Michigan local government officials report complex mix of improvement and decline in fiscal health by CLOSUP U-M

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy >> University of Michigan

Michigan local government officials report complex mix of improvement and decline in fiscal health, but with overall trend moving slowly upward

Key Findings •

Overall, Michigan local governments’ fiscal health appears to have improved slightly this year, after last year’s reversal from prior trends of gradual improvement. Statewide, over a third (35%) of local governments say they are now better able to meet their fiscal needs than they were last year, which is up from 31% who said the same in 2016. Meanwhile, 18% say they are less able to meet their needs this year, down from 22% last year. »»

By Debra Horner and Thomas Ivacko

This report presents Michigan local government leaders’ assessments of their jurisdictions’ fiscal conditions and the actions they plan to take in the coming year given their financial situations. The findings are based on responses from nine statewide survey waves of the Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) conducted annually each spring from 2009 through 2017. >> The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a census survey of all 1,856 general purpose local governments in Michigan conducted by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships Association, and Michigan Association of Counties. The MPPS takes place twice each year and investigates local officials’ opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues. Respondents for the Spring 2017 wave of the MPPS include county administrators, board chairs, and clerks; city mayors, managers, and clerks; village presidents, managers, and clerks; and township supervisors, managers, and clerks from 1,372 jurisdictions across the state.

Michigan Public Policy Survey October 2017

•

However, when looking at the number of jurisdictions with improving health minus those with declining health, the greatest overall gains this year are found among the state’s smaller jurisdictions. Michigan’s mid-size and larger jurisdictions saw less overall improvement, or even net declines this year.

Most Michigan local governments (63%) self-rate their current level of fiscal stress as relatively low, although this is down slightly from 64% last year and 66% in 2015. Meanwhile, local leaders in 9% of Michigan jurisdictions—approximately 167 local governments—say that they are currently experiencing relatively high levels of fiscal stress, up slightly from 8% last year and 7% in 2015. »»

Around half of all Michigan county (48%), city (48%), and village (52%) officials rate their governments’ current fiscal stress as low, compared with 70% of township officials.

»»

Among mid-sized jurisdictions (with between 10,001-30,000 residents), 12% of local officials currently rate their fiscal stress as high, up from 5% last year. And among counties, one out of five (20%) rate their fiscal stress as high, similar to last year (19%) and up sharply from 3% in 2015.

•

Jurisdictions of all sizes report modest gains in property tax revenues compared with last year, although fewer report increases in state aid. Overall, local officials’ concerns regarding their current levels of general fund balances and cash flow remain relatively low.

•

Few local officials report plans to increase overall service provision (19%), although this is up slightly from 15% last year. And while many continue to predict increased spending in particular service areas, the percentage who anticipate facing higher service needs in infrastructure (56%) and public safety (35%) outpace those who project actual spending increases (45% and 33%, respectively).

•

Looking ahead, optimism about general local economic conditions has increased (51% of local officials expect “good times” next year, compared with 46% who said the same in 2016). However, less than a third (29%) predict that their own local governments will be better able to meet fiscal needs next year, while 22% believe they will be worse off.

•

Further down the road, jurisdictions with low fiscal stress today are confident they will also face little stress in five years (80%) but among those with high fiscal stress today, pessimism about the future appears to be growing.

For more information, please contact: closup-mpps@umich.edu/ (734) 647-4091. You can also follow us on Twitter @closup

www.closup.umich.edu

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Fiscal trends: Small jurisdictions more likely to report improving fiscal health trends, but statewide numbers still below 2015 levels for all jurisdictions combined In its ninth year of gathering opinions on the fiscal health of Michigan’s local governments, the Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) finds local government officials in 2017 report a mix of fiscal outcomes, with improvement trends focused mostly among small jurisdictions, and more stasis or even some slight declines among mid-sized and larger places when considering those who are improving minus those who are declining. Over the nine years of the study, the MPPS has covered a period of sharp economic decline in 2009 and 2010, followed by a trend of gradual improvement that first emerged in 2011. In 2016, for the first time since the end of the Great Recession, the trend of gradual improvement in reported fiscal health reversed. However, reports this year show, overall, a move back toward fiscal improvement.

