Poor Farm History
“. . . [Leelanau County] did purchase the Dr. Burke Farm on October 25, 1901 consisting of 120 acres of good soil one mile from Maple City on a main traveled road in Kasson Township for which we paid $2,400.00 . . . The buildings consist of two frame residences with stone foundations and cellars, one large barn with stone foundation and all the buildings well supplied with water, 70 acres of improved land and 22 acres of good timber all well fenced.”
The farm’s acreage is the current location of the Myles Kimmerly Park and of the Maple Valley Nursing Home.
Within 7 years of purchasing the Burke farm, the Leelanau County Board of Supervisors decided not to repair one of the deteriorating frame residences and placed a resolution before the voters to build a new residence with a bond issue of $5000.00. It passed with a slim margin of nine votes, 542-533. Subsequently, appropriations were made to replace both residential buildings with one. Prominent Traverse City architect Jens C. Petersen was contracted to design the residence. It was well equipped for the times with indoor plumbing, tubs, and toilets, as well as heating and lighting plants. Upon completion, an inspection by the Board of Supervisors was planned for October 14, 1908. Managing the County Poor Farm
Article 1. A Summary Report to the County – 1918
By Andrew White
Each year the Leelanau County Superintendent of the Poor submitted a detailed report to the County Board of Supervisors regarding receipts and expenditures at the County’s “Poor Farm.” Most of these reports were printed in full in a local newspaper. They provide us with a window into the past—information about the Poor Farm and those who lived there that we would not otherwise have. So, in the months to come, we will provide information gleaned from one report for each decade, beginning with a report published in the Empire Journal, October 4, 1918.
During the previous year (for recordkeeping purposes, a year was October 1st to October 1st) there were fifteen “inmates” (meaning indigent people who lived at the Poor Farm for a period of time that year) and the County Superintendent calculated that it cost $4.68 per week for each inmate’s “board, clothing, medicine, etc.”
(Start reading here if you began this article in the online newsletter.) The superintendent and matron of the Poor Farm were Mr. and Mrs. Craker. Mr. Craker was paid $500 and Mrs. Craker was paid $100. Also, about $500 was paid to a hired man and several hired “girls.” These wages were by far the largest expense incurred in running the farm. Other local people were paid for cutting wood, filling silo, threshing, blacksmithing, and other repairs.
Crops raised in the Poor Farm fields surrounding the residence and barn that year were Potatoes, Hay, Straw, Corn, Oats, Buckwheat, and Apples. Carrots, cabbage, beans, onions, and squash were harvested from a large garden. Livestock included one team of work horses, seven milk cows, one bull, and nine young cattle, hogs, and chickens.
The report includes an inventory of the farm’s equipment which includes one “gas engine” and one “hot air engine.” Hot air engines involved heating and cooling a cylinder of air to push and pull a mechanical arm like a pump. The hot air engine was probably used as a water well pump, but there is no record or remnant remaining.
What is not mentioned is a “lighting plant” (generator), a valuable item listed in later years. Evidently, folks at the Poor Farm were still using kerosene lamps in 1918. Other items listed provide clues about life on the farm: $36.15 was paid for “telephone and tools,” $35.00 for funeral expenses, $18.00 for harvesting ice, and $164.52 for cutting wood. So, we know that there was a telephone line to the Farm but the folks there were living old country ways, keeping their food cool with blocks of ice and heating with wood. They were also raising much of their own food—even so, $604.82 was paid for groceries.
When all income and expenses were added up the net expenses (i.e. loss) for the year amounted to $1,914.29 (which would equal $41,804.86 today.) That relatively small deficit must have pleased the frugal farmers who served on the County Board of Supervisors. We know from their meeting minutes and records that, though committed to helping those in need, they were always looking to save money whenever possible.