Keeseville officials are wise to initiate a study of village dissolution. In investigating whether that would be the right direction to take, they are putting the residents of their community first.
Over the years, we have seen the question of possible dissolution come up in a number of villages, some rejecting the idea in the end and others continuing through to eliminate that system of government.
With dissolution, one level of governance disappears and the town in which the village is situated takes over management of government operation and services.
The trick isn't in figuring out if the change will be good for everyone in the village and town — that is impossible — but whether it will bring substantial gains for the majority of community residents. What it is not about is whether it preserves the status quo for government officials. The fear of losing their jobs has prompted officials in some villages to become obstructionists to dissolution.
But dissolution is something that every village government should at least consider, especially as taxpayers face increasing fiscal pressures.
On Jan. 31, Keeseville will hold a public meeting to start a nine-month study of dissolution, aided by New Paltz-based Fairweather Consulting and a committee made up of six village taxpayers and the supervisors from AuSable and Chesterfield, the two towns that the village would dissolve into. All but $2,225 of the $44,898 consulting cost will be covered by a state grant.
New York state is encouraging communities to look at whether shared services would be beneficial to taxpayers, and dissolution comes under the concept of streamlining government to cut costs.
Keeseville Mayor Meegan Rock and Village Board members are smart, while state money is available, to study whether government functions could be absorbed by the towns of AuSable and Chesterfield. They are acting, possibly, at the expense of their own jobs and deserve praise for their unselfish decision.
Doing a study doesn't mean dissolution has to occur. It will just help determine whether it is feasible and how costs would be spread out. It will, ultimately, be up to residents of the village to vote on whether Keeseville remains as a governmental entity.
Sentiment often has a role in the public's feelings about dissolution. People who care deeply about the community's history might be distraught at the idea of no longer having a place on the map called Keeseville. But residents can find a way to make sure that history is permanently preserved or celebrated.
It is important that the people of Keeseville and the towns feel involved in every aspect of this decision, and it looks like public officials and Fairweather Consulting appreciate that and plan to seek input throughout the process.
Keeseville is being proactive by moving promptly on residents' calls for a dissolution study. Rock affirms that the public will hold the reins in the end.
There are no sound reasons not to proceed with this study: The citizens and officials want to know the numbers, the grant money is available, and the final decision will rest where it belongs — with the people.


