An Act to Implement School Funding Based on Essential Programs and Services, as the basis for determining the total cost ofK-12 public education. However, this bill differs from PL 2003, c. 504 in that it requires the State's share to increase to 55% by fiscal year 2009-10 versus the 50% requirement in PL 2003, c. 504. This bill also provides for the calculation of a full value education mill rate that is required to raise the total maximum local share of the cost of funding K -12 education and establishes a 10 mill cap on the full value education mill rate. The Department of Education estimates the mill rate expectation to be 8.55 mills in fiscal year 2005-06. This bill also provides for a transition adjustment through fiscal year 2009-10 for municipalities that experience an adverse fiscal impact as a result of the phase-in of the essential programs and services model and the maximum local share mill rate expectation method of determining the local contribution of funding K -12 education. This bill proposes a transition adjustment amount of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2005-06 with the amount declining in each successive year through fiscal year 2009-10. Since this legislation does not specifY the transition amounts for fiscal years 2006-07 through fiscal year 2009-10, this fiscal note assumes that the transition adjustment declines evenly over the 5-year period. This fiscal note also assumes that the transition adjustment amounts are included in the estimated General Fund appropriation amounts needed to fund K-12 education based on the Essential Programs and Services model in this measure, thereby affecting the distribution among individual school units. The impact to each local school unit can not be determined at this time. The following table provides estimates for the total State and Local Operating Cost of funding education based on the Essential Programs and Services model and provides a comparison of the General Fund appropriations that are estimated to be needed to fund the state's share of the cost of funding K-12 education based on the State's contribution reaching 50% in fiscal year 2009-10, as approved in Public Law 2003, c. 504, versus the 55% State contribution proposed in this legislation. State and Local Cost to Fund K-12 Public Education Utilizing the Essential Programs and Services Model Comparison of 50% State Contribution vs. 55% by FY 2009-10 Total State & Local Operating Cost allocation based on EPS model (l 00%) EPS Transition Percentage Adjusted Total Operating Allocation based on EPS model Total State & Local cost based on EPS funding model (includes program costs, debt service and adjustments) Base Year 2003-04* 2004-05* Projections 2005-06 Projections 2006-07 1,256,951.694 1,260,260,954 1,270,125,664 1,285,714,652 80.82% 82.00% 84.00% 88.00% 1,015,819,375 1,033,413,982 1,066,905,558 1,131,428,894 1,467,408,432 1,518,173,106 1,537,199,970 1,618,879,589 LRl165(4) - Fiscal Note - Page 2 of3
Maine Legislature, Session 121, LD 1629
Committee Amendment CA_C_H601 (House)
Amends: 30-A MRSA §5721-A

Office of Fiscal and Program Review 
LD 1629 
RESOLUTION, Proposing a Competing Measure under the Constitution 
of Maine to Create Municipal Budget Caps, Reduce the Cost of Local 
Government through Increased State Education Funding and Provide 
Property Tax Relief 
LR 2165(04) 
Fiscal Note for Bill as Amended by Committee Amendment" " 
Committee: Taxation 
Fiscal Note Required: Yes 
Majority Report 
Fiscal Note 
2003-04 
2004-05 
$0 
$0 
$0 
so 
MonthN ear 
Election Type 
Question 
Nov-03 
General 
Referendum 
Projections 
2005-06 
$40,000 
$40,000 
Length 
Lengthy 
Projections 
2006-07 
$20,315,995 
$20,315,995 
The Secretary of State's budget includes sufficient funds to accommodate one ballot of average length for the general 
election in November 2003. If the number or size of the referendum questions increases the ballot length, an 
additional appropriation of S8,000 or more may be required. 
Fiscal Detail and l'\otes 
The implementation of this bill is contingent upon approval by the voters. If approved by the voters, this bill has the 
following impact. 
