FOR A CONSOLIDATED BEAVER ISLAND TOWNSHIP

[Wkohls]

I hope this will be helpful. The following table adjusts amounts provide by Carol by the cash balances inappropriately included in the current year revenues. Note: The source is the proponents' budget and I have not independently verified the amounts.

The table indicates that revenues were overstated by $888,549 and that current year revenues less expenditures is a loss of $113,759. That is, the budgets anticipate that the aggregate fund balances will be $113,759 lower at March 31, 2019.

[K.D. McBride]

Hey, Bill ...

I see you have been busy with responses today and I may have missed your reply to my previos question. Trying to understand why you state that the results of the survey for the Master Plan regarding support for consolidation are invalid along with the people completing the survey?

Thanks - Kirk

[meadefamily]

Carol
I am sorry but I believe we have to leave certain things to the experts. Creating a budget and not understanding how tax's work and how a township runs internally is dangerous at best. I was not aware you had experience in those areas. Owning a business is far different and not a good comparison.

I did not poke you or accuse you of babbling like you so rudely did to me. I simply asked where that information was obtained from. I do know enough to know that a budget and ACTUAL numbers are very different things. You have no issue asking questions on the other thread and no issues asking repeatedly about Dick's letter.

Let's stick to the debate. This side sparring helps no one. Franky it is exhausting. If I want to ask a question or make a comment I have just as much right as you.

Kathe

[carolburton]

Bill

Maybe I don't have this right? If my numbers are that wrong, what you are saying is that right now, if we combined the townships AS IS Today... Revenue - Expenses = a Loss? So this year and next and so forth we are running our townships at a negative figure? How can we be running these townships with that kind of short coming? That doesn't seem right but if that is so what are the townships doing to proactively fix this deficit in our budgets?

Revenues $2,341,744 - Expenditures $2,428,503 = Loss $113,759 ?

Carol

Kathe -
Did you say something relevant because I think I missed it in your non-informative needling answer in which you seem to know who the experts are? I think we as taxpayers can ask as many expert questions we want. Leaving certain things to the experts is just bad business. That is like saying don't pay attention or don't try and think for yourself while we take your money! It is dangerous at best to not ask or think!
Also perhaps you shouldn't send private messages and including those that you then delete out of forum view to needle people like me. Your never ending side sparing is quite frankly exhausting!
Also in reference to Dicks letter did you have an answer to my questions or are you just bringing it up to stick a needle in again? I did get one answer to one of my questions but none to what has been done in Peaine since 1980 to further those goals.Thanks for pointing it out that no one answered my question though. Do you know? If so, lets here it, since you have the scoop on everything and everyone you should certainly be able to point at least one thing out.
So to sum up your post...you said nothing of importance again... but you did harassed someone, diverted the conversation again, and you didn't have one point to the consolidation debate. Note: at least Bill gave an ACTUAL answer in his expert opinion.
So my answer to you is that I will not respond to you unless you state an ACTUAL fact or have an ACTUAL question that will add value to the debate.
Most sincerely, Carol

PS: My apologies to everyone else for lack of holding my normal peaceful posts! If you have questions about my bold words review Kathe's last post to me. Once again sorry for wavering from the ACTUAL consolidation debate.

[meadefamily]

Carol

Since you addressed me on this page I will answer you here, even tho most of your response was in regards to something I posted on the other page.

Again, I asked for where your numbers came from. Just trying to understand.

I posted my feelings on the against consolidation page, which I believe was the purpose of this forum. Here I simply asked you here how you came up with those numbers because I could not find them. I was interested, as I should be as a tax payer. You are very quick to challenge, but do not afford the same in return?

Please reframe from the attacks Carol. My comments about the third party experts was on the against consolidation page. It is really not fair for you to attack my opinion. Even worse is your need to belittle me and make it appear I have nothing good to contribute. I believe that is a classic bullying technique.

