Sullivan County executive committee backs resolution opposing proposed Ulster County landfill after public comments

The Sullivan County Executive Committee voted to introduce an amended resolution opposing the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency proposal to site a countywide landfill less than a mile from Sullivan County’s border, following extensive public comment from residents and regional officials.

The committee’s amended resolution, which the executive committee agreed to introduce on behalf of the committee rather than listing individual sponsors, directs county leadership to formally oppose the siting as presented and to pursue dialogue with Ulster County officials. During discussion, committee members emphasized they wished Ulster County had consulted Sullivan County before publicizing the site.

The resolution came amid more than an hour of public comment that included residents and experts who warned of risks to waterways, wildlife habitat and local farms. “This would contribute all the way down to the Delaware,” said a local resident who identified herself as having a background in environmental policy and who described vernal springs and sensitive ecological communities near the mapped site. Another commenter, Rebecca Kreshkoff, urged the committee to prioritize waste prevention and the international zero‑waste hierarchy over landfilling and to treat landfills as a last resort. Kevin Roberts, who identified himself as the Ulster County minority leader, told the committee, “I urge you to vote positive on this resolution,” and said Ulster County’s siting is close enough to Sullivan’s border to justify Sullivan’s action.

Star Hesse, a member of the Senior Legislative Action Committee, cited alternatives such as expanded composting and other services used elsewhere and urged the county to evaluate non‑incineration waste‑management models before endorsing regional landfill plans.

Committee members debated process and outreach: some legislators said they wanted Ulster County to call Sullivan officials before advancing siting work; others said issuing a formal resolution was the county’s appropriate way to register concern and that the resolution would be included in Ulster County’s review materials and therefore is timely. A committee member noted residents from neighboring Ulster towns had already reached out in opposition and that local boards in Ellenville and Wawarsing had passed similar measures. The committee agreed to pursue direct conversations with Ulster County officials, including the Ulster County Legislature and the resource recovery agency.

The committee amended the resolution to list the introduction as coming from the executive committee and then held a voice vote on the amended motion. The meeting record shows the amendment was approved and the amended resolution carried; the transcript records aye and opposed responses during the vote but does not list a roll‑call tally in the minutes provided to the meeting. The resolution text as amended and a copy of committee action will be transmitted to Ulster County bodies and the resource recovery agency, committee members said.

The opposition resolution was item 7 on the committee agenda; it followed a sequence of public commenters who asked the county to weigh ecological and community impacts and to investigate alternatives including composting, material‑reduction strategies and regional shared services. Committee members and commenters repeatedly said that landfills should be a last resort and that the county should focus on waste‑reduction measures and regional coordination.

No county funding was approved or requested as part of the resolution; committee members said the county will seek further conversation with Ulster County officials and that public input will continue to inform the county’s next steps.