There is a second meeting of the McHenry County Board’s Township Consolidation Task Force on Tuesday morning at 10:30.
Perhaps the proponents of consolidation will come up with a cost-benefit study, but my hopes are not high.
Go the bottom of the questions and answers and you’ll see the most common phrases are “beyond the scope of this task force.”
I’m also waiting for anyone from the smaller townships to testify that he or she desires to be combined with one or more neighboring township.
Or will this continue to be like many zoning decisions imposed on the smaller townships by County Board members from the more populous townships along the eastern half of the County?
Lots of data can be found in the agenda packet, but no analysis that I can find.
Here are questions and answers included in the agenda packet for the Tuesday meeting:
Township Consolidation Questions and Answers
Q: What is the purpose of the Township Consolidation Task Force?
A: The Township Consolidation Task Force was created on June 2, 2015 for the purpose to between now and Labor Day bring the McHenry County Board two items, a Resolution and a Map that they can support. It would then be up to the County Board to decide if they support it as a referenda question on the ballot in March, 2016.
Q: What is the process?
The calendar proposed by proponents of township consolidation.
Q: What happens to the assets and debts if the townships consolidate?A: The assets and debts are combined and shared equally in the consolidated township.
Q: How is the 2016 budget affected?
A: The 2016 budget would function as they had prior to the consolidation with 2 separate budgets and existing elected officials.
Q: How is the 2017 budget affected?
A: The 2017 budget will be 2 separate budgets set by 2 separate township boards then combined upon the election of new township officials in May, 2017.
Q: What happens with the levy?
A: The levy of each township would be added together and then the total is divided among the population of the consolidated township.
Q: How is the replacement tax affected?
A: There should be no impact on the replacement tax.
Another possible consolidation map.
Q: How many annual service hours are required before an employee must be enrolled in (IMRF) Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund?
A: 1,000 service hours.
Q: How would the legal description of each parcel be affected?
A: The legal description would not change.
Q: Could there be a minimum number of voters required to validate the referendum?
A: Minimum votes cannot be required.
Q: Would a newly-formed consolidated township be considered a new form of government?
A: No. The consolidation of two or more pre-existing units of local government is excluded from any legislation that may limit the formation of a new body of government.
Q: Who sets the salaries of newly elected consolidated township officials?
A: Salaries for newly elected officials would be included in the 2017 budget. It is the hope that the existing 2 township bodies would work together to set the new salaries.
Q: Are there fees associated with renaming a consolidated township?
A: Fees should be minimal to nil.
Q: How are precincts handled?
A: Precincts can be renamed.
Q: What are the cost savings?
Cost savings are speculative in nature as the existing townships and consolidated township have discretion over their budgets, expenses, and levies.
Cost savings could be materialized through the elimination of elected officials (one supervisor, one assessor, one highway commissioner, and the township board members) per each township consolidated into another.
There may be the potential for economies of scale cost savings but evaluation is beyond the scope of this task force.
There may be the potential of combination of part time employees to full time, maximizing employees potential, reduction of office supply needs, etc. but evaluation of these areas are beyond the scope of this task force.
There may be the potential to consolidate township owned buildings and services thus allowing the selling of properties back to the private sector. However, the evaluation of this potential is beyond the scope of this task force.
Q: Are there efficiencies that will occur with consolidation?
A: There is potential for efficiencies such as elimination of duplicative services. However, all services would be at the discretion of the newly-formed township and the evaluation of these potential efficiencies are beyond the scope of this task force.
Beyond the scope is a cop out by the pro side, and labor day end date is nonsense also. No real number or facts on savings?
The pro side wants the Twh’s officals to do all the work they should be gathering themselves?
What a waste of out $$$$.
This is a multi-step project.
1. Gather data (where they are at).
2. Analyze data.
3. Make a recommendation.
I talked to Carolyn after last County Board meeting and she made clear this was just going to be data, not inferences from the data.
