By CRAIG FREILICH

POTSDAM -- Village Trustee and businessman Stephen Warr says dissolution of village government is the way to attract more new business development to Potsdam.

“I want to get the message out there that dissolving the village level of government is not a deterrent to the future,” Warr said. He believes it would be just the opposite.

And he believes dissolution could also provide a way out of costly village contracts that allow police officers to receive health and retirement benefits for the rest of their lives after working just 20 years, an expense many view as financially unsustainable.

“I ran on a platform of dissolution. The main reason is that the lack of cooperation between the town and village boards is inhibiting economic development in the area. I have no proof of it, except the proof is in the lack of it.

“What is this area going to offer my children and grandchildren?” Warr asked. “As it stands now, nothing. Young people are leaving the North Country to find jobs.

“Can we try something different that might have a better chance of success? Eliminate the village, and the town will make decisions not just for the village hub and all their services, but for all 15,000 people in the town. Or we can continue to clash and get nowhere.”

Warr is co-owner of Potsdam electric equipment supplier Van Ness Co., and of CJS Enterprises. He graduated from Clarkson University after an All-American performance as a Golden Knight hockey defenseman.

Lowe’s, Walmart, Apartment Disputes

With a businessman’s eye, he points to the issues surrounding the efforts of Walmart to get a store opened in Potsdam, the Lowe’s development, the effort by a local businessman to get help with an office building just outside the village, and the more recent case of proposed developments of apartment complexes here.

There has been much wrangling between the town and village over supplying village water and sewer services to businesses outside the village. The village’s firm stance has been that those services, built and maintained with village taxpayer money, are for people and businesses inside the village line, and if a business outside the village wants them, they should allow annexation of their sites into the village, and pay village taxes.

Some of those businesses have said outright they don’t want to pay village taxes, but are willing to pay the entire cost of bringing those services to their sites, and then some. The town government has generally supported their efforts.

Warr sees those examples and other chances at development we may never know about as missed opportunities.

Beyond the increase in the tax base those businesses represent, Warr says that the water and sewer works need fixing, “and all that could have been taken care of by accepting Walmart’s offer” to pay much more than the expense of running the plumbing to their store.

“Has the village sat down to discuss shared services? No. Have they sat down to discuss water and sewer without suing somebody? No.

“Hotels, housing development – we can’t get cooperation between the two local governments, so we should get rid of one.

“When I was elected, I had no experience. All I had was frustration reading the paper and seeing the lack of cooperation.

“In the two years since then, nothing has convinced me that we’re going in the right direction.

“We can’t just raise taxes -- 72 percent of the property in the village is tax-exempt. That leaves 28 percent of property owners to pay for it all.

“What we have to do is increase the tax base. We have to attract people here,” he said. “We have cheap land, power and water, but that’s not enough. Economic development of the area is being stifled.”

Police Department Concerns

As for the question of what level of policing and ordinance enforcement will remain if the village dissolves, Warr says, “whether we dissolve or not, the level of services is not guaranteed given the economy we’re in.”

“Saying the police will be curtailed is a fear tactic. In reality, police respond to calls based on priority. Any calls that involve peril would get priority. An accident, a mob, some injury – those are far more important than a cat up a tree or a radio too loud, and that’s not going to change whether we dissolve the village or not. I don’t feel police protection will be jeopardized by dissolution. People want it. No one has indicated that will change.”

Some would disagree that noise complaints, rowdy behavior and vandalism, often by college students, are a trivial matter.

Former village administrator and trustee Bob Burns described his Main Street neighborhood as a “war zone” at a public hearing on dissolution in September. He said items have been thrown through his living room window, a trellis he built on the side of his house was destroyed the next day and his front steps were pulled out a big distance from the front door. That’s in addition to hundreds of students, some inebriated, parading in front of his house late at night most weekends, he noted.

From Sept. 1 to 19, police responded to more than 30 complaints of loud music and noise, primarily in neighborhoods with lots of student housing far from Warr’s home on north Leroy Street.

Warr says he would favor a police district to maintain the department’s coverage of the current village including the downtown core, or pay the Sheriff’s Department to take over police functions.

“I don’t think we need a town-wide police force,” he said.

“If the voice of the electorate is for a police district, my obligation as a trustee is to help police within the district.” Warr said that, in that case, he would be against the police going outside the district. “Travel outside the district would be eliminated” to assure the police force was concentrated in the district.

Another option he might favor would be to “have the sheriff as the head of it.” Sheriff’s Department would be paid to patrol the Village of Potsdam. “I think it should be the district or that.”

However, the Dissolution Study Committee report says a district is “technically feasible but politically unrealistic” since state approval is required. The report also says a police district covering what is now the village “would make the former Village tax rate higher than before dissolution.”

But Warr is clear he’s not happy with the way the Police Department benefits are structured.

“It’s not about the current police force. But the after-employment benefits are out of control. That’s not the fault of any police or retirees.”

He’s concerned about the cost of health care continuing its remarkable rise, and the benefit retired police get of not only coverage for themselves when they retire, but also “spousal health care for life. Can we afford expensive retirees? We fear we won’t be able to.

“Now, in some places there is more wear and tear on police officers. But here, they should be able to work until they’re 55 or 60, a normal working life. That makes it more affordable. Not everybody gets to retire when they’re 40.”

One thing Warr would like to see on dissolution of the village is dissolving the current contracts with police and other workers. “We can start over, and negotiate contracts that are relevant to today’s circumstances.”

“The question is not about police or DPW (Department of Public Works) or village water. The question is the level of services borne by the taxpayer. What can we afford? At some point if the answer isn’t raising taxes, then it’s cutting services.”

“There is nothing in the dissolution process that has targeted jobs. The only jobs we’ve talked about eliminating are board jobs.

“And there’s nothing to indicate that the look of the village will change. Do people think the town board would be blind to this question? They are not blind to the needs of the area. The town board cares. They know we won’t attract new business if it looks like a dump.”

He says he would want to see the airport kept operating.

Keep Airport

“The airport is a no-brainer. We get so much help from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and it brings so much business and traffic.”

“I would advocate a town administrator,” to run the day-to-day operations the town would assume.

He would be in favor of keeping the community development office “if they can prove they’re viable, sure. If we eliminate restrictions on water and sewer, they will show they can attract business.”

But he does not see radical change in Potsdam’s landscape if dissolution is approved voters on Nov. 8 and implemented.

“The day after this dissolution, there won’t be a person in the village or the town who will notice any difference. We’ll have 13 months to work it out and in the meantime everybody goes to work.

“I foresee a future that’s brighter because more options will be available to us. Things will change for the better, because we’ll have one unified goal moving forward.

“But if the people in the village who are paying want to keep paying the freight, if they like the lack of progress, vote against. If you see a light at the end of the tunnel, and a chance for change, vote for dissolution.”