Figure 1a Percentage of jurisdictions reporting they are better or less able to meet their fiscal needs in current year compared to previous year, 2009-2017

24% 11%

2009

2010

29%

36%

38%

2014

2015

2016

20%

22%

31%

35%

16% 2011

Better able 2012

34%

2013

29%

24%

2017

18%

Less able

48%

52% 61%

Note: responses for “neither better nor less able” and “don’t know” not shown

Each year the MPPS asks local leaders a summary question regarding changes in fiscal health: whether their jurisdictions are better able or less able to meet their financial needs at that time, compared to the previous year. Each year since 2011, the percentage of jurisdictions saying they were better able to meet their needs increased, with the exception of last year. However, statewide, this year’s responses have returned to the prior trend of overall improvement. The 2017 survey finds that more than a third (35%) of local governments overall say they are now better able to meet their fiscal needs, an increase of four percentage points from the 31% that said the same in 2016 (see Figure 1a). Yet the percentage of jurisdictions reporting fiscal improvement in 2017 still lags slightly behind those reported in 2014 and 2015. Fortunately, fewer than one in five (18%) local leaders report their jurisdictions are now less able to meet their fiscal needs compared to last year, an improvement from the 22% that said the same in 2016, and the lowest such percentage to date. Overall, 45% report no significant change in their fiscal health from last year.

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Figure 1b presents the changes in local fiscal health over the last nine years by jurisdiction population-size category. It shows “net” fiscal health in each category: the percentage of jurisdictions that were better able to meet their needs minus the percentage that were less able. A data point below the zero-axis shows that more jurisdictions in that category reported declining fiscal health than reported improving health in that year. Conversely, a data point above the zero-axis shows that more jurisdictions in that category reported improving fiscal health than reported declining health.

Figure 1b Net fiscal health yearly change: percentage of jurisdictions reporting improving fiscal health minus percentage reporting declining health, 2009-2017, by population size

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 -10% -20% -30%

Breaking the data out by jurisdiction size reveals some important differences in the overall improvement trend. Michigan’s smaller jurisdictions (those with fewer than 5,000 residents) are the ones most likely to report net improvements. Among the state’s smallest jurisdictions—those with fewer than 1,500 residents—reports of improved fiscal health increased significantly, from a 2% net positive in 2016 to 13% this year. Meanwhile, among jurisdictions with between 1,501 and 5,000 residents, reported net fiscal improvement increased from 13% to 19% (see Figure 1b). Unfortunately, reports from the state’s mid-sized jurisdictions, while still net positive, are not as rosy. In communities with 5,001-10,000 residents net improvement is down from 11% in 2016 to 7% in 2017. Similarly, jurisdictions with between 10,000 and 30,000 residents saw reports of net fiscal health improvement drop from 21% in 2016 to 16%. And in the state’s largest jurisdictions (those with over 30,000 residents), reports of fiscal health improvements are also down, though only slightly, from 21% in 2016 to 20% today).

-40% -50% -60% -70% -80% 2009

2010 <1,500

2011 1,500-5,000

2012

2013

5,001-10,000

2014

2015

10,001-30,000

2016

2017

>30,000

Figure 1c Net fiscal health yearly change: percentage of jurisdictions reporting improving fiscal health minus percentage reporting declining health, 2009-2017, by jurisdiction type

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 -10% -20% -30% -40%

The decline among the state’s larger jurisdictions mirrors experiences of cities across the nation, tracked annually in surveys conducted by the National League of Cities (NLC).1 The NLC’s latest report of finds that the percentage of cities nationwide with more than 10,000 residents saying they are “better able” to meet fiscal needs declined in 2017 for the second year in a row, while those that say they are “less able” increased sharply.