I talked to League of Women Voters about how they’d do studies and they described this multi-step process and admitted it would take some time.
When dealing with a lot of hypotheticals, it probably involves a lot of model making.
If anything, “beyond the scope of this study” backs up the side of people against it, since they can say,
Joe, that is correct but it appears that the ‘task force’ will choose one of the maps and then it will up to the Board to cast their votes to approve or turn down what the ‘task force’ comes up with.
The correct recommendation would be the first map included in the packet.
The one that has no ‘scenerio’ in the title.
Anyone with a functioning brain would conclude that this is a ‘half-baked’ idea and vote against it but then we are talking the McHenry County Board.
It has been posted elsewhere
But, I ask at what price to the taxpayers?
There is nothing in this proposal that will save taxpayer dollars but the proponents will tell the voters that it will lower their tax bill – the proponents will lie – it is legal to lie.
No matter which the vote goes, this issue is owned by Gottemoller, Schofield and Kurtz.
When they next run for office, I suggest you consider that.
BTW Where is the listing of County, Township, Municipal Road miles (in detail) which at the last meeting was requested and it was inferred that it would be forthcoming?
Where is the acknowledgement that the Road Commissioners who account for the bulk of the Township tax levies were left off the task force?
Exactly when did it become the county board’s job to make the case for those playing this game?
If… this is such a great idea, why on earth are the proponents, those spearheading the task, not “presenting” to the county board?
The taskforce looks like a bunch of armatures trying to make names for themselves.
Algonquin, McHenry, Nunda and Grafton are real sources of the perceived problems.
Let THEM, the four townships, place referendums on their ballots to consolidate among themselves.
There would be greater credibility in such a proposal since this is the source of the proponent’s anger.
Since the back-room-bandito of this movement is now running petitions to reduce the number of county board members… I have a simple solution… go back to the County Board of Supervisors.
Today that would be a total of 17 members.
The results would be to eliminate all 24 of the current county board members.
Seventeen single member districts with the elected township supervisor stepping back into the roll as county boards.
This disperses the “power-grab” that is so dangerous.
And, do not tell me it cannot be done!
There is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled legislative bodies had to represent people proportionately.
The old Board of Supervisors system was based only partially on one man-one vote.
That was an add-on to having each Township Supervisor on the County Board.
Ersel:
If all of the townships in the county were eliminated we would have to go to a THREE member Board of Supervisors.
That’s the main reason that is not being pursued.
A county this size would not be able to function with only three people trying to run things.
Only very rural downstate counties have that.
You cannot go to a 17 member Board of Supervisors as we have townships with very large (88,000) and very small (Alden) populations as each would get only one representative at the County.
That’s why it’s unconstitutional.
It became the County Board’s job when the General Assembly passed the statute.
The petition route is also available but is much more time consuming.
I am not aware that the person circulating the County Board size reduction petition (Franks) is behind the township consolidation.
Do you have information I don’t have Ersel?
(Franks is also passing a petition to go to single member districts when the redistricting is done in 2021. Unlike the size reduction petition, this one may be binding on the Board at that time).
Finally, this WILL be presented to the County Board.
The task force is just charged with developing the appropriate language and deciding on one of the possible maps.
People coming to the task force meeting to explain why they don’t think the consolidation effort is worth doing should be saving that for the Board meetings.
There will be on a week from today and it is an evening meeting so people won’t have to take off of work.
I got some clarification today.
The task force will NOT to complex analysis, weigh pros and cons, and do a recommendation one way or another.
They will simply provide the County Board with a map and resolution.
Boys, if you haven’t learned… where there is a will there is a way, I am disappointed in you!
We are subjected to 4/5,000 new laws every year.
Obviously some of our legislators stay up nights figuring new ways to force the will of the masses on those less represented.
Honest and sincere elected officials need to address the unfairness of this “constitutional” issue.
One-man, one-vote sounds great when you have the largest number of votes in your pocket.
