Township Consolidation?

 

WHY did some year-round and seasonal residents arrange for a public election on township consolidation? We don’t know—and we’re puzzled about what they see as the likely benefits and downsides. Comments like “we’ve needed it for a long time” hide the real reasons as well as the unforeseen consequences. Clarity and transparency is needed.

 

So we looked at what others have done when considering consolidation. Many hire unbiased specialists to study and report on key issues—collecting data on the potential costs and benefits as well as survey data from effected residents. They get such information before incurring the costs of a special election, and the substantial legal fees needed to create a new township.

 

But that wasn’t done here, and time is limited. So we’ve tried to do our best in the short time we have—drawing on our own knowledge and experience regarding our current townships. We share what we’ve learned here now for you to consider—and we explain why we oppose the current proposal and expect to vote NO on consolidation. 

 

Those with expertise on government consolidations typically focus on two key areas of study: What is the PURPOSE? And, What is the PLAN?  We address the predictable questions they raise here: 

• Will consolidation improve government services, or reduce redundant services? If so, which services—and how will they be improved?   

• Will consolidation improve decision-making? If so, how and in what ways?

• Will consolidation save money? If so, how—and how much?  

• Will consolidation benefit “all” residents and tax-payers, or will it have detrimental effects for some—and if so what are these effects and who will encounter them? 

 

Will Consolidation Improve Services? Not likely, as there is no plan indicating how our services would be improved. Our townships already share the Island’s service facilities—the Public Airport; Transfer Station; Health Center; Emergency Services Authority; and Municipal Dock. We have no duplicate facilities to save money on—nor would we increase rates of use or avoid major new investments. If those who called for this vote think services would be improved they need to tell us why and how. We don’t see it, and plan to vote NO on consolidation.

​

Will Consolidation Improve the Decision-Making Process—or Create Greater Unity? There would be fewer meetings and fewer officials involved in decision-making—but “simpler” does not mean “better”. The proposed consolidation would have half the number of officials representing a larger area, with twice the number of residents who are known to differ on development and tax issues—differences that reflect real differences in constituents’ views.

​

Fewer voices speaking to our local government means less participation. Wisely, our forefathers built a “balance of powers” government to prevent control by any single body—and fortunately, we have a “balance of power” already here on Beaver. Our two townships offer a system of “checks and balances”—and when differences occur and agreement is needed, the Boards simply meet to reconcile the differences. Arguments are not the fault of two townships—they simply reflect the preferences of various constituents. We think that having five people alone govern the Island is unwise, since it gives too much power to too few people—and it doesn’t change people’s views or make them more civil. Ten officials are not too many to reason with when working in two groups of five--individually or together –they check on and oversee our government services. More citizen participation in a democracy is better than less—and leads us to vote NO on consolidation.

​

Will it Save Money—and if so, How? Few government consolidations lead to savings—and without a plan, we can’t see how the proposed consolidation would save anything. The significant election and legal fees required to create a new township would have to be paid before any savings could be realized. These costs could be around $100,000. Consolidation “savings” usually occur because of duplication in services—but our Island services are already integrated and jointly funded. No duplication exists. Further, the consolidation petitioners also propose cutting our township officials from 10 to 5, without indicating how the added burden would be assumed—nor how administrative costs would lead to savings. No one expects our township officials to do twice the work for the same compensation. If significant financial savings are in fact likely—we ask those who called for this vote to tell us “how” and “where” the savings will come from.

 

Our fact-based financial analysis is included in the detailed report we’ve already made available on the Beaver Island Forum and https://wkohls.wixsite.com/consolidationinfo. If you would like more information or have questions—feel free to contact current or former Peaine leaders, such as Bill Kohls, 448-2150; Jack Gallagher, 448-2441; John Works, 448-2594; or Doug Tilly, 448-2024. That report and data further explains our reasons—and why we expect to vote NO on consolidation.

 

Will Consolidation Unfairly Help or Hurt Residents in Either Township? Three issues matter:

 

1. Consolidation would help St. James tax-payers and hurt Peaine tax-payers. The problem is that over the years, St. James levied higher tax rates than Peaine. A consolidated township will have a single tax rate lower than the current levy in St. James, and higher than the current levy in Peaine. The effect would be a financial transfer from Peaine taxpayers to St. James taxpayers—with Peaine seeing a 9% tax increase and those in St. James seeing a 10% decrease in support of a consolidated Township government. The only way to avoid this possibility would be for the new township to reduce expenditures by nearly $120,000 annually—an unlikely possibility. Further, these figures could change again if we knew the Townships’ levels of debt—since if one has a greater debt than the other—it would be paid off by residents of both townships.

2. It will also disrupt our current township officials’ terms of office. They were elected fairly just 1½ years ago for 4-year terms. Many worked hard on their elections and have served well. But now, for no fault of their own—they will be unfairly dismissed. This issue of “fairness” (or lack of it) could well involve lawyers as well as legal and/or settlement fees.

3. Peaine Township is named after Chief Peaine—an honorable Native American whose name was given to the first and only Island township before it was divided. He aided and helped protect the Irish during the Strang years, and should continue to be recognized as an important part of our Island heritage. We don’t want to lose his historical significance. 

 

This summarizes our reasoning and knowledge to date—and explains why we plan to vote NO on consolidation. However, we remain open to further discussion and information—but know that the consolidation decision will have significant consequences. We must think seriously about these consequences, and urge you to give it your thoughtful time and attention as well.

​