The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)

Fall 2017 Data Tables

Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Fall 2017 Wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:

Table of Contents

Does the Jurisdiction have a Master Plan

2. 1. Whether jurisdiction has Master Plan that addresses land use
   2. Whether county has Master Plan that addresses land use

Among jurisdictions that have a Master Plan

Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Updating and Implementing Master Plan

3. When was Master Plan last updated
4. 1. No problems experienced or expected with updating Master Plan
   2. Insufficient expertise a problem with updating Master Plan
   3. Insufficient staff time a problem with updating Master Plan
   4. Lack of funds a problem with updating Master Plan
   5. Conflict within the community a problem with updating Master Plan
   6. Conflict among members of jurisdiction's government a problem with updating the Master Plan
5. Is aim of Master Plan to preserve or transform
6. 1. Does jurisdiction have "champion" for implementing current Master Plan
   2. Does jurisdiction have "champion" for updating Master Plan

Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

7. Does jurisdiction have a CIP
8. Extent to which CIP prioritizes projects based on Master Plan

Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Benefits of Land Use Planning

9. 1. Master Plan helps jurisdiction make wise decisions
   2. Master Plan aids jurisdiction's economic growth
   3. Master Plan protects or enhances value of individuals' property investments
   4. Master Plan helps build community enthusiasm or a sense of place
   5. Master Plan provides the jurisdiction legal protection against zoning or development lawsuits
   6. Master Plan provides officials with political protection against complaints about zoning decisions

Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Zoning

10. Jurisdiction's approach to using Master Plan in rezoning decisions
11. 1. Jurisdiction preemptively rezones to keep aligned with Master Plan's future land use map
    2. Jurisdiction ensures applicant-led rezoning requests follow Master Plan's future land use map
    3. Jurisdiction consults Master Plan goals when making zoning decisions
12. 1. Too complicated to align zoning ordinance with Master Plan
    2. Master Plan wasn't intended to be a blueprint for zoning.
    3. Some parts of Master Plan are out of date
    4. Some parts of Master Plan are in conflict with other parts
    5. No community consensus on some elements of Master Plan
    6. Time horizon for Master Plan is too long to translate into zoning ordinance
13. 1. Frequency of public hearings for zoning actions
    2. Controversies related to zoning actions

Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Planning Staff

14. Are there full- or part-time planning employees on jurisdiction's own staff
15. 1. Use of external consultants: jurisdiction doesn't use
    2. Use of external consultants: on long-term retainer
    3. Use of external consultants: for intermittent projects
    4. Use of external consultants: to review complex site plans
16. Assessment of jurisdiction's staff capacity for planning and zoning needs
17. Change in jurisdiction's current staff capacity for planning and zoning

Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Land Use Topics of Discussion

18. 1. Medical marijuana facilities are a topic of discussion
    2. Short-term property rentals in residential zones are a topic of discussion
    3. Large-scale wind turbines or windfarms are a topic of discussion
    4. Large-scale solar arrays are a topic of discussion
    5. Oil and gas facilities are a topic of discussion
    6. Commercial communication towers are a topic of discussion
    7. Amateur radio towers are a topic of discussion
    8. Farmland preservation is a topic of discussion
    9. Adult foster care facilities are a topic of discussion
    10. Billboards are a topic of discussion
    11. Keyhole or funnel development on lakes is a topic of discussion
    12. Siting of public schools is a topic of discussion

Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Satisfaction with Planning and Zoning Approach

19. 1. Board/council satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning
    2. Citizen satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning
    3. Business community satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning
    4. Respondent's satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning

Among jurisdictions that do not have a Master Plan

Among Jurisdictions without Master Plan: Decision to not have a Master Plan

20. 1. Governing board feels there is no need for land use planning in jurisdiction
    2. Governing board believes it's not government's place to tell landowners how to use property
    3. Developing a Master Plan is too expensive
    4. Developing a Master Plan is too time-consuming
    5. Jurisdiction lacks necessary expertise to develop Master Plan
    6. Jurisdiction lacks sufficient volunteers for local planning commission
    7. Governing board feels higher level of government should set land-use policies
21. Likelihood of adopting a Master Plan in next few years
22. Whether jurisdiction has experienced problems because it does not have a Master Plan

