Experienced and Trusted Leaders

Supervisor Took No Action to Check the Accuracy of the 9.11% Largest School Tax Increase 

As the Chief Financial Officer of Pound Ridge, the Supervisor is responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of equalization rates that directly impact property taxes. Despite significant red flags, no due diligence or inquiry was conducted, potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Background: How School Taxes Are Determined

Each year, New York State assigns equalization rates to ensure towns within the same school district are taxed fairly, based on market values.

• Equalization rates compare actual sales prices vs. assessed property values.
• The goal is to put every town in the district on the same footing.
• For 2025, there were large discrepancies among towns in the Bedford Central School District and other neighboring towns:
•    Pound Ridge: +9.11% (increase)
•    North Castle: -10.07% (decrease)
•    Mt. Kisco: -3.99% (decrease)
•   Bedford: +2.61% (increase)
•   New Castle: +3.19% (increase)

The Impact on Pound Ridge Taxpayers

• $55.7 million – Total property taxes paid this year.
• $40.4 million (72.5%) – Portion going to school taxes.
• $3.5 million – Additional school tax burden this year alone.
• Average increase per household: $1,750

How the 9.11% Increase Happened

The increase was based on data from the Sales Web Database maintained by the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance.

• NYS reviewed 49 property sales to calculate the average relationship between sales price and assessed value.
• However: Additional qualifying sales were excluded, even though they were included in the database.
• Independent review:
•   10 missing sales were analyzed and compared to Zillow values at the time of sale.
•   The average actual sales price was 2% above Zillow’s estimate — meaning these sales.   were valid and should have been included.
•     If included, Pound Ridge’s increase would drop from 9.11% to 4.06%.
•   This would save taxpayers $2.0 million, or $1,000 per household.

Failure of Leadership

• A five-page certified letter with detailed analysis was sent to Supervisor Hansan on August 15, 2025.
• The letter included evidence of the errors and requested that he investigate.
• No response. No inquiry. No action.

Why this matters:

• A responsible Supervisor must review and question discrepancies, especially when:
• Equalization rates diverge significantly from other towns.
• Errors or omissions are found in the state’s calculations.
• Both conditions were present — yet the Supervisor failed to act, potentially costing taxpayers millions.

Solution: Leadership with Accountability

Pound Ridge needs a Supervisor who takes the job seriously and performs due diligence on tax assessments:

• Investigate discrepancies in equalization rates before they take effect.
• Challenge state calculations when clear evidence of errors is found.
• Protect taxpayers by ensuring that school taxes — which make up three-quarters of all property taxes — are accurate and fair.

Bottom line:


Pound Ridge deserves leadership that fights for taxpayers, not one that stays silent while residents pay the price.

A recent audit by the Office of the New York State Comptroller (OSC), released August 1, 2025, uncovered significant failures in Pound Ridge’s procurement and financial review practices. Read and download the audit report here. The audit covered January 2022 through November 2023 and identified the following critical concerns:

• Noncompliance with Procurement Laws and Board Policies
  Town officials failed to follow proper procedures when procuring goods and services, raising the risk of excessive spending and reduced accountability. The Comptroller states in Key Findings: "As a result, officials cannot support that all goods and services were procured in the most cost-effective manner, which may have resulted in higher operational costs that would be passed onto taxpayers.”
• Over $745,000 in Purchases Without Competitive Bidding
  These unbid purchases bypassed requirements meant to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure cost-effective spending.
• $299,176 in Payments Not Properly Audited
  These payments, many made with Town credit cards, lacked proper board review or approval.
• 226 Credit Card Charges With No Receipts
  A total of $54,359 in undocumented charges were made by department heads, creating serious gaps in transparency and recordkeeping.
• Town Credit Cards Widely Distributed
  Eleven department heads were issued town credit cards in 2020 with insufficient oversight mechanisms in place
• 15% of the Town’s Expenditures were Undocumented or Unreviewed.
  In total, the OSC identified $1.1 million worth of unaccounted for expenditures. This translates to 15% of Pound Ridge’s total annual expenditures ($1.1M/$7.4M). There should not be such poor record keeping.
•  OSC Disputed the Supervisor’s Claim of No Fraud
  Despite assurances from the Town Supervisor, the OSC clarified that its findings do not rule out fraud, theft, or professional misconduct.  In his July 15 response included in the report, Supervisor Hansan wrote, “We are pleased that the audit found no misuse, misappropriation, or fraudulent use of Town funds…” The OSC disputed the Supervisor Hansan's statement in a “See Note 1” annotation that stated, “Therefore, these audit results cannot be used to conclude there is no fraud, theft or professional misconduct.” 
• Broader Pattern of Financial Mismanagement
  The OSC audit reflects issues previously flagged by the Town’s independent auditor, PKF O’Connor Davies, including late filings,poor capital project tracking, and co-mingled funds—none of which were not addressed in the OSC’s scope.

