l \

i

__._———
___———
____——
_'__——
____—
_.__———
_____—
___———
’—
—.—’——
__.——
_____——
—_——
__—.——
___———
___——-

'~——‘_-—.A..
—__.

A PUBUB HlGHWAY SYSTEM

F OR
VAN BUBEN BOUNTY

MICHIGAN .

THESIS EOB DEGREE 0F c. E.
Homer Merle Ward

3932

- i
‘ . — H-
P

 

l.

I

1

,r
,Ffl'} .‘5

1111111111111111111111 1111

    

«V11, I ‘1
3 1293 01101 8623 “Mt "
" ' ‘ ~ 4*. Y t

’ h-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

‘9‘

.9
‘ L ..._-,.‘___

f’ . I»)

 

h). ,,. i... . .32393 a . ska... J . . _ . .. . .0. .1. . .+. \6. .v’&vv.b\1.U¢

fr. 1 1 3;. ., . NV. i? v 1%11i

; . . . . , .. . If. -
. g t . : .. .

VJ- x.

A v. .j w ,. 11.. s ..

.3: , . untrrpawf My... 1..» 3.1.1.1 .3... / . 1.1 ,
at»? a c}. ._ fl, . 1.. 3 u L... . .1 WP .f r m . «a. . t

, 1.. t . .z, . e A ..1 1. r}... .11 x; 4,. if»? - ... m. .. S
»# .xfi» r...» 3 : $.71. a. , . 1‘...“ +3... 4. a .m. \1 WW Vet/w u . .201 a. i
I r . .b 1“ . J W . I (1 1...
v; , wk} 4. f r C 7...”. .741 1 111.}; 11.. ha wfeaw 11:11... E...

a“ .n h w u .V .W . ‘ & r M, x, t )l.l.. n .\ % (V14 r .kIA‘w .51.». 4A 41 4 ".51. .L»\..

A n~§ kg :1 0 ~.. TC 3 r .1. 6;" wk ..\.. Vwfi“ u I“ N.» \aW M1... .

3C0 1, FE .. C .. _ 3.9,, c at .. .... é.» - w . .6 .13? J

.. r . . _ J WV. .o .t i . “3.: ¢

r... t . fl. >r£f3 n, r x J? v. 5.1... ,. i .1 .

 

11-11mm

 

A PUBLIC HIGHWAY'SYSTEM

FOR VAN BURKE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty
of
Michigan State College
of

Agriculture and.Applied Science

by
Homer Merle Egrd

Candidate for Degree
of

Civil Engineer

June, 1932

a
\

THtms

 

 

 

PREFACE

The enactment of the McNitt-Holbeck—Smith
Bill (Act 130, P. A. 1931) by the Michigan State
Legislature, created an urgent need for a detailed
analysis of the entire highway system of Van-
Buren County with the object of providing an
orderly plan of future develOpment designed to
include the entire mileage of public roads.

The writer's ultimate aim is to design a
flexible system of future develOpment whicn will
extend the direct benefits of improved highways
to a larger percentage of the land owners at a
cost within reach of the individual tax payer.

It is imperative that the public be apprised con-
cerning the anticipated needs and the necessary
financing arrangements which will make it possible
to provide them. 1

Acknowledgment is made to Prof. C. L. Allen of
the Department of Civil Engineering, hichigan State
College, for his advice and splendid constructive
criticism, and to my wife for her able assistance
in proof reading and arranging the data contained
herein.

H. 1111. W.

Paw Paw, Michigan, May 20, 1932

10%04'3‘

CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Van Buren County, Historical Brief and
Industrial DevelOpment . . . . . . .
hichigan, kap of Southern Portion . . .
State Trunk Highways . . . . . . . . . .
Van Buren County, Map . . . . . . . . .
Kalamazoo County, Map . . . . . . . . .
Van Buren County Road System . . . . . .
Van Buren County Road System, map . . .
Township Road System . . . . . . . . . .
State Trunk Line System, Future
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary County Road System . . . . . . .
Secondary County Road System . . . . . .
Tertiary County Road System . . . . . .
Construction Cost and Financing for Con-
struction of Complete System . . . .
Tax Analysis Tables for Years 1916-ly3l.
Average Annual Tax Rate for Each
Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax Analysis Graphs
Almena Township . . . . . . . .

Antwerp . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pages

45,

10
lO

13
16

17
24

28

29
32

36

60

61

62
63

Arlington Township .

Bangor . .

Bloomingdale

Columbia .
Covert . .
Decatur .
Geneva . .
Hamilton .
Hartford .
Keeler . .
Lawrence .
Paw Paw .
Pine Grove

Porter . .

South Haven

Waverly 0

Van Buren County . .

Maintenance of Proposed Road

Organization Chart .

Maintenance Eistricts, nap .

System.

Pages

History teaches us that public highways have
a very definite and guiding influence upon the
social and economic welfare of all nations. Traces
of such effects are encountered in the annals of
ancient, mediaeval and modern times. The most
outstanding example of this factor occurring prior
to this century. is that of the great.Appian way
constructed by the Roman Empire during its period
of affluence and power. A striking depiction of
these influences in modern times was made during
the early part of the World war, when the German
Empire made use of its great highway system to ex-
pedite troop movements in a manner never before
accomplished. Once within the borders of France
they pressed on with almost uncanny speed over the
hard surface roads leading to the capitol of the
French Republic. At this critical point, the
highways of France blazed an important trail on
the pages of history. The nation wide network of
improved roads enabled the French army commanders
to effect rapid changes in tr00p concentrations at
points threatened by superior forces of the enemy.
This factor directly caused the repulse of the
German Army and its withdrawal from the very gates

of Paris. The capture of the French capitol in

the early stages of the conflict would undoubtedly
have resulted in the subjection of the French
nation. with a complete change in the political
and economic structure of the European continent -
yes, even the entire world.

In studying the growth of nations or municipal
units thereof, it is impossible to establish a fine
line of distinction as to whether the existence of
public roads caused their develOpment, proceeded
with it, or was a resultant force of general improv-
ed conditions which created a demand for such public
improvements. Be that as it may. the highways of
any community are a vital part of its very existence.
Their influence is so far reaching that a nation's
highway system is an index of its progress in arts,
sciences, and all the varied ramifications of what
we call civilization. Doubtless this is due to the
inevitable results of broadening the scepe of in-
dividual and group thought through outside contacts
which are so immeasurably facilitated by all means
of transport.

Van Buren County, Michigan. was first designated
as a municipal unit by legislative enactment in 1829.

When the first white settlers came to this county

-3-

there were no roads except the Indian trails which
for the most part could only be used by pedestrians
or saddle animals. Practically tne entire area was
covered with dense timber growths of various kinds
including hemlock, hickory, maple, pine, walnut,
elm, oak, whitewood and beech. In the southern
portion of the county where the soil conditions
favored the growth of oak timber, we find the first
settlements of white families, who came overland in
wagons bearing all their earthly possessions. Here
the natural spaces between the standing timber known
as "oak openings” afforded the pioneers comparative-
ly easy access to the region without the necessity
of cutting a continuous trail through the forest.
The virgin timber growth in this area, being of
lower density, made it possible for the farmers to
clear the land and prepare it for cultivation at
the eXpense of considerably less effort than in
localities covered by thick undergrowth. Thus it
was that the first urgent need for a public road
was felt in this part of the county.

The so-called Territorial Road which traversed
the State from east to west, was laid out and sur-
veyed during the years 1835-36. This highway enters

the county near the northeast corner of Antwerp

Township and continues through.Antwerp, Paw Paw,
Lawrence, Hamilton and Keeler Townships in a
general westerly and southwesterly direction lead-
ing toward the mouth of the St. Joseph River at
Benton Harbor and St. Joseph. .At about this time
the first Michigan constitution was adopted, and
during the intervening period to 1837 when the
territory was admitted to the Union as a state,
Michigan showed considerable activity in the
establishment of arterial roads which later proved
to be a nucleus of the present well balanced system.

Many of these early important highways passed
through Van Buren County and converged at Paw Paw
because at this point there existed a natural ford
for crossing the Paw Paw River. There being no
other favorable crossing point within a radius of
many miles, we find the county strategically locat-
ed by nature to participate in the early road
deve10pment.

The first real activity leading toward con-
struction of artificially surfaced highways was
provided by the State Legislature. In 1848 it
authorized the incorporation of plank road companies
which were given the privilege of providing a special

surfacing on the public roads) and collecting a

-5...

Specified toll from traffic for the use thereof.
The practical application of this law enabled
organized capital to clear standing timber from
the roadways. salvaging the material in the form
of planks to be used for a wearing surface. Thus
the timber obstructions were made to further the
cause of uninterrupted transportation.

Early attempts to use and maintain the Paw Paw
River as a navigable stream from.Paw Paw to Lake
Michigan were both frequent and persistent, but
owing to the varied contour of the drainage area
and the unfavorable alignment conditions of this
waterway, the idea never reached successful applica-
tion in practice. This failure also contributed to
the demand for overland routes to serve as outlets
for the ever increasing volume of farm products.

Fruit growing on a commercial scale in Van Buren
County dates back to 1852, at which time this class
of farming had its inception in the South Haven
area. This point is of special interest because
the fruit growing industry has afforded consider-
able impetus to the rapid development of our modern
highway system.

Nature was again kind to this area because

it was discovered that the climatic influence of

- 6 -

Lake Michigan was to serve as a natural thermostat
to regulate the extremes of temperature which are
prevalent elsewhere in these same northern latitudes.
Moreover. the lake serves as a vast storage area
for moisture which is subsequently disseminated
during times of serious drought. This body of
water also influences favorably the marketing of
craps, because of the ease of distribution via
cheap water transport to the great market centers
of Chicago and other lake ports. It was at first
believed that the climatic benefits of the Lake
extended over a very narrow strip bordering the
shore line, but the growing favor of the fruit
industry gradually brought about the widening of
the so-called fruit belt until this branch of
farming may prOperly be classed as the leading
industry of the whole county.

The rapid expansion of fruit growing created
a persistent demand for the modern highway system
because, having solved the problems of successful
production, the fruit man next needed proper
facilities for rapid transit of his perishable
produce to the market centers. Motor vehicles and
improved highways are the "Siamese Twins" which

enable the growers to place their wares before the

-7-

consumers in a few hours time and with an absolute
minimum of handling from orchard to table. Some
idea of this modern trend in the direction of motor
transport is contained in the following extracts
from an article written by Mr. Fred L. Granger, a
prominent shipper of fruits and vegetables operat-
ing in Benton Harbor. Mr. Granger says in part:
'Six years ago Berrien and Van Buren Counties which
normally ship 10,000 to 12,000 cars of fruits and
vegetables annually, moved ninety percent of their
tonnage by rail and ten percent by truck. Today
the situation is reversed and our highways are
carrying ninety percent of the tonnage. Shipments
by motor trucks are now being made to markets 500
to 700 miles from points of production. Some of
the reasons are: reduction of 30 to 40 percent in
transportation costs; reduction of 30 to 50 percent
in transportation time; delivery of the proauct in
better physical condition; almost complete elimina-
tion of claim factors; elimination of loading,
unloading, and cartage charges; reduction of market
losses and rejections due to decline of market
during period in transit; closer adjustment of
purchases to market demand.‘

All of the above changes represent assets to

- 8 -

the producer, shipper and consumer. Is it any
wonder then, that the highway authorities of this
county are called upon to keep pace with these
develoPments which depend absolutely upon the
construction and care of adequate highways? It

is evident that the increasing desire, yes, in-
satiable demand for improved roads, has far exceed-
ed the capacity of municipal units to pay for the
same through the normal means of tax levies upon
real estate and personal prOperty. Hence the trend
in recent years toward taxes upon the motor vehicle
itself as well as the fuel which it consumes.

On Page 9 is a map of the southern portion of
Michigan showing the State Trunk Line Roads which
traverse this county and their relation to those
of adjacent counties. On Page 10 is a more detailed
map showing Van Buren County only. We find U. S. 12
following the general location of the old Territorial
Road from.Kalamazoo to Paw Paw, there taking ad-
vantage of the natural ford site for crossing the
Paw Paw River as did the old Indian trails, follow-
ed later by the original trans-state route establish-
ed by the Michigan Legislature. At a point near
the west line of Paw Paw Township the modern align-

ment of this artery leaves the original Territorial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  
  

 

 

 

  

Rom: MM , ,_,,wm% SOUTHERN PORTION OF MICHIGAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

