Maine Municipal Tax Collectors' & Treasurers' Association
Home	Training	Executive Board		Publications	Links	Forms

POSTED May 24, 2011:

For those of you who were at the annual  Conference I'm sure you were just as surprised as I was that the expiration date for Motorcycles will be changing to a mandatory March 31 st ..   For those not attending,  the news was shared by Wayne Russell from Motor Vehicle in a general, “oh by the way” style.  In his defense, he was just the messenger.  Fearing we missed an important piece of legislation I have done some digging and with some help from our friends at MMA we have found that this change occurred with LD 221.

LD 221 - An Act To Make Changes to the Motorcycle Inspection Sticker Requirements – was just that, a bill to change inspection requirements.  The bill added that an inspection sticker could go on a motorcycle license plate. It also required that the State issue one sticker that contained both the month and year of the registration expiration.  The bill mentions that this is in place of the State issuing a new license plate every year which we all know doesn't happen so the intent was to avoid motorcycle plates from having three stickers on them.  They will still have two – one inspection and one that gives the month and year of expiration.

Being strictly an inspection bill this never came up on our radar or MMA's.  And since we don't like to assume I will use deductive reason to conclude that somewhere during the discussion phase of the bill, Motor Vehicle or someone argued that making a duel sticker for every month of the year was not cost productive so the bill was amended to give all motorcycles a mandatory March expiration date.  This also requires us to prorate the excise tax which in turn is lost revenue.  In addition, for those of us who have a March tax due date have just inherited a huge increase to our workload that month.  The amendment was done without, to my knowledge, any input from tax collectors or from MMA as to the impact to municipalities.

I'm a little disappointed as to how that came to be but as of right now it is done and has passed the House and Senate.  Motor Vehicle will be providing additional information as the effective date of this legislation draws closer.

Dave Little, President, MMTCTA

Posted April 28, 2011:

There are several bills being heard next week that may be of interest.

The Taxation Committee will be hearing these bills Monday, May 2, 2011 at 10:00 am:

LD 550 – An Act to Provide a Property Tax Credit to Veterans – This would allow eligible veterans or their survivors to receive a $500 credit on their property tax bill.  The Municipality could request reimbursement from the State for 100% of the credit through the same process as the Homestead Exemption..

LD 838 - An Act To Make the Homestead Property Tax Exemption More Flexible for Municipalities and Remain Revenue Neutral for the State – This bill reduces the homestead exemption to $5,000 and increases the State reimbursement to 100%.  Municipalities could also begin their own Homestead Program with a credit of up to 200% of the State level.  The State would not reimburse any of the locally adopted exemption.  

LD 1385 - An Act To Provide Tax Relief to Residents Deployed for Military Duty or Stationed outside of Maine – This bill expands the military excise exemption to residents of Maine who are active duty and stationed outside of Maine and to Maine residents who are deployed for military service for more than 30 days, including National Guard and Reserves.

LD 1414 - An Act To Provide Property Tax Relief for Year-round Residents 67 Years of Age or Older – This bill allows anyone 67 or older that meets the income and asset requirements to receive an “education funding benefit” on their tax bill.  The benefit amount is equal to portion of the applicant's property taxes that are attributable to school funding under Title 20A Chapter 606B.  I may be wrong but I assume this means that the applicant would not have to pay the School portion of the mill rate; they would pay just the local and County tax portion.  There is no provision or statement that the State would reimburse for this lost revenue and the bill currently does not have a State fiscal note attached to it.

Also on Monday at 9:30 am, the State and Local Government Committee will hear the following bills:

LD 1343 - An Act To Limit Interest Assessed against Municipalities – This bill would prohibit a business from charging a municipality interest on an invoice until at least 26 days have passed from the date the invoice is received.  This bill is intended to aid the smaller municipalities that may only meet once or twice a month to approve a warrant.  I see possible arguments regarding how to determine when an invoice is “received”..  There may be an amendment to clarify or change that wording.

LD 1297 - An Act Relating to the Qualifications for the Position of Municipal Officer – This bill prohibits a Municipal Officer or Selectman from being an employee of the same town during the time they are serving as an Officer or Selectman unless the town has a town manager.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2011 the Transportation Committee will be hearing LD 1495 - An Act To Allow 45 Days To Register a Newly Acquired Motor Vehicle .  This bill expands the 14 day temporary plate for new vehicles to 45 days.  We have already faced a similar bill (LD 574) which looked to expand the time to 30 days.  That bill was voted Ought not to Pass so I hope that LD 1495 will see the same fate.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 9:30 the State and Local Government Committee will hear LD 1223 - An Act Regarding Credit Card Transactions for InforME Services .  This bill will require the customer to pay the credit card fee when using the InforME system to pay a municipal charge such as a tax or license fee.

Posted April 26, 2011

We received this email from MMA this morning.  Now is the time to call or email your delegates if we want a chance of defeating this.

Action Alert

To:       MMA's Legislative Policy Committee Key Municipal Officials Municipal Tax Collectors and Treasurers

Fr:        Geoff Herman

Re:       Call your legislators:

Proposal to cut municipal excise tax revenue on today's House Calendar

Date:   April 26, 2011   

LD 79 is a bill that would cut the municipal excise tax revenue for every town and city in Maine by 5%. The bill was printed in today's House Calendar, and could come up for an initial vote in the House at any time, either today or later this week.  You should call, e-mail or otherwise communicate with your State Representatives today and urge them to vote down LD 79.

Sponsored by the House Chair of the Taxation Committee, and as amended by the Taxation Committee, LD 79 would require the various motor vehicle excise tax rates to be applied to 95% of the “Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price” (MSRP) rather than the full MSRP. 