Residents Deserve to be Informed by the Town Board

Residents are encouraged to read and download the full OSC audit report and the required Corrective Action Plan due within 90 days here. They should also ask the Town to repost the PKFOD letters to management that were recently removed from the Town’s website. 

These accounting failures highlight the risks that arise when financial statements are more than three years late and oversight is absent. The Town Board should be forthright with this information since ultimately the risk from this is passed onto taxpayers. 

Solution: Restore Oversight and Accountability

To rebuild trust and protect taxpayer dollars, the following steps must be taken immediately:

• Publicly Release All Audit-Related Documents
  Reinstate PKFOD management letters and commit to making all audits and responses publicly accessible on the Town’s website.
• Enforce Competitive Bidding and Transparent Purchasing
  Require documented bids for all purchases above the legal threshold and ensure full compliance with procurement policies.
• Implement Real-Time Financial Oversight
  Establish a standing Budget and Finance Committee to review expenditures, credit card use, and capital projects on a rolling basis.
• Limit and Monitor Credit Card Access
  Reduce the number of town-issued cards, implement strict receipt policies, and conduct monthly audits of credit card activity.
• Ensure Timely Audits and Corrective Action Plans
  Commit to on-time financial filings and transparent progress updates on the OSC’s Corrective Action Plan.
• Appoint Independent Oversight
  Engage an external compliance officer or audit consultant to ensure that recommendations are implemented and maintained.

Chronic Late Financial Filings

• The Town Board has consistently filed annual financial statements and audits late for the last 8 years and has yet to submit the 2024 financials.
• The table here shows the required filing dates vs. actual submission dates since the Hansan administration took office in 2018.

Key Facts:

• Law requires Annual Financial Reports (AFRs) to be filed within 90 days.
• Pound Ridge has missed the deadline every year for the last 8 years.
• Average delay: 17 months, with a peak of 27 months late.
• Town took 7–10 times longer to file than state law allows.

Financial Impact on Taxpayers

• Late filings have cost Pound Ridge taxpayers approximately $250,000 over the last four years.
• Without current financials, the town cannot issue long-term municipal bonds and is forced to rely on short-term Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) at higher interest rates.
• The BAN vs. Bond Excess Interest table shows a total added cost of $252,087 over this period.
• The NYS Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) warns: “When local governments fail to file their AFRs, taxpayers are left in the dark.”

Governance and Compliance Failures

• The Town Board has been operating without timely, accurate audited financial statements, undermining:
• Regulatory compliance
• Reliable budgeting and forecasting
• Accountability to residents

Poor Planning and Costly Missteps

• Poor planning, miscommunication, and misrepresentation have led to costly lawsuits and wasted taxpayer dollars.
• Transportation Enhancement Project (TEP) Sidewalk Project:
• Lack of transparency around state reimbursements.
• Town’s original matching contribution more than doubled—from ~$370,000 to over $800,000.
• Final costs came in 122% over budget, with no clear explanation to taxpayers.

Proposed Solution: Restore Financial Integrity and Transparency

To address the Town’s chronic delays in financial reporting and lack of budget clarity, we propose a comprehensive Financial Accountability and Transparency Initiative:

1. Commit to Timely, Accurate Financial Audits

• Set a firm annual deadline for completing and publicly releasing audited financial statements.
• Ensure that the appropriate personnel and professional are involved to achieve timely audited financial statements.

2. Establish a Financial Oversight Committee

• Create a volunteer Finance and Audit Oversight Committee to review and advise on budgeting, grant reporting, and major project costs.
• Include financial professionals and community stakeholders to enhance accountability and confidence.

3. Improve Project Cost Transparency

• Require real-time cost tracking and quarterly public updates for all capital projects, starting with the proposed Water Project.
• Publish reimbursement status and grant conditions for all state- and federally-funded projects.

4. Enforce Accurate Representation in Grant Applications

• Develop a grant review checklist to ensure all submitted financial statements and projections are current and accurate before submission.
• Publicly disclose grant application content and underlying assumptions before submission.

