Maine Legislature Passes COVID-19 Omnibus Bill re Public Meetings, Finance, and Other Municipal Concerns

The Maine Legislature last night passed emergency legislation, LD 2167 (referred to as the COVID-19 Omnibus Bill), which addresses many of the concerns being faced by municipalities in this unprecedented situation. Following is our summary of the provisions of this law which impact municipal government:

Public meetings

• During the declared state of emergency, meetings of municipal boards and committees may be conducted remotely by telephone, video, or Internet. The method must be adequate to allow members to hear and speak to one another, and must allow the public to hear what is said.
• Notice must still be provided (we recommend emphasizing web and press announcements during this time, if offices are closed and physical postings are not possible). The notice must include information on how the public may watch and/or participate. Again, remember that you do not need to make provision to accept public comments unless the meeting will include a required public hearing.
• The law does not appear to require that you provide a physical space and phone, terminal, or display where the public can attend in person to watch or listen to the proceedings.
• Votes taken at a remote meeting must be by roll call.

Budget and finance

• Similar to the process for enacting school budgets, the law allows for a municipality that cannot adopt its budget at the customary time to spend according to the prior year’s adopted budget until the current year’s budget can be passed. If these delays continue to the point at which commitment becomes necessary, taxes may also be committed based upon the prior year’s budget.
• During the period of the declared state of emergency and for 30 days after, disbursement warrants may be signed by a majority of the municipal officers with no public meeting required. The implication is that the municipal officers may sign individually with no meeting required.
• If the level of state education subsidy is not finalized before June 1, 2020, the school budget meeting and validation process may be delayed until 30 days after either DOE notifies the school unit of the amount of subsidy or the state of emergency ends. If the budget is delayed under this provision, the school may operate based on the prior year’s budget between July 1 and the date the new budget goes into effect.

Elections

• During calendar year 2020, the municipal officers may postpone a municipal secret ballot election by posting a notice in a conspicuous public location at least two days prior to the election. The notice must either indicate the new date of the election or indicate that the municipal officers will schedule it at a date to be determined. Ballots already printed for that election may be reused for the rescheduled election (despite including the wrong date), and absentee ballots already cast for the election must be held by the clerk and processed on the rescheduled election date.

Employment

• If an employee is laid off as a result of the state of emergency, unemployment benefits paid to him/her will not be charged against the employer’s experience rating.
• Employees will be eligible for unemployment benefits if they are (1) subject to a quarantine or isolation requirement; (2) have been temporarily laid off due to COVID-19 related closures; or (3) are on temporarily leave due to quarantine, isolation, or need to care for dependent family members as a result of COVID-19.

Education

• The Governor and Commissioner of Education may develop a plan to waive compulsory attendance requirements and/or allow remote learning to take the place of in-person instruction requirements.
• The Governor and Commissioner of Education will also implement a plan to continue to provide nutrition services during any period of COVID-19 related school closures.

Other municipal business

• Vehicle registrations, liquor licenses, and dog licenses are deemed extended until 30 days after the end of the state of emergency.
• Vehicle registrants may use the Rapid Renewal program even if their municipality does not already participate.

Municipal COVID-19 Update

We are understandably getting many questions from our municipal clients regarding how to handle public meetings, annual meetings, and public transactions given the Governor’s order prohibiting large gatherings. The other significant area of concern involves questions about how to balance serving the public while protecting your workforce. Several municipalities, including Portland and Augusta, have declared local states of emergency invoking powers only contemplated in times of crisis.

We are expecting that the emergency legislation being considered by the State Legislature tomorrow will include provisions suspending all or some of the FOAA requirements related to public meetings. For now, our best guidance as to how to handle meetings is as follows:

• Postpone non-essential board and committee meetings.
• If a meeting must be held, consider using Facebook Live, YouTube Live, or another streaming service. Remember that the public has the right to view all meetings, but not the right to speak (unless it is an advertised public hearing). For those members of the public who demand to attend in person, reduce risk by spacing out seating and/or providing a secondary room or location where the meeting will be streamed for those who do not have internet access from home.
• Members of boards who are particularly vulnerable due to age or underlying medical conditions may participate in the meeting by phone, Skype, Facetime, etc.. At this time, you should not worry if a quorum or majority of the board is participating remotely.
• (For town meeting towns only) If your annual town meeting falls within the next two months, consider having a special meeting only to make appropriations to fund municipal government as necessary to allow extension of the annual town meeting. Even if your charter requires that the annual meeting be held on a certain date, delay is very unlikely to impact the legality of the meeting whenever it is held. We expect this issue to be addressed by the Legislature.

