Legislative Musings

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) budget

2010-04-19T13:45:00.000-07:00

In a previous article I spoke about the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) budget. Since I am a member of the IF&W committee I am directly involved in the budget related to Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W).

Presently the IF&W budget is nearly $25 million. All but about $1.8 million of this money comes from license fees (hunting and fishing) and registrations (Snowmobiles, boats etc). In other words a majority of the budget is financed by those who use the outdoors and rightfully so. However, there is a small portion of the budget, approximately $1.8 million, which comes from the state that is not a result of the fees assessed by those using the outdoors. Unfortunately because of this the IF&W budget can be asked to contribute as a total budget when asked by the Governor. In essence sportsmen are paying more than necessary to balance the State budget. So how do we fix this you ask? Two ways: One way would be to prioritize the services supplied by IF& W and fund only those services. The second way would be to develop a way where those who do not pay for a license or fee help pay for those services. In this article I would like to talk about choice number 2.

Choice 2: Part of the “additional “general fund money coming to the IF&W Department is to provide Search and Rescue for those lost in the woods. One way to recoup this money is to charge someone if we have to save their lives or find their bodies in the great outdoors. Presently this activity is paid for by the license and registration fees. Hikers, birders and kayakers do not contribute to this part of the IF&W budget, but get the same service. So… to make fairises let propose that if you get lost and you have some kind of license ( Hunting etc.) or registration (Boat etc. ) you do not have to pay the cost to be found. BUT if you do not have a license or registration then you are responsible for the costs to be found. Unless, yep here comes the zinger... you have a Maine Outdoor Card. This card would be like an AAA auto card for the woods. You get lost or need help there would be no charge if you have bought this card at a nominal fee, say $20 for a family. This is a way that non consumptive users of the land can help pay their fair share.

Sound like a good idea? Unfortunately we do not have a Maine Outdoor Card yet. However, I proposed such a bill and it will be taken up this Legislative session. I came up with this idea last spring while working closely with some friends. In today’s budget we need to be creative, perhaps this is one way.

If you have questions about this or any thing else please call me at 645-3420 or call e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

5-point Welfare Reform Program

2010-04-19T13:43:00.000-07:00

This fall, when knocking on doors, I continuously heard that something needed to be done about the welfare cost in the state. The program was broken and needed to be fixed. My good friend Representative Rich Cebra ® of Naples has introduced legislation that might just address those concerns. The bill, LD 254, is entitled An Act to enact a 5-point Welfare Reform Program.

As stated by Cebra, “Right now our system penalizes people who leave welfare and go back to work,” he said. “We’re holding folks back and it makes no sense. Consequently, we’re now into our second or third generation of a welfare class, and that’s not good for anybody. As a poor state facing huge budget deficits, we simply can’t afford a system that encourages people to stay on welfare.”

Let me cover some of the specifics. First the bill requires a 90 day residency requirement before someone qualifies for general assistance. Right now an individual simply comes into the state and automatically qualifies for general assistance. This hurts Mainers who need the assistance in these rough economic times.

The legislation’s second point would offer targeted tax credits to employers who hire economically disadvantaged Maine residents. This will encourage employers to help out Mainers that are in need of jobs.

Point three would eliminate the 20-hour rule. Currently, welfare benefits are cut off for anyone working more than 20 hours a week. This does not make any sense, and only discourages people from working. The legislation would use federal figures showing that a person receiving all welfare benefits “makes” the equivalent of $17.56 per hour for a normal 40-hour week. Under the bill, an employee earning $10 per hour, for example, would still receive benefits equivalent to the differential.

The bill’s final point would bring Maine law into conformity with the federal Welfare Reform Act of 1996, one of former president Bill Clinton’s landmark achievements. Rep. Cebra’s legislation would establish a 60-month lifetime limit to receive Maine benefits, the same as the federal limit.

In many ways this bill could have a real effect on the cost of welfare. It could go a long way to enabling people to get back to work. With this legislation, employers will have incentives for hiring new employees. This bill is a great place to start the discussion of welfare reform.

If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

Tax Reform

2010-04-19T13:42:00.000-07:00

In the late night, almost under the cover of darkness, the legislature passed a “tax “reform package. This package originated from a near party line vote on LD 1088. The original proposal called for a tax on such things as car rentals, real estate transfers, ski tickets, car repairs, meals and lodging, candy and many other things. In return the income tax was to decrease from 8% to 6.5. The goal was to try and transfer the loss of income tax revenue to tourists via the lodging and meals tax increase. The Governor did not like this bill so he modified it. The new bill introduced LD 1495, just as the final gavel was about to be sounded removed the ski ticket tax and the real state transfer tax, gave some tax credits and reduced the state income tax to 6.85% for those making over $250,000 and kept it at the proposed 6.5 % for those making under $250,000. Now the good, bad and down right ugly!

Good: There was a successful attempt to broaden the sales tax base. This is critical to do because we get most of our sales tax money from construction and car sales. When times are bad these sources dry up pretty quickly.

Bad: Well, first of all it was done by one party. There was no effort to make this a bipartisan change. Perhaps if they worked together we might have a better package with true bipartisan support.

Second: According to Maine Revenue Services, some 31,000 Maine families will have an income tax increase. A family with a combined income of $100,000, with federal deductions, of say $25000, will loose big in the new tax changes.

Third: Nearly 54,000 families will lose because the sales tax they pay on a broader range of goods will total more than their income tax cut.

Fourth: Car repairs will now be taxable. That’s right, as you decided to keep that old car longer during these tough times you will need to pay tax on the labor to fix it.

Fifth: Small businesses, trades people, technicians, mechanics, and countless others will become tax collectors for the state, with all the accounting and paper work nightmares

Sixth, and perhaps the biggest concern to me is the increase in the meals and lodging tax. The rate is climbing from 7 to 8.5%. While the proponents argue this tax will fall on the tourists, roughly 80 percent of restaurant customers are MAINERS!

THE UGLY: The bill was passed as one of the last items taken up in the session. The 33-page tome was dropped on legislators’ desks only minutes before the vote was ordered. Legislator’s, including yours truly, had little time to read the summary, let alone the fine print packed in the document. And we all know the devil is in the details!!!

Only time will tell how this all works out. To date this tax package is off on the wrong foot.

If you have questions about this or anything else gives me a call at 546-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com as always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

