Governmental Response to Urbanization Three Townships on the Rural-Urban Gradient

"«.">

Agricultural Economic Report No. 132

GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSE TO URBANIZATION THREE TOWNSHIPS ON THE RURAL-URBAN GRADIENT

TRl-AGENCY READING R00¥

MAR 23 1S72

6 M i I I I IJ isT

Economic Research Service UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE in cooperation with Institute for Community Development and Service nn n MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

hOr—Ûr^ ^-£2—tur" ^Qr—rrilè CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY iii

CHAPTER 1~INTR0DUCTI0N 1 West From the Metropolitan Core 1 The Three Townships 2 The Assumptions : Urbanization and Local Government 4

CHAPTER 2~MEASURES OF URBANIZATION 5 Agricultural Patterns 5 Personal Experiences in Agriculture 8 Land-Use Changes 8 Subdivisions : Signs of Suburbia 10 Outside the Subdivisions 11 Other Urban Uses of the Land 15 General Population Characteristics 16 Influences of the Metropolitan Core 16 The Journey to Work 16 Other Physical Attractions of the Core 19

CHAPTER 3~T0WNSHIP GOVERNMENT : STRUCTURES AND PROGRAMS 21 Structural Variations Among the Three Townships 21 Service and Regulatory Programs 22 Variations in Functions 23 Expenditures for Specific Functions 25 Changes in Service and Expenditure Patterns 25

CHAPTER 4~THE MONEY POLICIES : TAXES AND OTHER REVENUES 32 The Revenue Sources 32 The Taxpayer ' s Responsibility : Property Taxes 33 Public Debt 38 "Let the Benefited Pay" 39 Summary: Breaking the Traditional Pattern 40

CHAPTER 5~RUNNING THE TOWNSHIP: ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BEHAVIOR.. 42 The Division of Labor : Board Members as Legislators 43 Administrative Complexity and Specialization 45 Personal Government 46 The Case of Land Use Regulation 48

CHAPTER 6~THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSE. 50 The Sequence of Change 50 Who is Responsible? 54 Farmers and Newcomers 55 A Final Note : The Recourse to Politics. 56

BIBLIOGRAPHY , 58 Washington, D. C. r,^^ ^^^^ SUMMARY

Local governments in once rural communities respond to urban growth over time by adopting new and expanded services, and by changing their patterns of finance and administration. Areas undergoing the most rapid process of urbanization generally experience the most rapid innovations in government. However, the governmental changes are not automatic nor immediate- a political process operates to translate the conditions of urbanization into new public activities.

These findings emerge from a comparative study of three Michigan townships extending westward from Lansing and included in that core city's metropolitan area. From 1950 to 1964, the most urban of these three communities initiated the greatest number of changes in its local governmental programs, structure, finance, and administration.

In 1964, Delta, Oneida, and Roxand Tov7nships--in order of their proximity to Lansing—could be described as suburban, semi-rural, and rural respectively. In other words, there was a gradual and somewhat linear decrease in urban characteristics as one moved away from the core city. The urban-rural traits were defined by an examination of four variables: (1) The relative importance of agricultural production in each community as measured by the amount of land in farming and the size of farms: (2) land-use practices—particularly the extent to which agricultural uses were replaced by subdivisions and other types of urban development; (3) population characteristics such as mobility and size; and (4) the relative attraction of each^ community to the metropolitan core in terms of employment, shopping, and nonphysical (cultural) patterns.

Variations in urbanization from one community to another were related to variations in the structure, service activities, financial policies, and administration of the three local governments. Thus, by 1964 the structure of township government in Delta, the most urban of the three townships, varied considerably from that of Oneida and Roxand; Delta was the only township with a charter form of government and consequently had greater legal and financial powers. Also, as a result of the growth of subdivisions, Delta introduced the largest number of new programs and expanded more older ones, while Roxand, the most rural township, accomplished the least in this area. From 1951-52 to 1963-64, total governmental expenditures in Delta increased more than fourfold, while total expenditures in Oneida and Roxand increased by only 47 percent and 60 percent, respectively. As regards public finance policies. Delta and Roxand made extensive use of the property tax and depended less on State-collected funds. This was a clear break with the traditional pattern of almost exclusive reliance on State-collected funds. The property tax became a stable requirement in Delta after 1956 when its large-scale expansion of services began. Finally, compared to the other two communities. Delta had developed a larger and more complex administrative structure by the early sixties. Conditions of urban growth in Delta produced issues of higher public interest whereas the township boards of Oneida and Roxand concentrated on more routine, noncontroversial matters.

iii A sequence of governmental response occurs in rural communities undergoing urbanization, as illustrated by the experiences of the three townships. Local governments have moved from regulatory to facilitative programs, from minimum to maximum levels of finance and administration, and from stable to changing formal structures. The establishment of water and sewer systems by the Delta township board in the early sixties was a major development in the sequence. Structural changes in township government stopped short of city incorporation in Delta.

Responsibility for operating additional services in a community can be divided among a number of agencies, both private and public, in several ways: (1) No public responsibility; (2) some public responsibility, with financing and/or administration shared by private individuals and groups, or by other units or levels of government; and (3) complete responsibility by the local unit. A combination of patterns based on these elements is possible.

To change traditional patterns of local governments, political action is necessary. During 1950-64, political activity in Delta Township took two major forms; at first, some groups tried to gain control of the township board by supporting new candidates, and, later, interest groups went before the township board with requests for particular programs. While Oneida Township has initiated a number of actions in recent years, township politics in Roxand have been relatively uneventful.

iv œVERNMENTAL RESPONSE TO URBANIZATION: THREE TOWNSHIPS ON THE RURAL-URBAN GRADIENT

Alvin D. Sokolow -''

CHAPTER I--INTRODUCTION

West From The Metropolitan Core

Where it runs west from Lansing, Mich., State Highway M43 is typical of a number of heavily-traveled roads that traverse southern Michigan and the metropolitan-rural mixtures of other States. No distinctive changes of scenery mark the area where the four-lane pavement leaves the city, runs for a mile through an adjoining township, and then enters another county. Shopping centers line both sides of the county border to the north of the road. On the south, a municipal golf course gives way to a strip of gas stations, root beer and hamburger stands, stalls selling farm produce, old residences serving temporarily as real estate offices, and newer one-story buildings occupied by insurance offices and barber shops.

This miscellaneous collection of business continues on both sides of the highway for several miles. Behind the strip, at intervals, are the backs of small houses in lower- and middle-income subdivisions. At a new parochial high school, with its building set back from the road, the grass struggles to break through the raw landscaping. Further along, the highway is bridged by a pedestrian walk, providing the children of a subdivision access to their public school on the other side.

Impermanence and speed are the impressions of this stretch of road. The dump trucks leave dirty tracks on the pavement, and the utility and highway crews dig endlessly alongside the road. A thin median divides the east and west streams of traffic that move at a constant 10 to 15 miles above the speed limit.

Two and three miles from the city limits, the business strip shades into more open country. The first farm fields, many unworked, come up to the road. But the small business places--although spaced further apart--are still in sight. And many large fields have billboards offering the land for commercial development or promising a complete shopping center at some undisclosed future time.

]J Mr. Sokolow, formerly assistant professor at Michigan State University, is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and Institute of Government Affairs, University of California, Davis. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Research Service or the U. S. Department of Agriculture. At a clover-leaf interchange, M43 intersects a high, limited-access highway. This new interstate route, bypassing Lansing on a wide east-west curve, carries much of the long-distance traffic formerly handled by M43. But the free-access State road still records a higher daily traffic count at this point than the interstate highway. Commuters are more numerous than long-distance travelers.

The farms in this area are interlaced with single residential plots occupied by white Cape Cod and brick ranch homes. Many have impressive fronts of neat lawn and trimmed shrubbery. This is the "gardener's belt," away from the construction dust and confining spaces of the business strip.

Four and five miles west of the city, another set of subdivisions appears, with some houses facing directly on the road. The homes and lots here are bigger than those in the plats close to the city. A bowling alley with an acre of parking comes up, along with a motel. On one side of the road, for almost half a mile, stretches a church academy and camp grounds.

Seven miles out, the road narrows to two lanes and starts into a long curve that skirts the fringes of Grand Ledge, a self-contained city of 5,000 population. The roadside here holds a used car lot, a cement-mixing and building supply concern, the backs of small subdivisions, and fields with dumped trash. At the end of the curve, where the connecting road from the Grand Ledge business district rejoins the highway, there is a one-room school house. It is now boarded up, a result of school district consolidation.

West of the old school the farms are larger and almost all of the fields are in agricultural use, unlike many in the open spaces closer to the city. Six miles from Grand Ledge is the first "country town." This is the village of Mulliken which serves as a farm trading center and extends along the highway for a few blocks. Another 6 miles along the straight road and the parallel rail- road line is Sunfield, an agricultural village slightly larger and more prosper- ous than Mulliken but very similar in overall appearances.

This is almost exclusively farm country. There are no subdivisions between the country towns. But the single homes of the city commuters still appear. Some are older houses, formerly occupied by full-time farm families. A few are new brick and franeranch homes, scattered and seemingly incongruous among the fields of corn and wheat.

This pattern of farms and scattered homes of commuters continues to the next set of subdivisions at the fringes of the next good-sized population center.

the Three Townships

Most of this countryside along the State highway is contained in the governmental jurisdictions of three townships. Delta, Oneida, and Roxand. They form a continuous geographic gradient extending westward from the city limits of Lansing, the core city for a metropolitan area with a population of 298,949 in 1960 (fig. 1). All three townships are close geographic approximations of the ideal Midwestern townships--36 square miles compacted into a 6 mile by 6 mile area. THE LANSING METROPOLITAN AREA: MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNSHIPS, 1963

■i MviiÍ€Ír«i¡tÍM (CitÍM wi villHtt). ^^^ lovnrfcrift tf cttifitift %m4 Ik« tbrM t^iiiisliipi.

U. S. DCPARTMCNT OF AGftlCULTURC NCG. CIIS S047-é7(4) ECONOMIC RESCAIICN SERVICf

Figure 1

3 The townships are in Eaton County, one of three counties making up the Lansing Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. With a 1960 population of 107,807, Lansing had only 36 percent of the area^s population. But its jobs attract thousands of commuters from the small cities, villages, and farms of the three counties. The core city is the capital of Michigan, has major automobile and truck plants, and benefits from a large university campus in an adjacent community.

Delta, the township on the eastern and most urbanized end of the gradient, shares a common boundary with the city of Lansing. Delta contains no incorporated cities or villages, although several identifiable communities (older population settlements) exist in the township. These include the Millettand Delta Mills area.

The middle township, Oneida, completely surrounds the city of Grand Ledge. Michigan law provides for the legal separation of townships and incorporated cities; unlike the practice in several other Midwestern States, city residents are not subject to the jurisdiction of township government.

Roxand Township, at the rural extreme of the gradient, contains the incorporated village of Mulliken. Unlike cities, incorporated villages remain under the legal jurisdiction of townships. The people of Mulliken are thus taxed and governed by both the village and the township.

The respective positions of Grand Ledge and Mulliken affect the geographical gradient that runs through the three townships. As both a suburb of Lansing and an urban center in its own right. Grand Ledge affects the characteristics of the Oneida Township area, so that in terms of urbanization this township occupies a position between heavily suburban Delta and rural Roxand. Mulliken, lacking strong economic attractions, does not detract from the rural characteristics of Roxand.

The Assumptions: Urbanization and Local Government

We assume that when communities change, their governments change alöo. This report seeks to generalize about the nature of the response of local governments to urbanization by describing how the three townships differed and changed, primarily in the period 1950-64.

Urbanization is a relative state. In this report it is viewed in terms of four measures: (1) agricultural patterns (2) land-use patterns (3) population (4) influences of the core city Any tcwasaip for example, becomes more urban than another to the degree that its economy becomes less dominated by agriculture, residential and other nonagricultural purposes take over larger land areas, the populatiçn changes ^nd becomes more heterogeneous, and residents develop greater economic and other attractions to the metropolitan core. Urbanization is the relative degree of changes in these directions. Stimulated by urbanization, local governments can respond in a number of ways. Change can occur in these four kinds of patterns:

(1) Overall forms or structures of government.--As an extreme change, this may mean the establishment of new cities in previously unincorporated areas. Less drastic changes include revisions in the size and nature of governing boards, and in the methods of nominating and electing officeholders.

(2) Service activities and their levels of expenditure.--New types of operations may be undertaken, or existing activities may be intensified. The limited, caretaker-type government of the rural community may be replaced by the expanding, service-oriented unit more typical of suburban areas.

(3) Public finance policies, including revenue patterns.--Urbanization and service orientation among governing boards involve relatively large expenditures. An emphasis on increasing expenditures to meet particular urban conditions isa change from a pattern of strict economy. Along with this shift comes higher property taxes and the consideration of a larger number of alternative revenue sources and methods to finance new services and the expansion in old programs.

(4) Administration of governmental activities.--As urban growth occurs, the administration of local government becomes more complex, specialized and professional. Administrative behavior becomes more impersonal, the number of employees increases, and greater use may be made of expert, technical assistance in specialized areas. Such an increase in professionalism is paralleled by a sharper distinction between legislative and administrative responsibilities. Members of urban township boards are less likely to be concerned with routine administrative tasks than rural decision-makers.

Various changes in these governmental patterns may occur at particular stages in a community's urbanization. For example, substantial revisions in administrative behavior are more likely to take place during later stages of urbanization than earlier. Only when many new migrants from the core city move into the rural community, upsetting the homogeneous and neighborhood characteristics of the community, do decision-makers begin dealing ^n impersonal terms with their constituents.

The remaining chapters of this report deal with relationships between urbanization and local government in the three townships west of Lansing. Chapter 2 compares the three communities as of 1964, and describes the change that occurred in 1950-64, in terms of the four measures of urbanization. Against this background, the next three chapters view the patterns of local government structure and programs, public finance, and administrative and legislative behavior. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the experiences of the three townships and suggests several generalizations about the governmental response to urbanization in once-rural communities.

CHAPTER 2--MEASURES OF URBANIZATION

Agricultural Patterns Agriculture now provides a living for only a minor portion of the total population in the three Michigan townships, as well as in the entire Lansing Metropolitan area. Among the 97,000 persons living in rural portions of the 5 metropolitan region in 1960^ less than a thir^ (about 30,000) resided on farms, and only one-half of the farm employed residents worked primarily in agriculture. Most farm operators, in fact» had some employment off the farm, with many earning the greatest portion of their incomes from nonagricultural jobs in Lansing, the core city. In 1959, Roxand had the largest acreage in farmland (in both total acres and as a percentage of all land), the greatest number of farms, and the largest farms of average size (table 1). Delta occupied the low position on all of these measures. The three townships also varied in the degree of intensive use of farmland. Roxand, followed by Oneida, led in the amount of harvested cropland in 1959, both in acres and in the proportion of total farmland. On the other hand. Delta had a relatively large amount of land in less-intensive uses, including pasture and other (nonpasture woodland, idle land, etc.) categories.

A decrease in the agricultural domination of an area is usually a condition of increasing urbanization. Particular signs in this process include the growth of off-farm employment, and decreases in the total number of farms, total farm acreage, and the number of young men beginning agricultural operations. These signs became increasingly apparent in Delta and Oneida Townships after 1945 (table 2). In contrast, Roxand, the township furthest from Lansing, maintained its rural character.