Employee issues must be dealt with on a case-by case basis with an eye to consistent policies and fair treatment.

We will be in touch tomorrow evening or as soon as possible thereafter with clear, updated guidance following the Legislature’s vote. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

Be well,

Stephen Langsdorf and Kristin Collins

Abandoned Roads: Not Abandoned Yet

This week, the Legislature will hold a public hearing on LD 1415, “An Act to Improve the Laws Regarding Discontinued and Abandoned Roads.” The status of formerly maintained public roads has been (and almost certainly will continue to be) perennially and vociferously debated at the Statehouse. Few issues coming before the State and Local Government Committee raise emotions like former public roads do. Nor are few issues so repeatedly and substantively revisited by the Committee.

Under current law, a presumption of abandonment exists if a municipality fails for a period of 30 or more years to keep a way passable for the use of motor vehicles at the expense of the municipality. LD 1415 eliminates that presumption for ways that have not met that statutory requirement by January 1, 2020, and instead specifies that the only process that a municipality may use to terminate its interests in a public way is through the discontinuance process established in 23 M.R.S.A. section 3026-A.

The public hearing on this bill is scheduled for 11:00 am on Wednesday, January 29, 2020, in the State and Local Government Committee Room.

Bill to Allow Public Sector Strikes Meets Opposition in the Legislature

LD 900, which was introduced in February 2019, and carried over to the short 2020 session of the 129th Maine Legislature, would allow public employees the right to strike. Strikes by public sector employees are illegal by statute in Maine. All that would be necessary is for a majority of the membership of the union to vote in favor within three days prior to the date upon which the strike is intended to start. The bill does not set forth any standards which must be met in order to call a strike. The only exception to the bill is that employees whose duties include public safety would not be allowed to strike. 

If this bill was enacted, it would be a major change in public sector labor law and would dramatically affect the balance of power in Maine between municipalities and other governmental bodies and labor unions. 

It is apparent that the bill will not have an easy time passing at the Legislature. A work session scheduled for January 15, 2020, was cancelled. All indications are that Governor Mills would veto the bill if it somehow passed both the House and Senate. 

To be blunt, this legislation would be devastating for municipalities and would have a detrimental effect on employee relations. You are urged to let your Legislative representatives know that you as a municipality or other public sector employer are opposed to this potential legislation.

Notice Under Maine Tort Claims Act Increases to One Year

A new law passed by the Maine Legislature goes into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the Maine Tort Claims Act, Title 14. § 8101, et seq., within 365 days after any tort claims or cause of action arising under the Maine Tort Claims Act, a claimant must send a written notice to the municipality. Formerly, notice had to be filed within 180 days. The notice must contain the name and address of the claimant and claimant’s attorney, if any; a precise statement of the basis for the claim and the circumstances; identifying information about the governmental employee involved; and a statement regarding the extent and nature of injury and monetary damages. There is an exception if the claimant is able to show good cause why the notice could not reasonably have been filed within the 365-day limit. 

The Maine Tort Claims Act provides immunity to municipalities except in specific situations outlined in the statute. The areas for which a municipality is responsible include ownership, maintenance or use of vehicles; construction, operation or maintenance of buildings or the appurtenances to any public buildings; the discharge of pollutants; and, during the active performance of construction, street cleaning or repair operations on a road. There are specific exceptions under the Act, depending on the circumstances.

While formerly a municipality was in the clear if a notice was not received within 180 days, now it must wait a full year.

Marijuana Caregivers – A Regulatory Challenge in Residential Areas

Last session, the Maine Legislature passed LD 1539, which provided that registered medical marijuana caregivers could serve an unlimited number of patients. The law also requires municipalities to “opt in” if they wish to allow medical marijuana caregivers to open retail storefronts. We are all thankful for the clear language as to medical marijuana retail stores, but one aspect of the law that is proving challenging to municipalities is what—if anything—to do about regulating caregivers who do not wish to operate retail stores. 

We do know that municipalities have the authority under 22 M.R.S. § 2429-D to regulate registered caregivers, whether they operate a retail store or not. The only express limitation on that authority is that municipalities may not prohibit registered caregivers or limit their number. This means that municipalities are free to zone caregivers, require them to obtain licenses, or require them to comply with ordinance standards related to odor prevention, security, or other concerns. 

