Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flower Hill trustees prolong decision on private security patrol after residents and trustees seek more data
Summary
Trustees continued a months‑long debate over whether to keep a privately contracted security patrol funded in the current budget, with residents urging a study of security needs and trustees asking for precinct crime data before any snap vote; no formal change to the patrol was made.
The Village of Flower Hill Board of Trustees on June 2, 2025 deferred a final decision about the village’s privately contracted security patrol after extended discussion among trustees and public comment urging more analysis.
David, a resident who spoke during the public‑comment period, asked the board to commission a risk‑return study — possibly by a criminologist — before committing to long‑term spending on security. He said anecdotal incidents and a concern about license‑plate reader technology warranted further review. Trustees and the mayor said the issue merited careful consideration but noted the village had already budgeted funds for a one‑year patrol in the current budget.
Trustees debated several procedural and substantive questions: whether the prior budget vote (which included funding) constituted the final board decision; what contractual notice period would apply if the village chose to terminate the patrol; whether the budgeted dollars could be reallocated midyear; and how to measure the patrol’s effectiveness. Counsel and staff said a motion to remove or modify the contract could be placed on a future agenda but cautioned against a sudden “snap vote.” Several trustees urged the collection and review of objective data from the Nassau County Police Department’s 6th Precinct (crime or incident logs and precinct statistics) to compare the village’s crime rates with nearby areas.
Supporters of the patrol argued the visible nightly presence reduces suspicious activity and that patrol personnel—many retired or former law‑enforcement officers—are effective at identifying and stopping questionable behavior. Skeptical trustees and some residents questioned whether recorded improvements could be unequivocally attributed to the paid patrol rather than increased county police activity or other factors.
The board did not take a final vote to end or renew the patrol at the June 2 meeting. Trustees agreed to pursue additional information, including data the 6th Precinct can legally share, and to revisit the issue during next year’s budget process or at a future meeting if a trustee places the matter on a forthcoming agenda.