003330..” ‘ _..... ' ‘ ’_ ' l ' \f' l
I ,p I 7“ f“ I ' 5 \\\\/4V
' -
Dec-std .‘ . ”I ' . L WW" 21 Olson a r II. Aim 9 \V
L. e n I f | 1!. Mt. Pleasant
’\ r “-33.2. 12 n... . . 0.... C r» a a
(I; Q I '. -_ 7 q
\I H E. / Alt 8’ w . M Lock . O . 8‘ h d I [I w u 2 8
I, It ” Winn Crawford '9 V at 93’ kport __ . .|
’ 9’ 13 , n: m; . ““4 12 ,r 1 n 07 4 . , “mm"
, 2 . . mi. , . LL, Wu - = “ m L- r u t. -
l w 7 .3 Wow L ‘k j 8 mmerton d I ° Q 3
/ -'-‘-1°'-arsa;.7' 5 o w "—7" -' new“; "'_°_ "—._. im—‘é—ul—. ' 7&7‘ ,._.- 58%: I «4' gm" 3 m
/ . 101 Croton m. I ‘ 7 6 L- of] River I lions Wheeler 2 5 5 5 5 W
mr 1 33k -
wn
’/ m Omit” ”any“, 9 19 , cu, . g u . E" I U 2 3 .c .. Merrill emlock u 6
' 7 mob ‘ 4 I
, 0 Lake Rl erdnl 46 »— 0 Brid‘
, c “a, g... ,1" ml». Hill Coral . ° cBridee ” Alma I a 4 agmaw c.- 3 5 Tm“
.1 v Q a 3w. [,0 ,Grove , I O ‘ ‘ ' Entrlcnn I :R ”“4”” t?“ a I '? F k nth
JAR C" Bfldgeton rant I" ' n Trufnnts : “mfg“. I : I | 15 octets “T m
I 23 umq 2 Z : St. Chum
’ ,w -..__ _...--. .._ _ . _.- 2 3'91?"“__. (13.1}, N River” B '
, $ t M V 2 “"5 . ‘69: 1' L. o tnnton o ‘ 031: L. . L. on new I out Fawn L if“ I
2 9 7 t Hey 5 ' Q 3‘ sum 5 Crystal L. I _ ’v I 8" rant Bu *
I w. Wolf L-‘Q 22 C lCazmovln e ‘ G en 0' r,“ Cry etalI North: . I &5 9 g ._.. .—--- ‘ L—
:‘t | I ‘1
’ kc fin H 0" K“ C"! 10 ‘5 Lincoln. - “if 8W4“ | LL. Ash! I 5" . I a
‘3' f ' r" “‘ '"1 5 C. E 0an e 2 II Butternut Q ' H Pompeii I C11 on CH .
' P. rflebu' Mr vans ~ 0
L. 8 ‘3 "".. 5
sulflnn K1701!” I o" I H arson i din 'm ,
”m I ' ”“33." 5% a vine ' ' ,wmm City ° "” and» Is law BamIlet Chopin "M . E53.» -—- Mt Mo 1:,
W" CM 0. .‘n , “I‘ "d, e“ '3' L "' L, 1..-... 10 “£39.19 - ._-... -l... .- . - - . ————————— ' "" ' - '3—
_ \ S WW Li' -"—’-' I ‘ ockford [rattgn ,. 7 511’" L .IShiloh ubbnrdeto g Maple m I O (I;
. " = Berry \ ‘ “Hart W? 11 N‘Imka nMoon 3. Reno! Alpine 2 ' e . 44 2 1“. $01» Rapids 0 EIIIO end 0 MW ’ y I. -
I‘ . - x t.\\ . 3 0 Q - d ntherto - I’
[1,, ,, 3 #0:?! NO '4 1" to stock not” i. I - I m H L) | Garland ‘7 (133:3. A", 24"”? 1,12,:
~ ~ ” ~ — ~ --- ~ _ Coope ' ‘1'“ P‘rk 2 Cangon . Q! I - z Duplaln 0 T" 12 91',” "Li-Y L l ‘0 '5’ Attica uLosaL My 2
r. ‘ 74 - 1 )w w . ' . . (g .
- #010 Ewwfi: um “a" 5 I «15 21 “us 5 fewamoe I 9 St- Johns 6 3 . d 10 88 13 21 f? . HanIer a when 0 my "p“ ‘
I ~ ‘ . . ‘7 e ,_- g; .
7 , if: . 5 Iomn Fifiowler Shepardeville Ma 1, . 0 non 7 L I reek 8/3"
~ 2 L .;.'_._;-, I as I C(mw P $.13 S 8 ,~ , 5 3 K d (/9
, Ix. 12 110041“ 1‘- ' r G 3 Lyo I “ " C‘r- i “o G I 5 3 1 war (3;; M1,. d1 Th vme DU en ‘
I 3 l me 3/" '3. ey \
21 A cw , Lowell . . 4 pp”? Metamo i
. ’3" W A” tta a 5 ' z“! ' ' ‘ I 3 7 U - i Bennincton 9 ‘ 1 I r ‘ Gaffe 5 IflCh Almont
‘- 0m. Sta _ - d R," 3 ISnrnnac 7. | wrlha in 10 Lainetb r3 Pit bu an I / sr c 9 ‘ - - “32393 a“
II ‘0“ Je‘a'iw . I a Cu7ce e 1 I 14 9 I 11 7 a"), Gaines 525 “.51.... 1 l— -- - "'"‘" "" a
/ a; m Bor .Io L4 rand e z p , W meme ,. n, 2;; i' k ream
;, L 10 N 2303' 2 «59 L 1 Gt“, 5 M, i ' ‘- ‘9’" N" 15 Ortonvill 1" Lakéti’lc
1‘ ‘ - cw , ' t an ce M -‘. '3 . ' '
f, I I "O" d a I ‘ ludeo ville “t 12 :5 Dut g Clarkfl 10 8 | W“ I 3%,“ng _ I R md I 5% ,1,“ ‘ . 01’ L. ; cflfl: ATMBL
{I , .zamutiown ”I" m ’ . 0 MC" 9 7 De Witt Bath ' ' Byron I "‘" g 3 Olly 0°“ n 5- "a 0 Romeo
; - ; ,_ . “val-3' 0 e ’
/ L I . | Z lgnd rleelnn J: 8 mn W 7 2 19 I 0% Lu“... are“ Eagle 11 5” a, , I - gnaw en .5 L ,Fetfton” 15 .c-w L. o . I
, I . 5 ; 1. 6"} I; L!“ R COM-mm 14 s“ fled Mulll'ken 1 _fl/ 1 _._n 78 _9. I'—"—"""-“ - fig“ 0C QR! o viebu 4 G “I? ..
, Ottawa Bone _._ _n nledonln —. — ----- . ----— ""” ‘ ' _’_‘-’ r Haslett e n Ray
' 2 ‘ "~11 0 -'—'-" * 5.11ng Rt 2 ° m 1 «00C \0 ‘ y .
’/ ““3“" W 5 8 mi 8 “1” WV new“ 94"” 3 u e g 11 ”I ' mm 13 CEILtahk Grov ”I ft“. WhiteW or: ht - 1‘ shl'gton ($332.“
/ I / . P! III ‘ Overieel "5 u p .I oodlan 19 I 11 W ston I :Cl.d Lake at ‘ P fit] h t ' T 2 ~ ac
, i "i Q '~. 0 some ' Ii" 1' y 6 es. oc es er ’
l ' A I I ’ I \{I 13 F“ 0" 4 . .. Dorr Midd ill 10 c Coats G .43 Mlllett ' “a, I a” ° \ 3 8’ Manda! ' _ , ' "’2. Disco
If ”I '1 ’7 "I I Hamilton I ““le ‘Yhnd . Rig, 1 J I 6 ' 5 F '18 e Q Hartlfig‘, W ' . mglzon ‘3— LET-‘7? A b u ’16» 5
z , w e . r .u u u
/// :‘fsxflv', H k Saucetuc I I 3 ‘ ”tint! ' ll 13 8 16 Holt ' lebbervlle I 9 ° - i l" ‘ M ' :4th 3‘I5 ’
/ _ V ' r 1,, W o m" crmontv — - ‘ i-Sz'ghlnnd ' 1; ~‘ "IL. ’
" , " ; 5/ 0063’" New ‘0 Mont I Brn'dley ' 45w 4T L. wk . ottervil {m n G r! I Ewen o (f __ ' m“ ”e? .53 " 31 m el 9 .Uticn 1’
/ / ; E ' : . 'z a”, {chmond I Q L. 1 71 y‘ 3 I 5 '2 6 . umnmuu o . 0 3i I o 2 H ‘
’ / ‘ s I "o L 5 ' ° eChatter 9 . — , ' K 12 T‘- ' o I $3
/ / I I I , i 1?. ' 6 - 0 n +% 12 mg" I; Hop in. P G“ u‘ a“ 7 . _ a I ' 100 1: word . m . 10 d .
, z , . 1 I ‘ ‘ ‘ :rtsuM; 0 c
1/ / f/ : {,7 1/6. ,~ } Penny] c a L m L.” 811er e ’ 811:] 9 22 P 7 D811 Ville 0.4?0 C41” W" 12rd 5 to O 8“ mu 12
I x/ I I 3' I III . ' - L 12“ E' .1' a ‘ on ? M3? rlotte II dime us ”I5 . in. . ' 0 ”mm Whom WnfledL ? I if L' .
1/ I f / f // “,- 1 I 8 .3 art . ov dale l g 6 Knlomo ’ o 5 nfl 1d CL " . _ri‘hton } 7 " .-: $5 , 7 .
1/ I 5 G Bra 8?“ All.“ \ 10 nteon o 43’ Fruit! 1 I cc 1 I 13 E1351 Rap _ . «:35 55's.. [m L. o 8 e 930. 3!: k ovls 12 ‘ .4
, ; I -, '. i. I '0 ' :‘\ . - Bunker ‘ ‘ |
/ 1 , I f . C3 ".0 u x- e . 0 . Ea
/. , I f '; J; ullmnn a Chico“9 , a to 5 0’ W o “free L. ' 0 9 o 7 on ' Is¥olclkbrld 6 r ory 3 o: . S.Ly n . F n 5 For dnl 1 I l ‘
/ yr ,1 / I 11 If \\\ o "I! L Q Bellevue n . I . mPlnckney 9&1" EA. ton North'lll _. .
/ I ("I ,1! 2‘ , 7!’ Lee auto 2 Oteexo\ ‘ t 10 ' 0 ' 4 5' “"t g a . Leslie 1 _l-r L 1—6 ;—° “' "' ._.. ° . - .:.;-r- L tea-:- 1,
I 1, . , a ,w - . n 0 r no”. - ___¢ , , ._. _L-_ _._. __+— Fitchburc 1- a £63 ”LE m Waterfor s: ' ‘ i ”3%
I’ I / /’// ' _10 _-_- _. _U- Crag}? 3" —' 9y 0- 0 . , Duck T 3 6 unith 6 ‘ 13 0%” ”fab a ‘ Worden iv in N; f -. aw
/ I Sou IV ' — - - 3—" I ‘ . ' m a or c Pa tello . 5 ’ W L . on ® ' 97"": " r" 93" ~ a '
/, . lament 000' 5 3 7 . “102 “at . 0 a 6 g:
/ I ,1 , ,P 1"?“ , hm 9“ kh 7 . ° I at , tour was Data 21 on 4’5?“ "“2. -, ~
I 2 C - k. t K n O Y C 3 9 0 port T0 pkln 12 P ‘ 9L. 1] 5 _p . "‘35:? V . ‘W
I ; Emmi-3‘ 7 ‘ ' 2 . . o ‘2‘; .
I 3' ‘ “lie 9 ' ' D" u 8 0| ’1“ . elsee Elmo I .3“ 273"“
[I .Q . I 0 .0 5 Bit". 0 e 13 ' 7 ' L; " ind‘
’/ ' Rm O1 ,

  
 
  

 

  

 

   

       
 
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

I ‘1’
a” Colo-tn 0,4 - 3 u. wan ’ '
I o ' Thruflm a V '3'
g t CML 7L'L‘m I‘ k A!“
4“” 1 ffi Is“ t
' ’ .10 Decatur ll ’ ZI L'afi
Cch.‘ no «new _r_

o k exp M“

c,_
3 Pu” 9 9 . 8 m” 7 my" Ann Arbo

low: In 9
pfimon e 0 EC CoPcord Arbo
. H or
M‘rAL :fijioy - ' . ,rendon 3 .
B rlinctson 7 and novel:
‘ ,. Q
‘ At an. 8’ “m . inn”, . _ ' my
. ——-— -'" 1" _' 'U' on 4 I 9 oecow
e p , ty ' .7

 

 

 

me. “4‘” ”r“

 

Whutlend nn

 

Pitts!

Frontier ~

(I

 

 

 

 

 

- 5 n e
S p e ew
. Nepo. N . gflggmte II c to
I l 12 W
Q; L . Broom fl 5!!! "2 k i nltz
2 .
4 . . 8 . ._- . . - .
t- — m ldge ' ' linton I WM Oskville 6’4,» 1‘“
no - 1°.
2 l e 70 ‘ i.“
O o ._ Cone
3 “ -

512M

 
 
 
  

M idea

Md

    

 

 

 

 

 

ROAD MAP OF VAN

R‘l6-W

I

C SAquTuu

 

AND A)L‘AN

   

   

fl.

  
   

  
 

   
    

  
 

 

EIL:MIII§¢M;’ msmgsmml
I AMI “OUT“ I‘rtNl/
R-l7—W
KE Y
‘0 If STATE TRUNK was a. FEDERAL

ROUTELI. PAVEU IJURFALE.

”51:. 5TATE TRUNK LlNEb8FEDERAL
ROUTES). GRAVEL bURFASE.

—I3_5:2I-' COUNTY br’bTEM ROADS.

GRAVEI OR PAVED EJUHF-ACE.

UNIMPROVED SURFACE.

m3 COUNTY SYSTEM ROADS.
5:: OTHER PUBLIL ROADS-

W/g TOWNSHIP bOUNLARY

55 NYON «ARBOR
AN:

TC
5T JODEVH

 

COMPILED BY THE.
BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

FRANK R. POORMAN
GE O.A. DILLENBECK
C. B. b’TOCKHAM

 

 

CORRECTED MAR.I,1932
H.M.WARD.
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER.

DRAWN BY: I. SILVER.

TO BENTCN HARE‘OR

 

 

 

in
1

‘I14

CHII.‘ "\C‘Q

7‘:

33%???-

L.
f

“V
6

EEE

MILLBUKG

VIA

”i

t

 

{naski

vr.l CNN

 

 

    

   

    

R-IG-w

 

AND GRAND RAPInm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUREN COUNTY MICHIGAN - 1a

  
     

 

T-l-S

TO KA LAMAZOO
VIAI ALAMO
1

a? @UNT‘Y

 

T'Z'S

  
  

A MAZOO

  
 
  

AMAZOO
\DETROIT

\

TO KAL
AND

  

L\\

   

CORNEKS

 

T-s-s

   
  
    
   

    
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
   
   
  
 
 
   

 

 

- 11 -

Road location and thence proceeds in quite a direct
line through Lawrence, Hartford, Watervliet and
Coloma to the twin lake ports of Benton Harbor and
St. Joseph. This later location of the west
portion was unquestionably due to the rapid rise
of fruit growing and its allied industries, within
the new area served. We also have parts of the
present U. S. 31 and M-l40 which even in an early
day opened land communication between the lake ports.
and now pass through this county in the midst of
long established and highly prOductive fruit farms.
Just another indication of the ever present in-
fluence of that particular occupation. We must
conclude that the original system of state routes
designated by early legislative bodies was very
comprehensive, and that later extensions to this
main structure have conformed to and been in
anticipation of vital traffic needs brought about
by development of the natural resources therein.
Trunk Line M-4O extending through Niles.
Dowagiac, Decatur. Paw Paw..Allegan and Holland.
came as a later development to serve this section
as a north and south relief road dividing and
serving territory between U. S. 31 and U. S. 131

in such a manner as to decrease the natural traffic

-12-

density on those two routes.

Trunk Line M-43 is a later development
controlled and influenced by the necessity for a
more direct route between Kalamazoo, the so-
called paper city, and the lake port of South
Haven. The anticipated need for this connection
has already been justified, because during the
past two years ocean going freight boats carrying
imported wood pulp and clay used in the paper in-
dustries at Kalamazoo have entered via the Great
Lakes to dock at South Haven. Thence their cargoes
are trucked overland to the mills at Kalamazoo.

The writer takes issue with the location of this
particular Trunk Line on the grounds that a location
further north would best serve the interest of this
county as well as a considerable area in the south-
ern portion of.Allegan County not now served by a
state road. A study of the maps on Pages 10 and 13
shows County Road #388 crossing the northern tier
of townships in Van Buren County. Kalamazoo County
has an improved highway extending easterly across
two townships on a general line averaging three
miles from the north county line and eventually
joining with U. S. 131 at the southeast corner of

Section 17, Porter Township. Traffic and mainten-

 

 

 

COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

 

600/17)“

  

fiuEQ/W _

 

“11me E. W'HITE
EDGAR RASENIAN
LOUIS J. OSWALT

  

R /2 W.

        

   

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

EL.

 

N CA5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V /V HURf/V

ST #0 [PH

 

 

 

 

 

TW N LA

 

   

 

 

         
 
 
 

GOU DNE

  

RJIW COUNTY
n

comm ‘ HARRY
- -r_ --

P X} E

PR/ 6

9

 
 

R

BFflY‘jK OO

 

V _

 

ROADé COMPLETED : in“

9' UNDER ’CONJI'RUC'I'ION : Ila-coo.

  

LEO. J. WYKKEL, Engine"

ROAD MAP or KALAMAZOO COUNTY am am

  
 
  
 

 
 

H./0W

R. 9 w. __ JflU/W)’

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 
 
   
    

  

R IOW.

      

 

 

-14-

ance records of the Van Buren County hoad Commission
prove conclusively that this highway is of major
importance and cannot be successfully or economically
maintained as a gravel surface road due to the large
volume of traffic. The present location of County
Route #388 would not be feasible for a Trunk Line
owing to the excessive number of grade intersections
with the railroad, and many objectionable alignment
features. However, by leaving South Haven at the
north corporation line. thence proceeding easterly
along or near to the.Allegan-Van Buren county line,
we would encounter the same number of grade cross-
ings as exist between South Haven and Kalamazoo on
the present designated route of M-43. This proposed
location could be projected easterly along or near
the base line between.Allegan and Kalamazoo Counties
to Join with U. S. 131, thence doubling with this
road into Kalamazoo. This would complete the link
between this manufacturing center and the lake port
of our county. Undoubtedly such an alternate route
can no longer be considered for trunk line develop-
ment owing to the determination already made for
Route M-43 as shown. This point is mentioned herein
because it has considerable weight in our future

planning. It is imperative that we provide for this

- 15 -

natural flow of traffic through the group of small
villages in the northern section of this county,
because only a small portion of this traffic is
now diverted to M-43 on account of the travel dis-
tance of these communities from the present route.

Another important possible trunk line develop-
ment is a cross over from h-43 at Bangor, thence
south along County Road #681 to join M-40 at the
northeast corner of Section 36, Keeler Township.
This would logically provide a direct route for
heavy trucking of fruit produce from Bangor. which
is an important purchasing center for the western
half of this county. to the market centers of Niles,
South Bend and Elkhart.

