The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)

Spring 2012 Data Tables

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

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 wages and benefits

6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. Likelihood jurisdiction will introduce a defined contribution or hybrid plan in the next 12 months
10. 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

Union Negotiations

11. Jurisdiction has employees who are members of a labor union
12. Jurisdiction has negotiated with unions in last 12 months
13. 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
14. Satisfaction with outcomes of negotiations with employee union(s)
16. Likelihood that jurisdiction will seek concessions in next 12 months
17. Jurisdiction’s union(s) have been an asset or liability to fiscal health in last 12 months
18. Jurisdiction’s union(s) have been an asset or liability to overall performance in last 12 months
19. Assessment of relationship between jurisdiction and its union(s)

Furloughs and Four-day work weeks

20. 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
21. 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

Elimination of services

22. 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
24. 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

26. Jurisdiction uses multi-year financial projections
27. Jurisdiction does formal single year or multi-year budgeting
28. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt formal multi-year budgeting next year

General Fund Balances

29. Jurisdiction’s unreserved general fund balance as a percentage of general fund expenditures last year
30. Assessment of level of jurisdiction’s unreserved general fund balance
31. Jurisdiction’s cash flow as a fiscal health problem

Service Provision

32. 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
33. 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

Local Government Funding

34. 1. The current system will provide adequate funding to maintain services
    2. The current system will provide adequate funding to improve or add services
35. Does the current system for funding local government need significant reform
36. 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

Personal Property Tax (PPT)

38. Jurisdiction receives revenue from the Personal Property Tax (PPT)
39. 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
40. 1. Importance of Industrial PPT as revenue
    2. Importance of Commercial PPT as revenue
    3. Importance of Utility PPT as revenue
41. PPT replacement revenue collection

Emergency Manager (EM) Law

42. Familiarity with Emergency Managers legislation
43. Effectiveness of Emergency Managers legislation for protecting jurisdictions’ fiscal health
44. 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

K-12 Schooling

45. 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
46. 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
47. 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
48. Familiarity with requirements of the Michigan Merit Curriculum

Evaluating current events and political issues

49. State of Michigan going in right direction or on wrong track
50. Jurisdiction going in right direction or on wrong track
51. Governor Snyder’s job performance
52. Michigan Legislature’s job performance
53. Jurisdiction’s board or council’s job performance

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

MPPS Home

---

• See the MPPS home page

MPPS Resources

---

Data Tables "Core" Fiscal Tracking Items Fall 2012 MPPS Data Spring 2012 MPPS Data More tables Fall 2011 MPPS Data Spring 2011 MPPS Data Fall 2010 MPPS Data Spring 2010 MPPS Data Fall 2009 MPPS Data Spring 2009 MPPS Data

---

Reports 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) More reports 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 Fall 2012 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2012 MPPS Questionnaire More questionnaires Fall 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2010 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2010 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2009 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2009 MPPS Questionnaire

---

Individual Study Pages Fall 2012 Spring 2012 More study pages Fall 2011 Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Fall 2009 Spring 2009

---

More on the MPPS

---

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

Follow @CLOSUP        closup@umich.edu  |

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

ph: 734-647-4091  |

© 2013 Regents of the University of Michigan