Saviello Rangley Comments

2010-04-19T13:41:00.000-07:00

Director Carroll, Members of the Commission, Members of the Public:
My name is Tom Saviello and I am the State Representative for House District 90 which includes Avon, New Vineyard, and Phillips, Strong, Temple and Wilton, plus the unorganized territories of Freeman, Perkins, Salem (part) and Washington Townships. On your way here you drove through the heart of my district.
I am professional forester, environmental manager, a member of the Legislature’s IFW Committee, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Rural Caucus, a sportsman, and professor of forestry and environmental studies at the University of Maine at Farmington. Today marks my 30th anniversary in the Forest products Industry.
I come before you today to express my concern over the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and with a deep appreciation for private property rights, the working forest, and the recreational access that is provided to the public based on the goodwill of private landowners.
Let us not forget that the jurisdiction that we are discussing here tonight is comprised mostly of private property, and that our ability to access this marvelous resource lies in the hands of private landowners who manage their land for timber and other natural resources. They need and deserve a big voice in the development of this plan.
It is my opinion that language in the draft plan is some what subjective and unclear, and could ultimately lead to the loss of land value, resulting is a loss of economic opportunity and recreational access for the people of Maine.
I would like to make five points:
First: the Commission purposely eliminated a section of the 1997 Comprehensive Land Use Plan when they drafted the new plan:
“Guide the location of new development in order to protect and conserve forest, recreational, plant or animal habitat and other natural resources, to ensure the compatibility of land uses with one another and to allow for a reasonable range of development opportunities, important to the people of Maine.”
This language was replaced with “Foster a sustainable pattern of development which safeguards the principal values of the jurisdiction by concentrating development near economic centers and maintaining other areas for traditional uses.” To me, you have eliminated the importance and focus of how badly rural Maine needs economic opportunity and forgotten that in order to maintain “other areas for traditional uses” you must retain value of the land for owners to keep their industries viable and consistent.
Point 2: Great things are happening in the jurisdiction in large part due to public-private partnerships. Yet, few if any, are mentioned in this CLUP. I would like to see more reference to the amount of conservation that is taking place in the jurisdiction. Along with that, I ask you to incorporate a new “principal value” into your list of four on page 1-1, which would state the importance of private ownership and rights in the jurisdiction. This has for over 400 years, and will continue to be, a dominate principle in Maine’s Unorganized Territory.
Point 3: Nobody wants to pave Maine’s north woods. Development is not ramped and uncontrolled in the north woods. We must recognize all the good that is happening, along with the private property rights and the need for economic opportunity in rural Maine.
Point 4: A new focus on “primitive recreation” is also of concern. For hundreds of years, the jurisdiction has been a working forest, and generally accessible for most every type of recreation, and in recent decades, has been open and accessible for motorized use- again based on the goodwill of private landowners. The language which states that the Commission must “forever retain its principal values” (pg.1-1 draft CLUP) is followed by one of four values which states “Diverse and abundant recreational opportunities, particularly for primitive pursuits” cannot be compromised.” Why is there a need to single out primitive recreation? This language should be replaced by language such as “diverse and abundant recreational opportunities, particularly the tradition of multiple use recreation.” This statement is much more inclusive of many recreational opportunities.
My understanding is LURC’s job is to guide development appropriately and not to manage recreation.
Point 5: There needs to be a better attempt to notify those that actually live in the UT and are under LURC jurisdiction about the public hearings on the final CLUP. I cannot imagine the calls I would get from constituents in a town if a new comprehensive plan was developed that affect their land ownerships and they were not notified. This should and needs to be done. LURC should have had a system in place to notify residents, especially landowners in the jurisdiction. There are many people who are missing from the audience this evening based on the lack of notification LURC gave to those who have the most to lose in this plan. Today there are landholders here who I expect will express the same concern.

In closing want to thank you for your efforts and I also want to thank private organizations that have allowed the public to use this resource. Under the 1997 CLUP things are working well, and like many others who have spoken or will speak at these hearings, I support the notion of operating under the current CLUP. Let’s learn from the prison consolidation efforts and not from the school consolidation adventure. Let’s make sure it is done right with the right stakeholders.

Rep. Thomas Saviello Reelected as the Rural caucus Chairman

2010-04-19T13:40:00.001-07:00

AUGUSTA – State Rep. Thomas Saviello has been reelected as the chairman of the Rural Caucus. The Rural Caucus was established over 10 years ago as a nonpartisan group of legislators who leave their party affiliation outside the door and work in the best interest of rural Maine.

This will be Rep. Saviello’s second term serving as the chair of this caucus. This caucus is different than any standing committee in the legislature. It membership is dictated by where the representative comes from. The chairs are elected for their leadership capabilities and not appointed by the legislative leadership. The caucus meets early in the morning before session starts. It is a place to truly voice ones thoughts and opinions related to pertinent legislation.
“I am honored to be elected as chair again with my fellow legislators, Representative Bill Brown (R) and Jim Schatz (D),” said Rep. Saviello (U-Wilton). “District 90 is a rural district with lots of miles and few people. If similar districts like mine do not stick together we will be run by the urban areas of the state.”
Rep. Saviello went on say “I am honored at the trust that my fellow legislators have put in me by electing me chair again for a second term. I will do my best to insure rural Maine has a voice in the 124th legislature”
The issues before this caucus can be anything that could have an affect on the rural areas of the state. Last session this caucus was instrumental in changing the school consolidation legislation from totally unacceptable to being tolerable. This session the caucus has already weighed in on their concerns on the funding of rural hospitals.
Rep. Saviello represents District 90, which includes the towns of Avon, New Vineyard, Phillips, Strong, Temple and Wilton, plus the unorganized territories of Freeman, Perkins, Salem (part) and Washington Townships.

Feel free to contact Rep. Saviello with ideas, questions or concerns at home at 645-3420 or by email at drtom16@hotmail.com.

Rep. Saviello Health Insurance

2010-04-19T13:39:00.001-07:00

The Legislature is entering its final month of work, when the action intensifies and budget negotiations set the tempo. Bills move through the House like a herd of cattle. But every so often a bill stops as a big issue comes to the forefront. That was the case last week, when the House debated and ultimately killed a bill to let state residents purchase health insurance from out-of-state companies. The vote broke mostly along party lines.
This vote kept away freedom of choice, common sense and financial security for Maine families. As you know, the cost of health insurance in Maine has spiraled out of control. Our rates are the second highest in the country. One company holds a virtual monopoly on the market for individual insurance.
A vote in the House to keep Mainers locked into this situation was sad. It eliminates potential competition in the heath insurance market. In an economy like this, it is difficult to understand why my fellow legislators would deny working families the chance to save thousands of dollars a year.
Maine used to have a dozen or more companies offering health policies and competing for business. Nearly all of those firms have been driven out of the state by so-called reforms. An estimated 140,000 Maine residents have no insurance at all, usually because they simply can’t afford the exorbitant expense. Another 270,000 are on Medicaid, one fifth of the state. If our rates were closer to the national norms, many of those folks could afford commercial insurance.
The numbers are staggering. Family policies here can easily run to $15,000 or $20,000, even with high deductibles. Maine families and individuals pay a higher portion of their income for health insurance than anyone else in the nation. My friends in Wilton researched what it would cost their family if they lived in New Hampshire. They found for the same policy offered in Maine they would pay $3600 to $4800 per year less if they could purchase the insurance policy from New Hampshire. They are frustrated that Maine insists on keeping them shackled to a failing system.
A bill sponsored by Republican Representative Jon McKane, of Newcastle, sought to break those shackles. His bill would have allowed Maine residents to shop around for insurance anywhere in New England and find the best prices and the best plans for themselves and their families. Jon is an electrician who has worked to solve our insurance fiasco since he was first elected in 2004. Every reform bill offered over the past few sessions would have moved Maine closer to the American mainstream. Common sense solutions have been proposed to give Mainers the same kind of system that the vast majority of Americans enjoy in their own states. Unfortunately every single bill has been killed.
I know that without meaningful reform, the best deal for Maine consumers would be out-of-state insurance. Families could save thousands of dollars a year. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut all have robust insurance markets. New Hampshire has 11 companies selling individual policies. Massachusetts has 21. Maine has only two. Just imagine if we suddenly had the choice of dozens of companies and plans to choose from. By joining together with our regional neighbors, Maine would be part of a huge insurance pool and would have the advantages of much greater competition. We would have the same consumer protections that these states offer, plus any other protections we wished to impose.
There is no doubt that the people of Maine wanted this bill to succeed. They didn’t see any downside, because there really isn’t one. Under the McKane plan, the decision was voluntary. If you wanted to stay with your Maine insurance, that was fine. Nothing was being taken away. But people who preferred other options would have had them. In legislative surveys, at least 95 percent of folks said they wanted the freedom of choice to buy insurance someplace else. No one likes being told by politicians that they have to stick with a loser. There are no rational arguments against the McKane bill.
For me this was simply a political loss. But the real losers were Maine families. They could have had an escape route from our insurance debacle, but now there’s no way out unless the Senate gives the bill another chance.
As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90. If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com

PROTECTING JOBS AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE BOTTOM LINE

2010-04-19T13:38:00.001-07:00

This year, water extraction received a lot of attention both in Augusta and in local communities. During the last legislative session numerous bills were introduced related to water bottling facilities. Although many users rely on Maine’s vast groundwater resources, one of the very smallest and most responsible users getting particular attention is Poland Spring.