As far as your question about what Peanine township has done since the 80's. I will admit many felt that was a tad of needling on your behalf and chose not to answer it, as I am certain you already know the answer. I invite you to take a look at the businesses in Peanine. I don't have the time or interest in teaching a history lesson and getting you exact dates, but I believe there are several businesses that developed in the 80s and beyond.

However, the topic of growth is a great one and I believe both townships have a growth plan that is ever evolving and changing to fit the economy, the trends and the population of the island.

One thing that struck me about your question was to think about what is the right balance for the island? Do we want another Mackinaw Island? Do we want docks on South end and a shopping community? In the 80 maybe we did. We have have a few major recessions, a housing crisis, interest rate fluxuation and the baby boomers have merged since the 80s. Would we be now be robbing Peter to pay Paul if we had those things? At what point does the beauty and uniqueness of each township get compromised with growth? At one time there were docks on the South end, a hotel being built, a logging village on lake G, etc..the history of the south end is fascinating.

I can tell you that each side of the island is unique not only in the landscape, but the population and views of people who live there. When we bought on Lake G, a lifetime resident asked me why would you buy all the way down there? To me, that is what I wanted. To many they want the "city" life. Perhaps the community leaders in the 80's and 90's reconize how uniquely different both townships were and decided to work together on joint projects yet respected their differences.

I can list for you the obvious businesses , I am not sure of thier exact date of starting or thier growth since the 80's...but they are significant. CMU, transfer station, two airports, many construction companies, a car wash, a few restaurants, a music festival, many home based businesses, birding trails, camp ground, paths and trails, public beaches, and on and on. How many of those accomplishments are because of government, I'd like to think not many. I would like to think it is the people that drove the development and growth. (You being one of them, which is an accomplishment you should be very proud of)

Beaver Island is at a cross roads. This is one of the most important things that will impact generations to come. It should not be done without full consideration of the consequences of the outcome.

Regardless of your attempt to devalue me or my existence on Beaver Island or the forum the value I bring is a the same value every tax payer of the island brings. Your comments above are uncalled for.

As I have said before, I don't disagree that consolidation may be a good option, but it needs to be done the right way. It simply has not been and I am sorry that being my observation upsets you. Your attempt at silencing me is alarming.

A very good (island) friend of mine taught me in the last presidential election that we can be polar opposites on our political beliefs and still learn from each other. We still challenge eachother on issues. I.would never dream of telling her her thoughts were irrelevant, or she had nothing good to say or any of the things you said above. We simply agree to disagree.

At this point you and I simply need to agree to disagree.

Kathe

[carolburton]

I agree with you that the topic of growth is a great one. The townships do have one it is called the Master Plan. However, that plan has been devaluated by one of the townships saying that the surveys and information is invalid. Now mind you this was a very long process that included, taxpayers, residents, visitors, and an outside party to organize and put together as a unit to guide the townships to the Master Plan for the Island. This Master Plan is required by law I believe to generate funding opportunities, prepare for the future, and to unify the island with a united plan. The problem with that is that one side doesn't value it and the opinion of many. This is discouraging to hear after so many gave hours and hours to the planning and development for the better of the Island and that it was adopted by the townships. Now if I was shown how they wanted to work together I might change my opinion.

I also agree with you on the question of What is the right balance for the island? You have definitely proved that the (Dick Burris Letter) is no longer relevant as I was also saying. We are not unique in people only the landscape. After 40 years of non development it is obvious that the reasons of the past are no longer the reasons of today. Is there more because that might change my opinion.

I also agree with you that the businesses that have developed are not a part of the township plan. They are from the hard work and dedication of a struggling island population that needs growth to remain and to grow. I refer to us as Island Survivors. The birding trails, etc. are accomplishments of not the townships but hard working people who care about the island. I even think the signage had to be approved outside of the townships. Therefore, my question what has the township done to move us forward. I want to here maybe some actual forward motion projects. Everyone can see the things that are falling to the wayside for example all of our lake accesses, the non repair and upkeep issues that are only growing. Maybe they could show me something else and change my opinion.