Farm size and intensity-of-use variations point to differences among the three townships as to the extent of off-farm work and, conversely, the degree of full-time farmingr- In recent years. Delta farmers have generally recorded the highest amount or off-farm work, while full-time farming has been most prevalent among operators in Roxand. Data from the 1959 Census of Agriculture partially confirm this generalization(table 3). The geographical positions of the three townships coincided with the proportion of farm operators whose outside incomes in 1959 exceeded their farm incomes. The exception was in the percentage of operators with more than 100 days of off-farm employment^n 1959: Oneida ranked the lowest while Roxand occupied the middle position,—

More recent data suggest that by 1963 even fewer farmers in all three townships were full-time operators. The following numbers of operators were estimated to be farming on a full-time basis in 1963-64:4/ Delta: 6 to 8 farmers, about 6.0 percent of the total operators listed in the 1959 Census. Oneida: not more than 20 farmers, about 13.5 percent of all operators. Roxand: approximately 30 farmers, about 19.0 percent of all operators. A commitment to agriculture as an occupation thus seemed to be strongest among farmers in Roxand and least dominant in Delta. A comparison of average ages of operators (table 3) indicates the somewhat lower age levels in Oneida and Roxand than in Delta. This suggests that fewer younger men were beginning agricultural operations in Delta .

2/ In this report, full-time farmers include operators who had no regular nonfarm job, those who worked large amounts of land, and those who were not retired. 3/ The number of full-time farmers was probably less in all three townships than the 1959 data indicate because retired and semiretired farmers who ^^ own land are included in the Census of Agriculture category of "farm operator." 4/ These estimates are based on information obtained from personal interviews with farm leaders and township officials in the three townships. 6 Table 1.--Changes in farm acreage and number of farms, three Michigan townships, 1940-59 Delta Township Oneida Township 2/ Roxand Township 3/ Years Farm : Percent : Farm Percent Farm : Percent acreage : change 1/ : acreage change 1/ acreage : change 1/

1940 18,150 21,202 21,832 1945 20,625 ■13.6 20,837 -1.7 20,660 -5.4 1950 17,000 •17.6 19,244 -7.6 21,746 5.2 1954 17,517 3.0 18,609 -3.3 22,828 4.9 1959 13,581 ■22.5 17,505 -5.9 23,482 2.8 1940-59--- ■25.2 -17.4 7.6 Number : Percent : Number : Percent Number : Percent, of farms; changej/ ; of farms: change \l of farms: change \^l

1940 227 226 214 1945 286 25.9 178 ■21.2 187 -12.6 1950------188 -34.3 186 4.4 187 0 1954 182 -3.2 171 -8.0 189 1.0 1959 127 -30.2 146 -14.6 155 -18.0 1940-59--- -44.0 -35.4 -27.6 \l Change since previous census year. 2/ Not including the city of Grand Ledge. 3/ Including Mulliken Village. Source: U.S. Censuses of Agriculture, 1935-1959. (Unpublished material)

Table2.--Number of farms and percentage distribution of farm acreage, three Michigan townships, 1959 Item :Delta Township : Oneida Township Roxand T.ownship Acres in farms : 13,581 17,505 1/23,482 Percent of total land in township : 60.2 79.9 2/99.0 Number of farms--- 127 146 155 Average acres per farm 106.9 119.9 151.5 Acres in harvested cropland 7,348 10,469 15,271 Percent of total farm acreage 54.1 59.8 65.0 Acres in pasture- • 2,440 2,829 3,115 Percent of total: farm acreage : 18.0 16.2 13.3 Other acres • 3,793 4,207 5,096 Percent of total^ farm acreage : 27.9 24.0 21.7 \l The farm acreage of 23,482 for Roxand Township, as listed in the 1959 Census of Agriculture is more than the total area of 36.0 square miles (23,040 acres) indica ted for Roxand in Areas of the United States, 1940(U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1942). The larger farm acreage figure may be due to the extension of farmland owned by residents of Roxand into other townships. 2/ The figure of 99 0 percent for the percentage of total land in the township i s an estimate. Source: U. S. Censu s of Agriculture, 1959. (Unpubli shed material.) 7 Other evidence points to a pattern of large-scale expansion in the sizes of farms in Roxand. According to rough estimates in a directory of rural residents in Eaton County, (£1^) ¿/ at least nine individuals or groups--including families and unrelated partnerships--were working more than 400 acres each in Roxand Township in 1961. One family was listed as owning and renting more than 1,200 acres. In contrast, only three operators in Oneida and none in Delta were listed in the 400-acre plus category.

In both Roxand and Oneida Townships, the demand for land by some farmers has far exceeded the supply in recent years. Most full-time farmers have had to rent a large proportion of their farm acreage, since farmland in these townships is generally sold only upon the death of owners.

In Delta Township, on the other hand, virtually no land purchases for farming operations have been attempted since the late fifties. The actual and expected demands of new subdivisions and other urban developments now monopolize all transfers of land in Delta. Apparently, few operators in this township are counting on a long-term continuation of large-scale farming. The high price of land has discouraged some operators from expanding, and encouraged others to sell out to developers and speculators.

Personal Experiences in Agriculture

These variations in the importance of agriculture in the three townships are reflected in the personal experiences of their residents, particularly the local officeholders who serve on the township boards. Each board includes a supervisor, clerk, treasurer, and several trustees (4 for Delta, 2 for Oneida and Roxand). The degree of agricultural experience represented by the three boards in 1963 varied according to the geographical positions of the three townships: Delta recorded the least experience, and Roxand the most (table 4).

All Roxand officeholders had engaged in full-time * farming at some time in their lives;in 1963, two board members were actively farming while the other three were retired. All except one of the Oneida officials had also been full- time farmers; two occupied this status in 1963, one was retired, and the other official was farming only part-time. Although not one of the Delta officeholders was farming full-time in 1963, the supervisor and one trustee had in the past been in this category; the latter was farming part-time and the former had completely left agriculture as an occupation. The Delta board was heavily weighted toward the nonfarming end; four members--more than half--had not had any work or ownership experience in agriculture. 6/

Land-Use Changes

Decreases in acreage devoted to farming are usually aocompanied by increases in more concentrated, and hence more urban, types of land-use activities. Both patterns are complementary indications of urbanization.

5/ Underscored numbers in parentheses refer to items in the Bibliography, p. 58. ^/ These comparisons are not qualified by more specific distinctions in the histories of several board members. For example, three of the 1963 full-time farmers--two in Oneida and one in Roxand--had some off-farm work. This employment was all part-time and related to farming, including seed sales, livestock trucking, and field work for a cannery. 8 Table 3.--Number and percentage distribution of farm operators, three Michigan townships, 1959 Farm operators Delta Township : Oneida Township '■ Roxand Township : Percent : : Percent : ;Percent Number*: of total : Number», of total. Number .of total Total farm operators 127 146 155 Operators with off-farm work 75 59.0 76 52.0 88 56.8 Operators with more than 100 days off-farm work 62 48.8 63 43.2 67 43.2 Operators with outside income exceeding value of farm products 77 60.6 82 56.2 67 43.2 Years Average age of operators 51.8 49.7 47.3 Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture, 1959. (Unpublished material.)

Table 4.--Agricultural experience of township baard members, 1963 Farm experience Delta Oneida Roxand (n=7) (n=5) (n=5) Full-time farmers — (2) Clerk (2) Clerk Trustee Trustee Retired full-time farmers (1) Trustee Supervisor (3) Treasurer Trustee Part-time farmers 1./-■ (1) Supervisor (1) Supervisor Others with previous farm experience 2/-- (2) 2 Trustees Members with no Clerk (1) Treasurer agricultural (4) Treasurer experience 2 Trustees

1/ Farmers with full-time jobs off the farm. The Delta supervisor worked full-time on his township and county government responsibilities, while the Oneida supervisor was employed in a Lansing factory. 2/ Includes farm work and ownership of farmland. Growth of residential subdivisions, new nonfarm home construction, and commercial strips has been evident in Delta and Oneida Townships in recent years. Such signs are not significantly apparent in Roxand, where the amount of land used for agricultural purposes actually increased during 1954-59.

The difference between rural and urban land-use patterns can be characterized as functional activities. Extensive functions generally create moderate changes in the character of the natural environment, low population densities, and require relatively few public facilities and services. In- tensive functions are defined as those that "modify drastically the character of the natural environment, create intensive use of natural resources, high population densities and require many public facilities and services." (24) Typical extensive functions are farming, extractive activities, and a dispersed dwelling pattern in which 1 acre or more is devoted to each individual residential unit. Intensive functions include the distribution and exchange of goods and services, manufacturing and processing, community service operations such as educational and governmental facilities, and concentrated dwelling. Extensive functions make light demands on relatively large amounts of land, while intensive functions in\'Dlve heavy demands on relatively small amounts of land.

In these terms, the three townships had formed a definite gradient by the late fifties. A generalized survey of land use, based primarily on aerial mapping, indicated a relatively high degree of intensive functions for Delta and a relatively low degree for Roxand, with Oneida in the middle (Table 5). The positions of Delta and Roxand Townships were reversed for extensive functions. Most areas with intensive land functions in Roxand Township were found in the village of Mulliken, including all of the township' s concentrated dwelling and processing activities. At the same time, however, more than 80 percent of the area within the village's corporate limits--519 of 640 acres--was considered farm acreage.

Even in Delta, the most urban township, roughly 88 percent of total acreage was used in food and fiber production during 1955-57. Since 1957, large areas of land in this township have shifted from the extensive to intensive category, primarily due to the growth of concentrated dwelling, although a majority of Delta's acreage was still considered farmland in 1964.

Subdivisions: Signs of Suburbia

Subdivisions are legally established entities. Michigan law requires that owners of land, intending to subdivide their property into five or more pieces of less than 10 acres each in any one year, undergo a platting process. The property owners or developers file plat maps of their proposed subdivision, showing the lots and all areas, such as streets, that will be devoted to public use. The plats are filed with township boards or city councils, county agencies, and the State Auditor General, The local and county governments can apply standards relating to roads, drainage, health, lot sizes, and other matters in passing on the plats. i2)

10 Subdivisions are the most prominent feature of the landscape in Delta Township (t^ble 6). These multiresidence areas, accounting for virtually all the concentrated dwelling, take up more than three-fourths of all land on which intensive functions occur. The subdivisions in Oneida, although not nearly as dominant as in Delta, are also significant in land-use terms and contain most of the acreage devoted to concentrated dwelling.

Oneida Township also experienced a relatively heavy growth of new subdivision platting in 1955-59--4 plats, totaling about 123 lots. Roxand's one subdivision, platted in 1957, was a small development of 14 lots located in the village of Mulliken.

By 1963, the residential plats in Delta were widely dispersed throughout the township; 17 of the 36 square-mile sections contained subdivisions (fig. 2). The heaviest concentrations, however, were in the northeastern quarter of the township. Conversely, Delta's largest farms in 1963 were located in the areas not yet penetrated by residential platting, particularly in the southwestern quarter of the township.

Oneida' s subdivisions, located in only six sections of the township in 1963, were not dispersed (fig. 3). With one exception, all were in the immediate fringe of Grand Ledge.

The pattern of subdivision growth in Delta Township has been along a definite east-west axis, aligned along the major county blacktopped roads lead- ing into Lansing. Predictions were that future development would continue in the same westward direction into Oneida Township, and particularly along St. Joe Highway.

Outside the Subdivisions

Multiunit subdivisions are the most impressive indications of suburban growth, but they are not the only signs of residential development. • In the early sixties all three townships contained a number of new homes located on large, single lots scattered among the farm fields. Not as noticeable as evidences of urbanization were the older farmhouses,abandoned by farm families in the process of farm consolidation, and since taken over by newcomers to the area who commute daily to their jobs in Lansing and other urban centers.

In 1962, approximately three-fourths of all Delta families resided in subdivisions (table 7). At the other end of the geographical gradient, in Roxand, a majority of the families lived on farmsteads. In Oneida, residences were somewhat evenly distributed among farmsteads and subdivisions.

In both Delta and Oneida Townships, residential development outside the subdivision areas was more significant than in Roxand before the large-scale platting that began in the middle fifties. In the early postwar years, and even earlier. Delta in particular had attracted families from Lansing who sought housing in rural areas and yet wanted proximity to their jobs in the core city. The limited evidence available suggests that most of these families

11 Table 5,--Functional land uses, three Michigan townships, 1955-57 Uses Delta Township Qneida Township Roxand Township 1/ Number: Percent Number : Percent Number:Percent of : of total of : of total of :of total acres : acres : acres : Intensive functions: Concentrated dwelling 1,181 5.23 70 .32 34 .15 Community service --- 51 .22 42 .19 28 .12 Recreational (improved) 64 .28 119 .55 Distribution 91 .40 9 .04 12 .05 Proce ssing 78 .34 49 .23 6 .03 Total 1,465 6.49 289 1.33 80 .35 Extensive functions: Dispersed dwelling 249 1.10 130 .60 73 .31 Food-fiber; production 21 19,912 88.17 20,697 95.35 22,338" 96.15 Recreational (unimproved) 106 .47 Extracting 21 .10 Total 20,267 89.74 20,848 96.04 22,411 96.46 Transporting: Roads 801 3.55 508 2.34 634 2.73 Rai1road s 51 .23 62 .29 72 .31 Total 852 3.77 570 2.63 706 3.04 Nonfunctional uses ¿/ Total area 22,584 100.00 21,707 100.00 23,232 100.00 W Includes the village of Mulliken. 2/ Includes all land used for farming, water areas, and uncultivated land. ZJ Includes uncultivated or vacant land within incorporated municipalities (Mulliken). Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (24, p. 47).

Table 6.--Subdivision plats and lots, three Michigan townships, 1950-63 1/ Year Delta Township Oneida Township Roxand Town ship 2/ Subdivision: Separate ' Subdivision: Separate ■Subdivi sion: Separate plats : lots plats : lots plat s : lots 1950- -54 6 190 1 13 1955-■ 59 26 797 4 123 1 14 I960.-63 30 721 2 37

To tíIl 62 1,708 7 173 1 14

\_l Plats are listed according to the year filed with and approved by the Auditor General of Michigan. 2/ Includes the Village of Mulliken. Source: Auditor General of Michigan (3).

12 SUBDIVISIONS IN DELTA TOWNSHIf. 1963

ROADS SUSDIVISIONS ■■QO^B liittrttttt PUttt^ b«Urt IVfrld Warir ■■^■■■iMfr«! %%4 Staff ?Uttt4 «ffttr W«rU Wtr S

i. s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 504t-é7(4) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 2

13 SUBDIVISIONS IN ONEIDA TOWNSHIP. 1963

SrM^ livt?

tOADS SUIDIVISIONS Stctt M««' fUttod btf«ro «ItrM m%t Z I« Coaly ^«vid

fUtttJ «Itor WtrN IV«r ][

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULtUKE NEG. ERt S04f-é7(4) ECONOMIC REIEARCN SERVICI

Figure 3

14 Table 7.--Location of residences, three Michigan townships, 1962

Delta Township Oneida Townshit Roxand Township_ Residence •.Percent ¡Percent : Percent Number:of total Number:of total Number:of total

Farmsteads 196 8.1 193 36.5 221 53.9 Subdivisions 1,787 74.2 149 28.2 y 119 29.0 Elsewhe re 425 17.7 187 35.3 70 17.1 Total residences -- 2,408 100.Q 529 100.0 410 100.0 Farmsteads occupied by nonfarmers 129 111 97 Percentage of all farmsteads 65.8 57.5 43.9

l_/ Residences inside Mulliken Village. Source: Tri-County Planning Commission (25).

were headed by persons with farm and other rural backgrounds who had moved to the cities in earlier years because of employment opportunities, and were now "returning to the land." Thus they represented an early or presubdivision stage of urbanization unlike the majority of later subdivision dwellers who probably have stronger urban roots.

