Thursday, December 12, 2024
To help fund extensive water infrastructure improvements, the Glen Cove City Council approved a controversial water surcharge on Nov. 12. The measure passed narrowly, by a 4-3 vote.
Mayor Pamela Panzenbeck, who supported the surcharge, along with council members Grady Farnan, Michael Ktistakis and Kevin Maccarone, defended the decision, emphasizing the urgent need for water infrastructure improvements.
“Nobody likes to make surcharges,” Panzenbeck said. “But I’m sitting here. I’m the mayor. It’s my responsibility to make sure this is done.”
These upgrades are part of a broader effort to modernize Glen Cove’s water infrastructure, which Panzenbeck described as “very, very old.”
Despite the mayor’s assurances, council members Danielle Fugazy Scagliola, Marsha Silverman and John Zozzaro voiced concerns.
Silverman questioned the timing of the measure, noting that the city recently received a $5 million state grant to fund PFAS treatment upgrades — an effort to reduce so-called “forever chemicals” — at Nancy Court.
“We got new information late last week. The governor’s office granted us $5 million for our water infrastructure,” Silverman said, suggesting that the grant funds could alleviate some of the immediate financial pressure on taxpayers.
She also cited the recent approval of a 2 percent residential tax increase and the implementation of the opt-out sewer lateral program, which many residents did not opt out of as reasons to delay the surcharge.
“I’m just wondering if this is the right time to do this,” Silverman said. “After a tax increase and the sewer lateral program that went on taxpayers’ bills, I would hate to see another burden on our taxpayers.”
Fugazy Scagliola echoed these concerns, suggesting that the surcharge should be based on water usage rather than a flat rate for residential customers. “At a flat rate, every resident pays the same increase, which might be unfair to homes that use less water,” she said. “I want to see us do something, but I feel like maybe we should look at this a little bit more carefully.”
Panzenbeck pushed back against claims that the surcharge would overly burden residents, emphasizing its modest impact. “The surcharge will be $5 monthly,” she said. “For you to insinuate that I’m adding burden to taxpayers — I’m really not.”
Maccarone also downplayed the financial impact, noting that his own quarterly water bill would only increase by $15 under the plan. “It really isn’t going to affect most people,” he said, adding that the city had kept residential taxes stable for four years until the recent tax hike.
The mayor also pointed out that the surcharge had been thoroughly discussed in previous meetings, and was necessary to ensure that Glen Cove’s water systems remain functional and safe.
“We have been speaking about issues with water more than any other issue that we have had,” Panzenbeck said. “Our infrastructure is ancient.”
\he $5 million state grant, secured through the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act, will be used to offset the cost of the work at Nancy Court. But Panzenbeck stressed that the funding only covers a fraction of the city’s total infrastructure needs. “The grant money will be used in segments,” she explained, adding that borrowing will still be required to finance most of the projects.
The surcharge will remain in place until all related debt is paid off, or the council determines that it is no longer necessary. Over the next five to 10 years, the city plans to address a range of infrastructure issues, including contamination and aging water storage systems.
The surcharge debate comes on the heels of the council’s approval of a $65.4 million budget for 2025, which included a residential tax increase of nearly 2 percent — the first in three years. While council members agree on the importance of investing in the city’s water infrastructure, the divide over how and when to implement funding measures reflects broader concerns about balancing fiscal responsibility with residents’ financial well-being.
“We definitely need money for water, and that’s very important,” Fugazy Scagliola said. “But I feel like maybe we should look at this a little bit more carefully.”
Despite the opposition, Panzenbeck remained firm, emphasizing the necessity of the surcharge to protect Glen Cove’s most essential resource. “This isn’t something that we choose to do or that we like to do,” she said, “but water is our most important commodity, and we need to get this right.”
