University of Michigan Gateway Ford School

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)
Spring 2010 Data Tables

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Spring 2010 wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:

Table of Contents

    Fiscal Health

  1. Good or Bad Times in the coming year?
    1. Better or Less Able to meet jurisdiction’s needs this fiscal year than last
    2. Better or Less Able to meet jurisdiction’s needs next fiscal year than this
  2. Changes from the Last Fiscal Year to the Current Fiscal Year

    1. Change in jurisdiction’s revenue from property taxes
    2. Change in jurisdiction’s revenue from fees for services, licenses, transfers, etc
    3. Change in amount of federal aid to jurisdiction
    4. Change in amount of state aid to jurisdiction
    5. Change in jurisdiction’s tax delinquencies
    6. Change in jurisdiction’s population
    7. Change in jurisdiction’s amount of home foreclosures
    8. Change in jurisdiction’s public safety needs
    9. Change in jurisdiction’s infrastructure needs
    10. Change in jurisdiction’s human service needs
    11. Change in jurisdiction’s number of employees
    12. Change in jurisdiction’s employee wages and salaries
    13. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of employee pensions
    14. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of current employee health benefits
    15. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of retired employee health benefits
  3. Expected Changes from the Current Fiscal Year to the Next Fiscal Year

    1. Projected change in property tax rates
    2. Projected change in charges for fees, licenses, etc.
    3. Projected change in reliance on general fund balance
    4. Projected change in reliance on “rainy day” funds
    5. Projected change in amount of services provided
    6. Projected change in actual public safety spending
    7. Projected change in actual infrastructure spending
    8. Projected change in actual human services spending
    9. Projected change in funding for economic development programs
    10. Projected change in amount of debt
    11. Projected change in sale of public assets
    12. Projected change in privatizing or contracting out services
    13. Projected change in number and/or scope of interlocal agreements or other cost-sharing plans with other governments
    14. Projected change in jurisdiction’s workforce hiring
    15. Projected change in jurisdiction’s workforce layoffs
    16. Projected change in jurisdiction’s filling vacant positions
    17. Projected change in amount of employee compensation
    18. Projected change in employees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays on health insurance
    19. Projected change in employees’ share of contributions to retirement funds
    20. Projected change in retirees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays on health insurance
  4. Furloughs and Four-day work weeks

    1. Jurisdiction utilized employee furloughs this year
    2. Jurisdiction utilized a four-day work week this year
    1. Likelihood that jurisdiction will utilize employee furloughs next year
    2. Likelihood that jurisdiction will utilize a four-day work week next year
  5. Elimination of services

    1. Jurisdiction completely eliminated service(s) this year that are now no longer provided at all
    2. Jurisdiction completely eliminated service(s) this year that are now provided by another entity
    1. Jurisdiction plans to completely eliminate service(s) in coming year and no longer provide it at all
    2. Jurisdiction plans to completely eliminate service(s) in coming year that will be provided by another entity
  6. Budgeting processes

  7. Jurisdiction does formal single year or multi-year budgeting
    1. Jurisdiction had to make any significant mid-year adjustments because expenditures were higher than expected
    2. Jurisdiction had to make any significant mid-year adjustments because revenues were lower than expected
    3. Jurisdiction did not have to make any significant mid-year adjustments because expenditures
    4. Don’t know if jurisdiction had to make any significant mid-year adjustments
  8. Citizens’ knowledge of local finances and their tax preferences

  9. Knowledge of jurisdiction’s citizens regarding jurisdiction’s finances
  10. Jurisdiction’s citizens more likely to choose higher taxes or service cuts
  11. General Fund Balances

  12. Jurisdiction has written policy regarding the required minimum level or its general fund balance or cash reserves
  13. Jurisdiction’s unreserved general fund balance as a percentage of general fund expenditures last year
  14. Level of jurisdiction’s unreserved general fund balance
  15. Employee wages and benefits

  16. Level of jurisdiction’s employee pay rate
  17. Jurisdiction’s current employee fringe benefit package(s)
  18. Level of jurisdiction’s contributions to employee health care benefits
    1. Health insurance plan provided to active employees - HMO
    2. Health insurance plan provided to active employees - PPO
    3. Health insurance plan provided to active employees - traditional
    4. Health insurance plan provided to active employees - high-deducible
    5. Health insurance plan provided to active employees - self-funded
    6. Don’t Know what type of health insurance plan provided to active employees
  19. Type of pension plan jurisdiction offers
  20. Likelihood jurisdiction will introduce a defined contribution plan in the next 12 months
  21. Jurisdiction’s pension obligations as a fiscal health problem
  22. Other post-employment benefit liabilities (GASB 45)

    1. Jurisdiciton in the process of or has it completed an actuarial study to determine/quantify liability
    2. Jurisdiction increased cost-sharing for retirees
    3. Jurisdiction negotiated with unions to changed benefits
    4. Jurisdiction reduced no-union benefits
    5. Jurisdiction increased the age at which retirement benefits are available
    6. Jurisdiction increased the years of service required to receive retirement benefits
    7. Jurisdiction financed liability through bonds
  23. Jurisdiction’s retiree health care obligations is a fiscal health problem
  24. Economic Gardening

  25. Jurisdiction currently involved in economic gardening activities
    1. Jurisdiction conducted workforce development or training programs as economic gardening
    2. Jurisdiction developed traditional infrastructure as economic gardening
    3. Jurisdiction developed IT infrastructure as economic gardening
    4. Jurisdiction fostered networking among local businesses as economic gardening
    5. Jurisdiction helped local businesses with social networking online as economic gardening
    6. Jurisdiction provided or fostered information access to markets, customers, or competitors as economic gardening
    7. Jurisdiction provide or fostered access to capital as economic gardening
    8. Jurisdiction granted tax abatements or deferments as economic gardening
    9. Jurisdiction developed a local currency or a "buy local" campaign as economic gardening
  26. Agree or disagree that economic gardening can be an effective economic development strategy for jurisdiction
  27. Response to possible changes in revenue sharing

  28. Agree or disagree with tying state revenue sharing to certain base-level local services while allowing local governments to raise additional taxes for additional services
    1. Likelihood jurisdiction would increase its property tax millage if it had the authority to do so
    2. Likelihood jurisdiction would introduce or expand a local income tax if it had the authority to do so
    3. Likelihood jurisdiction would introduce or expand a local sales tax if it had the authority to do so
    4. Likelihood jurisdiction would participate in a regional tax authority if it had the authority to do so
  29. U.S. Census

  30. Jurisdiction done anything to encourage citizens to complete U.S. Census form
  31. Redistricting

  32. Favor or oppose proposal to redraw Michigan state legislative electoral districts
  33. The Federal Stimulus Package

  34. Amount the Recovery Act has helped community’s economy to date
  35. Amount the Recovery Act will improve community’s economy in long term
  36. Amount the Recovery Act has helped Michigan’s economy to date
  37. Amount the Recovery Act will improve Michigan’s economy in long term

MPPS Home




MPPS Resources



Question Database


Data Tables


Reports


Questionnaires


Individual Study Pages




More on the MPPS




       closup@umich.edu  | 
735 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-3091  | 
ph: 734-647-4091  | 
© 2014 Regents of the University of Michigan      
University of Michigan Gateway Ford School Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy