Agricultural Society updates committee on fairgrounds improvements, contract and long-term planning

Representatives of the Ulster County Agricultural Society presented an update to the Public Works and Capital Projects Committee on improvements and ongoing contract negotiations for the county-owned fairgrounds.

John Fitzpatrick and Dara Kopaski told the committee the Agricultural Society has invested approximately $615,000 in fairground buildings and improvements since 2016, of which roughly $484,000 came from grants and about $131,009 came from the society’s own funds. The presenters said they are working with county staff on a licensing agreement and that the county committee had provided a “red-line” back to the society for review.

Committee members asked about the society’s contractual obligations to the county. The Agricultural Society said its regular monetary contribution under the contract is modest and estimated in the “$5,000 to $15,000 range,” and that its capital improvements are in addition to the contractual contribution. The society also told the committee it conducts annual financial audits.

County legislators and staff discussed compliance steps the county expects the society to take, including clearer standard operating procedures for accounting and handling public monies, adding AEDs, non-smoking signage, pollinator-friendly landscaping and compliance with the county’s “skip the straw” and food-waste provisions. The society said a local landscaper will donate time for pollinator plants and that they are working with a greenhouse to source appropriate plantings.

Several legislators discussed the society’s need to plan far enough ahead to book performers and events and the legal limit on county contracts. A legislator said, “by statute the county cannot enter into a contract longer than 5 years.” County counsel previously advised committee members that so-called “evergreen” or rolling contracts would be problematic; Deputy Executive Laval confirmed county counsel’s concern about arrangements that would appear to circumvent the statutory limit. Committee members proposed possible mitigations: moving contract negotiation timelines earlier in the year, exploring indemnity or event insurance to protect performers when a contract is not finalized, or having an outside economic-development entity (for example, the EDA or IDA) assume the contract if longer-term arrangements were appropriate.

The society raised, as longer-term possibilities, buying the real estate from the county or exploring sale of development rights to third-party land trusts to reduce purchase costs. Committee members said such ideas would require feasibility work, appraisals and additional approvals and are preliminary.

Members and society representatives discussed volunteer capacity and the practical challenges of expanding composting and zero-waste initiatives given limited volunteer staff. Committee members offered to help connect the society with county volunteer coordinators and possible consultant resources to support multi-year planning. The committee also reminded the society of an annual September meeting requirement to review the arrangement; several speakers said that meeting did not occur last year and urged the parties to return to an annual schedule.

No formal committee action was taken at the presentation; the discussion focused on next steps for contract negotiations, compliance with county policies, audit delivery and collaborative planning for volunteer support and sustainability initiatives.