The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)

Spring 2011 Data Tables

Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Spring 2011 wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:

Table of Contents

Fiscal Health

2. Good or Bad Times in the coming year?
3. 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

Changes from the Last Fiscal Year to the Current Fiscal Year

4. 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 jurisdiction's amount of debt
   4. Change in jurisdiction's ability to repay its debt
   5. Change in amount of federal aid to jurisdiction
   6. Change in amount of state aid to jurisdiction
   7. Change in jurisdiction's tax delinquincies
   8. Change in jurisdiction's population
   9. Change in jurisdiction's amount of home foreclosures
   10. Change in jurisdiction's public safety needs
   11. Change in jurisdiction's infrastructure needs
   12. Change in jurisdiction's human service needs
   13. Change in jurisdiction's number of employees
   14. Change in jurisdiction's pay rates for employee wages and salaries
   15. Change in jurisdiction's cost of employee pensions
   16. Change in jurisdiction's cost of current employee health benefits
   17. Change in jurisdiction's cost of retired employee health benefits

Expected Changes from the Current Fiscal Year to the Next Fiscal Year

5. 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 jurisdiction's employee pay rates
   18. Projected change in jurisdiction's employees' share of premiums, deductibles and/or co-pays on health insurance
   19. Projected change in jurisdiction's employees' share of contributions to retirement funds
   20. Projected change in jurisdiction's retirees' share of premiums, deductibles and/or co-pays on health insurance



Employee Unions

6. Jurisdiction has employees who are members of a labor union
7. Number of employee unions in jurisdiction
8. Approximate percentage of jurisdiction's employees represented by a union
9. Jurisdiction's union(s) have been an asset or liability to fiscal health
10. Jurisdiction's union(s) have been an asset or liability to overall performance
11. Assessment of relationship between jurisdiction and its union(s)

Furloughs and Four-day Work Weeks

12. 1. Jurisdiction utilized employee furloughs this year
    2. Jurisdiction utilized a four-day work week this year
    3. Jurisdiction utilized early retirement incentives or buyouts
    4. Jurisdiction utilized reduced pay rates and/or benefits packages for new hires
    5. Jurisdiction reduced or eliminated training opportunities for local officials and/or employees
13. 1. Likelihood that jurisdiction will utilize employee furloughs next year
    2. Likelihood that jurisdiction will utilize a four-day work week next year
    3. Likelihood that jurisdiction will utilize early retirement incentives or buyouts next year
    4. Likelihood that jurisdiction will reduce pay rates and/or benefits packages for new hires next year
    5. Likelihood that jurisdiction will reduce or eliminate training opportunities for local officials and/or employees next year

Elimination of Services

14. 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
    3. Jurisdiction did not completely eliminate service(s) this year
       
       
16. 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
    3. Jurisdiction does not plan to completely eliminate service(s) in coming year

Budgeting Processes

18. Jurisdiction does formal single year or multi-year budgeting
19. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt formal multi-year budgeting next year
    
    
20. 1. Jurisdiction had to make significant mid-year adjustments because expenditures were higher than expected
    2. Jurisdiction had to make significant mid-year adjustments because revenues were lower than expected
    3. Jurisdiction did not have to make any significant mid-year adjustments

General Fund Balances

21. Jurisdiction's unreserved general fund balance as a percentage of general fund expenditures last year
22. Assessment of level of jurisdiction's unreserved general fund balance
23. Jurisdiction's cash flow as a fiscal health problem

    Property Tax "Charge-backs"

24. 1. Jurisdiction will have property tax charge-backs from county government this year
    2. Jurisdiction will have property tax charge-backs from county government next year
    3. Jurisdiction will not have property tax charge-backs from county government
25. Jurisdiction's charge-backs as a fiscal health problem

    Special Taxing Authorities

26. Jurisdiction has one or more special taxing authorities
27. Special taxing authorit(ies) have been an asset or liability to jurisdiction's fiscal health
28. Likelihood that jurisdiction's special taxing authorit(ies) will have difficulty repaying current debt
29. Special taxing authoritites' debt obligations as a fiscal health problem to jurisdiction

