New York Assembly Bill A10161

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/26
• Refer: 2/12/26

Caption

Authorizes the county of Chautauqua to alienate and discontinue the use of certain reforested lands

Summary

This bill authorizes Chautauqua County to discontinue the use of three county-owned parcels that were originally acquired for reforestation purposes, totaling about 41.468 acres, and to use those lands for the purpose of acquiring and dedicating other reforested lands or parklands adjacent to existing parkland. The bill states that the parcels to be discontinued are vacant and are not currently used by the public for recreation or reforestation. The authorization is conditioned on the county first acquiring substitute land in the Town of Arkwright, described in the bill, that is also vacant and not currently used for recreation, parkland, or reforestation. The bill also requires that the county dedicate an amount equal to or greater than the fair market value of the lands being discontinued toward the acquisition of new parklands and/or other reforested lands. If the discontinued property is ever used for a purpose other than the one authorized, it must be restored to its original state and maintained as reforested land under County Law section 219. The measure takes effect immediately. In practical terms, the bill would amend the county’s authority under state law to allow a swap of reforested land for other land, rather than a net loss of protected acreage. It affects Chautauqua County’s management of county parkland and reforestation holdings and sets conditions intended to preserve the overall public and environmental value of the land base. The available record shows no committee transcript, no recorded votes, and the bill is listed as in Assembly Committee, so there is no documented floor debate or formal vote sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears administrative and land-management oriented, with an emphasis on replacement acreage and maintaining reforestation value rather than converting public land for unrelated development. The main point of potential contention is the alienation of land originally acquired for reforestation, since such actions can raise concerns about loss of conservation land, precedent for future conversions, and whether substitute parcels truly provide equivalent public or environmental benefit. Support would likely come from local officials seeking flexibility to reorganize land holdings, while opposition, if any, would likely focus on preservation of county reforestation lands and the adequacy of the replacement property and fair-market-value condition.

Impact

The bill would create a specific exception to County Law section 219 for Chautauqua County, allowing the county to discontinue use of identified reforested lands and replace them with other lands dedicated to reforestation and/or parkland. It would also impose a restoration requirement if the discontinued parcels are later used for an unauthorized purpose. The measure directly affects county land-use authority, parkland/reforestation administration, and the status of the listed parcels in the Towns of Ellery and Ripley, while conditioning the change on acquisition of substitute acreage in the Town of Arkwright.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so formal sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. The bill’s structure suggests a generally pragmatic, local-government-friendly approach: it preserves the overall reforestation/parkland balance through a land swap and fair-market-value replacement requirement. Absent contrary evidence, the available context points to a neutral-to-supportive posture focused on administrative flexibility rather than controversy.

Contention

The likely contention centers on whether county-owned reforested land should be alienated at all, even for replacement land, because conservation advocates may view any conversion as a reduction in protected status or a precedent for future land swaps. Another possible issue is whether the substitute parcel in Arkwright is truly comparable in value and utility to the lands being discontinued, since the bill relies on fair market value and acreage replacement rather than identical ecological characteristics. Local officials and land managers would likely support the bill for its flexibility, while preservation-minded stakeholders could question the necessity and long-term environmental impact.