5. Strengthen Internal Planning and Communication

• Conduct an internal audit of project planning processes and implement a standardized project management framework.
• Provide annual training for staff and board members on financial best practices, grant compliance, and risk management.

Misleading Claims About Tripling Fund Reserves

• Hansan and his team's mailer graph on Fund Reserves tripling is misleading — it begins with Unassigned Funds of $456,382 in 2017 but then switches midstream to include Assigned Funds, inflating the 2024 total to $1,562,499.
• The real number for Unassigned Funds in 2024 is $1,053,487 — meaning the chart is off by $509,012, or 48.3% higher than reality. 
• Their website states: “Since taking office, Kevin Hansan and the Democratic team have more than tripled the unassigned fund balance [1].” 
• The Hansan Mailer graph misleads residents not only with inaccurate numbers but also by truncating the y-axis to exaggerate changes—a practice the SEC and other regulators have long warned is deceptive.
• Bottom line: Whether through error or intent, this misrepresents the facts and misleads residents.
• See the comparison graphs.

Our Data Source

The table included here is drawn directly from the Town’s audited financial statements. 

Solutions to Avoid Misleading Reserve Fund Claims

1. Be Consistent With Fund Categories

• If the claim is about Unassigned Funds, then the chart and narrative should only show Unassigned Funds year over year. 
• If both Assigned and Unassigned Funds are to be used, show them clearly as separate categories, not merged midstream. 

2. Accurate Graphing Practices

• Use a single, consistent measure across the entire timeline. 
• Label all figures precisely (e.g., “Unassigned Fund Balance,” “Assigned Fund Balance”) to prevent confusion. 
• Avoid tricks like truncating the y-axis, which exaggerates growth. Instead, start the y-axis at zero for a fair visual comparison. 

3. Provide Transparent Sources

• Include a footnote or reference showing exactly where the fund balance numbers came from (audited financials, annual reports, etc.). 
• If estimates are used (such as unaudited figures), label them as “Preliminary” or “Unaudited.” 

4. Clarify the Narrative

• Instead of saying “tripled,” use precise language such as: “Unassigned Funds grew from $456K in 2017 to $1.05M in 2024.” 
• If including Assigned Funds, explain why and how they differ from Unassigned Funds so the public can understand. 

5. Add Context for Residents

• Explain what Unassigned Funds are used for (general emergencies, cash flow, etc.) versus Assigned Funds (earmarked projects). 
• Share the best practice benchmarks (for example, NYS Comptroller often recommends towns maintain reserves of 10–15% of expenditures). This shows whether the level is healthy or inflated. 

Bottom Line

To avoid being accused of misleading residents, the Town Board should:

• Stick with one definition (Unassigned OR Total Fund Balance) 
• Clearly label data in graphs and explain the difference 
• Provide accurate, consistent numbers with sources 
• Avoid exaggerated language like “tripled” unless it’s factually truemailer graph on Fund Reserves tripling  is misleading — it begins with Unassigned Funds of $456,382 in 2017 but then switches midstream to include Assigned Funds, inflating the 2024 total to $1,562,499.
• The real number for Unassigned Funds in 2024 is $1,053,487 — meaning the chart is off by $509,012, or 48.3% higher than reality. 
• Their website states: “Since taking office, Kevin Hansan and the Democratic team have more than tripled the unassigned fund balance [1].” 
• Bottom line: Whether through error or intent, this misrepresents the facts and misleads residents.
• See the comparison graphs.

Our Data Source

The table included here is drawn directly from the Town’s audited financial statements. 

Solutions to Avoid Misleading Reserve Fund Claims

1. Be Consistent With Fund Categories

• If the claim is about Unassigned Funds, then the chart and narrative should only show Unassigned Funds year over year. 
• If both Assigned and Unassigned Funds are to be used, show them clearly as separate categories, not merged midstream. 

2. Accurate Graphing Practices

• Use a single, consistent measure across the entire timeline. 
• Label all figures precisely (e.g., “Unassigned Fund Balance,” “Assigned Fund Balance”) to prevent confusion. 
• Avoid tricks like truncating the y-axis, which exaggerates growth. Instead, start the y-axis at zero for a fair visual comparison. 

3. Provide Transparent Sources

• Include a footnote or reference showing exactly where the fund balance numbers came from (audited financials, annual reports, etc.). 
• If estimates are used (such as unaudited figures), label them as “Preliminary” or “Unaudited.” 

4. Clarify the Narrative

• Instead of saying “tripled,” use precise language such as: “Unassigned Funds grew from $456K in 2017 to $1.05M in 2024.” 
• If including Assigned Funds, explain why and how they differ from Unassigned Funds so the public can understand. 