Other Urban Uses of the Land

Residential development of the land in once-rural areas is accompanied and followed by commercial development. The new homes attract a variety of retail and other kinds of service establishments.

As expected, commercial growth in recent years has been heavy in Delta Township. A comparison of building permits issued in the three townships since 1949 lists 62 in the commercial-industrial category for Delta (table 8). The greatest concentration of this development has been along four-lane M43, particularly within 2 miles of Delta's eastern boundary. More new establishments, containing a greater total amount of square feet, were constructed here and on the other side of the county line in Lansing Township during 1947-60 than along any of the other major highways radiating from Lansing (J^). More than 30 commercial places are now located in the M43 strip, including a multiunit shopping center, numerous automobile service stations, several drive-in restaurants and hamburger stands, and hardware and paint stores.

Less extensive but similar development has taken place in Oneida Township along M43, where it narrows down to two lanes and curves around Grand Ledge on a wide bypass route. Commercial specialization in this area is provided by several automobile dealerships, but most of the establishments are smaller versions of those in the Delta strip. The locations in both townships serve a double purpose--retailing goods and services to area residents and also serving highway travelers.

15 In 1962, the cost of new construction in Delta Township jumped to a new high--alraost twice the amount of any previous year (table 8). Most of this increase resulted from construction of several large industrial buildings in a 2,400-acre area near Millett. By 1964, this area contained a large automobile parts warehouse, a steel fabricating plant, and a feed processing facility. Neither Oneida nor Roxand contained industrial development of this magnitude, although both townships had a few one and two-man shops making molds, plastic items, and other products.

In both extent and diversity of urban land development. Delta had advanced considerably beyond the two other townships, by the early sixties, reaching a point in the urbanization process of "multiplication," in which each new urban development on the land stimulates plans and actions for additional growth.

General Population Characteristics

Since the 1950 census, the three townships have ranked in size according to their geographical positions, with Delta followed by Oneida and Roxand (table 9). In 1960, Delta had 7,627 residents--an almost 4 to 1 lead over Oneida (1,909) and 5 to 1 over Roxand (1,558). The population of Delta in 1964 was estimated at just under 10,000. 7/

Population size is related to mobility, in the sense that larger communities are likely to contain a relatively large number of persons who have experienced recent and frequent residential moves. This generalization applies to the three townships,in which the proportion of persons who had changed residences between 1955 and 1960 varied according to population (table 10). Delta had the highest degree of mobility, with almost half of the persons who reported a change having come from Lansing. Most of the residential transfers in Oneida were from outside Eaton County, again suggesting a high migration from the core city. Most of the moves of Roxand residents took place within Eaton County, indicating perhaps that a large percentage of transfers were from one house to another within the township.

The high percentage of newcomers in Delta is, of course, related to land- use changes occurring in the township. The development of subdivisions and the construction of many new homes attracted large numbers of families from Lansing.

Influences of the Metropolitan Core

The Journey to Work

State highway M43 is the principal transportation link between the city of Lansing and the three townships. Counts of daily traffic along the highway made in 1963 show a steady dropoff in vehicle movements from the eastern edge of Delta Township, the point nearest Lansing. From the high count of 14,000

l_l This estimate is indicated by projections based on several methods, including a projection of the 1950-60 rate of increase, the number of new home construction permits issued in 1960-63, and the number of registered voters in 1964 as compared to 1960.

16 Table 8.--Number and cost of building permits issued, three Michigan townships, 1949-62

Delta Township J Oneida Township i; • Roxand Township 1/ Year ■: -WéW • uommerciai-•; 2/ * estimated • New •Commercial;■ 2/ •Estimated; New ; Commercial: 2/í^stimated homes • industrial .Othëi: • cost tiomes •industrial! Other cost homes: industrial:Othër cost • • I • • _

Number of permits Dollars Number of permits Dollars Number of permits Dollars 1949--; 0 0 3 3,900 8 3 12 44,000 1950--: 61 2 25 415,875 8 0 7 67,800 1951--= 50 1 6 346,200 1952--; 56 7 26 504,700 13 3 14 101,600 1953"= 79 5 37 768,450 6 3 6 81,400 1954-- 103 2 28 1,288,575 9 1 23 110,290 1955-- 142 1 49 1,869,975 12 5 28 161,425 1956-- 168 6 51 2,314,414 11 3 19 221,931 1957- 178 1 41 2,465,264 9 0 24 198,818 1958" : 120 5 56 2,491,700 17 2 29 324,085 1959-- ' 132 6 44 3,707,197 18 3 21 296,285 3 0 1 1960-- : 115 4 38 2,046,242 23 4 28 447,900 0 0 4 1961-- = 128 6 53 2,869,100 16 1 14 286,250 4 0 10 50,800 ' 1^62 — ! 164 16 55 6,976,326 14 3 22 295,850 6 0 8 69,700 Total-- ;i,496 62 512 28,067,918 164 31 247 2,637,634 13 0 23 120,500

1/ Oneida figures for 1951, and Roxand figures for years before 1959, were not available. 2/ Includes additions and alterations to existing structures. Sources: Delta Township clerk, Oneida Township clerk, and the Eaton County zoning administrator. Table 9.--Population of three Michigan townships, and two surrounding areas, 1900-60 : Delta Oneida Roxand Year Grand Ledge Mulliken Township Township 1/ Township 2/ City Village

1900-- 1,383 1,187 1,598 2,161 3/ 1910-- 1,224 1,136 1,460 2,893 312 1920-- 1,255 1,064 1,311 3,043 290 1930-- 1,921 1,169 1,270 3,572 309 1940-- 2,618 1,269 1,325 3,899 338 1950-- 4,131 1,552 1,410 4,506 411 1960-- 7,627 1,909 1,558 5,165 484

\_l Does not include the population of Grand Ledge. 21 Includes the population of Mulliken. 3/ Mulliken was incorporated as a village in 1903, although it had previously existed as a population center for some years.

Source: U. S.Censuses of Population, 1900-60.

Table 10.--Residential mobility in three Michigan townships, 1955-60

: Delta Township • Oneida Township • Roxand Township Item : Percent : ¡Percent : ¡Percent ■ Number: of total : Number:of total : Number:of total

Persons 5 years old and over in 1960 residing in.■i r\ • Different house in 1^33IQCC 3,497 52.6 648 38.5 369 26.9 Different house in Lansing in 1955 1,707 25.7 1/ 1/ Different house outside Eaton County TnJ.11 J.!7JJIQSi^ ^/—9/ — —— — — — -.- 2,827 42.5 356 21.2 138 10.1 To tal ; 6,646 1682 5 1,369

\_l Not available. 21 Includes residents in other States and abroad in 1955.

Source: U. S. Census of Population, 1960. (Unpublished material,) at this location, the traffic gradually declines to the low count of 2,400 vehicles in the western part of Roxand Township. A consideration of traffic changes over time on this road further contributes to the impression of a gradient of physical movement. While the average daily number of vehicle movements in the Roxand portions of the route remained at about the same level,

18 or increased slightly, from 1953 to 1963, the movements at the eastern point more than doubled (table 11).

In 1960, the Lansing commuter gradient dropped sharply from Delta to Oneida, but maintained an even level between the two western townships (table 12), While almost three-fourths of the employed Delta residents had jobs in Lansing, only about a third of employed persons in both Oneida and Roxand worked int±ie core city. Most of the residents in these two townships were employed in Eaton County; and farmers working their own land made up a large part of the local labor force.

Employment opportunities in urban centers other than Lansing also caused a decrease in the potential number of commuters to the core city from Oneida and Roxand. A survey of job information given for part-time farmers in a 1961 rural directory (2j^) points out the influence of these smaller, but often closer, centers. Roxand residents commuted in large numbers to Grand Ledge and Charlotte in Eaton County, and to other small cities north and west of the county. A large percentage of part-time farmers and farm wives in Oneida were employed in nearby Grand Ledge, particularly in the two clay products plants and in stores. Convenience and distance were probably the major reasons why more Oneida and Roxand residents did not work in Lansing, as local informants reported that jobs in the core city were higher paid than in the small centers.

Other Physical Attractions of the Core

Commuter traffic to Lansing, though limited, represented Oneida's and Roxand's strongest physical ties to the core city. Residents of these townships preferred to travel to the smaller communities for retail shopping and other services. Convenience and distance were important motivations here, but shopping trips to Lansing were also reduced by the difficulties of driving in city traffic and finding parking space in the downtown area.

Grand Ledge and the county seat city of Charlotte were the principal trading centers for Oneida and Roxand. Although located in the center of the county, Charlotte is only 11 miles south of the Mulliken area in Roxand Town- ship and closer than Lansing. However, no direct, completely paved route to the county seat from Mulliken existed in the early sixties, while M43 was a smooth highway with only two traffic lights between Mulliken and the Lansing city limitsj 16 miles away. Plans of the County Road Commission at that time promised a direct pavement from Mulliken to Charlotte, an improvement that could further strengthen the economic ties of the Roxand area to the county seat.

In many ways, the eastern half of Delta Township, containing most of the township's heavily populated subdivisions, was an economic appendage of the core city. Delta residents had their own stores for groceries and other convenience goods along the M43 commercial strip, although commuters on their way home from work often stopped to shop in the city. Downtown Lansing and other locations in and around the city were more important in providing specialized goods (clothing, furniture, etc.) and for medical, banking, and similar services.

19 Table 11.--Average daily traffic counts along M43, three Michigan townships, 1953, 1958, and 1963

Station Location number 1953 1958 1963

Roxand Township: Western edge of township 43 2,200 2,200 2,400 Western limits of Mulliken 26 2,100 2,300 2,500 Between Mulliken and Grand Ledge- 44 2,600 2,800 2,600

Oneida Township: Bypass around Grand Ledge _!/ 9 5,000 6,400 3,500 East of MlOO intersection 10 4,400 5,400 6,400

Delta Township: West of 1 96 interchange 45 4,200 5,200 6,800 East of 1 96 interchange 28 4,800 5,500 10,000 Immediately west of the county line, eastern edge of township 46 6,000 6,400 14,000

\_l The bypass was constructed after 1958, and so traffic counts at this location before 1963 include traffic going into Grand Ledge.

Source: Michigan State Highway Department, Lansing.

Table 12.--Work locations of residents in three Michigan townships, 1960

Location Delta Township Oneida Township ! Roxand Township 1/ : Percent : Percent : Percent Number:of total Number:of total Number:of total

Lan sing 946 58.3 252 33.1 157 34.5 Remainder of Ingham County 257 15.8 40 5.2 33 7.2 Eaton County 373 23.0 450 59.1 237 52.1 Clinton County 4 0.2 4 0.5 4 0.9 Outside of metropolitan area- 44 2.7 16 2.1 24 5.3

Total employed 1,624 100.0 762 100.0 455 100.0

!_/ Includes the Village of Mul liken.

Source: U. S. Census of Population 1960. (Unpublished material.)

20 CHAPTER 3.--TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT: STRUCTURES AND PROGRAMS

Throughout the unincorporated areas of Michigan, townships operate as the most local units of general government. They cover all territory outside of incorporated cities. With a few exceptions, Michigan townships operate within a narrow legal framework prescribed by the State constitution and the legislature. These governments have little "home rule," and limited legal authority relative to that of cities and villages.

The township board--composed of one supervisor, one clerk, one treasurer, and two or four trustees--is the general governing body of the township. While the board has limited legislative power compared with that of municipal councils, it does have substantial ordinance-making and service authority. It can license and control liquor establishments and certain other kinds of businesses,' regulate building and land-use patterns, approve platting of land, and institute urban- type services such as utility systems and local police departments. Financial rather than legal provisions restrict Michigan townships.

Most of the administrative functions of the average township are performed by the individual board members. The supervisor--the officer closest to a chief executive in township government--is the assessor of property for township, county, and school taxation. He presides over the township board and the board of review (which reviews tax assessments), and is the township's representative on the governing body of the county--the board of supervisors. The clerk is a general recordkeeper. He keeps the minutes of the township board and the annual meeting, is in charge of election procedures and voter registrations, and pre- pares various reports for State agencies. The treasurer collects taxes and pays out township money.

One practice adopted directly from New England town government is the annual township meeting, held in early April. This is a public legislative session at which the electorate can vote on budget, taxation, salary, and other proposals presented by the board.

The township hall, often located at the intersection of two roads marking the geographical center of the township, is the most prominent physical symbol of local government in the rural communities of Michigan. Its main function is a meeting place rather than as an administrative headquarters in the manner of county courthouses and city, halls. Routine administrative functions are normally performed in the officials' homes rather than in the hall. This building is the setting for monthly meetings of the township board, annual public budget-setting sessions, and for voting on election days. In some communities, the hall is widely used for such social functions as dances, wedding receptions, and neighborhood dinners.

Structural Variations Among the Three Townships

Most of the 1,200 township governments in Michigan serve rural areas and operate within standard organizational and legal structures. Some important deviations do exist, however, particularly for a few townships in the metropolitan areas.

Of the three townships which form the urban-rural gradient west of Lansing, the structures of Oneida and Roxand adhere most closely to the statewide norm, 21 while the arrangement in Delta, the most urban township, varies considerably. Delta alone uses the charter form of government ^/ approved by the voters in 1962. This gives the township a degree of financial and legal powers halfway between the restricted authority of regular townships and the more flexible powers of home-rule cities and villages. Under charter arrangements. Delta can levy higher property tax rates, i^ and has larger borrowing powers than the other two townships; these are important differences in view of Delta's attempts to finance new water and sewer systems in the early sixties. Charter townships also differ in substituting a public budget hearing for the annual meeting, and in having greater ordinance-making, licensing, and property acquisition powers than regular townships.

As of 1964, Delta had not taken full advantage of the relative flexibility in administrative organization possible under its charter. For example, a statutory provision permitting township boards to appoint "superintendents" (similar to city managers) had not been implemented by the Delta board.

Before approving the charter. Delta voters adopted other structural variations: a primary system of nominating party candidates for township óffice--in place of the traditional caucus procedures--in 1957, and an increase in the number of trustees from two to four (making a seven-member board) in 1960.

Other structural differences between Delta and the other two townships derive from the larger range of functions performed by the urban unit. Delta's administrative organization undertakes the most activities and employs the largest number of employees. Separate boards include an appointed planning commission charged with administration of the township's zoning ordinance and other land-use controls.

Slight differences exist between the structures of Oneida and Roxand townships. Like Delta, Oneida maintains zoning and building controls, although the Oneida zoning ordinance is administered by a zoning board. Roxand, the most rural township, does not have local zoning and building controls; its land-use patterns are regulated by a county zoning commission. As the only township to operate a library,«Roxand has a library board of separately elected members; library appropriations, however, are made by the township board.

Service and Regulatory Programs

There isa clear connection between urbanization and the service activities of township government in Delta, Oneida, and Roxand. The changes in government operations that took place from 1950 to 1964, that is, the extent to which new

8/ The charter form, established by the legislature in 1947 and significantly amended in 1960, can be adopted by townships with a population of at least 5,000, and by townships of at least 2,000 providing these border on cities of more than 25,000. In 1963, nine charter townships existed in Michigan, including Delta and three others in the Lansing metropolitan area. One other township had previously abandoned the charter form, and another charter township had been incorporated as a city (20, p.467). 9/ The boards of charter townships can levy up to 5 mills ($5.00 per ^i,uuu in assessed property valuation) by their own action, and up to 10 mills with voter approval; without voter approval the regular township is generally limited to 1 mill out of 15 mills allocated between townships, counties, and school districts. 22 programs were introduced and old ones expanded, were largely responses to urban growth. During this period, changes in township government were most pronounced in Delta and considerably less in Oneida and Roxand. Roxand was the only township that did not initiate new services. The introduction of new services in Delta and Oneida Townships was particularly stimulated by the growth of new residences in subdivisions.