Approximately five years ago, Kingfield began the process of creating a local environmental ordinance to protect this valuable resource and used it to permit a spring water bottling plant. They crafted a strong ordinance that both protected the aquifer and helped create jobs and economic opportunity for the community. The ordinance was overwhelmingly approved by the Kingfield voters. The planning board then considered Poland Spring’s application and sought advice from an independent geologist hired by the town. The planning board set a conservative and sustainable withdrawal limit in the permit it approved. A permit from DEP was also required and obtained. The combination of state and local regulation provides redundant and rigorous oversight, while still allowing Poland Spring to operate responsibly and create good jobs

That’s exactly what this state and our local communities need to be doing. We need to encourage companies that create good paying jobs to invest in our towns and expand in Maine. Managing our natural resources to provide jobs has gone on in this state for centuries.

As a legislator, I am all too aware of the decline in jobs in the manufacturing sector in our area. These jobs must be replaced or Maine will continue to suffer. Poland Spring is one of the few companies looking to invest in Maine in this difficult economic climate. The company completed a $60 million bottling plant in Kingfield, spending $19 million with local contractors and putting several hundred Mainers to work during construction.

Today, more than 41 families living with in 20 miles of the Kingfield facility enjoy a good paying job with health care, dental and other great benefits. Another 20 have part-time or seasonal work. Because of their dedicated local workers, the Poland Spring plant has the highest rate of efficiency and recycling of any Nestle Waters bottling facility in the country.

To mark this environmental achievement, and similar ones at its Poland Spring and Hollis facilities, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection recently named Poland Spring an Environmental Leader in Maine. I’ve seen that leadership firsthand through Poland Spring’s work across the state.

If we want to be more than a tourist destination, with more than service jobs, we must both protect and add value to our natural resources to create jobs that provide a good living for Maine families. Poland Spring does precisely that by responsibly using our abundant ground water resources to create the world’s finest bottled spring water. Poland Spring has proven they are a responsible steward of our ground water resources with a commitment to investing in local communities.

If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

“An Act to Reaffirm Maine’s commitment to business by amending the Pine Tree Development Zone Laws”

2010-04-19T13:37:00.001-07:00

In the last session we actually passed something that can help the Maine economy and bring jobs to our area. The bill, LD 1473, “An Act to Reaffirm Maine’s commitment to business by amending the Pine Tree Development Zone Laws” passed with out fanfare or debate.

As you might remember Pine Tree Zones (PTZ) were established in 2003 to attract more businesses through out the state. The initial legislation was designed to draw companies to areas of high unemployment and low wages, primarily in rural Maine. The legislation is targeted to companies with fewer than 500 employees, and benefits are extended only if a company creates new jobs or makes new investments. The numbers of zones available were limited in these areas.

Businesses locating in these zones received a 100 percent income and corporate tax credit for the first five years and 5o percent for the next five years. Other benefits include an 80 percent refund of employee withholding tax, a sales tax exemption and access to reduced utility rates.

Bills were introduced to modify the PTZ locations to include all Maine municipalities. This expansion creates two tiered PTZ’s: one urban and one rural. In the urban setting the benefits previously described are good for 5 years. In the rural areas the benefits were extended for 10 years. This alone will not stimulate the economy, but it is one step of many necessary to move the state forward.

LD 1473 moved almost silently through the Legislature. While other bills attracted the headlines and the fanfare, the statewide Pine Tree Zone bill moved quietly forward, swept along by its economic logic and common sense. Yes, common sense in Augusta!

I want to thank my friend State Representative Jayne Crosby Giles (R-Belfast) who is a second-term legislator who serves as the Ranking House Member on the Business, Research and Economic Development Committee who help me put this update together.

As always it is my pleasure to represent the people of District 90. If you have any questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com.

How to influencine legislation.

2010-04-19T13:33:00.000-07:00

Recently, I published how a bill becomes a law and what a roll call vote is. Friends have asked me now to write something on how you, the state citizens, can actually influence legislation. How can you help me know how to vote on an issue? How you can influence my decision?

Let’s start at the beginning. Before we go into session the first year, us legislators are allowed to put as many bills as we like in for consideration. This is the first place you can make a difference. You can actually suggest an idea for me to put in. My bills on Veterans’ plates and Toothaker Pond are direct results of constituents’ ideas. HOWEVER, it is too late for this to happen. The addition of new bills is no longer allowed unless you have special permission from legislative leadership. The chances are slim to none of getting a new bill in this year. But keep this in your “bonnet” for future years.

Your second chance to act on legislation comes once a bill is introduced to the legislative committee. You can call, write, visit or e-mail your legislator and/or senator your ideas about the bill. You can tell us if the bill is good or bad and suggest any changes that might be made. I like hearing from you. As many of you know I try to get back to you with a comment. I DO NOT like getting “form” letters or e-mails that you simply signed and sent on. Additionally, I like to hear from my constituents. I really do not read letters from Portland voters. Somehow, I do not think they would understand what affects our district.

Your third chance to participate is when the bill goes to hearing. During this time, you have the chance to come to Augusta and testify in person. You can also send in written comments to the committee. You can come down personally and talk to you local representative or members of the committee about your views. Be sure you make it known you are representing you ideas and not hose of any organization. Otherwise you could get tangled up in the lobbyist rules!

You fourth real chance to influence the legislation is when the bill moves from the committee and heads to the house and senate for debate. Letters, phone calls, emails and personal visits all are good ways to make sure your voice is heard.

You last defense, if the bill you disagree with still passes, is to convince the Governor to veto it. This usually does not happen often. So, it is important to speak up early and let your legislatures hear what you have to say. You voice does matter and is important.

The bottom line is your input is valuable and helpful. I have and will continue to appreciate your thoughts and ideas. Keep them coming!

As always if you have questions on this or something else give me a call at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. Thanks for providing me the pleasure of serving the people of District 90.

Letter I sent for the record to the ANG

2010-04-19T13:27:00.002-07:00

In the last couple of weeks you have read editorials that have been general in nature about the Massachusetts Air National Guard (ANG) petition to change the flying situations allowed over western Maine airspace (Condor). Many have asked me to publish my testimony from the November hearing. I thought instead I would provide a copy of the letter I sent for the record to the ANG. It is as follows:

Major Stephen Lippert
NGB/A7AM, Program Manager
3500 Fetchet Ave
Andrews Air Force Base, MD 20762-5157

Dear Major Lippert:

I would like to offer the following written comments in relation to the proposed Condor 1 and 2 changes as a reiteration of the statements I made on November 14, 2009 at the public hearing held in Farmington at the University of Maine Farmington. First I would like to restate my background. I have earned a BS in Forestry, MS in Agronomy and a PhD in Forest Resources. I am a Maine registered forester and soil scientist. I am the former manager of International Paper’s Northern Forest Research Center. I have been employed at a local paper mill as the environmental manager for nearly 19 years. I am an adjunct professor at the university of Maine Farmington teaching environmental regulations and political science. As I said at the hearing and restate for the written record, this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the worst document of its nature I have read in 30 plus years as an environmental professional. My reasons are as follows:

1. EIS ownership and Literature cited:
a. The EIS author is not identified nor are their qualifications
b. The literature cited is “stale” and out of date. The most recent citation in the EIS is 2006. In the two sound reference in the appendix the most recent citation is 1992 and 1996

Request: The principal author(s) be identified and their qualification(s) be added to the EIS. That a profession stamp be applied to the EIS.

2. The sound information is based on an “averaging” of potential increased noise:
a. What is the background level used for rural areas? It is not identified in as such in Table: 3-2.
b. There is no statement saying the “averaging” approach is a standard technique.

c. Maine’s Department of Transportation Commissioner sent a letter in 2007. His concerns about sound changes are still not addressed.

Request: 1.A third party consultant review be made available to the State to evaluate the noise/sound section of the EIS. The Governor of the State of Maine requested this in his August 2009 letter. 2. Please address the DOT Commissioner’s concerns identified in his 2007 letter.