-50% -60% -70% -80% 2009

2010

2011 County

2012 Township

2013

2014 City

2015

2016

2017

Village

Looking at the data by jurisdiction type (counties, cities, townships, and villages) also reveals mixed results. For example, this year village officials report a significant net increase in improved fiscal health—from -6% in 2016 to 10% in 2017—their first “net” positive since 2014 (see Figure 1c). Cities (7% net positive) and townships (20% net positive) also report increases in net improvement compared with last year. Meanwhile, counties—which saw the biggest decline in their net improvement percentage in 2016 compared with 2015—again drop this year from 8% to 6% net improvement. In other words, Michigan’s county governments have now reported two straight years of declining fiscal health overall. In 2017, just over a third of counties (35%) report they are better able to meet fiscal needs, while 29% say they are less able to meet their needs. 3

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Figure 1d displays the same “net fiscal health” for jurisdictions across Michigan aggregated at the county level. The nine maps contrast those counties (in shades of red) where more jurisdictions are suffering fiscal decline than are experiencing improved fiscal health (e.g., “below the zero axis”), compared with those counties (in shades of green) where more jurisdictions are experiencing improved fiscal health than decline (e.g., “above the zero axis”). Counties where there are equal numbers of jurisdictions experiencing improvement and decline are shaded grey. The color shades are scaled by the magnitude of the aggregated fiscal changes, with three categories each for improving (green) and declining (red) conditions. The darkest shades of green and red show where the net calculation of jurisdictions improving minus those declining is greater than 50% (positive if green, negative if red), the middle shades show where the net calculation is between 26% and 50%, and the lightest shades show where the net calculation is between 0 and 25%. For example, if 76% of jurisdictions in a county are improving, while 24% are declining, the net calculation is 76%-24%=52% improving, which results in the darkest shade of green. Or, if 27% of jurisdictions in a county are improving while 33% are declining, the net calculation is 27%-33%=-6%, which results in a light pink-shaded county. It should be noted that in several counties, a large percentage of jurisdictions report no change in their fiscal health, so it may be the case that only a small number of jurisdictions in those counties are included in the net calculations. At the low point in 2010, the map is almost uniformly red, showing widespread fiscal decline across the state. By 2014 and 2015, there are substantially more green counties found across Michigan, illustrating the net fiscal improvement for local governments within their borders. Now, in 2017, the map illustrates how there has been some recovery from the dip last year, with a scattering of counties moving into the dark green and a smaller number—although still quite a few, particularly in the Upper Peninsula—in shades of red (denoting more fiscal decline than improvement). Appendix A at the end of this report displays the actual percentage net change for each of Michigan’s 83 counties for 2017.

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Figure 1d Net fiscal health yearly change: percentage of jurisdictions reporting improving fiscal health minus percentage reporting declining health, 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2017, by county

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

More than 50% net decline

26-50% net decline

0-25% net decline

Between 0-25% net improvement

26-50% net improvement

More than 50% net improvement

No net change

Note: The jurisdictions responding within each county vary from wave to wave, which may result in larger longitudinal swings in counties that have only a few jurisdictions (â&#x20AC;&#x153;small Nâ&#x20AC;?) overall.

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Fiscal status today: Slight increase in reports of current fiscal stress, marking a two-year trend The MPPS looks not only at changes in fiscal health year over year, it also captures a snapshot of local officials’ estimates of fiscal stress in the current year. The results are based on a MPPS Fiscal Stress Index (FSI) question, which asks local officials to rate their jurisdiction’s current fiscal stress on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is perfect fiscal health and 10 is fiscal crisis. Although the trend reported above toward year-over-year fiscal improvement has rebounded slightly from its dip in 2016, the MPPS finds that, overall, local officials’ assessments of their governments’ current levels of fiscal stress are slightly worse compared with assessments in 2016 and 2015. This year, as shown in Figure 2a, 63% of local leaders rate their jurisdiction’s current level of fiscal stress as relatively low (at 4 or less on the 10-point scale). However, this is down slightly from the 64% in 2016 and 66% in 2015. In addition, the 10% who rate their governments’ fiscal health as “perfect” today has dropped slightly from 12% in 2016 and 13% in 2015. Meanwhile, this year 25% of jurisdictions give themselves a score of 5 or 6 (indicating medium levels of stress), which is up from 24% in 2016 and 23% in 2015. Finally, 9% of jurisdictions say that they are in high fiscal stress today, up from 8% in 2016 and 7% in 2015. The 9% of jurisdictions with high stress scores today equates to about 167 of the state’s local units.

