Table of Contents

    Does the Jurisdiction have a Master Plan

    1. Whether jurisdiction has Master Plan that addresses land use
    2. Whether county has Master Plan that addresses land use
  1. Among jurisdictions that have a Master Plan

    Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Updating and Implementing Master Plan

  2. When was Master Plan last updated
    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
  3. Is aim of Master Plan to preserve or transform
    1. Does jurisdiction have "champion" for implementing current Master Plan
    2. Does jurisdiction have "champion" for updating Master Plan
  4. Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

  5. Does jurisdiction have a CIP
  6. Extent to which CIP prioritizes projects based on Master Plan
  7. Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Benefits of Land Use Planning

    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
  8. Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Zoning

  9. Jurisdiction's approach to using Master Plan in rezoning decisions
    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
    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 Some parts of Master Plan are out of date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
    1. Frequency of public hearings for zoning actions
    2. Controversies related to zoning actions
  10. Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Planning Staff

  11. Are there full- or part-time planning employees on jurisdiction's own staff
    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
  12. Assessment of jurisdiction's staff capacity for planning and zoning needs
  13. Change in jurisdiction's current staff capacity for planning and zoning
  14. Among Jurisdictions with Master Plan: Land Use Topics of Discussion

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

    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
  16. Among jurisdictions that do not have a Master Plan

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

    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
  17. Likelihood of adopting a Master Plan in next few years
  18. Whether jurisdiction has experienced problems because it does not have a Master Plan
  19. Among Jurisdictions without Master Plan: Land Use Topics of Discussion

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

    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
  21. Among all respondents

    Housing Supply

    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
    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
  22. Housing Policies and Zoning

  23. Do jurisdiction's policies or zoning requirements hinder new construction or renovation
  24. Has jurisdiction attempted to reduce barriers to new construction or renovation
  25. State Action on Housing Issues

    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
  26. Does the Jurisdiction Collect Performance Data

    1. Jurisdiction collects internal data
    2. Jurisdiction collects external data
    3. Jurisdiction does not collect internal or external data
  27. How does jurisdiction use data
  28. Among Jurisdictions That Use Data

    Among Data Users: Types of Data Use

    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
  29. Among Data Users: Performance Management Staffing

    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
  30. Among Data Users: Effectiveness of Using Data

    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
  31. Among Data Users: Scope of Performance Management

  32. Current scope of jurisdiction's performance management efforts
  33. Likelihood that jurisdiction will cut back or expand performance management within the next 12 months
  34. Among Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

    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
  35. Among Data Users: Support or Opposition

    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
  36. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction
  37. Among Jurisdictions That Do Not Currently Collect or Use Data

    Among Non-Data Users: Future Data Use

  38. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt new uses of data within next 12 months
  39. Among Non- Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

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

    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. Would performance measurement and management activities be worthwhile for the jurisdiction
  42. Rural or Urban Jurisdiction

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

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home