3. The latest information on wind mills is not included in the EIS.

Request: A state task force identified high priority mountain sites for expedited wind energy production permitting. This document must be added to the EIS and the mountain sites within the condor airspace be addressed accordingly.

4. The air quality will be seeing a significant increase in Nitrogen Oxide (> 40 tons).

Request: A mitigation plan needs to be included to reduce this increase below significant levels

5. The state endanger species list has not been addressed.
a. Bald Eagles are no longer endangered. However, the same protections for nesting and habitat are still in place.
b. The Barrows Golden Eye Duck is not addressed.

Request: 1. The bald eagle nesting location map needs to be updated, documented and recorded to insure no flights will go over them. 2. The Barrows Golden Eye Duck needs to be addressed. This includes the inclusion of an approved “Taking Plan” as these birds are migratory and bird/plane contact is highly likely.

6. The socioeconomic study is incomplete.
a. The Brookings report is not addressed.
b. Quality of place is not addressed.

Request: This needs to be addressed in the EIS. Any response needs to be available for adequate review time.

7. Mitigation efforts must be modified to include the following if in fact this is already a “done deal”:
a. No more than 40 sorties per month allowed. This would be a permanent cap imposed on the airspace. The cap would apply to all that may use the airspace.
b. No flying on weekend, holidays, or nights.
c. No flying on any school vacation weeks.
d. No flying over towns.
e. No flying over eagle nests.
f. No flying over Indian land holding in the area.

g. Provide an 800 number for locals to get flight plans for the day. This will be updated hourly.
h. Provide an 800 number complaints can be followed. Provide a response plan to address these complaints
i. Provide an approved “taking” plan for the Barrows Golden Eye Duck.
j. Provide an annual report to the Governor of Maine on near misses and accidents that occur in the airspace.

The questions and concerns raised above must be answered before any airspace utilization changes can take place.

On closing, I would be remiss not to thank you for your service to the country.

Sincerely,

Thomas B. Saviello
State Representative

You too can send a letter with your comments against or in support of these airspace changes. Send them to Major Lippert. His address is at the beginning of the proceeding letter. The deadline for written comment is January 1th, 2010.

If you have any questions about this or anything else please feel free to call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. Again, thank you for the privilege for serving you in the state legislature.

LD 1333

2010-04-19T13:27:00.001-07:00

In the last session there were two bills that if you look at the titles there be little concern. They were LD 1268 “An act to Update the Site Location of development” and LD 1333 “Climate and Energy Planning Act of 2009”. In a previous article I told you about LD 1268, now for LD 1333.

LD 1333 was crafted by three environmental organizations with little input from anyone else. As written it would have added enormous new requirements to all State planning decisions, long term project decisions and individual project permitting. The State DEP would be required to evaluate all proposed projects under the site location law to insure there was minimal impact on climate change. It would have prohibited “unreasonable emissions of greenhouse gases. (This was not really defined in the proposed law) and it would have required compensation for land clearing. If passed a developer would have had higher application fees, over and above the compensation fees, to cover DEP’s cost to administer the new standards yet to be defined.

Let me give an example of a project and what his law would have done. Consider a water bottle company wanted to build a bottling plant, say in Kingfield. The developer would do the normal site location permit and pay the established fee to process the application. In addition, if LD 1333 had passed as written, the developer would pay a fee to clear the land and pay an additional fee to be evaluated for energy efficiency by DEP (who by the way has no one qualified to do this). The developer might be required to change their plans if it did not meet DEP standards (Also not developed). The law would have required LURC to have the same requirements in the unorganized towns. Interesting? Would you want to open a business in Maine with these requirements? In fact as a business you need to give major consideration to energy efficiency in any projects being developed. The state does not need to tell you this. Case and point is the Poland Spring’s bottling plant in Kingfield. The design already took into account energy costs in Mane and was design to keep those costs to a minimum. Not one had to tell the builder or did any fees have to be paid.

Interesting the bill passed by the Natural Resources committee along party lines; it passed in the House of Representatives along party lines and then went to the Senate for a final vote. Fortunately land owners, businesses, and the general public who want to see Maine grow, started calling their senators and lodging their concerns. This effort paid off. The bill was changed dramatically. The only thing left will require newly installed culverts to allow fish passage if in fact fish passed in the stream before.

The ideas in the bill are good concepts but need to be fleshed out with everyone’s input. . During this summer a stakeholder group will do just that. Hopefully that group will give us meaningful ideas to work with.

If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or email me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

LD 1268

2010-04-19T13:24:00.000-07:00

In the last session there were two bills that if you look at the titles there would be little concern. They were LD 1268 “An act to Update the Site Location of Development” and LD 1333 “Climate and Energy Planning Act of 2009”. Pretty benign right, well read on.

First let’s look at LD 1268. The site location law has been in place in Maine for nearly 40 years. It is like a “building permit” for large projects. The law assures that proper environmental protections and permits are in place before a large development takes place in the organized towns within the state. It can be burdensome from a business prospective, but a good law that protects from “wilily nilly” development. LD 1268 would have expanded the site location law prohibiting not only commercial and industrial projects but residential subdivisions outside the locally designated growth zones, area’s served by public sewer’s, or identified census “designated places” or urban compact areas. It would have repealed Site Location subdivision rules, broadly amended the law to prevent unreasonable risk of discharge to “ground water” and would have imposed new requirements for “conservation subdivisions”. Let me give you two examples of what this law would have done.

First if a new canoe manufacturing facility came to Farmington or Wilton looking for a place to build. This proposed law would have limited this development to the “growth zone”. In both places this would have been downtown! The project would never be done.

A second example. Suppose you wanted to develop a piece of land into a subdivision. Your lots would only be allowed to open 5000 square feet. This included your driveway. So if you were going to build in the back of the lot requiring a 10 x 100 foot driveway your house “opening “ could only be 4000 square feet including you garage, lawn and septic field!

Thanks to the special efforts of Darrel Brown of Maine Land Consultants information on this bill was distributed throughout the state. This work lead to a full house at the hearing stating the concerns of the bill. In my testimony I called the bill a solution looking for a problem! The committee listened and substantially pared back the bill. The law that passed eliminated a rarely used permit, gave general permit authority to the DOT and Maine Turnpike Authority for their projects and required the DEP to report back to the Natural Resource Committee with any potential changes needed to storm water permitting.

This is a great example of how the people from rural areas spoke and were listen too! Special tanks to Darrell and his crew for their efforts! This bill could have crippled our opportunity to grow. I will cover LD 1333 in another article.

If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or email me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

Condor 1 and 2 military operations

2010-04-19T13:20:00.000-07:00

The last few weeks many of you have been closely following the proposed changes in the use of the air space above the Western Mountains. The air space is known as Condor 1 and 2 military operations area. The proposed changes would allow for the Massachusetts Air National Guard (ANG) to conduct “Dog Fight” simulations flying over our area. In order to do this the ANG needs permission from the Federal Air Administration (FAA). The FAA first requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) be completed before such a request will be heard by the FAA.

Approximately two years ago, the EA was developed and presented to the public. In that presentation many deficiencies were identified requiring more work to be done by the ANG. Last spring the ANG corrected the deficiencies and came back to hold a public session. After that public session, I, along with other local legislators including then Representative Janet Mills and Senator Walter Gooley, the governor’s office and the congressional delegation requested a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be completed. Reluctantly the ANG agreed.

I, along with my colleagues, pushed for the EIS so that the full effects on the air space utilization change were completely evaluated. In the last months I have been in direct contact with the ANG to ensure the hearing was going to be held in Farmington and not in Augusta. I worked diligently to make sure someone in the Governor’s office was going to take the lead and made sure our concerns were fully vetted to the Governor prior to the hearing. I along with Mike Wells of Wilton presented our concerns to the Western Maine Municipal officers. I, as do my colleagues, want the EIS to be done right before a final decision was made by the FAA. We all want to support our soldiers.