Figure 2a Officials’ assessments of their jurisdiction’s current fiscal stress, 2017

1: Perfect health

1% 5%

3% 3%

10%

Low stress

3 4

22%

5 Medium stress

18%

6 7

High stress

12%

19%

8 9 10: Fiscal crisis Don’t know

While the individual year-over-year changes on the Fiscal Stress Index are quite small, the fact that there is now a two-year trend of increasing levels of high fiscal stress is worth noting, and should be monitored going forward.

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

As with the year-over-year trends in fiscal health improvement, breaking out the data by jurisdiction size illustrates some important differences. The state’s smallest jurisdictions saw a slight increase in jurisdictions reporting medium levels of fiscal stress (29% in 2017 vs. 26% in 2016), but the percentage reporting high fiscal stress remained the same (see Figure 2b). Meanwhile, among each of the top three population categories, the percentage of jurisdictions reporting high fiscal stress rose in 2017. This is a particular concern among mid-sized jurisdictions with between 10,001-30,000 residents, where 12% of jurisdictions report high fiscal stress today, up from 5% last year. Compared to other jurisdiction types, county officials (20%) are the most likely to report their jurisdictions are in high stress today (see Figure 2c). Meanwhile, on the low-stress end, around half of all Michigan county (48%), city (48%), and village (52%) officials rate their governments’ current fiscal stress as low, compared with 70% of township officials. For the first time in Spring 2017, the MPPS asked local officials to characterize their jurisdictions on a spectrum of rural, mostly rural, mostly urban, and urban. These self-assessments match up relatively well with data from the U.S. Census Bureau, but because the MPPS measure is so new, additional analysis will be done to understand it thoroughly. In the meantime preliminarily findings (see Figure 2d), show that officials who characterize their jurisdictions as “mostly rural” are the most likely to rate their governments’ fiscal stress as low (68%), while jurisdictions characterized as “urban” are the most likely to rate their stress levels as medium or high (47%).

Figure 2b Officials’ assessments of their jurisdiction’s current fiscal stress, 20162017, by jurisdiction size 70%

59%

61%

69%

62%

63%

64%

57%

58%

56% Low stress (FSI 1-4) Medium stress (FSI 5-6)

26%

29%

2016

2017

21% 4%

Population <1,500

27%

20%

32%

28%

26%

28%

10%

2% 5% 3%

High stress (FSI 7-10)

28%

Don't know

8% 2% 8% 3%

2016

2017

Population 1,500-5,000

2017

2016

Population 5,001-10,000

12%

2017

11%

14% 1%

2016

Population 10,001-30,000

2% 2017

Population >30,000

Figure 2c Officials’ assessments of their jurisdiction’s current fiscal stress, 20162017, by jurisdiction type

49%

48%

71%

70%

50%

51%

48%

52% Low stress (FSI 1-4) Medium stress (FSI 5-6)

27%

30%

19%

20%

19% 2%

40%

4% 2016

2017

36%

33%

9% 5%

12%

High stress (FSI 7-10)

21% Don't know

7% 3% 7% 4%

11%

2016

County

37%

2017

Township

13%

2017

2016

City

2017

Village

Figure 2d Officials’ assessments of their jurisdiction’s current fiscal stress, 2017, by urban-rural self-assessment 61%

68%

52%

57%

Low stress (FSI 1-4) Medium stress (FSI 5-6)

27%

8% 3% Rural

37%

25% 20% 9% Mostly Rural

High stress (FSI 7-10) Don't know

14% Mostly Urban

10% 1% Urban

Note: calculation for “urban-rural self-identification” does not include county responses

