New York Assembly Bill A05900

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/24/25
• Refer: 2/24/25
• Report Pass: 6/12/25
• Refer: 6/12/25
• Report Pass: 6/13/25

Caption

Authorizes the county of Suffolk to alienate certain lands used as parklands and to dedicate certain other lands as parklands.

Summary

This bill authorizes Suffolk County to discontinue and alienate a small parcel of county parkland in Smithtown, approximately 0.232 acres, and convey it to Russel and Deana Galindo for residential improvements. In exchange, the county must acquire and dedicate as parkland another nearby parcel of approximately 0.237 acres, provided that the replacement land has not previously been used for public open space or park purposes. The bill also requires that if the replacement parcel is worth less than the parkland being alienated, Suffolk County must make up the difference by dedicating additional land for parkland and/or funding capital improvements to existing parks and recreational facilities. It further conditions the transfer on compliance with any federal requirements if federal funds were ever used for the original parkland, including any approval needed from the U.S. Department of the Interior. The act would take effect immediately.

Impact

The bill would amend the legal status of specific county-owned parkland in Suffolk County by allowing its conversion to non-park use and requiring replacement parkland of at least equal value and usefulness. It affects local parkland protections and the county’s authority over land disposition, while preserving the public trust doctrine safeguards by conditioning alienation on replacement land and, if necessary, additional compensation through park improvements or additional parkland acquisition. The measure is narrowly tailored to two identified parcels in Smithtown and does not broadly change statewide parkland law, but it operates within New York’s parkland alienation framework.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It advanced out of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee by a 27-7 vote and then passed the Assembly Rules Committee unanimously, 29-0. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public or member concerns, but the strong committee support suggests the proposal was viewed as a routine local land transaction with replacement parkland safeguards.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the conversion of existing parkland to private residential use, which can raise concerns about loss of public open space and precedent for parkland alienation. Any opposition would likely focus on whether the replacement parcel is truly equivalent in fair market value and usefulness, and whether the county is adequately compensating the public for the loss of parkland. Another possible issue is compliance with federal parkland conversion requirements if federal assistance was involved in the original acquisition or improvement of the land. Supporters, by contrast, appear to rely on the bill’s replacement-land and value-equalization provisions to mitigate those concerns.