Those disenfranchised do not exactly feel the same… reference the insanity of the county’s “taskforce” on consolidation of townships.
Mike, three county board members sounds as reasonable as 50.
The problems will be the same.
It would just short cut the number of individuals you would need to persuade to your way of thinking.
Either scenario is silly.
You also say, “You cannot go to a 17 member Board of Supervisors as we have townships with very large (88,000) and very small (Alden) populations as each would get only one representative at the County. That’s why it’s unconstitutional.”
You make my case!
Seventeen county board members; one from each township, spreads the power more equitably in that, they represent the “county” populations; the folks not under municipal/village control.
The city-folks, by their own actions, have taken themselves out from under the county’s control.
Yet, they still hold sway over everything outside their municipal boundaries as the current MAJORITY on the county board (4 rural to 20 city now; and 4 rural to 21 city after the new chairman is seated).
This seems unfair to those of us subjected to the whims of these people.
They have it both ways, as they live under municipal/village rules then tell those of us outside those boundaries how we should live our lives; just as those of you supporting the township consolidation issue today.
As to the taskforce… since you support the context of this committee’s work, you should have made yourself available to witness the insanity of the thing.
The phony numbers and claims submitted by your group are grossly embarrassing.
The very least you could have done was to present ALL the facts with supporting documentation rather than laying the onus on “a taskforce” to figure that out.
It resembles the blind-leading- the-blind.
It would be hilarious were it not so sad to see how our elected officials conduct themselves!
So, it sounds like the Constitution needs a tweak to curb the power brokers who by definition are destroying everything in their paths.
Locally, look at Springfield and Chicago as excellent examples… both bankrupt yet they continue running everyone else’s lives and without shame, continue picking our pockets.
Ersel: As you should well know from your many years on the County Board, the county does not just represent people in the unincorporated areas.
While that is true for zoning and the Sheriff’s office, the county is also responsible for the entire court system, the jail, public health, the nursing home, appeals of property assessments, elections, property recording, the coroner, state’s attorney, public defender, and a host of other services for people both inside and outside of municipalities.
McDOT even continues to maintain the county roads as they run through municipalities.
When you file for your divorce you go to the COUNTY courthouse, regardless of where you live.
The restaurant that you eat at is inspected by the COUNTY health department even if it is in town.
When you buy your house you file the deed with the COUNTY Recorder’s office regardless of it’s location, and when you vote the COUNTY Clerk handles the elections, even if it is solely for municipal offices.
All of these departments have budgets which are then set by the COUNTY Board.
That’s why you can’t have one representative for all 88,000 people in Algonquin township and another one for a thousand or so in places like Alden and Hebron.
The legislature also needs to recognize this more completely and eliminate the distinction that is still on the books between “counties under township organization” and “counties not under township organization” which causes some confusion as there are no longer any “counties under township organization.”
I have also heard people state that townships are a “local government for people in the unincorporated areas”.
This is also not true.
Townships have very limited functions as originally constituted.
They are responsible for all of the property assessments both inside and outside of municipal boundaries, maintain township roads, distribute interim public assistance, and maintain township cemeteries.
That.
Is.
It.
The township cemeteries, though once ‘hopping’ places, are now rarely used.
Interim public assistance is questionable and could be distributed by the IDPA when people go there anyway to apply for public assistance.
Township roads could be maintained just as easily by the county and assessments could also be done by the county assessor.
Seventeen counties in Illinois have no townships and do just fine.
Thirty of the fifty states also lack the benefits of township government.
I don’t hear them clamoring for townships.
Illinois has almost 7,000 units of local government.
Texas and PA come in second with 4800.
Most other states are far below that.
“Facts are stubborn things”. John Adams.
Going through each of the above township functions, we can see how they could be done differently, probably at reduced costs.
