Ulster County committee adopts policy to establish warming centers in southeastern and southwestern regions

The Ulster County legislative committee voted to adopt Resolution 16, establishing a county policy to pursue warming‑center facilities in both the southeastern and southwestern regions of the county.

The resolution, introduced by a sponsor at the meeting, calls for warming centers to be "established and operated in both Worsing and the southern half of Ulster County" as amended during committee debate. Legislators and county staff said the change was intended to ensure the county pursues a center near communities east of the ridge and an additional site serving the 209 corridor and nearby towns.

Supporters said the amendment responds to a real and geographically dispersed need. "She came up to me the prior month and said, 'Hey, let's work on that warming center. There's definitely a need,'" the sponsor recounted, quoting Legislator Clinton on sparking the effort.

County staff described ongoing work to identify sites and providers, noting existing interest from faith‑based partners and the availability of facilities such as the Hunt Memorial Building in Kingston. Officials said a point‑in‑time count shows most users come from Kingston (about 61 people) with smaller numbers identified from Ellenville (6–7 people) and the southern reaches of the county, a data point staff said they will refine to guide siting decisions.

Officials cautioned that state Code Blue allocations are historically distributed based on prior spending and that Ulster County receives a relatively small share of the statewide pool. A county official said operating a warming center can cost close to $1 million and that expanding to multiple sites could require substantial county spending if additional state or federal funds do not materialize.

The committee also discussed zoning obstacles: municipal zoning often limits congregate services, leaving faith‑based properties as the most practicable locations in many localities. Staff recommended continued outreach to local partners and additional work to define the regions precisely in the ordinance language.

Committee members moved and seconded the amendment and then moved to approve the resolution as amended; the committee approved both motions. Sponsors asked staff to circulate a cleaned, amended draft of the policy to committee members after the meeting.

Next steps indicated at the meeting include refining demand estimates from point‑in‑time and outreach data, continued site identification with local partners, and tracking possible reimbursement or competitive grant opportunities to reduce county cost exposure.