AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP

[Gillespie]

If you DON'T believe one township on Beaver Island makes good sense both economically and practically post your thoughts here. Keep things clear and please no repetitive commentary.

[Wkohls]

Hey, Rich . . .

Sharpen your pencil . . . get back to work on the numbers . . . I found a GLARING ERROR in my initial review of your materials.

On page #7, you show a modest decrease in tax levies for Peaine property owners. The entire decrease may, however, be attributed to a 1.1 mill decrease in levies for Emergency Medical Services. Taxes for Peaine voters would otherwise increase by more than 7%.

EMS is already consolidated and I would invite you to explain how township consolidation would drastically impact the finances of the ESA and provide for a 41% decrease in EMS funding. Or, do you intend to defund EMS?

Respectfully submitted for your careful consideration . . .

[Pam Grassmick]

Bill,

Two questions so that I can properly understand the situation. On page 1 for the proposed consolidated budget, is it customary to have nearly $1.9 million in the townships fund balances?

Why if we have a joint working ESA, do I see St. James holding the Fire Department funding and Peaine holding the EMS funding? I thought that was consolidated long ago.

Thanks for your answers,
Pam

[Wkohls]

Rich . . .

Don't put that pencil away too soon. Your report requires more painstaking work and more thorough consultation with interested parties. The report contains numerous errors . . . some are inconsequential while others are substantial. For instance . . .

On page 2 of 7 - tax revenues of of $380,232 are equal to 3.37 mills, not 3.25 mills.

On page 6 of 7 - your budget anticipates slightly higher spending for EMS, yet you claim tax savings of $124,000. (WOW!) (EMS is already consolidated as part of the Emergency Services Authority and the proposed township consolidation will not result in any savings. Nonetheless, your budget arbitrarily slashes tax revenues by more than 40%!)

On page 7 of 7 - when corrected for these errors/oversights, Column (4) Potential Consolidated Levied Millage would total 12.69 mills rather than 11.47 mills.

Although your general fund budget employs questionable assumptions, your report indicates that PEAINE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY OWNERS CAN NONETHELESS EXPECT AN 8.4% INCREASE IN THEIR TOWNSHIP TAX OBLIGATIONS.

I look forward to your response.

[Gillespie]

Please post your questions to the topic and not directly to me, I posted the budget on behalf of the committee for and as such am not the only person responsible for the numbers. That said, Pam Grassmick asked you a question or two that haven't been answered yet. How about making the question and answer thing a two way street. The highest evidence by far is that you are more interested in keeping your position (and others) than you are in the best long term interests of this island community. You (against) all act like St. James, primarily the harbor area, is some detestable thing that might spoil your lives but the truth is every single one of you use all the restaurants and other facilities but think you have no part in their long term being. Nice!

44 students in our school, unbelievable costs of operation. Ferry system, extremely high costs for the consumer (and operations). Paying trash costs per bag or per truck AND paying taxes on our homesteads as well. Ambulance fees if you use the service and plenty on our tax bill! On and on. We are not ok and we will not survive reasonably without putting our best efforts together. If the savings in consolidation were a freaking penny it would be worth it so we can have a cohesive body to move this island community forward. You don't give a damn about the best long term interests of the island, you haven't been here long enough to understand them! Other board members and employees who are against it are more afraid of losing the job than they are about a better community of people. Are some afraid years of negligence and taking advantage of our pitiful finances might be exposed? What is it?

This budget was put together carefully and without embellishment because no one wanted to overstate potential savings. They will be far greater if anyone would give it a chance but you have put forth so much hyperbole and conjecture the electorate is confused. Your duty, since the petitioners were equally from both townships should/would have been to be cooperative in providing numbers but that proved untrue and delayed the process all the while complaining you were waiting. What did you do? Nothing but complain! I don't want to hear it Andy, heard enough. Tracy you too.

Divided we waster money, nothing more, nothing more gained. A shameful expose on small thinkers in a time when you would think adults would be much more interested in leaving better organization behind for those (if we are lucky to have anyone stay).

[kathleen mcnamara]

I see that there are some budget items that should be clarified; I would have posted this under the budget section, if there was space.

