Which Maine DOT accounts had to give up 0.9% to the General Fund under Part KKK of the 1991 budget bill?

Plain-English summary

This is a brief follow-up memo from Deputy Attorney General Crombie J. D. Garrett to the Maine Department of Transportation. The Legislature had enacted Part KKK of the 1991 budget bill (P.L. 1991, ch. 780), imposing a 0.9% across-the-board surcharge sweeping funds into the General Fund. DOT's legislative liaison Jack Hunt had submitted a list of 11 DOT funds and asked which ones were exempt.

The AG sorted the 11 funds into groups:

• Funds 1-4 (DOT project-cost accounts): probably subject to the surcharge. The fact that they were labeled "dedicated revenue" did not automatically protect them.
• Fund 5 (Transportation Demand Management Project): protected by federal law.
• Funds 6-7 (unspecified): unclear. Likely subject to the surcharge unless they had already been hit once (in which case double-counting concerns might justify protection).
• Funds 8-10 (derived solely from the Highway Fund): protected. The Highway Fund itself has dedicated constitutional and statutory protections.
• Fund 11 (Van Pool Services Fund): probably subject to the surcharge unless a specific law or common-law principle directed the funds to a single purpose.

The memo invited DOT to send more detail on any specific fund where they thought a closer review might change the conclusion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What was Part KKK?

A 1991 Maine budget provision (P.L. 1991, ch. 780) that imposed a 0.9% across-the-board sweep from state agency accounts to the General Fund to close a projected shortfall.

Why was the Highway Fund protected?

The Maine Constitution and longstanding state law dedicate Highway Fund revenues to highway purposes. The AG treated funds derived solely from the Highway Fund as inheriting that dedication and therefore not available to backfill the General Fund through Part KKK.

Why didn't 'dedicated revenue' status protect funds 1-4?

The AG's view was that a label is not enough. The legal protection comes from the source of the money (constitutional dedication, trust law, federal restriction), not from an internal budget label. DOT's project-cost accounts had revenue earmarked for specific projects but did not have an independent legal protection that overrode the budget legislation.

What about federal protection?

The Transportation Demand Management Project (fund 5) was protected because federal grant conditions on transportation funds typically restrict state diversion. Federal preemption supersedes state budget legislation.

Background and statutory framework

The memo itself does not cite specific statutory sections. It is a brief, fund-by-fund application of the general Part KKK distinction the AG drew elsewhere: the surcharge could reach routine dedicated or special revenue accounts over which the Legislature retains discretion, but not accounts the State held under a true trust duty, a constitutional bond restriction, or a federal restriction.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1992/ag_19921214.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

State of Maine
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEMORANDUM

To: Jack Hunt, Office of Legislative Services, DOT
From: Crombie J. D. Garrett, Deputy Attorney General
Date: December 14, 1992
Subject: P.L. 1991, Ch. 780, Part KKK

I am responding to your memorandum regarding the effect of Part KKK on various funds administered by the Department of Transportation. These funds are numbered 1 through 11. I will address them by group.

With respect to funds 1, 2, 3, and 4, you state that these are funds established to cover the exact costs of certain projects administered by DOT. While you state that these funds are "dedicated" revenue, that would not necessarily protect them from the imposition of the 0.9% surcharge. Without more specific information regarding these funds, it appears that the surcharge may be appropriate.

With respect to item 5, the Transportation Demand Management Project, it is clear that such funds are protected by federal law from the imposition of the surcharge.

With respect to items 6 and 7, it is unclear whether such funds are protected or not. As with items 1 through 4, it appears that they may be subject to imposition of the Part KKK surcharge. If, as suggested by Bob Scott, the same funds may have been subjected twice to the imposition of the surcharge, then there may be a reason to consider protecting them from double imposition of that charge. Otherwise, they appear to be subject to the surcharge.

Items 8, 9 and 10 represent funds that are apparently derived solely from the Highway Fund. Under the circumstances, these funds are protected from the imposition of the surcharge under Part KKK.

With respect to item 11 the Van Pool Services Fund, unless these funds are protected by some law or unspecified common law principle specifically directing their use solely for one purpose and for no other, these funds appear to be subject to the Part KKK surcharge.

Should you have more complete information with respect to any of these funds, it would be useful for us to be able to see it in order to determine whether our original conclusions are correct.

CJDG/vv