5. Add Context for Residents

• Explain what Unassigned Funds are used for (general emergencies, cash flow, etc.) versus Assigned Funds (earmarked projects). 
• Share the best practice benchmarks (for example, NYS Comptroller often recommends towns maintain reserves of 10–15% of expenditures). This shows whether the level is healthy or inflated. 

Bottom Line

To avoid being accused of misleading residents, the Town Board should:

• Stick with one definition (Unassigned OR Total Fund Balance) 
• Clearly label data in graphs and explain the difference 
• Provide accurate, consistent numbers with sources 
• Avoid exaggerated language like “tripled” unless it’s factually true

Misleading Claims About Tax Growth

• The PRDC’s recent Instagram post suggests that the Town’s tax levy has grown by less than 2% annually over the last eight years. 
• Actual adopted budgets show a very different story. 

True Tax Levy Growth

• Every year since 2018, the tax levy has increased by more than 2%. 
• Under the Hansan administration: 
• 8-year average growth rate (CAGR): 2.84% 
• Last 4 years’ CAGR: 3.22% 

Data Source

The table included here is drawn directly from the Town’s adopted budgets. 

It shows: 

• Actual tax levy amounts 
• Year-by-year percentage increases 

Understanding the Bigger Picture

• The Town levy represents only 14% of the total property taxes paid by Pound Ridge residents. 
• The majority of taxes come from: 
• School district taxes approximately 70% 
• Westchester County taxes remaining portion 
• When considering total property taxes, the growth rates over the past 8 years, and especially the last 4 years, are even higher than the Town levy figures alone.

Yet the PRDC’s headline reads: “KEEPING TAXES IN CHECK!” and adds “HELD PROPERTY TAXES UNDER THE CAP SINCE 2018.”

Why make a claim that misleads residents, when the Town’s own adopted budgets clearly contradict it?

The Solution: Responsible Fiscal Management

Residents deserve more than slogans. They deserve leadership that:

• Acknowledges the true numbers instead of obscuring them.
• Controls spending to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent solely on essential needs for efficient town operations
• Commits to long-term financial planning to keep growth rates aligned with community needs—not just under a state cap.
• Restores transparency and trust by making financial information easily accessible and straightforward.

Keeping  taxes truly “in check” requires more than staying under a cap—it  requires responsible stewardship of every taxpayer dollar.

1. Grant Application Misrepresentation

• In June 2024, the Supervisor attested under oath that all Town financial filings were complete, even though the legally required 2022 and 2023 filings were still delinquent.
• This misrepresentation puts the Town at risk if the grant is invalidated and undermines its financial credibility.

2. Uncertain Water Supply and Legal Questions

• At the March 19, 2024 Town Board meeting—three months before applying for the proposed Drinking Water Project grant—Town Board member Ali Boak stated, “Aquarion might not legally be allowed to provide water as they aren’t licensed in New York State.” 
• Despite this, the grant application included an unconfirmed water supply estimate from Aquarion, with no formal contract and a projected cost at half of the company’s typical rate—likely leading to significant cost increases.

3. Connecticut Supply Constraints and Pending Sale of Aquarion

• An article from the CT Mirror on July 21, 2025 (also available on our Press page), explains that a proposed $2.4 billion sale of Aquarion to a nonprofit authority may lead to significant water rate increases, with some estimates suggesting potential rises of up to 65% over the next decade. Though officials claim that any necessary rate hikes are due to unavoidable infrastructure investments—not the acquisition itself—most parties agree that rates are expected to rise regardless, which would definitely affect any contract pricing for this proposed project.

4. Environmental Risks to Septic Systems

• No studies were conducted to evaluate how importing large volumes of water could affect Scotts Corners’ septic systems.
• Risks include raising the water table and impairing septic systems functions, yet the Town has not reviewed the septic systems elevations or conducted an environmental impact assessments of the water project.

5. Unnecessary Litigation at Taxpayer Expense

• The Town intervened in a lawsuit about the state grant already being defended by the New York Attorney General.
• The cost of this intervention to taxpayers has not been disclosed.

6. History of Overruns and Mismanagement

• The Transportation Enhancement Project (TEP) went 122% over budget, with the Town’s portion swelling from $370,000 to more than $800,000.
• The proposed Drinking Water Project is five times larger than TEP, yet no assurances have been given that the current Board can manage it effectively or transparently.
• A track record of poor planning, miscommunication, and misrepresentation has already led to costly lawsuits, heightening concerns about oversight and governance. 

