The Village of Flower Hill’s Board of Trustees moved to hold a duly noticed public hearing if they were to vote on whether to modify or outright terminate their current arrangement with a private security service, debating the ethics of how the vote could occur.
The village implemented a security service to patrol streets from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in early 2024, following a rise in crime at the end of 2023. Now, over a year after that decision and several board meetings, the board is one step closer to deciding the uncertain future of the security service.
At the July 7 Board of Trustees meeting, several trustees discussed the extent to which a potential vote on the security service should be held in a public hearing, with several advocating for the necessity of community involvement.
“I just think we owe it to the public to have them be able to give their opinion on this matter and not for the board to be able to do a quick vote with no one from the public present,” said Mayor Randall Rosenbaum.
Trustee Max Frankel voiced concerns over the scenario where a serious incident occurs with the security patrollers, with the board needing to be able to respond quickly, which would be slowed by enforcing public hearings for any modification of the service moving forward. Temporary suspension of the service was mentioned as a solution in case a situation occurs.
Trustee Mary Jo Collins argued that before any future steps by the board are made, there needs to be a collection of data about the trend of crime in the village as well as the impact the security service has had throughout its time in place.
“We pay over $6 million for the Nassau County Police Department,” said Collins. “Commissioner Ryder came in and said we’re going to increase our patrols. They have that data, let’s ask for it, let’s ask Mayor Cirillo what his data is.”
A resident spoke up during the meeting, requesting additional time for public comment, which was granted. The resident presented an article to the board about the Roslyn Harbor Board of Trustees considering eliminating their respective private security service, discussing its practicality at a June 26 meeting. The resident argued that the Flower Hill board should do similar research to effectively discuss the patrol’s pros and cons.
“I do think that we owe it to our residents, and it’s not about it costing you $10 a month for peace of mind,” said Collins. “It’s as an overall percentage of our budget, which we will vote on again next year. If it’s 13% of our budget or whatever the number is, I think that we need to have data attached to it.”
During the trustee report segment, trustee Gary Lewandowski discussed the ongoing situation in the neighboring village of Manorhaven, surrounding recent development plans and rezoning to accommodate larger families due to its rising population. Lewandowski brought up a Manorhaven board meeting where the public reaction to zoning decisions was “irate,” with the board seeing pushback on their recent decisions.
Lewandowski cautioned the Flower Hill board on a similar scenario happening in their town, with potential rezoning and development plans in the future, leading to a public backlash if communication and transparency by the board aren’t maintained. The trustee mentioned an idea two years ago of doing a full survey of the village land that was shelved, suggesting the board should revive the idea and look at its current zoning.
“I think there is a qualitative exercise or policy, or I don’t know what, that we need to think about so that we get in front of the public on this because we don’t know when this is going to arise on our door, but it will arise eventually,” said Lewandowski. “And I think we need to have not only the board prepared, but our community prepared for what’s next.”
Rosenbaum mentioned the steep cost of the planning study that the village isn’t in a position to make at the moment, with Lewandowski agreeing to keep the “continue the conversation” on this topic for now.
The next meeting will be on Aug. 4 at 7 pm at the Village of Flower Hill building.
CORRECTION: The Original version of the article misinterpreted the resolution, indicating a public meeting would be held. No meeting is confirmed at this time. If concerns arise with the security firm, a public hearing would be held with duly informed notice to the public.