Variations in Functions

As expected, Delta, the most urban of the three townships, performed the largest number of governmental functions and Roxand the least. In 1963-64, Delta provided two more types of services and regulatory activities than Oneida, and four more than Roxand. (See accompanying tabulation.) Considering the relatively extensive urban growth in Delta in recent years, however, the 17-13 ratio between this township and rural Roxand was surprisingly slim.

Functions performed by the three townships, 1963-64 -1/ Legally required functions: Property assessment for taxation (Supervisor) Property tax collection (Treasurer) Election administration and registration of voters (Clerk) Review of tax assessments (Board of Review) Storm drains Subdivision platting —2/ Liquor-beer-wine control Health Optional functions in-- Delta Township Oneida Township Roxand Township Fire protection Fire protection Fire protection Cemeteries Cemeteries Cemeteries Road maintenance and Road maintenance and Road maintenance and construction construction construction Refuse dump Refuse dump Refuse dump Library Park Zoning and building Zoning and building control control Planning Street lighting Street lighting Recreation Water supply Total functions Number 17 15 13 _!/ Includes functions for which expenditures were listed in the 1963-64 financial reports (1964 for Delta), and other functions performed (health, liquor control, subdivision platting) for which expenditures were not required. 2/ The legal requirement of subdivision platting has never been exercised by the Roxand board because no subdivision developments have ever been established in this township outside of Mulliken village.

23 The impression of limited difference between the most rural and most urban townships is largely due to the character of the separate functions listed. A large part of the 1963-64 inventory is composed of legally required operations. For example, township supervisors and treasurers perform tax assessment and collection functions for their own units as well as for school districts and county governments which share the same areas. Most property tax revenues collected by township treasurers are turned over to the schools and counties. Similarly, the clerk* s administration of elections and voter registration is performed for national. State and county as well as for township elections.

The three townships differ in the listing of optional functions, services performed at the initiative of township boards. Even here, about half the items are common to all three. These include fire protection, cemeteries, road maintenance and construction, and maintenance of refuse dumps. Although Delta, Oneida, and Roxand spent funds for all these functions in 1963-64, not all were administered directly by the township governments. Local road construction and maintenance in unincorporated areas of Michigan, responsibilities of the county government, were also financed by township funds.

In effect, the townships paid the Eaton County Road Commission to undertake specific work in their respective areas. All three townships maintained cemeteries, but only Delta and Roxand operated their own fire departments. Oneida was served by the Grand Ledge city fire department on an annual contractual basis. To gain refuse dumping privileges for their residents, Oneida paid Grand Ledge for the use of its facilities, while Delta and Roxand had arrangements with private landowners.

The urban character of Delta Township operations emerges more clearly from a study of the remaining functions listed in the inventory. In the maintenance of a water supply system, Delta was the only township to provide a public utility- type service involving high capital costs and usually found in densely populated areas. Delta was also unique in participating in a recreation program, through contributions to school districts and private groups for summer activities. Through its planning program, Delta had moved beyond the more basic land-use controls of zoning and building regulation which were also undertaken by Oneida Township. Both of these townships maintained street lights, although this function was limited to one subdivision in Oneida whereas Delta provided this service in five subdivisions.

Roxand Township did not provide these kinds of services in 1963-64. Even so, it maintained a seemingly urban-type facility not found in the other two areas--a library. Oneida's unique service was the maintenance of a township park. Both the library and park were operated at minimal cost. In 1963-64, Roxand spent only a little more than $1,000 on its library, while Oneida reported no expenditure for its park.

None of the three governments came close to performing all of the optional functions permitted Michigan townships. Some of these services not provided in 1963-64, or in previous years, were local police protection, garbage collection, tree spraying, sidewalk construction and maintenance, and sanitary sewer service.

24 Expenditures for Specific Functions

The urban character of Delta's functions is more specifically illustrated by a comparison of expenditures by type of function (table 13). Water supply was Delta's most expensive service in 1963-64, outranking the top per capita expenditures in Oneida and Roxand for drains and fire protection, respectively. (The latter two functions are traditional rural services.) The $33,168 figure listed for Delta's water supply in 1963 is understated, for it represents only the operations and minor capital costs for construction of mains. It excludes a sizable amount spent in 1963 for construction of much of the basic water- supply system.

Road expenditures were high in both Delta and Oneida. But only the more urban township contributed funds to the county road commission for construction of new pavements. Virtually all road money in Oneida and Roxand was devoted to the maintenance of existing gravel surfaces. A similar emphasis on fire protection, however, existed in the two most different townships--Delta and Roxand. In both townships, large portions of fire department money went for the purchase of equipment.

Changes in Service and Expenditure Patterns

From 1951-52 to 1963-64, total township government expenditures in Delta increased more than fourfold, and per capita expenditures doubled (table 14). Expenditures thus increased at about twice the rate of the population increase. In contrast, total and per capita expenditure figures in Oneida and Roxand did not come close to doubling.

Total expenditures of the three townships in 1963-64 ranked according to their relative urban-rural positions. On a per capita basis, however, Oneida Township was the lowest spender, although the difference between Roxand and Oneida was not large.

Changes in the expenditure and service patterns of the three townships after 1955 illustrate the relative effects of urbanization.

Delta Township.--During 1951-54, the expenditure patterns of Delta Town- ship resembled those of the other two townships. But in -1955-56, both total and per capita expenditures in Delta increased more than threefold, to record highs (Table 14). This rapid rise was almost entirely the result of the construction of a new fire station. The building,opened in 1956, was a multipurpose facility; it included office space, a meeting room for township government, as well as a fire department garage and living quarters for the fire chief.

25 Table 13.--A ranking of expenditures for specified services performed by Delta, Oneida, and Roxand Townships Michigan, 1963-64 1/ ^ '

Total ; Per expenditure* capita 3/ Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Water supply : 1 2/ 33,168 3.68 - Road construction

and maintenance : 2 23,265 2.58 2 4,747 2.26 4 2,000 1.25 Fire protection ; 3 22,612 2.51 3 3,177 1.51 1 4,396 2.75 Cemeteries . 4 9,995 1.11 4 1,624 .77 3 3,190 1.99 Planning and zoning- ; 5 4,254 .47 7 300 .14 -- N) Building inspection- : 6 3,780 .42 6 689 .33 -- Storm drains ; 7 2,311 .26 1 4,988 2.37 2 3,313 2.07 Street lighting : 8 1,984 .22 8 136 .06 - Recreation '• 9 1,523 .17 - •Refuse dump : 10 874 .10 5 800 .38 6 100 .06 Library * ------5 1,029 .64

Excludes administrative expenditures, such as salaries and office expenses of elected officials. y Expenditures are for 1963-64 fiscal year for Oneida and Roxand Townships, and 1963 calendar year for Delta Township. 2/ Water service expenditures for Delta do not include costs of constructing the township's basic water supply system much of which was undertaken during 1963. 3/ Based on the following estimated populations for 1963: Delta--9,000; Oneida--2,100; and Roxand--1,600. Table 14.--Total and per capita expenditures in three Michigan townships, at 2- year intervals, 1951-52 through 1963-64 j/ Delta Township Year Oneida Township Roxand Township Total : Per capita : Total : Per capita : Total : Per capita Dollars 1951-52 33,589 7.81 14,653 9.33 11,423 8.02 1953-54 27,310 5.35 17,361 10.69 15,906 10.95 1955-56 107,036 18.58 17,533 10.43 19823 13.52 1957-58 73,735 11.34 18,230 10.35 2/ 11 1959-60 91,322 12.59 2/ y 2/ 2/ 1961-62 102,806 12.72 19,937 10.12 14,221 9.04 1963-64 3/ 149,369 3/16.6Ó 21,526 10.25 18,364 11.48 Percentage increase, Percent 1951-52 to 1963-64 344.7 112.5 46.9 9.9 60.8 43.0

y Per capita figures based on estimated population totals for years given. 2/ Data not available. 3/ Data for calendar year 1963. Not included is approximately $800,000 in capital outlay for construction of a basic water-supply system (much of which was undertaken in r963) and interest payments on the long-term debt for this project.

Source: Annual financial statements filed with the Michigan Municipal Finance Commi ssion.

Although fire protection was not a new service for Delta Township, the building represented a new responsibility. Until 1956, most of the township had been serviced by the Grand Ledge fire department under a contractual arrangement between the city and the township board. The Millett area of the township, an older residential area in the southeastern corner, had a small volunteer department partly financed by township contributions. In 1956, service from Grand Ledge was discontinued, and the small Millett fire department was brought under the general supervision of the chief at the new station. Prima- rily because of the new fire station, the $18.58 per capita spent by Delta Township in 1955-56 established a record for the 1951-64 period (table 14). Expenditures decreased after 1955-56, but the drop was to a level somewhat higher than the figures of the early fifties; for example, the per capita expenditure of 1957-58 ($11.34) was double that of 1953-54 ($5.35). After 1958, both total and per capita levels began a rise that continued throughout the early sixties.

Increasing expenditures after 1956 were partly the result of a sharp rise in costs of maintaining existing operations. Expenditures for both general administration and specific services increased. For example, salary and general office expenses of the three elective administrative offices--supervisor, clerk, treasurer--rose in every fiscal year from 1955-56 to 1963, and, overall, more than tripled during the period. Expenditures for such traditional township programs as cemetery maintenance also rose.

27 New purchases and facilities also contributed to increasing expenditures. These innovations included the first voting machines and extensive office equipment, and the new fire department which required an initial investment three times the amount previously paid for the Grand Ledge service and old Millett station. After construction of the new fire station, the voters approved a semipermanent, one-mill property tax just for operation of the department. Between 1956 and 1963, the township government also made its first contributions to county road paving projects (1956) and to recreation programs administered by school districts and private groups (1957); established the first special assessment district for street lighting in subdivision areas (1957), a planning commission (1958), the first water district (1960), and a refuse dump (1963); and constructed a basic water-supply and distribution system (1963).

Thus, .within less than 8 years Delta Township had substantially expanded its service activities. Urban growth was clearly the motivating factor, for the start of the new programs coincided with or immediately followed Delta' s greatest residential development (table 15). Platting of subdivision lots and construction of new homes reached peaks in 1956 and 1957, respectively, dropped slightly thereafter, but began to increase again in the early sixties.

Characteristics of the programs introduced in this 8-year period, and their relationships to urban growth, suggest that there were three somewhat distinct stages in the expansion of Delta's township government. In the first stage, the construction of the fire station and township hall and the subsequent inauguration of the new fire department were not exclusively the result of urban pressures. These movements represented an upgrading of a service traditional to rural townships in Michigan and could be interpreted as actions in the interests of general efficiency.

In the second stage, the new services begun in the late fifties were specific responses to urban development. The road pavement and street lighting programs in particular were selective services intended to aid the more densely settled portions of the township. The Delta board first agreed to contribute to the paving of a county road in 1956; all previous financial support of county road commission work in Delta had been for the maintenance and repair of gravel roads. Costs of the special assessment districts for street lighting were assessed to individual property owners, with the township government collecting taxes and disbursing funds for construction and power. AH the districts were established through the petitioning of homeowners; by 1961, districts were in operation m six separate subdivisions.

The other new programs initiated by the Delta board in this period involved very slight demands on the budget. The largest sum contributed by the township in one year to the summer recreation programs of school districts was $1,500, less than 1 year's normal legal fees. Minor increases in funds were initially required for the new planning commission, established in 1958 to replace a zoning board which had been in existence since the late forties.

The second stage of government expansion was thus characterized by minimal expenditures for new services. However, in establishing these new programs, the board assumed a new level of administrative responsibility and opened the way to more demanding programs for the near future. 28 Table 15.--Delta township: Government expansion and urban growth, 1950-63

Commercial- Year New services and major Subdivision :New home industrial 1/ capital expenditures lots platted: building building : permits permits

Number 1950 0 61 2 1951 0 50 1 1952 8 56 7 1953 31 79 5 1954 151 103 2 1955 Construction of new fire station and township hall 151 142 1956 Fire dept. established Road paving program began 236 168 Purchase of fire equipment 1957 Street lighting program began First recreation contributions 138 178 1 1958 Planning commission established 166 120 5 (Replaced zoning board) 1959 106 132 6 1960 First water district establishedi 199 115 4 Purchase of fire equipment 1961 168 128 6 1962 147 164 16 1963 Construction of water system 207 Sanitary dump established

1/ While the annual financial statements of Delta Township before 1963 were composed for fiscal years, expenditures listed in this table are for calendar years based on information in the township board minutes. Sources: Minutes, Delta Township Board; Delta Township Clerk.

29 The third stage of government expansion began haltingly in 1960, when Delta took over the administration of a small water-distribution system serving about 100 customers on the eastern edge of the township. The water came from wells operated by the city of Lansing, and the mains had been constructed and serviced by a special district established by Lansing Township. Under Delta* s administration, the mains were expanded to a few additional areas. This was only a prelude to a much larger project--the construction of a water supply and distribution system and a sanitary sewer network for most subdivision areas of the township.

Throughout the early sixties, the attempt to establish the two utility systems was the dominant governmental topic in Delta. Financing problems and objections by some property owners delayed final approval and forced the separation of water and sewers into two separate projects. But construction of a basic water-supply system costing $800,000, financed by special assessment and revenue bonds, was begun in 1963. And in late 1964 a Federal grant was obtained to cover part of the cost of the sanitary sewer network, a multimillion dollar project.

This third stage was more characteristic of urban government than the previous two stages because it involved huge amounts of funds and major construction unequaled in the history of Delta.

Oneida Township: Expenditure patterns in Oneida were the most stable among the three townships from 1951-52 through 1963-64. While total expenditures increased steadily over the 12 years, per capita figures, ranging from $9.33 to $10.43, remained fairly constant (Table 14). Government expenses thus kept pace with the gradual population increase in this middle township.

This stable trend in Oneida hides some fluctuations in funds spent for specific purposes. For example, in the early fifties before the welfare function was completely transferred to county government, the township's annual relief payments varied between $300 and $3,000. Over the entire 12-year period, township expenditures for county drain construction ranged from nothing to $3,800 per year. The most significant changes from one year to another took place in contributions to the county road commission in Oneida, varying from $3,000 to more than $9,000. These funds were all spent on the repair and maintenace of gravel roads; by 1964 Oneida Township (unlike Delta) had not yet contributed to pavement construction. All of these fluctuations were in traditional township government programs, and were unrelated to any effects of urban growth.

The establishment of a township park in the I960's was also unrelated to urban pressures.

The relatively small amount of residential development that occurred in Oneida did result in the introduction of a few new township programs. In 1962, the township established a special assessment district to provide lights for one street in a subdivision, and secured dumping privileges at the Grand Ledge sanitary landfill. Another urban-type service, the pavement of residential streets in Oneida's largest subdivision, had not been approved by the township board as of early 1964.

30 The initiation of new services by the Oneida Township government in the early sixties resembled the second stage of government expansion in Delta Town- ship. The types of programs introduced required small expenditures; the Oneida board had not even seriously discussed the kind of large-scale expenditures for capital construction that was begun in 1963 by Delta Township. In fact, Oneida Township had not experienced the first stage of government expansion that occurred in Delta in the middle fifties; nor had the middle township spent large sums on the upgrading of existing services. Oneida made no move to establish its own fire department and the subject of constructing a permanent township office building had not been introduced. Considering the proximity of Oneida Township to Grand Ledge, a separate township fire department was perhaps unnecessary.