The EIS was finally released for review in early August. The work was poor to say the least. Thanks to a local group of Western Maine citizens which included two veteran military pilots with over 40 years of military flying experience, Tom Mauzaka of Strong and Mike Wells of Wilton, clearly identified the errors and poor workmanship.

A few weeks ago this group of citizens, other local legislators (Representative Lance Harvell and Representative Jarrod Crockett) and I met with the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Attorney General’s representative. During that meeting the Western Maine citizens clearly pointed out the flaws and errors in the EIS. Simply put the ANG simply took the EA and changed the name to an EIS. This is not what was supposed to be done. The last time this air space change was proposed the EIS was 7 to 8 volumes long! The work was really an insult to us living in the area and to those who want to support our military. The AG and the Governor agreed as the DOT reported on the poor report and its deficiencies. The Governor wrote a letter and requested the hearing be postponed until all the questions were answered.

As a result, the hearing scheduled for September 2 was postponed until November 14. The ANG tried to address the Governor’s concerns without real substance. The Guard, did agree that the economic impact was not fully addressed and would be in the next iteration of the EIS. We have yet to see this.

On September 9th, I have written a letter to Senator Collins asking for help to get some answers. One question asked what the qualifications for the EIS authors are and what the cost to complete it was. I also asked if the FAA had already decided this is a done deal and given approval to the air space change. The text of the EIS indicates this maybe true. Lastly I asked when the economic impact would be addressed. Would we have this information before the hearing on the 14th? It is the least we can expect as we all want what is right to protect this country and train our armed forces. Stay tuned!

If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always it my pleasure to serve the people of District 90 and the surrounding area.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

2010-04-19T13:18:00.000-07:00

I would like to offer the following written comments in relation to the proposed Condor 1 and 2 changes as a reiteration of those statements I made on November 14, 2009 at the public hearing held in Farmington at the University of Maine Farmington. First I would like to restate my background. I have earned a BS in Forestry, MS in Agronomy, and PhD in Forest Resources. I am a Maine registered forester and soil scientist. I am the former manager of International paper’s Northern Forest research Center. I have been employed at a local paper mill as the environmental manager for nearly 19 years. I am an adjunct professor at the university of Maine Farmington teaching environmental regulations and political science. As I said and the hearing and restate for the written record. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the worst document of it nature I have read in 30 plus years as an environmental professional. My reasons are as follows:

1. EIS ownership and Literature cited:
a. The EIS author is not identified nor are their qualifications
b. The literature cited is “stale” and out of date. The most recent citation in the EIS is 2006. In two sound reference in the appendix the most recent citation is 1992 and 1996

Request: the principal author(s) is identified and their qualification be added to the EIS. That a profession stamp be applied to the EIS.

2. The sound information is based on an “averaging” of potential increased noise:
a. What is the background level used for rural areas. It is not identified in as such in Table:3-2.
b. There is not statement saying the “averaging” approach is a standard technique.
c. Maine’s DOT Commissioner sent a letter in 2007. His concerns about sound changes are still not addressed.

Request: 1.A third party consultant review be made available to the State to evaluate the noise/sound section of the EIS. The Governor of the State of Maine requested this in his August 2009 letter. 2. Please address the DOT Commissioner’s concerns identified in his 2007 letter.

3. The latest information on wind mills is not included in the EIS.

Request: A state task force identified high priority mountain sites for expedited wind energy production permitting. This document must be added to the EIS and the mountain sites with in the Condor air space be addressed accordingly.

4. The air quality will be seeing a significant increase in Nitrogen Oxide (> 40 tons).

Request: A mitigation plan needs to be included to reduce this increase below significant levels

5. The state endanger species list has not been addressed.
a. Bald Eagles are no longer endangered. However, the same protections for nesting and habitat are still in place.
b. The Barrows Golden Eye Duck is not addressed.

Request: 1. The bald eagle nesting location map needs to be updated, documented and recorded to insure no flights will go over them. 2. The Barrows Golden Eye Duck needs to be addressed. This includes the inclusion of an approved “Taking Plan” as these birds are migratory and bird/plane contact is highly likely.

6. The socioeconomic study is incomplete.
a. The Brookings report is not addressed.
b. Quality of place is not addressed.

Request: This needs to be addressed in the EIS. Any response needs to be available for adequate review time.

7. Mitigation efforts must be modified to include the following if in fact this is already a “done deal”:
a. No more than 40 sorties per month allowed. This would be a permanent cap imposed on the air space. The cap would apply to all that may use the air space.
b. No flying on weekend, holidays, or nights.
c. No flying on any school vacation weeks.
d. No flying over towns.
e. No flying over eagle nests.
f. No flying over Indian land holding in the area.
g. Provide an 800 number for locals to get flight plans for the day. This will be updated hourly.
h. Provide an 800 number complaints can be followed. Provide a response plan to address these complaints
i. Provide an approved “taking” plan for the Barrows Golden Eye Duck.
j. Provide an annual report to the Governor of Maine on near misses and accidents that occur in the air space.

These questions and concerns must be answered before any air space ulitization changes can take place.

On closing, I would be remiss not to thank you for your service to the country.

Gas Tax

2010-04-19T13:17:00.001-07:00

Last session my good friend Senator Walter Gooley attempted to help the State highway system by proposing an increase in the gas tax. Senator Gooley bravely took this approach because he knows our state roads are in terrible shape and need help. His idea did not pass but it started a dialogue that was long over due. The economic recession has aggravated the problem.

For too long state dollars have been diverted to fund new and expanding programs and not pay for the roads. We are now living with the result with many of our roads in serious need of maintenance paving and repair. Further delaying maintenance will cause more roads to deteriorate until they need to be completely rebuilt at a much greater cost.

While some people are floating the idea of a tax increase to fund road maintenance, many understand that fixing our roads in these difficult times requires a more creative and thoughtful approach rather than a simple knee-jerk tax increase. This past session, some of us united in seeking to fund the maintenance of our roads without imposing higher gas taxes. We believe the Legislature’s insistence on setting money aside only for reconstruction projects while failing to provide for regular maintenance is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Unfortunately, the majority party blocked these efforts to ensure a balanced approach last session. So the Legislature adjourned with these major transportation funding issues unresolved.

Since then, some legislators have been hard at work on responsible and common sense ideas to fund much needed maintenance of our roads without a tax increase. In preparation for the next legislative session, these legislators introduced a number of bills with that goal in mind. Unfortunately, the majority party leadership blocked further consideration of all but two of them.

The two bills that will be considered by the full Legislature include a measure by Senate assistant minority leader Jon Courtney to require any highway revenues above budgeted amounts to be dedicated solely to road maintenance and paving. The second bill is sponsored by Rep. Bill Browne, the House minority lead on the Transportation Committee. It would dedicate a percentage of highway fund revenues to light capital maintenance and paving, just as we currently do with major reconstruction projects.
Together, these two bills provide the only clear path for the Legislature to address the needs of our roads without treading the same old worn-out path of raising taxes. We could have had even more options if majority party leaders had not blocked other proposals submitted by other legislators.

For example our Sen. Walter Gooley ,who serves on the Transportation Committee, proposed changing the law to remove from the highway budget expenditures not directly highway-related. Rep. Doug Thomas of Ripley (R), another Transportation Committee member, submitted a comprehensive bill that would have saved taxpayer dollars, adopted portions of a report by Maine’s government watchdog agency, the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability, to dedicate more state funds to roads, restructured funding formulas to more equitably and fairly fund road projects across the state, and leveraged millions in federal funds. Rep. Ken Fletcher of Winslow (R) proposed to set aside 15 percent of fuel tax revenue to fund maintenance paving of our highways. Sen. Doug Smith of Dover-Foxcroft (R) proposed a Rural Highway Authority to ensure that all areas of Maine receive a fair share of funding for road repair and maintenance. In each of these cases, these legislators put forth thoughtful, creative and common sense solutions to our road and highway needs.

