Mayor cites ‘troubling departures’ from talks
When speaking about the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail, “the size of my trust deficit only grows,” Mayor Kathleen Foley said at the Sept. 18 meeting of the Cold Spring Village Board.
The comment was part of a lengthy statement in which Foley outlined her concerns surrounding the 7.5-mile-long linear park from Cold Spring to Beacon following recent meetings with HHFT officials.
Foley, Philipstown Supervisor John Van Tassel and Nelsonville Mayor Chris Winward wrote the state parks department in April to outline their objections to having the trail start at Dockside Park, a move they said would create a tourist destination “in and of itself” and draw vehicular traffic to the village. Foley said on Wednesday that they never received a reply.
She said that an Aug. 16 letter from HHFT Chair Chris Davis and Executive Director Amy Kacala did not accurately reflect the outcome of meetings she, Van Tassel and Winward had with HHFT officials on April 20 and May 11, saying it included “troubling departures” from what had been informally agreed upon.
She said while one of HHFT’s original and primary missions was to help manage and mitigate existing conditions in Cold Spring, the Aug. 16 letter states HHFT has “no responsibility for the mitigation of the impacts on the village of existing visitation.”
Foley said Kacala has stated that the trail is expected to become, “the epicenter of tourism in the Hudson Valley.” Many Cold Spring residents believe the village already suffers from overtourism.
A discussion about having Little Stony Point serve as a terminus for the trail and a “pause point” for review of the trail’s development was replaced in the letter by “general references to the opening of the Breakneck Connector, Breakneck train station, and visitor center and parking at Dutchess Manor,” Foley said, with a trail south from Little Stony Point to Cold Spring still identified as HHFT’s preferred route.
She quoted Kacala as having said at a meeting in September that Chris Davis had misunderstood the schedule and that there would be no pause in construction.
The mayor also commented that the letter changes a 2030 timeline for construction at Breakneck and Dutchess Manor to a “nebulous and surprising 2026-27.”
In addition, she said a role for local boards in decision-making “has been watered down to the worrisome and undefined inclusion of ‘local voices and interests’ ” in the letter.
Former Philipstown Supervisor Bill Mazzuca, who had been invited to attend the May 11 meeting, wrote to Davis stating that the Aug. 16 letter included “discrepancies from what I understood to have been verbally agreed to.”
In early September, state Sen. Rob Rolison expressed concern about HHFT’s plans, as did Putnam County Executive Kevin Byrne, who wrote to the governor, state parks and HHFT advocating the inclusion of local leaders in the trail’s planning process, citing the “profound effect” a trail entrance at Dockside Park would have on local municipalities and calling for a pause so that “a more expansive review of the local impacts can be considered before proceeding.”
Foley said: “We’ve got one chance to get this development right; let’s get it right the first time. A great visitor experience for someone from Buffalo or Watertown should not come at the detriment of the quality of life in Philipstown, Nelsonville and Cold Spring.”
Trustee Aaron Freimark said he was troubled that he had not been informed of the May 11 meeting and said there is a need for greater transparency and trust in the mayor’s negotiations with HHFT.
“It’s a bit disingenuous to represent that you are unaware of what it is I’m doing,” Foley responded. “You are copied or forwarded most communications, but you have to read the emails.”
She pointed out that she negotiates on behalf of the village on other issues including with Seastreak and federal agencies.
“You have trust for me there, but where we have a difference of opinion, you don’t have trust,” Foley said. “You either trust me as a professional, or you don’t.”
Freimark and Trustee Eliza Starbuck have supported having the Fjord Trail begin at Dockside. Starbuck said she wished the village had more control over Dockside, which is owned by state parks, pointing out that the village could have acquired the property years ago but didn’t. The village manages the property as part of a contract with state parks; either party can terminate the agreement at any time.
Having HHFT start at Dockside wouldn’t be “the end of the world,” Starbuck said, emphasizing that stormwater is the biggest threat facing the village. “We can survive a park, but if we get storms that happen the same way they did last year, I don’t know the village will survive that.”
Trustee Laura Bozzi said she still has questions regarding how the trail will impact village police, emergency services and budget. “Those are practical, legitimate questions for us to be dealing with as a village government,” she said. “I can’t form a full conclusion without those answers.” She said she favors the trail going north from Breakneck to Beacon first.
“We don’t have a document in front of us,” Trustee Tweeps Phillips Woods commented. “I’d like to see what landscape architects have to say, what engineers, DEC [the Department of Environmental Conservation] and the Army Corps of Engineers have to say about development along the waterfront.”
More than a dozen residents spoke at the meeting, expressing disparate views. Some favored Dockside Park as the terminus; others advocated starting at Little Stony Point with feeder paths from the village. The trail was described by some as an asset for villagers and by others as harmful to the quality of life.
“It’s clear the mayor, trustees and village residents all have diverse opinions on the project,” MJ Martin, HHFT’s deputy executive director, said on Sept. 19 in an email to The Current. “I wish HHFT, which had several representatives present, was afforded the opportunity to clarify the information shared, as some statements contained factual errors.”
