January 24

OUR OPINION: Maine lawmakers should not dump budget problems onto cities and towns.

Cuts to revenue sharing would force local tax increases

Among the least responsible budget cuts to come out of Augusta over the last five years has been the state’s steady retreat from its responsibility to fund municipal services.

click image to enlarge

Presque Isle Police Chief Matthew Irwin is flanked by firefighters from his community Wednesday as he signs up to testify at the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee in Augusta on municipal aid from the state. Police officers, firefighters and town officials lined up to testify on the bill that would avoid a $40 million cut in municipal revenue sharing by eliminating tax breaks and trimming economic development programs. The bill faces an uphill battle but could impact property taxpayers if revenue sharing is cut.

2014 Kennebec Journal File Photo/Andy Molloy

Cutting municipal revenue sharing, the homestead exemption, General Assistance and the Tree Growth and veterans’ tax reimbursement — all while flat funding education in the face of rising costs — may make the state budget look a little slimmer, and it allows politicians from the governor on down to make speeches about sharing the pain and looking out for the taxpayer. In reality, however, these cuts force municipal officials and school boards to make the really tough choices about whether to cut programs or raise taxes.

In many places in Maine, they have had to do both.

Last spring, lawmakers built a $40 million hole in the budget, to be filled by closing loopholes in the tax code. That money would be used to restore some of the cuts to municipal revenue sharing proposed in the governor’s budget.

Seven months later, however, it has set up an unnecessary showdown between businesses, which stand to lose tax breaks they’d counted on, and cities and towns, which are watching the money they were promised get yanked away again.

But this should not be a conflict between businesses and municipalities — it’s a case of the state government dumping its problems instead of dealing with them. The state should modernize its tax expenditure programs and eliminate the ones that don’t return an economic benefit, independent of what it does with municipal revenue sharing. Cutting the program again is not an example of the state government making tough choices. It is just the opposite.

We have enough experience to know what happens when the state cuts aid to municipalities — property taxes go up. Some in the State House argue that cities and town can choose to spend less, but the reality tells us otherwise.

According to research done by former Thomas College professor Emily Shaw, since 2008 municipal officials have cut the budgets they can control, reducing spending for administration, public works, public safety, code enforcement, human services and recreation. But that was not enough to offset increases in county assessments, debt service and school budgets, which are not as easy to control.

The state share of municipal aid fell, both in actual dollars and in the percentage of total spending.

As a result, local property taxpayers paid more, while the state paid less for necessary services such as police and road repair. For the governor to suggest, as he did last spring, that it’s the towns that are being irresponsible and that the “state has to pay its bills” is the height of hypocrisy.

There are other ways the state can balance its budget. There are business tax breaks that don’t make sense, such as the business equipment tax rebate for big-box retailers, which deserve consideration. There are services that are taxed in other states but exempt from sales tax here. These include taxes that would be paid mostly by out-of-state visitors.

And there are the governor’s income tax cuts, which gave the biggest benefits to the wealthiest residents who may barely notice the difference. Property tax hits people regardless of their income, and even a small increase can make a big difference in the life of a low-income homeowner.

Lawmakers should be responsible and not just act as if they were. Municipal revenue-sharing cuts should not be part of the budget calculations this time around.

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at KJonline.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)