The following charts represent the entire Revenue/Expense Distribution Model. Model Results are arranged in alphabetic order then in order of the difference between revenues and expenditures. The information provided in each of these is controlled for by the population of the jurisdictions. A more theoretical approach to cross-subsidization is presented in the third chart, Expenditure Over Revenue Outcomes, which treats the County as an entity of consumption and production. In this approach, the County consumes funds from the municipalities from which services are produced to the municipalities. The first outcome, expenditures over revenues, shows the level of expenditures which the County produces for each municipality for every dollar consumed by the County from each municipality. The rankings are very similar to the outcomes in the Model Results chart. The differences are due to the fact that population is removed as a determinant.

    Examinations were also made to determine the accuracy of the model and the nature of the interaction among the variables. A Monte Carlo statistical program was used to incorporate uncertainty associated with census data, crime statistics, and the distribution of benefits for various expenditures. The program uses a random number generator to forecast ranges for the three outcomes associated with each of the municipalities. The results appear on the chart entitled Model Accuracy. The nature of interaction among variables determines the degree to which the outcome of total revenues minus expenditures is dependent upon the information used to determine the outcome. Model Accuracy is also presented in a graph which uses only residential SEV minus expenditures.

    The information contained in these graphs are based upon information on poverty and income from the 1990 census, 1994 census population estimates, 1995 equalization report, 1996 Sheriff activity report, and 1995 Uniform Crime Statistics from the Michigan State Police. Population and poverty information for East Lansing is adjusted to reflect full time residency and crime activity from Mason is adjusted to control for the summons issued in the County jail.

 

MODEL RESULTS (ALPHABETIC)

Per Capita Revenues minus Expenditures (1)

Per Capita SEV Revenues minus Expenditures (2)

Per Capita Residential SEV minus Expenditures (3)

% of Population
Alaiedon (56) (202) (415) 1.30
Aurelius 10 (115) (189) 1.09
Bunker Hill (53) (172) (245) 0.79
City of Lansing (53) (175) (262) 44.49
City of Williamston 34 (96) (181) 1.20
Delhi Charter (33) (168) (224) 8.13
E. Lansing 46 (62) (152) 11.56
Ingham (46) (173) (241) 0.79
Lansing Charter 166 48 (170) 3.47
Leroy (105) (222) (317) 0.79
Leslie (63) (184) (252) 0.84
Leslie City (53) (178) (215) 0.84
Locke 16 (119) (215) 0.84
Mason 37 (95) (182) 2.71
Meridian Charter 132 (26) (135) 14.09
Onondaga (67) (189) (280) 1.01
Stockbridge (42) (163) (258) 0.73
Stockbridge Vil (131) (259) (319) 0.47
Vevay (30) (163) (246) 1.55
Webberville Vil (70) (197) (243) 0.66
Wheatfield (82) (233) (333) 0.62
White Oak (9) (119) (280) 0.40
Williamstown 93 (58) (114) 1.63
(1) A per capita measure of total revenue generated by and allocated to each unit minus total expenditures made and allocated to each unit.  (2) A per capita measure of total SEV revenue generated by each unit minus total expenditures made and allocated to each unit. (3) A per capita measure of residential SEV revenue generated by each unit minus expenditures made and allocated to each unit.

 

MODEL RESULTS (By Revenues minus Expenditures)

Revenues minus Expenditures (1)

SEV Revenues minus Expenditures (2)

Residential SEV minus Expenditures (3)

% of Population
Lansing Charter 166 48 (170) 3.47
Meridian Charter 132 (26) (135) 14.09
Williamstown 93 (58) (114) 1.63
E. Lansing 46 (62) (152) 11.56
Mason 37 (95) (182) 2.71
City of Williamston 34 (96) (181) 1.20
Locke 16 (119) (215) 0.84
Aurelius 10 (115) (189) 1.09
White Oak (9) (119) (280) 0.40
Vevay (30) (163) (246) 1.55
Delhi Charter (33) (168) (224) 8.13
Stockbridge (42) (163) (258) 0.73
Ingham (46) (173) (241) 0.79
Bunker Hill (53) (172) (245) 0.79
Leslie City (53) (178) (215) 0.84
City of Lansing (53) (175) (262) 44.49
Alaiedon (56) (202) (415) 1.30
Leslie (63) (184) (252) 0.84
Onondaga (67) (189) (280) 1.01
Webberville Vil (70) (197) (243) 0.66
Wheatfield (82) (233) (333) 0.62
Leroy (105) (222) (317) 0.79
Stockbridge Vil (131) (259) (319) 0.47
(1) A per capita measure of total revenue generated by and allocated to each unit minus total expenditures made and allocated to each unit.  (2) A per capita measure of total SEV revenue generated by each unit minus total expenditures made and allocated to each unit.   (3) A per capita measure of residential SEV revenue generated by each unit minus expenditures made and allocated to each unit.

* Columns 2 and 3 include the special millages of 911 and Transportation, Debt Service on Drains, and Revolving Delinquent tax revenues.

