Proposal to expand $205 million court bond to more counties fails in Appropriations Committee
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The Appropriations Committee voted 7–5 to leave LD 1997 on the table after members debated whether the bill — which would let the judiciary use an already‑authorized $205 million borrowing in additional counties — deserved emergency treatment to address closed courthouses and mold concerns.
A motion to take LD 1997 off the table failed 7–5 in the Maine Legislature’s Appropriations Committee after members debated whether expanding previously authorized borrowing to additional counties justified emergency consideration.
Representative Jack Ducharme, who introduced the measure, said LD 1997 would allow the judiciary to use the $205 million in borrowing the Legislature authorized in 2023 in additional counties beyond the three originally named. He told the committee the bill “says you can take that same amount of money, $205,000,000 ... and use it in Cumberland, Franklin, Penobscot and Sagadahoc as well.” (Transcript phrasing on one county name was inconsistent; the committee discussion referenced the Rhode-Island‑sounding variant but the county intended is Sagadahoc.)
Ducharme said the fiscal note is uncertain because the ultimate impact depends on timing and how borrowed funds are dispersed. Supporters said the bill would give the judiciary discretion to pursue projects — including in Newport, where the local courthouse has been closed — and urged the committee to act quickly because potential sites can disappear from the market.
“Pieces of real estate don’t exist on the market forever,” Representative Ken Ferdette said, urging an exemption. He added that not supporting the bill “at this point in time ... I think is a reflection of politics at its worst.”
Opponents said the committee was being asked to treat a long‑term capital authorization as an emergency in the budget process. Senator Cameron Rennie said he was not opposed to the bill itself but that “this is just not where this belongs in the process of us making this budget,” and questioned whether an emergency designation was appropriate solely to secure negotiation leverage for property purchases.
Representative Dwyer raised health concerns about a courthouse in Lincoln County, saying “mold doesn’t go away, it just keeps growing,” and said that concern supported acting sooner on facilities work; other members said that passage now would not guarantee immediate construction and that the overall budget process would not change whether the committee acted today or in a few weeks.
Representative Anne Matlack and Representative Amy Arata asked about the cost and practical consequences of adding Newport back into renovation plans. Arata, drawing on real‑estate experience, warned that sellers are likelier to negotiate for properties if they see legislative backing, saying sellers “tend to put property...on the market in the spring,” and that a passed bill can make buyers more comfortable moving forward.
After extended debate the committee voted and the motion to take LD 1997 off the table failed 7–5. The transcript reports the outcome but does not include a roll‑call list of how each member voted.
What happens next: LD 1997 remains on the table; proponents may reintroduce the motion or seek other procedural paths if they wish to press the matter further.