General Meeting of Citizens: Dispute Over UNE Research Pier Permitting and Location (October 23, 2025)

This General Meeting of the Citizens, held pursuant to the Biddeford City Charter on October 23, 2025, was convened to address public concerns over the permitting process and proposed location of the University of New England's (UNE) research pier. Dozens of residents and stakeholders voiced frustration over the removal of local Harbormasters from the approval process, the bypassing of city ordinances, and a perceived lack of transparency and local knowledge in decision-making. The meeting was moderated by citizens' moderator Craig Pendleton, who noted that the City Council had no regulatory authority over the project at this stage.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Wade: Expressed sadness over a missed opportunity. Described how, in 2015, former Harbormaster Marshall Alexander reviewed UNE's plans and suggested a better location with deeper water. He argued the subsequent removal of the current Harbormaster (Alexander's former assistant) by the former City Manager for alleged bias was unjust, as the Harbormaster was acting on expert local knowledge.
• Carol Alexander (Ward 1): Provided a detailed timeline, stating the removal of the Harbormaster and his assistant was an "egregious abuse of power" by the former City Manager. She characterized the replacement Harbormaster as a "faux harbormaster" who met none of the criteria (residency, experience, training). She argued the permitting process was run in reverse, bypassing required local Harbormaster approval, and called for the process to restart from "square one."
• Steve Martin (45 Western Ave): Contended that the City Manager violated the City Charter by removing the Harbormaster, arguing the Charter dictates the Harbormaster answers only to the City Council. He stated the pro tem Harbormaster did not meet state law (Title 38 1A) training requirements or city residency criteria. He called the process a "railroad job" and favored starting over.
• Sean Tibbetts (Mooring holder): Stated his mooring is directly affected by the proposed location. He argued that at least seven moorings would need to be relocated, not the two publicly cited, for the pier to be functional. He noted that no local Harbormasters (from Biddeford or Saco) were consulted.
• Ken Bicks (Ward 1): Criticized the Planning Board process, alleging the City Solicitor improperly directed the board on what they could not consider (such as tides, setbacks, and mooring interference). He described this as intimidating and biased, and noted the chair cast the deciding vote after a tie.
• Diane LaRivier (Pool St): Identified as the wife of the current Harbormaster. She requested the entire process be restarted with her husband included as the legal expert.
• Joe Emmons (Ward 1): Suggested city ordinances may need revision to prevent a single individual (the City Manager) from making such impactful decisions. He questioned how the UNE pier benefits Biddeford citizens, noting UNE is a non-profit institution that does not pay property taxes.
• UNE Alumna (Class of 2008): Expressed personal frustration, contrasting UNE's environmental curriculum with its past project impacts (wetlands, light/sound pollution). She argued the proposed pier disregards expert opinion and will undermine the marine ecosystem and local navigation.
• Kyle Noble (Ward 1, Hills Beach Rd): Presented a detailed timeline. He stated UNE threatened a lawsuit in February 2024 if an alternate location was approved. He argued that UNE's environmental assessment misrepresented the Harbormaster's recommended pier and that the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) failed to require a proper alternatives analysis. He called for a return to "square one" for a genuine alternatives analysis.
• Mark Johnson (River resident/mooring holder): Argued the removal of the local Harbormaster sets a dangerous precedent, allowing any applicant to seek a more favorable reviewer. He questioned the public benefit of the project to Biddeford. He supported a pier but insisted the decision on location must rest with the Harbormaster.
• Gary McMullan (Old Pool Road): Recounted the City Solicitor informing the Planning Board that courts would likely overturn a denial. He read from 2001 Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC) minutes showing UNE committed to a 250-foot no-development buffer from the river, which he argued was overlooked in the current process. He called on the city to "correct course."
• Sam Picor (Ward 7): Criticized the City Council for failing to add a discussion item on the pier to a recent agenda (October 21), calling it evidence of a "broken process." He urged the Council to find a quick resolution.
• Walter Alexander (Ward 1): Son of former Harbormaster Marshall Alexander. He detailed the timeline: the alternate site offered in 2015/16, the wait for his father's resignation, and the sidelining of the current HM. He noted UNE's payment in lieu of taxes doubled to $100,000 in the same period. He called the process "suspicious" and argued the pro tem Harbormaster lacked required state-mandated training.
• Jim Emerson (Pool Road): Emphasized the critical importance of local knowledge, citing previous city projects (a wind turbine, flood maps) that failed due to reliance on consultants over local experts. He advised the Council to be more proactive in their wards.
• Chris Stone (Ward 1, Hills Beach Rd): Argued the City Council should have intervened sooner. He stated the city's Master Plan is "broken," notably missing the 250-foot buffer zone from its maps, and called for a full review of the system.
• John McCurry (Ward 2): Noted all three mayoral candidates agreed the process was flawed. He reminded the Council that the Harbormaster's stated duty is to ensure "equal access for all" on the river.

Key Outcomes

• No Formal Action: The meeting was a public forum under the City Charter. No formal votes, motions, or decisions were made by the City Council.
• Consensus on Process Failure: A strong majority of speakers agreed the permitting process was fundamentally broken, calling for it to be restarted from the beginning with local Harbormaster involvement.
• Calls for Systemic Review: Multiple residents urged the City Council to review and revise the Master Plan and city ordinances to ensure local knowledge is respected and proper procedures are followed in future developments.
• Next Step Identified: The upcoming Zoning Board of Appeals hearing, scheduled for November 13, was identified as the next formal opportunity for review of the project.