Proposed Solution: Drinking Water Project Accountability & Governance Reform Plan. 

To safeguard taxpayers, protect the environment, and restore credibility, we propose the following:

1. Establish a Temporary Independent Oversight Committee

• Form a Drinking Water Project Oversight Committee composed of residents with expertise in municipal finance, engineering, and environmental risk management.
• Charge it with reviewing the project’s feasibility, verifying financial and contractual representations, and advising on next steps.
• Reinstate the Economic Development Committee, suspended in 2025, so Scotts Corners business stakeholders have a voice.

2. Conduct an Immediate Financial and Legal Compliance Audit

• Commission a third-party review of the grant application to evaluate risks tied to financial misstatements, overdue filings, and unconfirmed contracts.
• Publicly disclose findings and corrective actions to maintain standing with state authorities.

3. Require Verified Vendor Contracts and Cost Estimates

• Ensure all future grants and capital projects are supported by binding contracts and independently verified cost estimates.
• Reassess Aquarion’s legal eligibility and require realistic pricing before any commitments are made.

4. Strengthen Capital Project Management Standards

Adopt a formal project management framework for all major projects, with:

• Detailed planning and budgeting.
• Milestone tracking.
• Quarterly progress reports to the public.
• Assign a qualified project manager or external consultant to oversee execution if the Drinking Water Project proceeds.

5. Restore Financial Credibility with Transparent Reporting

• Complete all outstanding financial filings and audits by a clear public deadline.
• Require the Town Board to adopt a Corrective Action Plan for compliance and reporting, reviewed annually by an independent auditor.

6. Rebuild Public Trust through Communication and Accountability

• Hold public forums and Q&A sessions on the Drinking Water Project and future capital projects.
• Provide timely updates, truthfully represent all information, and subject future grant applications to independent legal review before submission.

Bottom Line:
 The proposed Drinking Water Project poses serious risks of higher costs, unreliable water access, septic disruption, and financial mismanagement. With no proven record of managing large-scale projects, the current Board cannot be entrusted with a project of this scale without strict independent oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Background

• In 2020, the Town Board purchased a $1.25 million property intended to house a wastewater system.
• Five years later, the project has not proven to be a viable solution.
• This property continues to cost taxpayers without delivering results.

Lack of Transparency

• No updates provided to residents on project progress.
• No transparency regarding the work of the Water-Wastewater Task Force (WWTF).
• Public remains uninformed about:
• Total engineering costs
• Other related expenses since 2018

Testing and Reports

• August 2023: Town Board approved $24,000 for hole boring tests, scheduled for Fall 2023.
• Work completed, but no report released to the public.
• Update promised for year-end 2023, then delayed to February 2024—but still not delivered.

Public Acknowledgment of Failure from Project Engineer, not Town Board

• May 7, 2024 Town Board Meeting:
• Project engineer Dan Rhodes stated (52:24 on the meeting video):
“Currently at this time you do not have a wastewater project that is viable.”

• This statement revealed the project unviable after spending:
• $500,000+ in engineering fees 
• $1.25 million property purchase
• $250,000 net losses, even after accounting for rental income
• Lost property tax revenue $120,312.50
• No usable outcome or viable project

Proposed Solution: Restore Transparency and Accountability in the Wastewater Planning Process

To address the lack of transparency and stalled progress on the wastewater project, we propose a Wastewater Accountability and Public Disclosure Plan that ensures residents are informed, tax dollars are respected, and future planning is grounded in facts and community input.

1. Publicly Release All Past Reports and Financials

• Immediately publish all engineering reports, studies, and test results related to the Old Pound Road property, including the 2023 hole boring analysis.
• Disclose the total cost of engineering and related consultant fees spent on wastewater planning since 2018.

2. Conduct a Public Audit and Independent Feasibility Review

• Initiate a third-party review of the wastewater project to assess the viability of the Old Pound Road site and evaluate the decision-making process to date.
• Require the Water-Wastewater Task Force (WWTF) to present findings and recommendations in a public forum.

3. Develop Clear Communication Protocols

• Require quarterly public updates from the WWTF and Town Board on the status of all water and wastewater initiatives.
• Create a centralized Wastewater Project Information Hub on the town website, housing all past and current reports, expenses, and decisions.
• Reinstate the Economic Development Committee, which was suspended in early 2025, so it may advise the Town Board and the WWTF with vital feedback from the Business District stakeholders.