I also agree things should be done the right way. The question put to the ballot was legally done. The signatures from taxpaying citizens was more than needed and their opinion should be valued. They had every legal right to pursue this and ask our elected officials to contribute and consider their opinions. Now you can say it was not done right and it wasn't planned and that it should have been done different. The fact is it wasn't because their opinion was it was best this way. Debate will always be debate and no amount of studies will change the heart or mind of people. Action will. So I agree that there will always be disagreements but it was put on the ballot correctly and legally and at this point it is all that matters. It is now up for us to decide. So if you have a fact about consolidation or an opinion or a great example you might change my opinion.

Also now that it has come to light that the answer to Revenue - Budget Expenses = Loss (Lack of appropriate funding) we need to see if that is right. The Budget Expense numbers seem to be correct but the Revenue is in dispute. I ask that both St. James and Peaine give us their individual fiscal year projected Revenue numbers. If they don't know this and created a budget without that knowledge of their projected revenue I have some real concerns about that! This is the only way to clear up if we are short in funding. Can we combine as is with absolutely no budget changes? (that would mean that this would work or wouldn't) Can we consolidate without raising taxes? (If the revenue dollars after expenses are high enough yes or maybe not) These answers may change my opinion.

[K.D. McBride]

Burtons -
Thank you for again bringing up the question as to why Bill Kohls has made the statement that the Master Plan survey results for Peaine Township are invalid thereby invalidating all who participated in the survey. If he believes the survey to be invalid on consolidation leads me to believe that the facts he keeps stating here on the forum might also be invalid.

[Wkohls]

My apologies . . . the table that I previously posted contains an error . . .

Peaine Township will transfer $100,000 from its general fund to its road fund to pay for an anticipated stockpile of 10,000 tons of gravel. This amount was inadvertently included as revenue.

The revised table below indicates that the “budget” overstated revenues by nearly $1 million and further indicates that aggregate fund balances will decline by $213,750 during the year.

Notes:
1) It is not unusual for funds to accumulate for a year or two in anticipation of capital outlays or, in the case of the road funds, to stockpile gravel.
2) I have not traced amounts back to source documents, but nonetheless believe the table does not contain material misstatements.

[meadefamily]

Carol,

Thank you for your reply. Again, we can agree to disagree. The island is unique and that uniqueness should be respected. The "sale" of consolidation was based on saving money...now we see that may not be the case. Time to go back to the drawing board and come back with solid facts.This should have been a bullet proof proposal before starting the process. At the end of the day we all love the island and the passion and fierce independence is contagious. As my 11 year old daughter says, "beaver island is a magical and safe place".

Good luck to you this summer with your festival!

Kathe

[Andy's Grooming Barn]

Carol,

As you can see there has been a huge attempt to help get facts out (much work on our part and this wasn't our idea), correct information that was put out that isn't fact and answer questions that the Pro consolidation has asked, now maybe the pro consolidation would be willing to answer some of the many questions we have asked because not one has been answered (some people have even email Angel on the website but she hasn't responded to that either) and you would think both sides should be working together to get the information out to the public.

[Wkohls]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.".

With respect to the master plan . . .

I did not denigrate the master plan, nor did I denigrate the survey.

The master plan presents a collection of possible action plans, but none of those plans have been vetted by the planning commissions and/or the township boards. Within the context of the planning process, the survey was (most likely) a viable method to establish relative priorities.

Rather, my observation was that the “sample” that participated in the survey was self-selected and, further, that those individuals did not have the information that is currently available. Accordingly, that “sample” may not be representative of the “population” which will vote two weeks from today.

Note that the terms “sample” and “population” have specific meanings as does “valid” and “reliable.”
- A sample is a subset of a population.
- Valid is whether the survey measures what it purports to measure.
- Reliable is whether the results can be replicated.
- To be valid and reliable, the sample included in a survey must be representative of the entire population.

