FOR A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP

[K.D. McBride]

In rereading your post, I think anyone can deduce that consolidation is financially in the Island best interest.

[K.D. McBride]

Andy -
I apologize, I was thinking that if one is For Consolidation, this is the thread to post that on. If one is Against Consolidation they should post on the other thread. What confuses me is if one is against consolidation then it is posted on both threads. Apparently, the people who support consolidation and post that fact on this thread should do so knowing whatever they post will be attacked by a few who oppose consolidation and if they should miss that opposing post it is repeated verbatim on the other thread. When I see you, Bill, John and others post on this thread I just assume you and they are in support of consolidation or you and they would be posting on the other thread, which they do. See what I mean about being confused?

[Gillespie]

If I were your parent you would have been sent to your room long ago!

[Andy's Grooming Barn]

Talking about growing up Richie, you remove any post off the pro's that we put on but continue to leave the post of your buddies on the con's side. This is why the petitioners if they wanted to do this the correct way should have had meetings, been transparent not used the forum for their campaigning. Of course by using this forum they then can have Richie remove anything they don't want to be seen and they can verbally abuse us, very sad, instead they could have gotten facts and information out then decided if this should have been on the ballot.
obviously modorating isn't your strong suit.

[Gillespie]

Just getting started! Been gone for a couple days!

[islandliving]

[Wkohls]

Hey, Ken . . .

A few thoughts for your consideration.

1) You might not be fully aware of the process utilized in the preparation of the master plan. For a number of reasons, most notably that the participants were self-selected, the survey cannot be considered statistically reliable and/or valid.
2) I doubt that participants in that survey were fully informed. For example, they were not aware that consolidation would result in A TAX INCREASE FOR PEAINE TOWNSHIP property owners, nor would they be aware of the proponents plans to SLASH FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BY MORE THAN 40%.
3) Finally, the “survey” that will be conducted on May 8th will be the survey that counts.

[BobTidmore]

The survey you mentioned was done at a public workshop at the Community Center by residents of Beaver Island. I guess I don't know what your comment of "most notably that the participants were self-selected" means except these were citizens interested in the future of Beaver Island. If I recall it was in the winter too.

I wish you would publish the data showing how you arrive at the tax increase for Peaine you claim. If you have trouble dealing with financial documents heck I’ll send you the Excel sheets I used and you can just fill in the blanks.

Bob Tidmore

[Wkohls]

Hey, Bob . . .

Thanks for your post!

In order for a survey to be valid and reliable, the survey sample has to be representative of the population. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the individuals that comprise that sample were fully informed.

It is extremely doubtful that the sample that you describe in your post is representative of the population of Beaver Island voters that will cast ballots a little more than two weeks from today.

Jack Gallagher and I produced a report on the impact of consolidation on property taxes several weeks ago. You can find it here https://wkohls.wixsite.com/consolidationinfo The methodology is similar to your approach, but we did not assume a 43% decrease in fund for EMS.

[K.D. McBride]

Hey, Bill....

I know I can be a smart "A" at times (most of the time) but this is a serious question: Why do a survey if in fact you then call the results and thereby people completing it invalid if they don't support your premise?

[Wkohls]

Hey, Kirk . . .

Thanks for your post. I have been away from my desk enjoying the beautiful weather on Beaver Island. Please look for a response tomorrow.

[Maureen Abele]

Just want to clarify that the proposed figure of 1.6 mils for EMS in the consolidated township budget came from the Proposed Beaver Island Budget. See pages 6 and 7 on that thread. Unless there is some error in the calculation, 1.6 mils appears to more than cover anticipated expenditures.

[Gillespie]

Maureen, you are absolutely correct. It is my opinion Bill set out to make things look bad and not at any thought of compromise. Without looking I believe our township boards are sitting on nearly 2 million dollars. When I was a younger man I recall that boards such as this needed to maintain enough money to operate for 6-8 months (in fact it is part of state law as I recall) or until the next tax collection were do. IF a capital expenditure were required sometimes a special meeting was called or even a special election. We are hanging on to far too much of peoples money. It's not just and another trigger for this election. For what it's worth, this isn't all about money, by the way. Can we make our community better with this effort? Could we streamline our path to better coordination and cooperation with our mainland boards and bodies? Sure! As I said, one commissioner alone said we would swing a much larger bat if we were together.

The truth is, there is no positive to keeping the island divided but selfishness, all we do is go backward and we cannot continue to do that! One Island, One Township! Let's not leave the mess behind for our children and grandchildren, there is much to accomplish!

[Wkohls]

Maureen

Thanks for your post.

It’s important to consider the timing as well as the amount of the revenues. Property taxes are collected in arrears (during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year.) As a result, EMS needs to maintain a sufficient cash balance to maintain operations during the first nine months of the fiscal year. Slashing property taxes in the current year would reduce the cash balance and jeopardize operations in the following year.

Furthermore, the operation of EMS will not be affected by the proposed consolidation and the illusory savings created by slashing its funding cannot be attributed to consolidation. You could slash funding for EMS without consolidating and, conversely, you do not have to slash funding even if you consolidate.

On page 1 of 7 of the proposed budget claims, the proponents claim they “avoid use of fund balances/surplus funds to balance budgets or fund services.” Nonetheless, the proposed budget would reduce the EMS fund by more than $130,000! (I’m trying to keep these folks honest!)

Equally important to note, the proponents’ budget actually anticipates a nominal increase in spending and I submit that the “savings” is nothing more than ink on a piece of paper.

Now . . . having said all of that . . . and all else being equal . . . taxes levied for EMS could be lower in the future if/when a sufficient cash balance is established that provides ample liquidity for contingencies as well as sustained cash flow for operations. (Note to others . . . don’t try to twist the meaning of this statement. This is not some sort of game of gotcha.)

[carolburton]

I combined the revenue for each township and the expenses of each township from the information given on these sites and there is a large $774,790 overage (give or take my math) of what is budgeted. I am not a math wizard but if it combines with NO CHANGES to the budgets (no moving or change in budgets even if some of the expenses will be less) and we have this overage... Why can't Peaine Township taxes stay the same and St. James come down to match Peaine? It would seem that we would all be paying the same and our fair share for the entire island's needs.