Township Cemeteries: These are rarely used and are basically historical relics as most people are now buried in private cemeteries. Our county cemetery board just went from two to one meeting PER YEAR because we have not had any burials in the past FIVE YEARS. We could certainly handle the township cemeteries as needed.
Interim Public Assistance: Could be done by IDPA. Recipients have to go there anyway to apply for public assistance. They aren’t arriving on a horse any more either. If needed, someone at the county could do it but I don’t see why that should be necessary.
Township Roads: Right now township garages are located one per township based on historic rural settlement patterns. This has changed dramatically. In some townships there are very few township roads and they are widely scattered. McDOT could set up garages at locations based on current road and traffic situations for maximum efficiency, and could pursue intergovernmental agreements with municipalities for the more isolated road sections. Township highway departments have no interest in doing this at it erodes their power.
Assessments: The county has a County Assessor already who tries to equalize the assessments of the various township assessors, some of whom are part time. We saw just this year the problem with one assessor jumping the gun on re-assessments and jacking up the properties. All of this information is now computerized (not to mention that we have aerial photos), and can be done more centrally. It is no longer necessary to hitch ole Bessie up to the buckboard and ride around to the various properties while carrying the record book and a quill pen.
The current effort does not seek to abolish the townships, however, just consolidate some of them and see if that helps.
Well that settles in then.
We just need to get rid of the county government.
There’s where all the problems lie.
Mike W. why does IL have so many units of gov and why do you keep adding that talking point when the number is not really relevant?
The answer is lawyers like yourself advise mostly municipal gov agencies that to get certain work done there has to be a gov agency that extends begone the municipal legal borders.
MCCD, Cary Park District, Lake Co Mosquito district are fine examples of that.
All where created because of legal boundaries and taxing legally to pay for the service.
The services provided by each Twh are different, all the offered services were asked for, not made up out of the clear blue sky like you contend.
Most time those services are enough for the residents with in that Twh or they would be asking for more.
The county could not maintain the township roads for less, we already know that because the county Street head dude did the work of figuring that out, and the numbers were no favorable for the county.
Had they been the County head Road dude, (Mark DeVries) would of loved to have controlled all the roads because his pay would of gone way up.
If the county did take over they would have to maintain all the Twh garages or travel time to do the work would increase and less service would result.
The fact the McDOT wants an extra salt dome in the SE part of the county proves most of what I’m saying.
If you could prove saving by elimination or Consolidation, then before hand State law should be changed so that the county board can stay almost as is.
Ersel’s idea of going back is incorrect as you and Cal have pointed out.
Single member sounds OK as long as the number of people represented by one elected official stays low, like below 20K.
I believe that would mean about 16 county board members.
If the county grows in population so should that number of board members IMO.
OH and Mike, Jack Franks started the Consolidation movement, remember he spend IL tax money on a report about the pros and cons?
Is Jack directly behind this particular Consolidation movement, no I would say the Bob Anderson followers looking to gain some power for themselves are the main dudes.
I also respect your admitting this combining deal is a waste of time.
Worst part is they want county resources to pay for their power grab game, you love that right?
Is there not lower hanging fruit though, Mike?
and then you have abuses like this:
ROUND LAKE PARK – Avon Township Board unanimously censured R. Christopher Ditton at Monday night’s monthly township board meeting.
Patrick Duby, local Avon citizen stated
One catastrophic failure of the elected assessor included closing the assessor’s office for approximately five months while in protest of the appropriated budget from the Township not allowing any of the over 65,000 Avon citizens access to their elected township official in any capacity for property tax assessments, challenges, or questions.
The lawsuit brought from the assessor were over across the board budget cuts, charges that were later dismissed in court as frivolous, caused an already reduced Township budget to be depleted further in lawyer costs and is the main cause of the insurance carrier not renewing the policy covering the township.
As a result of the settlement of the Assessor’s lawsuit, assessor Ditton was court-ordered to attend finance and monthly board meetings of which he does not attend.
