Township Consolidation Update
Moderator: Gillespie
Fire . . . ready . . . aim . . . ?
Itâ??s been 12 days since John and Angel posted notice that township consolidation will appear on the May 8th ballot and it has been months since they circulated their petitions. A following thoughts seem evident . . .
1. If we were staring with a â??clean sheet of paper,â? itâ??s unlikely that anyone would design our current structure comprised of two townships and, at least to my knowledge, no one believes that two townships are theoretically superior to one township.
2. The question before the voters, however, is much more complicated. Concisely stated, the questions is . . . do the net tangible benefits of consolidation justify the consequential expenditures that will be required to complete the consolidation?
3. Any savings will have to come from the townshipsâ?? general funds.
a. Most township services (including the transfer station, airport, emergency services, health center) are already consolidated.
b. The townshipsâ?? road funds are basically a pass-thru account and, accordingly, there are no savings to be realized by consolidation.
4. This is far too important to ask the Islandâ??s voters to base their decision(s) on the unsupported claims, idle speculation and conjecture on the Forum.
5. Having started this process, it is incumbent upon John and Angel to provide reliable information (other than the technical provisions of the law.)
6. The failure to provide such information creates an informational void and more responsible parties would have prepared this information before circulating petitions.
7. Township voters would not accept this from elected officials and they should not accept it from unelected petitioners.
8. At a minimum, the information to be prepared by the petitioners should include . . .
a. A list of the tangible benefits (and disadvantages) to be achieved by consolidation.
b. An itemized list of the estimated costs necessary to implement consolidation.
c. Pro forma financial statements with explanatory notes that show changes in revenues and expenses resulting from consolidation.
1. If we were staring with a â??clean sheet of paper,â? itâ??s unlikely that anyone would design our current structure comprised of two townships and, at least to my knowledge, no one believes that two townships are theoretically superior to one township.
2. The question before the voters, however, is much more complicated. Concisely stated, the questions is . . . do the net tangible benefits of consolidation justify the consequential expenditures that will be required to complete the consolidation?
3. Any savings will have to come from the townshipsâ?? general funds.
a. Most township services (including the transfer station, airport, emergency services, health center) are already consolidated.
b. The townshipsâ?? road funds are basically a pass-thru account and, accordingly, there are no savings to be realized by consolidation.
4. This is far too important to ask the Islandâ??s voters to base their decision(s) on the unsupported claims, idle speculation and conjecture on the Forum.
5. Having started this process, it is incumbent upon John and Angel to provide reliable information (other than the technical provisions of the law.)
6. The failure to provide such information creates an informational void and more responsible parties would have prepared this information before circulating petitions.
7. Township voters would not accept this from elected officials and they should not accept it from unelected petitioners.
8. At a minimum, the information to be prepared by the petitioners should include . . .
a. A list of the tangible benefits (and disadvantages) to be achieved by consolidation.
b. An itemized list of the estimated costs necessary to implement consolidation.
c. Pro forma financial statements with explanatory notes that show changes in revenues and expenses resulting from consolidation.
-
carolburton
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:27 am
- Contact:
Thanks Bill for that list of all very good points to be considered in this decision.
Hard for anyone to post after this feed has reverted back to the behavior that keeps people from posting and supplying information. Please share facts or information that you find! The good information posted is being drowned out by the angry posts. I know you all care deeply about this island.
I haven't made an educated decision on what way I would vote but I am keeping an open mind. The facts will have to be presented. I also would not and do not have anything against a township position for anyone. What I was trying to say is that our decisions should not be made on wether a township official needs the job. And I was just sharing that there seems to be options for them. I apologize for guessing based on what I think I know. The issue I believe is not and should not be about who holds or needs these positions if we were to consolidate townships. What we would be considering is how it would be changed and what the new positions would look like. What is best for the island and the taxpayer would be the topic of discussion.
I looked up duties of a township official to see if I cold see what a new position would be like and found this. I thought it was a good article. https://www.fsbrlaw.com/Resources/Artic ... -Officials
Hard for anyone to post after this feed has reverted back to the behavior that keeps people from posting and supplying information. Please share facts or information that you find! The good information posted is being drowned out by the angry posts. I know you all care deeply about this island.
I haven't made an educated decision on what way I would vote but I am keeping an open mind. The facts will have to be presented. I also would not and do not have anything against a township position for anyone. What I was trying to say is that our decisions should not be made on wether a township official needs the job. And I was just sharing that there seems to be options for them. I apologize for guessing based on what I think I know. The issue I believe is not and should not be about who holds or needs these positions if we were to consolidate townships. What we would be considering is how it would be changed and what the new positions would look like. What is best for the island and the taxpayer would be the topic of discussion.
