Township Consolidation Comment Cards – Part 4

This is the fourth installment of what people wrote on note cards at the McHenry County Township Consolidation Task Force Open House.

Public Comment Cards from 8/18/15 Township Consolidation Open House

Another view of the Township Consolidation Open House.

Another view of the Township Consolidation Open House.

  • I don’t see how consolidation will save a meaningful amount of money without reducing services. The same miles of road will need to be maintained and the same number of parcels will need to be accessed. It will take the same people and equipment to do that regardless of how many townships there are. So expenses will be the same unless service are reduced. My local assessor and road commissioner know the local properties and roads. I won’t have that with the consolidated townships.
  • Voted down 2 times this is the 3rd time. Don’t you people get it. Lead that is what you are elected for.
  • What was the “criteria” for combining townships? –EAV? –miles to be maintained? – assessment units? –There is not apparent plan just coloring in different divisions. I wish this had been seriously looked at. There is a lot of work, but could be large benefits. The groups formed to do this work seems to be political and not a very representative unit.
  • Thomas Jefferson had a good idea and it works. Don’t mess with success. Consolidating services on the other hand does.
  • Scenairo 2&3 brings Coral Township into a much larger area of population and land area which will be unmanageable.
  • Leave well enough alone
  • This is a bad idea. No proof it save money.
  • Live in Coral well run with 87 miles of road to play and maintain. All options will at least double our tax levy. No thank you.
  • I believe that the consolidation of townships is a bad concept if any creates big government.
  • Keep like with like- i.e. farmland with farmland. Not farms with towns.
  • Consolidation will not serve the local citizens as well as the current tried and true- serving local people. The cost to bring all up to speed should be totally on the individuals who think this is more efficient.
  • If this were a debate over whether to keep township government that would be worth the time. This consolidation proposal however, is a waste of time. No proposal will pass.
  • Combine Algonquin and Grafton. Very similar communities served, less split of towns and 1 assessor.
  • Reduce township government. Don’t need to document savings. Smaller is better.
  • I am all for efficient government. Try consolidation on a smaller scale i.e. Richmond/Burton, Greenwood/Hartland, Seneca/Door,  Alden/Hebron, Chemung/Dunham, Marengo/Riley, Grafton/Coral. If approved by township residents.
  • I get excellent service from Algonquin road district now. I don’t want it to change.
  • Cut legislations, cut district reps, cut conservations power of buying.
  • I strongly believe that townships should be less of them than what we have now. Reduce the number to scenario #3. Thank you.
  • Very bad idea. No savings.
  • Abolish townships and go to city and county.


Township Consolidation Comment Cards – Part 4 — 5 Comments

  1. Mike Walkup has posted elsewhere on this blog the following:

    “The question I have posed is, why are the city dwellers being forced to pay for maintenance of unincorporated subdivisions you can’t drive through while the unincorporated subdivision people are not paying for the city streets, including the arterials they use to get places?”

    My question for Mr. Walkup is:

    Did the County Board of McHenry not approve those subdivisions in the rural areas?

    I realize the Twp. Road Commissioner does have a little bit of input to the streets built in rural areas but the Township is powerless in STOPPING you and your fellow Board members from creating these subdivisions.

    Just like the County Board was ultimately responsible for the so-called private roads in Heritage communities.

    Townships also have ZERO control over Conditional uses you and your fellow Board members approve for the unincorporated areas.

    Conditional uses which in many cases negatively impact the lives of people who live there.


    The County Board has a majority of members from heavily populated areas of the County (20) while only 4 people represent almost 60 PERCENT of the geographical area of the County.

    In other words, the populated areas of the County DICTATE to the less populated areas.

    BTW The majority of the people who live in that 60 percent of the County do not use the Conservation District, (but pay taxes for) which basically only provides recreation for the heavily populated areas.

    The only exception would be the ‘horse people’ who use the horse trails protected by the Conservation District Police Dept.

    Also, rural property owners pay taxes for the Health Dept. which primarily serves the heavily populated areas.

  2. If the county is going to provide spreadsheet data in pdf format in the agenda packet, they also need to provide the data in xls (or xlsx) format.

    The township data dump that Cal referred to in a previous blog post was spreadsheet data in pdf format in the County Board Meeting Agenda Packet on August 11, 2015.

    The County made the same blunder on August 25, 2015, that being, the data is still not in xls (or xlsx) format.

    The numbers can’t be analyzed in a spreadsheet if they are in pdf format.

    That is basic transparency and common sense to anyone dealing with these types of numbers.

    The taxpayer can’t import pdf data to a spreadsheet.

    Path: > County Government > County Meetings > Past Meetings > Aug 25, 2015 10:30 AM Township Consolidation Task Force – Public Meeting > Agenda Packet

    Here are the spreadsheets listed (in pdf format)

    Township Comparable Spreadsheets
    – Elected Official Salaries and Benefits
    – 2014 Distribution of EAV by Property Class
    – Road Miles and Lane Miles
    – Township Levy Comparison
    – Scenario levy/$100 Equalized Assessed Value (EAV)
    – General Assistance (per $100 EAV)

    Bottom line, the county should be providing spreadsheet data in spreadsheet format along with the pdf format when presenting agenda packets to the public.

    So there is a reform the county should implement.

    Numbers in spreadsheets are a must for analyzing numbers in today’s world.

    It is extremely easy for the county to post an xls or xlsx spreadsheet along with the pdf agenda packet.

    It is fine the county places the spreadsheet in the pdf, but they also need to post the xls or xlsx spreadsheet alongside the agenda packet

  3. Karma’s link is to Belleville Township in St. Clair County dissolving.

    BND – Belleville News Democrat
    Rauner signs bill allowing Belleville Township to dissolve
    August 27, 2015
    BY Mike Koziatek

    A few notes about that dissolution.

    Where is St. Clair County?

    St. Clair County borders St. Louis.

    Does Belleville Township span municipal or unincorporated county taxing districts?

    No, the City of Belleville overlaps Belleville Township 100%.

    Does Belleville Township have a Road and Bridge district?

    No, Belleville Township, East St. Louis Township, and Stites Township are the three townships in St. Clair County that do not have a Road & Bridge District.

    So those are a few of the factors involved in the dissolution of Belleville Township.

  4. Thank you, Mark!

    You are another great journalist who attracts people to this blog!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *