The way that members of Pro-Brockport see it, the movement to dissolve the village is being led by a group of self-interested landlords and a handful of folks sympathetic to the landlords' goals.

To prove their point, they offer the 66 pages of a petition that a coalition of pro-dissolution activists handed in at the end of March. The village clerk has since validated the petition and the Village Board set a public vote for Tuesday, June 15, the same day as the village elections.

Norm GianCursio, who owns more than 20 rental properties in the village, witnessed 15 pages of signatures, at 10 signatures a page. Francisco and Linda Borrayo, who also own rental properties, witnessed another 17 pages between them. And another landlord, Fred Webster, witnessed three pages of signatures.

"This isn't a grassroots effort," says Carrie Maziarz, a former village trustee and member of Pro-Brockport. "This is an effort being brought forth by a business community to lobby against something that is affecting their business model. But what they seem to forget is that they're operating their businesses within our residential neighborhood."

Maziarz and other members of her group see the dissolution push as a thinly disguised effort to get rid of the village police department, as well as an attempt by landlords to get rid of zoning laws they dislike. The landlords have been trying to eliminate the police department for a decade, Maziarz says. And shortly before they began gathering signatures, a group of landlords lost a lawsuit against the village that, if successful, would have struck down a village code that requires periodic rental property inspections. Part of that code allows the village to obtain administrative search warrants so it can conduct the inspections if property owners won't cooperate.

The pro-dissolution camp - a coalition of the Brockport Tax Cutters, the Brockport Tea Party Patriots, and, yes, village landlords - characterizes its opponents as a special interest group whose membership includes current and former government officials.

They're pushing dissolution because of the village's financial situation, say two of the group's members.

"We just think that the village government isn't sustainable anymore," says Daniel Kuhn, a Brockport resident who helped organize the petition effort.

Between 2001 and 2009, village reserves shrunk from $5.5 million to $855,000. The Town of Sweden, on the other hand, saw its reserves increase from $2.2 million to $6.3 million in that same period.

"I guess I have the utmost confidence in the Town of Sweden, just looking at their numbers financially," says Rhett King, a village resident who owns a financial services business in Brockport. King also helped gather signatures for the petition.

Group members dismiss accusations that they're trying to eliminate the police and building codes.

Dissolution is meant to save village services, "including the police department," Kuhn says. It'll save money by eliminating overhead - the extra costs of a Village Hall, for example, and staff that duplicates staff at the town level, he says.

Sweden already provides many services once provided by the village, King says. Those include preparing village assessments, collecting village tax payments, and taking care of the village cemetery.

As for the landlords' role in advancing the dissolution issue: "Landlords - people who own multiple properties in the village - are more affected by ridiculous tax hikes and water hikes and everything else," Kuhn says.

Dissolving the village doesn't necessarily mean dissolving the police department or getting rid of village codes. But there is that chance.

If dissolution is approved, the village will have to draft a plan to address such issues. The town could choose to keep the police department and fund it through a special taxing district that covers the village. It could also decide to keep the police and establish a townwide force. Or it could eliminate the department entirely and let the Monroe County Sheriff's Office provide patrols.

The village codes, on the other hand, would stay in effect for two years. Ultimately, the Sweden Town Board would decide whether to scrap them or to reconcile village codes with town codes.

SIDEBAR: New law, new problems

Opponents of dissolving the Village of Brockport are worried not just about who's pushing the idea, but also about the law that allows dissolution. They're not alone: there's legislation in the State Legislature to amend the law.

The concern: the law does not require officials to compose a dissolution plan prior to the public vote on whether or not to dissolve. Dissolution opponents fear that voters will head to polls without knowing what, exactly, they're voting on.

The New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, an association of the state's villages and cities, put together legislation to fix some of the problems it sees in the law. The bill has been introduced by Senator Craig Johnson and Assembly member Michelle Schimel.

The legislation probably won't play a part in Brockport's dissolution proceedings, but it does address some of the issues raised by Pro-Brockport. Namely, there would be a mandatory public vote on dissolution plans.

Currently, residents can only force a vote by submitting a petition signed by 25 percent of a community's registered voters, a significant threshold.