I looked up duties of a township official to see if I cold see what a new position would be like and found this. I thought it was a good article. https://www.fsbrlaw.com/Resources/Artic ... -Officials
burton
-
islandliving
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 9:10 am
- Location: Beaver Island, Michigan
It seems that if Angel posted the progress report on the forum on January 10th that she and also John Feigan would continue to provide more information to the voters especially answers to questions. My questions I will repeat again. Why is the consolidation a good idea? Show us a projected cost to consolidate? Show us our tax reductions provided by consolidation. Show us reasons for taking jobs away from our elected citizens. Show us projected salaries of the new townships officials and trustees. Show us the projected salary of a professional manager. One answer to any questions would be a start. We have nothing but speculation from a few people that it will be better. My suggestion is just make the local government we have better. It seems the fact that the petitioners are being silent is a sign the consolidation is being done for the wrong reasons. It is also irresponsible and a little bit suspicious that no information is being provided. I would like to see another petition filed to postpone the May election to give time for the petitioners to get their facts out to the voters.
John McCafferty
John McCafferty
-
John Bolton
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:07 pm
- Location: Sioux Falls SD
-
Jimmy McCafferty
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:31 am
Township consolidation
Due to business and health reasons have had to make numerous trips to Charlevoix. Have had the opportunity to have private meetings with Nancy Ferguson and the county clerk. Appreciate their taking time to talk to me but was extremely disappointed by their lack of interest on this issue. Considering Nancy has property on the Island was perplexed on her position on merger.
Am taking a proactive position on this issue so am open to discuss publicly or privately about it. Will leave contact information at the Gas station. Was also fortunate enough to meet with Peaine Township Supervisor who shared some valuable information. Am eager to share the information I have gathered
Am taking a proactive position on this issue so am open to discuss publicly or privately about it. Will leave contact information at the Gas station. Was also fortunate enough to meet with Peaine Township Supervisor who shared some valuable information. Am eager to share the information I have gathered
-
Mojave Bob
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:55 am
As a 20-year employee of local government, I have seen township mergers before. In our county here, about 10 years ago, we consolidated 13 township governance boards all at once. The townships still exist, but have no independent governance - all of it is handled at the county assessor's office.
At the time, there was a LOT of concern for the loss of local control. There were predictions of people dying for lack of access to township relief. It was predicted that the various duties could not possibly be effectively carried out from a central office. Costs would go way up because too much work would mean more contract labor and higher salary costs. It was just unreasonable to expect taxpayers to travel a couple of miles further, to a place that they go almost every day, anyway.
None of the doomsday predictions came true. It was smooth - almost seamless. Services are carried out more effectively and at lower cost. I should point out that the reason we did it was because we HAD to save taxpayer dollars, and we did - a lot of them. Really, the only ugly result of the consolidation was two or three of the township trustees who didn't want to give up their position mid-cycle.
I can only speak in these general terms. I don't have specific dollar amounts to share. But, I can say that it was good for the county, we saved money, and I don't know of a single person who thinks we should go back. In our case, it was done well. If done well on Beaver Island, I would expect similar results.
At the time, there was a LOT of concern for the loss of local control. There were predictions of people dying for lack of access to township relief. It was predicted that the various duties could not possibly be effectively carried out from a central office. Costs would go way up because too much work would mean more contract labor and higher salary costs. It was just unreasonable to expect taxpayers to travel a couple of miles further, to a place that they go almost every day, anyway.
None of the doomsday predictions came true. It was smooth - almost seamless. Services are carried out more effectively and at lower cost. I should point out that the reason we did it was because we HAD to save taxpayer dollars, and we did - a lot of them. Really, the only ugly result of the consolidation was two or three of the township trustees who didn't want to give up their position mid-cycle.
I can only speak in these general terms. I don't have specific dollar amounts to share. But, I can say that it was good for the county, we saved money, and I don't know of a single person who thinks we should go back. In our case, it was done well. If done well on Beaver Island, I would expect similar results.
Thank you Bob for a lucid, positive response. The biggest complainers on this topic, I think, are defending others who may have these positions or themselves. The truth is there is no good reason not to consolidate. When the financial mess hit in 08 how long were GM and Ford etc to dump unprofitable divisions. To say two townships benefits the island is simply a falsehood. It only causes problems.
A solution in search of a problem
In my prior post, I stated that this decision is â??far too important to ask the Islandâ??s voters to base their decision(s) on the unsupported claims, idle speculation and conjecture on the Forum.â? I also described the information that the petitioners should make available to the Island voters.
Rather than provide meaningful information, the petitioners have punted by making vague assertions that mimic of the unsupported claims, idle speculation and conjecture on the Forum.
Did the petitioners do their homework before putting township consolidation on the ballot? It seems to me that the petitioners would make a compelling financial argument, if they could. Let us see the financial analysis that they have prepared. If they have done no meaningful analysis, they should say so!
The voters deserve better.
Rather than provide meaningful information, the petitioners have punted by making vague assertions that mimic of the unsupported claims, idle speculation and conjecture on the Forum.
Did the petitioners do their homework before putting township consolidation on the ballot? It seems to me that the petitioners would make a compelling financial argument, if they could. Let us see the financial analysis that they have prepared. If they have done no meaningful analysis, they should say so!
The voters deserve better.