In the years from 1916 to the present time we
have seen in this county the gradual evolution in
methods of trunk line financing from a state con-
struction fund raised in the prOportion of 75% from
motor vehicle revenues and 25% from county property
levies, to the present 100% motor revenue sources for
both construction and maintenance. Even the
$50,000,000 bond issue for trunk line construction
originally voted by the people of this state as an
anticipated prOperty levy. is now being retired

from motor revenues under the heading of "gas tax".

- 16 -

In other words, the owners of real estate have
had a $50,000,000 tax load lifted from property
taxes and transferred to the user of the highways.
This should awaken some careful thought in those
who constantly demand tax relief by placing all
road taxes of whatever nature upon the motorist.
Evidently they have already forgotten this sizeable
item of tax relief formerly provided for.

The writer advocates no change in the method
of financing construction and maintenance of state
trunk line roads, believing that a portion of what-
ever motor vehicle or gas taxes may be imposed
should be allocated for these specific purposes dis-
placing all property levies therefor. It would seem
that our trunk line system has now attained a stage
of perfection and efficiency which would logically
warrant partial retrenchment on new construction.
This would make possible the diversion of a larger
portion of motor revenues to county units for
development of their secondary and tertiary systems.

The complete plan of the Primary County System
as of March 1, 1932, is indicated in the map shown
on Page 17. The original county system of roads de-
signated in 1916 by our first Board of County Road

Commissioners has been entirely absorbed into our

 

 

 

 

ROAD MAP OF VAN BUREN COUNTY MICHIGAN

J

LAUG‘TUL"
Amp r-1~'..A'~n

c

"\

  

 

  

  
    
      
  

A

Lag.

.—+~-

TH HAVE

T
%‘Q ’

 

7? r ' :3"! a3 1’"
' An mu?" New
Y
R—T7-w
KE Y
‘0 3,5 STATE. TRUNK LINE3 & FEDERAL

ROUTES. PAT/Eb DUKFALC.

”51:- STATE TRUNK LlNEb&FEDERAL
ROUTES. GRAVEL SURFACE.

53:

m

[:3

COUNTY CJY-STfM ROADS.
GRAVLL OH PAV ED bUHF/«CE.

COUNTY SYSTEM ROADS.
UNIMPROVED SUPFACE.

OTHER PUBLIC ROADS-

W/g' TOWNSHIP bOUNLARY

 

COMPILED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

FRANK R. POORMAN
GEO.A. DILLENBECV-
C. B, bTOCKHAM

 

CORRECTED MAR.I,1932
H.M.WARD.
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER.

DRAWN 8": I. SILVER.

 

 

 

R-Ie-w ‘ R~I5-w
YO PULLMEH m Antwan

.-‘I;Ef,?§£‘z,t;?<2£ W CA “4" «Nu FLNNVlLlE €433}wa we 4.)1‘_‘:Hrl4"t

      
    
    

   

      
    
   
  

)

__.

 

DUCK L.

  
 

,. (2)7
bULLHE AD
LAKE

\Z

BENTON HARPER
RNL‘ (Hw “(0

TC
51’ JODE V“

1.,“
i '4

Q
4

 

 

 

ER 3+? a w

 

1
.
116

as

M|LLBURG

R-l4-W

[AuLc L mutmqav L_ AND gun

R-I3' W

    

     
          
  

TO ALL (JAN

RAVIDH TO

    

LL; HAV-

 

L

.m&

   
 
      
  
    
     

 

 

\ ‘\.

  
 
 
  
     
  
  

 

 

 

TO BENT(N HARBOR
VIA

 

 

 

 

  

_LS

 

36

TO souvn
VIA NILEb AND

_.. f
ND
OWAOIAC

  

R-IG-W

 

 

 

    
     
    
 

  
 
 

 

   
 

LAMAZOO

  

TO

A anoo

      
       

\AMAZOO

TO KAL
AND

CORNERb

6M9

'?
1-4-3

KAM

VGA)

6‘ OWN”???

T‘Z—S

'. DETROIT

\
i

(I)
|
|

I'-

0
2
<
.J
<
4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROAD MAP OF VAN BUREN COUNTY MICHIGAN

J

LAUG‘IUL"
Amp r-1-'.IA'~n

c

"\

  

 

  

  
    
      
  

A

Lag.

.—+~-

TH HAVE

I
%‘Q ’

 

7? r ' :3"! a3 1’"
I An IUUT" fit»-
V
R—I7-w
KE Y
‘0 3,5 STATE. TRUNK LINE3 a. FEDERAL

ROUTED. PAT/Eb DUKFACC.

”51:- STATE TRUNK LlNEb&FEDERAL
ROUTES. GRAVEL sURFACC.

53:

m

[:3

COUNTY CJY-UTfII/I ROADS.
GRAVLI- OH PAV ED bUHF/«CE.

COUNTY SYSTEM ROADS.
UNIMPROVED SUPFACE.

OTHER PUBLIC ROADS-

W/g' TOWNSHIP bOUNLARY

 

COMPILED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

FRANK R. POORMAN
GEO.A. DILLENBECV-
C. B, bTOCKHAM

 

CORRECTED MAR.I,1932
H.M.WARD.
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER.

DRAWN 8": I. SILVER.

 

 

 

R-Ie-w ‘ R-Is-w
YO PUCLMEH m Antwan

.-‘I;Ef,?§£‘z.tfl<zé W 0- 04" «NU FLNNVILI: €433}wa \I“ Chitml-“t

      
    
    

   

      
    
   
  

I

__4

 

DUCK L.

  
 

,. (2)7
bULLNE AD
LAKI:

IZ

BENTON HARPER
RINL‘ CHI» “(0

TC
51’ JODE V“

1.,“
i '4

Q
4

 

 

 

ER 3+? ”I a-

 

1
.
116

as

MILL EURO

R-l4-W

[AULC L mun-9.x” L_ AND gun

R-I3' W

    

     
          
  

TO ALL (JAN

RAVIOH TO

    

LL; HAV-

 

L

.m&

   
 
      
  
    
     

 

 

\ ‘\.

  
 
 
  
     
  
  

 

 

 

TO BENT(N HARBOR
VIA

 

 

 

 

  

_LS

 

36

TO soUTN
VIA NILEb AND

_.. f
ND
OWAOIAC

  

R-IG-W

 

 

 

    
     
    
 

  
 
 

 

   
 

LAMAZOO

  

TO

A anoo

      
       

\AMAZOO

TO KAL
AND

CORNERb

6M9

'?
1-4-3

KAM

VIA)

a? OWN”???

T‘Z—S

'. DETROIT

\
i

In
I
I
I-
0
2
<
.J
<
4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 18 -

Primary and Secondary Systems.

Later expansions of the Trunk Line System
included many of these primary county highways
which grew in importance along with the develop-
ment of the two systems as a unit. This in it-
self is a justification of the first selection
of county roads which had for its objective the
designation of the highways of primary importance.

Since the adoption of the County Road System
by this county in 1916, the financing of improve-
ments and maintenance of the county roads has been
based upon the following sources of revenue:

1. County share of Motor Vehicle Weight Taxes,
comprising for the greater portion of the
period an amount equivalent to one-half
the weight tax collected from residents of
the county.

2. County mill taxes levied upon property.

3. Special assessments upon property under the
provisions of the so-called Covert Road Law
(Act 59, P. A. 1915).

This county's portion of vehicle weight tax

received annually since 1917 is as follows:

- 19 -

1917....................s13,103.20
1918.................... 14,762.33
1919.................... 16,821.51
1920.................... 25,397.74
1921.................... 31,484.05
1922.................... 39,351.41
1923.................... 46,321.62
1924.................... 51,685.09
1925.................... 49,141.58
1926.................... 46,447.48
1927.................... 53,869.39
1928.................... 74,360.54
1929.................... 80,194.73
1930.................... 79,590.10
1931.................... 81,499.24

This data is indicated in graphical form on
Page 20, and examination of the same discloses
rather irregular fluctuations especially in the
years 1925 and 1926. The regular trend of this
revenue has been on a steady increase, the varia-
tions mentioned above being due to a change in the
ratio of distribution and not to a decrease in
total revenues collected. During the 1ast four
'years the amounts available have become stabilized

so that we may predict the probable income from

 

.. G I 'il fill-II t'illii “ c ' II I .III In

 

.v. .14
a .o .
.l.,.!\o"!.

‘
u
.
. ..I.
.

 

( m 3
)3 02...)...EDQJ.‘

 

.0-?-.~—--

94.....-
coo-obceg-

.00....-

o
+
a
u
w
9
o

 

-21-

this source with reasonable accuracy.

Beginning January 1, 1926, a new legislative
act removed the entire maintenance and construction
cost of State Highways from the property tax by
providing additional revenue therefor through the
medium of a gasoline tax. The writer believes
that the above change in financing methods brought
our State nearer to perfection in the raising of
road funds. Basically, the gasoline tax for road
purposes is the most equitable levy which has ever
been collected, because it automatically assesses
those who use the highways in exact proportion to
the amount of such use.

The third method of financing herein class-
ified as the Covert Special.Assessment Law, has
given local road building an impetus which might
easily prove disastrous if not wisely directed.
Since the enactment of this law the Road Commission
has received valid petitions from frontage owners
seeking improvement of an aggregate total of 320
miles. The Board has constructed 150 miles under
this law and deferred action on the balance in a
struggle to keep down the bonded indebtedness.
These results have been accomplished by such care-

ful administration of the provisions for financing

- 22 -

under this law that no bonds of this county have
ever been in default, and all obligations will be
met promptly even during the present economic
crisis.

As to the suggested changes in financing
arrangements, the author sees no urgent need for
radical changes, which in effect, might break up
and destroy the present successful and orderly
method of raising funds. It is evident, however,
that a change in distribution of these motor
revenues will probably come about as a result of
the special legislative session which has been
called by the Governor of this State. The trend
of changes for many years has been toward using
the motor revenues in some manner which will re-
lieve property from all or a portion of its road
taxes. Such an objective in principle is well
founded, but should be attained by remembering the
cardinal principle that EVERY'IEENY OF MOTOR
VEHICLE AND FUEL TAX REVENUES MUST BE APPLIED ON
THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY SYSTEMS. In other words, no
diversion of any kind or in any amount from the
present distribution should be permitted unless
the-same is controlled to assure its use for

highways and streets exclusively. The McNitt-

- 23 -

Holbeck-Smith bill passed by the 1931 legislature
is an outstanding piece of progressive highway
legislation which accomplishes an orderly, well
planned change in the right direction. In brief,
this act provides for the absorption of all town-
ship highways into the various county road systems
of their respective counties, this to be accomplish-
ed over a period of five years beginning.April l,
1932, and at the rate of 20% of each township's
mileage per year. Streets and alleys in recorded
plats which were laid out as public roads prior
to the recording of such plats are included in the
mileages to be placed under county jurisdiction.
To finance the counties in caring for this added
mileage, the act provides for diversion of gas tax
revenues as follows:

Year l932.............$2,000,000

Year 1933............. 2,500,000

Year l934............. 3,000,000

Year 1935............. 3,500,000

Year l936............. 4,000,000

Each year thereafter.. 4,000,000
The net result of the above distribution on a
mileage basis as specified by law means that Van
Buren County will have available the following

amounts in each successive year:

- 24 -

 

 

Year Total Mileage Total Amount I Average Amount
to be kaintain- Allocated to per Lile Main-
ed under Act 130 County under tained

Act 130

1932 211.8 [535.110.87 $167

1933 423.6 43,888.59 104

1934 635.4 52,666.31 83

1935 847.2 61,444.03 71

1936 1058.9 70,221.75 66

Annually

Thereafter 1058.9 70,221.75 ' 66

 

 

Obviously such amounts cannot adequately care for the
enormous mileage of roads in a manner to make them
useful during all seasons of the year. The writer
believes, therefore, that the proper change at this
point of the highway financing plan should be by
the allocation of more funds from motor revenues

to enable the county units to maintain these feeder
and branch roads in passable condition for daily
motor vehicle service. To what extent and how this
may be accomplished will be discussed in the latter
part of this thesis.

The township road system.comprises all public
highways not designated as State Trunk Lines or
County Roads. The source of finances for construc-
tion and care of this large mileage of highways has

been entirely confined to levies upon all taxable

-25..

holdings in the same manner as for any other public
expenditures of a township unit. The general high-
way laws provide for two funds to be designated as
repair and improvement funds, the same to be establish-
ed by the tax levies above indicated. The administra—
tion of these funds and control of the township
highways is vested in a highway commissioner, over-
seer, and sometimes a group of pathmasters, according
to the varying choices of the electors in the
township units. These officials are elected
annually by the peOple, and from the moment of their
selection generally hope to survive the rigors of
several successful campaigns for the same office,

and hence naturally proceed to use their positions
with that end in view. This is not a personal con-
demnation of all the individuals who served in

those capacities, for many gave their most con-
scientious efforts to this public service only to
fall by the wayside because they could not even

.hope to please a very considerable number of their
voters. Under this elective system they were
frequently replaced with other individuals elected

to carry out the dictates of some other section or
faction. The writer believes that it is a first

principle of efficient public service to have the

- 26 -

active field or operative supervision of every
municipal department absolutely divorced from
politics with no award of alimony. Our system of .
democratic government seems to require the direc-
tion of general policies by various boards, the
members of which are elected or appointed by the
people or their representatives. If this general
principle were applied to township road affairs,
the township commissioner could render far more
efficient service if he were employed by the
township board in the capacity of a road super-
intendent.

The long and nearly continuous record of un-
satisfactory results under the township unit system
of road control was a major contributing factor in
the radical change of supervision contemplated by
the McNitt bill. It is not at all surprising to
those conversant with highway financing and manage-
ment, that the very road tax relief measures so
sorely needed in the townships were greatly delayed
by the legislators' reluctance to be responsible
for dumping of additional funds into the township
coffers, there to be expended by an organization
system which in its very simplest principles had

proven so inefficient and inadequate.

- 27 _

It was obviously the intention Of the 1931
legislature in passing the McNitt bill to design
a tax relief measure by making a portion of gas
tax revenues displace a part of the ordinary
property levies for road purposes. Not satis-
fied with the township unit system of highway
administration, the legislators made it mandatory
that all the highways at the end of five years
should be under jurisdiction of the County Road
Commissions. The law as it now stands provides a
limited amount per mile with which only the most
elementary types of maintenance can be attempted,
but we believe that this legislation will accomplish
the following results:

1. Place the control of all secondary roads
on a firm basis of business management
directed by experienced road workers.

2. Develop a continuous system of secondary
roads which will serve as true feeders to
the County System and State Trunk Line roads.

3. Increase the efficiency of road building or
repair Operations by making available money
saving tools which could not be purchased
by the separate townships because of high

initial costs.

- 28 -

4. Serve as a property tax relief measure
because the law in itself actually further
restricts the maximum amount of property
tax which can be levied for road purposes.
It is also probable that successful ad-
ministration of this act may bring about
larger allotments of revenue in the future
to meet the demands for better side roads.

In laying out a comprehensive program for

future planning, we must first consider the im-
proved roads which we already have, regardless of
details as to how they came into existence. The
experience and results outlined in the parts pre-
ceding will be used as an index and guide to help
form.an outline for future planning. The map on
Page 9 shows the State Trunk.Line System of high-
ways as of May 1, 1932. This comprises a total of
125 miles, all provided with wearing surfaces rang-
ing from gravel to permanent pavements. Further
comment on the Trunk Line System is not necessary,
because its financing under present laws is handled
entirely by the State Highway Department from motor
revenues, thus having no influence on property
levies. It should be noted, however, that the

details of the proposed county program are made

- 29 -

to cover preparations for the ultimate absorp-
tion of County Road‘£68l from Bangor south to

the junction of M-4O as a State Trunk Line. Thus
our program for future construction of the unim-
proved portion provides for a minimum grade width
of 30 feet, with appropriate drainage structures.

It does not seem likely that an east and west
Trunk Line along or near the base line as discussed
herein, is possible of realization in view of the
determination of m-43 on its present route. Accord-
ingly, this point requires that our future plans
for County Road #388 will include a special surface
treatment of some kind which can be satisfactorily
maintained for the heavy traffic which must be
accommodated.

