Cobleskill may have shelved its plans for dissolution, but the committee looking at the City of Cobleskill lives on.
Two weeks ago, the surviving members of the Dissolution Committee put together last fall voted to suspend their efforts “for the foreseeable future.”
As Brian Kaiser, who’s chaired the effort, told Mayor Mark Nadeau and trustees in a letter last Tuesday, the new administration’s taking some consolidation initiatives, anything more than what his group has already done would take money they don’t have, and most of its members has dropped out for political, personal, or health reasons.
However, Sandy MacKay, who chairs the City Committee, said Tuesday his group has decided they’d like to continue looking at that possibility.
“Everyone’s still interested,” Mr. MacKay said at last Tuesday’s village board meeting. “We still think it’s worth looking into.”
Mr. MacKay said the committee will continue gathering information and will go as far as they can until they decide they need outside assistance.
Trustee Mark Galasso agreed the idea is worth pursuing, “as long as it doesn’t take money to do it.”
Mayor Nadeau said when the committee does reach a point where it needs outside help, members need to report back to the village board.

• • •

In some of the village-town consolidation efforts already underway, Mayor Nadeau said he’d like the committee named to look at joining up the Codes offices to consider the idea of a suggested Business Improvement District.
“Let’s look at the next 100 years,” he said, “so we don’t get into the same argument over things like water and sewer. A village or town that isn’t growing is dying. This is food for thought…”
The committee of Mr. Galasso, Trustee Howard Burt, Councilman Ken Hotopp and Supervisor Tom Murray will meet at 7:30am Tuesday, February 15, at the village planning office.
Another committee named to look at combining the village and town courts met once, Mr. Galasso said and needs to do a lot more research before forming a conceptual plan.
Mr. Galasso pointed out both courts are “money-makers,” with revenue exceeding their costs.