Revenue sharing plays an important role in municipal budgets, and since 1971, when it was established by the Legislature, the state has pledged to pay municipalities 5 percent of the revenue brought in through sales and income taxes.

Like many other promises the state has made, this one has been broken.

Since the economic downturn began, the state has cut the amount it shares with municipalities to help balance its own budget. And while this is detrimental, the real hit is taken by taxpayers, who end up paying more in property taxes to maintain municipal services.

This flies in the face of why revenue sharing was created. In an interview with the Journal Tribune, Maine Municipal Association spokesman Eric Conrad said the law was established to aid property taxpayers, and only indirectly to help municipalities. The main purpose of revenue sharing “was to keep the property tax as low as possible,” Conrad said.

The state should be sharing $165 million with the state’s 492 municipalities, but over the last five years, revenue sharing has seen cut after cut, said Conrad. Last year, revenue sharing totaled only $60 million.

Gov. Paul LePage, according to Senate Democrats, also threatened to fill another budget gap in the current year if a panel appointed to find $40 million elsewhere was unsuccessful ”“ and it was. That $40 million will likely come from revenue sharing unless the Legislature protects the full $60 million from filling budget holes.

That is why a proposed bill, LR 2721, submitted for the current legislative session, is so important. The bill would retain the current level of revenue sharing at $60 million.

Without that money, many cities and towns ”“ especially large cities like Biddeford and Sanford ”“ would take another serious hit.

In the two-year budget approved by the Legislature last year, Biddeford, for example, was going to see its revenue sharing reduced by more than $600,000 each year. If that money is further reduced ”“ by LR 2721 failing ”“ Biddeford would stand to lose $730,000, while Saco would lose nearly $560,000 and Sanford $770,000.

For those cities ”“ and all the others throughout the county and state ”“ not receiving any revenue sharing would be a tough pill to swallow.

It’s paramount that the state stick to its obligations and stop raiding various funds to fill budget gaps. While it is a major blow the municipalities, the real losers are the state’s taxpayers, who end up filling the gaps through their property tax payments.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by City Editor Robyn Burnham Rousseau on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.