MPPS Spring 2016 data tables

Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Spring 2016 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 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 delinquencies
   8. Change in jurisdiction’s amount of home foreclosures
   9. Change in jurisdiction’s public safety needs
   10. Change in jurisdiction’s infrastructure needs
   11. Change in jurisdiction’s human service needs
   12. Change in jurisdiction’s general government operations needs
   13. Change in jurisdiction’s number of employees
   14. Change in pay rates for jurisdiction’s employee wages and salaries
   15. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of government’s employee pensions
   16. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of government’s current employee health benefits
   17. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of government’s 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 actual general government operations spending
   10. Projected change in funding for economic development programs
   11. Projected change in amount of debt
   12. Projected change in sale of public assets
   13. Projected change in privatizing or contracting out services
   14. Projected change in number and/or scope of interlocal agreements or other cost-sharing plans with other governments
   15. Projected change in jurisdiction’s number of employees
   16. Projected change in employee pay rates
   17. Projected change in employees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays on health insurance
   18. Projected change in employees’ share of contributions to retirement funds
   19. Projected change in retirees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays on health insurance

General Fund Balances

6. Jurisdiction’s unreserved general fund balance as a percentage of general fund expenditures last year
7. Assessment of level of jurisdiction’s unreserved general fund balance
8. Jurisdiction’s cash flow as a fiscal health problem
9. 1. Jurisdiction's overall fiscal health today
   2. Jurisdiction's overall fiscal health five years from now

Service Provision

10. 1. Citizen satisfaction with services provided
    2. Jurisdiction’s board/council satisfaction with services provided
    3. Respondent’s satisfaction with services provided
11. 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

12. 1. The current system will provide adequate funding to maintain services
    2. The current system will provide adequate funding to improve or add services
13. Is the current system for funding local government in need of significant reform
14. 1. Support or oppose enabling regional tax-base sharing
    2. Support or oppose reforming tax increment financing/tax captures
    3. Support or oppose allowing local-option taxes
    4. Support or oppose compelling the State to pay for "unfunded mandates"
    5. Support or oppose increasing maximum allowable local millage rates
    6. Support or oppose reforming Headlee Amendment to limit millage roll-backs
    7. Support or oppose establishing automatic millage rate "roll-ups"
    8. Support or oppose reforming Proposal A to allow more taxable value growth
    9. Support or oppose restoring full statutory revenue sharing
    10. Support or oppose adding new services to the state sales tax base
    11. Support or oppose increasing rates on state sales taxes with revenue-sharing components
    12. Support or oppose other changes to the system of funding local government
15. 1. Top priority for reforms to the system of funding local government
    2. Second priority for reforms to the system of funding local government
    3. Third priority for reforms to the system of funding local government
16. 1. Support or oppose increasing local property tax millage rates
    2. Support or oppose introducing or increasing local income tax
    3. Support or oppose introducing local sales tax
    4. Support or oppose introducing local gas tax
    5. Support or oppose introducing local sales tax on alcohol, tobacco, etc.
    6. Support or oppose introducing local public utility taxes / fees
    7. Support or oppose introducing local hotel / tourism tax
    8. Support or oppose introducing local motor vehicle license / registration fees
    9. Support or oppose introducing regional tax-base sharing

Drinking Water Issues

17. How drinking water is provided in jurisdiction
18. Source of shared drinking water system in jurisdiction
19. 1. Threats to water source quality/safety as a problem in jurisdiction
    2. Inadequate volume / low water tables as a problem in jurisdiction
    3. Compliance with state and/or federal regulations as a problem in jurisdiction
    4. Presence of lead in on-premises plumbing as a problem in jurisdiction
    5. Presence of lead in service lines as a problem in jurisdiction
    6. Aging / breaking pipes in the shared water supply system as a problem in jurisdiction
    7. Affordability / delinquency on water bills as a problem in jurisdiction
    8. Other problems for drinking water provision in jurisdiction
20. Jurisdiction’s role in shared water system(s)
21. Overall condition of drinking water infrastructure in jurisdiction
22. Change to condition of drinking water systems in last decade
23. 1. Current condition of drinking water infrastructure as a topic of discussion among Board/Council
    2. Current condition of drinking water infrastructure as a topic of discussion among citizens

Funding for Drinking Water Infrastructure

24. 1. Current levels of funding are adequate to maintain drinking water infrastructure
    2. Current levels of funding are adequate to improve drinking water infrastructure
25. 1. Use of general fund contributions to fund drinking water
    2. Use of water rates / user fees to fund drinking water
    3. Use of special assessments to fund drinking water
    4. Use of bonds to fund drinking water
    5. Use of low-interest loans to fund drinking water
    6. Use of federal / state grants to fund drinking water
    7. Use of other options to fund drinking water
26. 1. Support or opposition to increasing water rates or fees by jurisdiction’s Board/Council
    2. Support or opposition to increasing water rates or fees by jurisdiction’s citizens
    3. Support or opposition to increasing water rates or fees by respondent personally

Ensuring Safe Drinking Water

27. 1. How well the Federal government is carrying out responsibility to ensure safe drinking water in jurisdiction
    2. How well the State government is carrying out responsibility to ensure safe drinking water in jurisdiction
    3. How well local government is carrying out responsibility to ensure safe drinking water in jurisdiction

Property Tax Appeals

28. 1. Appeals of property tax assessments for commercial “big box” stores in last two years
    2. Appeals of property tax assessments for other commercial properties in last two years
    3. Appeals of property tax assessments for industrial properties in last two years
    4. Appeals of property tax assessments for residential properties in last two years
    5. Appeals of property tax assessments for agricultural properties in last two years
    6. Appeals of property tax assessments for other properties in last two years
29. Did any landowners appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal
30. 1. Jurisdiction stipulated/agreed to the value(s) the landowner stated
    2. Jurisdiction stipulated/agreed to an alternate taxable value
    3. Jurisdiction defended the assessment before the Tax Tribunal
31. Extent to which the cost of legal representation impacted decision to stipulate
32. Satisfaction with the Tax Tribunal’s determination(s) in the last two years
33. Property tax appeals as a problem for jurisdiction’s fiscal health
34. Agree or disagree that tax assessments of retail chain stores should be based on comparable “dark stores”
35. Actions jurisdiction has taken to minimize impact of “dark stores” tax appeals

Evaluating current events and political issues

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

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home