Sullivan County holds public hearing on proposed 25-year lease for Petaluga Road shelter

SULLIVAN COUNTY, N.Y. — The Sullivan County Legislature opened a public hearing April 24 on a proposed local law to authorize a long-term lease — up to 25 years — of county-owned property on Petaluga Road in the Town of Thompson so a nonprofit would operate a “housing service center and shelter.” The legislature did not vote on the measure at the meeting.

The proposal, presented as a local law at the legislature’s meeting in Monticello, would allow the county to enter a site-specific lease with Honor (referred to in the filing as Honor/ONRR EHG) to develop and run a shelter the county describes as a “housing gateway.” The county’s Health and Human Services office said the shelter would provide case management, meals and other services for people experiencing homelessness.

The hearing drew more than two dozen public commenters. Many neighbors near the Petaluga Road site urged the county to seek alternative locations, citing concerns about children’s safety, property values and lack of prior outreach. Supporters, including service providers and people with lived experience of homelessness, said the county needs a dedicated shelter and case management capacity rather than continuing to rely on motel placements.

The proposed local law and legal basis

County staff read a written notice stating the legislature would consider a local law to authorize a lease of county property on Petaluga Road for operation of a housing service center and shelter, and that the lease term could be “not to exceed 25 years.” The notice cited New York State County Law (section cited in the hearing as "section 215") and New York State Municipal Home Rule Law section 24; the presentation also referenced New York State Controller opinion 68-857. A county official explained that Controller guidance and Municipal Home Rule Law allow a municipality to authorize leases exceeding five years by local law, and that such a local law is subject to a permissive referendum.

Why the county says it is urgent

County officials and the Health and Human Services Commissioner said the proposal is time-sensitive because the grant funding the county is pursuing is site-specific and awarded on a first-come, first-served basis. The commissioner said the county currently shelters “over 300 people staying in hotels” and that warming centers served “up to 30 guests per night” this winter. The county’s plan described the proposed facility as serving 20 single individuals each night and providing services beyond a bed, including meals, showers and individualized case management.

Public comment: neighbors, advocates and providers

Residents living near the proposed site repeatedly raised what they described as a lack of outreach and asked the county to consider alternatives. One nearby homeowner said her development includes more than 100 families and “almost 500 children” and asked why the county was proposing a 20-bed shelter on that site rather than using a motel or another property. Another neighbor said, “This is going to be a shelter for about 20,” and questioned spending $8,000,000 on the property; a speaker referenced an $8 million figure and calculated that at 20 beds the project would cost “$400,000 a bed.” Those arithmetic and cost figures were offered by commenters and characterized as their estimates.

Other commenters urged compassion and broader action on homelessness. Kathy Kreider, who identified herself as running the Federation for the Homeless, said she has worked with people experiencing homelessness for years and urged the legislature to recognize the county’s ongoing need. A resident who said she is currently unhoused, Annette Foy, told legislators, “I’m a homeless person, and I have rights. I have human rights just like anybody else.”

Town and county officials exchanged views about process and siting. A speaker identified as a Thompson town official said the town had not been briefed and suggested studying other sites; the county chairperson and other legislators replied that the Petaluga site is county-owned land and that Liberty had previously declined the project. One legislator asked whether part of an existing jail facility could be repurposed; county staff said repurposing a correctional facility would face legal and operational barriers and may not be permitted by corrections officials.

Operator response and program details

Chris Malinelli, identified as executive director of Honor, the nonprofit operator proposed to run the shelter, addressed questions about services and security. Malinelli said Honor operates programs in Orange, Sullivan, Dutchess and Ulster counties and offers 24/7 supervision, case management, meals and “wraparound” services. He described experiences rehabbing sites, running shelters that serve families and singles, and coordinating with county agencies. Malinelli said Honor’s family units can serve larger numbers (he cited figures used at other sites) and that average stays vary: “Families are... probably 9 to 12 months. Singles are moving about 3 to 5 months.” He also said, “We would provide 24 hours supervision, case management services,” and urged the legislature to review Honor’s past work.

Legal and grant constraints discussed during the hearing

Several legislators and county staff explained that the state grant the county seeks is site-specific and time-limited; one county official said the legal team advised it would not be possible to keep the public comment period open while simultaneously filing for the site-specific grant. County staff described a common two-step process in which the legislature would pass a local law authorizing long-term leases and then, separately, approve any eventual contract. At the hearing, no formal vote on the proposed local law occurred.

Next steps and outcome at the meeting

After public comment, the legislature closed the hearing and later approved a motion to adjourn by voice vote. There was no final legislative vote on the proposed local law during the April 24 meeting; county staff and legislators indicated the item may move forward later in a separate vote to sign a contract if the legislature first authorizes the local law. County officials emphasized the grant’s time sensitivity but also acknowledged strong neighborhood objections that may warrant additional study or outreach.

Tally of viewpoints heard

Speakers in opposition focused on neighborhood impacts, children’s safety, property values and the adequacy of prior outreach. Speakers in favor emphasized the county’s need for a dedicated shelter, the limits of motel placements, and the services a staffed shelter could offer to help residents move to permanent housing.

The legislature did not make a final decision on the local law at the April 24 public hearing. If the legislature later votes to adopt the local law, the county would still need to complete any contract process and, if applicable, satisfy requirements tied to the state grant and any permissive referendum procedures.