SANFORD — Bills submitted by Rep. Anne- Marie Mastraccio would restore revenue sharing to municipalities over time and expand the property tax credit that replaced a circuit breaker program.
Mastraccio, a two-term legislator who represents part of Sanford, said municipalities have been hit hard since the state started dipping into the revenue sharing program.
According to Sanford City Manager Steve Buck, Sanford has lost about $1.5 million in revenue sharing since the state reduced the amount it pays to cities and towns from taxes it collects.
Mastraccio, who is seeking re-election Nov. 8, said when the state doesn’t pay the 5 percent spelled out in statute, cities and towns – and property taxpayers – end up paying more.
“Revenue sharing was created to help offset rising property taxes, but the state has repeatedly failed to meet its obligation, and our local communities are forced to foot the bill,” said Mastraccio, D-Sanford. “At the same time, critical local services are being put at risk, from our fire departments to road improvements.”
Sitting legislators can submit bills for consideration by the next Legislature, which will be sworn in this December. Bills then undergo scrutiny of the Legislative Council to be considered.
Revenue sharing was adopted in 1972. It meant a fixed percentage – initially 4 percent of all state sales tax and income tax revenue – was dedicated to the “local government fund,” according to the Maine Municipal Association. Later, the figure was increased to 5 percent, but over time, that has changed.
In 1976, the Legislature used 4 percent to help balance the books. In 1992, 19 percent of revenue sharing was used to help balance the state budget, and in 1993, 9 percent, MMA figures show.
Then in 2006, 2008 and 2009, the state used 2 percent, and dipped into the fund by 5 percent in 2007. In 2010, the figures started increasing – to 21 percent in 2010 and increasing, over time, to 59 percent in 2015, according to MMA.
Gov. Paul LePage has long said he hopes to eliminate revenue sharing.
Mastraccio’s bill would phase in full funding of Maine’s revenue sharing program over five years.
“My thinking is that it would be more likely to have more legislative support with a phased-in approach because of the upfront costs,” said Mastraccio in an email Sunday. “Once something is taken away, it is hard to put it all back at once.”
Asked how much it would cost and how the state would pay for the restoration of revenue sharing, Mastraccio had this to say:
“Well, since the state is only paying around 2.1 percent of collected taxes instead of the 5 percent in the original statute, it would be a sizable amount, but revenues are up and the legislature is evaluating various economic development incentive programs to determine their value going forward, so there may be money there as well.
“There is a lot of competition for funding but it is my opinion that property tax relief would be extremely welcome to most residents of Sanford and is a priority for me in looking at any other budget recommendations in the next legislative cycle.”
Mastraccio has also submitted a bill that would expand the Property Tax Fairness Credit, which replaced the circuit breaker program.
Under the circuit breaker program, which was ended in 2013, property taxpayers could qualify for refunds up to $2,000. In contrast, the maximum PTFC refund is $600 for those under age 65, and $900 for ages 65 and older.
Mastraccio’s bill would expand the refund to the levels of the circuit breaker program. She said her bill would also make the application process easier for everyone who is eligible to benefit from the program.
— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less