Among Jurisdictions without Master Plan: Land Use Topics of Discussion

24. 1. Medical marijuana facilities are a topic of discussion
    2. Short-term property rentals in residential zones are a topic of discussion
    3. Large-scale wind turbines or windfarms are a topic of discussion
    4. Large-scale solar arrays are a topic of discussion
    5. Oil and gas facilities are a topic of discussion
    6. Commercial communication towers are a topic of discussion
    7. Amateur radio towers are a topic of discussion
    8. Farmland preservation is a topic of discussion
    9. Adult foster care facilities are a topic of discussion
    10. Billboards are a topic of discussion
    11. Keyhole or funnel development on lakes is a topic of discussion
    12. Siting of public schools is a topic of discussion

Among Jurisdictions without Master Plan: Satisfaction with Planning and Zoning Approach

25. 1. Board/council satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning
    2. Citizen satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning
    3. Business community satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning
    4. Respondent's satisfaction with current approach to planning and zoning

Among all respondents

Housing Supply

26. 1. Jurisdiction's supply of single-family housing
    2. Jurisdiction's supply of duplex housing
    3. Jurisdiction's supply of multi-family housing
    4. Jurisdiction's supply of entry-level housing options
    5. Jurisdiction's supply of mid-range housing options
    6. Jurisdiction's supply of high-end housing options
27. 1. Jurisdiction has housing stock that is out-of-date
    2. Jurisdiction has housing stock that suffers from blight
    3. Jurisdiction has sufficient regional construction workforce to meet demand for housing

Housing Policies and Zoning

28. Do jurisdiction's policies or zoning requirements hinder new construction or renovation
29. Has jurisdiction attempted to reduce barriers to new construction or renovation

State Action on Housing Issues

31. 1. State should encourage private lenders to increase project financing
    2. State should increase funding for project gap financing loans or grants
    3. State should leave short-term rental regulation decisions to local governments
    4. State should expand affordable housing incentives to cover more income groups
    5. State should authorize local governments to adopt inclusionary zoning
    6. State should recruit more developers and builders
    7. State should reinstate historic preservation tax credits
    8. State should create or expand additional tax credits

Does the Jurisdiction Collect Performance Data

32. 1. Jurisdiction collects internal data
    2. Jurisdiction collects external data
    3. Jurisdiction does not collect internal or external data
33. How does jurisdiction use data

Among Jurisdictions That Use Data

Among Data Users: Types of Data Use

34. 1. Measures of inputs
    2. Measures of workload
    3. Measures of efficiency
    4. Measures of effectiveness
    5. Measures of citizen satisfaction
    6. Measures of contracted services

Among Data Users: Performance Management Staffing

35. 1. Performance management efforts primarily involve staff whose whole responsibility is performance management
    2. Performance management efforts primarily involve staff with other responsibilities
    3. Performance management efforts primarily involve elected officials
    4. Performance management efforts primarily involve external organization or consultant

Among Data Users: Effectiveness of Using Data

36. 1. Perceived effectiveness for improving management decisions
    2. Perceived effectiveness for guiding budgeting decisions
    3. Perceived effectiveness for identifying cost savings
    4. Perceived effectiveness for improving program or service quality
    5. Perceived effectiveness for guiding compensation decisions
    6. Perceived effectiveness for improving communication with the jurisdiction's council/board
    7. Perceived effectiveness for improving accountability and transparency

Among Data Users: Scope of Performance Management

37. Current scope of jurisdiction's performance management efforts
38. Likelihood that jurisdiction will cut back or expand performance management within the next 12 months

Among Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

39. 1. Costs required to collect and use performance data
    2. Dedicating necessary personnel
    3. Ability to obtain external data
    4. Ability to make sense of performance data
    5. Ability to access appropriate/useful technology to manage performance data
    6. Ability to tie performance data to jurisdiction's goals
    7. Ability to implement change in response to data findings
    8. Ability to measure services that are contracted out

Among Data Users: Support or Opposition

40. 1. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's council/board
    2. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's managers
    3. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's non-managerial employees
    4. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's citizens
41. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction

Among Jurisdictions That Do Not Currently Collect or Use Data

Among Non-Data Users: Future Data Use

42. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt new uses of data within next 12 months

Among Non- Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

43. 1. Costs required to collect and use performance data
    2. Dedicating necessary personnel
    3. Ability to obtain external data
    4. Ability to make sense of performance data
    5. Ability to access appropriate/useful technology to manage performance data
    6. Ability to tie performance data to jurisdiction's goals
    7. Ability to implement change in response to data findings
    8. Ability to measure services that are contracted out

Among Non-Data Users: Future Data Use Support or Opposition

44. 1. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's council/board
    2. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's managers
    3. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's non-managerial employees
    4. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's citizens
45. Would performance measurement and management activities be worthwhile for the jurisdiction

Rural or Urban Jurisdiction

46. Is jurisdiction rural, urban, or somewhere in between

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

MPPS Home

• See the MPPS home page

MPPS Resources

• Browse survey topics: Get links to data tables
• Search survey questions: Get links to data tables
• View list of questions and topics asked more than once
• View policy issues covered in each survey

Data Tables Tracking Items Across Surveys Spring 2018 MPPS Data More data tables Fall 2017 MPPS Data Spring 2017 MPPS Data Fall 2016 MPPS Data Spring 2016 MPPS Data Fall 2015 MPPS Data Spring 2015 MPPS Data Fall 2014 MPPS Data Spring 2014 MPPS Data Fall 2013 MPPS Data Spring 2013 MPPS Data Fall 2012 MPPS Data Spring 2012 MPPS Data Fall 2011 MPPS Data Spring 2011 MPPS Data Fall 2010 MPPS Data Spring 2010 MPPS Data Fall 2009 MPPS Data Spring 2009 MPPS Data