Every town and city will lose exactly 5% of its annual excise tax revenue if this bill is enacted. LD 79 would reduce municipal revenue by $10 million statewide. This cut in municipal operating revenue would then be added to the $42 million cut to municipal revenue sharing for next year already being proposed by the Governor and Legislature. 

Portland stands to lose approximately $500,000 a year under LD 79, South Portland and Bangor would lose approximately $250,000 a year, Scarborough and Lewiston approximately $200,000 a year, a cluster of 8 additional service center communities would each lose approximately $150,000 a year in revenue, and so it would go on down the line.

If you are having trouble putting your municipal budget together as it stands, you should call or e-mail your Representatives at the State House today and urge them to reject LD 79.

Here is a link to a page on the Legislature's website to obtain information about the various ways you can contact your State Representatives, either by phone or e-mail:   http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/hbiolist.htm .

Thanks.

FYI  I asked if LD 79 had legs and a possibility of passing and was asked the following question by a member of the legislature (below): 

It may have…I have heard that some Town Manager won't object…I think that I know how most of the Town Managers in my district feel…but are you hearing anything from the people?

My response:

From: Mark Robinson [mailto:fayette@myfairpoint.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: Proposal to cut municipal excise tax revenue on today's House Calendar

Short answer is no.  We all like to save money right?  If I tell you that I can save you money the next time you register a new car (in the absence of knowing about an increase in your real estate tax as a consequence of the savings)  then why would you not support it?  Of course you  would.  This is all  smoke and mirrors, cost shifts, no different than the PSAP debacle.  We'll save you money in your phone bill yet charge you in your property tax bill.   There are many people who own phones that do not  own property…and pay property taxes.  This same group also purchase motor vehicles and pay excise taxes.  So we want to give them another break at the expense of those who will have to pay through property taxes to make up the difference?  I don't think so.  Please kill the bill.

This is an update to my earlier msg...the sponsor changed his mind (about 5 min ago) to move the "Ought to Pass" minority report and table it in order to get time to change minds on the majority "Ought Not to Pass". (Mark Robinson)

Posted January 19, 2011

Well, we knew they would be coming and the first one has arrived.  LD 79 has been released from the Revisor's Office and as proposed the bill would require that the MSRP be reduced to 90% before calculating excise tax. 

We have seen this before and this proposal seems to gain more support each year.  We'll send out information as it comes in regarding the public hearings.  MMA has been terrific in testifying the revenue loss Statewide but all municipalities that oppose this should contact their delegates soon and stress this reduction in excise tax will impact their budgets.

Posted January 18, 2011

Well it's that time again, a new legislative session and new legislative proposals we'll need to keep on our radar.

This session the MMTCTA Executive Board has voted to put forth three pieces of legislation.   We have had a great deal of help from the staff at MMA and received support for one of the proposals from MMA's Legislative Policy Committee(LPC).  The proposals have not been released from the Revisor's Office with LD numbers yet but we wanted to update everyone on what's coming.

An Act to Allow Municipal Treasurers to Process Tax Lien Discharge and Sanitary District Sewer Lien Documents Using Facsimile Signatures – This will allow the use of a facsimile signature for tax lien discharges and waivers of foreclosure and also allow facsimile signatures for sewer liens, discharges and sewer waivers of foreclosure. – This bill is being supported by MMA's LPC and we feel it is a housing keeping bill that should have very little if any opposition.

An Act to Amend Municipal Recreational Vehicle Registration Agent Fees – This bill will increase the agent fee for a boat, snowmobile and ATV renewal registration from $1 to $3 and for new registrations from $2 to $4.

An Act to Amend Municipal Motor Vehicle Registration and License Agent Fees – This bill will increase the agent fee for a motor vehicle renewal registration from $3 to $5 and for a new registration from $4 to $6.  All other motor vehicle agent fees remain the same ($1 for duplicates, extra $1 for processing another communities registrations, etc.)

We are anticipating a lot of opposition and resistance in regards to the agent fee increases and as such we are asking for your help in getting the word out to your Selectmen, Councils and Legislative Delegates.  Ask your Delegates for their support and possible co-sponsorship of the bills once they are released from the Revisor's Office.  If you have a definite yes from your Delegates please email me their names.  We are preparing a list for MMA as they will assist us in making sure the bills gets to all the co-sponsors for their signature.

We would offer the following discussion points when talking with your Selectmen, Councils and Delegates: 

•  The fee is meant to reimburse the municipality for the administrative costs of acting as the State's agent.

•   The motor vehicle fee is an “up to” fee.  A municipality that feels their costs are lower or want to subsidize part of the costs do not have to charge the maximum fee. 

•  The fees are optional to the customer.  Customers have the choice of finishing their registrations at a State Office for no fee.

•  The motor vehicle agent fee was last changed in 1991, since then the State registration fee has increased 4 times.

•  Municipalities should see additional revenue that does not come from increased property taxes.

•  The increase impacts all registrants including businesses and in some municipalities out-of-state businesses and residents.

We also feel that municipalities complete a vast majority of recreational and motor vehicle registrations to the benefit of the State and the customer and that the current fees are simple not adequate to cover our time and costs.  Discuss beyond the counter transaction, talk about the time and cost involved of securing, storing and reconciling inventory, the time it takes to reconcile and prepare weekly and monthly reports, the additional training and other duties that are directly related to our agent responsibilities.

I would also ask that if anyone has specific information that we can use related to the time, cost or number of transactions processed by your municipality please email them to me.  We will use any information provided to help us prepare our testimony for the public hearings. 

We will continue to send out updates as these progress through the process.