Martin said HHFT has offered to pause for analysis after Phase 1 is complete before deciding on whether to move forward on a connection to Dockside.
During the public comment period, Rebeca Ramirez, HHFT’s community and visitor relations manager, said the trail will be built and opened in several phases over a decade.
“That will allow us to observe the impact of the phases at Breakneck and Dutchess Manor and gather data for a year to ensure the visitation management strategies are working before we discuss with the local communities how to progress with shoreline construction,” she said.
Ramirez also offered to meet with the Village Board during a workshop to answer questions and clarify project details.
Foley said she will draft a letter to HHFT and state parks for the board’s consideration specifically requesting phasing of the project, with integrated periods of assessment and revision for each subsequent phase, with Dockside Park being the last to be considered.
In other business…
■ Officer-in-Charge Matt Jackson reported that Cold Spring police officers responded to 216 calls for service in August, including 34 traffic stops, 23 assists to other first responders and seven vehicle crashes.
■ The Cold Spring Fire Co. answered 25 calls, including eight for mutual aid, eight fire or carbon monoxide alarms and three mountain rescues.
■ The board declared three older model Cold Spring police vehicles as surplus and authorized their sale by public auction.
■ The board will hold workshops on Oct. 2 and 9 to finalize updates to Chapter 100 of the Village Code that regulate short-term rentals such as those booked through Airbnb and VRBO.
■ Accountant Michelle Ascolillo said at the board’s Sept. 25 meeting that, because of the decrease in the hourly rate from $4 to $2, parking revenue is less than planned. However, the village will receive $72,150 in filming fees from Netflix that was not anticipated.
Although I disagree with some opinions expressed at the Sept. 18 Village Board meeting, I trust the board members have the village’s best interests in mind and thank them for their hard work.
I am confused by Mayor Foley’s demand for a phased approach when the project is already phased. As Trustees Freimark and Starbuck pointed out, Dutchess Manor and the Breakneck connector are separate phases that will be built before the Shoreline Trail. The Breakneck Connector underwent a separate environmental review because it was treated as a separate phase. I’m also unclear on the distinction between a “pause” and a “postponement.”
Either way, the northern phases of the project will be built before any work is done at or near Dockside. While I already think the need for the Shoreline Trail has been demonstrated, HHFT’s postponement will provide an opportunity to explore an alternative route from the train station, which is good, but that should happen in tandem with a connection from Dockside.
If no connection from Dockside happens, that would be bad. Continued delays have a way of turning into never. I fear that delaying the Shoreline Trail from Dockside past the already postponed timeline of 2026-27 would thwart this sorely needed visitation management solution.
As a correction: The trustees did know about the Aug. 16 letter. In fact, we were addressees and received the letter directly from HHFT. Instead, my comment was about the May 11 meeting held by Mayor Foley and Supervisor Van Tassel, which had been kept secret until now. But I’ll take the advice, and ask my eye doctor for glasses that let me read emails that were never sent.
This has been corrected in the story.
Measure twice. Cut once. This is a foundational approach for construction, project management and virtually any decisions with large consequences.
Let’s make HHFT measure twice and get actual hard data during the pause period it originally offered up (as witnessed by three municipal executives and a respected former supervisor). HHFT should also include all alternatives, including the upland option presented to Philipstown in the environmental review. If it is so certain in its convictions on its preferred gateway and promenade, why is HHFT against a pause and an expanded environmental review?
HHFT is either right or wrong in its assertions regarding drawing visitors away from Cold Spring. Which is the worse outcome for our community:
1. Pausing on Dockside as the three executives (and, seemingly, the majority of each of their boards) are asking and subsequently finding out HHFT was right all along and its mitigants to draw people north are working just as it promised? Or
2. Pushing ahead with a Dockside gateway and subsequently finding out HHFT mitigants are not working and the trail has become a new attraction, exacerbating visitation impacts and causing irreversible harm to our community?
No. 1 would be a small delay in HHFT’s plans to prove its predictions/assertions with hard data and rebuild the trust deficit it has created. No. 2 is catastrophic to our community and puts us past the point of no return.
As Cold Spring Mayor Kathleen Foley stated, we only have one shot at getting this right. Get all the alternatives in the environmental review, pause on anything below Breakneck for the agreed-upon period and get actual, verifiable, undeniable data and results before proceeding.
I’d like to clarify information on HHFT’s pause on a decision to implement the full Shoreline Trail to include Dockside Park.
The “preferred alignment” in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) is the Main Trail from Dockside Park to Long Dock Park. The plan includes extending sidewalks on Fair Street to Little Stony Point. Multiple routes — an accessible Main Trail and a narrower meander — will provide more options and disperse people and reduce congestion in the Village of Cold Spring during peak days. And the trail will be a resource that locals can enjoy year-round.
“Feeder trails” alone (Fair Street and Route 9D) will not solve existing pedestrian flow and safety issues, nor will they improve accessibility. Analysis by visitation management experts shows that an additional accessible route for pedestrians and cyclists is needed for the greatest relief of existing and future conditions.
