Legs missing. Claws missing.

And this should also give you a pretty clear picture of what bottom dragging is all about. The delicate balance of the ocean floor, scraped by massive drags.

Personally, I think that my committee should issue a letter, immediately, to the Federal Government insisting that bottom dragging in Maine waters stop. Canada has done just this. Several of us thought that this would be a good idea, but, the sparks flew. Maybe because it was the day after our long night session trying to resolve the hospital and Medicaid expansion bill, but, nerves were frayed. I pushed hard to keep asking questions, and one of my colleagues was getting exasperated that we couldn’t move on. We had to laugh about it and apologize the next day, but, that’s the climate we are in right now. I’m still going to push for a letter, and pressure on the Federal authorities, because this just isn’t right.

And I think you should know about it, considering that the lobsters in all zones are the same lobsters. They don’t really live in separate areas. They can cover huge ground- so this dragging is hurting the lobsters upon which our region depends for its economic well-being.

Please let me know your thoughts on this issue- as you can tell, I’m pretty opposed to the whole thing, but, maybe there is something I am missing. I’m pretty sure the lobstering community here will not want to support this bill, but please do be in touch with me if you would like to discuss.

We’ve got a record number of legislators co-sponsoring: here for convenience is an email blast re-posted from MOFGA about the GMO right to know bill:

Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association

Make a Difference! Testify on Tuesday!

We have the right to know –
Label GMOs!

Friends of Good Food,

Please make your voice heard on Tuesday, April 23, as MOFGA and our friends tell
Maine’s Joint Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (ACF):
We have the right to know!
Label GMOs!

LD 718, Maine’s Right to Know GMO Labeling bill,
will require that most foods and seed sold at retail outlets
be labeled if they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients.
The bill has massive bi-partisan support from a record 123 co-sponsors.

A recent scientific poll shows 91 percent of Mainers want GMO labeling.

Please join our rally and press conference at noon on Tuesday, April 23,
at the State Capitol in Augusta.
Bring positive signs and banners!

Testify at the 1 p.m. crucial Public Hearing
before the legislature’s ACF Committee.

TUESDAY APRIL 23 WILL BE MAINE’S SINGLE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO CONVEY OUR SUPPORT FOR WHAT WILL BE AMERICA’S FIRST GMO LABELING LAW. COME MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Maine deserves truth-in-labeling.

If you are anywhere in or near Maine, come, bring your neighbors and friends,
and help us make history!
See you there!

Find information about LD 718 at www.mofga.org/Programs/PublicPolicyInitiatives/RightToKnowGMOMaine/tabid/2540/Default.aspx

The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA, www.mofga.org), formed in 1971, is the oldest and largest state organic organization in the country. The purpose of the Association is to help farmers and gardeners grow organic food, fiber and other crops; protect the environment; recycle natural resources; increase local food production; support rural communities; and illuminate for consumers the connection between healthful food and environmentally sound farming practices.
PO Box 170 294 Crosby Brook Road | Unity, ME 04988 US

….and you will land it, and we will go on. Somehow. This is your eternal optimist speaking…

It’s budget season, or has been budget season, across Maine, and we’ve heard a lot about the term revenue sharing. Nobody likes property taxes. They are one of the most regressive forms of taxation there is, in my opinion. Revenue sharing is one of the programs run by the state of Maine that takes sales taxes, generated for the most part in the cities and towns, and redistributes them to the cities and towns in an attempt at proportional sharing.

I hope you’ve heard about revenue sharing, and thought about it some, but, if not, here we go. Most folks are struggling along trying to make a living, get through the day, feed the kids, and collapse into bed at night. Who has time to learn about what programs the state is going to cut, unless it directly affects us?

Well, that’s the whole point. Over the next two years, most all of the folks who own property are going to open up our municipal or town tax bill and scream when we see how much it went up. And that’s why we need to know a little about the programs that Governor LePage wants to cut that offset that tax bill- and please don’t forget that the revenue for the revenue sharing was generated in your town or city through economic activity.

Here’s how it works.

