LANSING—As a cost-cutting measure, the Legislature is considering a proposal to eliminate many small township boards and delegate their responsibilities to counties.

If approved, the consolidation measure would take effect in 2009 and make counties responsible for collecting property taxes, assessing property values and conducting elections, mainly in townships with populations under 10,000.

Under-20,000 townships that don’t provide 24-hour police and fire services also would be affected.

The Michigan Townships Association (MTA), which opposes the bill, estimates that 95 percent of the state’s 1,242 townships would be subject to the proposed changes.

Rep. Paul Condino, D-Southfield, sponsored the bill, saying the intent is to save money for state and local governments.

But no evidence of money saved has been produced, an MTA official said, and an independent study by Michigan State University’s State and Local Government Program concluded that the shift would increase costs by $16 million.

“Those in opposition contend that smaller units of government can continue to provide these services more efficiently, economically and at a better quality,” MTA says, “Moving services to the higher-tier county government replaces existing service capacity at the township level, and promotes less citizen access and accountability.”

Another critic of the idea, Clare County Sheriff Jeffrey Goyt, said, “It would be detrimental to the community to lose township boards, especially in rural counties,” citing the face-to-face interaction township governments provide.

Counties would have too many responsibilities and not enough personnel to take care of them properly, Goyt said.

MTA legislative liaison David Bertram agreed. Counties don’t have the capacity, he said, and would have to hire full-time employees with benefits, while township employees are usually part-time and more cost-efficient.

“Local government is flexible to meet the needs of the people. Limited amounts of services such as well water and septic tanks may be what they want,” he said.

Bertram said pressure to transfer services on a county level would have negative consequences because rural and developed areas don’t have the same needs.

Calling the proposal “window-dressing reform,” Bertram also questioned whether assessing property and would be done by county employees or under contract.

The question of voting precincts arises as well, such as how new precinct boundaries would be drawn and possible voter confusion, Bertram said.

In addition to MTA, the proposal is opposed by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Farm Bureau and the Grand Valley Metro Council.

It is pending in the House Intergovernmental, Urban and Regional Affairs Committee.