The writer recommends the County Road System
shown in map on Page 30 as a so-called Primary
System, to serve as main arteries leading to Trunk
Lines. Not all of these roads would logically be
designated as of primary importance at this time,
but having been previously improved to the require-
ments of our Primary System, it is good economy to
maintain them to this standard. The following road
should be added: 6.5 miles in waverly and Paw Paw

Townships as an extension of #665. Proposed new

 

 

 

         

F ROAD RIAP OF VAN BUREN COUNTY MICHIGAN mart-o kg;

 

     

  

     
 
 
 
 

l
l
I R-Iew a-Is-w R-I4—W ' , R—Ia- w
I
l EQEJNKY 1

“HIGH-E;
L———_'—

4 ‘ A
“\JHM' , r ,. I Yo C'Jt_Mf«N '0 Artfun'a TOALLIEGAN
A. - , _72 4ND ”mum“: ' EAoLc L «mun-w L. AND duA‘qD RAF‘inb T0 LLZ- \'

     
   
 

 

_ p Urgent construction
needs, Primary
System

    
       
 
    
    
 
 
 
  
   

      
  
 
   

     
      

2% ._.. Secondary System of
QT W County ands
AK, (74 )7- , M,
u; 3; «II—In Tertiary System of
g :3 County Roads
A. j
is; jgl
as . fl)
44%];
2
s
R9 0‘) /
T
15’s" 3 t
:3? g
bf ’

 
    

   
 
 
   

   
  
 
   
   

    
 

    
     
  
  

      

  
    

 

      
 
 
   
  
  
     

 

' t
54 ar’gw §3
_, up. , <5
~--_. ,- - - T. 5° ,
, Fi r‘ 5a 5a 3 z-vke ‘ ““L”“‘ ‘£.?fL :LLlil 5‘ (a. ‘ 37"
' ' h ' Ant» mu 1.. m~z ‘ v/ :‘2
' V ' ./°<
1 R'l7'W o: )—
T 63??
1 55113
|.
KE Y o
' f
‘10 If; STATE TRUNK LINED a. FEDERAL. E: a? d)
ROMEO. PAVEU suRrALE. :5 5 i7 ‘
I; O '
II‘EIZI STATE TRUNK LlNEb3FEDERAL A t; g F
ROUTES. GRAVEL SURFALE. 3;
1a
—(3_T?~}- COUNTY OrsTEM ROADS. g7;
GRAVCT OR PAVED soar/«ct. 03
m COUNTY SYSTEM ROADS. 7.
UNIMPROVED SURFACE.
(:3 OTHER PUbLlc ROADS. .,
liq
M/w/g TOWNSHIP bOUNLARY 3:;
5g:
[:1
COMPILED BY THE. 1’:

Bi‘

BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMI53|ONER5
VAN sUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

   
  
  

FRANK R. POORMAN
GEQA. DILLENBECK
C. B. bTOCKHAM

'MuLLsuRo

VIA

 

TO BENT 0N HARBOR

CORRECTED MARJ, |932
H.M.WARO.
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER.

 
 
 
     
 

DRAWN BY: I. SILVER. 3‘

  
   

 

”rm . A}. "./'

8A5 5 To BOUTH

VIA NILEb AND

 

 

        

 

ND
OWAOIAC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0..

 

- 31 -

construction work should include the above addition
together with the portions on the present outline
designated as “unimproved surface” for first pre-
ference on new construction work. Our present
County System comprises 221 miles of improved sur-
faces. Ws must provide for the following new
construction:

1. On Route #687, Keeler Twp. 3.0 miles

2. ' " #681, Keeler & Hamilton 4.2 "

3. " ' #677, Hamilton TWp. 1.9 "
4. " " #653,.Antwerp TWp. 2.0 "
5. ' ' #653,.almena TWp. 5.9 '
6; ' ” #665, Iaw Paw TWp. 2.5 '
7. ' ' #665, Taverly Twp. 4.0 “
8. " ' #703, Bangor TWp. 3.2 ~
9. ~ " #703, Hartford TWp. 1.0 .
10. ' ' #378, COvert Twp. 0.6 "
ll. ' ' #352, Decatur Twp. 3.5 "
l2. ' ' #352, Porter Twp. ‘__ggg '
TOTAL URGENT CONSTRUCTION 34.0 miles

This proposed construction should be undertaken on
specifications equally as good as used for our
present completed mileage, which would involve
complete re-grading to a minimum width of 24 feet,

limiting gradients of 6% maximum and a two course

- 32 -

Michigan State Highway Specification Class "B”
gravel roadway, sixteen feet in width with eight
inch depth of compacted gravel. Based on our
average costs of this type of construction over a
period of fifteen years, this would cost $8000
per mile complete, involving a total construction
eXpenditure of $272,000.

In laying out a Secondary System of county
roads, it is our object to designate the most
important township highways, keeping constantly in
mind their ultimate Value as connecting or feeder
arteries to the heavier traveled State and Irimary
County Roads. Such a plan is carried out on the
outline map, Page 30. The total of this proposed
system is 165.2 miles distributed as shown on lage
33. From.their very nature as secondary roads, it
is unnecessary that they be designed to carry large
volumes of traffic, but in order to make them
passable during the whole year, it is recommended
that grading operations should produce a minimum
grade width of 24 feet with all drainage structures
designed to facilitate future widening. For sur-
facing, we recommend a one course Class "B" gravel
track nine feet in width and five inch depth of

compacted gravel with.proper side and cross drainage

-33-

 

 

Township Miles Improved Miles Total
Unimproved Miles
.Almena 5.3 --- 5,3
Antwerp 6.1 3.7 9.8
Arlington 7.7 1.8 9.5
Bangor 3-0 6.7 9-7
Bloomingdale 8.1 --- 8.1
Columbia 3.1 11.0 14.1
Covert --- 10.8 10.8
Decatur 5.1 4.6 9-7
Geneva --- 13.5 13.5
Hamilton --- 0.8 0.8
Hartford 5.3 1.5 6.8
Keeler 1.5 8.2 9.7
Lawrence 6.0 --- 6.0
Paw Paw 12.4 --- 12.4
Pine Grove 9.7 --- 9.7
Porter 7.5 2.5 10.0
South Haven 2.7 5.7 8.4
Waverly 4.9 6.0 10.9
TOTALS 88.4 76.8 . 165.2

to assure that the gravel will not be washed away
by surface waters. This type Of construction is

costing our department an average Of $2000 per mile.

- 34 -
Thus we must eventually provide for completion
of our Secondary System approximately $154,000.

The Tertiary System of county roads is de-
signed to accommodate only local traffic by pro-
viding limited areas not otherwise readily
accessible, with important cross overs or direct
connecting links with the mere important arteries.
A study of the map on Page 30 will afford an
adequate picture Of the part these roads will have
in the general planning system. These highways will
not be expected to provide for anything but a very
low volume Of traffic, and hence it is our purpose
to confine our grading Operations to the quality of
work which can be done by heavy ditch graders with
tractor power or its equivalent. This type Of
repair work would provide a turnpiked grade Of
minimum 20 ft. width, the profile of which would.
follow the natural contour of the ground surface.
All drainage structures should be of corrugated
’metal or other types which can be readily salvaged
or moved. Upon this prepared turnpike with
appropriate side and cross drainage, we would place
a one course Class "B" gravel surface nine feet in
width and with a three inch depth of compacted

gravel. This type of construction, according to

- 35 -
our records, should cost an average of @1000 per
mile.
The total Of the above proposed system is

106.7 miles distributed as follows:

 

Township Miles Miles Total

Improved Unimproved Miles
Almena 1.6 2.7 4.3
Antwerp 2.5 --- 2.5
Arlington --- --- ---
Bangor 7.3 --- 7.3
Bloomingdale 5.5 1.6 7.1
Columbia 0.5 2.9 3.4
Covert 4-- 6.2 6.2
Decatur 4.3 6.1 10.4
Geneva --- 1.0 1.0
Hamilton --- 5.9 5.9
Hartford --- 4.8 4.8'
Keeler --- 7.2 6 7.2
Lawrence 5.7 5.2 10.9
Paw Paw 7.8 1.0 8.8
Pine Grove 5.7 --- 5.7
Porter 1.0 6.1 7.1
South Haven 2.5 ' 2.7 5.2
waverly 6.8 2.1 8.9

 

TOTALS 51.2 55.5 106.7

- 36 -

To complete construction work on the Tertiary

County System therefore, the county must provide

for 55.5 miles at $1000 per mile, or practically

$56,000.00.

To summarize the construction and financing

problems involved, the following condensed tabula-

tion is provided:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Tiles iiles Tota1.Bst-
Miles Completed Unimproved imated
Construc-
tion Cost
to
Complete
State Trunk Lines ;25.0 125.0 Ngng
County Primary System 255.0 221.0 334,0
County Secondary System 3365.2 88.4 76.8 4154.000
County Tertiary System 106.? 51.2 5535 356.000
County Local Roads 753.0 NO improvements con-
templated except
that provided by
maintenance income 3
TOTALS 1404.9 $482,000

Completion of the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary

County Road Systems leaves a total Of 753 miles de-

signated as ”Local Roads".

The design Of the three

systems designated above for various types of im-

provement brings approximately 90% Of the landowners

-37-

in direct touch with an improved highway. With

but very few exceptions, the balance Of the

owners are within a one mile direct haul to

said improved highways. Due to the very limited
local needs to be served by this mileage of local
roads, the writer considers that they may be made
to serve satisfactorily by using the allowance pro-
vided in schedule on Page 24 to maintain them as
natural dirt roads. The maintenance allowance will
enable the County Road Commission to turnpike the
grades and provide the necessary drainage to
eliminate surface water from the grade proper.

The writer will next consider the taxes which
are to be raised each year for retirement Of Road
Bond Obligations already incurred under provisions
of the Covert Law (Act 59, P. A. 1915, kicnigan).
These amounts are as shown on Page 38. Van Buren
County has nO bonded indebtedness except that for
which payment must be provided as detailed on Page
38. The present total bonded indebtedness of the
county is $354,000 which includes all county at
large, township at large and district portions Of
these Obligations. The statuatory limitation

under our present valuation for above purposes is

- 38 -

Year Total Taxes to be Raised Ior
Retirement of Present Obligations
(This includes County at Large,
Townships at large and District
Portions with pr0per accrued
interest charges)

1933 $97,606.00
1934 90,933.00
1935 86,736.00
1936 82,409.00
1937 58.549.00
1938 37,516.00
1939 28,813.00
1940 None

£840,000 for county portions alone; thus, our grand
total is 42.L% of the allowable limit for county
at large portions only. It is evident that the
financing of our road system is on an ultra con-
servative basis, even in these times of tax dif-
ficulties and bond default. The writer believes
we are in a position to "carry on‘ toward our goal
of a unified and well balanced network of roads in-
volving the three systems outlined as Primary,
Secondary, and Tertiary.

It has been the observation of the author
during his association with this county organiza-

tion since 1919, that it is just, equitable and

-39-

sound business and highway economics that taxes
should be levied upon prOperty for the construc-
tion of new roads. .An improved highway along any
parcel of real estate is as much of an asset to its
potential value for a residence or prooucing medium
as modern buildings, attractive shrubbery, gooo
fences, or any other improvement which adds to the
comfort or income of the property holder. In this
era of motor traffic the improved road seems of
paramount importance, because the motor vehicle
has become a vital part of our civilization, and
its efficient and pleasurable use demands adequate
highway facilities. The evolution of highway legis-
lation in our state has, in a short span of years,
removed all Trunk Line costs from property taxes.
The writer strongly favors the financing
principle of the Covert Road Law of Richigan, which
provides for constructing highways by prOperty
taxes based upon benefits derived. It is an out-
standing piece of legislative genius, designed
to provide permanent prOperty improvements for
those who can and are willing to pay for them.
The spirit of the law has been abused in many cases,
although it must be said that the enormous indebted-

ness incurred by various municipal units was

- 4o -

absolutely due to persistent pressure of prOperty
owners who were following the trend to pay "a dollar
down" and enjoy the roads at once. However, these
examples do not in any way detract from the
principle of just and equitable distribution of
construction costs to property owners rather than

to the motorist when considering the construction

of local roads. Present practice in this county
should continue to assess property for all con-
struction on County Loads. The detailed tax analysis
sheets on Pages 45 to 61, when considered with the
summarized county construction and debt retirement
pregrams on Pages 36 and 38, lead the writer to con-
clude that a construction program is entirely
feasible and should be undertaken beginning with

the year 1933.

The proposed property taxes for new construction
are to create a County Construction Fund which is to
be used in conjunction with amounts raised by the
various townships for improvement work in the
ratio of county 75% and townships 25% of total
costs involved. It is designed as a substitute
plan to replace normal Covert Construction in case
the County Board of Supervisors should not wish to

issue more bonds at this time. This is absolutely

- 41 -

a "pay as you enter" program, and if the County
Board of Supervisors considers that hr. Average
Taxpayer cannot afford to participate, he does
not "enter‘, because the program is held in abey-
ance.

Volumes have been thought, written and spoken
on the subject of tax reduction, until we are
thinking in terms of reduction only rather than
true economy. At practically no other period since
the Operation of the County System, can the Van
Buren County tax dollar purchase more highway
service than at present. We consider it wise to
improve our property when material and labor costs
are at low ebb. Our highways belong to all of us
and are an integral part of our property holdings.
But Mr. Taxpayer says, "We are taxed to death".
Yes, everyone pays more tax than he wishes to, but
that is human nature and not economics. It seems
to the writer that these years of depression should
be tempered by wisely planned public improvement
programs which will produce something useful to the
municipal units. We would be calling upon the tax
payer who claims to be overburdened. But the man

who has something to tax will thereby be investing

- 42 -

a small part of his holdings in labor dependent
upon its daily wage, and in a manner which will
produce property assets in the form of improve-
ments. If the tax payer declines this opportunity,
he will contribute his tax dollar regardless; but
it will be expended for emergency relief of this
same labor which might be prooucing useful work.
Is not the tax dollar for road improvement a sound
insurance protection for the property we now have?
On Page 44 is a tabulation showing amounts
which would be made available by the adoption of
a tentative five year construction prOgram. The
”Township Property Tax" items are the amounts which
would be made available by spreading a one mill
tax on the present equalized valuation, and represent
the township portion or 25% of the total construct-
ion fund. The "County Property Tax” items are the
amounts which would be raised by a levy of a three
mill tax on the present equalized valuation. This
would provide the county's pIOposed 75% share of
the general construction iund. The “Weight Tax"
represents the extra 50p of the estimated weight
tax which was formerly distributed to the State
Highway Department. It seems certain that the pres-

ent special session of the State Legislature will

-43..

enact provisions to bring about the return of this
fund to the various counties. Without doubt, there
will be a mandatory provision requiring that this
added county revenue be applied on outstanding bond
obligations. Therefore, this amount is included as
a part of “Total Available", from which is deducted
"Debt Retirement" items to ascertain the "Net Amount
Available for Construction." This tentative five
year plan would enable the County Load Commission
to complete the anticipated construction require-
ments for the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary
County'Foad Systems within the next five years.

The table on Page 36 indicates the total construc-
tion requirements to De t482,000, while the plan
tabulated on Page 44 provides a total of 9933.791
on a strict "pay as you go“ policy. This plan can
be accelerated by heavier mill tax rates or addi-
tional Covert bond issues, and can be decelerated
by lower rates at the option 01 the county tax

raising body.

- 44 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Township County Weight Tax Total ebt Re- Net.Amount
Property Property (50% which Avail- irement Available
Tax Tax must apply able (includ- for Construc-

on bonded 'ng int. tion
debt) harges)

1913, $28000 $84000 878000 819000 897686 .s92414

1934 __g8000 84000 78000 19000 90934 99067

g935, 28000 84000 78000 190000 86736 10 264 ___

1936 .g8000 84000 678000 190000 82406 7102595

1937 28000 84000 78000 _p90000 58549. 1 14 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL $533791

In the following pages, 45 to 80 inclusive, will
be found detailed tax analyses for each township
during each year since the adoption of the County.
Road System. .Application of the above tentative
program tax rates to the graphs showing the total
road tax rate per $1000 valuation indicate that
the proposed five year program property tax rates
for all road purposes are far below the average
for the period 1916 to 1931 in every individual
township as well as in the grand total for the
county. Moreover, the proposed rates are even
below the minimums reached during the whole period,
except for Antwerp Township in 1917, and Keeler
Township in 1918.