If your town is considering applying regulations to non-retail caregivers, here are some points to consider: 

1. Because the identity of registered caregivers is kept confidential, municipalities cannot simply obtain a roster to determine whether caregivers are a common use in town, or where they are located.
2. Many caregivers may fall within existing provisions related to home occupations. Consider whether specific restrictions would help ensure against negative impacts on the neighborhood, such as odors or traffic.
3. If you are considering requiring licenses, know that this will create a sort of registry of caregivers, since the municipality’s licensing records will likely not be subject to the same confidentiality that applies in the hands of the State. Some have noted that having such a list might subject those on it to safety or security concerns.
4. Make sure that any regulations on non-retail caregivers are in keeping with the scale of the operation. Consider whether proposed licensing fees or technical requirements are so onerous that they have the consequence of prohibiting small-scale caregivers.
5. Confirm that any proposed zoning regulations are (1) in conformity with the comprehensive plan; and (2) tailored to address concerns that are particular to the use.
6. Consider how pre-existing caregivers will be treated under the ordinance. Caregivers that were operating with any sort of municipal approval should clearly be treated as grandfathered against any new ordinance, but that right may be less clear for caregivers that were operating under the radar prior to an ordinance change.

As with the development of all ordinances, it is important to take your time and invite all stakeholders to the table. We have participated in and are monitoring municipal efforts throughout the state and can speak to the wide range of options that are being implemented. There is an approach that will work for your town, although it may take some work to get there.

“Opt In” Begins for Medical Marijuana Stores

December 13 was the effective date for bills passed by the 128th Legislature, including LD 1539, An Act to Amend Maine’s Medical Marijuana Law. Prior to this amendment, medical marijuana stores had gotten around the five-patient limit by eliminating one patient from their roster when the next one walked through the door. The law now formally allows medical marijuana caregivers to serve an unlimited number of patients, eliminating the need for them to maintain these “rolling rosters.” The law also specifically prevents medical marijuana storefronts from locating in a municipality unless that municipality has affirmatively passed a zoning or other ordinance which specifically allows them.

If a municipality already has one or more medical marijuana storefronts which are operating with some type of land use approval, the law does not allow that municipality to now prohibit those particular stores. However, new stores and existing stores operating without municipal approval will not be considered legal unless and until the municipality “opts in” by enacting an ordinance to allow them. We are working with many of our municipal clients to develop licensing and zoning ordinance provisions to address both adult use and medical marijuana establishments now that we have a solid legislative framework governing the scope of municipal authority.

Maine Legislature Overrides Veto of Retail Marijuana Law

The Maine Legislature today voted to override Governor LePage’s veto of LD 1719, “An Act to Implement a Regulatory Structure for Adult Use Marijuana.” This is good news for municipalities eager for some certainty on what they’ll be dealing with when retail (“adult use”) marijuana establishments come to town. 

The Act makes significant changes to the existing Marijuana Legalization Act. It details state licensing procedures and criteria, as well as operational standards that must be followed by marijuana cultivation facilities, products manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores. Anyone wishing to operate one of these facilities must first obtain a conditional state license and then receive approval from the local municipality before returning to the state for final approval. Municipal approval cannot be granted unless the municipality has adopted a town meeting article or ordinance allowing some or all types of marijuana establishments within the municipality. This essentially creates an opt-in arrangement for municipalities—meaning that no retail marijuana establishments may be located in a town unless that town has affirmatively voted to allow them. 

The Act gives municipalities broad latitude in regulating marijuana establishments. They may forbid or limit the number of any particular type of marijuana establishment. They may instead choose to adopt land use and licensing regulations and implement application fees. Marijuana establishments may not be located within 1,000 feet of a preexisting public or private school, but that distance may be reduced by ordinance to as little as 500 feet. 

As a practical matter, licenses will not be available until licensing regulations are in place. This is anticipated not to occur until at least the end of summer 2018.

Know Your Ordinance: Enforcement Orders Subject to Appeal

One thing we always look for when reviewing a land use ordinance is whether it inadvertently allows for appeal of enforcement orders issued by the code enforcement officer (CEO). We prefer not to have such orders be appealable, because a notice of violation is only a preliminary determination and will always be reviewed by a court before any penalties are assessed. Further, notices of violation are often an important first step in encouraging negotiation and resolution of violations. If a property owner can appeal a decision, he or she will usually take that step instead of trying to work things out with the CEO.