In general, the extent of urban growth in the middle township did not seem to justify the kind of government expansion that took place in Delta. From 1950 to 1962, 155 new homes were constructed in Oneida Township and 152 subdivision lots were platted; this approximately equaled the comparative totals of Delta for an average year in the late fifties. While more than three-fourths of the Delta household population resided in subdivision areas in 1962, subdivision residents accounted for about one-third of the Oneida population in 1962. The potential for future growth was present in Oneida, but in the early sixties this middle township was at least 8 years behind the pattern of urban development and township government expansion of Delta Township.

Roxand Township: Roxand alone experienced no significant urban growth throughout the 1950' s and the early I960's. During this period, the population increased slightly (from 1,410 residents in 1950 to 1,558 in 1960); only one small subdivision of 14 lots was platted in Mulliken village; and an annual average of less than five new homes were constructed in Roxand. One new government service was introduced between 1950 and 1964. Beginning in 1958, the Roxand board paid about $100 a year for use by its residents of a refuse dump on private property in an adjacent township. Most of the $1,000 or so spent in a year for the library went for the salary of a part-time librarian and for heat- ing maintenance costs; only $140 was spent in 1963 for book and magazine purchases.

Total and per capita expenditures of Roxand Township fluctuated considerably during 1951-52 to 1963-64 (table 13). This was not a trend from low to high expenditures as occurred in Delta Township. Rather, high and low expenditures inconsistently occurred throughout the period as a result of changes in the expenditure demands for traditional township services. In the relatively small budgets of Roxand, the few hundred dollars required to administer a presi- dential election, for example, made a significant difference every 4 years. Other causes of fluctuations included varying demands on township contributions to drain construction and county maintenance on gravel roads, and even purchases of lawn mowers and other supplies used in cemetery maintenance.

The largest fluctuations, however, were in the costs of the fire department. Purchase of a tank truck in 1955 and construction of a new fire department garage ("barn") in 1962 were financed by special taxation approved by voters. The cost of the garage ($13,000) was apparently the most expensive capital expenditure ever made by Roxand Township. Shortly after this facility was finished, the Roxand board began planning for the purchase of another tank truck.

31 Voter support of extra taxes, and attention of the board to the administration and expansion of the volunteer department, clearly showed that fire -protection was the most emphasized township government service in Roxand.

CHAPTER 4.--THE MONEY POLICIES: TAXES AND OTHER REVENUES

When local governments make decisions about services and structures, they also make decisions about money. Changes in patterns of finance are particularly needed when services are expanded. Service decisions are in fact often guided by the established limitations and productivity of revenue sources.

The financial choices of townships appear to have limited significance in the total scheme of Michigan local government. One reason is that the taxing and debt powers of townships in this State are severely restricted by legislative and constitutional checks. Then too, township boards 'can frequently expand their programs without making great demands on public funds. Finally, Michigan townships spend considerably smaller sums than the other principal types of local government in the State. iO.^

Even so, the finances of Delta, Oneida, and Roxand townships have considerable meaning to the residents of these particular communities. The following section will show that the three units vary as much in their patterns of public revenues as in their structures and services.

The Revenue Sources

Michigan townships tap three major sources of revenue: (1) State-collected funds; (2) local property taxes, and (3) a miscellaneous category including permits, fees, and other revenues. State funds (including a portion of the State sales and intangible taxes distributed to townships, cities, and villages on a population basis)ll/ are by far the largest item: they account for more than half the receipts of most townships. These funds provide a relatively stable income for the townships and other units, depending on the economy of the State. The property tax isa less reliable and more restrictive source than State funds. Townships pick up the smallest share of the total 15 mills (1 mill equals a tax pf $1.00 on $1,000 of assessed property valuation) permitted the township, school districts, and county government in any one community. 12/

10/ This is explained by differences in constituency and scope of services. As a group, township governments operate in less densely populated areas than other local units, and perform generally less expensive functions than county governments, school districts, and municipalities. 11/ A constitutional provision commits one-eighth of sales tax receipts (.05 cent of the 4 cents levied on each $1.00 sale) to these governments. Another one-half of the State sales tax (2 cents) is turned over to the school districts. 12/ The annual division of the 15 mills is made by a Tax Allocation Board in each county. The new Michigan constitution adopted in 1963 permits the voters of each county to change this system, by raising the limit to 18 mills and establishing a fixed allocation among the townships, schools, and county government. As of 1965, this change had not been made in Eaton County.

32 By 1963-64, State-collected funds still constituted the largest single source of revenue for all three townships (table 16). But for Delta these funds represented less than half of total revenues, while in the other two townships they constituted a majority of all revenues. Delta had moved the furthest from an almost-exclusive reliance on State funds, with Roxand only slightly less dependent on this source. Oneida still acquired more than three- fourths of its income from State-collected funds in 1963-64 (table 16), and did not even institute a property tax until 1963.

All three townships placed minimum reliance on revenues from other sources during 1951-64 (table 16). Such income was more important in Delta than in the other two townships by the early sixties. These funds came largely from services provided by the townships. For example, between 1951 and 1963 Delta and Oneida derived increasingly larger sums from building permits and rezoning application fees as a result of their regulation of building construction and land use. All three townships had income from the sale of cemetery lots. Roxand received funds from library fees and from its fire services to another township.

Because of its relatively large number of service programs. Delta Township had the most diverse revenue sources. It was the only unit with income from utility charges (table 16), provided by the water-supply system acquired by the township in 1960. With the large-scale expansion of the water-supply network and the construction of new wells in 1963-64, and the announced building of a sanitary sewer system in 1964, utility revenues were expected to increase in the future.

Delta is in a favored position among the three townships with respect to legal restraints on revenue sources. As a charter township, Delta is not as affected by the 15-mill limitation as Oneida and Roxand. In.addition to the allocated portion of the 15 mills, Delta can also levy up to 5 mills for general purposes without voter review. In fact, charter townships in Michigan can establish up to an additional lO-mill limitation in their charters if their voters approve. Delta has been able to make fuller use of the property tax than Oneida and Roxand townships. In recent years, between one-fifth and one- third of Delta's revenues were cortributed by the property tax (table 16). Legal abilities alone, however, were not responsible for this; even before the charter form of government was adopted in 1962, the expansion of programs forced Delta to make greater use of the local tax. Delta began levying a property tax in 1953 when voters approved â special 4-year milläge to finance construction of the new fire station and office building. Before that, the township had depended almost exclusively on State-collected revenues. By the late fifties. State funds accounted for less than half of total revenues. Roxand--the most rural township-- levied a property tax in most of the years between 1951 and 1964 largely because of its relatively high fire department expenditures Öloxand was the only township maintaining its own fire department throughout this entire period). The property millage, however, never accounted for more than 15 percent of total revenues until 1963, and the State funds were never less than half of all receipts (table 16).

The Taxpayer's Responsibility: Property Taxes

Aside from its contribution to total revenue, the property tax has special significance in the three communities. This tax is the only one that applies to 33 Table 16.--Revenue sources in three Michigan townships, 1951-52 through 1963-64 1/

Township and source : 1951-52 1953-54 1955-56 1957-58 1959-60 1961-62 1963-64 jjeita iownsnip. Percent - - ProDertv fflv -- . 0 0 36.9 20.7 26.9 36.2. State-collected 37.6 : 94.4 92.4 55.8 69.2 Permits, fees, 42.3 42.1 46.1 i^tr* — — _ — — _..___ : 5.6 7.6 7.3 10.1 6.1 5.5 5.6 Utilities : 0 0 0 0 24.7 15.2 10.7 • Dollars -

Total revenues : 43,384 39,480 69,862 57,344 87 ,696 145,111 141,659 4^ Oneida Township: Percent - - Prooertv tax ---. 0 0 0 0 2/ 0 13.4 State-collected funds- 98.3 98.0 97.1 94.7 2/ 94.3 77.2 ) Permits, fees, etc. : 1.7 2.0 2.9 5.3 2/ 5.7 9.4

Dollars - Total revenues • 13,010 13,862 14,940 15,644 2/ 15,642 21,425

Roxand Township: - Percent - . . . 10.2 8.7 8.6 2/ 11 15.3 37.5 State-collected funds-- 70.7 78.1 69.7 2/ 11 66.4 52.7 Permits, fees, etc. : 19.1 13.2 21.7 2/ 11 18.3 9.8-

nnllor-o Total revenues : 10,109 12,404 14,250 2/ 2/ 13,693 19,338

y Excludes receipts for special assessment districts such as street lighting. 2/ Data not available. all residents--directly to property owners and indirectly to renters--and is a direct levy on the pocketbook of each local taxpayer. Understandably, then, the township boards carefully consider any proposed changes in this revenue source.

In recent years, the property tax has been higher in Delta Township than in Oneida and Roxand. Each Delta resident paid an average of $5.91 in township property taxes in 1963. This was about $4.60 more than in Oneida and about $1.40 higher than in Roxand in 1963-64 (Table 17). Delta's per capita revenues from all sources were also the highest, followed by Roxand and Oneida in that order.

Table 17.--Per capita and total township revenues, by source, three Michigan townships, 1963-64 1/

Source Delta [ Oneida \ Roxand Per capita • (Total) 'Per capita '(Total)'Per capita: (Total) L~n^iDollars 1 «^„ ^- Property tax 5.91 (53,235) 1.3/ (2,885) 4.53 (7,242^ State collected-- 7.25 (65,283) 7.87 (16,532) 6.37 (10,199) Utilities 1.68 (15,132) Permits, fees, misc. .89 (8,009) .96 (2,008) 1.18 (1,897) Total revenues $15.74 ($141,659) $10.20 ($21,425) 12.08 ($19,338)

1/ According to estimated populations for 1963. Data for Delta Township are for the calendar year, 1963.

By other criteria, however, the load carried by Delta taxpayers was not as heavy as these comparisons suggest. In relation to the equalized assessed valuation of property, 13/ residents of this most urban township were actually paying less in property taxes than residents of Roxand and Oneida.

On a per capita basis, taxable property in Delta Township had a State- equalized valuation of $4,128 in 1964--more than $1,200 over the comparable figures in the other two townships (Table 18). This difference reflects the relatively large amounts of nonresidential (commercial and industrial) property in Delta, and the generally more expensive homes in its suburban areas. While Delta's per capita assessed valuation was the lowest among the three townships in the early fifties (Table 16), urban growth in the following years caused the figure to increase almost fourfold. By the early sixties. Delta had the highest per capita assessed valuation of all townships and municipalities in Eaton County, and accounted for one-fourth of the county's total valuation--even though this township had less than one-fifth of the population. This trend was expected to continue, with plans for new shopping center developments and additional industrial construction in the township.

13/Assessed valuation is the value placed on real estate and other property by township supervisors, later "equalized " at the county and State levels, and used as the basis of the property tax.

35 Table 18,--Per capita and total assessed valuations of property, three Michigan townships, 1951 and 1964 y Delta On^-iHfl : RnvanH Xea,ic Per capita ; (Total) ¡Per capita : ITotal) ¡Per capita ¡ (Total)

Dollars 1951- 1,059 (4,555,750) 1,612 (2,382,800) 1,399 (1,902,600) 1964- 4,128 (39,218,130) 2,869 (6,212,275) 2,431 (3,924,530)

y State-equalized assessed valuations.

Source: Eaton County Addressograph Office.

The large tax base in Delta, and the significant nonresidential composition of this base, seemed to result in relatively greater public support for higher property taxes. From 1951 to 1964, Delta* s government levied a cumulative total of 23.8 property tax milIs--more than twice the 11.5 mills of Roxand and considerably more than the 1 mill of Oneida (table 19). Delta had a property tax millage for all but 3 years during this period, and Roxand missed only 4 years in maintaining a property tax rate. In contrast, Oneida collected a property tax in only 2 years, 1963 and 1964.

These variations in the size and persistence of the millage can be largely explained by differences in public support among the three communities. Township property tax rates generally require some form of public approval. Most millage levied by the three townships during the 1951-64 period was through public referenda for limited periods. Even the "regular" rate 14/ was frequently re- viewed by the annual meetings in the three communities, although the township boards themselves had the legal ability to request millage from the county tax allocation board.

Residents in Delta, and to a lesser degree in Roxand, were considerably more willing to support property taxes than Oneida taxpayers. In 1953, Delta voters approved a special 4-year tax of 3.5 mills to finance the construction of the fire hall and township building. Later referenda votes continued the special millage for fire department operations into the early sixties. Similar support for extra taxation existed in Roxand, where in 1954 voters formed a special district to authorize the township board to levy up to 2 mills for fire protection. The board exercised this ability in 1954, 1960-63 and 1964. Roxand voters also approved a special millage for cemetery work in 1963.

Absence of a property tax in Oneida until 1963 resulted from both the relatively low level of services provided by this government and the lack of township board and public support for local taxation. In not operating a fire

14/ The "regular" rate for Delta Township after 1962 included both 0.5 mill from the"l5-mill allocation and 1.0 mill permitted Delta as a charter township (table 19) Since Delta had abandoned the practice of holding annual meetings in 1962, the "regular" millage after this year did not undergo formal public approval.

36 Table 19.--Number of property tax mills \^l levied by townships, 1951-64

: Delta Townsh IP One ida Township \ Roxand Township • • Year:Regular 2/ :Voted :Total . Regular 2/ :Voted : Total :Regular 2/ :Voted :Total • • • — «•■ — — ■• — — — — Number ... • 1951: 0 0 .25 .25 1952: 0 0 0 1953: 3.5 3.5 0 .5 .5 1954: 3.5 3.5 0 .5 .5 1955: 3.5 3.5 0 .5 .5 1956: 3.5 3.5 0 .75 .75 1957: 1.5 1.5 0 0 1958: 0 0 0 1959: 1.0 1.0 0 0 1960: .375 1.0 1.375 0 1.0 1.0 1961: .5 1.0 1.5 0 .5 1.0 1.5 1962: .5 1.0 1.5 0 .5 1.0 1.5 1963: 1.5 1.5 .5 .5 .5 1.5 2.0 1964: 1.5 1.5 .5 .5 .5 2.5 3.0

Total mills levied 23.875 1.0 11.5

\l 1.0 mill equals $1.00 tax per $1,000 of State-equalized assessed valuation.

y Regular millage includes the mills allocated to the township under the 15- mill limitation applied to county, township, and school units. For Delta Town- ship after 1962, this also included the millage permitted under the charter form of government, which was exclusive of the 15-mill allocation process.

Source: Eaton County Addressograph Office.

department, Oneida missed out on one major demand for higher revenues; most millage levied by the other two departments went for the capital and operating costs of their fire departments. More important, perhaps, was the reluctance of the Oneida board to seek one-half or a full mill from the county allocation board without an expression of support from township residents at the annual meetings. A property tax was finally approved by the annual meeting in 1963 when the supervisor argued that the millage was subject to review each year, and that the individual taxpayer's bill would not thereby be increased.

In comparison to the other forms of public revenue, the property tax has been directed to specific purposes in all three townships. The voters» approval

37 of extra millage in Delta and Roxand Townships committed the revenues from these levies to either fire protection or cemetery maintenance. Participants in annual meetings who voted for one-half or a full "regular" mill, were also directing the township boards to spend the funds on specific services--generally contributions to the county for road work in the townships. The property tax, subject to frequent public review, was regarded as a means of financing certain "extras"; it was intended to provide for short-term and unusual expenditures, such as capital improvements for the fire department.

In contrast. State-collected funds financed the more general and permanent expenditures of township government, such as salaries of officers and administrative costs. Revenues from sales and the intangibles taxes were regarded as steady income; only unforeseeable constitutional changes and a major economic depression in the State could affect this stability. Therefore, the three governments, like most Michigan townships, could afford to apply the property tax only sparingly.