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Local jurisdictions report improvements in property tax revenues, particularly among the smallest places Property taxes are typically the most important source of funding for Michigan’s local governments, and one of the most difficult challenges they’ve faced over the past decade has been severe and widespread decreases in property tax revenues. Fortunately, local jurisdictions continue to be more likely to report increasing than decreasing property tax revenues. In 2017, 45% of local jurisdictions statewide report an increase in their property tax revenues compared with the previous fiscal year, which is a 3% improvement over last year, and back in line with reports from 2015 (see Figure 3a). Fewer than one in five (19%) jurisdictions overall say they experienced decreasing revenue from property taxes compared with the previous fiscal year, the lowest such percentage since the MPPS began its tracking in 2009. Still, it is important to note that almost no local governments say these revenues increased greatly, so it is likely most increases were relatively modest. In many cases this may be due to state-imposed tax caps in Proposal A and the Headlee Amendment to the Constitution. As of 2017, jurisdictions of all sizes report net gains in property tax revenues compared with last year. Among the state’s largest jurisdictions, 63% indicate they have increased property tax revenues in 2017, while 18% say their property tax revenues decreased. This yields a net positive of 45%, up from the 34% net improvement reported last year but still below 2015 levels (see Figure 3b). Mid-sized jurisdictions have mostly caught back up with their 2015 net improvement levels. Meanwhile, the state’s smallest jurisdictions report a significant jump in the net improvement in their property tax revenues, going from 3% in 2016 to 17% today.

Figure 3a Percentage of jurisdictions overall reporting changes in property tax revenue compared with previous fiscal year, 2009-2017 45% 36%

42%

45%

27%

27% 8% 2009

2010

12% 2011

16%

Increased over previous FY

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

26%

25%

19%

Decreased over previous FY

38% 48%

48% 64% 78%

74%

Note: responses for “neither better nor less able” and “don’t know” not shown

Figure 3b Net property tax yearly change: percentage of jurisdictions reporting increases in property taxes minus percentage reporting decreases in property taxes, 2009-2017, by population size

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70% -80% -90% -100% 2009

2010 <1,500

2011

2012

1,500-5,000

2013

2014

5,001-10,000

2015

10,001-30,000

2016

2017

>30,000

Local foreclosures and tax delinquencies are among other fiscal metrics tracked by the MPPS, and these two areas see little change in 2017 compared with last year. Statewide, only 10% of jurisdictions now say their foreclosures are increasing, while 26% say they are decreasing compared with the previous year (13% and 29%, respectively in 2016). However, while most regions have slightly improved or held steady in terms of foreclosure rates, local officials from jurisdictions in both the Upper Peninsula and Southeast Michigan report a net uptick in local foreclosure rates. The U.P. continues to be the one region of the state reporting more increases (21% of jurisdictions) than decreases (5% of jurisdictions) in foreclosures. Similarly, reports of changes in tax delinquencies in regions around the state are generally good or neutral, with the exception of the U.P., where officials are significantly more likely to report increased tax delinquencies (32%) than they were in 2016 (19%). 8

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Fewer improvements in levels of state aid, particularly among the largest jurisdictions State aid is another critical source of income for local governments in Michigan, however it is one of the few fiscal indicators tracked on the MPPS that did not see a rebound in 2017. Only 17% of local jurisdictions report increases in state aid compared with the previous fiscal year (down from a recent high of 28% in 2015), while 19% report continued decreases (see Figure 4a).

Figure 4a Percentage of jurisdictions overall reporting changes in state aid compared with previous fiscal year, 2009-2017

27% 3%

2009

2010

2011

15%

17%

2012

2013

2014

21%

28%

2015

14%

18%

17%

2016

2017

20%

19%

Increased over previous FY

Decreased over previous FY

34% 45% 61% 69% 86%

This year, net changes in reported state aid held steady around the zero-axis (meaning little net improvement or decline) for most jurisdiction sizes. However, the state’s largest jurisdictions are the most likely to report continuing declines in state aid, with 38% reporting declines while 23% report increases, resulting in a net -15% (see Figure 4b).