In addition to breaking that court order, the assessor has broken another by not keeping court mandated vital records of in person, email, or phone contacts or requests to the office.
” Patrick Duby stated at the July township board meeting while calling on the township board for a formal vote.
After being brought up several consecutive months by numerous Avon residents to formally censure the township assessor, the vetted censure wording was finally brought forward to a vote tonight making sure to not include anything personal but just a record of the improprieties and broken court mandates.
With increased negative attention directed at the assessor and public pressure mounting to act, the board courageously voted on a formal censure against the Avon assessor for his actions even under the written threat of another lawsuit by Ditton’s attorney, Ed Mullen.
During the five month closure of the assessor’s office, the rest of the township departments worked within the reduced budgets and remained open and fully functional.
The assessor’s office completely closed, forcing the duties to be transferred to the Lake County Assessor’s office.
It should also be noted that a censure resolution passed against board member Vincent Juarez of the Gurnee Woodland Elementary School District 50 Board in June 2015.
With Avon Township passing this censure resolution against Ditton, it is the second censure of a local public official in Lake County within a period of two months.
###
Again, remember that the reason you have townships is due to the mechanics of horse and buggy technology.
Only the Northeastern and Midwestern states have them.
Huge counties out West somehow manage without townships.
Ask yourself what Mitt Romney’s or Bruce Rauner’s venture capitalist companies would do if they were charged with making local government more efficient.
The first thing they would probably do is eliminate townships.
If the county maintained the township roads I don’t think they would keep 17 different garages.
Assessors can do most of their jobs now without leaving their offices so you don’t need 17 of them with 17 different offices either.
We are not burying people any more in township cemeteries, and there are now numerous other public aid options available besides the townships’ meager allotments, plus you are no longer riding your horse to the office to sign up so you can just do so when you are at the state offices in Woodstock already.
Consolidation could potentially help this picture, but only if the voters ride herd on the new township officials which, as you can see by the above Avon Township story, is difficult, even with the help of the courts.
The use of partisan primaries at a weird time of the year where you have very low attendance also militates against any effective control over the officials, who are motivated to get their supporters out to vote while the rest of the voters remain unorganized and confused.
If consolidation doesn’t pass or doesn’t work, we will again need to look at effective mechanisms to allow the voters to abolish townships where desired.
Right now there are some legal questions about the ability to do that on an individual township basis, plus the legislature, at the urging of the state township lobby, has made it more difficult to abolish all of the townships in a county at one time.
btw: The three township consolidation maps that have been unveiled at the task force meeting either try to put large population townships with smaller population townships, which the people in the latter may balk at, or leave the larger townships untouched which eliminates most of the potential savings in terms of salaries of officials.
I had submitted a fourth option which was apparently not presented.
What are the combinations in your proposal, Mike?
Leave AL alone.
It’s too big to combine with others.
The folks in the smaller one would feel that they would be outvoted.
Combine Nunda and McHenry which have more equal pops.
That also makes them as big as AL.
Combine Richmond and Burton; Hebron and Greenwood; Dorr and Grafton.
This next wasn’t in my proposal but why not combine all four NW and all four SW together.
That way both Harvard and Marengo are entirely within one township, even with future expansions.
Richmond and Burton have been operating together for years. I believe they have one assessor.
Assessors operate in their township and roll up to the county- their lives would change little I am guessing.
ANd no one has yet to be able to tell me WHY a township should be managing a general assistance fund with no oversight or accountability.
I would love to see the cost per dollar awarded.
Also the cost per mile maintained.
I do not buy the we won’t save any money arguement.
There is NO reason that rural areas need a special form of government.
None- explain the WHY of your argument Ersel.
SPECIFICALLY- what is at risk for them?
What are the proposals going to do about the disproportionate levels of debt some of the townships have?
If the neighboring township has twice the debt as my township and we consolidate, am I on the hook their bill?
Actually, there is a maximum square mile limit (the distance a horse could travel in a day) so you might not be able to combine more than three at a time.