General Fund Summary 
Additional Appropriation needed to fund EPS in 
LD 1629 
Department of Audit appropriation 
Net General Fund Cost (Savings) 
S 
S 
2003-04 
S 
$ 
$ 
LR2165( 4) - Fiscal ::--Jote - Page I of 3 
2004-05 
$ 
$ 
$ 
Projections 
2005-06 
Projections 
2006-07 
$ 20,235,995 
40,000 
$ 
80,000 
40,000 
$ 20,315,995 
• 
This bill provides for a new method of determining the state and local share of funding the cost ofK-12 public 
education beginning in fiscal year 2005-06. This bill includes the Essential Programs and Services model, as 
approved by the Legislature in Public Law 2003, c. 504, An Act to Implement School Funding Based on Essential 
Programs and Services, as the basis for determining the total cost ofK-12 public education. However, this bill differs 
from PL 2003, c. 504 in that it requires the State's share to increase to 55% by fiscal year 2009-10 versus the 50% 
requirement in PL 2003, c. 504. This bill also provides for the calculation of a full value education mill rate that is 
required to raise the total maximum local share of the cost of funding K -12 education and establishes a 10 mill cap on 
the full value education mill rate. The Department of Education estimates the mill rate expectation to be 8.55 mills in 
fiscal year 2005-06. 
This bill also provides for a transition adjustment through fiscal year 2009-10 for municipalities that experience an 
adverse fiscal impact as a result of the phase-in of the essential programs and services model and the maximum local 
share mill rate expectation method of determining the local contribution of funding K -12 education. This bill 
proposes a transition adjustment amount of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2005-06 with the amount declining in each 
successive year through fiscal year 2009-10. Since this legislation does not specifY the transition amounts for fiscal 
years 2006-07 through fiscal year 2009-10, this fiscal note assumes that the transition adjustment declines evenly over 
the 5-year period. This fiscal note also assumes that the transition adjustment amounts are included in the estimated 
General Fund appropriation amounts needed to fund K-12 education based on the Essential Programs and Services 
model in this measure, thereby affecting the distribution among individual school units. The impact to each local 
school unit can not be determined at this time. 
The following table provides estimates for the total State and Local Operating Cost of funding education based on the 
Essential Programs and Services model and provides a comparison of the General Fund appropriations that are 
estimated to be needed to fund the state's share of the cost of funding K-12 education based on the State's contribution 
reaching 50% in fiscal year 2009-10, as approved in Public Law 2003, c. 504, versus the 55% State contribution 
proposed in this legislation. 
State and Local Cost to Fund K-12 Public Education 
Utilizing the Essential Programs and Services Model 
Comparison of 50% State Contribution vs. 55% by FY 2009-10 
Total State & Local Operating 
Cost allocation based on EPS 
model (l 00%) 
EPS Transition Percentage 
Adjusted Total Operating 
Allocation based on EPS model 
Total State & Local cost based 
on EPS funding model (includes 
program costs, debt service and 
adjustments) 
Base Year 
2003-04* 
2004-05* 
Projections 
2005-06 
Projections 
2006-07 
1,256,951.694 
1,260,260,954 
1,270,125,664 
1,285,714,652 
80.82% 
82.00% 
84.00% 
88.00% 
1,015,819,375 
1,033,413,982 
1,066,905,558 
1,131,428,894 
1,467,408,432 
1,518,173,106 
1,537,199,970 
1,618,879,589 
LRl165(4) - Fiscal Note - Page 2 of3 
State Share Targets to fund K-12 
education based on EPS model 
approved in P.L. 2003, c. 504 
State Share Targets to fund K-12 
education based on EPS model 
in LD 1629 
Estimated General Fund 
appropriation needed to fund K-
education based on EPS 
model approved in P.L. 2003, c. 
Estimated General Fund 
appropriation needed to fund K-
education based on LD 1629 
Additional General Fund 
Appropriation required to fund 
EPS model in LD 1629 vs. P.L. 
2003, c. 504 
49.89% 
49.89% 
* No adjustment in fiscal year 2003-04 and fiscal year 2004-05 
47.81 % 
47.81 % 
49.00% 
49.25% • 
49.00% 
50.50% 
753,227,985 
797,298,197 
753,227,985 
817,534,192 
o 
20,235,995 
This biJ1 provides a cap on gro\\1h for municipal budgets and applies to municipalities' appropriations for fiscal year 
2005-06 and thereafter. The Department of Audit will require an additional Auditor III position beginning in fiscal 
year 2005-06 to handle this new responsibility of determining municipal compliance with the appropriation limitation 
process specified in 30-A MRSA §5721-A. The estimated costs in fiscal year 2005-06 is $40,000 and $80,000 in 
fiscal year 2006-07. The addItional computer programming costs associated with the requirement to reduce a 
municipality's share of state revenue sharing when a municipality exceeds its budget cap can be absorbed by the 
Treasurer of the State utilIzing the resources of the Local Government Fund. 
LR2l65(4) - FIscal Note - Page 3 of3