Sunday, December 06, 2009


In recent decades there has been much controversy re: opening up the AF Veteran pool to residents of the villages.

A suggestion was made to me by a resident of unincorporated Greenburgh that I think could work. I'd like to suggest that residents of the village who would like to see the pool open to VILLAGE residents consider this suggestion and provide members of the Town Board & Village Boards with your feedback.

The town would seek permission from Albany to amend the Finneran law to authorize the town to invite all the villages to use the pool. Each village government would make their own determination--whether or not they want to join the Greenburgh pool. If a village opts into the pool - all taxpayers in the village would be assessed a pool tax that is equivalent to the tax residents of unincorporated Greenburgh pay for the pool. If there are capital improvements made at the pool in future years villages that opt into the pool would share the expenses with residents of unincorporated Greenburgh.

The suggestion was made that this could be subject to either a mandatory or permissive referendum in unincorporated Greenburgh and in the impacted village. If there is a referendum, village residents would be given the opportunity to reflect on the merits and negatives of this additional recreation benefit and additional tax. There would be no timetable set. A village may not want to opt into the pool now --but a few years later they may change their mind. Or the opposite could occur. The town will not advocate that the village opt in or out of the agreement-- we will make this option available to each of the village governments.

It should be pointed out that we expect major renovations to take place at AF Veteran pool within the next 5-7 years. We have an aging pool and will have to build a new pool facility at AF Veteran park. These renovations could easily cost over $7 million dollars. I think residents of unincorporated Greenburgh (who objected to village residents having access to the pool in the past) might be receptive to this idea now because they would like to see more people share in the costs of the pool renovations and pool costs. If more than one village opts into the pool agreement and if we feel the existing pools can't accomodate the demand- the town might use the extra funds we raise to build a larger pool to accomodate needs of the community.

I am going to float this idea. What's nice about this concept is that the town won't stand in the way of a village governments desire to have access to the town pool. Each village would have to decide, for yourself, whether it's worth the extra assessment to be able to offer your residents pool privileges at AF Veteran park.


hal samis said...

And what stops Village residents from "wading" it out until after the capital expense is completed?

klondike bar said...

its a fair legal proposition that under justice cacace's decision, the town board has the authority to allow ardsley residents to use the pool this summer without any change of law.

i suggest the town board show leadership and do so. this obviates 25 plus years of ardsley taxpayers subsidizing the unincorporated section who do not pay taxes on the 20% of AFV that is in the village of ardsley.

right across the street is an ardsley park that is open to all - mcdowell park. the village of ardsley opens all its parks and recreation programs to non-villagers.

once the pool is open, the town can guage use (plus lower its operating deficit) and plan accordingly for its capital needs.

the proposed change to finneran is too cumbersome and divisive. but again, its not needed.

every other non-profit in ardsley gives something back as in the case of new york state allowing ardsley to have its salt shed on its property or the nyc water department leasing its land to the library for $1.00.

you and ms juettner and mr sheehan have just been re-elected without opposition.

what are you waiting for? you have the three votes.

ed krauss said...

More than 25 years ago, even before "Finneran," when all those living in the villages were allowed to go to Town Park for the very same membership fee as the residents of unincorporated, Tarrytown, Irvington and Hastings residents did not join.

A handful of those living in Elmsford as well as Dobbs Ferry residents whose children attended the Ardsley schools signed up.

Of all the villages, Ardsley residents accounted for more than 95%of village memberships.

Because of the lack of foresight and preplanning, the income from Ardsley residents accumulated
over the past 25 + years would have gone a long way toward paying for the rehab of the pool and oher maintenence needs.

In essence "Finneran" killed that profit center.

Now you're coming up with an old idea with a new coat of paint.

Why should anyone in his/her right mind opt into it knowingly having to pay a portion of the millions it will cost to rehab?

Think again. Ardsley residents have learned to live without the pool. And residents in the river towns as well as Dobbs have their own pools.

Some people have the innate ability to foul up a royal flush.

Paul Feiner is not responsible for the '80's, but he has had 18+ years to remedy, peacefully, this situation...and didn't.