4. Rebuild Community Trust Through Transparency

• Commit to no further spending or planning on wastewater infrastructure without public input, verified feasibility, and formal community engagement.
• Host a town hall meeting specifically dedicated to wastewater solutions, including alternatives and financial implications.

 7 Old Pound Road Purchase for Proposed Wastewater Treatment Deemed Unviable 

• See Financial Breakdown below
• The 7 Old Pound Road property was originally approved for purchase by the Town Board in 2020 as a site for a wastewater treatment facility, amongst other uses, to serve the Business District following a 2019 report by the consulting engineers, Lombardo Associates Inc., that identified the property as part of a number of sites as a possible location for a wastewater system.
• Shortly after the purchase, the Old Pound Committee was formed and identified a number of uses for this property including: Ability to extend “Recreation Path” to Old Pound Road; Opportunity to create nature trails; Business District wastewater (treated effluent) disposal; Soccer, Baseball, Softball Field(s); and, Community Center with Indoor Gymnasium.
• The Town Board approved leasing the house on the property several years after the purchase, incurring significant ongoing debt service, repairs and maintenance costs, and loss of property tax revenue, including a recent reduction in the monthly lease amount.
• According to the consulting engineering firm, Laberge  Group, recent findings from the 2023 hole boring testing determined that the property is not viable for wastewater infrastructure at the May 7, 2024 Town Board meeting during the discussion for the proposed drinking water grant application (52:24 on the video). This information was never officially shared with the public by the Town Board or the Water/Wastewater Task Force after promising a findings report in early 2024. 

Financial Breakdown

Background on 7 Old Pound Purchase

• Total Purchase Price (2020): $1,250,000
• Town Supervisor’s stated reasons for purchase:
• “Once-in-a-generation opportunity.”
• “Protect property due to its proximity to the town park.”

Poor Return on Investment (ROI)

• ROI over the first 5.5 years: Negative 3.91% annually
• Net performance shows a consistent financial loss rather than gain.

Annual Income vs. Expenses (2020–2025) 

• Revenue & Costs:
• Rental Income:
• Minimal until 2023 ($37,800 in 2023, $50,400 projected in 2024 and 2025)
• Total rental income over 5.5 years: $138,600
• Lost Property Taxes:
• Estimated annual loss of $21,875
• Total over 5.5 years: $120,312.50
• Interest Expense:
• 2020 (6 months): $7,875
• Peaked at $79,250 in 2023, declining slightly by 2025
• Total over 5.5 years: $273,250

Mold Remediation Costs:

• 2024 only: $13,940

Net Financial Results

• Total Net Loss over 5.5 years: -$268,902.50
• Average annual net loss: -$48,891.36
• The property has consistently lost money, with annual deficits increasing over time.

Additional Insights

• Expense to Income Ratio (2025): 58% (far higher than sustainable levels)
• Even with rental income, carrying costs outweigh revenue significantly.
• Taxpayers bear the financial burden of:
• Lost tax revenue
• Debt interest payments
• Maintenance and remediation expenses

Summary of Concerns

• The purchase has not met its stated goal of being a wise, protective investment.
• $500k+ paid to three engineers before declaring the site not feasible
• $1.25M purchase + $500k+ engineering + $268,903 losses = $2M+ tied up in a failed project.
• Rising annual losses highlight unsustainable financial planning.
• Taxpayer funds are subsidizing ongoing deficits with no clear plan for recovery.

Sources: Board records & FOILs (leases 4/4/23 & 2025; BAN rates; mold 3/19/24; Aug 5 board “Resident Submissions”).

Now that the Town Board’s wastewater plan for 7 Old Pound Road is no longer viable, no re-evaluation has been initiated with public input to explore whether or not it is still financially feasible to retain the property. 

Despite this ongoing cost to taxpayers, the Town Board continues to move forward with a trail grant without this re-evaluation of alternative options or involvement from the  community.

$250,000 Trail Grant Feasibility 

• The Town Board received a $250,000 Trails grant a few years ago requiring a 20% matching contribution of $50,000 which is subject to final bids. 
• The grant must be ADA Compliant to meet the requirements which may have not been included in the original $250,000 estimate at the time of the grant application. As the project moves forward, taxpayers could face significantly higher costs beyond the initial $50,000 to meet ADA compliance requirements.
•  The Town Board then approved the acquire an easement on an adjacent lot to 7 Old Pound Road to connect to the Town Park. This property has environmental challenges and it may not be clear what the intended purpose was and/or any public input (e.g., forums).

