Can a New York county transfer jurisdiction of a bridge back to the town where it sits?

Subject

Reversion of bridge from county to town

Plain-English summary

Clinton County had absorbed a long-span town bridge into county responsibility back in the 1940s, then later closed and barricaded the bridge without formally abandoning it. The county attorney asked whether the county could simply hand it back to the Town of Mooers.

The Attorney General walked through a wrinkle: although the county had been treating the bridge as a county responsibility, the bridge did not actually appear on the county road system map that Highway Law § 115 requires. So technically, the bridge was not legally part of the county road system, and the county could not "revert" it through the usual statutory route until it first put it on the map.

The AG concluded that the county could amend its road system map to add the bridge under Highway Law § 115, and once the bridge was officially on the county system, the county could then transfer it back to the town under Highway Law §§ 115-b and 115-c. That transfer route requires a written agreement with the town's governing body, or, if no agreement can be reached, the approval of the State Commissioner of Transportation. The county must also notify the town clerk and town supervisors at least 30 days before the reversion takes effect.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why did the county need to add the bridge to its road map before giving it back?

Because the AG read Highway Law as treating the bridge as not legally part of the county system if it did not appear on the official county road system map prepared under § 115. The statutory reversion mechanism in § 115-b only operates on roads that are on the county system, so until the map was amended to include the bridge, there was nothing for § 115-b to revert.

Could the county have simply abandoned the bridge instead?

Abandonment is a separate route under Highway Law § 234, and the county had not used it. The AG noted only that the bridge had been closed and barricaded but not abandoned under § 234. That choice mattered because abandonment severs the public character of the road; reversion under § 115-b keeps the bridge as a town road.

What if the town refused to accept the bridge back?

Highway Law § 115-b contemplates that situation by allowing the county board to act with the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation if no written agreement with the town can be reached. The AG did not separately address the political reality that the town might be unhappy to inherit maintenance of an old bridge the county had let deteriorate.

Who actually triggered amending the county road map?

Under § 115, the amendment originates with the county superintendent, requires approval by the board of supervisors and by the Commissioner of Transportation, and then must be filed with both the county clerk and the county superintendent. So three offices have to sign off before the map change is effective.

Background and statutory framework

Highway Law § 115 is the source of authority for maintaining the official county road system map, and it spells out the amendment procedure: the county superintendent of highways drafts the change, the board of supervisors and the Commissioner of Transportation approve it, and it gets filed at the county clerk's office and the county superintendent's office.

Highway Law § 130 contains the rule that any bridge sitting on a county road is treated as part of that road. That is what allowed the AG to conclude that putting the bridge on the map would, by operation of § 130, make it a county road feature for purposes of the reversion procedure.

Section 115-b is the reversion mechanism. It lets the county board of supervisors, on the recommendation of the county highway superintendent and pursuant to a written agreement with the town (village, or city) where the road sits, remove a road or part of a road from the county system. The road then reverts to the town. Section 115-c requires 30 days' advance notice to the town clerk and supervisors.

Section 234 is the abandonment route, which is the alternative to reversion when the goal is to extinguish the road entirely rather than transfer it to another government.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_95-1_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

HIGHWAY LAW §§ 115, 115-b, 115-c, 130, 234.
A county may provide for the reversion of a bridge, which is
part of the county road system, to a town in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Highway Law §§ 115-b and 115-c.

January 24, 1995

Louis E. Wolfe, Esq.
County Attorney
County of Clinton
10 Healy Avenue
Plattsburgh, NY 12401

Informal Opinion
No. 95-1

Dear Mr. Wolfe:
You advise that several years ago Clinton County (the
"County") took over from the Town of Mooers (the "Town") a bridge
having a span greater than twenty-five feet. The bridge is
located on a Town road. You inquire whether the County may
transfer jurisdiction of the bridge back to the Town, and, if so,
by what mechanism.
In a telephone conversation, your county superintendent of
highways has advised the County obtained jurisdiction of the
bridge by a resolution the County adopted in the 1940s, whereby
the County agreed to maintain and repair all town bridges within
the County. He advises that the County has closed and barricaded
the bridge, but has not abandoned the bridge pursuant to the
provisions of Highway Law § 234 (hereafter "HL"; see, generally,
1986 Op Atty Gen [Inf] 135). He advises further that the bridge
does not appear on the County's map of the county road system,
prepared pursuant to the provisions of HL § 115.
Because the bridge does not appear on the county road system
map, the bridge is not a part of the county road system.
However, we have not identified any provision of law which
prohibits the County from amending the county road system map to
include the bridge. Highway Law § 115 provides for such an
amendment as follows:
"Amendments to such map may from time to time
be made by such county superintendent and if
approved by such board of supervisors and the
commissioner of transportation shall be filed
in the office of the county clerk and county
superintendent."
Were the County to amend the county road system map to
include the bridge, the provisions of HL §§ 130, 115-b and 115-c

2
would apply. Highway Law § 130 provides that any bridge located
on a county road system shall be deemed a part of the road on
which it is located. Pursuant to HL § 115-b, the board of
supervisors of a county may, by resolution, remove a road or part
of a road from the county road system. Highway Law § 115-b
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Upon the recommendation of the county
superintendent of highways and pursuant to a
written agreement with the governing body of
a town, village or city, or in the event such
an agreement cannot be reached with the
approval of the commissioner of
transportation, the board of supervisors of
any county may remove a road or part of a
road from the county road system and upon
adoption of the resolution therefor by the
board the county map, referred to in section
one hundred fifteen of this chapter, shall be
amended as provided for in said section so as
to eliminate said road or part of said road
from said map and said road or part of said
road shall thereupon revert to the town or
towns or village or city or cities wherein
said road or part of said road is situated
. . .."
Per HL § 115-c, thirty days before the reverter is effective, the
County must give notice of the reverter to the clerk and
supervisors of the town.
We conclude, therefore, that assuming that the County amends
the county road system map to include the bridge, the County may
provide thereafter for the reversion of the bridge to the Town
pursuant to the provisions of Highway Law §§ 115-b and 115-c.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

MICHAEL D. MORGAN
Assistant Attorney General