Revenue Sharing is a program established in state law that is supposed to provide municipalities with 5% of state income and sales tax revenues. In the 2014-2015 Biennium, this would amount to $282 million to be distributed among 495 cities and towns. The distribution of funds among municipalities is determined by the following formula:

(population x assessment)/state valuation = computed number

computed number/sum of all computed numbers = proportional share of Rev-1 distributions

Wait- What is “Rev 1″? If you look at the above formula, you will simply get an across the board split of revenue sharing that does not take into account the differing mil rates of towns and cities across Maine. So every town would get the same amount. And that’s Rev I. For example, service centers have a higher mil rate than other towns, and need to provide more services. However, current law establishes 10 mils as the threshold for another version of revenue sharing- called Revenue Sharing 2, though the threshold increases each year by half a mill until it reaches the state wide average, which is currently 11.76 mils. By now you should be thinking that most towns would qualify, since most towns now must have mil rates well over that threshold! There have in recent years been attempts to look at that number and adjust, but, given the lack of funding in the state budget, not much of an adjustment has been possible.

Revenue Sharing 2, or Rev 2, is also called the “disproportionate tax burden fund”, because it provides additional funding for Maine service centers and municipalities with higher tax rates.

Here’s how Rev 2 works:

assessment/state valuation = mil. rate

(mil. rate – 0.01) x population = computed number

computed number/sum of all computed numbers = proportional share of REV-II distributions

Now let’s return to the very first number I threw at you, 282 million dollars. That’s the amount of revenue sharing that Governor LePage is proposing to shift to the State General Fund, and NOT send to the towns and municipalities. However, that number STILL isn’t going to plug up the budget hole, and there are a whole other host of tax relief programs that are also on the chopping block, such as the circuit breaker program, BETR, which is a business tax relief program- let’s see, what else- low cost drugs for the elderly, a big shift on to municipalities to pay for at least half to date of teacher retirements…

The elimination of Revenue Sharing along with all the other proposed shifts of state program funding onto municipalities creates a total shift of $440,000,000 of which Revenue Sharing comprises 70.5 percent.

K-12 educational funding is cut by $12,500,000,
Teacher Retirement costs are pushed onto school districts at a total cost of $29,000,000.
A portion of commercial vehicle excise taxes [$8 million] are diverted to the State,
Personal property tax exemptions for business machinery and equipment, formerly reimbursed by the State, are now funded 50% by municipalities ,
The proposed restructuring of the Homestead Exemption will create a loss of $8.76 million to municipalities, and

Restructuring of the Circuit Breaker will provide the State with $73.3 million that once funded municipal property taxes.

.Of the $282 million derived from Revenue Sharing, roughly 30% or $84.6 million is expended on municipal services, 65% or $183.3 million is spent on education, and 5% or $14.1 million goes to the counties.Of the $4 billion that municipalities collect in property taxes over a biennium, 30% or $1.2 billion is spent on municipal services, 65% or $2.6 billion is spent on education, and 5% or $200 million goes to the counties.

Let’s take a break from present times, since they aren’t looking so good, and have a lesson on the history of revenue sharing.

In 1837 all states were allocated federal funds from a so-called surplus.

Maine was allocated $1 million of federal funds, and was the only state to distribute these funds among all citizens 4 years or older.

Edward Muskie, Senator from Maine, authored the federal revenue sharing legislation that took effect on January 1, 1972. Senator George Mitchell saved that particular program in 1981, which lasted until 1986.

State revenue sharing with municipalities was enacted in 1971, and commenced in 1972 at a rate of 4% of State income and sales tax revenues. The Maine Municipal Association had recommended a rate of 7.2% of sales and personal income tax revenues, but the 4% rate reflected a separate collection of corporate income tax revenues that the MMA recommendation had excluded. Throughout the years the rate has changed as follows:

In 1983, the rate was raised to 4.75%. In 1985, the rate was raised again to 5.1%, and in 2009, the rate was reduced to 5% of state income and sales tax revenues.