- 45 -

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1916

 

 

 

Township ' Equalized Total Total Co. Total Rd. Total
Valuation Egggsgii Road Tax Tax gagoger-

Value
Almena 825,000 2,000.00 1,687.32 3,687.32 4.47
antwerp 1,980,000 4,675.00 4,049.60 8,724.60 4.40
Arlington 1,420,000 5,500.00 2,904.26 8,404.26 5.92
Bangor 2,000,000 8,350.00 4,090.50 12,440.50 6.22
Bloomingdale 1,705,000 5,641.16 3,487.15 9,128.31 5.35
Columbia 870,000 5,000.00 1,779.37 6,779.37 7.78
Covert 1,040,000 3,450.00 2,127.06 5,577.06 5.36
Decatur 1,960,000 7,866.96 4,008.69 11,875.65 6.06
Geneva 1,040,000 4,994.80 2,127.06 7,121.86 6.84
Hamilton 1,040,000, 2,600.00 2,127.06 4,727.06 4.55
Hartford 2,350,000 6,288.55 4,086.34 10,374.89 4.41
Keeler 1,270,000 3,951.10 2,597.47 6,548.57 5.15
Lawrenoe‘ _ 1,705,000 6,200.00 3,487.15 9,687.18 5.69
Paw Paw 2,590,000 7,917.00 5,297.20 13,214.30 5.10
Pine Grove 1,120,000 3,000.00 2,290.68 5,290.68 4.72
Porter 1,210,000 3,526.49 2,474.75 6,001.24 4.96
South Haven 1,130,000 4,863.45 2,311.13 7,174.58 6.35
Waverly 111190.000 4,945.29 2,331.59 071276.88 6.38
TOTAL $30,000,000 $90,769.80t53,264.3891331934.18

 

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county

this year was $4.80 per $1000 valuation.

- 46 -

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1917

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total Rd. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Per
Road Tax $1000
Value
Almena 727,800 2,400.00 1,690.78 4,090.78 5.62
Antwerp 1,773,200 2,360.00 4,097.92 6,457.92 3.64
Arlington 1,365,500 5,200.00 3,129.23 8,329.23 6.10
Bangor 1,929,800 6,660.20 5,606.86 12,267.06 6.36
Bloomingdale 1,606,500 5,988.70 3,624.22 9,612.92 5.98
Columbia 855,300 4,500.00 1,960.04 6,460.04 7.55
Covert 979,700 3,300.00 3,072.13? 6,372.13 6.50
Decatur 1,827,700 10,590.00 4,211.34 14,801.34 8.05
Geneva 999,900 5,538.33 2,291.40 7,829.73 7.83
Hamilton 969,700 2,500.00 1,245.13 3,745.13 3.76
Hartford 2,172,900 6,282.55 4,979.49 11,262.04 5.13
Keeler 1,172,600 5,208.98 2,744.49 7,953.47 6.78
Lawrence 1,418,100 5,400.00 4,264.36 9,664.36 6.81
Paw Paw 2,339,500 8,077.10 5,384.24 13,461.34 5.75
Pine Grove 1,122,400 3,500.00 2,480.47 4,980.47 5.33
Porter 1,152,000 6,000.00 2,639.97 8,639.97 7.50
South Haven 1,049,000 7,766.00 2,403.92 10,169.92 9.70
Waverly 1,061,400 2,358.05 2,432.35 4,790.40 4.52
TOTAL $ 28,000,000 9 93,629.91958,258.343151.888.25

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county

this year was $4.52 per @1000 valuation.

he.
a

- 47 -

ROAD TAX AKALYSIS FOR YEAR 1918

 

 

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total Rd. Total

Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Per

Road Tax $1000
Vaiue

Almena 737,800 _ 3,100.00 2,372.81 5,472.81 7.42
Antwerp 1,788,200 2,500.00 5,759.62 8,259.62 _ 4.61
Arlington 1,410,000 4,500.00 4,540.19 9,040.10 6.41
Bangor 2,075,800 7,650.00 10,537.94 18,187.94 8.76
Bloomingdale 1,545,600 5,737.50 4,977.41 10,714.91 6.92
Columbia 855,000 5,500.00 3,887.94 9,387.94 10.97
Covert 972,000 1,050.00 . 6,561.47 7,611.47 7.83
Decatur 1,875,000 5,848.33 6,039.48 11,887.81 6.34
Geneva 989,900 4,440.51 6,059.21 10,499.72 10.63
Hamilton 979,700 1,000.00 3,152.76 4,152.76 4.34
Hartford 2,205,000 5,291.25 6,167.94 11,459.19 ‘ 5.20
Keeler 1,197,000 3,855.34 3,855.34 ' 3.22
Lawrence 1,468,100 3,612.45 4,727.50 8,339.95 5.68
Paw Paw 2,349,500 6,853.67 7,569.40 14,423.07 6.14
Pine Grove 1,152,000 2,214.24 .3,483.89 5,698.13 4.94
Porter 1,152,000 6,000.00 6,228.30 (11,926.43 10.35
South Haven 1,025,000 4,000.00 3,298.81 7,298.81 7.12
Waverly 1,061,400 93,710.00 3.416.18 21125.58 6'73
,1223;L_ t 28,000,0000423,028.35 592,636.193165,362.67

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $5.90 per $1000 valuation.

- 48 -

ROAD TAX.ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1919

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total lid. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax lei

Road Tax $1000

Value

Almena 738,000 2,500.00 3,818.46 6,318.46 8.56
Antwerp 1,799,000 3,700.00 5,677.87 9.377.87 5.21
Arlington 1,400,000 4,300.00 4,418.59 8,718.59 6.22
Bangor 2,075,000 8,055.00 11,525.56 19,580.56 9.38
Bloomingdale 1,545,000 5,703.64 4,876.22 10,579.86 6.84
Columbia 855,000 3,000.00 3,215.30 6,215.30 7.27
Covert 975,000 1,650.00 7,565.65 9.215.65 9.45
Decatur 1,870,000 _9,308,000 5,901.95 15,209.95 8.13
Geneva 995.000 5,552.98 10,535.85 16,088.83 16.16
Hamilton 980,000 2,000.00 3,093.03 5,093.03 5.19
Hartford 2,200,000 7,288.63 6,943.46 14,232.09 6.47
Keeler 1,200,000 5,226.00 3,787.37 9,013.37 7.51
Lawrence 1,470,000 3,000.00 4,639.52 7,639.52 5.19
Paw Paw 2,350,000 8,941.53 7,416.88 16,358.41 6.96
Pine Grove 1,083,000 8,837.61 3,418.12 12,255.73 11.31
Porter 1,152,000 1,400.00 7,578.57 8,978.57 7.79
South Haven 1,020,000 5,000.00 _3,219.28 8,219.28 8.05
Waverly 1, 065, 000 431516.88 3.3631330 79478318 7.02
TOTAL 328,000,000 989,580.279100.9923989190,573.25 _-

 

The Average total road tax rate for the entire county

this year was $6.80 per @1000 valuation.

- 49 -

ROAD TAX.ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1920

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total £0. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Ier

Road Tax $1000

Value

Almena 738,000 -2,500.00 4,067.34 6,567.34 8.89
Antwerp 1,824,000 6,129.72 13,703.70 19,833.42 10.92
Arlington 1,400,000 4,500.00 16,788.29 21,288.29 15.20
Bangor 2,075,000 5,750.00 17,353.48 23,103.48 11.13
Bloomingdale 1,545,000 5,543.83 12,921.33 18,465.16 11.95
Columbia 855,000 3,000.00 9,144.30 12,144.30 14.20
Covert 975.000 2,000.00 25,088.46 27,088.46 27.78
Decatur 1,870,000 10,975.00 10,305.92 21,280.92 11.37
Geneva 1,000,000 4,492.00 13,626.73 18,118.73 18.11
Hamilton 970,000 2,500.00 7,227.87 9,727.87 10.03

Hartford 2,200,000 4,373.97 16,474.86 20,848.83 9.48
Keeler 1,200,000 5,334.71 10,652.30 15,987.01 13.32
Lawrence 1,470,000 14,152.14 14,152.14 9.63
Paw Paw 2,350,000 8,361.10 15,219.83 23,580.93 10.03
Pine Grove 1,083,000 8,500.74 5,938.73 14,438.73 13.33
Porter 1,160,000 11,850.00 10,146.18 21,996.18 18.96
South Haven 990,000 13,000.00 5,456.18 18,456.18 18.96
waverly 1,065,000 3,160.30 49,005.53, 12,165.83_, 11.42

TOTAL $28,000,0005101,971.379217,273,17t3193243.80

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county

this year was $11.40 per $1000 valuation.

- 50 -

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1921

 

Township Equalized Total Total CO. Total hd. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Per
Road Tax 41000
Value
Almena 730,000 3,500.00 3,364.09 6,864.49 9.32
Antwerp 1,850,000 11,191.65 13,277.96 24,469.61 13.22
Arlington 1,395,000 4,900.00 15,089.59 19.989.59 14.33
Bangor 2,070,000 6,450.00 12,519.12 18,969.12 9.11
Bloomingdale 2,1540,000 5,751.15 11,873.99 17,625.14 11.44
Columbia 855,000 4,000.00 10,326.54 14,326.54 16.75
Covert 970,000 2,000.00 13,223.49 15,223.49 15.69
Decatur 1,860,000 11,106.62 10,430.54 21,537.16 11.58
Geneva 1,025,000 3,368.85 12,695.08 16,063.93 16.16
Hamilton 980,000 3,055.00 6,581.73 9,636.73 9.83
Hartford 2,190,000 7,354.77 16,998.92 24,353.69 11.12
Keeler 1,210,000 8,029.30 10,945.59 18,974.89 15.68
Lawrence 1,465,000 9,600.00 13,449.28 23,049.28 16.41
Paw Paw 2,450,000 8,389.24 16,508.84 24,898.08 10.17
Pine Grove 1,070,000 8,437.29 -4,934.89 13,372.18 12.49
Porter 1,170,000 17,500.00 9,454.86 26,954.86 22.18
South Haven 975,000 10,500.00 4,495.99 14,995.99 15.38
waverly 81,955,000 4,434.09. 8,291.25 32,725,34 12.06

 

TOTAL §2BIOOOIOOO§lZQI562.96filfi4,46l.2§§324,022.21

The average total road tax rate for the entire county

this year was $11.57 per $1000 valuation.

- 51 -

ROAD TAX.ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1922

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total Rd. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Per
Road Tax 01000
Value
Almena 725,000 2,500.00 3,946.64 6,446.64 8.89
Antwerp 1,850,000 4,080.00 18,983.08 23,063.08 12.95
Arlington 1,390,000 4,000.00 12,676.61 16,676.61 11.99
Bangor 2,070,000 8,200.00 12,719.09 20,919.09 10.10
Bloomingdale 1,550,000 9,075.90 13,819.81 22,895.71 14.77
Columbia 850,000 6,000.00 10,566.33 16,566.33 19.49
Covert 970,000 3,000.00 14,243.94 17,243.94 17.77
Decatur 1,850,000 7,618.59 12,154.06 19,772.65 10.65
Geneva 1,030,000 3,921.92 14,110.67 18,032.59 17.50
Hamilton 980,000 2,150.00 8,091.93 10,241.93 10.45
Hartford 2,190,000 10,319.07 20,749.32 31,068.39 14.14
Keeler 1,120,000 4,661.06 11,861.97 16,523.03 14.75
Lawrence 1,465,000 8,700.00 14,723.89 23,423.89 15.92
Paw Paw 2,470,000 9,139.17 17,298.78 26,437.95 10.70
Pine Grove 1,070,000 5,567.00 5,741.65 11,308.65 10.57
Porter 1,165,000 10,000.00 11,011.14 21,011.14 18.04
South Haven 975,000 11,000.00 5,880.92 16,880.92 17.31
Waverly 933050.000 3,552.00 89,309.57 12,861.57 12.25 .
ggTAL. __028,000,0004113,484.7141217889,409331.374.13:_ _'

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county

this year was $11.82 per $1000 valuation.

- 52 -

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1923

 

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total CO. Total Rd. Total

Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Per

Road Tax 81000
Value

Alnena 800.825 2,500.00 5,596.77 8,096.77 10.10
Antwerp 2,402,275 12,660.78 15,613.52 28,274.30 11.31
Arlington 1,498,150. 5,000.00 16,497.17 21,497.17 14.35
Bangor 2,285,750 8,200.00 18,942.92 27,142.92 11.87
Bloomingdale 1,672,050 8,625.61 14,392.31 23,017.92 13.77
Columbia 937,575 5,000.00 7,940.32 12,940.32 13.81
Covert 1,091,100 3,500.00 14,266.46 17,766.46 16.28
Decatur 2,040,650 7,654.62 13,589.95 21,544.57 10.56
Geneva '1,093,700 4,448.80 13,549.65 17,998.45 16.47
Hamilton 1,022,075 2,000.00 10,956.90 12,956.90 12.67
Hartford 2,481,400 6,900.00 17,093.09 23,993.09 9.67
Keeler 1.330.875 5,361.44 13,210.63 18,572.07 13.21
Lawrence 1,556,065 8,000.00 15,118.56 23,118.56 14.12
Paw Paw 2,680,050 13,494.00 17,590.91 30,984.91 11.56
Pine Grove 1,245,830 5,076.66 7,117.88 12,194.54 9.79
Porter 1,267,675 7,500.00 11,103.00 18,603.00 14.68
South Haven 1,032,800 16,400.00 6,904.22 23,304.22 22.58
Waverly 1,161,350 4,155.60 9,793,97 13,949.57 ’ 12.01
292;; $32,000,9005126,477.511299,278.2383551955.74

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $11.12 per $1000 valuation.

-53-

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1924

 

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total Ed. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax 1e:
Road Tax 81000
Value
Almena 808,717 4,000.00 3,895.51 7,895.51 9.77
Antwerp 2,331,771 6,923.51 17,427.64 24,351.15 10.44
Arlington 1.508.765 9,000.00 13,202.04 22,202.04 14.72
Bangor 2,272,994 8,350.00 14,064.10 22,414.10 9.86
Bloomingdale 1,681,371 10,047.32 11,900.48 21,947.80 13.06
Columbia 945,471 5,000.00 9,108.87 14,108.87 14.93
Covert 1,046,650 3,500.00 11,879.33 15,379.33 14.70
Decatur 2,068,988 5,943.46 7,710.68 13,654.14 6.60
Geneva 1,095,525 4,446.00 11,047.29 15,493.29 14.15
Hamilton 1,025,613 2,000.00 8,977.72_ 10,977.72 10.71
Hartford 2,460,131 10,280.00 11,965.69 22,245.69 9.04
Keeler 1,338,542 5,437.84 10,311.88 15,749.72 11.77
Lawrence 1,585,326 6,000.00 10,766.82 16,766.82 10.58
Paw Paw 2,664,854 10,471.17 12,013.46 22,484.63 8.44
Pine Grove 1,230,523 2,178.50 4,584.56 6,763.06 5.42
Porter 1,266,613 9,000.00 6,295.21 15,295.21 12.08
South Haven 1,024,050 10,600.00 4,874.22 15,474.22 15.11
Waver1y 1,154,719 4,256.00 7,_92.37 11,548.37 10.00
TOTAL $32,000,0004117,433.80517zl317.873294,751.67

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $9.21 per $1000 valuation.