By the early sixties, however, this strategy became less dominant in the public revenue decisions of Delta and Roxand Townships. Starting in 1960 for Delta and 1961 for Roxand, both governments levied regular millage in every year up to 1964 (table 19). Neither township had previously relied so con- sistently on nonvoted property tax. In Delta, costs of general administration and new programs not financed by utility incomes had grown faster than State- collected revenues. Adoption of a charter form permitted the Delta board to begin levying a steady millage in 1963 that did not depend either on voter approval or annual county allocation.

Although Roxand Township had no similar urban pressures or new programs to finance. State funds were also proving to be inadequate in this community. While capital costs could be financed by voted millage, expansion of the fire department resulted in higher maintenance costs and thus required revenues from a relatively permanent property tax.

Public Debt

The township governments traditionally refrained from deficit financing just as they had been cautious in using the property tax. The potential for public debt existed in at least Delta and Roxand townships throughout the 1950's and early I960's. Instead of borrowing funds the two townships chose the "pay as you go" method. This meant voting for extra millage for periods of 1 to 4 years (table 19). The property tax revenues were accumulated--generally in special building site or equipment funds--until enough was available at the end of the millage period to finance the specific improvement. This was illustrated in Delta Township's decision in 1953 to levy a vote property tax to finance a new fire department and township office building; 4 years passed before the facilities were constructed and opened. In place of the immediate expenditure but prolonged repayment method of deficit financing, the "pay as you go" approach offered a combination of delayed expenditure and immediate payment. By eliminating interest charges, this approach was less expensive in the long run.

A generally conservative position on fiscal policies, including a resistance to incurring debt, was one possible reason why the three townships did

38 not finance capital expenditures through borrowing. Other factors were statutory limitations and the relatively high cost of repaying the debt. Unlike cities, which can borrow up to a total of 10 percent of their assessed valuations, Michigan townships can borrow only for a few specific purposes and in amounts considerably less than one-tenth of the assessed valuation. Just as restrictive are the legal limits on their recourse to the property tax. Townships cannot rely on their "full faith and credit" as much as other units of local government; when townships incur debt, they generally pay higher interest charges to the bondholders than other units.

These restrictions were largely responsible for Delta* s adoption of the charter township form in 1962. This rapidly urbanizing community was then planning the construction of its multimillion dollar water and sewage systems. Delta voters overwhelmingly approved the charter because it would permit the township to finance utilities construction with more ease and at less expense.

The immensity of the utility projects broke down much of the traditional resistance to deficit financing in Delta Township in the early sixties. Neither of the three townships in previous years had to finance such extraordinarily high capital expenditures. The largest single public expenditure in any of the three townships before 1963, had been Delta* s new fire department and township office building ($80,000). In contrast, the cost of the water and sewage systems was estimated at more than $2 million. Even with Delta* s rapidly expanding assessed valuation, this was not an expenditure that could be paid off by levying a few extra mills over a few years. The "pay as you go" philosophy--at least for this particular program--had to be abandoned.

"Let the Benefited Pay"

The necessity of financing a huge utility debt did not force the Delta board to change completely its limited reliance on the property tax. Delta's heavy borrowing for the utility projects only indirectly committed its property taxpayers to higher millage. Ihe township would have to fall back on the property tax and other regular revenues--only if the original income sources pledged to repay bonds did not meet the retirement schedules.

Even though the property owners throughout the township were not expected to pay for the utility borrowings, through taxes,some of them assumed the major portion of costs through special assessment payments. These payments were levied directly on those property owners who would benefit from the water and sewage lines. The utilities were improvements for selective urban areas and not for the entire township.

The "let the benefited pay" principle was also inherent in the decision to finance the remainder of the water and sewage debt through revenues--the use charges paid by customers of the utilities. Special assessments are expected to pay about 55 percent of the $840,000 water project, and about half of the $2,900,000 cost of the sanitary sewer system. Property owners will pay the entire expense of the water and sewer laterals (the lines running down their streets), of connection and of constructing lines from their homes to the street.

39 over a 12 to 15 year period. — Future revenues of the utility systems will retire the bonds issued to pay for construction, including the wells, storage tanks, and distribution mains of the water operation and the treatment plant and interceptor lines of the sewerage system. To help finance the latter construction, Delta reclaimed a $250,000 grant from the Federal Government in late 1964. Special assessment financing is not a new device in Delta, nor is it un- known in the other two townships. It was widely used, for example, in the early construction of local roads throughout Michigan. When urbanization began forc- ing an expansion of Delta's and Oneida* s government services in the 1950's special assessment financing gained a new importance. The programs included street lighting projects in several subdivision areas of the two townships, and several road pavement projects in Delta financed by a combination of special assessments and general county and township funds. As selective services directly benefiting particular urban areas of the townships and only indirectly the entire communities, these programs easily could be assumed under a "let the benefited pay" practice. In fact, special assessment today in Michigan is as much an urban as a rural method of financing local government improvements. Rapidly growing suburbs in particular tend to assess property owners for the costs of new improvements in residential area.

By the early sixties, the developers of new subdivisions in Delta were providing street pavements and utility line construction before constructing homes. 1_6/ This was also a form of special assessment financing in which the land developers, and, indirectly, the purchasers of homes carried the entire costs of improvements.

With little or no burden on its levels of taxation, application of the "let the benefited pay" principle has enabled Delta Township to expand its services to gradually meet the pressures of urbanization.

Summary: Breaking the Traditional Pattern

The public finance pattern common to rural local governments in Michigan townships has four elements: (1) Maximum dependence on Stäte-colleeted revenues; (2) minimum or no use of the local property tax; (3) avoidance of deficit financing; (4) use of special assessment financing, an alternative to the property tax.

A comparison of the 1962 finances of Michigan townships by population groups indicates that in per capita terms, smaller townships generally relied to a greater extent on State-collected funds ("intergovernmental revenue") and on less property tax income (Table 20). With an increase in population size.

15/Procedüres for allocating the costs of lateral lines to individual property owners involved establishment of special assessment districts for the water and sewage projects. 16/Blacktopped streets and storm drains in subdivision areas were established by the Eaton County Road Commission in 1956 as a requirement for subdivision plat approval. In the early sixties, the Delta board began requiring complete water and sanitary sewer lines in subdivisions located in areas serviced by the utility systems. 40 townships had larger revenues from miscellaneous sources and mpre outstanding debt. The public finance experiences of the three townships west of Lansing suggest that they have broken in varying degrees with the traditional pattern. Until the midfifties, all three townships followed closely the no-property tax and related strategies. But since then, Delta and to a lesser degree Roxand have abandoned the almost exclusive reliance on State-collected funds and turned to extensive use of the property millage. Only Oneida Township, with no property tax until 1963, remained firmly in the rural pattern.

These variations in the use of revenue sources are not completely due to different levels of urbanization, but are the partial result of differences in program requirements. This applies to the rural and middle townships, Roxand and Oneida. The significantly greater urban growth expected in Oneida would suggest that its public finance decisions would be less traditional than those of Roxand. However, because of a greater range of revenue-demanding services operated by Roxand which were unrelated to urban growth, Oneida became more highly dependent on the property tax than the middle community.

A high level of urbanization was clearly responsible for the major shifts in Delta's public finance decisions between 1955 and 1964. Here, expansion of older services and introduction of new programs were the result of population growth. The property tax became a stable requirement in Delta. The new programs made available more "miscellaneous" revenues. More significantly, this community changed its legal form of government to permit some large-scale deficit financing.

Table 20.--Per capita finances of Michigan townships, by population size groups 196r ; All =25,000- .10,000- : 5,000- : 2,500- : Less than Item : townships ■ over •24,999 •• 9,999 : 4,999 : 2,500

Number Number Number Number Number Number Townships 1,258 9 39 56 142 1,012 Population 2,952,855 453,063 612,616 390,802 473,804 1,022,570

Finances Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars General revenue 15.86 19.93 17.23 16.58 11.56 14.95 Intergovernmental 1/ 7.32 7.17 7.37 8.30 6,30 7.45 Property tax 5.37 6.19 5.92 5.14 3.71 5.54 Charges and misc. 2.49 5.26 3.24 2.83 1.21 1.28 Outstanding debt 16.58 45.73 29.11 13.49 5.23 2.61

UState-collected funds constitute more than 95 percent of the intergovernmental revenues of Michigan townships.

Source: 1962 Census of Governments, table 19, p. 145.

Even in this most urban of the three communities however, there remained some reluctance to take full advantage of the property tax. Although the change to a charter township allowed Delta to increase its nonvoted millage greatly,

41 it did not cause an immediate, drastic shift to a higher tax rate. In fact, in the early sixties Roxand Township had a tax rate closer to its legal maximum, and had more voted mi liage than Delta. The urban township could continue to be cautious in its use of the property tax because its heaviest expenditures and debt could be financed by special assessments and revenue charges. This situation was something of a paradox: Concentrated subdivision growth, the most dominant mark of urbanization, resulted in demands for types of township governmental services that could be easily financed through the traditional strategy of letting the benefited pay.

In the future, reliance on the property tax is bound to increase greatly in Delta and Oneida Townships. Some types of governmental programs which are established or expanded with urban growth cannot be financed on a special assessment or customer charge basis. Benefits from services such as local police and fire protection and general administration cannot be allocated selectively; these are communitywide services. In late 1964 and early 1965, Delta Township board members discussed both the establishment of a local police department and the hiring of a full-time professional manager. And in Oneida, the expected growth in residential and commercial land uses forced some consideration during the same period of service expansion that would eventually affect financial strategies. Higher property tax rates seem inevitable in both townships.

CHAPTER 5.--RUNNING THE TOWNSHIP: ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BEHAVIOR

The Delta township board meets regularly once a month in the large, general-purpose room of the township's office building and fire station. The members follow a structured procedure; after the clerk's reading of the previous meeting's minutes, items are taken up according to a written agenda. Most discussion is focused on the expansion of service programs and the regulation of land uses in the township; citizens present the problems of their subdivisions; reports from engineers, attorneys, and other experts are heard; and formal resolutions are offered and passed.

Township board meetings are held less frequently in Oneida and Roxand and are significantly different in procedure and content. The minutes of previous meetings are also read and approved, but this single formality in the two rural communities is followed by apparently random and unfocused discussions. Issues are not disposed of in a precise order; the discussion of one matter is inter- mingled with the discussion of another, as well as with general conversation about farming and neighborhood events. Constituents rarely come to board meetings, and few formal motions are offered or acted upon.

In short, the Delta board operates in a relatively formal fashion, while the Oneida and Roxand boards are informal in their handling of their townships' business. The first resembles a legislative body, while the other two appear as groups of friends engaged in easy conversation.

42 These differences in the procedure and content of meetings do not detract from the authority of any of the township boards; all three are legally-constituted decision-making bodies with considerable ability to affect the lives of their constituents. Nevertheless, variations in the formality of their official deliberations imply a basic rural-urban distinction in the approach to local government. These variations appear in the degree of legislative- administrative specialization, the size and complexity of administration, and the extent of personal government among the three townships.

The Division of Labor: Board Members as Legislators

The division of labor, occurring when a number of governmental functions become distinctly separated, is a characteristic of governmental systems in relatively urban communities. In its simplest form, a governmental division of labor separates legislators and administrators; the first make decisions on overall policies, and the second implement these policies.

The line of distinction between legislator and administrator is clearest in Delta, the most urban township, and much more diffused in the governments of Oneida and Roxand. In large part this is due to variations in the kinds of issues coming before the boards. By the early sixties Delta board meetings were dominated by the consideration of major policy decisions--matters involving considerable participation and interest by groups and individuals outside the board, and frequently requiring the resolution of conflicting group demands. By contrast, the issues of the early sixties that came before the Oneida and Roxand boards were generally routine, minor, and noncontroversial.

The July 1963 board meetings in the three townships illustrate this difference. Hie boards dealt with these topics:

Delta Township Oneida Township Roxand Township 1. Bids opened for water 1. Discussion of State 1. Discussion of bills. meters. sales tax returns to township. Subdivision spokesman 2. Discussion of county 2. Discussion of fire discussed drainage and- road maintenance. department equipment. traffic light problems. Board passed resolution 3. Discussion of costs 3. Discussion of county supporting a traffic of county drain pro- road maintenance. light. ject. 4. Contracts awarded for 4. Discussion of trail- 4. Discussion of repairs water well construc- ers and other zoning to library roof. tion. violations. Resolution on artifi- 5. Discussion of county cial flowers referred referenda on special to committee. education and medical care facilities. 6. Legal action against 6. Discussion on repairs zoning violators taken. to a mower for the cemetery. Residential rezoning approved.

43 At this meeting, the Delta board continued to implement through construction contracts the major decision which had established the township» s water system. It heard from subdivision groups and other citizens about drainage and traffic problems, and moved against a land-use violation involving the storing of construction equipment on a residential lot. This was not an unusual session for the Delta board. Throughout the early sixties it acted on a number of policy questions, including the granting of the first tavern licenses in Delta for 30 years, the disapproval of new subdivision plats because of drainage and other inadequacies, basic planning ideologies and land-use decisions, and the establishment of new services. Public pressures--from organizations, informal associations such as groups of subdivision neighbors, and individuals--appeared on all of these issues; the typical Delta Township board meeting of this period played to an audience of 20 or more persons. In the policy nature of the issues they handled, and in their reflection of public pressures, the Delta board members operated as legislative decision-makers.

The matters considered by the other two township boards in July, 1963, were considerably more routine in nature and generated relatively little individual or group contacts from constituents. During the early sixties some controversial issues did come before the Oneida and Roxand Boards. The former handled some zoning matters, and both were faced with requests for tavern licenses. However, it was perhaps typical of the desire of these two boards to avoid controversy that the tavern issues were settled outside the boards, by the voters in public referenda. Board meetings in both rural townships usually involved a considerable amount of random discussion concerning such administrative details as the price of cemetery lots, parts for the township power mower and cemetery well, the replacement of wooden voting booths, and the review of accounts payable.

Delta board members in the early sixties did not have the time to discuss such minor issues at length. Conditions of urban growth had produced a far larger number of matters for official consideration here than in the other two townships. Thus, some issue priorities became necessary and many of the routine matters were resolved quickly or channeled to places other than the full board for settlement. This finality of decision was generally absent in the proceedings of the Oneida and Roxand boards.

Some blurring of the legislative-administrative line is of course inevitable in all three townships because of the legal makeup of the boards. Along with at least two trustees specifically elected as board members, each board also includes the supervisor, clerk, and treasurer--the township» s elected administrators.

These legal constraints on a purely legislative organization were somewhat overcome in Delta by recent structural changes. In order to provide more representation for various areas of the township, the Delta board was expanded to seven members in 1961. This increased the number of members without administrative duties--the trustees--from two to four. The annual meeting was abandoned in 1962 when the charter form of government was adopted. In these structural changes, the representative and legislative roles of the Delta board were deliberately expanded.

In the other two townships, the legislative powers of the annual meetings checked the decision-making autonomy of the boards. Board members tended to 44 refer many policy issues to the annual meetings, even issues that did not legally require review at the public sessions.

The three Delta administrators did not deemphasize their legislative roles. They were able to concentrate on the decision-making operations of the board because they had time and assistance not available to the same officers in Oneida and Roxand. Two of the three were full-time township officials, and all three had the aid of township employees.

Conversely, the trustees in Oneida and Roxand frequently performed administrative-type duties. No corps of township employees existed and often the assignment of minor administrative chores to board members was more expedient and logical than hiring workmen. Moreover, the board members had the skills for such small jobs as repairing the ceiling of the township hall or leveling a tree in the township cemetery. Delta alone had an administrative organization outside the board which handled the repair and maintenance tasks. Instead of odd-job assignments, the Delta board members were more likely to specialize in legislative matters as members of the board's committees and as promoters of specific issues.

Administrative Complexity and Specialization

Compared to the other two communities on the gradient, in the late fifties and early sixties Delta developed a larger and more complex administrative structure with specialized skills and expertise.

The difference appears in a comparison of the 1963 governmental payrolls of the three townships. In 1963, Delta employed 11 persons in nonelective administrative capacities, compared to 3 each for Oneida and Roxand. About half of the Delta employees held full-time positions. When all the positions in the three townships are translated into approximate full-time equivalents. Delta had more than five times as many full-time administrative jobs in 1963 than either Oneida or Roxand.

Most of the Delta employees worked in service programs that were also maintained by one or both of the other two townships. An assessor, auditor, secretary, and deputy treasurer operated in general administrative capacities, giving assistance to the township* s elective supervisor, clerk, and treasurer. Thus, Delta had more employees primarily because of the expansion of traditional township functions and increased burdens on general administration--and not because of the introduction of new services.

The size of the regular payroll only partly indicates the range of administrative and technical skills available to Delta. In the early sixties, this township used the services of several outside specialists who were employed on a consulting basis. They included civil engineers, general township attorneys, municipal bond attorneys, ground water experts, and an aerial survey firm. These experts provided a higher degree of professionalism than the regular employees for both general administration and specialized programs in Delta.

Outside professionals were used far less by the other two township boards. Oneida occasionally employed an attorney "by the job"--primarily on zoning

45 enforcement raatters--and had hired a planning consultant to write its original zoning ordinance in the late forties. Roxand did not have an attorney; its legal business was referred to the county government's prosecuting attorney. However, like Delta both townships frequently relied on advice from departments of State government.

The widespread use of consultants by Delta seemed to reflect the board members' reluctance to increase the number of regular employees beyond the total already employed by 1963. This was thus a substitute for a more complex and larger township government. In some cases, the consultants performed almost as pernament administrators, participating as policymaking advisers.

As compared with incorporated cities with approximately equal populations, the Delta administration was simple in organization. Separate administrative departments, except for the volunteer fire department, did not exist. Most employees reported on an individual basis to the board and its committees, or to the supervisor, clerk, or treasurer. In the administrative structure, control was divided among the supervisor, the other elected administrators, and the township board.

But pending changes in the administrative organization of Delta were apparent in 1963. Installation of a new water system and sewage network in 1964 and 1965 respectively, was expected to result in additional employment and perhaps the establishment of a public works department. Also, plans to hire a township superintendent, who would serve as an administrative coordinator under the supervisor, were being considered in 1964.

Public administration in Delta took on a new complexity and specialization in the early sixties. Acceptance of new and expanded service programs was the major factor in this trend toward bigger government.

Personal Government

In other ways the administration of services in Delta had not greatly changed by the early sixties. A personal dimension--"grass roots" behavior-- was apparent in all three township governments. This is informal behavior which frequently fails to distinguish between public and private activity. The personal aspects of township government were manifest in board members with considerable knowledge of the local community, its people, and events. This knowledge frequently broke through the formal proceedings of the board meetings as members offered comments on particular items. For example, board members in Delta when considering a subdivision proposal usually gacnered around the plat map to comment on the location, nearby landowners, and local drainage problems. Informal conversations, of course, were even more frequent in the meetings of the Oneida and Roxand boards.

In all three townships, the knowledge of local people and events stemmed from the board members' close attachments to their communities. Although a majority of members serving on each of the boards in 1963 had been born outside of their respective townships, the average length of local residence by these non-natives was high (table 21). Most could be considered as almost life-long residents, having moved into their townships in their early youths. 46 The employment locations of the 1963 board members were another indication of their attachment to the local community. Only 2 of the total 17 officeholders worked outside of their respective townships--both in Lansing (table 21). All other board members worked in their townships (most as farmers), were retired or in the housewife category, and thus were largely confined to their immediate localities.

Personal government was prominent in several administrative areas, particularly in the fire departments of Delta and Roxand townships. Staffed by volunteers, the two departments were essentially social organizations--groups of men who were motivated by ásense of camaraderie developed through frequent meetings and the knowledge that they were collectively acting to benefit their communities. Fire protection in Delta was more professional than in Roxand; the suburban township had a full-time chief with previous experience, more extensive and specialized equipment, and relatively elaborate training and alarm procedures. However, as in Roxand, volunteers for the Delta department were selected largely by the existing members. While the township boards appropri- ated the funds for equipment purchases and maintenance, and paid the volunteers for training sessions and fire calls, the volunteers were not township employees.

In other ways public administration had become less personalized in Delta Township because of urbanization. Township board members and employees in the suburban community found it impossible to deal with most constituents on a first name basis by the early sixties. The rapidity of subdivision development and new housing starts had brought a large number of new families into Delta within a short period of time. At virtually every meeting the Delta board members encountered a number of new faces. The new residents generally did not participate in local government as much as the oldtimers.. This meant that the Delta officeholders knew smaller proportions of their total constituents than did the board members in Oneida and Roxand.

Table 21.--The local community attachments of township board members, three Michigan townships, 1963

Item Delta Township Oneida Township : Roxand Township

Length of residence: Number Native born 2 Others(and average years residence) (22.4 years) (23.3 years) (43.0 years) Location of employment; Employed in township— 4 2 Employed in Lansing — 1 Retired or housewife— 3 Total members

Source: Personal interviews.

47 These differences in personal government were evident in the work of the individual administrative officers of the three townships. All three Delta elective administrators held regular office hours in the township building. All had at least part-time clerical and other assistance in the early sixties, thus minimizing their contact with constituents. Most new parcels of property were assessed by an assistant to the supervisor, and most tax payments received by the treasurer were sent through the mails.

The activities of administrators in Oneida and Roxand Townships were more informal. The supervisors, clerks, and treasurers operated largely from their homes. Before the registration deadlines for every election, the clerks advertised in local newspapers that new voters could contact them at their homes. Most tax payments were made to the treasurers in person; from December through March--the annual payment season--the Oneida treasurer advertised his avail- ability one day a week at a Grand Ledge bank, and the Roxand treasurer could be found in the Eownship' s library in Mulliken.

The Case, of Land-Use Rej5;ulation

Another activity of township government where personal administration is likely is the regulation of land use. More so than other programs, land-use controls such as zoning and building restrictions involve local governments in the direct regulation of human behavior. Such regulation is frequently controversial and highly personal, as it involves direct conflict between governmental authority and individual landowners.

Since 1955, some type of land-use control has existed for all three communities on the urban-rural gradient. Only Delta and Oneida Townships, however, operate their own zoning and building regulation programs. Land-use in Roxand, as in most townships of Eaton County, is regulated by a county-wide zoning board.

By the early sixties, the township boards in Delta and Oneida discovered that zoning and building ordinances were easier to establish than to administer. Both townships enacted their original codes in the 1940' s largely in response to early signs of urban growth. By establishing minimum sizes for new houses and other building standards. Delta hoped to prevent an influx of unemployed workers from Lansing. Oneida wanted to eliminate a small number of unsightly garage-type shacks that had appeared along a highway shortly after World War II. Board members in both townships therefore were motivated by a desire to protect their communities from what they perceived as undesirable land-uses.

The early ordinances in Delta and Oneida evidently served their original purposes: Most of the existing shack housing was either eliminated or brought up to standards, and some additional residential construction was probably prevented. In the years following, however, new issues far outweighed the original concerns of the ordinances. A great variety of land uses was generated by the increasing urban growth that took place in the 1950' s and early I960's. The construction of single homes initially took small parcels out of agricultural use; larger chunks of acreage were later taken over for subdivision development. In both Delta and Oneida, increasing numbers of applications for rezoning from agricultural to other uses brought on changes in the original 48 ordinances. The revisions were particularly widespread in Delta, where heavier doses of urbanization resulted in a greater diversity of land demands. By the early sixties, Delta had new multifamily residences, heavy industry and ware- houses, large suburban shopping centers, and commercial establishments such as billiard halls and miniature golf courses--all land uses which had not yet appeared in Oneida. In response. Delta developed more sophisticated regulatory techniques than the middle township. The simple three-part zoning classification (agricultural-residential-commercial) was Êimended frequently to include numerous categories and subcategories. Special ordinances dealing with subjects such as commercial signs and trash disposal were enacted. And the administrative structure for land regulation was changed; in place of a zoning board, the Delta Township board created a planning commission with broader duties.

The response to changing land-use patterns in both townships was more a matter of "rolling with the punch" than of directly confronting certain effects of urban growth. The extensive rezoning of individual pieces of land and the expansion of zoning classifications did not deal with the problem of non-con- forming uses, that is, activities that were in violation of the zoning and building ordinances. For example, the regulatory programs in Delta and Oneida could easily control proposals for subdivisions and new construction but could not enforce easily ordinances against violations such as commercial activities operating out of residences, refuse dumps on agricultural land, and noise or dust nuisances.

Undesirable or nonconforming land uses, of course, are not peculiar to urbanization; rural regions also have their share of auto wrecks and refuse dumps located in residential yards. But in a rural community like Roxand such nuisances are absorbed in the acreage of farms and other large landholdings. In- formal social pressures in the small community also serve to check land changes. In Roxand Township the tendencies toward conformity were probably more effective than county zoning regulations in preventing nonconforming uses. Roxand residents voiced common attitudes on the virtues of a clean countryside; the few cases of junky yards and trailer homes were attributed largely to new and temporary residents in the township. Roxand farmers resisted the efforts of outsiders to buy small chunks of farmland for individual homesites, actions which could have resulted in the scattering of a number of new residences along the roads. This then was a form of private regulation of land use, supported by the dominant attitudes of the community.

Informal social pressures of this sort could not work in the areas of Delta and Oneida where significant urban growth had taken place. For one reason, the undesirable land uses were much more numerous and individually more visible there than in Roxand. Then too, the population influx into the two townships took away much of the rural familiarity and social cohesion which had previously existed. Strangers were not as subject to conformity pressures as long- time neighbors and friends. A reliance on public regulation thus developed in the urbanized areas of Delta and Oneida.IZ^

17/ A partial exception to this pattern was the practice of self-regulation adopted by residents of a few smaller subdivisions in the two townships. They formed associations--called improvement committees or garden clubs--to pass on the construction plans of prospective neighbors, and perhaps also on the newcomers themselves. In some cases, this was encouraged by the subdivision developers, who had originally performed the review function. Such private controls were probably workable only in socially homogeneous subdivisions. 49 However, the personal element was not entirely lacking. In many cases, because members of the two township boards faced long-time friends and neighbors seeking official approval for land-use changes or charged with violations, the two boards were reluctant to disapprove applications for rezoning. At times rezoning proposals were turned down by indirection. For example, while not directly refusing an application, the board could table it at a hearing. Delta board members were often more positive then Oneida officeholders in denying rezoning applications as a larger number of requests in the more urban township came from developers and other landowners living outside the township and from local residents not personally known to the officeholders.

In both townships, complaints about nonconforming land uses were also framed by personal considerations. Most violations were reported to board members by private individuals, usually by neighbors. In handling complaints, the two boards often attempted to eliminate violations through dispatching a board member or the building inspector to talk to the responsible parties. This is less likely to work in later years, when increasing urban growth takes place in both townships.

If the complaints persisted, the township officeholders were faced with demands for formal enforcement of their ordinances. Both boards were reluctant to force involuntary compliance with the ordinances, however, partly to refrain from arousing hostilities and partly because of legal uncertainties. Even so, the Delta board did instigate a few court cases on nonconforming land-uses in the early sixties.

CHAPTER 6.--THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSE

This description of governmental variations in three Michigan townships suggests several generalizations about the timing and nature of the response of local governments to urbanization.

The Sequence of Change

Over time, the governmental response to urbanization in the once rural community acquires a structured pattern. Decisions made by local governing board members on matters of innovation and expansion appear to be cumulative: the first new services introduced as a result of urban growth are minor and have slight impact on financing and administration, but they set the stage for more expensive and complex programs in the future .

A sequence of governmental response is discernible in rural communities undergoing urbanization. The suggested sequence in Table 22 is not meant to be precise, exhaustive, and exactly applicable to the local governments of all urbanizing communities. Some possible specific actions were not undertaken by any of the three townships studied here. For example, other unincorporated communities in Michigan and elsewhere establish structural arrangements such as special districts and contractual agreements to provide particular services.

50 Table 22.--Sequence of township government response to urbanization--new and expanded programs and structural changes 1/

Early response Later response

. Extensive service programs . Intensive service programs: Structure Regulatory With low : With high : With low : With high : Structural : Municipal ("restrictive") financial or : financial or : financial or: financial or: changes short: status-- Township programs admini- admini- : admini- : admini- : of municipal : Incorporation strative strative : strative : strative : status :or annexation requirements requirements : requirements: requirements: : Delta :Zoning and Contributions Fire Depart- ; Street light- Road paving-- Primary nomi- 1building con- to School ment and \ ing--1957 1956 nations--1957 trols- -late Recreation building-- \ L940's 2/ Program-- 1956 ; Water system Increase in 1957 --1960,64 number of Planning Com-] trustees--1960 Ln Refuse Dump mission--1958; Sewer system 1963 --1965 Charter township--1962 Oneida Zoning and Refuse Dump Street light- building con- 1962 ing--1962 1trols--late L940's Park--early I960's Roxand Zoning and building con- 1 trols--1956 ([county administered)

y Only programs adopted or expanded as a response to urban growth are listed here, Services such as the library and fire department in Roxand Township are not included.

2/ All dates indicate when the programs or structural changes were put into effect. Moreover, service progréuns not attempted by Delta were introduced in other communities experiencing similar urban growth, including local police protection, garbage collection, parks, and swimming pools.

Implicit in this sequence, however, are general patterns found in the governmental response of most unincorporated rural communities. Over time urban growth creates the following specific movements:

(1) From restrictive regulatory programs to facultative service programs.

(2) From extensive to intensive services, involving a shift from low to high financial and administrative requirements.

(3) From stability to change in the structures of local government, with emphasis on forms of representation and legal and financial abilities.

The very first official response of the township boards in the three communities to population and land-use changes was the establishment of land-use controls. The Delta and Oneida boards passed zoning and building codes and set up inspection programs in the 1940's, while the Roxand board settled for a county-administered program in 1956. As a response to existing or potential conditions of urbanization, the land-use controls were restrictive rather than facultative. That is, they were intended to limit and possibly prevent further growth--as a means of protecting the existing character of the rural community-- instead of encouraging growth through public improvements. 18/ Financial and administrative requirements were low at the outset, and so land-use controls could be easily established.

Some years after the zoning and building regulations were put into effect, the Delta and Oneida boards began to expand their service-oriented programs. The original purpose of introducing new services or expanding old ones was to benefit the established residents of the townships; but later they also facili- tated further urban growth by providing some inducement for migration into the area. Such services included the establishment of a new fire department by Delta in 1956, and the start of a township park by Oneida in the early sixties.

These initial innovations were quickly followed by expansion decisions directed more to the specific effects of urbanization. In the late fifties. Delta established a planning commission, began contributions to summer recreation programs of the local schools, and inaugurated street lighting and road paving programs. Oneida's actions, consisting of street lighting and a refuse dump established in 1962, were more limited. In starting these new programs, the two boards were responding to residential growth in subdivision areas--the most significant mark of urbanization. The residential density of the subdivisions created new problems and requirements for service programs. Then too.

1^/Robert Wood (28, p. 65) makes a similar distinction in pointing out that local governments can cope with urban growth by either attempting to modify the "environment" through public powers such as land-use controls ("restrictive") or dealing directly with urbanization through financial and service decisions ("facilitative").

