AUGUSTA – A consultant for the Maine Municipal Association’s property tax relief plan charged Tuesday that the Legislature has failed to meet its financial obligations for local education funding for nearly 30 years, adding taxpayers will only see an improvement by voting for Question 1A.

John O’Dea, a Richmond consultant and former state senator from Orono, presented his analysis of the competing ballot questions at MMA headquarters during a morning press conference. Emphasizing Maine law intended that the state’s share of local education should be at least 55 percent, as far back as 1974 in the State Uniform Property Tax, and again in 1985 with the School Finance Act, O’Dea said little had happened to suggest lawmakers ever would make good on their commitment voluntarily.

“The state first defaulted on the 55 percent commitment in 1975,” O’Dea said. “There’s been no shortages of promises made [by 1B supporters] over where the state will be five years out with regard to schools funding. … There’s an established precedent for defaulting on this 55 percent promise. … In dollar terms, we’re talking about a cost shift [borne by local taxpayers] of about $1.8 billion since the 55 percent promise was first made.”

Voters will go to the polls on Nov. 4 to determine the fate of Question 1A, which was advanced by the MMA, a lobbying and consultant group for municipalities. The citizen initiative, promoted by Citizens to Reduce Local Property Taxes Statewide, promises local property tax relief by requiring the Legislature to identify funding sources to raise the state’s share of local education costs next year to 55 percent. The state currently funds education costs at about 41.4 percent with the difference paid by local property taxes.

Mainers For Responsible Property Tax Relief is the political action committee raising money in support of Question 1B, the competing measure crafted by Gov. John Baldacci and the Maine Legislature. The plan phases in additional education funds over a five-year period until the 55 percent goal is reached. A third ballot option, Question 1C, allows voters to reject both measures.

O’Dea said that in addition to failing to meet the 55 percent goal, lawmakers have shown little interest in curbing government spending. Noting that state spending grew by 17 percent from 1998 and 1999 and by another 16 percent from 2000 through 2001, the former legislator displayed a chart depicting the late 1980s and late 1990s when state revenues were in excess of projections.

“If the state had ever wanted to move back and catch up to that 55 percent number, those would have been prime times to do it,” he said. “Unfortunately, [education] was not a priority.”

Kay Rand, representing the 1B political action committee, insisted that 1B will deliver property tax relief by capping the mill rate raised for education at 8.55 mills. She took issue with O’Dea’s characterization of the Legislature’s intent to meet the 55 percent goal as a “promise.” Rand was the lobbyist for MMA when the 55 percent target was restated in 1985 and helped draft the bill that became law.

“It was never portrayed as a ‘promise’ that we would pay 55 percent,” she said. “As long as we’re reimbursing costs for whatever is spent [in various municipalities without 1B’s mill rate cap], we’re never going to achieve 55 percent. It’s like a cat chasing its tail because it’s 55 percent of a number that keeps growing and growing over time.”