- 54 -

ROAD TAX.ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 192

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total ho. Total
Valuation ggggsgip Road Tax Tax $180861
Value
Almena 801,875 3,000.00 5,364.06 8,364.06 10.44
Antwerp 2,262,765‘ 7,937.11 17,560.08 25,497.19 - 11.27
Arlington 1,492,340 4,500.00 15,582.43 20,082.43 13.45
Bangor 2,262,155 8,250.00 13,052.10 21,302.10 8.97
Bloomingdale 1,650,950 9,164.21 7,909.58 17,073.79 10.34
Columbia 939,025 5,000.00 11,573.35 16,573.35 17.65
Covert 1,138,370 3,650.00 11,957.04 15,607.04 13.71
Decatur 2,056,185 9,634.30 10,145.26 19,779.56 9.62
Geneva 1,097,895 6,169.08 11,105.20 17,274.28 15.75
Hamilton 1,020,250 2,000.00 11,005.23 13,005.23 12.75
Hartford 2,462,005 7,622.33 15,702.37 23,324.70 9.47
Keeler 1,350,730 7,589.73 7,140.33 14,730.06 10.91
Lawrence 1,579,130 5,300.00 12,075.21 17,375.21 2 11.00
Paw Paw 2,651,551 10,514.46 14,380.90 24,895.36 9.39
Pine Grove 1,228,125 3,865.56 5,039.87 8,905.43 7.25
Porter 1,254,385 1,901.85 8,617.35 10,519.20 8.30
South Haven 1,030,115 12,000.00 5,243.64 17,243.64 16.74
waverly 5_;,151,290 5,698.53, _7,579.16 13,272.69 11.53 .
_TOTAL 532.3100, 0004113797.165191.033 .163 304, 830 . 32 "

 

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $9.52 per 01000 valuation.

.12..

I'rr
I

‘ -
Chub-.1

'D-nq

5.

‘Im

' f

- 54 -

ROAD TAX.ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1925

 

 

 

 

TownShtp Equalized Total Total Co. Total hd. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Tex
Road Tax 3:332__

Almena 801,875 3,000.00 5,364.06 8,364.06 10.44
Antwerp 2,262,765 7,937.11 17,560.08 25,497.19 11.2/
Ar1ington 1,492,340 4,500.00 15,582.43 20,082.43 13.45
Bangor 2,262,155 8,250.00 13,052.10 21,302.10 8.97
Bloomingdale 1,650,950 9,164.21 7,909.58 17.073-79 10-34
Columbia 939,025 5,000.00 11,573.35 16.573.35 17-65
Covert 1,138,370 3,650.00 11,957.04 15,607.04 13.71
Decatur 2,056,185 9,634.30 10,145.26 19,779.56 9.62
Geneva 1,097,895 6,169.08 11,105.20 17,274.28 15.75
Hamilton 1,020,250 2,000.00 11,005.23 13,005.23 12.75
Hartford 2,462,005 7,622.33 15,702.37 23,324.70 9.47
Keeler 1,350,730 7,589.73 7,140.33 14,730.06 10.91
Lawrence 1,579,130 5,300.00 12,075.21 17,375.21 11.00
Paw Paw 2,651,551 10,514.46 14,380.90 24,895.36 9839
Pine Grove 1,228,125 3,865.56 5,039.87 8.905~43 7-25
Porter 1,254,385 1,901.85 8,617.35 10,519-20 8.30
South Haven 1,030,115 12,000.00 5.243.64 17.243.64 16-74
Waverly 1,151,290 5,698.53 7.579461131371469 11234
TOTAL 532,000,0005113.797.16tl91.033.169304.830.32

 

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

Year was $9.52 per @1000 valuation.

 

 

55 -

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FCR YEAR 1926

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total Ed. Total

Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax for

“ Road Tax 51000
Value

Almena 792,490 2,500.00 3,959.10 6,459.10 8.15
Antwerp 2,254,425 6,098.89 13,520.86 19,619.75 8.70
Arlington 1,446,710 3,000.00 9,787.11 12,787.11 8.72
Bangor 2,236,945 8,200.00 9,132.46 17,332.46 7.79
Bloomingdale 1,639,595 9,236.98 4,023.59 13,260.57 8.08
Columbia 927,620 6,500.00 7,383.07 13,883.07 14.07
Covert 1,222,555 4,700.00 9,965.05 14,665.06 12.00
Decatur 2,035,555 16,817.38 6,690.77 23,508.15 11.55
Geneva 1,084,040 3,380.70 8,962.23 12,342.93 11.38
Hamilton 985,850 2,000.00 7,074.15 9,074.15 9.22
Hartford 2,451,270 9,467.28 8,576.15 18,043.43 7.32
Keeler 1,346,875 8,765.77 8,170.50 16,936.27 12.58
Lawrence 1,578,205 6,000.00 9,258.29 15,258.29 9.65
Paw Paw 2,683,660 13,093.77 8,873.56 21,967.33 5.97
Pine Grove 1,210,795 6,728.79 2,971.31 9,700.10 8.01
Porter 1.240.465 7,429.12 6,379.36 13,808.48 11.14
South Haven 1,031,865 11,200.00 3,539.32 14,739.32 14.29
‘Waverly 1,103,145 3,453,233 35,465.22 8,918.45 8.08
TOTAL $32,000,0005128,571.915133,z32.105262.304.01

 

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $8.19 per $1000 valuation.

- 56 -

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FCR YEAR 1927

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total Rd. Total

Valuation ggzgsgii Road Tax Tax gagoger

. Va1ge

Almena 781,550 3,000.00 3,239.46 6,239.46 7.98
Antwerp 2,221,300 6,096.64 13,439.10 19,535.74 8.79
Arlington 1,436,760 5,600.00 11,098.11 16.698.11 11.63
Bangor 2,231,250 2,000.00 11,544.60 13,544.60 6.07
Bloomingdale 1,617,025 9,268.21 8,269.57 17,537.78 10.84
Columbia 948,950 1,300.00 9,716.04 11,016.04 11.62
Covert 1,200,750 6,875.64 6,638.43 13,514.07 11.26
Decatur 2,017,675 16,867.00 6,911.46 23,778.46 11.78
Geneva 1,066,700 3,948.00 12,780.51 16,728.51 15.69
Hamilton 970,425 4,000.00 9,510.85 13,501.85 13.91
Hartford 2,406,950 14,014.80 '12,057.28 26,072.08 10.83
Keeler 1,378,700 8,738.10 8,217.61 16,955.71 12.30
Lawrence 1,547,250 7,000.00 9,236.66 16,236.66 10.49
Paw Paw 2,639,200 13,326.70 8,281.49 21,608.19 8.19
Pine Grove 1,195,400 7,960.00 3,136.87 11,096.87 9.29
Porter 1,219,650 7,500.00 8,946.00 16,446.00 13.49'
South Haven 1,031,625 13,000.00 3,671.79 16,671.79 16.17
Waverly _;,088.275 5,950,000 5,479.96 11,429.96 10.50_~
TOTAL 032.000.0005136,445.095152,175.794288,611.88

 

 

The average total road tax rate fOr the entire county this

year was $9.02 per $1000 valuation.

-57..

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1928

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total hd. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax. Tax Ier
Road Tax 81000
Value
Almena 781,268 3,500.00 3,959.87 7,459.87 9.55
Antwerp 2,187,714 6,069.62 5,930.71 12,000.33 5.49
Arlington 1.435.368 7,650.00 14,851.18 22,501.18 15.68
Bangor 2,242,689 7,000.00 9.937.01 16,937.01 7.51
Bloomingdale 1,622,389 8,477.85 8,320.29 16,798.14 10.35
Columbia 981,353 4,000.00 8,207.43 12,207.43 12.44
Covert 1,202,467 5,300.00 8,839.63 14,139.63 11.76
Decatur 2,001,655 10,120.20 6,958.01 17,078.21 8.53
Geneva 1,064,264 4,513.40 8,225.81 12,739.21 11.97
Hamilton 970,578 2,000.00 10,064.25 12,064.25 12.43
Hartford 2,390,472 9,507.05 11,337.23 20,844.28 8.59
Keeler 1,423,398 3,757.70 9,503.85 13,261.55 9.32
Lawrence 1,556,034 7,000.00 12,355.19 19,355.19 12.44
Paw Paw 2,607,212 11,944.15 9,586.01 21,530.16 8.26
Pine Grove 1,190,284 6,835.92 3,225.50 10,061.42 8.45
Porter 1,211,411 10,000.00 6,659.83 16,659.83 13.75
South Haven 1,024,911 13,000.00 2,945.08 15,945.08 15.57
waver;y_ 1,051,875 5,071,87 5.353.38 10,425,25 _9.92,_
TOTAL 932,000,0009125.7473764146,260.26;272,088.02 _

 

The Average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $8.50 per $1000 valuation.

- 55 -

ROAD TAK.ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1929

 

 

Township Equalized Total . Total Co. Total RC. Total

Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax Ter
Road Tax #1000

Valuegfid
.Almena 746,091 4,500.00 4,462.18 8,962.18 12.14
Antwerp 2,117,493 6,092.23 14,553.64 20,645.87 9.75
Arlington 1,392,987 6,415.00 12,700.41 19,115.41 13.73
Bangor 2,161,628 7,500.00 11,519.83 19,219.83 , 8.89
Bloomingdale 1,567,394 8,450.84 9,994.89 18,445.73 11.13
Columbia 953.178 4,500.00 10,026.67 14,526.67 15.24
Covert 1,162,332 6,700.00 7,349.39 14,049.39 12.09
Decatur 1,953,751 10,202.25 8,530.29 18,732.54 9.59
Geneva 1,035,349 3,400.00 8,867.57 12,267.57 11.85
Hamilton 943,850 3,000.00 10,595.77 13,595.77 14.41
Hartford 2,309,488 9,002.60 13,617.42 22,620.02 9.79
Keeler 1,394,813 9,174.45 11,031.46 20,205.91 14.49
Lawrence 1,512,307 7,000.00 13,975.01 20,975.01 13.87
Paw Paw- 2,469,375 11,715.63 12,318.62 24,034.25 9.72
Pine Grove 1,159,409 6,776.60 1,269.27 8,045.87 6.94
Porter 1,164,118 9,500.00 7,455.51 16,955.51 14.56
South Haven 986,246 13,000.00 4,453.93 17,453.93 17.70

Waverly 1,051,975 5,901.98 6,829.56 12,731.54 12.11_=

TOTAL 831,000,0008132,831.58§169,551.42%302,583.00 1

 

 

The average total roao tax rate for the entire county this

year was $9.76 per $1000 valuation.

_.59-

ROAD TAX AKALYSIS FOR YEAR 1930

 

 

Township IEqualized Total Total Co. Total Rd. Total
Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax ler
Road Tax 91000
V212;
.Almena 727,988 3,500.00 3,203.93 6,703.93 9.21
Antwerp 2,114,631 6,096.48 11,538.60 17,635.08 8.34
Arlington 1,383,329 5,000.00 13,446.02 18,446.02 13.33
Bangor 2,133,701 8,000.00 11,602.32 19,602.32 9.18
Bloomingdale 1,563,922 8,128.72 6,773.09 14,901.81 9.52
Columbia 945,961 4,000.00 10,492.38 14,492.38 15.32
Covert 1,197,721 6,600.00 4,159.73 10,759.73. 8.98
Decatur 2,003,907 10,225.04 8,195.03 18,420.07 9.14
Geneva 1,046,571 3,433.80 12,214.34 15,648.14 14.96
Hamilton 943,995 2,000.00 8,790.00 10,790.00 11.44
Hartford 2,311,010 8,496.50 11,113.38 19,609.88 8.48
Keeler 1,391,256 4,573.95 9,655.77 14,229.72 10.23
Lawrence 1,496,517 7,000.00 9,026.17 16,026.17 10.71
Paw Paw 2,452,302 13,025.26 8,786.81 21,822.07 8.89
Pine Grove 1,145,242 1,856.70 4,212.03 6,068.73 5.21
Porter 1,158,749 8,500.00 7,128.79 15,628.79 13.50
South Haven 980,203 13,000.00 5,627.58 18,637.58 19.01
Waverly 1,026,628 4,550.00 4,541.39 9,091.39 8.76
TOTAL 1 allooogooany, 9864513150, 517 . 369.268.511.81 fi

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $8.66 per $1000 valuation.

ROAD TAX ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 1931

- 60 -

 

 

 

Township Equalized Total Total Co. Total Ro. Total

Valuation Township Road Tax Tax Tax.Ier

Road Tax @1000
Value

Almena 660,693 1,500.00 3,095.19 4,595.19 6.95
Antwerp 2,010,034 4,825.99 7,615.31 12,441.30 6.19
Arlington 1,240,868 2,500.00 11,229.78 13,729.78 11.06
Bangor 1,916,149 5,000.00 8,541.80 13,541.80 7.06
Bloomingdale 1,399,081 5,822.79 4,481.29 10,304.08 7.36
Columbia 862.027 2,342.10 7,263.27 9,605.37 11.14
Covert 1,089,736 3,700.00 2,484.61 6,184.61 5.67
Decatur 1,774,223 9,360.00 4,045.23 13,405.23 7.55
Geneva 951,762 2,600.00 11,151.36 13,751.36 14.44
Hamilton 839,363 1,600.00 7,166.73 8,766.73 10.44
Hartford 2,133,461 8,647.89 13,558.57 22,206.46 10.40
Keeler 1,262,221 4,195.72 6,939.18 11,134.90 8.82
Lawrence 1,350,632 4,000.00 8,074.74 12,074.74 8.94
Paw Paw 2,213,060 9,192.87 6,614.06 15,806.93 7.14
Pine Grove 1,037,257 2,079.51 2,364.65 4,444.16 4.28
Porter 1,050,303 6,000.00 4,977.18 10,977.18 10.45
South Haven 884,821 13,000.00 7,028.04 20,028.04 26.62
waverly 914,874 31,250.00 33,102.59 ' 4,352.59_ 4~25L_
ToTA; $28,000,000 587,616.87w119.733.5882071530.45

 

The average total road tax rate for the entire county this

year was $7.41 per 81000 valuation.

- 61 -

Average Annual Road Tax Rate
of Townships

For Each 81000 Valuation

(These are computed for each township for the

period 1916 to 1931 inclusive, as per data

compiled

in the tax analysis sheets, Pages

 

45 to 60.)
Township Average Annual Tax Rate
For3§1000 Valuation
Almena w 8059
Antwerp 8.45
Arlington 11.43
Bangor 8.64
Bloomingdale 9.86
Columbia 13.13
Covert 12.30
Decatur 9-13
Geneva 13.74
Hamilton 9°76
Hartford 8.72
Keeler 10.62
Lawrence 10.45
Paw Paw 8.67
Pine Grove 7-96
Porter 12.61
South Haven 15.42
Waverly 9.25

. .

 

 

 

6O..o.
Q
fib-

.
a
.8.
.

 

- o

4'-
.o.»'

.—
4.
o.

-00..

O'9Q¢4"

onto...

60.00.00.
..,.

"14.49590
c—o-..

OOVOOOOF‘
vooo+toon
.*.cI'v

.
3-.

-10»
-o
a
...¢¢oo¢‘
.4
.0

40-00
a..-
‘._..

‘Qo..§'c§
loot¢noe

.
6.0.0944.
0000;0049

H

eoQo.....'

o.

9.--.-.

f—e—o;

’1‘

‘00ebco—hd

on ODIO
a On. olv u

0 00'
«‘01--..
O

t—*

H
a
,.
N
a

09.0fv-OOQA
.
O
Q

o
l

 

Ov-v'roo

'uho-

 

 

 

..
||4

a

+
H

 

 

 

 

4 c o . 146..
1+Y.IOI4
VI

,-.-¢—< ¢< —c—»

 

1. . “._....—

 

I31

 

 

.
at.
It-

a

 

VP
~9'Iv

>54

O
I

o
pedal 8

‘0.

~
1
¢
1

 

 

 

 

 

I lII'uI o I I I I. nil .z’im‘l'l‘ ‘lt

 

n
H
d
0

>4

I

c

l"

a. .11- *4-’

H 'IVLOJL

I XVI.

