Harpswell voters will decide a handful of major issues, including the fate of a $6 million municipal fire station proposal, in a special town referendum on Tuesday, June 10.

Two referendum questions — the fire station and the proposed demolition of a town-owned building at George J. Mitchell Field — were held over from a March 8 Town Meeting that was canceled when turnout exceeded the venue’s capacity.

A makeup Town Meeting was held March 22, but the fire station, building demolition and a proposed comprehensive plan update were removed from the warrant to reduce turnout. A revised version of the comprehensive plan will be voted on in November.

A third question added to the June referendum would amend the town’s Harbor and Waterfront Ordinance to classify certain local waters as legacy fishing areas. Voters also will choose whether to approve a 5.5% school budget increase for the 2025–26 academic year.

Some residents have criticized the move to a secret ballot, saying it denied voters a chance to debate those issues at Town Meeting. But local leaders defended the decision, saying it was necessary to keep the makeup meeting timely and manageable.

The town hosted a public hearing on May 3 for voters to discuss the referendum items and share opinions. About 100 residents attended.

Harpswell Select Board Chairperson Kevin Johnson said some residents were glad to see the more controversial Town Meeting articles shifted to a secret ballot, saying it would reduce arguments among neighbors and family members.

“On a referendum, more people will get a chance to vote,” Johnson added. The polls will be open at Harpswell Community School from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on June 10. Absentee ballots are available from the town clerk’s office.

Fire station

The question with the greatest potential impact is whether to authorize Harpswell to borrow up to $6 million to design and build what would be the town’s first municipal fire station.

The question reads: “To see if the Town will vote to authorize the issuance of $6,000,000 in general obligation bonds or notes in the name of the Town of Harpswell, which bonds or notes may be made callable, to design, construct, and equip a new emergency services building on Mountain Road (the ‘Project’); and further to authorize the Select Board to accept and expend any grant funds for the Project, and to take any actions necessary or convenient to issue the bonds or notes and to accomplish the Project.”

The town is proposing to build a 12,000-square-foot fire and rescue station that it says would house a growing cadre of paid emergency services staff and allow faster response times to addresses in north and central Harpswell.

The town is currently served by three independent volunteer fire departments: Harpswell Neck Fire and Rescue, the Cundy’s Harbor Volunteer Fire Department, and the Orr’s and Bailey Islands Fire Department.

The departments’ fire chiefs have warned that the number of volunteers capable of fighting fires is dwindling, with many aging out and no one signing up to replace them.

The town currently staffs two firefighters per day, working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Those firefighters alternate working from the Harpswell Neck and Orr’s and Bailey stations.

Several residents have objected strongly to the $6 million proposal, with some pressing for a comprehensive and impartial study of the town’s options. Others have repeatedly expressed concerns that building a municipal station would make it harder for Harpswell’s independent fire departments to recruit volunteers.

Some leaders of the Orr’s and Bailey Islands Fire Department floated an alternative proposal in which the town would staff all three departments’ stations rather than build a new station, but town officials have rejected the idea.

A report compiled by local fire officials said the construction of a central station would have no impact on volunteers, who would continue to respond from their home stations as they do now. It quotes Ben Wallace, chief of both the Cundy’s Harbor and Orr’s and Bailey departments, saying the addition of paid firefighters and a paramedic crew from Mid Coast Hospital didn’t deter volunteers.

The local fire chiefs, Select Board and other town officials have voiced unwavering support for the proposed fire station.

Administration building

Another hotly debated question is whether to authorize the town to demolish a 70-year-old structure at Mitchell Field, known as the administration building, and clean up environmental hazards.

The question reads: “To see if the town will vote to appropriate up to $230,000 from unassigned fund balance for the demolition of the Mitchell Field Administration Building, including the removal of hazardous materials, and further to authorize the Select Board to accept and expend any grant funds for this purpose.”

A group of residents has developed a competing proposal that would involve raising private funds to renovate the building, and leasing it from the town for use as a nonprofit recreation center and event space. The group has a website at sites.google.com/view/mitchell-field-rec-center/home.

The residents had asked the Select Board to place their proposal alongside the question about demolition, but the board denied their request 2-1. Johnson and board member Matt Gilley were opposed, while board member David Chipman — an adviser to the rec center group — was in favor.

At the May 3 public hearing, several locals spoke in favor of the rec center concept, which could only proceed if residents first voted against demolishing the building. They included Great Island resident Ellen Glew, who said the group behind the effort is intelligent and capable of raising the estimated $1.4 million renovation cost.

“I personally will be voting no to demolish the building, because I want to have time to let that group show what it wants to do,” she said.

But Don Miskill, chairperson of the town’s Mitchell Field Committee, said the rec center proposal is a good idea in need of a more appropriate location. He said the administration building’s removal would open up better traffic flow options for a planned boat launch at Mitchell Field that was approved by voters in November.

“Those are good ideas for what to do with the building, but let’s take a holistic look,” Miskill said. “There might be a better place to do that.”

Jerry Leeman, founder and CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, objected to the rec center group naming his organization as a potential user of the facility in its promotional materials.

“It’s just kind of misleading when you see our organization mentioned, as if it’s in support of this,” Leeman said, adding that NEFSA does not take positions on town issues.

Legacy fishing areas

The least controversial question would allow Harpswell to update its map of surrounding waters with a new designation specifically for areas that residents have used historically for fishing.

The question reads: “Shall an ordinance entitled, ‘Proposed Amendments to Harbor and Waterfront Ordinance to Add Legacy Fishing Areas to Waters Classification Plan’ be enacted?”

In its current form, the ordinance contains four possible designations for Harpswell waters: low-intensity use, multipurpose use, high-intensity boating, and commercial and recreational harbors. If voters approve the proposed amendment, legacy fishing would be added as a fifth category.

The Select Board approved the ballot question 3-0 in April. Town Harbormaster Paul Plummer has said the idea to add a designation for legacy fishing came from Harpswell’s Aquaculture Working Group.

He said the working group has already identified areas that would be reclassified as legacy fishing. If voters approve, a map that accompanies the ordinance would be updated to reflect the newly designated areas.

Plummer has said the changes would offer town officials more accurate information when reviewing aquaculture lease applications, wharf proposals, mooring requests “and anything else that affects the shared waters of Harpswell.”

At the May 3 public hearing, Plummer stressed that the proposed designation isn’t intended to create additional restrictions on aquaculture projects.

“The state decides where aquaculture goes,” he said. “The map is not to exclude anyone.”

Harpswell Anchor reporter J. Craig Anderson is a veteran journalist whose work has earned state, regional and national awards. Please send comments or news tips to craig@harpswellanchor.org.