County Exec vetoes cuts to spectator feesJune 3, 2011 -- A plan by the Democratic-controlled Board of Legislators that will increase the current operating deficit at Playland by as much as another $1 million by cutting the "spectator" fees for county residents and non-residents was vetoed Friday by County Executive Robert P. Astorino.     

 "The Democrats' proposal is irresponsible from both a financial and logistical standpoint," Astorino said. "Playland already runs an annual deficit of $4 million to $5 million. This plan by the legislators would cut anticipated revenue by about $1 million, which taxpayers will have to make up."

In 2009, former County Executive Andrew J. Spano first initiated a spectator fee of $3 for county residents and $5 for non-residents. This fee is charged to patrons who don't buy an unlimited ride ticket when they come into the amusement park. The boardwalk, seaside walk and Edith G. Read Wildlife Sanctuary are still open and free to the public.

As part of the 2011 budget – approved by the legislators last December – the spectator fee was set at $5 for residents and $10 for non-residents.

On May 23, the legislators adopted a new plan: no spectator fees for residents and a $5 fee for non-residents. It is this bill that Astorino has vetoed.

"The fees were approved by the Democrats during the budget process," said Astorino. "To change them after the amusement park has opened without any regard to the consequences is reckless. One result is an additional subsidy for non-residents that will have to be paid for by county taxpayers."

Astorino strongly disputed the notion that reduced spectator fees would be offset by more visitors to the amusement park. According to the analysis by the county's Parks Department, the county receives an average of only 96 cents in additional revenue in ride fees from patrons who enter the park with spectator passes. The county would need more than 1 million additional visitors to offset the revenue loss and additional expenses associated with increased attendance, such as security, personnel and supplies.

"That's asking the impossible," he said. "In a very good year, the park may get 1 million visitors total."

Astorino said the Democratic-controlled legislature had failed to do any marketing or financial analysis to justify going against the recommendations of the Parks Department and the Budget Department.

"Even Board of Legislators Chairman Ken Jenkins' analysis shows a significant revenue shortfall," said Astorino. "Although he thinks it would be 'only' about $650,000, this is not acceptable to our taxpayers."

Other complications would include renegotiating vendor contracts and paying refunds to patrons who have already paid for passes.

The $5/$10 fee structure will remain in place until the legislative process has played out (whether the veto is sustained or overridden). Westchester residents may buy an unlimited ride ticket for $25 and non-residents for $30.

The veto comes as the process to determine the long-term future of Playland continues.

In March, the county received proposals from 12 groups interested in "reinventing Playland for the 21st century." The feasibility of each proposal is currently being evaluated by a 19-member citizens committee appointed by the county executive.

The hope is that the county executive will have enough information to set a direction for moving forward, or not, on the RFP's by the end of November. The implementation phase, which would include contract negotiations and obtaining all the necessary legal, financial, environmental, local and other approvals, would follow, assuming a decision had been made to move forward on a proposal or combination of proposals. It's estimated that the implementation phase would take several years to complete.

Westchester County currently owns and operates Playland – one of only a handful of governmental bodies to be in the amusement park business. With attendance steadily dropping over the past five years – from 1 million in 2005 to 494,000 in 2010 – ownership of the amusement park has translated into greater losses and more taxpayer subsidies.