There was a lot of information in the first story about the township consolidation people’s survey.
I left out the cross tabs, which provide breakouts of answers to the questions, so I have put them below.
Cross Tabs
How to read cross tabs: Each crosstab represented a matrix of voters as they reported preferences in each pair of items. Cross tabs are useful in identifying between group variance that is masked in top line results. For distribution to be considered normal, variance is assumed to be random and equal between groups and significant deviations represent relationships that can be explored as moderating and/or predictive factors for preference. For instance, Party affiliation is the best predictor of general election candidate support. We expect to see high correlations between candidate party and voter party.
Each row/column intersection represents a group of voters that answered accordingly. This group is compared to other groups in both the row and column. Orange shadowing across rows tells the reader what percentage each column account for the row item, whereas Yellow shading tells the reader what percentage each row accounts for down the column.
Cross Tab Results Note: Look for Red Bolded numbers within the Tabs that correlate to the discussion below Tabs I – IV – There are not meaningful differences between townships that suggest as regional base of support or opposition to Consolidation. Townships where samples are low show greater variation, however this is a factor of sample size and not true variation. We expect smaller samples to generate greater variance.
Tabs I – IV – There are not meaningful differences between townships that suggest as regional base of support or opposition to Consolidation. Townships where samples are low show greater variation, however this is a factor of sample size and not true variation. We expect smaller samples to generate greater variance.
Tab V. – Greater than half (57%) of those that do not believe Consolidation will save money, but still want the Board to put the measure on the ballot. This suggests a desire to let voters have say over Consolidation.
Tab VI. – Those who believe Consolidation will save money will overwhelmingly (96%) support the measure on the ballot. Simultaneously, those who do not believe Consolidation will save money will overwhelmingly oppose (86%) the measure on the ballot. Given the +36% top line Support and the +10% differential for ballot intention between belief in savings, Consolidation enjoys a comfortable majority.
Tab VII. – Democrats report a slightly higher uncertainty towards the ability of Consolidation to save money.
Tab VIII. – Those who support the idea of Consolidation also feel strongly that the Board should move to place it on the ballot (96%). Looking diagonally across and down this tab, we see a consistent correlation between ones opinion of Consolidation andwhether the Board should act to place it on the ballot.
Tab IX. – Here we see that party plays little role in determining support or opposition for Consolidation as a ballot measure. Comparing the Yellow shaded boxes to one another across rows, one sees a consistent ~ 80% supports, 9-12% pposition, and 6-10% uncertainty for the Board putting Consolidation on the ballot. Party is therefore not a mediating or moderating factor to support of Consolidation.
Tab X- Democrats are 10% more unsure about supporting Consolidation. This may come as a result of the nature of the debate, where it is taking place and the Democrats preferred news sources. These unsure Democrats (35%) represent the most persuadable group on Consolidation.
Here are the questions that were asked:
This post was already made on another entry relative to this poll.
Some items not discussed at the Task Force:
What will be the impact of individual Township policies? eg. Some Townships have a written policy of NOT transferring ANY tax dollars to not-for-profits; would the policy cease or apply to both?
If one Township levies for a an Audit fund or any other named fund, does that levy now apply to both or three Townships?
The assumption was made that the TOTAL levy will be used to calculate the levy rates for the consolidated townships but what if EACH FUND is treated separately?
For example if each fund is used and we combine Grafton Township with Algonquin Township, the property tax rate for Algonquin Township would increase by 22.4 percent and the tax rate for Grafton Township would increase by 254.4 percent.
I suggest that the County Board Chairman recommend the tabling of this issue until the proponents of Consolidation can provide some answers to the taxpayers.
I do not want to see a repeat of voter action in 1970 when the foundation for the current public pension mess was laid.
As expected.
Since 2009 economic turn down the anti gov crowd has been looking for tax relief.
That anti gov sentiment is what the Pro side is counting on.
They also will be in no hurry to get all the info out, numbers and facts, just hope nonsense as holding back helps them.
If voting goes their way, watch for a bunch of them to run for the new positions, after all they will be the HEROS of tax savings.
If the don’t change anything crowd doesn’t force out the numbers and facts, they will lose.
Fact
Both sides arguments should be publicized here, the NWH, mailers to each resident, public access channels, and even the Chicago newspapers and TV.
Any time we change our gov and how it functions, it’s a big deal, and so far it’s not gotten the proper publicity.
It seems like the pro side and even some that comment here are rushing the process for political gain, and that is not good.
Political games are killing this country.
Yamon!
Maybe someone with some pull could get WTTW to do a panel thingy, with two on each side of the issue discussing/debating the numbers.
Here is a real practical solution:
$10,000 EAV property tax exemption for homeowners in households without a public fund pension (school, IMRF, TRF, government workers).
Let’s put the “E” back in EAV!
Well, evertsen…you’ve listed about all the negatives you can conjure up in all your posts.
Do you honestly think that even 1% of the voters in mchenry county care about Township policies?
It is only you and the likes at the township trough that try to make everyone see the negative of change to protect yourselves.
Perhaps the time has finally come when the voters will take illinois into their own hands and make the positive changes they have wanted for years.
So you go ahead and spout all the township drivel you like (since you seem to have become the township spokesman.).
Your glass is half empty but you manage to keep your pocket full through the government.
No wonder your protestations get more ridiculous as time goes by.
You could be the poster boy for everything voters in illinois detest.