 

 

 

 

it, .I . , u .. I \F.
. . 1 e v . , Q" ,
II"I|IIII .. 1Q, ' O ' J I - ‘

 

III. (.1.-- >u'l' O - I‘l“ v
8"

 

. .1.
\ «1...Qv
1......“ _.O.,\l‘- x

1 ; 3.. .
|l||oNu $1.70...» .41 40.... ... ..6..r
[I . I Ir..--2-.-‘ll-.---i.1lr-.l-ir-.-a|l-,-.vlr.2-3.5-4219. ....... v-i...-.r.-u.-.!----.-,-----u----:||

   

3.9 ..ox.ul-|i «1|.L

 

 

 

 

Y
O
o
v
‘
O
V
V
v

 

.- v t—o—o—y v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p...

 

J
.
.....1. .
v01. 09-. O

....H.
...»e...
...1..... .
....o... .
........o c
....1... .
volalolII-ltlttl
.. .. .. .
......Op‘
.. 4.... .
. ... .

v-0

euo-y‘

 

 

 

....H
are
...‘
...
3191.4
.v,
v...
....
....
.vv;
0..-
....
.or‘
...;
P...
...“
.. .

 

 

 

.

a u . . . . . . .
1 q . 1 . o v
e . o o v . .
. . . .
. o . v o . . . .
. . . .
w . o l e ,

 

 

}

p-o———¢—.—< .— o 1...—. ._.—o ———- ..

 

. 1...... L._._... . 'a—-.

...
.

 

o ..

o
.c o
'17..

 

 

 

 

o‘
1

 

 

-_.—...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- .. -.- ._.. -...-.11 _-1... ._.. ._....1...

- a ...—4 - >—~———+~ -Hfikrf--
. , ’

.

3

T

.

I

 

 

 

 

'l"'III

 

In, I.

4..
..
_

.

1
..
_

.
..

 

 

4.1. ...11..- ..- ._..-.

 

 

 

11.51! c

p -—‘-.—.——v——'——. -4 ..v

 

-
..
.
1
...
1
1
1
volt
1
~
.
.
a
.
V

 

 

 

 

 

 

v—rV‘YY

MH..-.<.

.-.—._...-

 

. .

, .

M

1

a

u

—

, 4

1

a

.... ..

. a

. .*

_ 1

. . H

. H

. . .

a
.....v...

. ..

.. . .

u. _

 

 

.-4_. .... . 4...-..

A

 

 

.. r... _.
:

 

e

 

 

 

 

...
..
no o

F

o

L—o—H—H.”H.q WW~<pv H ._.-«..— J «—+— -» '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0‘

.111

...
L
.1
1

1.

1

I

 

 

 

 

H TVEOL

NI XVI

 

 

 

 

 

,
, 7

an
1

.
M.
.

1

 

 

 

 

. 1 4,“l - Ll§l ‘1'. 11.8“ I: '1

 

 

O

opfa—J‘

O

 

1
.1
1
1
.
fl
1

amount .
MHMmaao amoma

 

 

 

 

A
4
.
..
.1
1

 

 

 

 

 

VV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o

.
, .
A—oaOooof

'v a.
7L....
.. . ,
r
«

... .-_- ”._..

 

t

c
1
4
b
.
..H
u.
~
,0

O" 5 v
.—4

.4, >o—8—o ._.

Yew.» .
Ailvloto
,~ .

a c

 

. a I f l
I l I

lobOOaieoo..—.L-.

 

 

 

 

 

.

I. 70 O

of",o
....l.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vv Vr v Vv v vv v Y—v v v ‘vf w v vyj Y vwfiyrvv VVYVYVYYT YmY—r—VY
.,.,,.... .. ,,.... .....,..T. .. . .. .,3 ... .. . 1.. I. .. ....'.. . A... .....A... .- 0:044
...,. .. ... ,.... ... ... . .. . . . .... .. .. ...... ...... ....... ..... ... -Ot-Oooan ...q.,..
. .. . . . t. . .. . .. . . ...... . ., . . .. ......... .........
. ., . . . . ... . ... . .. . . ~.! .. . .... . .q... . ... -o ...-. ...gbv4-
y...-. .. 5...... ~ ~ ...v.. a .... ..... '. . . .. ’...... >..3c b ..~-q.. .—e-<¢o-.g...~. ...-coo-..‘
. ... .. . v .. .. , , . 1.. .. ... . .. .... .-. ........
..... .¥ ... ... . I . . . * -. ....- . .... o .. e ....4...- urcAOo<4.
.. .. . . .. . .. . . . ... "I . .. . . . .. .1. 9, q .. . ......1 ...._,....
1.....1.....-.- - g ._._. ._.—._-- - - . -.. -_. ..-..- fi....a._..._..—...—1—-_.—.—.—. . 4-..-.-0 —-.—-.. 4 . o a o—-~-. c - .—-.. ..-—..-- -1 ......Ta. —. .+.'_—.—.—,— ---—4r ._.—o o—.—~—.‘
...... . . . 3. .5 3. ..... ..~ . ~. . - .-co~» o .. .--c-~.~ ... 1-4.3
.........1 .... ... .. .... . . . , , , ... . . ... ... ....,..,.. ..-....,.
, ......... . . ., . .... 1 .... ... -c ... .-. .. . ...-... ...4.-..
.....-1..".,....... ...-.... o ..... ... . ,..Q... .... . ... .. - . .. ... . . . .... -.-....-.L.-...oo..
u- ....I ...l- . ""'9 . .... .l . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . ....... .....,.
... . . .... .. ... '..-.. ... . F' 1 .- . . .-¢¢. --5 - ...»...4. """?
...,.,. . ...... , .... o . . . .q , . 3 . a , - ..334 7 - ' ... ....1.... ..ouvoo.
. .... .. . . . . . .g . . .. 4 » ... -... . . ........ --.... .
.
.. .... .. . .1 v .. . . ,.. ... ..... .......4
.... .. ....... ... ... .'. . . o t . r. . . ..--'t - > ... ‘- .....ucu’ ...... ..
......... ......... ......-.'.-....-.. .. ... .. . ..~. .. .... .. .... "".’""“ -...o .... -..-..-..t-....---.
,.... .. ... ,. . .. .. .. , . . . .. u .. .... . ... '.. . ...., ... . ...44 ...-...-..
...... .... . . .. f. . . 1 ... .... ..... - ... ... . . ... ... . ..l.... .......
...-... .o . . .1. ... . . .0 - .~ . e . ~ ~- 1.: . .A-o ... ouc¢o~u~t o...qoo..
. . . .... .. . .- . l- . »~ .6 .1..... ...... . ..., ..
._..—._. . 4 . ”—1—. ---- ... .4 _—~...—..._.—»4—4~3 .1. o .——-. - ---. ”HF“- ta.-- ~ . ._. > —.—o—.Q—k9- ' ‘
. . ... . . . ' . .. ..... ..... . .. . ....... . .....
., ...... 3... .3 .. Q . .1 ... ....i . ....1,. ......-.. .-....42.
.... .. .. . , ..1 . I. .. .-.;. . ~¢ l . . ....1..-. ......oo
.......,. ..... .-. ...-..... .. . .--. -.... . - .. .. ...... . -..y.i.. o ..... .-. ooc- ~o---J..»-q¢-—.—o-
.. . }. .... ...... . .. . . . .... .. . l. . .. .. . . ....i... ...-..4.
. .. ' ..., . . . .. .. . . ..... . ....
1
.. . . . . ... .. .........[
....,.. . l . .. . .. . , ... ..1. . . . . ....A.... ........
....... . ...... ... 9 ~- . . .... -. 3 .. . ... .:.3 --.-o q ...-+.o‘.. -o - ....
...... . l......... .--..---' .... . ... .. .. .. .. ..3 . ..... .... .- . ...-o o.- vevoqou‘c ..-odoa—o»
. .. . . . .... 5 .. . . .. .. . ., . .. ,. . . ... .-.~..... i-oao3...
..... ......- .o 3 ' .- . ~ ~ -. . . ~- .- . -.. 4..... .1.........
... .- ... . .. . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . ,,,..............,
—‘—.—- o—o-o—~—,.-...—.—.4a—.—¢- — ? 1-- . m-a. - .-- -—- o . .--.-.+ ..- . . - . . 1 . . - ._.—-q . 3 - — ---.—- o - 5 H -—+.. l
. .-.. u: ... ~ - ~ 4 ~ 3 -. -0~ - ~ ooA.v-a§.~-.to---
....1... .... . .. I - . . .. ~ - ...... ... '. . ... .. . eon... ODOItot-9
,....., . .. . .. . , . -. ... .... . . ....... ... .. ..t.... . ...-...
1.......-. ......... .. . .. 1-..-..... . . . . ... ...,. ....... ... .. ..... -.. ....o-*-3 ..--*A.--4
..... ... . . . . . - .. . . . ..... .. . .. ......... ...-...--
......... ...... ... a - ... . . . - - -. . .. .. .o....-.» —..oo..-.
,, ,. . L. : . ... ., .. 1.... .......-.
1 A A
v l y T r
. . . .. - . . 3. - . n - . . . 0 ....... 3 ...-.3-
... ..... ...... .. 1 . . .n 9 .- -. A a. . . .... .. .. . ..4 ... .......--
... . . . . . . . . ..... ,. ..,.,.... .. 6-3
.. ...... ........ .~-.... «4 - .-~- '~-1 o. . . ..-. .... . .... .6 8.. ‘0...o--r~ .-».>--~——~-<
-. o .-l ~- . - - i v ... -..o. ....u . o . ......n. ---.-o-
...... .3 ..... , . . . . . ,.. .. . . . .... .. .. ..-.. .......4~
...1....| . .... . . . , . . . . '1. . .8. .~-. . A ..914 ....+.-.. 3 .....1.
,. 1,. ,. :.. .... . ... .. . l. .',. .1 .. .. .. ... ..... ....L...
H--_...._—.-+.----._.+_... o-y—H-O—~v'—<>“ -...-—.J~---..— —-4—o—-—...4-+..7..- _.q—l-.. ......-.._... -_.- ..T.—.4>——.-...1 1 .
...... . t.....,... ... . , . . . . .3 . . .' ‘ ... . ,. 1.. . .... . .. .. -. ......-4.
.. . ... -o .. n ‘ . . ‘ . 0 .4. . -. . . ..--. ... ......r.- --~ o‘--
...,. .' . .. . ... . . . .. ..| .. . .. . . . .. ...... --~ .-. .... . ~--'~-~
....... . .. A.-. .... . . .... ... . . . . .. . . I -. ....-.. ....,-. . .' ;.. ucovlvv-‘ vao~oe..o-
.. .... ,,... . ,. ., ... 4. .. . . . .. ,. . ,. ..., . . . ... 1. ....1... ......~
..... I . .1. ..,, ,. . ..., . ... , . "1‘?""""""T?"""I"" o-.}--~
.. . ... .. .... .... . ..... . 4. ... . . .. ., . . .1...- ....l,. . ...-A o- .... . .. ...~go---
. ... . . . . .-~.. . - .. v v: 53 . —
r ‘_‘ Y
.. . .. 1.. .. .... .. . ..-- - - o - . .... - . .. .. ..... . --i-
.. .. .. ..., ...... .. .. .. .. . .. o .. . .... . ...n.. . ..... ... ...-.o~.. 3-oon-...
..... ..-.’.... ....... ..... ...... .. .. ..... . ...... . 1. ..... ... .-..b.... .......o-
....... . ....¢.. ......... . ...... ......,- .. . 3. .-.-.eo. ....... . ...... ... ""T"""’ ....4.1...a
...... .. ... .. .....-.. .. ..., .. ... . . .. . .... ..4. .. .1... I . ....1'... .-..T.... ....44-4-
....... .... . ..... ..... . ...... ,. .... ... .. . . ..... . ""v ,. ""t"“ ...»4...-
...... .. . .. ... .. .... . ... v ....» .. 4 . ...-14 . ....oo.. ...1...~
. . . . .....,. . . . . .... ... . '. . . . .. Y"‘ .....-.. ...c----
0’- -.—.—.—.—.3 V - ..- .. 5‘ . . . . ~ —. ‘-v - o - ._..-. - 3 o . -.—.——. » o .- +~-v- . ‘“"“ .4.. . ' o — a-‘ >++.—.« eo~o --o-~-¢-—o~-- f
....... ...-3.. ...-a... ...b... . -o - 3 435.. -.. ~. ... . .- .. ... ....o..~« ~~o""‘
... . .. ...-oi - 9. 3-. .. ..,.. . .... .. ..- .. .. ...... . ... 4 .33 co v 09¢ ...-a.--
....1... , 1'. . ..‘ .. . . , .. . .. ... ,, ..5,, ; ,,‘ , ... ..,.;... ..-..
....... ....A.... ......... . . . .. . . . l . . . . .. .... ....t.. . ..... 1.......?a.‘. .......-.o<
.. ... ... .... .- -. .3 . -. . ... . ... ... ..-g . 3.. o- .. . ,. ....4vc3
. ., , ... . .... . , . ,. . . .. . ... ...... . .... .. ... , ... ...-- ...
..... ... . ... . .. ' . .. . . 'v- . . . . .. . . .... . .,l. 7' ...., ... ....434
-- n .y . . , . . . ~-. n.- I O u I. ‘4 -‘>' ."
11. a
y , v
.. ..... .. ..., ... , . ,. . . .. ... ... ...... .~ ~ . oo"
'9‘ ‘0' . '0-' -. 'f- .v - ‘ .. .~o~. - 3o .. ..-. ~ -..A . -. .l 14. ....1... v-o-f"
...4... aa.'-u U'I.1.-- - ..... ... . ... . 1.. .. . ., ...; I . ..... ... ....1.... 3 ......
... --~o- 34-....- .......- . ... ... . . . .. ..- ..a .1 ...... . .-' ... ,........ ""“'
.......-. ....3.... . ...... .....,.. ... |.... .... ... .... ...... - -~.-9c4 . <-- . ... 1....3..-- “""“"fi
- ...... .-o..... ...... . ... . . .. . ... .3.... V .. 5.. .... ... .... .o» . 5"""‘
o.... -.-.... ~---... .. . .. . ..... . . ...... .... ..¢ ,. $.. . . .; ,. ,;...... o~- """
-~---. . ...-A- .. . .. .- |c .. . .. . i- .- -c...~. ...... - .ob l o-- '6--O‘--‘ ““ ""H
...... . ....,.. . ..,.. . . . .... . '; .
. 1. 11.111111. ._....1--. .111... -_.... 1... ..- ”._. .1. -1.-. .1111...
... ..... . .L,.- 4.. .. . ... ....
.. ..... . ...-... ....l. . .. .-.; . , .~ .. ......
... - ...l.... ........ - . ... .. .. ...
... n . . .. ... .. .'.. . . .. . . 3. ....
. . ... 4 -4+3. . v . . . o . . . . . - 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....,.. ...-4.... .. .. .. ...... . . . ,.
........ 1.... . _ - . .. . ,. , , ,, , ,
... . . .--t... . . - .-.... .. ...- .. . ... ..
..... . i... .. .. 33 -‘ . - .
.. .1 -~ A n O ‘ l“
, .
.~ ... .. 1’... ..... . .~ . - . -c -
... -. . ,., . .... , . .. . .... ...
.- . - ....o..- .. .... .. . ., ... .. . , .
......... ...-~-.. ....,... ....... .-.*.. . ..
.~ .. ... ,. ...... ... . . .4. ' . - . . ....
..... ... . 1.. ... . 21“ . . - .,,. 11..
.. .... . . . ...... .1. . . . ..
v'_ ‘1 -— y -—«-¢-o—-—Q—o—-—A-—1
. . . ..... ... , . . .. .
....i... ...... .. ... .. . . -.. . .. .. , . ....
.. .... . ..4... ,. . ... , .. -, , . . ,. . ..
...y+...-- ..<.1.1., .4 .1.... .«u ‘100- --3-6 .... .. ..-... .. .......
.. .... .11.. .. .3 . . -.‘. .L ,. ..
.....,,. 2.. ., .. A. '. k-. . . ;z.1
V—V Y
......t . .. . . .
. .... ..... .. . .. . .. . . - .. . .. . .....
...: . . '1 . .. ... ...-.-.. ... . . ...
,.,.. .. [... .. L.... ...i. . . , . . ‘...
»~...¢-.o. . +..-... . ....... ......... .......1. ,.... . . .....
....o .-.-. .. v»-- ... . ...... . ..-... 1- u -. '...
... ..., ... ....... .. .... ... , .
.. .1, . .. . . . . . .. .,
._.- ._. 8‘- 4‘ .. c—-.——>—~— ...... 4 —~—.—._.-.._... 3144—. -_.—4...- ...-" — .4. - . ... . . . ..._. --..1 .
.- .33 3| . . . .. .. a . . ..
..I... ......,.. -.. y. .. 1' . .. ... . ... I . ...,.
. . .
.... 3 . .. .u ‘1. .- LU... -|- ,u. .. ... .. 1..
. .. .. ... . ..,_. , .. . ‘. 5. . l.
......... ...... .... ... ' ... .. . i . .. ...-.
...H, .. . ... - . . .. 5 .
.-.-...- . 7A. -. . ..I. l , .. . .. .. ,
. . . . .3 . ~. - -- ~~ 1 ‘ 4 o-
» 1 - T 1..., - A. 1"" . <
. . ,..V. ...,l... ..,.. .. ._ .. .... , , , _ ,,, , _ , ..... ..'-""
>¢3¢1.. .~-q‘d..$v ....'... ... . .1..‘ I... . ., . ,. . .. . . . ......e .. .v""
«...... ..1.,.. ...-. . .... 1.. ..I» - . ... . .. 4 . . . 4 3 3' ' . _,.-;O"‘-4
.- .. ... ..-....-. .‘.. .... --....... ,,... ._.. «3. 9..-. . ......} . .. .. .... . .r1,,,, . ......ko—f'. ', -
. ..... . ... . n -v.- . .. .. -- ... . . ... . . ...-v " "" ......v".
.. ...-..} ......., ...I-.o- 3... .... .3. ..1 ..... . 1.... ._ ., , . . ,, ., . """"* ‘ ... ""
_ , I ' .33” ..3
.. ,. .. ..,,. . .-. .. . .. . .. .. .. . ... I ... .. ... . ... "' . ,.
. ....31. ...... ,,, ;,. ,, , ,_ _. ,‘ ,., , . ...... ._... ,...- ”M
AT ' ' >H-~- ‘_ 1 __ * __._.~ "MW—f-f—Til"""..4
.. .....- .4 - v - . .. . . 1~~ ~. .3 . I .. .... . ... - ““ 'I ,,.«v"'
4 o»- n ... ... ....- 1.. . -.. .. . .. . .. . . . .. -- ' 'I—fi’fi"
.._.—. .- -_-—---. 4.1.- ‘ I— ._ __ 7-___. . .- "‘~~—+ __ ‘ .. .. .-- ._-~____. ‘ .._._._.._ ‘47‘_ _+ ‘_ ._ _,__..._— H‘__.r:v—T'.'TT ‘ . . . :
.-.3t~-- I"""' . ' . ., ,. . .... . "I .. ._ ...
. ...... . ... ... . -
1 . . "'1 ... . , .. . ,
r r" —fi ‘ ‘
.. . A. ... ‘ 'y . ,‘_ . . ' Y . . . 4 ’
....... .. ~..... ~ - .. ., . . _ ‘ _. .
.‘. .-. “."‘ . .‘ . . ‘ . 7 . . ... t
.....—_..o..-——..--.. -—---9-~ . ...:,...- -...l L. " " "'. ' ' "9
3 vv -v- 4‘.-. ......- .. . 1 .1
I “‘ ‘. ‘ ' ' " - -‘--~ .1 ..,., . .........I.. . . ' - "."". '.--'
. ..,.. . ...,, . __ . '. __‘ '.. ., 1... .. .. ,. -. . .... . .1...
. _,, . _ . < 4»-. .. o .143 n ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ii 1. :11 .1523--. 11.11.... a -9 .9... . --..1-.. -. -- I. .--.i

