…after examination of the six goals stated in the original efficiency grant application five remain unfulfilled.

Feb. 26, 2008

Today in Augusta, the Business, Research and Economic Development Authority Committee voted unanimously LD 2003 “Ought not to Pass.”

This motion was predicated on written correspondence by Senator Peter Bowman, who withdrew his support for the legislation. During the discussion of the motion Senator Bowman reiterated his position not to support.

Various senators and representatives expressed support for concept of regional cooperation, but clearly this bill lacked the required public outreach and illustrated a flawed process.

Others mentioned that this is not the right time for this.

When giving the opportunity to speak, Craig Nelson, an attorney and consultant for the Regional Efficiency Grant Committee, mentioned the amount of work performed on this to date and submitted prepared amendments for the committee. The amendments and other information submitted without public discussion or review are indicative of scanty public involvement, no consensus building and a too late attempt to salvage the authority.

In light of Mr. Nelson’s attempt to write his own report card on the process it prompted me to mention to the committee that after examination of the six goals stated in the original efficiency grant application only five were fulfilled. None of which were to create this legislation.

How this process went so far away from the feasibility study voted and authorized by the various town councils and selectboards remains unanswered.

I take no joy in reporting that we, the citizens of South Berwick, now have to clean up the pieces of another failed planning and administrative initiative. Only now it is on the state level rather than the locally failed BT zone, Contract Zoning, and 236 Industrial Park. Has anyone heard how we are doing lately with the Regional Maintenance Facility?

To the BRED Committee,

I am providing herewith comments on LD 2003, the bill that would establish a Southern York County Regional Development Authority.
I am opposed to the bill.

I have resided with my family in South Berwick for 28 years. I have followed the issues associated with this bill since the beginning of this year, and attended the public informational meeting held Saturday, February 9 at Marshwood High School. I am opposed because the necessary work to develop a bill and build reasonable citizen support has not been done.

The Southern York County Regional Development Authority, a independent inter-municipal entity, as would be established in LD 2003, is given incredibly broad and strong powers from day one: powers to assess unlimited levies on communities (through community taxes). This power would be immediate, and have no limitations or sunset provisions. The legislation provides the Authority, under certain circumstances envisioned in the bill, to bond over $100 Million. Separate from that, annual operating costs are not bounded and would be passed along to communities unilaterally. All this is with no demonstrated reason for the existence of the Authority.

While the concept of inter-municipal cooperation in economic development is good, the need for this specific entity, in the form embodied by LD 2003, has not been established. The goals and objectives of the original planning grant (administered by South Berwick) were simply not followed. The Regional Efficiency Group inexplicably skipped the feasibility evaluations and cost analysis that were to be part of the work, and went straight to drafting the legislation before you now. There was to be a vigorous public information program with the grant. That was ignored. When the legislation was filed and before you, it came as a surprise to citizens.

The strong reaction of virtually all 30-40 attendees at the February 9 informational meeting was that this legislation is untimely, and must be stopped. Senator Bowman’s remarks at the close of the meeting summarized this feeling.

Summarizing: The work necessary to justify an Authority, with such strong powers to levy costs on communities, has simply not been done. Citizens expected that such work might have been done, but the Regional Efficiency Group ignored the mandate of the State grant, and launched into this legislation prematurely, and without public support. The legislation should be stopped.

Sincerely,

Bill Straub

Cc: Senator Bowman
Representative Gould

The concerns raised at the meeting were:

1. The Board was not provided a complete copy of the application to consider and, as such, we we had no idea how the $25K would be used.

2. Based on the application for the first grant, the terms and conditions of that grant were not met. First, the primary work product, the feasibility study, was never completed. Second, the application stressed the intent of the workgroup to develop an inter-local agreement form of organization. This was not done. Consider the following language from the application:

“The key to the feasibility study is the development of an inter-local agreement that is acceptable to the communities. The value of the inter-local agreement is that it will be unique to working with a small number of mid sized communities. This is different than the First Park model where state legislative approval was needed to form a regional development authority. This project will hopefully result in a less cumbersome approach.”

Had the Workgroup stuck to this goal there would be far less objection today, in my opinion.

Finally, I question the compliance with grant Term of Agreement number two which contains the following language:

“No part of the grant will be used for a political campaign, or to support attempts to influence legislation of any governmental body other than through making available the results of non-partisan analysis, study, and research.”

Gary Sinden

It is now time to let the committee know what we think about this proposed legislation. Unfortunately the local REG committee has yet to formalize the amended bill language that was referenced at the Feb. 9 info. session. That alone is a reason to offer comments.

Comments can be submitted throught the committee secretary (Rhonda.Miller@legislature.maine.gov) or directly to the committee members. The form of your memo should be:
Addressed to the committee,
Indicate the number of the bill,
State your position: For, Opposed or Offering Comments’
Brief Comments (One Page),
Indicate name and address.