 

Expenditure Over Revenue Outcomes

Expenditures over Revenues

Expenditures over SEV Revenues

Expenditures over Res. SEV Revenues

% of Population
Lansing Charter

$0.61

$0.84

$2.86

3.47
Meridian Charter

$0.68

$1.10

$1.91

14.09
Williamstown

$0.76

$1.25

$1.64

1.63
E. Lansing

$0.84

$1.34

$2.64

11.56
Mason

$0.87

$1.59

$3.41

2.71
City of Williamston

$0.89

$1.58

$3.25

1.20
Locke

$0.94

$1.75

$4.40

0.84
Aurelius

$0.97

$1.61

$2.65

1.09
White Oak

$1.02

$1.47

$3.96

0.40
Vevay

$1.10

$1.96

$3.84

1.55
Alaiedon

$1.11

$1.57

$4.00

1.30
Delhi Charter

$1.12

$2.09

$3.31

8.13
Stockbridge

$1.13

$1.84

$3.57

0.73
Ingham

$1.17

$2.14

$3.87

0.79
City of Lansing

$1.19

$2.15

$5.03

44.49
Wheatfield

$1.21

$2.01

$3.57

0.62
Bunker Hill

$1.21

$2.27

$4.93

0.79
Leslie City

$1.25

$3.01

$5.18

0.84
Leslie

$1.23

$2.16

$3.82

0.84
Onondaga

$1.23

$2.13

$4.67

1.01
Webberville Vil

$1.30

$2.84

$4.95

0.66
Leroy

$1.35

$2.24

$4.73

0.79
Stockbridge Vil

$1.47

$2.71

$4.46

0.47
This chart removes the per capita consideration from the outcomes.  From the County's perspective, these outcomes indicate the amount of funds expended to each municipality for every dollar received.  If the outcome is below $1, it indicates that the municipality is a net contributor for that outcome.

 

MODEL ACCURACY (Per Capita Rev. - Exp.)

Model Results (1)

Low Estimate (2)

High Estimate (3)

Range (4)
Alaiedon (56)

(74)

(39)

35
Aurelius 10

2

17

15
Bunker Hill (53)

(61)

(46)

15
City of Lansing (53)

(59)

(47)

12
City of Williamston 34

26

41

15
Delhi Charter (33)

(44)

(23)

21
E. Lansing 46

38

54

16
Ingham (46)

(55)

(38)

17
Lansing Charter 166

156

177

21
Leroy (105)

(115)

(96)

19
Leslie (63)

(72)

(55)

17
Leslie City (53)

(59)

(48)

11
Locke 16

9

24

15
Mason 37

29

45

16
Meridian Charter 132

121

142

21
Onondaga (67)

(76)

(57)

19
Stockbridge (42)

(51)

(34)

17
Stockbridge Vil (131)

(149)

(114)

35
Vevay (30)

(39)

(22)

17
Webberville Vil (70)

(84)

(58)

26
Wheatfield (82)

(95)

(68)

27
White Oak (9)

(16)

(2)

14
Williamstown 93

83

104

21
(1) A per capita measure of total revenue generated by and allocated to each unit minus total expenditures made and allocated to each unit.  (2) The lowest likely per capita revenues minus expenditures, given the uncertainty of population, poverty, crime, and average income statistics.  (3) The highest likely per capita revenues minus expenditures, given the uncertainty of population, poverty, crime, and average income statistics.

The following assumptions were used for this analysis:  1. The actual population may be 4 percent higher or lower than census; 2. The actual number in poverty may be 6 percent higher or lower than census; 3. Actual crime activity might be 20 percent higher or lower than reported.

 

MODEL ACCURACY (Per Capita Res. SEV - Exp.)

Model Results (1)

High Estimate (2)

Low Estimate (3)

Range (4)
Alaiedon (415) (400) (431) 31
Aurelius (189) (185) (193) 8
Bunker Hill (245) (240) (250) 10
City of Lansing (262) (255) (268) 13
City of Williamston (181) (177) (184) 7
Delhi Charter (224) (216) (232) 16
E. Lansing (152) (146) (158) 12
Ingham (241) (235) (247) 12
Lansing Charter (170) (164) (177) 13
Leroy (317) (309) (326) 17
Leslie (252) (246) (258) 12
Leslie City (215) (212) (218) 6
Locke (215) (211) (218) 7
Mason (182) (178) (186) 8
Meridian Charter (135) (129) (142) 13
Onondaga (280) (272) (288) 16
Stockbridge (258) (252) (264) 12
Stockbridge Vil (319) (302) (336) 34
Vevay (246) (240) (251) 11
Webberville Vil (243) (231) (254) 23
Wheatfield (333) (322) (344) 22
White Oak (280) (275) (284) 9
Williamstown (114) (110) (119) 9
(1) A per capita measure of residential SEV revenues generated by each unit minus total expenditures allocated to each unit.  (2) The lowest likely per capita SEV revenues minus expenditures, given the uncertainty of population, poverty, crime, and average income statistics. (3) The highest likely per capita SEV revenues minus expenditures, given the uncertainty of population, poverty, crime, and average income statistics.

The following assumptions were used for this analysis: 1. The actual population may be 4 percent higher or lower than census; 2. The actual number in poverty may be 6 percent higher or lower than census;3. Actual crime activity might be 20 percent higher or lower than reported.

 

RETURN TO COUNTY HOME PAGE PREVIOUS PAGE (Scenarios)