University of Michigan Gateway Ford School

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)
  • Spring 2012 Data Tables
  • « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

    Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Spring 2012 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 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
    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 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

    4. Employee wages and benefits

      1. Jurisdiction provides fringe benefit package(s) to new hires
      2. Jurisdiction provides fringe benefit package(s) to current employees
      3. Jurisdiction provides fringe benefit package(s) to current elected officials
      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 retired employees
      4. Jurisdiction offers retirement income benefits to current elected officials
      5. Jurisdiction offers retirement income benefits to former elected officials
      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
    5. Likelihood jurisdiction will introduce a defined contribution or hybrid plan in the next 12 months
      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 retired employees
      4. Jurisdiction offers health care or other retirement benefits to current elected officials
      5. Jurisdiction offers health care or other retirement benefits to former elected officials
    6. Union Negotiations

    7. Jurisdiction has employees who are members of a labor union
    8. Jurisdiction has negotiated with unions in last 12 months
      1. Outcome of negotiations on union employee pay
      2. Outcome of negotiations on union employee benefits
      3. Outcome of negotiations on union employee staffing levels
      4. Outcome of negotiations on union employee work rules
    9. Satisfaction with outcomes of negotiations with employee union(s)
    10. Likelihood that jurisdiction will seek concessions in next 12 months
    11. Jurisdiction’s union(s) have been an asset or liability to fiscal health in last 12 months
    12. Jurisdiction’s union(s) have been an asset or liability to overall performance in last 12 months
    13. Assessment of relationship between jurisdiction and its union(s)
    14. Furloughs and Four-day work weeks

      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 reduced pay rates and/or benefits packages for new hires
      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
    15. 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
      3. Jurisdiction did not have to completely eliminated service(s) this year
      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
    16. Budgeting processes

    17. Jurisdiction uses multi-year financial projections
    18. Jurisdiction does formal single year or multi-year budgeting
    19. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt formal multi-year budgeting next year
    20. 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
    24. Service Provision

      1. Citizen satisfaction with package of services provided
      2. Jurisdiction’s council/board satisfaction with package of services provided
      3. Business leaders’ satisfaction with package of services provided
      4. Respondent’s satisfaction with package of services provided
      1. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to police services
      2. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to fire services
      3. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to parks/recreation/libraries
      4. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to roads
      5. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to public transportation/transit
      6. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to economic development
      7. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to utilities
      8. Citizen preference between higher taxes and cuts to general operations
    25. Local Government Funding

      1. The current system will provide adequate funding to maintain services
      2. The current system will provide adequate funding to improve or add services
    26. Does the current system for funding local government need significant reform
      1. Importance of reforms to constitutional revenue sharing
      2. Importance of reforms to the Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP)
      3. Importance of reforms to the Headlee Amendment
      4. Importance of reforms to Proposal A
      5. Importance of reforms to the Personal Property Tax (PPT)
      6. Importance of reforms to the sales tax
      7. Importance of reforms to the gas tax
      8. Importance of reforms to local income tax
      9. Importance of reforms to regional taxation
    27. Personal Property Tax (PPT)

    28. Jurisdiction receives revenue from the Personal Property Tax (PPT)
      1. Agree or disagree that the PPT is difficult to administer
      2. Agree or disagree that revenue from PPT is not worth the costs to administer
      3. Agree or disagree that taxpayers accurately report taxable value
      4. Agree or disagree that personal property is audited frequently enough
      5. Agree or disagree that the PPT is a barrier to economic development
      6. Agree or disagree that would support PPT elimination contingent on full replacement
      7. Agree or disagree that would support PPT elimination contingent on majority replacement
      8. Agree or disagree that would trust state to follow through with future commitments to replace revenue
      9. Agree or disagree that the PPT is an important source of revenue
      1. Importance of Industrial PPT as revenue
      2. Importance of Commercial PPT as revenue
      3. Importance of Utility PPT as revenue
    29. PPT replacement revenue collection
    30. Emergency Manager (EM) Law

    31. Familiarity with Emergency Managers legislation
    32. Effectiveness of Emergency Managers legislation for protecting jurisdictions’ fiscal health
      1. Support or opposition to allowing an Emergency Manager (EM) to reject, modify, or terminate collective bargaining agreements?
      2. Support or opposition to allowing an Emergency Manager (EM) to set aside decision-making powers of local elected officials
      3. Support or opposition to allowing an Emergency Manager (EM) to recommend (with approval of the state) the sale, transfer, or lease of the local jurisdiction's assets
      4. Support or opposition to allowing an Emergency Manager (EM) to recommend (with approval of the state) collaboration or consolidation with other jurisdictions, or disincorporation of the local jurisdiction
      5. Support or opposition to allowing a current local official, such as a mayor or council member, to be appointed as an Emergency Manager (EM)
      6. Support or opposition to the Emergency Manager law (P.A.4 of 2011) overall
    33. K-12 Schooling

      1. Local K-12 preparation for college
      2. Local K-12 preparation for regional job market
      3. Local K-12 preparation for jobs in the global economy
      1. Local students compared to others in the state on elementary school achievement
      2. Local students compared to others in the state on high school achievement
      3. Local students compared to others in the state on college enrollment
      1. Impact on local K-12 academic achievement by charter schools
      2. Impact on local K-12 academic achievement by the Michigan Merit Curriculum
      3. Impact on local K-12 academic achievement by teacher evaluation
      4. Impact on local K-12 academic achievement by virtual learning
      5. Impact on local K-12 academic achievement by No Child Left Behind
      6. Impact on local K-12 academic achievement by another school accountability system
    34. Familiarity with requirements of the Michigan Merit Curriculum
    35. Evaluating current events and political issues

    36. State of Michigan going in right direction or on wrong track
    37. Jurisdiction going in right direction or on wrong track
    38. Governor Snyder’s job performance
    39. Michigan Legislature’s job performance
    40. Jurisdiction’s board or council’s job performance

    « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

    MPPS Home




    MPPS Resources


    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      
    Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy           University of Michigan