Note: responses for “neither better nor less able” and “don’t know” not shown Figure 4b Net state aid yearly change: percentage of jurisdictions reporting increases in state aid minus percentage reporting decreases in state aid, 2009-2017, by jurisdiction size 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70% -80% -90% -100% 2009

2010 <1,500

2011

2012

1,500-5,000

2013 5,001-10,000

2014

2015

10,001-30,000

2016

2017

>30,000

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Evaluations of local government general fund balances mostly hold steady, but mid-sized to larger jurisdictions report some increased concerns

Figure 5a Percentage of officials saying their general fund balance is too high, too low, or about right, 2010-2017

27%

56%

23%

62%

61%

26%

24%

59%

61%

20% 64%

23%

22%

60%

Too low About right

To further gauge budgetary stress, the MPPS carries several questions regarding local governments’ general fund balances. One items asks local officials to think about their jurisdictions’ fiscal needs and to evaluate, overall, whether their jurisdictions’ unreserved/unassigned general fund balance is too high, about right, or too low. Looking across waves among all jurisdictions, officials’ concerns about general fund balance have generally held steady, with approximately a quarter of officials in any given year reporting their jurisdictions’ general fund balances are too low (see Figure 5a). In 2017, 22% of officials statewide say their jurisdictions’ general fund balances are too low, with only 5% saying they are too high, and 60% saying the level is about right. However, those statewide assessments mask important differences across jurisdictions of varying size. In keeping with the other fiscal health concerns expressed by mid-sized jurisdictions outlined earlier in this report, there is some increased concern about general fund balances among jurisdictions with 10,001-30,000 residents, where 30% of officials think their fund balance today is too low compared with 26% who said the same in 2016. By contrast, assessments of whether general fund balances are too low among all other population size groups are either improved or generally holding steady compared with 2016 responses.

Too high

13%

11%

5% 4% 12% 11%

6% 9%

6% 10%

12%

5% 13%

2010

2011

2012

2014

2015

2016

2017

2013

Don't know

Figure 5b Percentage of officials saying their general fund balance is too low, 2010-2017, by population size 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0 2010

2011 <1,500

2012 1,500-5,000

2013

2014

5,001-10,000

2015 10,001-30,000

2016

2017 >30,000

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Looking ahead, just over a quarter of local officials statewide (28%) predict their jurisdictions will have to increase their reliance on their general fund balance in order to meet their governments’ budget needs, while 5% say they will be decreasing their reliance on the general fund balance (see Figure 6a). The 28% this year who predict they will be increasing this reliance represents an improvement from the 30% who said the same in 2016, but is not quite back in line with the prior improving trend that began in 2010 and lasted through 2015. Once again, while smaller jurisdictions are less likely to predict increased reliance on their general fund balance next year, officials from both Michigan’s mid-sized and largest jurisdictions are more likely to predict increased reliance, for the second year in a row. Among those jurisdictions with 10,001-30,000 residents, the net calculation of plans to increase vs. decrease reliance on the general fund balance went from 33% in 2016 to 36% in 2017, while among the largest jurisdictions, the net calculation rose from 19% to 27% (see Figure 6b). Looking at other budgetary indicators, only 5% of local leaders overall report that their jurisdictions’ cash flow and ability to pay bills is “somewhat” of a problem or a “significant” problem, similar to the low percentages reported in prior years.

Figure 6a Percentage of jurisdictions overall predicting upcoming changes in reliance on general fund balance compared with previous fiscal year, 2010-2017 49% 36%

34%

30%

27%

26%

30%

28% Increase reliance

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Decrease reliance

Note: responses for “neither better nor less able” and “don’t know” not shown

Figure 6b Net general fund reliance change: percentage of jurisdictions predicting increases in reliance on their general fund balance minus percentage predicting decreases, 2009-2017, by jurisdiction size 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 2010

2011 <1,500

2012 1,500-5,000

2013

2014

5,001-10,000

2015 10,001-30,000

2016

2017 >30,000

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Plans for the coming year: return to the trend in employee pay increases, except among largest jurisdictions Overall, a majority of local officials statewide (56%) report they are looking to provide their employees with pay increases in the coming year, while very few predict decreases in employee pay (see Figure 7a). While 2016 was the first year since MPPS tracking began in which the fewer jurisdictions expected to boost wages compared with the previous year, 2017 sees a return to the trend toward predicted pay increases. However, the rebound in 2017 excludes the state’s largest jurisdictions. Although three-quarters (75%) of leaders from the largest jurisdictions predict increased employee pay rates, this is down from 80% in 2016 (see Figure 7b). Meanwhile, among those jurisdictions that offer health benefits to employees, almost one in three (29%) local leaders also predict their jurisdictions will continue to ask employees to pay more of their own health care costs, about the same percentage as in 2016 (28%). This includes 40-44% of jurisdictions (that offer health benefits to employees) with over 5,000 residents.

