MPPS Fall 2010 data tables

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Levels of Current Intergovernmental Cooperation

2. 1. Jurisdiction has approached another government about collaborative effort(s) in past two years
   2. Jurisdiction has been approached by another government about collaborative effort(s) in past two years
3. Jurisdiction is currently involved in formal collaborative effort(s)

Partners in Current Intergovernmental Cooperation

4. 1. Collaborating with state
   2. Collaborating with county
   3. Collaborating with city
   4. Collaborating with township
   5. Collaborating with village
   6. Collaborating with K-12 school district
   7. Collaborating with higher education institution
   8. Collaborating with regional organization

Extent of Current Collaboration for Provision of Services

5. 1. Land use planning and/or zoning
   2. Transportation and/or transit
   3. Police services
   4. Fire services
   5. 911 emergency services
   6. Utilities and/or water / sewer / recycling / waste
   7. Parks and/or recreation / libraries / culture
   8. Energy efficiency improvement
   9. Grounds-keeping and/or maintenance / snow removal
   10. Economic development
   11. Workforce development
   12. Information technology and/or Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
   13. Tax collection and/or property assessing
   14. Other administrative functions (HR, payroll, purchasing, etc.)

Success of Current Collaborative Activities Overall

6. Success of jurisdiction’s current collaborative efforts to date

Plans for Future Intergovernmental Cooperation

7. 1. Jurisdiction studying potential new or expanded collaborative efforts
   2. Jurisdiction planning to launch new collaborative effort(s)
   3. Jurisdiction planning to significantly expand current collaborative effort(s)

Partners for Future Intergovernmental Cooperation

8. 1. Studying or planning collaboration with state
   2. Studying or planning collaboration with county
   3. Studying or planning collaboration with city
   4. Studying or planning collaboration with township
   5. Studying or planning collaboration with village
   6. Studying or planning collaboration with K-12 school district
   7. Studying or planning collaboration with higher education institution
   8. Studying or planning collaboration with regional organization

Studying or Planning Future Collaboration for Provision of Services

9. 1. Land use planning and/or zoning
   2. Transportation and/or transit
   3. Police services
   4. Fire services
   5. 911 emergency services
   6. Utilities and/or water / sewer / recycling / waste
   7. Parks and/or recreation / libraries / culture
   8. Energy efficiency improvement
   9. Grounds-keeping and/or maintenance / snow removal
   10. Economic development
   11. Workforce development
   12. Information technology and/or Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
   13. Tax collection and/or property assessing
   14. Other administrative functions (HR, payroll, purchasing, etc.)

Reductions in Collaboration

10. 1. Jurisdiction has cut back collaborative effort(s) in past two years
    2. Jurisdiction ended previous collaborative effort(s) in past two years

Community Support for Jurisdiction’s Level of Collaboration

12. 1. Citizens think there is currently too much or not enough collaboration
    2. Board or Council thinks there is currently too much or not enough collaboration
    3. Jurisdiction’s employees think there is currently too much or not enough collaboration
    4. Community business leaders think there is currently too much or not enough collaboration
    5. Local official thinks there is currently too much or not enough collaboration
13. Jurisdiction’s involvement in regional land use planning efforts

Factors Encouraging or Discouraging Decisions about Collaboration

14. 1. Desire to improve quality of existing services
    2. Desire to decrease costs of existing services
    3. Desire to introduce new services
    4. Influence of citizens
    5. Influence of businesses or business groups
    6. Influence of neighboring governments
    7. Influence of jurisdiction’s elected officials
    8. Influence of jurisdiction’s labor unions and/or employees
    9. Influence of a persistent community leader/organizer
    10. State laws
    11. Labor contracts in own jurisdiction
    12. Labor contracts in other jurisdictions
    13. Tax structures
    14. Upfront / transition costs of implementing new collaborative agreements
    15. Compatibility of accounting and budgeting systems
    16. Availability of facilitators or other outside experts
    17. Trust between jurisdictions
    18. Compatibility of culture, values, expectations among partnering jurisdictions

State Mandates

15. 1. Perceived effectiveness of mandates establishing common accounting and budgeting standards
    2. Perceived effectiveness of mandates establishing common minimum operating standards below which collaboration would be required to provide the service
    3. Perceived effectiveness of mandates requiring that certain service-sharing elements be included in local master plans
    4. Perceived effectiveness of mandates requiring that revenue sharing be used first to support service-sharing agreements
16. Overall support for mandates encouraging intergovernmental collaboration

State Incentives

17. 1. Perceived effectiveness of an inventory of best practices and examples of previous successful collaborative efforts
    2. Perceived effectiveness of grants to support planning stages for collaborative efforts
    3. Perceived effectiveness of grants to help offset higher costs, if any, in the first few years of new collaborative efforts
    4. Perceived effectiveness of grants to support innovative collaborative pilot programs
    5. Perceived effectiveness of a loan fund from which to borrow for the acquisition, purchase, or construction of capital-intensive items in collaborative efforts
    6. Perceived effectiveness of online “want ads” for local governments seeking partners for collaboration
    7. Perceived effectiveness of revenue sharing incentives designed to encourage collaboration
    8. Perceived effectiveness of a state-level Intergovernmental Advisory Office to coordinate and administer programs like the ones listed above

Urban Cooperation Act

18. Impact of the Urban Cooperation Act on jurisdiction
19. Support for changes to the Urban Cooperation Act

Consolidation

21. Agree or disagree that there are too many local governments in the state
22. 1. Citizens would support or oppose consolidation
    2. Board or Council would support or oppose consolidation
    3. Jurisdiction’s employees would support or oppose consolidation
    4. Community business leaders would support or oppose consolidation
    5. Local official would support or oppose consolidation

Energy and Climate Issues

25. 1. Likelihood jurisdiction will adopt policies for improving energy efficiency in your government facilities
    2. Likelihood jurisdiction will adopt policies for changing work practices to be greener
    3. Likelihood jurisdiction will adopt energy programs targeted at residents
    4. Likelihood jurisdiction will adopt energy programs targeted at local businesses
    5. Likelihood jurisdiction will adopt policies for developing or purchasing alternative energy sources
26. Agree or disagree that promoting environmental sustainability and the concept of “being green” are important aspects of local government leadership
27. Global warming a problem or not a problem
28. 1. Responsibility of Federal Government to reduce global warming
    2. Responsibility of State Governments to reduce global warming
    3. Responsibility of Local Governments to reduce global warming

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home