Last year, Resolution 451 failed to gain the support needed to pass the full legislature in December. This year, the newly-constituted Housing and Transportation Committee moved quickly to advance a new version – Resolution 5 – out of committee and toward a vote by the full legislature on February 17th.
The meeting was tightly managed by its new chairperson, Debra Clinton (District No. 16 – Towns of Gardiner, Plattekill), who clarified at the beginning of the meeting that public discussion is at the chair’s discretion. After introducing Resolution 5, Chair Clinton recognized Legislator Jason J. Kovacs (District No. 3 – Towns of Kingston, Ulster, Saugerties). Legislator Kovacs, who was a member of the Ulster & Delaware Corridor committee that weighed recommendations for the Undesignated Section of the corridor in 2024-2025 and who has supported CMRR’s Basin Road expansion plan, posed a series of questions about the resolution, to which Planning Director Dennis Doyle responded as follows:
Q1: Is there a written agreement with DEP to review prior to approving Resolution 5?
Answer: No, this resolution provides the direction and guidance needed for DEP and the County to draft a formal Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA). It has been common practice for resolutions like this to precede development of a formal IMA, to allow Legislators to ask clarifying questions and raise any concerns or issues.
Q2: What prevents DEP from removing the current trestle and then failing to pay for the cost of its replacement?
Answer: The IMA will formalize DEP’s commitment to pay for all costs related to replacement.
Q3: Would the IMA be subject to a future resolution to authorize its approval by the Legislature?
Answer: Yes, the final IMA will require a subsequent resolution for legislative approval.
Q4: Does the County have control of the land required to replace the bridge?
Answer: Director Doyle said he believes that the County does have control of any lands that would be involved in the bridge replacement. However, he explained that if additional land is required, that is not a major issue. It is common for projects like this to require incidental site acquisition, either temporarily for construction, or permanently for the engineering to support the bridge. This process involves negotiating with property owners, and, if necessary, using eminent domain to acquire small pieces of land.
Q5: Would DEP pay for any necessary land acquisition and any costs related to eminent domain?
Answer: Yes, by definition these costs are part of the cost of replacement, and DEP has agreed to pay the cost of replacement.
Q6: What happens if DEP begins the project and starts to incur costs but never finishes the project? Would the County be required to repay those costs?
Answer: The IMA will require both parties to comply with the terms of their agreement, including completion of the bridge replacement.
Following these questions, Legislator Kathy Nolan was recognized by the Chair and offered a clarifying comment. She stated that she has spoken with representatives from several organizations, including County DPW, the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency, and local fire departments, all of whom have expressed a desire to see the trestle removed and replaced with a bridge that meets minimum height standards. They are currently required to detour around Basin Road, which adds travel time and cost, and in some instances delays response to emergency calls.
After the discussion, the resolution was advanced by a vote of six to one, with Legislator Kovacs voting against and all other members in favor. Legislator Kovacs noted that he does not oppose the project, but feels the process is insufficient and lacks clarity on the questions he has posed.
The resolution will be added to the agenda for the next regular session of the Ulster County Legislature, which is scheduled for 7pm on Tuesday, February 17th.