 

1..." I .l‘

._ _M . 20mm 44» .
.. .QWNHHdDd .muot Odw

. x«. n

 

 

 

 

uh:
21:

fr:

 

- 51 -

Having established a workable fiuaUCiue plan
to assure the ultimate comiletion of the Primary.
Secondary and Tertiary County hoao Systems, the
writer will now devote his attention to their

maintenance. Herein lies a very imgortant angle

of the road problem as a whole. The investment

of large sums necessary to establish these com-

prehensive units of yublic proterty, wariant ample

provision for their careful treservation. lroyerty

levies have in the past, anu as aovocateo above.
should in the future continue to furnish the
financial source 101 building all highways except

the important arterial roads oesigned as State

Trunk Lines. Tax roll property as such, has no

part in wearing out the highways built by tax

levies thereon. Upon this point it is extremely
difficult to establish an exact line of division
which will determine by whom the cost of good

roads should be paid, or even by whom it has been

paid.in the Last. However, it seems sell-eviuent

that everyone is beneiiting irom.goou roaus either

directly or indirectly. It uoes not seem proyer

to classify motorists as proterty tax yayers and

non—taJLPayers because all automobile owners in

erty taxes either

the [111111861 States pay Pro};

 

 

- 82 -

directly as owners or indirectly in the form of
rent. The writer's theory in not assessing main-
tenance costs to real property takes COgnizance

of the fact that the proper maintenance of the
public highway system is of direct advantage to
adjacent property which in most cases has been
taxed for the construction costs. Lany pieces of
property may be unoccupied and unused for years at
a time. and therefore contribute in no way to the
wearing out of the adjacent highways. But some
may declare that it still is holding an advantageous
position for which it should pay something. Quite
right, but the author contends that all prOperty
adjacent to improved highways should be assessed
_on a higher scale of valuation to cover its in-
creased potential value resulting from such loca-
tion. Thus it would be paying for this advantage
in proportion to other parcels of land not so
favorably situated. The highway user is the unit
upon which the obligation rests to keep the roads
in proper repair after their construction. The
author believes that motor vehicle taxes are the
proper means for spreading of maintenance costs.
In this classification the gasoline tax is un-
questionably the most equitable of any tax which

has ever been levied. It taxes the highway user

- 83 -

whenever he uses this public utility and auto-
matically spreads this levy in exact proportion
to the amount or extent of such use.

Under the present (March, 1932) laws govern-
ing the distribution of motor vehicle and fuel
levies, this county may anticipate the following
amounts for maintenance income during the next

five years:

MAINTENANCE INCOME

 

 

 

 

 

Year Present Dis- Fixed Portion Available
tribution of of Gas Tax under Surplus
Vehicle Weight .Act 130, P.A.l93l
Tax

1933 $78,000 (estimate $35,298 $110,000

ed; see graph on
Page 441

1934 78.000 44.122

.1935 78.000 52346

i936 ,2§.000 egr720

1932_ 78L000 70L594

 

 

 

 

Study of the graph on Page 20 indicates that we
may conservatively anticipate the annual maintenance
income shown in the second column. The third column
tabulates the amounts available by the provisions of
the McNitt-Holbeck-Smith bill enacted by the Legis-

lature of 1931. The "Available Surplus" represents

- 84 -

the aggregate savings which have been accumulated

by our County Road Commission, principally as unused
maintenance savings from State construction rewards.
No property tax for maintenance of County Roads -

has been levied in Van Buren County since 1920.

The Board has held to this policy and keeps within
available maintenance resources all the time. The
Primary System comprises 255 miles, of which 34

miles are unimproved as indicated in table on Tags 31.
This entire mileage is included in the Board's current
(1932) maintenance budget. Based on the estimated
returns from the original 50% weight tax distribution,
this item should make available an average of @305

per mile. Maintenance records of this county show
that the average costs of maintenance of our Primary

System per mile per year since 1926 were as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Average Maintenance
Cost Per Mile Per
Year
1926 p321.00
19213 428.00
1928 446.00
3329 491.00
1930 375.00.
1931 356.00

 

 

- 85 -

Data prior to 1926 was not used because
earlier maintenance eXpenditures involved the
county share of Trunk Line maintenance which
since January 1, 1926, has been borne entirely
by the State Highway Department. Another reason
is that 1926 represented a turning point in types
of maintenance wherein, to satisfy tne urgent
demands of the users of our highways, it became
necessary to incorporate snow removal and dust
palliative treatments as a regular part oi the
maintenance eXpenditures. The former service
has been given on the total mileage of improved
roads in the County System since 1926. Dust.
palliative treatments were made partially avail-
able irom 1926 to 1929 inclusive, and were then
placed in Operation over the whole system in 1930
and 1931. All dust layers were eliminated from
the 1932 program as an economy measure. The
records for dust layer treatments for 1930 and 1931
show that the cost of this work averaged @100
per mile for a single treatment to carry through
the months of June, July and August. Thus it is
anticipated that the average 1932 maintenance cost
may be reduced to approximately $260 per mile,

which is well within the estimated Irimary System

 

-86-

maintenance income of @305 per mile. The saving

on this item will be used to build approximately
ten miles of bituminous retread surfaces on parts
of our heaviest traveled Irinary System roads

which we can no longer maintain economically with
gravel surfaces. The most urgent need of this kind
is on Route #308 where we still have five miles

of gravel surface which are urgently in need of
bituminous surface treatments to withstand the de-
mands of the traffic, as previously noted on Tape 29.
This condition will be cared for in 1932, because
part of the saving just enumerated will be used

for this purpose.

The revenues provided by the McNitt-Holbeck-
Smith law will be made to maintain the roads thus
taken over, because when those funds are exhausted
for the purposes anticipated, the Board will balance
the budget by use of the word "STOP". Should un-
foreseen emergencies arise, the Board will still
have available the maintenance surplus indicated in
tabulation of Page 83. Tne present plan is to use
about 10% of this surplus to provide bituminous
treatments on some portions where gravel surfaces
are proving inadequate. This will Operate to re-

duce the average maintenance cost per mile, or to

- 87 -

make possible a still better maintenance service.
In administering the extensive operations in-
volved in the proposed five year plan, the writer
suggests the organization set up shown in the chart
on Page 88. In connection with the above, it is
recommended that the ultimate maintenance organiza-
tion shall be based on five districts as shown on
the map, Page 89. This would eventually call for
the construction of a central garage and warehouse
at Paw Paw or Lawrence with complete machine shop
equipment. Road Commission Office, and storage
facilities. The latter location is preferable
from the standpoint of position in relation to the
whole territory to be served. the only objection
being the removal of the offices from the county
seat. In addition to the central repair shops we
would provide equipment and storage warehouses in
each of the other districts. Locations at Hartford,
Grand Junction, Gobles and Decatur are especially
recommended. Hartford and Grand Junction are both
located on an important Pere Marquette Railway line
from Chicago to Grand Rapids. Grand Junction is
also served by the Michigan Central from Kalamazoo,

the same as Gobles. Decatur is located on the main

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_wxamao Hooa ass aoopm_

 

 

—\noao Kuwg ]mnawamosopm

 

 

.
i8
00
.
mnmnonma
mnmpmadma
myopmnmqo mnmnopsg
novosne unopomAmsH
mac>aun acadfiwno
Moshe scsdom
71» :mSmHoa
doaposapmcoo

 

mwnmmnawcmwnamal#—smampdeQA

 

 

\

 

nmmcwwnm_sofiposnpmsoo _

 

 

/ \

ranmao moudmol_

 

 

 

 

_ goddamnmnhssnwam.h99500 _

 

 

/

 

—mnwmawm_

 

 

 

_ oaswnooa omdasm.

 

 

 

—w:mccopcanmm5m amends;

 

[l—

\

 

 

unonopdq

moasdnoma

 

mnwnondm_

mnopwnmao Hoaomna
mnm>finn.xosne

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ uam Hupsaua
pcovdopnanomsm

/

 

 

 

_ :ofionom wade

L

 

L

 

 

 

\

, upcoosmpsanommm.
poaapman upwm

 

—nmmcfimnmwmosddopcad2_

 

 

muonaofi manna

 

_mnmsowumasaoo nsom_hnnsoo mo canon _

NHZDOO

Zfimbm z<> u Hm<mo ZOHH<NHZ<UmO

ROAD MAP OF VAN BUREN COUNTY MICHIGAN

l

‘ R-|5~W . R—I4-w

-.I .. . I
? ”I‘M'AN Eaagrb’jnq‘wflr L‘ A\l*(vAI-‘ VOALLFGAN
am HHNVI LLE h _I -x '4. '4 A (HEENIL'E EAOLI: L. r-«usnRAT L. AND ORA RAPIUb

"W" *7 V
0‘ . ‘ ' 0. _ V' ' "' . _. .1 I
, , I '}I ‘
I. l I

I0 ,'5AuaAvn(.-.
AND HOukAh

lroposed maintenance

 

 

Listricts

‘l xo#] BREE
r j A,

9

I

VIA; ALAMO

TO

 

a? QEN'E‘Y
T'2-S

ANAZOO

 

I
I
a
I

I
l'
l/
I I//

AMAZOO
I, DETROIT
\‘h .

\
i

\

B E RREEN 35:33. .1135.

AND .50qu BE no

 

\“

TO KAL
AND

R-l7—W

KEY

STATE TRUNK LINE.) 3: FEDERAL
ROUTEb. PAVED SURFACE.

STATE TRUNK LlNES8FEDERAL
ROUTES. GRAVEL SURFACE.

COUNTY SYSTEM ROADb.
GRAVEL OR PAVED SURFACE.

COUNTY SYSTEM ROADS.
UNIMPROVED SURFACE.

OTHER PUBLIC ROADS.

A1340 CHICAGO
(causes

1’0 BE NYOH HARBOR

5T. JODE PM

 

TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY

COMPILED av THE
BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

B 3R“ KEN

\

FRANK R. POORMAN
GEO. A. DTLLEN BECK
C. B. STOCKHAM

4
TO BENtoN HARBOR
VIA MILLBURO

 

 

 

 

CORRECTED MAR.I,1932
H.M.WARO.
couurv meuwmr enemas.
: l.6lLV¢R- 56

L.

:22 /[J' ’ ’./ I

EASI’S - T0 acorn no

VIA rm.“ AND OWAolAC
R'IG'W

74, 't /) ,).\S’

 

 

- 90 -

line of the Michigan Central operating between

Detroit and Chicago. This arrangement in the

northwestern district sacrifices some advantages

of centralized location in order to take advantage

of better railroad facilities. The estimated cost

of these buildings is as follows:

Central Shops at Paw law or Lawrence...tl§,000

Warehouse,
Warehouse,
warehouse,

Warehouse.

Gx.and JunCtiOHo. o o I. O o .0 O o O O 2.500
Hartford.................... 3,000
GO-bleSOOOO......OOCOOOOOOCO. 2,000

Decatur...........o......o.. 3.200
TOTAL $26,000

This item might be financed from a portion of

the accrued maintenance surplus indicated on Page

83, according to the option of the County Road

Commission.’

CONCLUSION

The writer. from his association as an
employee of the Van Buren County hoad Commission
since 1919, has made use of his observations and
experience to create in this thesis an orderly
flexible plan for future development of the whole
system of public roads. The financing details
could not safely be laid out for more than five
years in advance on account of the usual trend
of highway legislation affecting available funds.
The compilations of tax and cost data were taken
from the records of the Van Buren County Road
Commission and the County Clerk, thus establishing
their authenticity. It is hoped that the data
herein contained may render a service to Van
Buren County as a municipal unit, and to the in-
dividual who may be designated as Mr. Average

Taxpayer.

' <
\ ' fiv- ° '.
V ”.L ' I 5"“. I
‘ 4 ' . ,' ,. , '
.‘ . . ..~. ' . ' ‘ _. ,
. _ 'J ,_,-f,r.;_ fii
- _. w n. 0
’. .1 :-§!\ .-x-«
, .

'.’r , _.. (I
W?! *-

.*' 034;};

 

”s

 

"7'11? Willi Willi E17119 l“