Seneca Falls summary:

From the summary, p. iii: "If current service levels are maintained there are limited opportunities to achieve significant cost reductions."

Seneca Falls has an unusual financial situation. The town currently operates a landfill that brings in about $3.5 million/year.  As a consequence, TOV pay no town taxes. The town is even able to put away money to moderate taxes when the landfill closes. 

The town does not share any of their landfill money with the village, and this is a very sore point.  Most of the projected dissolution "savings" (for village residents) come from the former village getting some of this money upon dissolution.

The consultant presented "one reasonable plan" that would result in village taxes decreasing by $978/year (on a $100,000 home) and TOV taxes increasing to $373/year.

The study identifies "true cost savings opportunities" totaling $393,000/yr ($150,000 from reduction of administrative personnel, $93,000 from eliminating the village DPW supervisor, and $150,000 from eliminating village emergency dispatch service and shifting the service and cost to the county 911 system) (p.5). Yet the study also estimates additional NYS Aid and Incentive to Municipalities incentive funding to encourage local government dissolution at a minimum of $495,000/yr.  Somehow, it appears NYS believes that a net increase of government spending of more than $102,000/yr is an improvement in government efficiency!

Counting on receiving NYS AIM incentive funding of $495,000/year significantly skews the financial analysis results of the study. Given NYS reliability in funding special programs, and the obvious incongruity of the spending, conservative studies generally do not count on getting this money for long.

The study does not consider land use planning issues.

In March 2010 the voters of Seneca Falls decided by a very narrow margin of 86 votes* to dissolve the village.  I believe the Seneca Falls case was more about equity than efficiency.

(*Vote results: 1198 for, 1112 against; the margin of 86 votes is 3.7% of the vote total.)