Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County committee backs Leather Stocking trolley operator; village opposes $16,000 repair of older vehicle

Otsego County Intergovernmental Committee · April 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee approved recommending Leather Stocking Trolley Company as the operator under an all-in hourly rate ($69/hr) with option years; the village said it would not fund a $16,000 engine repair for the county-owned third trolley and requested proceeds from any surplus sale be reinvested into the system.

Staff presented the RFP evaluation for the county trolley contract and recommended awarding operations to Leather Stocking Trolley Company. The vendor’s proposal included an all-in hourly rate of $69 per hour (with a 3.7% annual escalation on option years), intended to cover administration, driver and routine maintenance costs so municipalities are not surprised by variable expenses.

Committee members discussed the county-owned third trolley that is in poor condition. Staff reported an initial engine-repair estimate of about $16,000; Leather Stocking suggested relying on its fleet for high-demand weekends instead of repairing the older vehicle. The village representative said the village could accept the all-in contract rate for a one-year term with extensions but opposed using village funds for the $16,000 repair; the village asked that any proceeds from auctioning a surplus vehicle be reinvested in the trolley program. The committee voted to approve moving the award forward to admin and then the full board for final approval before Memorial Day service deadlines.

Why it matters: The decision affects visitor mobility for Hall of Fame weekend and ongoing seasonal trolley service; it also raises questions about county–village cost-sharing for vehicle replacement and whether to seek DOT grant cycles to replace equipment.