City proposes water surcharge for $40M infrastructure repairs
During a public hearing on Tuesday, Glen Cove Mayor Pamela Panzenbeck addressed concerns about the city’s aging water infrastructure. She announced a proposal for a new water infrastructure surcharge to help fund critical upgrades. Panzenbeck emphasized the necessity of the surcharge, citing the deteriorating condition of Glen Cove’s water system, which has been in service for decades.
“Our infrastructure and our water is very, very old,” Panzenbeck said. “It is one of the things we deal with on a regular basis.”
The proposal, if implemented, would generate approximately $544,000 annually, contributing to a $40 million long-term infrastructure repair plan.
The rate structure outlines fees for residential, commercial, and fireline water accounts. Residential customers are charged $15 per quarter, totaling $60 annually. Commercial customers are billed monthly based on water usage: $10 per month for usage up to 99,999 gallons annually ($120 annually), $20 per month for 100,000 to 499,999 gallons ($240 annually), $30 per month for 500,000 to 999,999 gallons ($360 annually), and $40 per month for 1,000,000 gallons or more ($480 annually). Fireline accounts are charged $10 per month, totaling $120 annually.
Panzenbeck detailed the city’s immediate infrastructure needs, which include several major projects. One of the most pressing is the installation of a permanent air stripper on Duck Pond Road to address water contamination issues. The McLoughlin and Leech Circle water tanks are slated for upgrades, and the Nancy Court PFAS project aims to mitigate the presence of harmful chemicals in the water supply. While the city anticipates receiving some federal and state grants to cover a portion of these costs, borrowing will still be required for the majority of the projects.
Despite the city’s argument for the surcharge, the proposal drew sharp criticism from residents in a Facebook poll. Glen Cove resident Rob Haley expressed frustration over the city’s lack of a reserve fund for water infrastructure maintenance.
“We currently have a city that does not have a fund for our most basic infrastructure maintenance,” Haley commented. “Since 1917 we have been living on hopes and prayers that we would not need to replace or update this?”
Haley also questioned how the city has managed to maintain its water system for so long without having set aside funds for such a vital service.
“I find it hard to believe we don’t have reserve funds for water maintenance. Where has the money come from in the past?” Haley added, reflecting the skepticism shared by several in attendance.
Others, like Sonna Allen, are focused on the financial impact of the surcharge on already burdened taxpayers.
“Our taxes are already sky high,”Allen said. “Maybe it’s time they thought about being more fiscally responsible.”
During the meeting, Panzenbeck acknowledged the difficulty of introducing the surcharge but stressed that it was unavoidable given the current state of the water infrastructure.
“We don’t want to do this,” she said. “It’s really very necessary.”
The public hearing will remain open until Oct. 8, allowing additional time for community input and discussions before the city council makes any final decisions.
