Rhinebeck supervisor urges resolution asking state bridge authority for suicide-prevention netting and signage

Supervisor Chauncey, at the Aug. 25 Town of Rhinebeck board meeting, raised a proposal asking the board to pass a resolution urging the governor and the New York State Bridge Authority to fund a capital plan to install suicide-prevention netting and signage on local bridges.

The supervisor said the request grew from recent deaths at a local span: “We had 2 last week. And we know that there's a mental health crisis, that's worsening.” The supervisor added the town should push for “a capital plan to install netting, for anybody, that would catch anybody who jumped and, allow, help to arrive, to get them safely and treated.”

Why it matters: the supervisor framed the measure as a public-safety and public-health request to state authorities. The board was asked to support a request for both physical mitigations (netting) and messaging — “comprehensive signage” directing people to mental-health resources — and to coordinate with the New York State Bridge Authority and local advocates. The supervisor said an area artist and local government contacts had been involved in initial outreach.

Discussion details: the supervisor described outreach to a town supervisor in Ulster and said he had been put in contact with regional government-affairs staff and a Bridget Laurier for follow-up. The supervisor also mentioned a local artist and mental-health advocate (identified in the meeting as “Mom Magnuson”) who proposed a series of signs. No motion or vote to adopt a town resolution was recorded in the meeting minutes; the item appeared as a request for the board’s support and for staff to pursue meetings with the State Bridge Authority and regional contacts.

What was not decided: the board did not adopt a formal resolution or vote on funding during the meeting. No timeline, cost estimate, or design was provided in the public record at the Aug. 25 meeting. The supervisor said he would pursue meetings with state contacts and local advocates and asked whether board members were “in for that,” but there was no recorded motion to send a resolution to a subsequent meeting.

Next steps and context: the supervisor said he had arranged a meeting with the state bridge authority contacts and local advocates; if the board wishes to formalize the request, a resolution could be drafted for a future agenda and would need to clarify specific funding requests and installation plans. The proposal referenced the New York State Bridge Authority’s jurisdiction over several bridges; the supervisor said the board’s ask would be directed to the governor and that agency.

Ending: the request remains at the discussion stage. Board members did not record objections on the public record at this meeting; if the board chooses to pursue a formal resolution, staff indicated additional outreach and drafting will follow.