HARPSWELL

While Harpswell selectmen are in the midst of choosing a contractor to demolish the water tower that has stood over Mitchell Field for more than half a century, some in town are not going to see the structure destroyed without a fight.

Many thought the debate of the Mitchell Field water tower had concluded at the Harpswell town meeting in March, when residents voted to demolish it. However, the debate came roaring back to life late last week.

The water tower has been the cause of a contentious debate in Harpswell over the past several years, as residents weighed whether to demolish the currently unused tower or restore or repurpose it.

When the town took possession of Mitchell Field from the Navy in 2001, it came with the water tower — originally installed in the 1950s — and the pier. The facility had been used as a fuel depot. This year, the town began the multi-million-dollar process of demolishing and removing the pier, which had fallen into a state of disrepair.

At the March town meeting, voters were given a choice: Give the tower to an outside group to manage, or demolish it. They opted for the latter.

Friends of Mitchell Field

A group, Friends of Mitchell Field, had formed prior to town meeting hoping that residents would vote to have an outside group — ostensibly them — take over the tower. A prominent member of the group, Selectman David Chipman, spoke passionately in favor of preserving the tower at the town meeting. He even stepped down from the selectmen’s table, “removed his selectmen’s hat” and stepped to the microphone for members of the public to speak in favor of allowing the group take control of the water tower.

Though residents rejected the offer, the group is effectively seeking a redo. They are currently circulating a petition to save the tower — not the first time it has happened.

Chipman collected signatures in 2015 to delay a vote on the demolition of the tower. In 2016, another petition effort by him derailed a vote to demolish the tower.

While Chipman is not technically in charge of the current petition effort, his relationship with the group remains murky. When questioned by his fellow selectmen, Chipman denied that he was on the board of directors or an official founding member, though he admitted he helped form the group.

“In all honesty, I did help put this together, but my name is not on it. I’m not really a founder,” Chipman said. “I guess you could say I am, but not officially.”

Chipman said that he was not directly involved with petition efforts. At the end of last week’s selectmen’s meeting, however, Selectman Richard Daniel revealed that Chipman had consulted with the town attorney about the petition

— without consulting the other selectmen.

Both Daniel and Selectman Kevin Johnson criticized that action, and questioned the appropriateness of Chipman’s activism and his role as selectman.

“The job of selectman is to uphold the votes of town meeting. What you’re doing is in complete opposition of what was done at town meeting,” said Johnson. “I don’t think it sets a very good precedent that one of the selectmen steps forward in complete opposition to the result of town meeting and did what you did.”

Chipman defended himself, while citing his family’s long history with Harpswell.

“I want you guys to know that my great-great-great-great-grandfather signed the articles for incorporation for this town, and established the first town meeting,” he responded. “And my family has participated in town meetings since then, so no one has more respect for town meeting than I do.”

Missing info and the airport

As the conversation became heated, another member of Friends of Mitchell Field, Dorothy Rosenberg, came forward to help explain the intent of the petition. According to Rosenberg, the voters did not have all the information they needed to come to a decision. She said information she collected and an analysis she conducted was not made readily available to voters and that they should vote again — this time with all relevant information.

“This has turned into a bone of contention,” said Rosenberg. “We need to find some kind of mutual solution.”

“I think we have,” retorted Daniel. “I think you think we haven’t.”

Rosenberg also argued that no new cell tower could be constructed at the site of the current tower because it was too close Farr Field Airport. Federal Aviation Administration guidelines prevented the construction of such a tall structure so close to an airport, she insisted.

But Rosenberg’s claim did not go undisputed. One gentleman, identified only as Dennis, said that he had rushed down to the selectmen’s meeting after hearing the discussion on Harpswell TV, noting that he was so upset he had forgot to bring his walking cane along. Dennis said he was a former pilot, one of the few that had landed at that private, unpaved air strip besides the owner.

“The water tower has never been a problem,” said Dennis. “A higher tower would never be a problem in its current location.”

Because it is a private field, he said, the Federal Aviation Administration has no jurisdiction. Any claims that a higher tower could not be built because of the air strip, he added, are untrue.

Signatures gathered while contractor sought

So far the petition has 400 signatures, Rosenberg said, though they were not submitted at that time. Only 231 people voted at town meeting, Chipman noted — far less.

“We feel that a significant number of people have signed it, considerably more than voted in favor of removing the tower,” said Rosenberg.

She said the petition would be submitted this week, but by then it might be too late.

“All we are asking is that a final decision be delayed until the next election, which is in June, at which point there should be a ballot vote on whether or not to proceed,” said Rosenberg.

Daniel was quick to inform her that the group had missed the 60- day window to get the question on the June ballot.

“Well then, we’re giving you the petition anyway and we will see what can be done,” said Rosenberg.

With all the grievances aired — for the time being — the selectmen returned to their task at hand: Considering a request for proposals for a contractor to demolish the tower.

Chipman said he was not in favor of issuing the request for proposals until the petition situation was cleared up, to which Daniel responded “we don’t have a petition yet.”

“I don’t see us putting off our work for something that hasn’t come or may not come,” said Daniel.

He argued that the selectmen had to move forward with the demolition until the town meeting decision is overturned — if it ever is. Johnson agreed with Daniel, and Chipman noted that he would go along with their decision “begrudgingly.”

Proposals are due by 2 p.m. Monday, May 14. According to the request for proposals, the demolition must be completed within 45 days of a contract being awarded.