Ulster County Legislature adopts 2026 budget after heated debate over immigrant-targeted food aid, hemp funding and transit hires

Ulster County legislators on Dec. 3 approved the county’s fiscal 2026 budget, ending hours of floor debate over a series of contested amendments that divided the chamber.

The full Legislature adopted Resolution 5‑63 as amended after a long‑roll vote that produced a 14–8 result. Lawmakers debated multiple budget amendments on the floor, including an amendment that would allocate a specified sum to food‑pantry services for immigrant residents, a $35,000 industrial hemp planning fund, and a proposal to add UCAT transit positions.

One floor amendment that drew sharp exchanges would set aside a separate allocation discussed on the floor as $50,000 but corrected in debate to $40,000, to give targeted support to residents described as immigrants who are on a path to citizenship and who may need language access and outreach. Minority Leader Roberts opposed the measure, arguing on the floor that “This amendment creates a special line for immigrants…so as other people are waiting in line, we’re creating a smaller line so the immigrants can jump in front of everybody else.” Backers, including Legislator Nolan and the amendment sponsor, said the money was intended to expand outreach, translate materials and reach populations that currently face barriers to accessing services; Legislator Harmon stated, “There is no universe in which this designated funding would lead to immigrant populations being put on lists and separated out,” and characterized the funding as protection for people who have been singled out elsewhere.

After debate the immigrant‑targeted amendment was adopted by the Legislature.

Other amendments failed. A proposed $35,000 allocation for industrial hemp research, outreach and early‑stage business support (amendment 10) was criticized by several members for lacking a concrete spending plan and was defeated on a long‑roll vote, 7–15. A separate amendment (15a) to add two bus drivers and a communications specialist to UCAT was opposed by members who said operational hiring decisions and route optimization should guide staffing; that amendment likewise failed, 7–15.

Legislators delivered a range of floor remarks before the final long roll. Critics warned about drawing on fund balance and rising long‑term spending; supporters pointed to recent revenue increases from tourism and said targeted investments — including housing and green initiatives — have advanced county priorities.

The budget vote followed a series of procedural block votes that cleared several items by voice. With the adoption of Resolution 5‑63 as amended, the Legislature also moved forward on companion capital and program measures later in the session.

What happens next: the budget was adopted by the Legislature on Dec. 3 and will be implemented by county administration; legislators who opposed specific amendments said they will continue oversight and push for clearer operational plans where needed.