Since the inception of the Maine Tree Growth Tax Law program 40 years ago, it has been a lightning rod of controversy, championed by some while scorned by others (Sun Journal editorial, Feb. 22). Tree Growth was established to help maintain and preserve Maine’s forested lands and to provide fiber to the forest products industry.

In the current session, the Legislature is considering two bills, LD 1138 and LD 1470, which have drawn much attention. Both were proposed last year and carried over.

The Sun Journal editorial’s innuendo that LD 1470 has been changed to accommodate State Treasurer Bruce Poliquin and that LD 1138 has provided a meager $100 fine for noncompliance are both inaccurate and far off the mark.

Let me address each in turn.

LD 1470 was sponsored by Senate President Kevin Raye to address possible misuse of Tree Growth in coastal communities. The new law would mandate the Maine Forest Service to randomly audit plans, conduct field audits and report recommendations to improve the program.

And, let me clarify — all Tree Growth programs in this state were sanctioned by the municipalities in which the parcels are located. Municipal assessors have the sole responsibility of accepting the plans as developed by licensed foresters, and can remove a landowner who is not complying with the law.

The suggestion that the bill has been watered down to appease Republican Treasurer Poliquin is patently ludicrous and blatantly false. Mr. Poliquin’s situation in Georgetown was never a part of any discussion in the tax committee.

As for LD 1138, that bill was introduced by me and was not to establish a fine of $100 for nonconformance with Tree Growth. Rather, it was to establish a penalty for a late filing, provided the landowner was complying with all other measures of the Tree Growth law.

Current law states the penalty for missing the 10-year filing date by even one day is expulsion from the program and assessment of full penalties. I thought that was Draconian, especially in one example that happened in my district when the landowner missed the deadline due to death in the family.

The compromise bill has tightened the law, established penalties from $500 to full expulsion, depending on the severity of the violation.

A key new provision is to require written attestation as to the primary reason for the enrollment in Tree Growth to be commercial timber harvesting.

The bottom line is we want to assure that the law is properly used for its intended purpose. At the same time, we need to maintain the principles that both landowners and the municipalities within which the Tree Growth exists are fair and reasonable.

State Rep. Gary Knight, Livermore Falls, is chairman of the House Taxation Committee.

Editor’s note: As of the last work session on LD 1138 on Feb 2 and the last work session on LD 1470 on Feb. 15, the publicly posted text of the respective bills contains none of the amendments noted in the rebuttal above. To read the bills, go to http://www.maine.gov/legis/ .

Copy the Story Link