Following is the fourth story in a series on the proposal for a new senior center and operational millage.
With almost three decades of discussion revolving around a new senior center for Independence Township, many residents may be surprised by this piece of information:
Senior center facilities were only placed on a ballot once in the past 30 years (and not singularly as a senior center). No senior center operational millage has every been voted upon in Independence Township.
In November of 2002, Independence Township placed on the ballot two proposals: a bond issue for a community center with senior center facilities and township hall and an operational millage for the community center only.
With these facts at hand, the following article will look at the time frame surrounding the only ballot issue ever brought forth on a new Independence Township senior center.

The current Independence Township Senior Center building was purchased in 1978. Funding came directly from the township and no bond issues or millages were requested.
(For more information on the senior center’s history, please go online to www.clarkstonnews.com and search for ‘Look back at senior center.?)
Over the next 20 years, the township took no public steps towards planning for a new senior center; however, Senior Advisory Committee Member John Thomas remembers talk within the center about a new facility in the late 1990s.
‘We were pretty much left out of the loop at this point,? said Thomas, ‘but we knew the staff was talking.?
In 1998, plans for a new senior center in Clintonwood Park were designed. Although she is uncertain who requested the drawings, Senior Center Director Margaret Bartos still has the diagrams from TMP Associates. The plans are dated January 1998.
‘The senior center was coordinated by Lynette Amon at this time and parks and recreation was under the direction of Ann Conklin,? remembers Bartos. ‘I’m not sure why the idea died.?

August 2002 Proposal
In the summer of 2001, the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) researched the feasibility and need of a new senior facility. Members visited nearby senior and community centers for ideas; and even spoke with Springfield Township Supervisor Collin Walls, who was leading the township in the construction of a new township hall and library at the time.
In the end, the SAC decided a community center was the direction to go.
‘The community center was mostly my feeling that this was the future,? said Bartos. ‘We were looking at serving the needs of our ever growing, younger senior population.?
In November 2001, Township Planner Dick Carlisle, of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, submitted ‘Preliminary Considerations Independence Township Community Center.? The document reviewed the possible components of a community center and estimated the cost to be around $16,663,294. This proposal contained facilities for senior center use, but not a separate senior center.
In February 2002, the SAC put out almost 3,000 surveys, with the approval of the township board, to residents on the community center proposal. A total of 312 were returned. In addition, public forums were held on Feb. 12 and 20, 2002, seeking the opinions of residents.
‘Attendance was lower than anticipated, but proponents for and against the concept of a community center came,? remembers Bartos.
At this time, the SAC registered with the county and became Citizens for the Community. Thomas and Bartos remembers community activist Suzette Hart often stood as the group’s speaker.
‘She is an excellent public speaker,? said Thomas. ‘We could come up with anything, any idea, and she could take it before the board and make sense with it.?
At this time, a plan was created for a 80,000-square-foot community center with senior facilities in Clintonwood Park at a cost of $15 million. The plans were drawn by John Thomas himself.
‘No mention was ever made of the township hall being a part of this at that time,? said Thomas.

The Township Board
Throughout this time, the Independence Township Board of Trustees were also considering plans for a new township hall and remodeling to Bay Court Lodge. The idea of a joint administration building with Clarkston Schools was also mentioned.
According to minutes from the March 7, 2002 board meeting, trustees decided more information was needed on all the proposal before a decision could be made. At this time, the trustees had the cost of the community center and remodeling of Bay Court Lodge at $3-$4 million.
In late March, the SAC (now Citizens for the Community) reported to the board with results from the February surveys and forums. According to Thomas and Bartos, the board found the surveys to be invalid and requested for a professional company to be brought in for the process.
GreenPlay LLC was hired to perform the survey and report back to the board in July. That study was completed showing the need for a recreation/senior center facility.
In April 2002, plans for a community center with senior facilities were tabled. The board moved forward with a $7.5 million proposal to build a new township hall and make improvements to Clintonwood Park on the August ballot. The tax increase was 0.43 mills for 20 years. The proposal failed 3,931 to 2,417, 61 percent voting no on August 6, 2002.

The Community Center
The township board convened the following day, August 7, 2002 and discussed the failed millage.
Minutes from the meeting show the board originally wanted to place the township hall back on the ballot. After two failed motions, a $26 million bond issue for a new township hall and community center with senior facilities was approved.
The proposal called for 1.4 mills over 20 years to cover the cost of a 23,000-square-foot township hall and 80,000-square-foot community center.
In addition, a 4-year, 0.5-mill was added to cover the operational costs of the community center from 2003 to 2006 inclusively.
Over the next two and a half months, the public and media spoke out against the proposal. Clarkston News editorials stated township officials ‘set this up to fail.? The overall sentiment was residents did not want a ‘Taj Mahal.?
The proposals failed together by an almost 75 percent margin. On the bond issue, 8,521 voted no while 3,153 voted yes. The millage failed 9,076 to 3,231. A total of 11,674 votes were cast between the two issues.
‘We’ve only been included in one ballot proposal,? said Thomas, ‘but the problem is people think we’ve been asking for this over and over.?

Next week’s edition of The Clarkston News will look at where the senior center funding comes from and the center’s connection to parks and recreation.