52 these relatively compact housing areas established a political base for new residents to express their service demands before the township boards.

In an attempt to meet the service requirements and demands of subdivision residents, the Delta board shifted its service operations from extensive to intensive programs--from minimal services provided on a communitywide basis to high-level services focused on particular urban neighborhoods. This shift also meant an increased emphasis on programs that were not legally required of the township as an administrative unit of State and county government. The intensive services were generally the optional ones. By expanding considerably beyond the traditional administrative functions of property tax assessment and collection, voter registration, and the conduct of elections, the Delta board assumed new public responsibilities at a local level.

Associated with this trend to intensive functions in Delta Township was an increase in financial and administrative requirements. The establishment of water and sewer systems by the township board in the early sixties was particularly a key move toward an urban government status. The planning and construction of the utility networks involved entirely new financial strategies and unprecedented requirements for administrative complexity and professionalism.

The position of Oneida Township in this sequence in the early sixties indicates how governments can respond to urbanization without incurring high financial costs. This township had just begun its new programs for urban areas; its only intensive-type service in operation was a street lighting district in one subdivision. Oneida was some years away from the level of population size and density which had appeared in Delta; the push for high-cost, complex services such as utilities was far off in the future. Since Oneida did not operate its own fire department like Roxand Township, it was possible for Roxand to spend more funds on a per capita basis.

Structural changes in Delta' s form of government between 1957 and 1962 were also specific responses to urbanization. Demands for increased representation by subdivision residents and others forced the abandonment of the caucus system for primary nomination of township officeholders and an increase in the number of trustees. Problems of financing the major utility systems led to adoption of the charter form of township government.

Generally, changes in Delta's form of government came relatively late in the sequence of response, that is, concurrent with the shift to intensive-type services. But they stopped short of adoption of a municipal form of government either through incorporation of a new city or annexation into an existing city. In many ways municipal status can be considered an ultimate governmental response to urbanization for the once rural community. Cities have legal and financial abilities not possessed by townships, and they assume responsibility for specific services usually not performed by townships.

A city form of government for parts of Delta was a distinct possibility throughout the early sixties because of the township's proximity to Lansing. The core city had actually annexed 180 acres of largely uninhabited Delta farmland in 1962. On several other occasions Delta voters turned down attempts by the city to take in larger portions of the township's urbanized eastern area. To counteract future annexation proposals, several movements for separate city

53 incorporation occurred in the township; in 1965, a proposal was placed on the ballot for incorporating the city of Waverly, an area covering the eastern and most populous third of Delta and most of adjacent Lansing Township. These actions were not so much a part of the governmental response to urban growth as a result of the metropolitan relationships of the Delta area. More so than being efforts to expand public services, the annexation and incorporation proposals were territorial disputes between the city and the township.

Who Is Responsible?

The sequence outlined above suggests that there is considerable flexibility in the expansion of public services. Beyond a minimum list of mandatory responsibilities imposed by State statutes, the local unit has some choice in whether to operate additional programs. Even among the existing services, it has numerous alternatives as to the level of activity. In the operation of a township fire department, for example, the choice can range from a volunteer crew with a single general purpose truck summoned by a community siren, to a full-time staff alerted by an automatic alarm system.

The following choices, therefore, are available to a local government de- ciding whether to expand its programs:

(1) No public (governmental) acceptance of responsibility for a service.

(2) Acceptance of some responsibility by the local unit, with financing and/or administration shared by private individuals and groups.

(3) Acceptance of some responsibility by the local unit, with financing and/or administration shared by other units, or levels of government.

(4) Acceptance of complete responsibility by the local unit, including full commitments in financing and administration.

Decisions of Michigan townships to establish new programs are concerned with the responsibility for services rather than with their essentiality. Virtually any service can be undertaken in a number of ways, some private and some governmental. A service deemed essential by an individual can be provided by himself, by his friends, by his landlord, or by a private contractor. This fact is evident in both the rural and urban portions of the three-township gradient. During the dusty summer season, farm families arrange with fuel companies to oil the gravel county roads that run past their homes. And before the developers of new subdivisions in Delta Township sell any homesites, they provide for blacktop streets and utility lines, although the county and township later take over maintenance of these improvements.

Even though government may assume responsibility for a particular service, some reliance on the private sector for either financing or administration may still prevail. As shown earlier. Delta constituents pay for the benefits they receive from certain improvements through special assessment levies and service charges. Private groups are also involved in the administration of several programs by the townships, particularly in fire protection and in cemetery maintenance. These services are accepted as governmental responsibilities, but

54 the payments and the administration are partially private.

Further alternatives are possible. Michigan townships are part of a total governmental system which includes counties, school districts, townships, and the State. Particular responsibilities can be assumed at one or a combination of such levels. And over time they can be shifting responsibilities, not rigidly tied to one level. For example, construction of storm drains in rural areas and maintenance of rural roads are legal responsibilities of the county. But the boards of all three townships are involved in these two functions--both in financing and in a representational capacity.

Farmers and Newcomers

Urban growth is symbolized in human terms by the changes which occur to farmers and other rural residents over time, and by the migration of new families into the once rural areas. By creating new problems of population increase and density, and new expectations that government will handle these problems, the experiences of the farmers and newcomers stimulate the government response. This is generally what has happened to the entire three-township gradient west of Lansing, and specifically to Delta Township since 1950.

Concurrent with the diminishing self-sufficiency of the rural resident as the nature of agriculture changed, rural attitudes towards public services at the local level began to change. Local government assumed a specialist role; that is, what the farmer and his neighbors could no longer accomplish collectively was now acknowledged as a responsibility of a more complex local government. Fire protection, for example, became less of a responsibility of all property owners and more the province of a small group of volunteers with some professional training. But rural people generally drew the line at supporting more urban-type services such as local police departments and utility systems.

Postwar migrations into the three-township gradient set off a chain of circumstances which operated to increase the public wants of rural residents. In the eastern one-third of Delta Township, the new neighbors crowded together, creating a tremendous increase in residential densities during the late fifties and early sixties. New problems resulted. Wells completely dried up in one subdivision, and in another area the capacity of the soil to absorb sewage dropped and septic tanks required semiannual cleaning. County and State health officials warned of serious consequences if the residents continued to rely on their individual water-supply and sanitary systems.

So the individual subdivision dweller became alarmed. Faced by the actual or potential breakdown of routine but essential services--his family's health, water supply,sanitation,and transportation--his desires for governmental action increased dramatically. Backed by the land developers who were concerned about attracting additional residents, commercial firms, and industrial clients into the area, the subdivision dweller demanded action from his local government.

Delta Township board meetings became forums for impatient suburbanites and cautious board members. In some cases, as in requests for a dog ordinance

55 and traffic lights, the subdivision people wanted services from the township which apparently were in the jurisdiction of county government or other units. Ignorant of the traditional division of powers between different levels of government, and unimpressed with efforts of the township decision-makers to identi- fy responsibilities as falling elsewhere, the subdivision people demanded immediate action.

The stimulus for governmental change in an urbanizing community is thus produced by a combination of factors. Over time, the cultural environment changes: People increasingly expect and want more governmental services. Farm- ers and other long-time residents of the once rural community who become more favorable to an expansion of local government are joined by newcomers from the city who have high expectations of public services. These cultural factors are reinforced by the more or less objective conditions of urbanization, particularly the problems created by intensive land use. When people have personal problems with their water, sewage, and related services, they are moved to turn these into public issues.

A Final Note: The Recourse to Politics

If the urbanizing environment and the change in attitudes toward public services set the condition for governmental response, they do not directly spark it. Problems of density and desires for public action are not sufficient; local governments need specific prodding before their traditional patterns are changed. So the recourse to politics is almost inevitable in most communities undergoing significant change in a rural-to-urban direction.

Years may pass between the appearance of the conditions of urbanization and the public decisions that deal with them. A natural resistance to innovation exists among all types of governments, not only the relatively stable boards of rural townships. 19/ In part because of their vulnerability to electoral defeat, and in part because of their concern with existing programs, decision-makers are generally cautious in chancing new services and decisions. The way to avoid controversy apparently is to delay making the radical decisions that deal with long-range needs, and to concentrate on the smaller, current, and more manageable problems (J^, pp. 177-181). The sensitivity of the decision-makers to elections and public demands eventually does bring on the major decisions to expand services, but not until the problems reach "crisis" proportions.

In Delta Township, the recourse to politics took two major forms. Initial- ly, some groups tried to gain control of the township board through electoral action. Later, a version of interest group politics occurred, as subdivision groups appeared before the board to request particular programs.

Beginning in the early fifties, a number of Delta residents attempted to gain control of the township board, largely composed at that time of active and retired farmers. This wa? a heterogeneous group, including some residents

19/ Rural governments have been particularly criticized by political scientists and sociologists for resisting change in their structures and practices. For example, see Martin (J^, p. 151); Snider (22^, Chapter 20); Loomis and Beegle (U, pp. 284-286); and Kolb (12, p. 134);

56 of older subdivisions, persons living elsewhere in' nonfalrm homes, and a few younger farmers. They were partially successful in replacing several board members with their candidates. Equally as significant was their rallying of support for changes in the representational structure of township government, including the abandonment of the caucus method for the primary system of nominating candidates in 1957 and the addition of two trustees to the board in 1961.

As receptive as they were to urban change, the Delta decision-makers of the early sixties were not prone to try to expand services unless faced by specific requests. The policy of financing most major public improvements through special assessments encouraged this pattern; to get water lines or sewers, for example, property owners not located in the original service areas had to petition the board for expansion of the utility districts. Even in programs financed by general funds, such as the township's contributions to the summer recreational activities of a local school district, the Delta board acted only after the service demands were expressed. The governmental response always depended on outside pressures--on the political environment.

Oneida Township had a brief flurry of overt political activity in 1961, when extensive competition for political office appeared for the first time in more than a decade, A group including a large number of subdivision residents surprised the incumbent officers by taking over the caucus of the township's dominant political party, and nominating a slate of largely new candidates. The opposition group was allegedly unhappy with the lack of subdivision representation on the board and with the extent of township government services in the subdivision areas near Grand Ledge. However, the incuinbent officers--all residents of areas outside the subdivisions--campaigned extensively and were reelected on a write-in ticket. Apparently, this incident was effective in turning the board's attention to the problems and demands of the few subdivision areas of Oneida. After the 1961 election, the board agreed to the establishment of a street-lighting district in one subdivision and discussed contributing to the paving of residential streets in another area. On the other hand, township politics in Roxand Township have been relatively quiet and uneventful in recent years. Competition for township office is a fairly regular event, with opposition candidates from Mulliken village challenging the incumbent farmers of the board, but the incumbents generally are reelected by wide margins, serving until they decide to retire.

The recent histories of the three communities indicate that a series of political activities precedes the sequence of the governmental response as communities undergo urbanization. The political sequence involves a trend toward more frequent demands on local government. Most apparent in the sequence is the development of a greater range of specific and district interests. In Delta Township, subdivision residents, farmers, homeowners not living on farms or in subdivisons, various types of land developers and realtors, and local retail merchants are politically significant forces with respect to local government. Some compose organized groups, such as the

57 subdivision associations that extend their concerns to township programs and taxes from an original involvement in garden projects and building standards.—^

The same factors that account for changes in attitudes toward local government produce the political changes in the gradient community. Shifts in the importance of agriculture and the diversity of land use'and increases in population numbers and heterogeneity also lead to greater activity and organization in local politics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) Anderson, Theodore R. and Collier, Jane. 1956. Metropolitan Dominance and the Rural Hinterland. Rural Sociol. 21: 152-158, June.

(2) Auditor General of Michigan. 1964. Platting Handbook. Lansing.

(3) Plats on File. #Lansing.

(4) Baltzell, E. Digby. 1954. Urbanization and Governmental Administration in Lower Bucks County. Social Problems. July.

(5) Blizzard, Sajnuel W. 1953. The Sociological Significance of the Rural-Urban Fringe. Rural Sociol. 18: 101-120, June.

(6) 1954. Research on the Rural-Urban Fringe. Sociol. and Social Res. 38: 143-149, Jan.-Feb.

(7) Brody, Clark L. 1959. In the Service of the Farmer: My Life in the Michigan Farm Bureau. Mich. State Univ. Press.

20/ The contiguity of subdivision residence, and the apparent social and economic homogeneity of most individual subdivisions, create what is potentially the most effective base for political action in the new suburban community^ The subdivision offers the most frequent opportunities for social interaction, exchange of ideas, and reinforcement of attitudes in an area where most families are relative newcomers. Parents' groups organized around individual schools may create a similar potential for political action. For illustrations, see (11 and 1_9, pp. 579-628).

58 1^ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1968 O - 302-072 (1762) (8) Fuguitt, Gif J;^^,.u^ban Fringe. Amer. Country Life Assoc. Proc, pp. 88-89.

(9) Gibbs, Jack P., ed. 1961. Introduction to Part VII: Urban Research Methods. D. Van Nostrand, New York, pp.542-549.

(10) Hoffer^ Charles R. 1946. Social Organizations in Relation to Extension Service in Eaton County, Michigan. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Spec. Bui. 338,p.29.

(11) King, Gary W., Freeman, Walter E., and Christopher Sower. 1963. (k>nflict Over Schools. Inst. for Community Devlpmt., Mich. State Univ., East Lansing.

(12) Kolb, John H. 1959. Emerging Rural Communities. Univ. Wis. Press, Madison.

(13) Loomis, Charles P., and J. Allan Beegle. 1957. Rural Sociology: The Strategy of Change. Prentice-Hall, Englewood'Cliffs, N. J.

(14) Marquis, Stuart. 1962. Functional Profiles of Local Service Centers in the Tri-County Region, 1960-1962. Mich. State Univ., Inst. for Community Devlpmt. and Serv., East Lansing.

(15) 1963. Development of Community Centers, 1830-1960. Mich. State Univ., Inst. for Community Devlpmt. and Serv., East Lansing, May.

(16) Martin, Roscoe C. 1957. Grass Roots, Univ. Ala. Press.

(17) Martin, Walter T. 1957. Ecological Change in Satellite Rural Areas. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 22: 173-183,Apr.

(18) Moots, Baron. 1962. Theoretical Regional and Local Trade Areas for Commercial Centers, 1960 and Changes in Retail Establishments and Retail Centers, 1947-1960. Mich. State Univ., Inst. for Community Devlpmt. and Serv., East Lansing, Apr.

(19) Mowit, Robert J., and Deil S. Wright. 1962. Annexation and Incorporation in Farmington Town.sbip. In Profile of a Metropolis. Wayne State Univ. Press, Detroit.

(20) Pariai, Joseph A. 1963. A Manual for Township Officials. Mich. Townships Assoc, Lansing. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

(21) Robinson, and Company. 196L. 1961 Eaton County, Michigan, Rural Directory. Hillsdale, Mich.

(22) Snider, Clyde. 1957. Local Government in Rural America. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York.

(23) Thaden, J. F. 1940. The Lansing Region and Its Tributary Town-Country Communities, Mich. State Col. Agr. Expt. Sta., Spec. Bui. 302, pp. 31-33, Mar.

(24) Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. 1959. Functional Organization of the Lansing Tri-County Region.

(25) 1962. Township Land Use Maps. Lansing.

(26) Wheaton, William, Webber, Marvin W., et. al. 1964. Explorations into Urban Structure. Univ. Pa. Press, Philadelphia.

(27) Williams, Robin M., Jr. 1964. American Society in Transition: Trends and Emerging Develop- ments in Social and Cultural Systems. In James H. Capp, ed.. Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends, Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, pp. 3-38.

(28) Wood, Robert. 1961. 1400 Governments. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Oovemment Printing Office Washington, D.C, 20402 - Price 45 cents