Commenter Susan has done the math on a couple of the townships which consolidation proponents suggest should be merged.
Her analysis is below:
Am I missing something, or is the voter’s decision made by simply looking at the comparative tax rates of townships at issue?
It seems to me that the lower tax rate township citizens will immediately begin subsidizing the higher tax rate township.
If savings accrue through consolidation, the lower tax rate township will have to see the combined township tax rate lower than their current tax rate in order to benefit.
Using the data from the table above, I ran comparisons of 4 proposed township marriages.
( even if data from table is incomplete or inaccurate, the procedure of comparison is easy: divide revenues ( extension) by eav.
Doing that separately for each township then using totals ( total revenues divided by total eav):
Algonquin rate: .002408172
Grafton rate: .001953461
Combined rate ( total revenues /total Eav) : .002242668
( Algonquin taxpayer win, Grafton taxpayers lose)
( savings from consolidation would need to get total rate down to, or below Grafton’s original tax rate of .001953461)
McHenry rate: .00557327
Nunda rate: .004699327
Total rate: .005130769
Dorr rate: .003796336
Greenwood rate: .006401209
Total rate: .004643521
Chemung rate: .007246997
Dunham rate: .009981699
Total rate: .008281001
So in every case of consolidation, there is one township jumping in tax rate while the other township drops in tax rate.
Why would any of the lower tax rate township voters want to vote for this?
= = = = =
I believe that a good part of Dunham’s rate is for the $1 million road improvement bond passed recently. My understanding is that such debt would not be shared by another township’s property owners.