Legislative Update:Support for S. 3309-A (Wright)/ A. 8158-A (Aubertine)
Legislative Update:Support for S. 3309-A (Wright)/ A. 8158-A (Aubertine)
The New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways, Inc. (NYSAOTSOH) was made aware of two competing bills in the legislature concerning the matter of Low Volume Roads. NYSAOTSOH strongly urges passage of S. 3309-A Wright/ A. 8158-A Aubertine. An explanation of this bill and a comparison to the alternate bill are provided below.
The Senate version of this bill was passed. The Assembly did not bring the bill to the floor. While contact with any member of the Assembly may be helpful, the Assembly sponsors of the measure include Aubertine, DelMonte, Destito, Scazzafava, Magee, Reilly, and Young.
This legislation defines and clarifies how low volume roads in rural towns would be classified, maintained, and, in the event it was necessary, declassified. NYSAOTSOH supports town boards and superintendents of highways being able to classify specific roads in their towns which are not highly traveled to save the expense of unnecessarily bringing these low volume and seasonal roads up to state or national standards and maintaining them in inclement weather.
These low-volume roads provide important access to forested, agricultural and recreational land which otherwise would not be available. In addition, by their very nature as minimum maintenance roads, they also serve to protect valuable open space and rural landscape important in many parts of the State. If such roads were required to be maintained to the "best engineering standards" it would encourage development patterns affecting both the rural economy as well as the rural character of vast portions of upstate New York.
While the concept of requiring "best engineering standards" on all roads may sound good, the standards set by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are simply not practical nor necessary for seasonal low volume roads, especially in small towns. According to the Cornell Local Roads program, these standards are either extremely costly to implement or assume the specific guidance of engineering personnel not present in small local highway departments.
From a financial standpoint, many towns simply could not afford to implement AASHTO standards on all town roads without substantial and unrealistic budget increases. For example, the Town of Martinsburg wrote to our Association emphasizing that their entire annual budget is $650,000. A currently threatened law suit could potentially force the town to reconstruct just one such road at a cost of $330,000 and require an additional $300,000 for the crew and equipment to maintain it.
In practice, many of these roads are public highways only by prescriptive easement through use by the public. These roads have become town highways by default, not by acceptance. Additionally the prescriptive easements are limited to the width of the road bed and often do not allow municipalities to maintain adjacent ditches or vegetation, even if the financial resources to do so were available.
Under this legislation (S. 3309-A Wright/ A. 8158-A Aubertine), various types of low volume roads are clearly defined. For example, a "recreational land access road" is defined as one that provides access to recreational land including seasonal homes, parks, and recreational lands – the volume of traffic on such roads would vary by season. A "minimum maintenance road" is defined as a whole or portion of a low volume road with on average zero to fifty vehicles traveling it per day. These roads primarily provide access to farm land or recreational land. Minimum maintenance roads would never include those roads that provide access to a farm's center of operations or to a year-round residence. The town board would make the designations of its roads as well as define how they are to be maintained based on traffic volume, types of vehicles on the roads, and current land uses. At least 45 days prior to a resolution declaring a road designation the board would refer it to the town highway superintendent and the town planning board for recommendations. At least 10 days before the public hearing regarding the designation, notification would be given to all property owners on the road. After the public hearing the town board would issue its findings: volume and type of vehicles, that property owners adjacent to the land would still have reasonable access, that users of the road traveling at reasonable speeds would not be placed in a hazardous situation by the classification, and a determination that the road does not provide access to a farm center.
Any person owning property on a road that has been designated as a minimum maintenance road could petition the town to discontinue the designation. The town board would hold a public hearing and determine whether or not it is in the public's best interest to keep the road as a minimum maintenance road. If the board denies the reclassification then a new petition could not be filed for at least two years. If the board determines that it is in the best public interest to change the classification then it may change the designation by local law. If the road is declassified as a minimum maintenance road then the change would take effect six months after the commencement of the next fiscal year or whenever the road has been improved to meet town standards but no later than three years. This legislation provides a reasonable approach to the classification and declassification of minimum maintenance roads.
Other legislation, S. 3317A Winner/ A. 3917-A Koons, has been introduced which also would provide for limited use highway designations. The main concern with this other legislation is the process and criteria for removing the limited use designation. Under this other legislation to remove the designation an owner of an operating farm center, residence approved for year-round occupancy or a commercial building would simply have to file a petition with the town clerk to change the classification of the road. The town board would then determine whether there was sufficient money in the current budget to provide for the discontinuance of the limited use highway and if so must grant the petition and adopt a local law to discontinue the classification. In the event that there is not enough money the petition may be denied for the current fiscal year but must be included in the preliminary budget for the following year. If the town board determines that the declassification of the road will substantially disrupt the town and be a detriment to public interest it could delay the discontinuance but by no more than three fiscal years.
Under S. 3317A Winner/ A. 3917-A Koons the town board does not have the authority in an appropriate case to simply deny the petition but rather must discontinue the classification even in those cases where a property owner built with full knowledge that the road was a minimum maintenance road. This is both an unfair and unnecessary burden on the taxpayers of the town.
Accordingly, The New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways, Inc. strongly supports S. 3309-A Wright/ A. 8158-A Aubertine as the more appropriate approach to both classification and declassification of low volume roads.