Recreational Use Suggestions for the Property without a Re-evalution

• At the August 5th 2025 Town Board meeting, Town Board Member and Liaison to the Old Pound Road Committee, Ali Boak, announced that "The Old Town Road Committee met on Monday night, and I wanted to share  with the public that they're seriously exploring, putting a disc golf  course in on the old town property...they're also working on a butterfly garden" (1:00:03 on the video). While these ideas may eventually be presented to the community, they are being considered without any public re-evaluation of the property’s use or analysis of whether it is financially feasible to pursue such projects and sustain the ongoing costs of keeping 7 Old Pound Road.

If not for Infrastructure, why not Open Space?

• Even though it was determined the proposed site is no longer viable for a wastewater system, the Town Board continues to use the $1.25 million–purchased property with its ongoing expenses, now solely for trails without evaluating whether maintaining the property remains financially feasible for this or any other use.
• With the site no longer serving this purpose, the Town Board should consider a Property Re-evaluation and Community Reuse Plan with community input before continuing to invest further into a property that may have no purpose.
• Past discussions about building a community center—both town-wide and specifically on this property—ultimately concluded that it was not financially possible yet.
• If walking trails are the only foreseeable use for the property, the Town’s Open Space Acquisitions Committee should consider acquiring the land and placing it under permanent conservation. This approach could help offset some of the financial burden on taxpayers. Otherwise, it raises the question: why is the Town Board authorizing substantial and seemingly arbitrary real estate purchases without a clear, long-term plan for public use? Taxpayers deserve transparency and strategic decision-making when public funds are at stake.

Proposed Solution: Re-evaluate and Repurpose the Old Pound Road Property with Community Input

To address the financial and planning implications of the Old Pound Road property being deemed unviable for wastewater infrastructure, we propose a Property Re-evaluation and Community Reuse Plan to ensure responsible stewardship, fiscal accountability, and alignment with community priorities.

1. Publicly Acknowledge the Property's Infeasibility for Wastewater Use

• Formally announce the engineer’s 2023 findings after evaluating the testing results that the site is not viable for a wastewater system.
• Provide residents with a summary of past expenditures related to engineering, maintenance, and related costs incurred since the property’s purchase.

2. Launch a Transparent Community Review Process

• Host public forums to gather input on the future of the 20-acre property, including potential uses, fiscal implications, and alignment with community goals.
• Present all options clearly—complete sale, partial subdivision, or retention with open space designation and trail development.

3. Evaluate All Viable Property Disposition Options

• Option A: Determine is there is any other financially viable use such as a community center, etc.
• Option B: Sell the entire 20-acre parcel, including the house, to recoup taxpayer investment and recover lost revenue from its tax-exempt status.
• Option C: Subdivide the parcel, sell the house to regain tax revenue, and preserve the remaining open space using Open Space funds, enabling continued pursuit of the ADA-Compliant Trails project if it fits with the open space environmental requirements.

4. Conduct a Fiscal and Legal Impact Assessment

• Assess the long-term cost of maintaining the property vs. potential revenue from a sale or subdivision.
• Review the implications of withdrawing from or proceeding with the ADA Trails grant based on community consensus.

5. Establish a Policy for Future Major Property Purchases

• Create a clear acquisition policy that requires:

1. Verified feasibility before purchase.
2. Defined public purpose.
3. Transparent public input and fiscal impact analysis.

In October 2021, the Pound Ridge Town Board made a secret, off-the-books decision not to “opt-out” of allowing a cannabis dispensary in town—without public notice, discussion, or inclusion on meeting agendas. A resident’s lawsuit challenging this action under New York’s Open Meetings Law (OML) was dismissed, but is now being appealed. This case was dismissed solely on a procedural technicality—the 4-month statute of limitations, which the court ruled had expired back in 2022 when residents were kept in the dark. It was not dismissed because the Town was found free of wrongdoing.

All adjoining Towns held public hearings and opted-out

• Here is a chart here of all the neighboring towns that opted-out. Bedford, Harrison, Lewisboro Mt. Kisco, New Castle, North Castle, North Salem, and Somers.