When the Legislature reconvenes in January, we will face a general fund budget hole currently expected to be as high as $400 million — and expected to grow even larger due to the continued decline in state revenues. Those revenues are down for one simple reason. Maine people are hurting from this economic downturn. Many of our people have lost their jobs, and others are working for less income.

But maintenance of our roads cannot wait until times are better. With majority party leaders rejecting creative ideas, the Courtney and Browne bills are the only measures before the Legislature that will fix our roads without raising taxes. We hope both will receive strong bipartisan support. Otherwise, a scenario that will either increase the gas tax or let our roads continue to decay will be set up. Struggling Maine families cannot afford either of those options.

As always it is my pleasure to represent the people of District 90. If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com

Franklin County Children's Task Force (FCCTF)

2010-04-19T13:16:00.001-07:00

In a past article I told you about the United Methodist Economic Ministry and the services they provide to the people of Franklin County. Now I would like to tell you about the Franklin County Children's Task Force (FCCTF).

The FCCTF is a private, not-for-profit corporation committed to strengthening families and preventing child abuse and neglect through mobilizing community resources and advocating for and providing services that promote healthy children and families. They offer programs for families, kids and schools. Their many programs, support groups and events spread the word in our community on how to prevent child abuse and raise healthy families. FCCTF are a group of parents, professionals, volunteers, donors and friends who are working together to prevent child abuse and neglect.

One of the programs they offer is Growing Healthy Families. This program promotes healthy family care and relationships from prenatal months through early childhood. The program goal is that parents everywhere work with supportive providers, feel confident in their parenting role, and form strong resilient attachments with their children.

A home visitor meets with you in your home to talk with you about your interests and needs as parents. During the first meeting, the parent educator talks about what services will be available to you. If you decide to become part of the Home Visitation program, you may be offered books, educational materials, videos and other tools that may be borrowed for use with your child and family.

Another program is Baby Think It Over. This is a program using infant simulators that are lifelike and life-sized with realistic computerized responses, which allow teens to experience some of the demands of infant care. It is being used by schools and other organizations to help adolescents appreciate the responsibilities involved with parenthood. The infant simulators are used not only in the schools but by community members, hospitals, and teen parents. Let me tell you these simulators are really “LIFE LIKE”!

Bullying and Teasing Prevention is another program offered by the FCCTF. This program is a school-based violence prevention program. For years, we have accepted childhood bullying as a normal part of growing up. However, recent research indicates that children who bully are likely to get into trouble with the law when they become teenagers. Children who are bullied are likely to do less well in school and do become depressed or even suicidal. The Children's Task Force sees the prevention of bullying as an important step in preventing child abuse and neglect

Parent education is also offered by the FCCTF. “1,2,3,4 Parents!” is just one example of programs offered for parents. 1,2,3,4,Parents is a great program for a new parent or a parent who would like additional information about what expectations are reasonable to have of a child from birth to 4 years old. This program also offers ideas for parents regarding disciplining a young child while sorting through fact and old wives tales. There are other programs too including one for just fathers.

The Franklin County Children's Task Force also offers a Clothing Exchange with a bring a bag, get a bag policy. Donations of gently worn washed clothes are welcome. Clothing is available for children sizes newborn through 4T, with some maternity items available.

To learn more abut the Franklin County Children’s Task Force and the programs they offer you can go to www.fcctf.org or you can call them at 778-6960.

This is another great example of an organization in our area providing valuable service to Franklin County residents. If you have questions about this or anything else fell free to give me a call at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always thank you for the pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

Family Development Accounts (FDAs)

2010-04-19T13:14:00.000-07:00

Did you know there is a saving program from the federal government called Family Development Accounts (FDAs) which enables low income families to establish saving accounts that will be used for targeted purposes. This would include activities such as buying a home, paying for an education or staring or expanding a small business. These savings accounts will be matched at a 2:1 ratio by public or private contributions when withdrawn to meet the savings goal.

Families who are eligible for Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) or the Earned Income Tax credit usually qualify to open a FDA. The program is designed to support goals that will contribute towards the building of assets for participating families. Goals include home ownership, business development, education, and training.

Participating families can save between $20 and $80 per month in a FDA for a maximum savings of $2,000. This will then be matched two to one or $4,000. The total savings being $6,000! All deposits must be earned income.

Families usually participate for a period of two to three years. Length of participation time depends upon the identified savings goal and how much a family is saving each month.

Families have access to the FDA savings for emergencies, but only to the funds they have contributed. Families do have the right to withdraw their contributed funds at anytime, resulting in termination of the program

Sound interesting! This program is administered through the Maine Family Development Account Coalition. For more information call Women, Work and Community at 778-2757 or 800-442-2092, or call Western Maine Community Action at 800-645-9636. If you are eligible why not take advantage of this wonderful program!

As always it is my pleasure to serve District 90. If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com.

www.womenworkandcommunity.org

2010-04-19T13:13:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard of the Maine Centers for Women, Work and Community (WWC)? Well, neither had I until I went to Augusta! Let me give you a bit of history first. Founded in 1978 by the Maine State Legislature as a displaced homemakers program, Women, Work and Community has grown throughout the State through 18 centers and community outreach sites. Their mission is to help women and their families succeed in the Maine economy through employment, self-employment, education, and training.

In a state with an aging population, this organization plays a critical role in helping individuals to remain productive over their lives. It helps refocus careers to enter or re-enter the workforce. It helps those who want to start and run a business. It provides continuing education opportunities. It teaches how to better manage and build ones assets. It helps individuals involved become contributing members of their community.

The WWC offers men (yes MEN too) and women the tools and confidence they need to adjust to the challenges of our changing economy. In the past 3 years over 1600 new individuals sought services from the WWC. Nearly 78% were from low or moderate income brackets and 72% had an associate degree or less.

The WWC provides Maine with a prepared workforce and more engaged workers. It leverages community resources by using such things as Family Development Accounts and promoting Life Long Learning Accounts. It serves as a catalyst for networks among entrepreneurs, artisans and food producers.

The WWC is cost effective, leveraging existing resources and partnerships, and reaches into Maine’s rural communities. Graduates from the program increase their incomes (40-50%) and save for their future (30-35%). Women, work, and community offers a HAND UP – not a hand out.

Here are the classes being offered soon: Introduction to Self-Employment, Wednesday October 7 and Thursday, November 12 from 9:00 - 12:00 noon; Build A Budget That You Can Live With, Tuesday, October 6 from 9:00 -11:30 am; Creating your Future, an eight week class that runs from October 8 - December 3 on Thursdays from 5:30 - 8:30 pm; and Career Exploration, a five week class that runs from October 27 - November 24 on Tuesdays from 9:00 - 12:00 noon. For more information on these classes or to get a schedule for future classes and workshops call the Farmington center at 778-2757 or 1-800-442-2092 or visit their website at
www.womenworkandcommunity.org. Information supporting this article was supplied by the WWC.

If you have questions about this or anything else please call me at 645-3420 or e-mail me at drtom16@hotmail.com . As always it is my pleasure to serve the people of District 90.

