To our surprise this past fall—some Peaine and St James residents circulated petitions for an Island-wide vote on township consolidation. Their petitions went to the Charlevoix County Commission which placed the proposal on the May 8th ballot.
The petitioners requesting this vote likely had good intentions, but they didn’t tell us WHY they wanted consolidation, and WHAT they expected to get from it. They failed to engage the Island in discussing its potential. In January, I wrote—“This is far too important to ask the Island’s voters to base their decision(s) on unsupported claims, idle speculation and conjecture. Having started this process, it is incumbent upon consolidation proponents to provide reliable information.”
Before arranging for such a vote, responsible parties prepare information and hold meaningful discussions. The petitioners here said they would discuss the costs and benefits of consolidation but refrained from doing so. They failed to respond to the questions they solicited on their website, and the lack of meaningful information left a void. They even refused to join a discussion of the issues with an off-Island professional moderator.
Some concerned residents worked to identify what typically justified consolidations, and what the effects might be. They gathered data, examined townships’ circumstances and reached the fact-based conclusion that people should likely VOTE NO! They sent their findings via mail and website posting for all Island residents—and were disappointed the original petitioners didn’t do the same.
The Michigan Townships Association Director reported that proponents of consolidation generally exaggerate the potential savings—and the “budget” posted on April 15th (anonymously, by the way) may be a prime example. Their general fund budget is little more than unsupported, random cuts generally based on the idea that people are overpaid and will do more work without a corresponding increase in compensation. More likely—the increased workload will lead to full-time positions with benefits that increase expenditures.
Consolidation does not automatically produce savings. Savings come from solid, comprehensive plans such as those that come from eliminating duplicate facilities—but here our facilities are already shared. Without a plan—we will not see efficient and effective outcomes. A consolidation decision should focus on tangible benefits to the Island’s constituents. Its proponents should not reduce services to create an illusion of cost savings—as they did in their suggested budget for EMS.
Our townships approved millage to ensure the availability of advanced life support services, but in an apparent effort to create a viable budget—the proponents slashed funding for EMS by 43%. The unknown creators of the proponents’ budget show a nominal increase in expenditures yet reduce taxes by $129,000. Claiming a tax savings while proposing increased spending is simply disingenuous.
An inherent problem is that St. James levies considerably higher tax rates than Peaine. A consolidated township will have a single tax rate that will be lower than the current levy in St. James and higher than the current levy in Peaine. Our calculations show that property owners in Peaine would likely see an increase in property taxes of nearly 9%, while property owners in St. James could see a decrease in property taxes of more than 10%. Having reviewed the proponents’ budget, we stand by this prediction.
Some consolidation proponents claim that it will somehow result in a greater sense of shared values and produce a unified approach to governing. While a reduction in conflict is desired, it is difficult to imagine that we will come to resolve differences through consolidation. The proponents do not explain how or why consolidation would reduce conflict. Nothing is reflected in their budget that would do so and it is understandable—since our townships are not the source of conflict—and consolidation will not eliminate the conflict we now experience.
Differences reflect the different views and deeply held beliefs of township constituents. Peaine residents bicker with one another just as St. James residents bicker with each other, and If consolidated, residents of the new Township will also do so. Differences and valuable opinions of our constituents create value—though more respect and valuing of the differences are needed, along with sound information and fair opportunities to discuss them.
I urge voters to recognize the consequential nature of this consolidation decision, and urge them not to rely on unsupported claims. Before supporting consolidation, we need a viable plan with clear and measurable outcomes – a plan that is vetted by third-party experts as well as Island leaders. At this time we have no such plan, and in its absence, I ask residents to vote NO on May 8th.