During a sometimes terse and heated meeting, Biddeford Mayor Marty Grohman defended the way the city has acted during the review of a controversial pier that the University of New England wants to construct on the Saco River.

The nearly hour-long meeting was held at the request of John Schafer, the former chair of the Biddeford Harbor Commission and a Hills Beach resident who has been outspoken about the need for transparency during the review process.

City Attorney Harry Center also took part in the late Monday morning meeting in Grohman’s second-floor office at City Hall.

Center stressed that the meeting was strictly informal and not part of the review process. “The mayor has simply set aside some time to listen to the concerns of a constituent,” he said.

No one from the university was at the meeting, and other media outlets declined invitations to attend, according to Schafer.

Schafer’s concerns center on three essential points: the impact and necessary removal of at least seven private moorings on the river if the project is approved; concerns about the water depth where the university wants to construct its pier; and the process that has been used to review the university’s proposal.

The permitting process for the proposed pier is complex and multi-layered, requiring the review and approval by several state, federal and local agencies.

Earlier this year, UNE cleared two major hurdles in the review process, winning approval from both the Saco River Corridor Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

But a very critical part of the review process is expected to begin in just a few weeks when the Biddeford Planning Board begins its formal review of the proposal.

“I don’t have any say over what the Planning Board does or doesn’t do,” Grohman said during Monday’s meeting. “I simply appoint members, and those appointments are then confirmed by the council. I think we have a really good planning board, and I have full confidence in them.”

But Schafer said he is concerned about the lack of public input during the review process and how the city has approached the project thus far. He also criticized the university for its “lack of transparency” and for “bullying those who raise questions and concerns” about the proposed pier.

“I think [UNE’s] application is both incomplete and full of misinformation,” Schafer told the mayor. “Don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous for a private entity to dictate how the city will review its application; to show no regard for those who have private moorings in that area just so they can construct a vanity pier?”

When contacted by the Biddeford Gazette, a university spokesperson declined an opportunity to address Schafer’s remarks.

“Since this was not an open meeting and a representative from UNE was not present, it would not be appropriate to comment on the conversation that took place,” wrote Sarah Delage in an email response. “UNE will continue to follow the public regulatory process, and we look forward to presenting our application to the Planning Board.”

Schafer said he and “a growing coalition of residents” have no problem with the university building a pier to dock its 60-foot research vessel. Instead, he says, all the concerns boil down to the exact location of the pier and the dismissal of public concerns about the project.

Survey says?

Schafer roundly criticized Grohman for allowing former City Manager James Bennett to “silence” the city’s harbormaster and assistant harbormaster last year, preventing them from participating in the city’s review of the proposal simply because they voiced concerns about the pier’s location.

But Grohman shot back and said Bennett was simply trying to avoid the appearance of bias. He also reminded Schafer that the harbormaster’s role – as outlined in city ordinances – is strictly an “advisory position,” a change that was first proposed by Schafer himself last year when he was chair of the harbor commission.

Schafer said a growing number of residents have serious concerns about a review process that seems to have a pre-ordained outcome, pointing to the results and comments found in a recent public survey about the project.

The online survey was conducted over several days in late April on a Facebook page called “UNE Pier Review,” a group that Schafer has helped organize.

The survey asked respondents a wide range of questions about the proposed pier and the review process thus far. The survey allowed respondents to maintain their anonymity.

The multi-question survey included feedback from 156 respondents, showing an overwhelming lack of public confidence on the issues of transparency and the mayor’s handling of the issue.

Nearly 40 percent of respondents indicated that they had “very low” level of confidence in the city’s handling of the review process. And roughly 30 percent of respondents indicated that they had “moderately low” confidence in the city’s handling of the matter.

Fewer than 10 percent of respondents indicated that they had “very high” confidence in the process, while slightly less than 20 percent of respondents indicated that they are not sure.

Many respondents added comments saying the city has been “too secretive” while other questioned the motives of city officials, speculating that some members of the city seem to have a “cozy relationship” with the university.

Grohman described the survey as “interesting,” but also said it was not a professional survey conducted by a polling firm.

“An anonymous survey is not something that a public permitting process could use, as it does not include an opportunity for all parties involved to publicly comment,” Grohman wrote in a text message to the Gazette after the meeting.

Schafer told the mayor that several mooring owners have already written to regulatory authorities stating quite plainly that they have “no intentions of moving their moorings where UNE wants to build their pier.”

Schafer also said that UNE has threatened the city with litigation if its desired location for the pier is not approved, referencing a letter sent to the city by Ron Schneider, the university’s lead attorney, several months before the university had submitted its application for review.

Grohman described Schafer as a good friend, and said he was happy to hear the concerns that were raised.

In a moment of levity during the meeting, Grohman pointed out that the mayor does not vote on or control the regulatory review process. “I don’t have the authority to change what sodas are sold in the vending machines downstairs,” Grohman laughed.

After the meeting Schafer said he very much appreciated the opportunity to share his concerns with the mayor. “Nothing in the meeting surprised me,” he said. “It’s about what I expected.”

Never miss another update! Subscribe for free today!