    Employee Wages and Benefits

30. 1. Level of jurisdiction's employee pay rate for new hires
    2. Level of jurisdiction's employee pay rate for current employees
31. 1. Jurisdiction provides fringe benefit package(s) to new hires
    2. Jurisdiction provides fringe benefit package(s) to current employees
32. 1. Level of jurisdiction's employee fringe benefit package(s) for new hires
    2. Level of jurisdiction's employee fringe benefit package(s) for current employees
33. 1. Level of jurisdiction's contributions to employee health care benefits for new hires
    2. Level of jurisdiction's contributions to employee health care benefits for current employees
34. 1. Jurisdiction offers retirement income benefits to new hires
    2. Jurisdiction offers retirement income benefits to current employees
    3. Jurisdiction offers retirement income benefits to retirees
35. 1. Jurisdiction offers defined benefit plan only
    2. Jurisdiction offers defined contribution plan only
    3. Jurisdiction offers defined benefit plan for some employees, defined contribution plan for others
    4. Jurisdiction offers hybrid benefit plan
36. Likelihood jurisdiction will introduce a defined contribution or hybrid plan in the next 12 months
37. Jurisdiction has pension obligations
38. Jurisdiction's pension obligations as a fiscal health problem

    Other Post-Employment Benefit Liabilities (GASB 45)

39. 1. Jurisdiction offers health care or other retirement benefits to new hires
    2. Jurisdiction offers health care or other retirement benefits to current employees
    3. Jurisdiction offers health care or other retirement benefits to retirees
40. Jurisdiction has retiree health care obligations
41. Jurisdiction's retiree health care obligations as a fiscal health problem
42. 1. Jurisdiction in the process of or has completed an actuarial study to determine/quantify liability
    2. Jurisdiction increased cost-sharing for retirees
    3. Jurisdiction negotiated with unions to reduce benefits
    4. Jurisdiction reduced non-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

Evaluating Current Events and Political Issues

43. State of Michigan going in right direction or on wrong track
44. Jurisdiction going in right direction or on wrong track
45. Governor Snyder's job performance
46. Michigan Legislature's job performance
47. Jurisdiction's board or council's job performance
48. Familiarity with Emergency Managers legislation
49. Likelihood Emergency Manager will be appointed for jurisdiction within next 12 months
50. Effectiveness of Emergency Managers legislation for protecting respondent's jurisdiction's fiscal health
52. Effectiveness of Emergency Managers legislation for protecting other jurisdictions' fiscal health
53. Jurisdiction engages in formal performance management activities
54. Familiarity with state government "dashboard"
55. Likelihood jurisdiction will produce own dashboard within next 12 months
56. 1. Effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdictions' accountability and transparency
    2. Effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdictions' performance

The Federal Stimulus Package

57. Amount the Recovery Act has helped community's economy to date
58. Amount the Recovery Act will improve community's economy in long term
59. Amount the Recovery Act has helped Michigan's economy to date
60. Amount the Recovery Act will improve Michigan's economy in long term

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

MPPS Home

---

• See the MPPS home page

MPPS Resources

---

Data Tables "Core" Fiscal Tracking Items Fall 2011 MPPS Data Spring 2011 MPPS Data More tables Fall 2010 MPPS Data Spring 2010 MPPS Data Fall 2009 MPPS Data Spring 2009 MPPS Data

---

Reports State funding incentives increase local collaboration but also raise concerns (March 2012) Officials react to funding incentives (January 2012) Fiscal health continues decline, though some trends have eased in 2011 (October 2011) More reports Public sector unions in Michigan: their presence and impact according to local government leaders (August 2011) Assessments of state's direction and state policymaker job performance (August 2011) Local government and environmental leadership (July 2011) Local leaders mostly positive on intergovernmental cooperation (March 2011) Local government pay and benefits (February 2011) Support for economic gardening (November 2010) Coping with fiscal, service, and staffing pressures (August 2010) Promoting participation in the U.S. Census (August 2010) Fiscal stimulus package impacts (May 2010) Fall 2009 key findings (April 2010) Low trust in Lansing (March 2010) Spring 2009 key findings (October 2009)

---

Questionnaires Fall 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2010 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2010 MPPS Questionnaire More questionnaires Fall 2009 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2009 MPPS Questionnaire

---

Individual Study Pages Fall 2011 Spring 2011 More study pages Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Fall 2009 Spring 2009

---

More on the MPPS

---

• MPPS Coverage in the news and media
• See the MPPS regions as used for breakdowns in reports and in the data tables
• How to cite MPPS data

closup@umich.edu   |

735 South State Street, Suite 5310. Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-3091   |

phone: 734-647-4091   |

© 2012 Regents of the University of Michigan