BIFD and BIEMS funds (and fund balances) show up under individual townships, when in fact, they are separate from the townships and are adopted by BIESA. I think the BIESA board is open to looking at the actual rate to be levied as the fiscal year unfolds and its needs and revenue become more apparent, but the board will want to make sure that aging equipment and other needs are evaluated.

Also, the amounts reflected in other fund balances, specifically the general fund are reported at the time of year when the coffers have just been built up through the Winter Tax collection. These "fund balances" are what is used by the townships to carry out the work of the their adopted budgets. And, the townships must keep a certain amount not tied directly to annual expenditures to meet emergencies, save for capital expenditures or have available to meet grant or other opportunities.

[Andy's Grooming Barn]

"44 students in our school, unbelievable costs of operation. Ferry system, extremely high costs for the consumer (and operations). Paying trash costs per bag or per truck AND paying taxes on our homesteads as well. "
Non of what you stated here has anything to do with consolidation and will not be effected by consolidation so i feel like you are blowing smoke to cover the real issues. You act as if one township is pay for more things than the other township and somethign is unfair but most of the joint entities look to be getting equal amounts from each of the townships ofther than the BIRHC it looks as if Peiane township is paying $40,000 more.

My question would be to the "Committee" as you call it which if you gave us the name of the committee that would be great because that budget was put under your name and not signed by a committee. If you plan to cut revenues in EMS by 43% can you show where you plan to cut those and how it will not effect us loosing services? Also Pat's questions have not been answered, I am particularly interested in what the debt is in each township.

[Wkohls]

Please don’t question my motives . . . we all want what's best for the Island, but we disagree as to the best method(s) to improve our community.

The proponents believe that consolidation will somehow generate great benefits and, having placed this proposal on the ballot, it is incumbent upon them to make their case.

After three months of caterwauling, the proponents produce a "budget" that not only fails to make a coherent case for consolidation, it proves two of my principle points: 1) savings will be nil, and 2) consolidation will result in a significant financial transfer to St. James taxpayers from Peaine taxpayers.

I am skeptical and have rebutted dubious claims on the forum, but the “budget” continues to make many of the same intellectually dishonest claims.

The budget assumes that people, including township officials, assessors, accountants and attorneys, will do more work without a corresponding increase in remuneration. (We could, instead, just ask these peoples to do the same work for less.)

We do not have to consolidate to slash funding for EMS (if that’s what we choose to do) and you cannot claim that those “savings” result from consolidation.

You do not have to consolidate to liquidate duplicate or otherwise unneeded properties and the proceeds from the sale of any such properties do not constitute a benefit of consolidation.

Note: I would still like know how much was spent (including legal fees) to put this on the ballot. I would also like to know who contributed to the effort.

[DeerwoodLodge]

Rich...

With all due respect, and I hope I am not the only person on here who feels this way, its extremely difficult to achieve any sense of democratic validity on behalf of the discussion and immediately throws into question the integrity of the discussion to have the moderator of a forum actually take a position on the very issue you're opening up for the community to discuss.

Insofar as you have already and irrevocably posted your personal position, it would make sense for someone else to moderate the for and against discussions, or at a very minimum for you to place your first post related to the budget out there, having clearly delineated your position, and then refrain from commenting in any way on either the 'for' or 'against' discussions. I would propose that would include deleting any previous engagement in discussion you have already had with anyone who posts in any of the three discussions.

It further compromises the integrity of the discussion by more or less removing the right of anonymity and privacy from each member of the community who posts by more or less clearly showing how they will vote. I will admit I am typically frustrated by those who insist on posting anonymously, but in this case the expectation of privacy is removed for everyone regardless of their preference, and that seems problematic.

I'm also concerned by your previous statements that indicate you reserve the right to serve as censor for any statements that you deem have broken the forum rules. Its hard to expect fairness and objectivity from you where thats concerned when you are actively engaging in taking a position and arguing it.

As a result, I struggle to encourage anyone to utilize these discussion threads as a viable tool in achieving a well informed and unbiased position. It seems flawed from the word go.