Concerns Raised

• Secret Deliberations – The Town Board reached a secret, off-the books decision on October 29, 2021 without holding a public meeting, violating the intent and requirements of the OML. The Supervisor notified the Supervisors and Mayors of adjoining towns, but never disclosed the decision to Pound Ridge residents. 
• No Public Notice – Residents were never informed of the opt-out deadline in Town Board minutes, or the Town’s website, or in 42 Supervisor newsletters sent out during 2021 with no mention of the Cannabis Law.
• Misinterpretation of the Law – The court dismissed the case based on procedural grounds, ignoring OML provisions that allow for declaratory judgment actions.
• Lack of Fair Review – The court failed to give the complaint the liberal reading required by law and substituted its own interpretation of the facts.
• Statute of Limitations Misapplied – The court started the clock before residents knew a decision had even been made.

Town Board Acknowledges Mishandling of Cannabis Decision

• At the October 22, 2023 Meeting, the resident who discovered what the Town Board had done requested that a public hearing should be scheduled to give residents an opportunity to voice their concerns.
• The Town Board held a Public Hearing on December 9, 2023.  Here are the responses taken from the actual minutes for the Town Board members:
  • Councilperson Paschkes apologized, stating that “the Town Board dropped the ball on the cannabis issue and that there should have been a public hearing and a referendum.” He emphasized that there was no conspiracy, as some speakers asserted or implied. Stating that residents’ concerns were valid, he said that the board should make every effort to find a way to revisit the decision regarding cannabis. 
  • Councilperson Briggs thanked residents for participating in the public hearing. She echoed Councilperson Paschkes’s remarks, as well as Mr. Peyton’s statement regarding the importance of cooperation. She also reiterated that there was no conspiracy. She expressed hope that there could be more listening, learning, and working together in the future. She also encouraged residents who would like to talk further to reach out.
  • Councilperson Boak apologized to the residents of Pound Ridge for not having realized that the cannabis issue was so controversial and divisive. She said that she is committed to exploring the possibility for a look-back and a referendum.
  • Councilperson Brand said she echoed other board members’ view that the board was remiss. She said that the board’s handling of the cannabis issue was her greatest regret in her time on the board.
  • The only Town Board member who did not apologize to the residents was Supervisor Hansan.

Why it Matters

When decisions of this magnitude are made without public input or notice, it undermines community trust and sets a dangerous precedent for closed-door governance. 

Residents’ right to decide was taken away by the Town Board. The fairest and inclusive approach would have been to place the issue on a referendum, allowing all residents to have a voice through a public vote.

Solution

• Commit to True Open Meetings Compliance – Ensure all discussions and decisions by a quorum are conducted publicly and documented in meeting minutes.
• Advance Public Notice – Post all significant agenda items and deadlines well in advance on the Town’s website and distribute through multiple communication channels.
• Transparent Decision-Making – For major policy decisions, hold dedicated public forums before any votes or consensus are reached.
• Accountability in Recordkeeping – Accurately record and publish all deliberations, votes, and outcomes in compliance with the OML.

• The Comprehensive Plan Update was initiated in 2019 but remains incomplete.
• The Town Board has not prioritized its completion or allocated funds to hire a land planning consultant to complete the process.
• The Comprehensive Plan is a critical foundational document for town planning and development that guides vital decisions on land use, infrastructure, housing, environmental protection, and long-term growth.

Proposed Solution: Complete and Activate the Comprehensive Plan Update

To address the stalled progress on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Update, we propose a Comprehensive Planning Relaunch Initiative to complete the plan with transparency, community input, and a clear timeline.

1. Immediately Allocate Funding to Restart the Process

• Commit dedicated funding in the next budget cycle to hire an experienced planning consultant to complete the Comprehensive Plan Update.
• Use a competitive selection process to ensure the consultant has experience with community-driven planning in semi-rural towns like Pound Ridge.

2. Establish a Public Timeline and Process

• Publish a clear timeline with major milestones for community engagement, draft reviews, and final adoption.
• Create a project page on the town website with updates, documents, and opportunities for public feedback.

3. Engage Residents in a Transparent and Inclusive Process

• Host town-wide workshops and small-group forums to gather input on key planning issues such as land use, infrastructure, housing, and environmental protection.
• Ensure that the process is inclusive, with outreach to underrepresented voices, newer residents, and local business owners.

4. Align the Plan with Today’s Needs and Future Goals

• Update the plan to address current and emerging issues, including climate resilience, housing variety, and business district revitalization.
• Incorporate modern planning tools such as sustainability benchmarks, walkability assessments, and smart growth principles.

5. Make the Comprehensive Plan a Living Document after Adoption

• Include a framework for annual reviews and mid-term updates to ensure the plan remains relevant and actionable with an appointed committee.
• Require that all major development, zoning, and capital investment decisions reference the Comprehensive Plan moving forward.