Keep up the good work.
watcher1940:
FYI I have not received one dime from the taxpayers since I retired from the Township over two years ago.
Just as a reminder, Hartland Twp. has no pension plan and provides no benefits – as of now but under consolidation would.
Many people prefer to post on this blog anonymously or refrain from doing so because they fear attacks from the uninformed such as you.
Anyone who blindly accepts what he / she is told by politicians is a fool.
The voters who approved our revised Constitution in 1970 were fools – not intentionally but they were used as fools by the politicians who placed the referendum on the ballot without one word as to the downside.
The group pushing for Township Consolidation is counting on the fools one more time.
I am simply trying to educate you in an effort to avoid an increase in my property taxes.
An increase which is guaranteed by consolidation.
Everet…in your opinion the voters are fools.
I have a different opinion…one not bred in township government.
Evidently you don’t consider your wife’s salary perk.
I have a different opinion…
I hope an opinion is still allowed in mchenry county.
What does Evertson’s wife’s county salary have to do with anything at the Township level ?
This whole township consolidation effort is yet another example of government and others not providing citizens enough information to make an informed decision.
And since the biggest problem in the state is public sector pensions, and township pensions are not currently a significant pension problem (teacher & administrator pensions dwarf township pensions for example)…
…and since consolidated townships if anything could very well result in some larger salaries and thus larger pensions (I am in charge of a bigger consolidated unit of government so I deserve more salary)…
…the consolidation effort should be viewed with skepticism.
Put the ‘E’ Back In EAV:
If you can’t pass a property tax rate cap (as Massachusetts, Indiana, and many other states have done), then achieve a more effective and progressive property tax by offering a break to hardworking homeowners who are NOT on public paychecks or public pensions.
Why not make the property tax exemption for non-public-pension-eligible-homeowners-of-record/AND businesses NOT located in TIF District/Enterprise Zone/or receiving Tax Abatement from municipality:
$25,000-$100,000 off EAV (EAV is 1/3 of property value)?
In Woodstock we are paying 5% effective property tax rates. Much of this is for benefit of pension spiked teachers, school administrators, and public officials.
In Woodstock, the median value home cannot be purchased by a median income household: because of the 5% tax rate, a median value earner cannot qualify for a conventional mortgage.
In Woodstock the median household income pays over 14% of that income for Property Taxes. (Compare this to 3.6% national average of household income spent on property taxes, according to BLS.gov Consumer Expenditure Survey report for 2014.)
For a private individual to collect enough to purchase an annuity (closest replica of a government-guaranteed defined benefit pension available) the individual needs to collect a sum of money equal to roughly 25-35 times the salary at retirement…when one considers retirement at 55 the norm, survivor benefits, COLA, and most likely additional health insurance benefits not available to private workers who must self-fund retirement.
So if we look at a lifetime of property tax payments we must determine an amortization of property tax equalization reduction which will allow the private worker to make ‘catch up ‘ payments to private retirement fund savings.
We might call it 75% of typical teacher pension because social security yields roughly 25% as much as a low-end-of-range teacher pension, but we might add back that 25% to account for the COLA, Cadillac Health insurance, and 10-15 year differential between retirement eligibility age for public workers vs. social security.
A private-sector worker needs to accumulate a retirement fund of $1,250,000-$1,750,000 to approximate a $50,000 public-sector worker’s government guaranteed defined benefit retirement plan.
Getting back the typical 10% annually of household income Woodstock homeowners are forced to pay Woodstock, Woodstock CUSD 200, and McHenry County over and above national average would be a start; this 10 percent represents what most private sector families are allowed to save for their own retirements.
What a social engineering impetus for change if the private sector workers were no longer punished for risking their own money in order to live and work in Illinois!
watcher1940, how about the bet?
watcher1940: In reference to Diane’s salary.
She is paid just under $20,000 per year for the job of working toward a balance between County government services and the cost to provide those services.
I have done an analysis of the number of hours she works reading meeting packets, researching topics, phone calls to constituents and others etc.
I can guarantee you anyone who is a member of the McHenry County Board and is serious about their job, they do not do it for the friggin money!
Just like the current Supervisor of Hartland Township does not do the job for the money.
There really are some people who hold elected office and SERVE the people.
Everet, anyone who takes a salary is not a public servant.
If your wife is underpaid she can always look for another job just as you were free to work elsewhere for your $13,000.
A school board member is a public servant, library board member possibly is a public servant.
They receive no salary.
There is a huge difference between living off the government and actually providing a service to the community.
watcher1940: I did not use the words ‘public servant’, you did.
I stated she serves the people.
I did not say she was underpaid, I said she was not doing it for the money.
The County, by the way, has been holding the line on tax increases.
What has your school board done?
Maybe you get what you pay for?
And, one final question, what have you done in your life to help the people in your community?
Evert, watcher1940 whines, and whiners are why taxes are so high.
It probably helps At the end of the month to have a paycheck, healthcare and pension come in for all the “service”.
If you count being a township supervisor and county board member for a salary as your service to your community you have no idea of the volunteer service that keeps mchenry county going.
No taxpayer funded healthcare in this household.
So what have you done?
Again, the words “service to your community” are your words, not mine.
I used the words “serve the people”.
Insofar as my service to my community that is for me to know and you to find out.
To repeat, what have you done?
Not that it is any of your business but our pensions are funded in the private sector.
If you are so concerned about what Board members and other elected officials are paid, run for office and make changes.
To repeat, what have you done?