The Fjord Trail is being planned and opened in a phased approach over a decade. The project is subject to a thorough New York State environmental review process. No construction on proposed improvements can advance until that is complete. The DGEIS is conducted on the preferred route, per the master plan, but will include all evaluated alternatives, including the newly identified “west of tracks” route. The DGEIS looks at all potential impacts and includes an opportunity for public comment.
Conversations with the elected leaders from the three Philipstown communities occurred in the spring, seeking a compromise responsive to concerns about a Cold Spring entry and logistically feasible and fair to the wide range of opinions on that final half-mile. After careful consideration, HHFT sent a letter on Aug. 16 offering to pause our decision-making about the Shoreline Trail from Little Stony Point to Dockside Park until after the opening of the Breakneck Connector and the Dutchess Manor Visitor Center (anticipated in 2027). This one-year pause will allow us to gather data to review before making a final decision — together with the communities — about Dockside.
Over the past five years, the project goals have become increasingly focused on visitation management. So, we’ve expanded our consultant team to ensure that the Fjord Trail will be a best-practice example. While 64 percent of visitors to Cold Spring are not hikers, the project includes infrastructure and services to help ease the strain of impacts from both hikers and non-hikers. HHFT remains committed to collaborating with the village to address these longstanding issues.
Nationally recognized experts in ecology, architecture, engineering, transportation and visitor management, as well as the diverse opinions of community members and municipal leaders, continue to guide this project. Our goal is to improve conditions for residents and create a resource that everyone can access and be proud of.
Kacala is the executive director of Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail Inc.
The last few Philipstown and Cold Spring Village Board meetings have concerned themselves with the Hudson Highlands Fjord Trail (HHFT) but have produced mostly noise and emotion rather than constructive discussion. That’s disappointing, because the Fjord Trail has offered compromises and assistance for Cold Spring.
HHFT has proposed phased construction, an expanded consideration of routes, a postponement of the route decision and investments in Cold Spring. This is all in its letter from Aug. 16.
Are you surprised to learn that HHFT is compromising and offering assistance? No wonder. Those who don’t want the trail in Cold Spring are drowning out real conversation, instead trying to fill the space with fear and uncertainty and distrust. This does not move the conversation forward; indeed, it is intended to stop it.
As almost everyone knows by now, the trail is a New York State Parks project, not a local project, so the role our villages and Philipstown can play is extremely limited by state law. Yet we are being offered compromises and an opportunity to sit together and workshop an understanding, in a public setting.
I’m more than willing to sit with HHFT and work out the best arrangement possible for our residents. I hope my fellow board members are, as well.
Freimark is a trustee for the Village of Cold Spring.
The debate over the Fjord Trail often overlooks a key point: This project presents a unique opportunity for Cold Spring to address major problems that the village cannot solve alone. But the opportunity will be squandered if local leaders treat every proposal from HHFT with unfounded suspicion and hostility.
The state gives Cold Spring, Nelsonville and Philipstown no vote on decisions about the Fjord Trail. Whatever influence we have will come from skillful negotiation, not private and public attacks.
Cold Spring faces an infrastructure crisis that far exceeds our budget and abilities, some of it involving state lands. We cannot meet the crisis without funding and cooperation from state agencies. HHFT is a conduit to these agencies.
HHFT has helped us before. In 2023, when the village’s expansion of the Resident Parking Program was stalled in Albany, HHFT pushed it toward approval. And now HHFT is offering more help. Why do we respond with rancor?
A choice example is HHFT’s letter of Aug. 16. The mayor denounces the letter for stating: “We have no responsibility for the mitigation of the impacts on the village of existing visitation.” But that merely acknowledges a legal fact. A more fair-minded reading finds that the letter also says that, despite the lack of obligation, “We are willing to invest … in mitigation of impacts of existing visitation.”
So how much will HHFT invest in Cold Spring’s problems? It could be zero if our public meetings continue to consist of accusations to which no reply is allowed. Instead, the Board of Trustees, with all members at the table, should hold a public conversation with trail officials that builds a mutually beneficial partnership to accomplish much-needed improvements in the village.
Starbuck is a trustee for the Village of Cold Spring.
One option I heard from a resident and the mayor advocated for feeder ‘trails’ already in place: Upgrades to Route 9D and Fair Street could turn out to solve many, if not most, access to trail challenges. Naturally, the developer, as stated in above comments, is somehow threatened by that sensible idea. “Feeder trails alone (Fair Street and Route 9D) will not solve existing pedestrian flow and safety issue.” Such clairvoyance is well beyond the compass of the developer, which is why a pause and impact study must happen. That is what is meant by (additional) phasing. Should we be surprised to hear residents become emotional over the threat of unchecked visitation? I don’t believe that is reasonable to expect. It’s rather predictable and bland to hear an advocate say “but have produced mostly noise and emotion rather than constructive discussion” from a proponent. Is the pro-contingency any different?