And now we have no choice but to come back to the present times. And, we have some serious soul-searching to do. Whose fault is this, anyway? Is it the people on general assistance? Is it because of corporate tax loopholes? Is it because the last legislature, with Governor LePage at the helm, passed a tax break that would create a 250 million dollar budgetary hole with no clear plan to offset it with revenue? Is it because Bruce Poliquin’s office couldn’t put together revenue projections that reflected reality? Is it because DHHS has a strange habit of finding and losing monies in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range? Is it the economic downturn not reversing as fast in Maine as elsewhere? Is it because the legislature doesn’t have the political spine to raise taxes on income earners over $250,000, or to look at more equitable broad-based taxes rather than shifting costs on to property taxes?

You may not like this, but, I’m going to have to be honest and tell you that some of all of the above is the reason for the mess we are in- but I also have to be honest and tell you that the way out is not simple. There is no one party that we could finger here, and make responsible for the entire mess. For example, do you want me to raise your personal income taxes? Nope, didn’t think so. But I just told you that a tax break with no game plan behind it is partially responsible for part of the budgetary shortfall. So, shouldn’t we correct that tax break in some way, shape, fashion, or form? There goes my chances of ever being re-elected, right? Seriously, I don’t actually think that just raising the taxes that were cut back to the pre-cut level would fix the problem, because the problem is I believe around 400-500 million, not the 250 or so that was the tax cut. So clearly, we need to look at how we are providing services, what services we are providing, and whether we are getting a good deal or not. We need to stop paying lip service to real tax reform and as a community of people of the State of Maine, decide what services we should provide- and do it, or not. And that includes providing an education- which does not mean laying off teachers while changing nothing with administrative salaries and launching into new projects.

We’ve got to get real. For example, do we really want to continue to pay for outrageously expensive health insurance, or are we going to ever realize that as a nation, health care is not the same as paying health insurance premiums? I have a friend who told me that he is paying five hundred dollars a month for his share of his family’s employer-sponsored health insurance right now. Many are paying much more. A typical family plan provided for employees of RSU 13 is right around 13 grand. The taxpayer picks up most of that for me, but how long can I justify that? It’s only been two years, and believe me, I rarely go to the doctor due to all this clean living I do, and simply want my son to be safe and able to be cared for. So why is there only this one option for health care? Isn’t there another way? There has got to be another way, because we can’t go on like this, with the divide between people growing, budgets continuing to soar, and our dreams, visions, and goals as a state suffering.

Dreams, visions, and goals. For me, it’s each of us being wiling to look inside, see one place we could become fiscally more prudent, and then hold out our hand to our neighbor and reach together for the sky again. But, before we can do that, we have got to take a clear, sober look at what services our state provides and whether we can afford to pay for them or not. And that sober look always seems to get tied up in ideology and politics.

Maybe the best message I can leave you with about how we may have to react to what is coming down the pike to us from the state in terms of cuts to revenue sharing is to say that we will need to start doing what I have sometimes talked about at City of Rockland budget meetings: we need to think of our budget as a family document, and think of our city as our home. A municipal or state budget may be several hundred pages long, but the concept is the same. If the money is there, we can afford it. If not, we can’t, or, we had better develop a longer range plan to get there. Because if this keeps up, we’re finally going to have to learn to budget like a mother- um, I mean, like mom. And maybe in some ways, it’s a good thing- but only if we can take that long, hard, look, and leave the political ideology out of it.

The State of Maine maintains a website that makes it possible to do a scan of what legislation a particular rep or senator is sponsoring or co-sponsoring. The website is available through this link:
http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/jt_list_alpha.htm

Once you get to that page, you will need to click on the link for the particular legislator you are searching, for example, if you use me to test it out:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/searchresults.asp?StartWith=1
You’ll get to my page on the website, and if you scroll down, there’s a button to click that takes you to my legislation. Enjoy!

Just wanted to give you a quick update on an important link on a WordPress blog that Speaker of the House, Mark Eves, has set up, so that we can have at-a-glance information on the unfolding budgetary process at the State House:

http://mainebudget2013.wordpress.com/

If you have testimony that you would like to provide concerning any portion of the budget, please contact me at repelizabeth.dickerson@legislature.maine.gov or call 207-287-1400, or send your testimony to Representative Elizabeth Dickerson, 2 State House Station, Augusta, Maine, 04333-0002.