The Legislature recently highlighted this issue when it added language to the Board of Appeals statute, 30-A M.R.S. § 2691, which reads as follows:

Absent an express provision in a charter or ordinance that certain decisions of its code enforcement officer or board of appeals are only advisory or may not be appealed, a notice of violation or an enforcement order by a code enforcement officer under a land use ordinance is reviewable on appeal by the board of appeals and in turn by the Superior Court under the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80B.

It is now clear that by default, enforcement orders may be appealed. If that is not your municipality’s intention, ordinances should be amended ASAP to clearly state that there is no jurisdiction to allow such appeals.

One positive thing to note is that at least one court has refused to read the new language so broadly as to allow appeal of a CEO’s failure to find a violation. In Rappos v. Town of York, AP-16-34, abutters submitted a complaint against their neighbor and then appealed the CEO’s decision not to take action on that complaint. The Court held that neither the Zoning Board of Appeals nor the Court had jurisdiction to issue a binding order on the appeal.

Maine Legislature Allows Recreational Marijuana Law to Go Fully into Effect

The Maine State Legislature today voted against legislation extending the moratorium that had held the citizens’ enacted recreational marijuana law from going into full effect since its enactment in November 2016 (it has been legal since early 2017 to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana, grow your own plants, and to give gifts of marijuana to other people). The immediate effect of the law should be to spur the required state licensing rulemaking process to be completed. The law provides for licensing systems for retail and social clubs, and mandates that rulemaking procedures occur before those licenses are issued. Licenses will be required for retail sales, social clubs, production, and testing facilities. The State rulemaking proceeding will take a considerable amount of time to develop the rules. Under the new law, a municipal license is also required before any retail establishment can open. The State must provide all license applications on State forms.

The medical marijuana law is unaffected by the recreational marijuana law.

Undoubtedly many questions and issues will be arising about this and we will be updating this blog as things happen.

New Deadline for Calling Secret Ballot Elections in Maine

One of those deadlines municipal officials tend to know off the top of their heads is that referendum elections must be ordered at least 45 days in advance. This has now changed! The Maine Legislature in its last session changed the filing deadline for nomination papers from 45 days to 60 days prior to the election. Because the deadline for calling a referendum election is, under 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2528(5), the same as the deadline for filing nomination papers, both now fall on the 60th day prior to the election. This new deadline applies both to referendum questions ordered by the municipal officers and those requested by citizens’ petition. If your town has a different deadline under a local charter, that deadline will still apply regardless of this law change.

Maine Superior Court Weighs in on Code Enforcement Appeal

Earlier this year, Maine’s Superior Court issued a decision in Blasco v. Town of Southport that provides a useful reminder for municipalities about appeals of code enforcement actions.

The case involved an 80B appeal of a notice of violation that had been issued by the Town of Southport’s code enforcement officer. The plaintiff filed the appeal pursuant to a provision in Southport’s land use ordinance that provided that all enforcement actions taken by the CEO “may be appealed by an aggrieved party only to the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.” There was no dispute among the parties that the notice of violation at issue was an enforcement action within the ambit of the ordinance.

The question for the Superior Court was whether Southport’s ordinance, which allowed CEO enforcement actions to be appealed directly to Superior Court, was consistent with Maine law. The court answered that question with an unequivocal “no.” The court pointed out that, in 2013, the Maine Legislature enacted a statutory amendment that authorized enforcement orders such as a notice of violation to be appealed, unless there is clear language in an ordinance stating that such decisions are “only advisory.” However, that statute, 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2691(4), also requires that an appeal must be taken to the Board of Appeals prior to any appeal to the Superior Court. In this case, Southport’s ordinance did not state that the CEO’s decisions were only advisory, and so, it did not necessarily preclude an appeal of the notice of violation at issue. But, because the ordinance attempted to allow for appeals of CEO decisions to be taken directly to Superior Court without first being presented to the Board of Appeals, the Superior Court found Southport’s ordinance was inconsistent with Section 2691(4) and remanded the appeal to Southport’s Board of Appeals for its consideration.

For municipalities in Maine, the Blasco decision serves as a reminder to review land use ordinance provisions concerning the appeal of code enforcement actions. Municipalities should bear in mind that, absent any language stating that certain code enforcement decisions are only advisory and not appealable, a notice of violation or similar enforcement order is normally appealable. Any appeal, however, must first be presented to the Board of Appeals before it can be appealed to the Superior Court.