By Carol Britton Meyer

**FIRE IN THE SKY.** There are few landmarks as uniquely Hull as the historic Fort Revere water tower atop Telegraph Hill in Hull Village. The structure is more than 100 years old and was the first reinforced concrete water tower built in the United States. At last week’s town meeting, voters did not approve additional funds for the nearly $3M restoration project, putting the tower’s future in doubt. [Photo courtesy of Jud Horner]

A majority of the more than 400 voters attending the Aug. 31 special town meeting soundly defeated a request for roughly $600,000 to cover the increased cost of restoring the town-owned Fort Revere water tower.

The final vote was 219 against, with 169 in favor. The request for funds is in addition to the 2022 town meeting appropriation of $2.2 million for tower repairs. The town is now evaluating how to proceed with the project with the original budget amount.

The discussion was the longest of all 10 warrant articles, with a number of speakers supporting both sides of the issue.

Director of Community Development and Planning Chris DiIorio made a strong case for supporting the additional funding and presented photos of the deteriorating condition of the tower.

“This is one of Hull’s most prominent historic structures,” he said. “There are critical needs. No work has been done on the structure for many years.”

In response to questions he was asked prior to the meeting about grant possibilities and the lack of access up to the top of the tower, he explained that not many grants are available for projects as specialized as this one, and that there might be a way to open up the tower maybe “once or twice a year” for tours if the necessary repairs are made, contingent on compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

“Townspeople showed by their past vote that they want this work done,” he said. “Appropriating the additional money would enable full rehabilitation of the tower.”

The majority of the advisory board voted favorable action, noting that if funded by a 20-year bond, this change would add approximately $45,000 to the town’s debt service for the first year. The minority of the board said the additional expense should not be borne by the town.

The rehabilitation work “won’t get any cheaper” if put off further, board member Steve Kiley said.

Board member Dan Sullivan, on the other hand, said he voted against the project a year ago because access to the top of the tower with its magnificent views wouldn’t be a guarantee even after spending $2.2 million for repairs.

“We might get [tours] two days a year,” he said. “Will people be lining up on those two days?”

Patrick Finn, who lives just below the tower, said access isn’t the only consideration.

“Safety is an issue now. The town owns the building and is required to maintain, preserve, and protect it to keep it safe,” he said. “It is what it is. We’ve been trying to prioritize this project for years. We’re responsible for it. Let’s fix it. It’s worth every penny. Not doing so would open the town up to liability.”

Select Board member Irwin Nesoff spoke against the article, expressing concern about the increasing cost of making the repairs, now at roughly $2.8 million.

“I think it’s time to pull the plug,” he said. “I think we need to think about other ways we could use that money. We have roads and seawalls that also need to be repaired.”

Longtime Fort Revere tower supporter Judeth Van Hamm considers the tower to be “the center of a beautiful park. It’s the foundation of a beautiful historic site for our town. It’s not a frivolous [request].”

Another resident called the tower “obsolete. Let’s take it down and put up a tower we can actually use if we need a tower there. This is too much money to spend that could be put to better causes.”

David Kellem, on the other hand, advocated strongly for approval of the additional funding. “The tower’s iconic silhouette that can be viewed every night when the sun sets cannot be replaced,” he said. “This is our identity. The tower is part of Hull.”

Before the vote, DiIorio was asked what would happen to the $2.2 million earlier appropriation if the article didn’t pass. His response was that the funding would remain in place “and we could look at how we might change the scope of the project and then go out to bid again.”

Do you have an opinion on this issue? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.