AUGUSTA – Proponents of a California-style tax cap predicted Maine’s property tax rate would average about $17 per $1,000 of valuation if voters approve their proposal later this year.

Carol Palesky and representatives of her political action committee, the Maine Taxpayers Action Network, said Monday that critics of the citizens initiative are misinformed about the impact the tax cap will have on revenues collected by Maine cities and towns.

Speaking to members of the Legislature’s Taxation Committee, Palesky and others offered their opinions on LD 1893, the initiated bill for the MTAN tax cap. Under Maine law, the Legislature has the option of adopting the bill as presented or rejecting it, in which case the proposal would proceed to a statewide vote. The bill cannot be amended.

Palesky told the committee that in addition to capping property taxes at 1 percent of valuation as it existed in 1997, the MTAN proposal would require each taxpayer to assume their share of any existing debt incurred by the community in which they reside. Although that rate could fall within a wide range of assessments, Palesky said the cap would create a statewide average of around $17 per $1,000 of local valuation.

“So each town would be different,” she said. “It would be 1 percent of the assessed value, plus the debt service. So it’s not $10 on $1,000 as portrayed in some media reports. It’s $10 and [a share of] debt, which is going to bring the average up to $17 per $1,000.”

Palesky also challenged characterization of her plan by the Maine Municipal Association, which she emphasized is promoting its own tax relief question on the June ballot. The MMA has indicated the tax cap would cost municipalities 40 percent to 60 percent of their revenue.

“That’s totally and intentionally misleading,” Palesky said, adding that the average first-year revenue loss for most communities would be around 17 percent and less in subsequent years.

Additionally, Palesky urged the committee to set the date of the election on her tax cap for the November general election, not the June primary, as proposed by the governor and some of the majority Democrats in the House and Senate. Although the issue has yet to be debated, there is potential for the date to become something of a political football.

Language in the Maine Constitution can be construed to allow the Legislature to set the date of the referendum. Democrats, who largely oppose the cap, would prefer to have the election in June, when it is expected that a lighter turnout would wind up defeating not only the tax cap, but also the MMA tax relief proposal. Some Republicans, tired of seeing their proposals for tax and spending reforms go nowhere, would prefer a November vote that could result in a positive vote for the cap and force a sea of change in state tax policy.

“I understand that the governor and a few legislators would like this on the June ballot,” Palesky said. “We’ll fight that to the nth degree. We want the most people possible to vote on it.”

Palesky was supported by numerous speakers, including former GOP state Sen. Phil Harriman. The Yarmouth businessman said support for the tax cap is growing among Mainers from all walks of life, largely due to their frustration with legislative inaction on tax reform.

“[The Legislature] has addressed the symptoms and not the disease,” Harriman told the committee. “Maine property taxpayers cannot rely on existing tax relief programs because they’re funded at your whim and not your conviction. The Homestead Program was created, then it was reduced and now the governor is proposing to eliminate it altogether … The truth is Maine property taxpayers have seen years of broken promises.”

Numerous opponents spoke out against the legislation, including Portland City Councilor Jill Duson, who said the cap would result in an enormous dip in revenues, crippling the ability of municipal governments to deliver services to citizens.

“We will be smothered in our tracks,” she said.

The Taxation Committee will hold a work session on LD 1893 at 1 p.m. Wednesday.