Donald R. Guerra, Esq. Village Attorney, Sloan
We acknowledge receipt of your letter inquiring whether there is now a timetable for filing a petition for and submitting a proposition on the question of dissolution of a village under Village Law Articles 9 (sections 9-900 through 9-916) and 19 (sections 19-900 through 19-1924). You inquire because formerly there was a timetable for this which by an amendment to the Village Law by Chapter 434 of the Laws of 1977 was either changed or repealed. Obviously, if the timetable for the procedure was repealed and not replaced by a new one it becomes questionable, at the very least, whether the dissolution procedure is available to the residents of a Village.
Chapter 434 of the Laws of 1977 amended Village Law §
The uncertainty arises because Village Law §
McKinney's "Statutes" § 252 provides that "the grammatical form of words must give way if it conflicts with the legislative intent and where such is the case words in the singular may be construed as plural and vice versa." With this precept in mind we can search for clues to the legislative intent. In examining the actual bill which was before the Legislature, Assembly Bill No. 888-A for the year 1977, we see at the foot of the bill the following note:
"Note. — Subdivision four of section
9-912 of the village law, proposed to be repealed by this act will be superseded by the amendments effected herein to subdivision one of such section."
Such a note, according to McKinney's "Statutes" § 123 subdivision c, is entitled to great weight in determining legislative intent. The intent expressed in the note accompanying the bill is that the timetable in the new subdivision 1 will control all of the questions contemplated in Village Law §
In our opinion, the timetable for conducting the referendum authorized by Village Law §
You report that a petition has been filed demanding a referendum on dissolution of the village. You state that the petition does not contain any plan for implementing the dissolution. From this we conclude that there is no other objection to the form and content of the petition and that it has been signed by at least one-third of the village electors, as required by Village Law §
Village Law, §
Somewhat similar provisions were contained in the former Village Law § 350 subd 4, as amended by Chapter 620 of the Laws of 1933, which were interpreted in Gebhardt v Wilcox,
The present Village Law does not contain a provision that the petition will contain the plan. The change from two separate propositions, voted upon at separate times, under the old law, to a single proposition under the new law, is not enough, in and of itself, to transfer from the board of trustees to the petitioners the burden of devising the plan. The expertise in village affairs generally lies with the village officers and employees, not the citizenry. It would be inappropriate, and we do not believe it was the intent of the Legislature, to require the petition to contain the plan. If the Legislature had intended this it would have said so. The people are given the right to demand a vote on their future status. This is not coupled with any duty to devise the method of change. Devising the method is a legislative function to be exercised by the village board of trustees subject only to the requirement that it be submitted to the people for their approval.
In our opinion, it is not necessary that the petition for dissolution of a village submitted to the village board of trustees contain a plan for the disposition of village property, payment of obligations including the levy and collection of the necessary taxes and assessments therefor, and such other matters as may be necessary to wind up the village affairs; it is the duty of the village board of trustees to formulate the plan.