• Public/student use datasets
• Restricted use datasets

Reports Community poverty and the struggle to make ends meet in Michigan, according to local government leaders (March 2019) The state of community civic discourse, according to Michigan’s local government leaders (December 2018) More reports Despite sustained economic growth, Michigan local government fiscal health still lags (November 2018) Michigan local government leaders’ views on medical and recreational marijuana (September 2018) Rising confidence in Michigan’s direction among local leaders, but partisan differences remain (July 2018) Michigan local government officials weigh in on housing shortages and related issues (June 2018) Approaches to land use planning and zoning among Michigan's local governments (May 2018) Workforce issues and challenges for Michigan's local governments (January 2018) Local leaders’ views on elections in Michigan: accuracy, problems, and reform options (November 2017) Michigan local government officials report complex mix of improvement and decline in fiscal health, but with overall trend moving slowly upward (October 2017) Michigan local leaders want their citizens to play a larger role in policymaking, but report declining engagement (August 2017) Michigan local leaders' views on state preemption and how to share policy authority (June 2017) Improving communication, building trust are seen as keys to fixing relationships between local jurisdictions and the State government (May 2017) Local leaders more likely to support than oppose Michigan's Emergency Manager law, but strongly favor reforms (Feb. 2017) Local government leaders' views on drinking water and water supply infrastructure in Michigan communities (Nov. 2016) Michigan local leaders say property tax appeals are common, disagree with 'dark stores' assessing (Oct. 2016) Local officials say Michigan's system of funding local government is broken, and seek State action to fix it (Sept. 2016) Michigan local governments report first declines in fiscal health trend since 2010 (August 2016) Michigan local leaders' doubts continue regarding state's direction (July 2016) Emergency Medical Services in Michigan: challenges and approaches among local governments (July 2016) Firefighting services in Michigan: challenges and approaches among local governments (June 2016) Most local officials are satisfied with law enforcement services, but almost half from largest jurisdictions say their funding is insufficient (April 2016) Local leaders say police-community relations are good throughout Michigan, but those in large cities are concerned about potential civil unrest over police use-of-force (Feb. 2016) Responding to budget surplus vs. deficit: the preferences of Michigan's local leaders and citizens (Dec. 2015) Michigan's local leaders concerned about retiree health care costs and their governments's ability to meet future obligations (Oct. 2015) Fiscal health rated relatively good for most jurisdictions, but improvement slows and decline continues for many (Sept. 2015) Confidence in Michigan's direction declines among state's local leaders (August 2015) Michigan local government leaders’ views on private roads (July 2015) Few Michigan jurisdictions have adopted Complete Streets policies, though many see potential benefits (June 2015) Michigan local leaders have positive views on relationships with county road agencies, despite some concerns (May 2015) Michigan local government leaders say transit services are important, but lack of funding discourages their development (April 2015) Michigan local leaders see need for state and local ethics reform (March 2015) Local leaders say Michigan road funding needs major increase, but lack consensus on options that would raise the most revenue (Feb. 2015) Michigan local government leaders' views on employee pay and benefits (Jan. 2015) Despite increasingly formal financial management, relatively few Michigan local governments have adopted recommended policies (Dec. 2014) Most Michigan local officials are satisfied with their privatized services, but few seek to expand further (Nov. 2014) Michigan local governments finally pass fiscal health tipping point overall, but one in four still report decline (Oct. 2014) Beyond the coast, a tenuous relationship between Michigan local governments and the Great Lakes (Sept. 2014) Confidence in Michigan's direction holds steady among state's local leaders (Aug. 2014) Wind power as a community issue in Michigan (July 2014) Fracking as a community issue in Michigan (June 2014) The impact of tax-exempt properties on Michigan local governments (March 2014) Michigan's local leaders generally support Detroit bankruptcy filing despite some concerns (Feb. 2014) Michigan local governments increasingly pursue placemaking for economic development (Jan. 2014) Views on right-to-work legislation among Michigan's local government leaders (Dec. 2013) Michigan local governments continue seeking, and receiving, union concessions (Oct. 2013) Michigan local government fiscal health continues gradual improvement, but smallest jurisdictions lagging (Oct. 2013) Local leaders evaluate state policymaker performance and whether Michigan is on the right track (Aug. 2013) Trust in government among Michigan's local leaders and citizens (July 2013) Citizen engagement in the view of Michigan's local government leaders (May 2013) Beyond trust in government: government trust in citizens? (March 2013) Local leaders support reforming Michigan's system of funding local government (Jan. 2013) Local leaders support eliminating Michigan's Personal Property Tax if funds are replaced, but distrust state follow-through (Nov. 2012) Michigan's local leaders satisfied with union negotiations (Oct. 2012) Michigan's local leaders are divided over the state's emergency manager law (Sept. 2012) Fiscal stress continues for hundreds of Michigan jurisdictions, but conditions trend in positive direction overall (Sept. 2012) Michigan's local leaders more positive about Governor Snyder's performance, more optimistic about the state's direction (July 2012) Data-driven decision-making in Michigan local government (June 2012) State funding incentives increase local collaboration but also raise concerns (March 2012) Officials react to funding incentives (Jan. 2012) Fiscal health continues decline, though some trends have eased in 2011 (Oct. 2011) Public sector unions in Michigan: their presence and impact according to local government leaders (Aug. 2011) Assessments of state's direction and state policymaker job performance (Aug. 2011) Local government and environmental leadership (July 2011) Local leaders mostly positive on intergovernmental cooperation (March 2011) Local government pay and benefits (Feb. 2011) Support for economic gardening (Nov. 2010) Coping with fiscal, service, and staffing pressures (Aug. 2010) Promoting participation in the U.S. Census (Aug. 2010) Fiscal stimulus package impacts (May 2010) Fall 2009 key findings (April 2010) Low trust in Lansing (March 2010) Spring 2009 key findings (Oct. 2009)

Questionnaires Spring 2018 MPPS Questionnaire More questionnaires Fall 2017 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2017 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2016 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2016 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2015 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2015 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2014 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2014 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2013 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2013 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2012 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2012 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2010 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2010 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2009 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2009 MPPS Questionnaire

More on the MPPS

• MPPS Coverage in the news and media
• Access to MPPS datasets
• Map of changing fiscal health over time
• MPPS Presentations
• MPPS Videos
• See the MPPS regions as used for breakdowns in reports and in the data tables