So . . .

Within the context of the planning process, the survey could be valid and reliable.

Within the context of an Island-wide referendum, that survey may be neither valid or reliable since sample comprised of self-selected participants in the master plan may not be representative of the of the population that will cast ballots.

Note: Since there was little information regarding the impact of consolidation available when the survey was conducted, it is entirely possible (if not likely) that a survey of that same sample may now yield different results.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

[K.D. McBride]

Bill -
Thank you for your reply and as Alice said, looking down the rabbit hole, "curiouser and curiouser".

[carolburton]

Andy, I fully agree that there has been a huge attempt to get facts out and it wasn't my idea either but here I am gathering facts and trying to find answers. However, that is neither here nor there we are in the right now. If you have a question put it in a specific question format without generic statements around it and I would be glad to try and get it answered for you. I have not see many questions from the against side that are not general. Try to be specific and I will try to help. This offer is for anyone who has a question about the reason why to vote YES.

I also think that many are miss directing why many want consolidation and it doesn't have to do with money at all. It is how we invest ourselves to serve the island better for the entire taxpaying population that we cannot live without. I am a proponent for the taxpayer that has no vote. Without them we have nothing and I would like to see that they consider Beaver Island a long term option.

Kathe, A bullet proof proposal? Have you seen the forum? or been to a meeting about something important? I am glad you have some humor. Oh my it would never happen that way. Lets start with what we have and go from there because it is all there is. It will be a vote and that cannot be changed now.

Bill, Thanks for the response to the Master Plan. With as deeply vested into the against consolidation you have been, a feeling that you are not looking at both sides for all of the taxpaying voters, (me included as it is my township too and you are the supervisor) it was easy to misread your comment. I apologize for looking too deeply into your words. I would like to see you be a little more compassionate to those that truly feel differently than you. Example your last post. You are after all in the elected position to represent us all.

Also, now that it has come to light that the answer to Revenue - Budget Expenses = Loss (Lack of appropriate funding) and now you show much more of a loss. We still need to see if that is right. The Budget Expense numbers seem to be correct but the Revenue is in dispute. I ask again that both St. James and Peaine give us their individual fiscal year projected Revenue numbers. If they don't know this and created a budget without that knowledge of their projected revenue I have some real concerns about that! This is the only way to clear up if we are short in funding. Can we combine as is with absolutely no budget changes? (that would mean that this would work or wouldn't) Can we consolidate without raising taxes? (If the revenue dollars after expenses are high enough yes or maybe not) These answers may change my opinion.

Simple math for us non-financial jugglers please. This years projected Revenue numbers. What are they? I feel like this is a basic question that should be able to be answered.

New question to be answered...Why can't our township boards work together until the next election? Is there anything stating that this is not possible. Thus the need to not worry about losing elected positions for those who are concerned about it.

[meadefamily]

Carol

No humor intended. I stand by my belief. It is irresponsible to bring this to the voters with such poor planning and lack of facts.

Your comment, " Lets start with what we have and go from there because it is all there is. It will be a vote and that cannot be changed now" speaks volumes.

I am really am not interested in debating it again. I am not sure how many ways I can say it for you to understand. You are not going to change my mind.

If something is getting left behind in this debate as you bolded at me in the message above I would throw that back at the petitioners. If something is left behind it is because if thier lack of planning and fact finding. It was thier responsibility to have thier ducks in a row before bringing to the voters.

Time to move on Carol.

Kathe

[Mike Green]

Kathe time for you to move on. You have stated your opinion many many times and have made it loud and clear. All you do is keep repeating yourself.
On Saturday April 28 the other side is having a discussion about consolidation. before you attack me I ask is that you listen to this as all you have so far is Bill’s inflated propaganda.
I’m not going to debate with you and Andy on this forum. If you want to debate me call me, I’m in the phone book.
I know Andy, so sad.
Tired and fed up
Mike Green