Ensuring a Better Land Use Plan for the Unorganized Territory

2010-04-19T13:10:00.000-07:00

By Representative Tom Saviello and James Cote, Director of Communications, Maine Forest Products Council
Residents of Franklin County who own land, use land, or live in the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission’s (LURC) jurisdiction, commonly referred to as the Unorganized Territory, will have the opportunity to comment on several pieces of legislation pertaining to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), on Wednesday, April 22. The public hearing on these bills will take place before the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Committee at 9:30 a.m. in the Cross Building located beside the State House.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the principle planning tool used by the Land Use Regulation Commission. The plan is revised approximately every ten years. The current plan was adopted in 1997.
Under the 1997 CLUP, development has been guided into desired locations, conservation easement sales have risen, and recreational access opportunities have, for the most part, been maintained.
As many will recall, there was significant outcry and concern over the draft plan which was presented at a series of public workshops held around the state last spring. Among the many concerns voiced by concerned citizens was a lack of recognition of landowner rights, wildlife management, the promotion of primitive recreation over multiple-use recreation, forest managements, new scenic requirements and building standards, and incorrect or outdated data to support many of the conclusions within the document.
This winter, LURC Commissioners, along with many stakeholders, participated in a professionally facilitated working group process, where they discussed and analyzed many of the concerns surrounding development trends in the jurisdiction. While many concerns over development trends were alleviated, many issues including wildlife management, new scenic requirements, and the recognition of economic development opportunities have yet to be addressed.
Three of the bills being heard on April 22 have been identified as crucial to fixing many of the concerns in the draft plan. Among them are LD 413, LD 474 and LD 558.
LD 413, An Act to Clarify Land Use Regulation in Unorganized and Deorganized Townships, clarifies the purpose of land use regulation in the unorganized and deorganized townships of the State by confirming that such regulation is for the benefit of property owners and residents of these areas as well as for the public benefit. The bill also provides that the Legislature acknowledges that these areas are important to the continued vitality of the State and to local economies by promoting forest management and agricultural activities. Because the Land Use Regulation Commission acts as the planning board for much of rural Maine, we believe it is important that they give residents and property owner’s fair recognition in the comprehensive planning process, just like residents of organized municipalities.
LD 474, An Act to Clarify Land Planning in the Unorganized and Deorganized Townships, clarifies and amends the process by which the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission adopts a comprehensive land use plan for the unorganized and deorganized townships of the State, by ensuring that the legislative committee of jurisdiction (Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Committee) has the opportunity to review and approve the plan. Because members of the Land Use Regulation Commission are not elected, and the Maine Legislature acts as the “Board of Selectmen” for the unorganized territory, this bill would ensure that elected officials have the opportunity to review and approve the Comprehensive Land Use Plan before sending it to the Governor for final approval.
Finally, LD 558, An Act to Amend Notification Procedures of the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission requires that, prior to initiating the process of updating or revising the comprehensive land use plan, the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission notify each individual property owner within the commission’s jurisdiction that the commission is initiating the process of updating the plan and how to access information regarding the plan the proposed revisions to the plan and the process for public input and comment. Recognizing current budget constraints, we believe that such notification could be accomplished in tax bill mailings, and other existing alert mechanisms. Currently, LURC notifies people through an interested parties email list and by placing ads in newspapers- inadequate methods of notifying property owners and residents about such a critical process.
We encourage anyone with an interest in this plan to attend the public hearings on April 22. The approval of each of these bills will result in a better Comprehensive Land Use Plan for everyone.
If you have any questions you can call us at 645-3420 (Tom) or 860-6600 (James). You can also e-mail your thoughts and questions to drtom16@hotmail.com (Tom) or jcote@maineforest.org (James).

United Methodist Economic ministry

2010-04-19T13:09:00.000-07:00

In the last couple of months I have had the opportunity and privilege to meet with many of the agencies that provide services and assistance to the people of Franklin County. These agencies include the United Methodist Economic Ministry, Literacy volunteers, Senior’s plus, Western Maine Community Action, Community Concepts, Tri-Valley mental Health, Western Maine Transportation and Franklin County Children’s task force. In some of my future updates I want to tell you about these organizations and what services they have available. The first one that I am going to tell you about is the United Methodist Economic ministry.

The United Methodist Economic ministry is located in Salem, Maine on the Salem Road. Their web site is www.gbgm-umc.org/umem/ . The United Methodist Economic Ministry has its roots in the Sugarloaf Protestant Ministry, the Evangelical United Brethren Churches in Kingfield and Salem, and Mission at the Eastward. In 1969 the first building was moved to Salem and set up as a thrift shop. The facilities have grown to include a food cupboard, office space and workgroup quarters. In forty years their mission has remained the same, "to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and house the poor."

Their mission today is to be in a partnership with rural communities of western Maine to create healthy and sustainable communities within the region. Their vision is that through leadership, systems and services of the United Methodist Economic ministry and partnerships with regional churches, the western Maine region will develop healthy communities that adapt to the changing environment.

The Ministry has a thrift shop where they provide at a low cost, clothing for all seasons and household items. The Thrift shop is open Tuesday to Saturday from 1-4 pm. Each year they sponsor a back to school knapsack program. These knapsacks have back to school items including backpacks, sneakers, notebooks, crayons, markers, scissors, 3 ring binders, children's socks and underwear. They support a school snack program. Here they provide healthy snacks to five area schools to insure students will not be hungry at snack time. At Christmas time they run a Christmas shop which helps families celebrate the season. The ministry provides emergency services for fire victims, domestic abuse victims, deaths and other family crises. I know of one family that was helped out on New Years day after fire burned their home. The ministry runs a food cupboard; it is open Tuesday and Thursday from 1-4 pm and Saturday from 10-11 am. In a year they have help over 1000 individuals with there food needs.

One of the most interesting services they provide is housing repair/mission teams. Church’s send mission teams to work for a week, weekend or a day. Teams bring the funds for materials for projects. The projects can include handicap ramps, steps, painting, carpentry, windows, and roofing to name a few.

The teams stay on site in Salem and provide their own meals and transportation. Some larger groups stay in other locations around the area. A highlight of the week is the Wednesday night community potluck supper for the team, home owners, staff and the community. Some of these “crews” even make additional monetary donations to the Ministry. Some even bring “boxes” of new toys to be distributed at Christmas time!!

The more I think about this, it is like the Tom Sawyer story when he convinced his friends to white wash the fence for him. Well the Ministry is able to stimulate so many to help those that need help! What a group! If you want to help they can be reached at 207-678-2611.

If you have about this or anything else call me at 645-3420 or email me at drtom16@hotmail.com. As always thank for the privilege to save as you representative to the state legislature.

Domestic Violence

2010-04-19T13:08:00.001-07:00

In the last year, I have become keenly aware of a significant problem in our area: Domestic Violence. This is a case where a family member does not respect the individual they are married or related to. Now I need to be careful. All of us on occasion loose our temper and get angry at a spouse or a family member. These laws are not for this. Fortunately, in Maine we have laws that help protect domestic violence victims, but they do need to be strengthened.

This year there are at least four different bills that could be before us to do just that. The first one is LD 324 “An Act to Allow Limited Informational Sharing in Domestic Violence Cases.” This bill would allow law enforcement agencies to share investigative reports with family violence projects and other programs that provide services to the victims.

The second bill is LD 567 “An Act to Provide Increased Protection for a Victim of Domestic Violence.” This bill adds more protections for the victim. It includes requiring the perpetrator to wear an electronic monitoring device. This will give assurance to the victim that they are safe. It should also be noted that the perpetrator pays 100% for this device as a condition of parole.

The third bill is LD 326 “An Act to Allow the Request for and Granting of Permanent Protection from Abuse Orders.” This bill would allow a person to request a permanent protection from abuse order from the court this bill also allows the court to issue such an order.

The last bill, LD 690 “An Act Concerning Domestic Violence and Firearms” is still a bit unclear at this time. In essence it would make sure that anyone who used a gun in an act of abuse would no longer have the privilege to own such a weapon again. This is already a federal law.

I am sure everyone knows I support the 2nd amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms. However, it seems to me when somebody uses a gun incorrectly, and holds it up to another person resulting in abuse they have forfeited their right to bear arms. There still remains much work to be done on this bill. I suspect it will be held over until next year for better information, clarification and discussion. I will have more on these bills in the future.

As always it is my privilege to serve the people of district 90. If you have questions or comments about these bills or anything else please feel free to contact me at 645-3420 or via email at drtom16@hotmail.com.