Thanks
Vince Ebersoldt

[Gillespie]

Vince, this is a privately owned entity and I am trying to do my best. My position comes from a life long theme and has been well known for ever. I try not to split hairs but you must admit the thing got out of control hence the shut down. My attitude is to go forth and answer questions that I can and will but also to let others make their comments. Perhaps that I know more of the inner angle does cause me some "harm" but that's life. I will try to heed your points. As to an impartial moderator at this point, it would be difficult. Let's see where this takes us.

Bill, I stand my ground with you. 'Nough said.

[Andy's Grooming Barn]

Even though nobody has answered my previous questions yet, I would like to ask another. Under St. James there is a repayment from the sewer fund of $13,000 (I do not see where this comes out of the sewer fund anywhere), not to long back Richie put on the forum that this was all taken care of but this would imply that it isn't. If somebody could get us up to speed on what all still needs to be done with this that would be great!!

[DeerwoodLodge]

Rich

To be clear I appreciate the work you've done, the establishment of the forum (even if often frustrated by the infighting), respect your position, and respect even more your right to that position. I just think its imperative you either have a position or moderate. There are too many questions raised by trying to do both.

I appreciate your understanding!
Vince

[Wkohls]

Earlier today . . . written on the "pro" thread . . . "So if all things are equal we have two boards with combined effort managing one set of assets that could essentially be done by one board. My guess is that this alone could save island taxpayers up to 1/4 million a year!"

If you accept that you can increase spending by $5,000 and simultaneously claim savings of $129,000, you will probably believe that consolidation can save Island taxpayers $250,000 a year.

Voters beware!

[Andy's Grooming Barn]

Below are a portion of January 4, 2017 minutes for St. James township, if you will recall earlier on the forum Richie posted that all of this has been resolved but clearly it has not. I put in bold what I felt was important.

D R A F T - St. James Township Regular Board Meeting Minutes St. James Township Hall – 37735 Michigan Avenue, Beaver Island, MI 49782 January 4, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.

Board Members present: Kathleen McNamara, Alice Belfy, Diane McDonough, Travis Martin, Jeff Powers (via speaker phone). Board Members absent: None

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Kitty read the agenda and asked the audience if anyone had anything to add. Bob Tidmore asked for Planning Commission appointment information.

Motion to approve the minutes from the December 7, 2016, meeting (JP), 2nd (AB), Approved.

Finance Report - There will be copies of the report in the future for the public. This summary has the basic information and the board liked the format. Per Board Resolution 2016-9-21 Repayment of Inter-fund borrowing from Street & Road Fund, the Sewer Fund will be paying the Street and Road Fund $31,700.30 for the period ended December 31, 2016, and $13,000.00 for each of the years beginning 2017 through 2021, for a total repayment of $96,770.30 from the Sewer Fund to the Street and Road Fund.

Motion (KM) for the following Resolution: “Resolved that the St. James Twp Board grant authority to the Treasurer to close the 2001 Special Assessment Bond Debt Retirement Fund account and transfer that account’s current balance ($3,140.57) to the Sewer Use Fund. Further, as the first installment of repayment to the Street and Road Fund, the SJT Board authorizes the Treasurer to transfer $20,000.00 from the Sewer Use Fund and $11,770.30 from the Sewer Capital Improvement Fund to the Street and Road Fund.” 2nd (AB). Motion approved. Kitty said she would like to have the board discuss and identify where the funds will come from for future years

[kathleen mcnamara]

At this time St James Township has no outstanding bonds or other general fund or road fund debt. The municipal sewer system bond was paid off in 2017. The sewer fund has internal debt which is being paid through ongoing sewer use fees by those homeowners and businesses who are connected to the sewer system. This internal debt will be paid off by 2020; the debt includes $13,000.00 per year to the Street and Road fund and approximately $7,000.00 per year to Charlevoix State Bank. The municipal dock fund has internal debt which is being paid by revenue generated through dock slip fees will also be paid off by 2020; this debt is $10,000.00 per year to the general fund and is related to historic dock-fund payroll taxes which were paid out of the general fund. Both of these repayment schedules were adopted by board resolution.