Lake George summary:

It takes some digging in the appendix to understand the financial picture. The projected savings are relatively small.  In App. D, Scenario 2 projects a savings of $150,000  (p. D-4).

However, since less than a fourth of the general fund revenue comes from property taxes in Lake George, the percent savings in property taxes appears quite large.  From App. A the village annual budget is $4,394,469, including water and sewer. If water and sewer costs are subtracted out ($795,151 and $716,071 respectively) this gives an estimated general fund of $2,883,247.   It is only the general fund that is paid for with property taxes.  Therefore, a saving of $150,000 out of $2,883,247 is 5.2% of the general fund.  The same appendix shows that revenue from property taxes is $633,750  (22% of the general fund).  Therefore, the relatively small savings overall gives a predicted property tax saving of 24%.

Lake George is unusual in that much of its revenue comes from non-property tax sources.  For example, they have a visitors center and public dock that both generate revenue. They also have a fire district tax that they levy on the TOV which results in bringing in more money for the fire department than they spend.  Likewise, since they are a big tourist destination they make good revenue on a bed tax.  Perhaps most surprisingly, they bring in $515,565/year in parking meter fees.  (Close to what they collect in property taxes!)

Curiously, the study make no mention of NYS AIM incentive funding.

The study does a nice job illustrating the problem of how revenues might redistributed after dissolution.  The basic concern is that the new town could take revenues generated by the former village and spend them town-wide, thereby depriving former village residents of the benefits.  This is of particular concern for Lake George Village which generates so much parking revenue. For example, discussion of Scenario 2b (Appendix 4, p. D8) shows that if, upon dissolution of the village, the town were to take the parking revenue and spend it town-wide, the effect would be a average decrease in TOV taxes by $153 and an average increase in former village resident taxes of $313. (Note, Figure 3 contains a serious typographic error, you must read the discussion for correct numbers.) In other words, dissolution would end up costing village taxpayers more money.  The study notes repeatedly the necessity of getting agreements from the town about how revenues will be distributed upon dissolution, but does not note the legal inability to bind future town boards to agreements formed with the current town board.

The study does little to address community character.  It does not address land use planning at all.