Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Volunteer Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ardsley ambulance volunteers press Greenburgh to restore longstanding tax exemptions
Summary
Members and leaders of the Ardsley Volunteer Ambulance Corps told the Greenburgh town board that several exemption petitions were recently denied; volunteers asked the board to revisit a residency interpretation and meet with the assessor and legal staff to restore benefits they say have existed for decades.
During the public‑comment portion of the June 25 Greenburgh town‑board meeting, a sizable contingent from the Ardsley Volunteer Ambulance Corps (ASVAC) asked the board to reverse recent denials of property‑tax exemptions for volunteer members who live outside the village but inside ASVAC’s operating area.
Steven Greenfeld, identified as ASVAC’s public information officer and an 11‑year member, said the corps has long recruited volunteers who live throughout the Ardsley school district and that recent denials came without written explanation. “We are a 100% volunteer agency,” Greenfeld said, and the modest tax benefit the town has provided “was a meaningful gesture” for recruitment and retention.
Several other corps leaders and volunteers described the operating certificate issued by the New York State Department of Health that defines ASVAC’s service area and said that historically those who lived in the service area — even if outside the village limits — received the exemption. Paul Clydeman, an ASVAC board member, cited Section 466‑a of the New York Real Property Tax Law as the statutory basis volunteers rely on and said two exemption petitions had been denied this year despite applicants’ properties being inside ASVAC’s service area on the corps’ operating certificate.
Why it matters: The exemption is a recruitment and retention incentive for volunteer first responders. Multiple speakers warned that removing or narrowing the benefit could make it harder to staff an all‑volunteer ambulance corps and could raise emergency‑response costs for the town.
Board response and next steps: Town board members expressed sympathy and said they do not want to undermine volunteer service. Several members said the pattern of recent denials appears to relate to the assessor’s handling of petitions and that the town needs documentation. The board committed to request the assessor’s records and to convene a meeting with the assessor and the town attorney to review the legal and factual basis for the denials; the board discussed scheduling follow‑up and asked volunteers to submit any supporting documents and grievances they filed to ensure full review. Mayor Nancy Cabullian of the Village of Ardsley, present in the audience, urged the board to resolve the matter favorably for volunteers.
What was not decided: The board did not change town policy at the meeting. It pledged to obtain the assessor’s documentation and discuss the issue in open session once records are available.
The board asked staff to follow up and indicated it would schedule time to consider the assessor’s findings and any legal advice prior to taking formal action.
