Court Dissolution: A Solution in Search of a Problem Reasons to Keep Brockport Village Court
Opinion & Comments
I am a sitting judge in the Brockport Village Court and have held that privilege since its inception 11 years ago. Judge Christopher Martin and I are responsible for the judicial and administrative oversight of the Court and have always run the Court at or under budget, efficiently and effectively, respectful of the trust placed in us by the voters. That is why we were surprised when we were told our court was a financial drain on the Village.
Is Brockport Village Court a Financial Liability?
No. Looking through a purely financial lens, over its 11-year existence, the Court has returned a small profit of $778 annually to the Village. If you exclude our startup year, the Court contributed an average of $6,090 per year to the Village.
So, why is there such a difference between the Court’s actual financial performance and the picture suggested (https://brockportny.gov/wp-content/uploads/Court-Exp-Less-Rev.pdf) by the Village Board? It is not a difference of opinion, or perspective, or interpretation. The Financial picture posted by the Village Board is incorrect in several ways.
I invite anyone to start with the statement posted by the Village Board, evaluate the adjustments made below, and do the math.
- The Board did not apply any of the cost allocations from their margin notes. They did not calculate refunds against expenses, nor did they properly allocate shared expenses between the Court and the Emily Knapp Museum, which shares the building. Applying a 60:40 split reduces Court expenses by $68,959.
- They did not recognize the grants the Court received in 2017 and 2018, totaling $23,880, nor the reimbursement for interpreter services in 2024 and 2025, totaling $3,920. These total $27,800 in unrecognized revenue.
- Finally, the Board inexplicably added the $250,000 purchase price of Village Hall, even though the Court never occupied that building. It was not recorded that way on the audited 2018 financial statements. Changing it in 2025 is revisionist accounting and even worse logic. It grossly distorts the true picture of the Court’s day-to-day operating efficiency.
These adjustments to the Board’s own statement net to a $778 average annual gain.
Viability of Village Courts
The Village Board argues that village courts all over New York are closing, that Brockport has the only village court left in Monroe County, that Fairport closed in 2022, and Honeoye Falls in 2025. But just a bit more investigation would have produced the opposite conclusion: village courts are thriving all over the state.
Some facts: Fairport and Honeoye Falls village courts were much smaller than Brockport, together only 13% of Brockport’s collected revenue. They closed for reasons other than what the Board claims. The truth is that village courts are thriving all over the State. Of the 260 village courts operational in 2024, Brockport ranked 74th, with collected revenue higher than 72% of all village courts and higher than 92% of all town courts. Six of the top 10 local courts by revenue collection in New York State are village courts.
The Hasty and Flawed Process
The Board made its unfortunate decision hastily, prior to public input, and relied on a flawed process. One driver to dissolve the Court seems to be selling the current Village Hall building after moving those operations into the vacated courthouse. But no feasibility assessment was done with consideration for the new, ongoing expenses of moving to a smaller space with no available storage.
It appears the Village Board did not consider the principal reason the Court was formed 13 years ago – to ensure Brockport’s revenue from parking tickets would be collected. In fact, they made the decision to dissolve the Court without any consultation with the Town of Sweden. This is a rather important connection since dissolving Brockport’s Court more than doubles Sweden’s volume.
The Board’s decision process should also have considered the tax consequences to Sweden taxpayers of increased court costs, especially since some of those new costs would be paid by Brockport residents who also live in Sweden.
What About Service?
Perhaps the most unfortunate failing of the Board was the short shrift it gave the non-monetary benefits the Court provides. Court judges live in the village. We see and understand the neighborhood impact of our decisions.
The Court flexes hours to the community’s needs and offers a plea-by-mail option for simple traffic cases. By making it easy to settle a ticket, the Court collects fines more quickly and completely. That helps the Brockport taxpayer since most traffic tickets are written to people who do not live in Brockport.
The Court provides community outreach through school programs, mock trials, and student interns. The Court offers restorative justice, sentencing defendants to community service. The Court opens its doors to the DMV, allowing citizens to avoid the lines and wait at a crowded city DMV office.
These benefits are harder to see than a financial gain or loss, but are just as real and contribute to the quality of life in the village. If the Village Board must look through the myopic lens of an income statement, they ought to be able to see that a near $2M investment over 12 years to establish, build, and grow the Court has produced a valuable, efficient, respected Village asset that pays for itself.
The Village Board’s Decision
Despite the rushed resolution, we believe the Brockport Village Board is working to improve the Village’s financial position and avoid tax increases. Our hope is that, recognizing that there is no financial win for the Village, that there is a very real and unrecoverable loss of services to their constituents, and that there are unexplored win-win options possible for Brockport and the community, the Village Board will reconsider their decision and keep what works.
Hon. William G. Andrews Jr.
Brockport
