Just a few days after hearing several negative comments from the public about their proposed research and docking pier, officials from the University of New England distributed a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document with the media and community leaders.
The university (UNE) says the FAQ document is intended to clarify “a variety of misunderstandings [that] have emerged about the project” and to “clear up misinformation that has circulated about the (proposal).”
CLICK HERE TO VIEW/DOWNLAD UNE’s FAQ Document
Last week, UNE officials appeared before the Biddeford Planning Board to present an outline of their plan during a preliminary sketch review meeting.
That meeting drew scores of people, filling the council chamber while several other members of the public overflowed into the hallway.
During the public comment period, several people took to the podium, raising concerns about the plan and criticizing the university. No one at the meeting spoke in support of the proposal.
Former City Councilor Michael Swanton – who previously represented the city’s coastal area on the city council – told the board that he is neutral about the proposed pier.
During a telephone interview Wednesday, Sarah Delage, a university spokesperson, reiterated that UNE wants to be proactive and follow a review process that includes addressing public concerns, listening to opponents and responding to every regulatory agency’s particular request for information.
“From our perspective, we have clearly communicated with all the regulatory agencies,” Delage said. “We are absolutely committed to working in good faith with everyone and listening to all voices.”
UNE President James Herbert did not mince words about his frustrations regarding “misinformation” in a letter he sent to community leaders on Tuesday.
“Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been spread about the proposal,” Herbert wrote. “UNE cannot continue to allow the level of misinformation and, in some cases outright false statements, to go unanswered.”
Herbert told community leaders that “most, if not all, of the comments that were presented to the Planning Board [during last week’s meeting] are irrelevant to the criteria that the Planning Board must apply to UNE’s application for site plan approval.”
UNE cannot continue to allow
— James Herbert, president of the University of New England
the level of misinformation
and, in some cases outright false
statements, to go unanswered.”
What do the critics say?
John Schafer, the former chair of Biddeford’s Harbor Commission and a retired engineer, has been an outspoken critic of the project for several months.
Schafer and other critics of the proposed pier created a Facebook page known as UNE Pier Review.
For more than a year, Schafer and others have been doggedly tracking the review process, raising concerns about “a lack of transparency” and other issues, most notably stating that the proposed pier should be located in a different location, closer to shore primarily because of water depth issues and impacts to existing moorings in the Saco River.
Schafer received a copy of the university’s FAQ document, describing it as “polished spin.”
“The public finally had an opportunity to speak at last week’s meeting, and apparently the university didn’t like what it heard,” Schafer said. “No one from the university reached out to me,” he added, saying it has been more than difficult to obtain documents from the university, including a copy of their request for $3.5 million in federal funding for the project.
“While reading this thing, my bullshit meter pegged the needle off the charts,” Schafer said.
Schafer raised several specific objections to the items listed on the university’s document, including the actual number of mooring owners who would be impacted; statements regarding whether the university has threatened to sue the city if their plan is not approved, and contrary statements issued by the university regarding the potential impact on federal funding if the review process is delayed.
“While reading this thing,
— John Schafer, former chair, Biddeford Harbor Commission
my bullshit meter pegged
the needle off the charts,”
“How can they with a straight face say that only two moorings will be impacted?” Schafer said. “Were they not at the same meeting as the rest of us?”
Schafer says that seven moorings will be impacted, dismissing the university’s offer to swap, purchase or relocate other moorings. “Exactly where would they be relocated?” Schafer asked. “There is not unlimited room on the river and there is a substantial waiting list of people hoping to get a mooring on the river.”
Delage, however, said the university has been making good faith efforts to identify and contact all mooring owners who may be impacted by the pier.
“The harbormaster previously indicated that only two moorings would be impacted in his communication to the (Maine Department of Environmental Protection) DEP” Delage said, adding that “there is no official record of mooring owners.”
While much of the public conversation about the proposed pier has centered upon water depth issues, the FAQ document provides more details about why the university picked their preferred site over an alternative that was offered by the city’s harbormaster.
According to the FAQ document, the university’s preferred site location (Site 7) “best meets the combined criteria (required). It is located where there is a small intertidal zone, comprised primarily of rock without sea grass, and the currents are slower because it is farther from the river channel.
“The dock’s main berth would be aligned with the current in the river and would be deep enough to provide all-tide access for the range of vessels expected to use the facility with the smallest overall footprint, thereby minimizing environmental impacts.”
Other issues
UNE’s FAQ document also addresses several other issues, including whether the university threatened to sue the city, claims about an ongoing FBI investigation and why Biddeford Harbormaster Paul Lariviere was removed from review of the proposal.
Almost exactly one year before Wednesday’s Planning Board meeting, former Biddeford City Manager James Bennett sent a letter to Lariviere, saying the harbormaster had been biased in his review of UNE’s proposal as evidenced by “several” public comments he has made outlining his steadfast objections to the project.
In its attempts to quell public misinformation about that subject, the university is encouraging members of the public to review a separate FAQ document that was released by the city of Biddeford last year.
Schafer says that the city’s move to quash both the harbormaster and the assistant harbormaster was simply part of an effort to grease the skids for the university. “Now look at where we are,” Schafer said. “The city spent $2,800 to hire a guy without any local knowledge or previous experience as a harbormaster to simply check the box and say that UNE had filed all the right paperwork. Heck, the city clerk could have done that.
Did UNE threaten to sue the city?
Ron Schneider, the university’s chief legal counsel, did send a letter to Biddeford City Attorney Harry Center on February 13, 2024, several months before the university submitted its formal proposal to the city.
In that letter, Schneider wrote “It is our sincere hope that UNE is not forced to resort to litigation to avoid the delay and expense that will result if Mr. Lariviere were to insist on obstructing the building of the pier.”
UNE’s document describes that communication between the two attorneys as an opportunity to “raise concerns about serious due process errors” to Biddeford’s attorney. “The goal of this communication was to correct these errors to avoid having to appeal to a court.”
Another item that the university describes as misinformation, is a claim that the FBI is investigating the review process.
“After others claimed that the FBI was investigating UNE, the university reached out to the FBI and offered to meet with them, which they said was not necessary,” the university wrote in its FAQ document. “UNE has no reason to believe that the FBI is investigating the university.”
Schafer, however, said he and others were, in fact, questioned last year by the FBI about “the review process, not specifically about the university.”
Where do we go from here?
Despite some controversy, UNE’s proposal has received approval from every regulatory agency that has reviewed the project, including the Saco River Corridor Commission, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The review of the project by the Biddeford Planning Board is expected to be extensive. During last week’s meeting, board members asked UNE representatives for additional information and then voted unanimously to conduct both a site walk and a “boat tour” near the proposed location.
Schafer and others have praised the Planning Board’s “obvious commitment” to fairness and transparency. He says he will continue to keep a close watch on the project.
Delage says that the university is willing to meet with critics or others who would like more information about the proposal.
“The university really appreciates any opportunity to put more information out there for the public.” Delage said. “We are acting in good faith for everyone involved, especially those who use and cherish the river like we do.”
Randy Seaver is the editor and founder of the Biddeford Gazette. He may be contacted by email: randy@randyseaver.com
Never miss another update! Subscribe for free today!
THE BIDDEFORD GAZETTE 