With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of 1 M.R.S. § 302, an ordinance is not retroactive, and “proceedings pending at the time of the passage ... of an ... ordinance are not affected” by its passage. 1 M.R.S. § 302. However, section 302 can be overridden by a municipality when an ordinance is enacted if the ordinance clearly and unequivocally provides that it is retroactive. See DeMello v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot, 611 A.2d 985, 986-87 (Me.1992). A municipality may go a long way toward demonstrating a clear and unequivocal expression of retroactivity by referring specifically to section 302, as in, “notwithstanding the provisions of 1 M.R.S. § 302”; or stating that the ordinance is retroactive to a certain date or “applies retroactively.” See Bernier v. Data Gen. Corp., 2002 ME 2, ¶¶ 15-17 & n. 6, 787 A.2d 144, 149-50 (<HOLDING>); City of Portland v. Fisherman’s Wharf Assocs.

A: holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law
B: holding that a statute which used the term applies retroactively demonstrated a legislative intent to negate section 302
C: holding legislatures intent to change tax liability retroactively was permissive exercise of legislative power
D: holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent
B.