McHenry County does not have any multi township assessment districts.
Richmond and Burton Townships each have their own assessor.
http://www.co.mchenry.il.us/county-government/departments-a-i/assessments/township-assessor-information
Also there’s a lot that goes into assessment.
The Illinois Department of Revenue has a lot of information about the subject.
Here is one document.
Township Assessor – Introductory Course
August 2013
PTAX-1-T (R-08/13)
http://www.revenue.state.il.us/localgovernment/propertytax/PTAX-1-T.pdf
Mike: Your comment: “(the distance a horse could travel in a day)” Shows your level of ignorance.
Your assumption that consolidation will reduce cost to the taxpayer shows your level of naivety.
So far, this entire discussion on consolidation has resulted in only one logical solution.
It is Cal’s idea to create a new Township which includes both Lakewood and Crystal Lake .
After it has been created, pass legislation in Springfield to dissolve that Township and absorb the Township functions into the Municipalities.
His idea will likely not be considered by the committee because Lou Bianchi has not sprinkled his holy water on it.
I have been told, but have not verified, that the debt stays with the taxpayers in the township that owes it now.
General Assistance is so secret that McHenry County refuses to reveal what townships have appeals.
When I appealed that decision to the Attorney General, I was told that lack of transparency is OK.
So, even statistical information can be hidden.
Townships actually were created based on the distance a horse could travel in a day.
That is the whole point of having the townships.
The road repairs were done by hitching a horse up to the buckboard, going to the gravel pit and loading up, putting a couple of guys with shovels in the back, and proceeding down the road, filling in the potholes as they went.
Once they got to a certain point they had to turn around to make it back to the barn by nightfall.
The same with the assessor.
There is a maximum size on the townships probably for that reason.
You don’t want to have to carry a bag of oats around all day.
Mike you keep mentioning the cemetery’s, like they are a some big draw on resources, who will maintain them if Twh’s don’t?
Mike the point you make about Spring elections has validity.
Elections should all be in the fall, that would allow more time for transition in and out of office also.
“Townships actually were created based on the distance a horse could travel in a day.”
What is your source for that, Mr. Walkup?
Were not townships as we have them in Illinois created from the land platting pattern established in the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787?
6 miles by 6 miles, 36 sections, with the 16th section reserved for the support of public education.
A grid system created by Thomas Jefferson for the orderly development of the Northwest Territory
Where does the horse distance come from?
Or is it just a nice theory that makes for a better story and so it is taken as fact rather than conjecture?
I love the horse analogy nonsense.
Even with improvements to our autos and roads, with the added traffic it takes twice as long to get across a Twh now than it did just 20 years ago.
Mike Walkup is one of the McHenry county insiders who appears to me to have a long-time hatred and grudge against townships and the local control they represent.
You see, Counties, too were formed back in the ‘horse and buggy’ days.
Does Mike Walkup ever attempt to get rid of all these old-fashioned, outdated Counties?
Does he come up with labored, pretzel-logic ‘reasons’ why the State should take over County functions, making big government yet BIGGER and even more removed from impact by the average voter? Or does he just keep running for re-election as a County Board member..?
And for all those ‘cynical’ taxpayers who think that the ‘Beyond the scope of this committee’ statement (repeated over and over and OVER by the County’s Consolidation task force members) really translates to ‘Math and Logic and Planning are WAY TOO HARD, but we like to color on maps with Sharpies’.Well, you ‘cynics’ are absolutely RIGHT…
Actually Robert, I did question why we should have 102 counties in Illinois at a recent meeting where we were passing a resolution commemorating counties. I pointed out that we have counties in the size that they are so that someone could ride a horse without making any stops to the county seat from any portion of the county in a half day, do their business, and be back before night fell, at least in the warmer months.
I then suggested that we could go down to maybe ten or so counties in the state and save considerable expense in local government. This went over like a lead balloon.
Agenda 21