By CRAIG FREILICH

POTSDAM -- Four years after voters dismissed a proposal to dissolve village government, the idea is circulating again.

Village Trustee Steve Warr, who promoted the discussion in 2011, says he would like the idea examined again, and another village resident wants to hear more on the topic.

However, resident Aviva Gold is reluctant to become a spokesperson or a standard-bearer for dissolution of village government, “but I’m sure I’m not the only person thinking about it,” she said.

“I think people are very concerned about rising taxes and problems at the village level, the dams, for example,” and the problems with keeping the hydropower turbines in good shape and running.

“I’m not leading a drive,” said Gold, a resident of the village and a Potsdam homeowner for just a few years but who was here in 2011 when the dissolution proposal was voted on for the first time here. It was defeated by a two-to-one margin, 687 votes to 334.

“But people are getting frustrated and are worrying about the sustainability of the village over the long term. I think we should re-look at the village and town governments and look at these issues again for the opportunity to restructure government,” she said.

Trustee Warr agrees. He was a Republican who joined the Democratic Party to get on the board to talk about dissolution. He thinks that in spite of the vote, in spite of the negative spin he believes village employees tried to put on the issue, and in spite of what he considers to be the town government’s lack of participation in solving the problems put forward by the debate, progress can still be made, and must be.

“Costs are still spiraling with retirement and health costs,” he said. “We can’t be 72 percent tax exempt and be sustainable,” not with the current structure, he said. “But as long as the voters want to keep the village in the face of adversity, I’ll go along.”

He doesn’t see why there has to be a separate village government. Everything the village does could be handled just as well without a separate village government, he said.

An opportunity was missed in 2010 and 2011, Warr said, in part because the state didn’t do much of anything to help, aside from partially funding a study of the issue packed with surveys of what each entity provided and what their responsibilities were. But “they didn’t provide any solid advice,” Warr said.

And if the town representatives had been more involved, “we probably could have sat down and spent the same 13 months ironing everything out, and could have ‘sold’ the vote, or not.” There was uncertainty over what the town’s positions on services and responsibilities would be, and that “was the downfall” of the proposal, Warr said. “We never got to put our heads together to see what would be required.”

Gold said she also thought there was an opportunity in 2011 that was missed. She had hopes that even though the proposal was turned down, there was still a chance then to make some changes, “to look at all the issues from scratch” with the information in the report and good faith discussions.

“At the time I didn’t understand what the process was about. I’m a homeowner, I pay taxes, and I see some of the things that are making the village struggle,” Gold said.

She said she believes tax increases are unsustainable, “but it’s deeper than that,” she said.

She said she had hoped that some of the issues brought up during the debate four years ago would have been addressed, “but the problems have not been addressed in ways that will make a difference. I’m not seeing progress on economic development. We’re not moving in a positive direction. I don’t know that the village is addressing those issues.”

One example she gives came to her after speaking with her neighbors. People have told her they don’t want to improve their properties out of fear of having fresh assessments that will increase their taxes. So when she drives down the road she lives on “it doesn’t look like someplace I want to stop and play in the park with the kids, a place to move to, to raise a family.

“So the reasons are deeper than what would be addressed by dissolution. I’m looking for an opportunity to look at some long-standing problems.”

While she might be in favor of picking up the dissolution debate again, she doesn’t think her comments necessarily rise to the level of a news story. “I don’t think that’s a story now. I’m not circulating petitions.”

But Warr says there are still ways progress toward more efficient government can be made.

“We have a dissolution study. Let’s update it and decide by a majority of three (on the village board) to put dissolution back on the table again. But we don’t have three votes on the board. We don’t have enough village residents up in arms over the scenario. People might say they’re interested in dissolution but we don’t have anyone coming to the board with it.”

But, he said, “if we get a petition with 700 signatures on it, that’s more votes than there were against it last time.”