by Stewart Lilker

Freeport NY 
After a summer in which Freeport’s Republican Mayor, William Glacken and his all Republican Board of Trustees tried to demolish Freeport’s public swimming pools, the Glackenites are up to it again. This time, Glacken and the Board are planning to have a private developer lease part of Freeport’s Power Plant Number 2 to build an independently operated power plant, while still leaving Freeport Electric without adequate power reserves. Additionally, the Mayor is planning to continue to run two diesel generators that spew raw diesel fumes into Freeport and Merrick.

(Photo: This past summer, Senator Charles Fuschillo, insert left pushing stroller, marches with demonstrators against the pollution of Freeport's Power Plant 2.)

Monday night, September 24, 2001, appeared to be a routine Village Board meeting. Unknown to the public, the evening’s agenda included an item that Mayor Glacken and the Board sprung on the residents of Freeport without warning or one word of public discussion. The Glackenites had good reason to ignore their requirement to have Board agendas ready on the Friday before their regularly scheduled meetings. On the last page of the agenda was a request to put out for bids the building of two 44 Megawatt generators. These are to be located on land leased from the Village on the site of Power Plant Number 2 [PPN2].

The recent nationwide energy problems have had a large impact on Freeport and those small communities that generate their own power. Minimum generation requirements and load demands have made it necessary for Freeport to generate electricity from their pollution spewing two cycle diesel generators located at PPN2. PPN2 has been blasting unregulated raw diesel exhaust into the atmosphere since the early seventies. On June 19, 2000, when FNYN questioned Glacken about the cancer causing effects of diesel exhaust, Glacken disputed the validity of those claims.

FNYN has learned that in a plan developed earlier this year, it appeared that an agreement was almost reached between LIPA and Freeport, wherein LIPA would build two 44 Megawatt gas turbine generators, with LIPA owning one, Freeport the other and Freeport Electric operating both generators. LIPA was going to split the cost of the gas line to fuel the generators, which was estimated to cost 12 million dollars. At that time, it was estimated that Freeport would have had to come up with about another 40 million dollars to pay for one generator. This generator, if built, would have allowed Freeport Electric to have met the NYS minimum generation requirements. The deal fell through and as a result, Freeport is still about 17 Megawatts short of generating capacity.

In Glacken’s most recent scheme, of which some of the details were sprung on an unsuspecting public this past Monday night, Freeport will lease a portion of PPN2 to an independent operator. Glacken didn’t know how much property this would require.

The only details Glacken revealed about the proposed lease was it’s length of time, between fifty and a hundred years and that there would be payments in lieu of taxes and a ground lease. Glacken did not reveal how much the Village would be paid.

Both Glacken, and his brother in law, mob/village attorney Harrison Edwards, agreed that after an as yet undetermined length of time, the Village would have the option to buy the generators.

Glacken and Edwards disagreed on whether or not Freeport Electric workers would be operating the new generators.

When FNYN asked Glacken if the diesels would still be able to operate without any pollution controls, Glacken said, "I don’t expect any restriction at all."

FNYN asked Glacken if emission restrictions were imposed, how much he thought it would cost. Glacken answered, "I don’t think that it’s going to cost us anything additional to meet whatever requirements may be imposed. I don’t think that they are going to be imposed. I don’t think the case is a credible case."

Glacken explained that even if this generation is built, Freeport will still be required to come up with approximately 17 Megawatts of generating capacity in order to meet NYS minimum generation requirements.

FNYN asked Glacken, "In order to satisfy the Independent Systems Operator, couldn’t we have just built a 20 megawatt dual fuel generator at power plant number one or two."

Glacken answered, "Maybe we will do that, too, somewhere down the road."

Along with Senator Fuschillo, who is still waiting for Glacken to return his phone calls, Glacken is also keeping the public in the dark, not only about the plans at PPN2, but about Freeport Electric’s plan to build generation on its own. The utility is planning to install up to 40 Megawatts at Power Plant Number 1. In the near term, the utility is anticipating moving forward with the installation of a 20 MW unit at PPN1 and has indicated a cost of $20 million in its capital plan for 2001-2003. No one knows when, if ever, the Glackenites intend to inform the public about this.

On September 10, 2001, the village Board breezed through the evening’s meeting in twenty-five minutes. As usual, the inefficiency of the Glackenites prevented the evening's agenda from being released prior to the meeting.

The Board, under the leadership of Deputy Mayor, Renier Frierson-Davis, unanimously passed a resolution to request proposals for the old Freeport Hospital property.

Sometime before August 6, 1999, Mayor Glacken and the board authorized the Freeport Community Development Agency [CDA] to acquired the property, which they did for an undisclosed amount of money. There is no record in the village minutes of the date or the purchase price of the parcel.

On August 16, 1999, the Executive Director of the CDA, Ellen Kelly, was authorized to request proposals for the sale and redevelopment of the Freeport Hospital property. She only received one proposal, from Cinnamon Beach Ltd., which was rejected by the board on November 8,1999.

Your reporter question the Deputy Mayor and the Board about the Request for Proposal and the reason it took so long for them to make another request. Frierson-Davis fielded the questions while the other trustees sat mute. The entire conversation is present here, unedited.

LILKER: Have we ever put out RFP’s for this before?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: Yes we did.

LILKER: Can you tell me what happened?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: I don’t recall. I think we got some responses. They weren’t to our liking and no action was taken. We made a decision to hold off until we sort of revised our interests and this is a new RFP, right counsel?

EDWARDS: (Harrison Edwards - Village Attorney) That’s about right.

LILKER: What are we asking for now that we didn’t ask for before?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: I don’t think we are asking for anything more now. I think the -- is open.

EDWARDS: Wide open.

FRIERSON-DAVIS: We are going to examine the submissions and make a decision based on that. Ms. Kelly, do you want to add something?

KELLY: (Ellen Kelly - Director of Community Development) Only that there is some additional specific information requested from all developers relative to site descriptions, parking requirements, design criteria and there is more detailed information with regards to site plans and elevations and the project narrative is expanded from the original RFP two years ago.

LILKER: Mr. Edwards said the RFP is wide open. Was this wide open before?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: No it was not. It was different. We are now opening it up for submissions for anything and everything... Make a submission and we will look at it.

LILKER: And what was asked for last time?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: Last time we asked for solutions based on the zoning.

LILKER: How long ago did you say those proposals were rejected?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: It wasn’t that they were rejected. It was that no action was taken.

LILKER: How long ago?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: Two years ago.

KELLY: Not quite. The proposals, there was really only one complete submission and two incomplete submissions and they were reviewed by the Board in November of ninety-nine, twenty months ago.

LILKER: Can you tell me why it took twenty months after you rejected one proposal to request new proposals?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: We take our time. Examine and reexamine. Question and re question. In that time we thought about what we wanted to do and we made a decision and we put out a request for proposals based on that.

LILKER: And isn’t it true that during that time, twenty months, that property was off the tax rolls?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: I’ve already answered that. Do you have another question?

LILKER: It’s still off the tax rolls?

FRIERSON-DAVIS: Yes it is.

LILKER: Thank you.