In a noon news release, Rockland City Manager James Chaousis is asking the City Council to reconvene and reconsider an option agreement to sell city-owned land to Rockland Energy Center LLC.

Chaousis said in his release:

“Last night the Rockland City Council voted 2-1 to support Order No. 30. That order would have authorized the City Manager to execute an option agreement with Rockland Energy Center, LLC for the sale of city property. It would have additionally authorized the City Manager to negotiate the terms and conditions for the proposed sale of the same properties. Three affirmative votes of the five Councilors are necessary to create an action of the City Council.

“A 2-1 vote with two absent Councilors and the one dissenting vote claiming support is not definitive. The City is left without guidance on an issue that needs tremendous knowledge and development. Creating development and growth in the city tax base takes time and patience. This time and patience rarely leads to any guarantees in future development. Discussing large issues like energy, environment, and city resources takes more time and patience. Our time for analysis is not complete and shouldn’t stop here. More discussion is necessary and I don’t believe the City’s decision making is complete on this issue.

“Therefore, I am requesting that the City Council reconsider their decision at a special council meeting at the Rockland City Hall Council Chambers, tomorrow, May 1, 2015 at 9 a.m. I understand that people do not have time to attend meetings, and therefore, correspondence and comment can be sent to me directly as directed below. Rockland Energy Center, LLC, will be sending representatives to explain some of the finer details, as well.

“Finally, last summer I attended Harvard Kennedy School of Government in the State and Local program. It was an amazing experience. One of the areas we analyzed was public opinion. Empirical studies demonstrate that commonly held opinions on political subjects are inversely related to voter’s passion and movement on those issues. I personally believe that was demonstrated last night. If you don’t share the consensus opinion of participants last night, I want to know.”

Chaousis can be reached at 593-0636

www.ci.rockland.me.us

jchaousis@ci.rockland.me.us

At the April 29 meeting, and despite a vote of 2 to 1 on a motion that would have allowed Rockland’s city manager to begin negotiating a real estate option agreement with a Boston-based company for two pieces of city-owned property, the proposal ultimately failed in Council Chambers.

That’s because two councilors were absent from the meeting, and the motion required three positive votes to pass. 

If it had passed, the order would have opened discussions between the city and Rockland Energy Center LLC, which had hopes of siting a gas-fired energy plant on land that has been occupied by Rockland’s public works garage.

Rockland Energy, a subsidiary of the Boston-based Energy Management, Inc., also wanted to acquire Rockland’s City Hall, at 270 Pleasant Street.

The deal would have been negotiated by the city manager, subject to approval by the City Council by an ordinance amendment. 

Terms of the proposed negotiation specified that Rockland Energy would have paid monthly option payments of no less than $1,000 beginning no later than Aug. 1.

Mayor Frank Isganitis and Councilor Valli Geiger both approved the motion, in anticipation of opening public dialog and hearing the community’s thoughts about the proposal.  Councilor Will Clayton’s opposing vote, however, negated further municipal discussion.

Councilors Louise MacLellan-Ruf and Larry Pritchett were not in attendance, and at least three positive votes were required to push the proposal forward.

The public comment portion of the April 29 special meeting drew a steady stream of Rockland residents to voice concerns about natural gas plants, pollution, suggestions of council non-transparency, and questions about the future of city functions, its operations and offices, if the City Hall and public works garage were sold. 

Councilor Geiger said: “I thought that my job was to ensure that we look at opportunities for our city. We all know that we are facing a mil rate of 22. Frankly, that terrifies me. It’s unacceptable. We all know that for that mil rate we have so many needs that aren’t being met. Our sidewalks, our roads. We have a failing school, and yet our school uses up 70 percent of that mil rate.

“Did I think it was worth it to engage in a conversation with an energy company to bring a gas pipeline to the coast, to create a combined heat and power plant? I did.”

Geiger said she wanted to know more about the proposal.

“Can we trust that this will be non-polluting,” she asked. “I don’t know. Those are questions I wanted to know.”

Geiger proposed changing the amendment so that residents would vote on whether the pipeline was allowed. But, the no vote of today’s meeting canceled any further consideration on the matter.

In response to a comment made by a resident that that ‘Rockland is for Sale,’ Councilor Clayton said: “That’s kind of our job. We’re here to say that, yes we’re open for business, and we get to choose. We, collectively can be part of that.”

Clayton said he felt citizens made several good points about natural gas concerns. He said he wanted more discussion and more workshops to allow people with knowledge of natural gas and potential pollution to share expertise. 

He told the audience: “Huge entities like the Walmarts and the Walgreens, they would rather not fight with the public. They’d rather find the next place willing to take them. I have absolutely huge reservations that that could happen to us. However, if I’m willing to stand here and take the heat for it, you better as well.”

Mayor Isganitis clarified that without a positive vote, there would be no workshops or discussions. Isganitis had wanted to pass the motion so that he could hear from all sides.

“All of those things would be opportunities for us to say ‘we wish to step further or we don’t wish to step further,” he said. “At no time did we develop a process that was taking us immediately from point A to point B.... Without three votes in the affirmative, it’s over before it begins. Are we that community? Because we’re sending that message that we aren’t open minded. And I think that that’s the wrong message to send.”