Greenport Residents Raise Concerns, Offer Suggestions About PSEG Cable Contract

GREENPORT, NY — Residents turned out Monday night to raise concerns and ask questions about the Greenport village board's decision to move forward with a PSEG underline electric cable project from Greenport to Shelter Island.

The board voted unanimously on Monday night to authorize Village Attorney Joe Prokop and Village Administrator Paul Pallas to "begin the process of completion of the negotiation of contract with PSEG regarding the installation of a new underground electrical feeder cable from a Town of Southold substation to Shelter Island."

At its recent village board work session, the board agreed to move forward with the plan, but on Monday, Greenport Village Mayor George Hubbard assured the public that nothing had been signed yet and before the contract was signed, residents would have time to review the document and weigh in.

Fifth Street resident Larry Heller said he and others have concerns."This project is going to run straight down our wonderful block," he said, adding that the proposal has many ambiguities. "There is a tremendous amount of risk in the document," he said; for example, regarding pesticides and herbicides, drainage, and impact on groundwater.

He asked if the village was going to indemnify the residents of Fifth Street. "All sorts of things can happen," he said.

Hubbard said yes, and added that the public would see the contract before any vote was taken.

Pat Bennett, of Fifth Street, said she was worried about what would happen if the "trembling" would cause cracking in her basement that might not show up for six months; she asked if she would still be reimbursed.

Hubbard said even if something showed up a year later, the homeowner would still be protected.

Bill Swiskey asked about whether the second cable would be buried; Hubbard said part would be buried and part would be above ground.

Swiskey said the value of that cable is not as high as has been stated and said resurfacing would have to be done, anyway.

"Any hurricane can take out that circuit, and it has," Swiskey said. "The point is, they act like they are giving us a lot, and they're not." He added, "We have asked consistently to see the actual plan and this is not an actual plan."

The $1.3 million the village will be receiving in cash "won't even pay to change the bulkhead in Mitchell Park, will it?"

Hubbard said it would not.

Swiskey said the village should hold out for more money. "You have to be strong, go away. Say 'bye-bye.' They'll be back. They have nowhere else to go. They have no alternatives. We're selling our soul for cheap. And I do mean cheap."

He added, "Do a little reconsideration and get a lot more money." PSEG would have a 50-year easement and be making a great deal of money, especially since the company would be saving $850,000 it currently spends on generators on Shelter Island, he said.

Swiskey said he'd like to see the contract at least a month before the vote and also asked why no village board members were on the negotiating committee.

Trustee Doug Roberts said the board had agreed to the terms of the contract. "Now it's time to get into the nitty gritty, the minutiae," he said. "The legal process takes time and everyone will have a lot of opportunity" to raise their concerns, he said. "And if we don't come to terms on the minutiae, then the deal is not happening."

Roberts also added, in reference to the payment, "If anyone can find us a licensed appraiser of utilities with deep experience in this field, who can value this at $10 million, we will go back."

The board said they did use an appraiser who gave them an estimate. "I won't tell you the number because I like these numbers better," Roberts said. Along with the $1.3 million cash — the initial amount offered was approximately $300,000 — the total approximate number the village can expect is $3 million; that number includes the approximate value of paving and the backup cable, according to Pallas.

Deborah Rivera Pittorino, owner of the Greenporter Hotel, said residents do not feel they have enough information. "I'm a little bit uncomfortable with this notion that, 'We'll sign this and later we'll tell you what it consists of,'" she said.

She agreed with Swiskey that a board member should be on the committee "to ensure our interests are looked after and information is disseminated in a clear manner. Growth is painful," she said.

Trustee Mary Bess Phillips reminded that no one has signed anything yet.

Rivera Pittorino asked what the $1.3 million would be used for and suggested projects should include the Fifth Street Beach, solar trash cans, and cleanup of Moores Lane; she said village residents should be able to participate in deciding how funds should be applied and said those funds should be held in a separate escrow account.

Trustee Julia Robins said the plan was always to turn those funds back to the village.

Hubbard said the funding would help to complete some projects, without bonding, that have been in the pipeline in recent years, including drainage, playground equipment and a shade arbor, and other plans that haven't seen fruition because grants weren't obtained.

Dinni Gordon, on the other hand, said she felt "quite comfortable with the process so far," and just asked for better communication with residents; residents, she said should avail themselves of the information on the plan that's readily available on the village website.

The synopsis, however, does not include a provision for a citizen ombudsman, something she believes is critical in terms of monitoring the project and maintaining an information level for residents, Gordon said.

Others echoed the request for an escrow account and also said another expert should review the contract after it's completed.

Resident John Winkler asked for details about the appraiser and for details about the payment to the village.

Christian McShea, who has, along with other residents, protested the plan for some time, said he had two young children and he was worried about potential health risks from electromagnetic exposure.

Trustee Jack Martilotta fired back: "I have three children and I live on Fifth Street and the insinuation that I don't care about the health of my kids I, quite frankly, find insulting."

McShea continued to blast the plan.

"There's no reason for it. Why does it have to be Fifth Street?" he asked. Addressing the board, he said, "You look like something's being ripped out of your heart. It's your human side."

Hubbard said other alternatives, such as Fourth Street, were looked at but deemed not viable. Fifth Street was the only location PSEG was interested in, Roberts said.

No revenue share has ever been discussed, McShea added.

"This is going to destroy my life," he said. "Please, go somewhere else, or get more money. Mistakes happen, let's correct it please. It's such a shame that nobody gives a crap."

"That's not true," members of the crowd said.

Resident Seth Kaufman also urged an escrow account and asked the board to give the public time to review the contract. "We will decide if we want it or not. I don't think it's chump change. So far, it's been done right." The initial three week time frame was delayed to give the public time to weigh in, he said. "I trust you to do a good job for us," he said.

Chatty Allen said she's in favor of the project but added not only Fifth Street residents would be inconvenienced by the work. However, she said, "This needs to get done. We will put up with the inconvenience for the short term to get long term benefits."

She added that the village board would not "put something in that is going to physically damage people on a residential street. I attend these meetings and I listen to what goes on and it was not an underhanded deal."

When Hubbard announced at its recent work session that they'd decided to move ahead, Hubbard said the board met in executive session and decided that the benefits to the village, including a backup power cable, were "crucial."

In addition, PSEG has agreed to another $300,000 over the initial $1.2 million discussed, that Greenport would receive for the deal, Hubbard said.

In addition, Hubbard announced that the village was denied lead agency status in the environmental review, on all three criteria. While the decision could be appealed, Hubbard said the board feels it is "the best thing for village and residents that we vote not to appeal."

Of the PSEG project, Hubbard said, "We are going to be on them like a dog," watching every move to ensure they adhere to the contract.

A village watchdog will also be hired, he said, to watch work commence.

For months, a sea of residents, largely from Fifth Street, has protested the plan, citing safety, quality of life, and environmental concerns.

PSEG reps were onhand at Monday's meeting but did not speak.

After the meeting, Kristina Pappas, communications generalist for PSEG Long Island, issued a statement to Patch: "The Village of Greenport and PSEG Long Island are delighted that an agreement has been reached that provides significant benefits to the residents of Greenport and that allows PSEG Long Island to deliver safe, reliable and resilient energy to all our customers. PSEG Long Island is eager to reach a similar agreement with our partners in Shelter Island Heights so that this project can be completed in a timely manner, with limited disruption to both of the local communities."

Patch file photo of a former meeting on the PSEG issue.