Senator Olympia Snowe

2010-04-19T13:05:00.000-07:00

Senator Olympia Snowe October 15, 2009
2 Great Falls Plaza, Suite 7B
Auburn, ME 04210

Senator Snowe:

In August 2009 the 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Westfield, MA filed a “Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas”, Project No. ANG0956737. This filing, if accepted by the FAA, will allow for a major modification of the Condor Air space over western Maine. This impact statement is woefully inadequate and does not address the potential environmental and economic concerns such a change would affect. I have written and read many such proposals in my 30 years as an environmental manager and found this one to be the worst I have ever read. However, I do not intend on going a picking out these flaws. Others will do that in future correspondence.

My concerns are as followed and I ask for your help to obtain this information:

1. The work presented is not signed. There is no list of the authors’ qualifications. I have no idea of what was requested to be done

Could you please help find out the following?

Who did the work? How much did it cost? What did the request for the proposed work say? What are the qualifications of the individual’s doing the work?

2. Governor Baldacci sent a letter of concern and requested more information. He carefully and articulately pointed out the concerns regarding economic impact. Basically ignoring the Governor Lt. General Harry Wyatt of the ANG responded with this statement:

Could you please help find out the following?

When will the work be available for review? Will it be ready before the November 14th hearing? If not why is the hearing going forward?

3. Lastly, my greatest concern, is this a “done deal”. Consider the following taken from the EIS on page 1-13 and 1-14.

“In a letter dated 21 August 2006, the FAA consented to participate as a cooperating
Agency in the preparation of an EA for this project because this proposal involves SUA.
Upon completion of the EA in March 2009, the FAA concurred with the
EA’s findings that the Proposed Action would not have significant environmental
impacts. The ANG has independently elected to proceed with an EIS for the Proposed
Action in response to requests from several elected officials and the general public.”

The highlight sentence says it all.

Could you please help find out the following?

Has the FAA already made a decision to approve this air space change? If so, under what authority? Are we in preparing for the hearing, simply going through an academic exercise?

If this is a “done deal” then we should ask that certain restrictions be put on the air space. These would include a specific limit on the number or flights allowed in a month regardless which organization flies them. No flights during the Christmas and February vacations periods. No flights on weekends. 800 number allowing local pilots to call to see what the flight schedule for a specific day. And, flying only allowed during the daylight hours. I am sure there are other restrictions that should be considered.

In closing I would say I do appreciate the efforts by the ANG to get input, but am disturbed at the apparent “backroom deals“ that have been done. I hope your efforts to get answers will prove this concern wrong. I do want our pilots to have the absolute best training to defend this country. But I want their work to allow suck flights to be done right,

I appreciate your help in getting the answers to my question. It is my hope I would have these by November 1 so I can prepare appropriate testimony.

Thomas Saviello
District 90

Dear Senator Collins

2010-04-19T13:03:00.000-07:00

October 15, 2009

Senator Susan Collins
11 Lisbon Street
Lewiston, ME 04240

Senator Collins:

In August 2009 the 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Westfield, MA filed a “Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas”, Project No. ANG0956737. This filing, if accepted by the FAA, will allow for a major modification of the Condor Air space over western Maine. This impact statement is woefully inadequate and does not address the potential environmental and economic concerns such a change would affect. I have written and read many such proposals in my 30 years as an environmental manager and found this one to be the worst I have ever read. However, I do not intend on going a picking out these flaws. Others will do that in future correspondence.

My concerns are as followed and I ask for your help to obtain this information:

1. The work presented is not signed. There is no list of the authors’ qualifications. I have no idea of what was requested to be done

Could you please help find out the following?

Who did the work? How much did it cost? What did the request for the proposed work say? What are the qualifications of the individual’s doing the work?

2. Governor Baldacci sent a letter of concern and requested more information. He carefully and articulately pointed out the concerns regarding economic impact. Basically ignoring the Governor Lt. General Harry Wyatt of the ANG responded with this statement:

Could you please help find out the following?

When will the work be available for review? Will it be ready before the November 14th hearing? If not why is the hearing going forward?

3. Lastly, my greatest concern, is this a “done deal”. Consider the following taken from the EIS on page 1-13 and 1-14.

“In a letter dated 21 August 2006, the FAA consented to participate as a cooperating
Agency in the preparation of an EA for this project because this proposal involves SUA.
Upon completion of the EA in March 2009, the FAA concurred with the
EA’s findings that the Proposed Action would not have significant environmental
impacts. The ANG has independently elected to proceed with an EIS for the Proposed
Action in response to requests from several elected officials and the general public.”

The highlight sentence says it all.

Could you please help find out the following?

Has the FAA already made a decision to approve this air space change? If so, under what authority? Are we in preparing for the hearing, simply going through an academic exercise?

If this is a “done deal” then we should ask that certain restrictions be put on the air space. These would include a specific limit on the number or flights allowed in a month regardless which organization flies them. No flights during the Christmas and February vacations periods. No flights on weekends. 800 number allowing local pilots to call to see what the flight schedule for a specific day. And, flying only allowed during the daylight hours. I am sure there are other restrictions that should be considered.

In closing I would say I do appreciate the efforts by the ANG to get input, but am disturbed at the apparent “backroom deals“ that have been done. I hope your efforts to get answers will prove this concern wrong. I do want our pilots to have the absolute best training to defend this country. But I want their work to allow suck flights to be done right,

I appreciate your help in getting the answers to my question. It is my hope I would have these by November 1 so I can prepare appropriate testimony.

Thomas Saviello
District 90

Dear Congressman Michaud

2010-04-19T12:59:00.000-07:00

Congressman Michael Michaud October 15, 2009
179 Lisbon Street
Lewiston, ME 04240

Congressman Michaud:

In August 2009 the 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Westfield, MA filed a “Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas”, Project No. ANG0956737. This filing, if accepted by the FAA, will allow for a major modification of the Condor Air space over western Maine. This impact statement is woefully inadequate and does not address the potential environmental and economic concerns such a change would affect. I have written and read many such proposals in my 30 years as an environmental manager and found this one to be the worst I have ever read. However, I do not intend on going a picking out these flaws. Others will do that in future correspondence.

My concerns are as followed and I ask for your help to obtain this information:

1. The work presented is not signed. There is no list of the authors’ qualifications. I have no idea of what was requested to be done

Could you please help find out the following?

Who did the work? How much did it cost? What did the request for the proposed work say? What are the qualifications of the individual’s doing the work?

2. Governor Baldacci sent a letter of concern and requested more information. He carefully and articulately pointed out the concerns regarding economic impact. Basically ignoring the Governor Lt. General Harry Wyatt of the ANG responded with this statement:

Could you please help find out the following?

When will the work be available for review? Will it be ready before the November 14th hearing? If not why is the hearing going forward?

3. Lastly, my greatest concern, is this a “done deal”. Consider the following taken from the EIS on page 1-13 and 1-14.

“In a letter dated 21 August 2006, the FAA consented to participate as a cooperating
Agency in the preparation of an EA for this project because this proposal involves SUA.
Upon completion of the EA in March 2009, the FAA concurred with the
EA’s findings that the Proposed Action would not have significant environmental
impacts. The ANG has independently elected to proceed with an EIS for the Proposed
Action in response to requests from several elected officials and the general public.”

The highlight sentence says it all.

Could you please help find out the following?

Has the FAA already made a decision to approve this air space change? If so, under what authority? Are we in preparing for the hearing, simply going through an academic exercise?

If this is a “done deal” then we should ask that certain restrictions be put on the air space. These would include a specific limit on the number or flights allowed in a month regardless which organization flies them. No flights during the Christmas and February vacations periods. No flights on weekends. 800 number allowing local pilots to call to see what the flight schedule for a specific day. And, flying only allowed during the daylight hours. I am sure there are other restrictions that should be considered.

In closing I would say I do appreciate the efforts by the ANG to get input, but am disturbed at the apparent “backroom deals“ that have been done. I hope your efforts to get answers will prove this concern wrong. I do want our pilots to have the absolute best training to defend this country. But I want their work to allow suck flights to be done right,

I appreciate your help in getting the answers to my question. It is my hope I would have these by November 1 so I can prepare appropriate testimony.

Thomas Saviello
District 90