By Stephanie Grinnell 

Staff Writer 

The ongoing argument about the future of the Biddeford Municipal Airport continued March 18 when the city council addressed a resolution regarding a citizen-initiated petition to close the facility. 

After more than an hour and a half of debate, the Biddeford City Council voted to place on the November ballot a referendum question that would close the airport. Because Councilor Sue Deschambault was absent from the meeting, Mayor Joanne Twomey stepped in and broke the 4-4 tie, voting in favor of accepting the citizen’s petition. 

City Clerk Carmen Lemieux said the resolution means the council is showing support for a similar question to be on the ballot. She said there needs to be a council order to formally place a question on the ballot and said it was unlikely the question would appear as it was circulated on the citizen’s petition because there was no financial information attached. City Attorney Keith Jacques noted the council was not discussing an order, they were discussing a resolution, which only signifies intent, not specific wording. The citizen circulated petition reads “Do you favor closing the Biddeford Municipal Airport?” and includes a stipulation of closure within a year of a favorable vote. 

“This says there will be an airport referendum question on the ballot in November,” Jacques said. “I have expressed some very serious concerns about wording.” 

Jacques said there was potential for years of litigation if the question went before voters without alteration or a bond attached that would fund the airport’s closure. 

Councilor J. Fred Staples said he is in favor of voters deciding the issue, but said he would like a lawyer to look more closely at the question first. 

“The language is very wide open and it would put us in court for a long time,” Staples said. 

Councilor Bob Mills said he wanted to send the question to voters but did not intend to change the wording of the citizen’s petition. 

Residents on both sides of the issue spoke to the council, expressing their opinions on the future of the airport. 

Bernard Featherman, president of the Biddeford Saco Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said he supports keeping the airport open. 

“The airport is good for business and good for economic development. To close it would be an injustice to the people and businesses in the area,” Featherman said. 

Featherman said the council should include a dollar amount for the closure with the referendum to help people decide if the price would be worth closing the facility. 

Resident Ron Peaker urged the council to directly address the future of the airport. 

“We could stop all of this if you people would deal with the issue. The longer it festers the more people get up and talk about it,” he said. “If you re-write it, it is no longer a citizen initiated referendum. You’re deciding that you’re going to put it out yourselves. I think you’re treading on a different path.” 

Resident Richard Rhames said it has been historically difficult to get a citizen initiated referendum on the ballot. 

“This is a very different question than people signed,” Rhames said. “The citizen referendum is now held hostage by the council process.”

Some councilors supported the wording on the petition. 

“I pride myself in being able to listen and hear both sides. Thirteen hundred people signed it, that’s a lot of people. I strongly believe it ought to go out the way they signed it,” said Council President Pete Lamontagne. 

  The resolution addressed by the council March 18 stated city officials would rework the question to satisfy the city charter as well as include a bond issuance for the airport’s closure. The resolution also sought to determine operating costs for the airport, none of which was addressed in the petition. 

Initial discussions focused on charter requirements for citizen driven petitions. The charter states all referendums are binding and questions must be stated in the affirmative. Proponents of the original questions argued there is no language in the charter specifying financial impacts of a question. 

Resident and vocal advocate for the closure of the airport Roland Pelletier said there is nothing in the city’s charter that says a bond has to be included along with the referendum question. 

“Nowhere does the word bond or money come up,” Pelletier said. 

Former member of the defunct airport commission  and Roland Pelletier’s wife Valerie Pelletier echoed her husband’s arguments.

“What are we trying to satisfy in the charter?” she asked. “All this was supposed to do was be sent to the council to be sent to voters.”

Questions about the true cost to close the airport abound. Jacques said the cost of closing the airport has yet to be determined, unless the council wanted to depend on numbers provided by the FAA, which set the cost of closure around $8 million. Speculation by various parties regarding the cost of closing the airport varies widely, from the estimated $400,000 mentioned by Councilor Clement Fleurent to Featherman’s estimated $18 million.    

Mills said the referendum needs to be decided and said the actual financial implications could be determined after the vote. 

“We need to make a decision, we’re going to support the referendum or we’re not going to support the referendum. This issue has dominated since we took office,” Mills said. 

Councilor Rick Laverriere said he would support the referendum without altering it. 

“To me, this moves it forward,” Laverriere said. “It says to people it’s going to show up on the referendum.” 

Mills amended the original resolution to accept the question “as is,” without adding a bond or rewording the question as it was circulated to the public. 

“The question as written will open us to litigation, a lot of litigation,” Staples said. “Going back to the one on the petition is dangerous.” 

A vote on the resolution as amended resulted in a tie vote again, with Twomey again voting in favor to approve the amended resolution.

Contact Stephanie Grinnell by calling 282-4337 ext. 213 or email news@inthecourier.com.