Figure 7a Percentage of jurisdictions reporting planned changes to employee pay in the coming year, 2011-2017

40%

47%

56%

53%

48%

30% 21% Increase 2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Decrease

Note: responses for “no change,” “not applicable,” and “don’t know” not shown

Figure 7b Percentage of jurisdictions reporting planned increases to employee pay in the coming year, 2011-2017, by population size

90% 80% 70%

Appendix C provides time-series data for a number of items related to employee compensation and benefits. In addition, a more detailed report on Michigan local government workforce policies will be released this in the coming months.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 2011 <1,500

2012

2013

1,500-5,000

2014

2015

5,001-10,000

2016

10,001-30,000

2017 >30,000

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Plans for the coming year: small growth in the number of jurisdictions increasing service provision, while officials predict infrastructure needs will outpace spending In response to the fiscal pressures of the Great Recession, many Michigan local governments pursued cost-control strategies—such as increasing levels of intergovernmental cooperation, increasing reliance on general fund balances, increasing employees’ shares of fringe benefit costs, and more2 — in an effort to protect their services from cuts. As a result, even in the depths of the fiscal crisis in 2010, only 29% of local jurisdictions statewide planned cuts in their overall levels of services (although the percentages were much higher among larger jurisdictions, including 63% of the largest places). Since then, the number of jurisdictions planning service increases has climbed slowly, with 19% of local leaders statewide in 2017 saying they plan to increase services overall in the coming year (see Figure 8).

Figure 8 Percentage of jurisdictions reporting planned changes in overall service provision in the coming year, 2009-2017

10%

12%

13%

15%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

12%

15%

21%

24%

In addition, 45% of local leaders statewide predict their jurisdictions will increase infrastructure spending in the coming year, including 66% of the state’s mid-sized jurisdictions and 61% of the largest (see Figure 10). However, local leaders in communities of all sizes indicate that increased needs will outpace increases in spending. While 45% statewide say their jurisdictions will increase infrastructure spending, 56% note that their infrastructure needs increased in 2017, including 15% who report their infrastructure needs have increased “significantly.”

Decrease

Note: responses for “no change,” “not applicable,” and “don’t know” not shown

Figure 9 Percentage of jurisdictions reporting increases in public safety needs and planned increases in actual public safety spending in the coming year, 2017, by population size 67%

63%

50% 33%

27%

33%

39%

35%

33%

17%

Population <1,500

Population 1,500-5,000

Population 5,001-10,000

Public safety needs increased vs. previous FY

Population 10,001-30,000

Population >30,000

TOTAL

Plans to increase public safety spending in coming FY

Figure 10 Percentage of jurisdictions reporting increases in infrastructure needs and planned increases in actual infrastructure spending in the coming year, 2017, by population size 82%

82% 66%

64% 55%

47% 40%

Looking at other areas of service spending, 38% of local governments statewide expect to increase spending on general government operations, compared to just 5% that expect to decrease such spending, essentially unchanged from previous years. Only 14% plan increases in spending on economic development and 10% plan increases for human services, even though 28% report human service needs have increased in the last year.

Increase 2017

29%

59%

The MPPS also asks local officials about the service demands they face, and their plans for changes in government spending on particular service areas. For example, 35% of local leaders overall say their jurisdictions face increased demands to provide public safety services, while 33% report that their jurisdictions will likely increase spending on these services in the coming year. The percentages facing demands, and planning increased spending, generally increase with jurisdiction size (see Figure 9).

19%

Population <1,500

66%

51%

Population 1,500-5,000

Population 5,001-10,000

Infrastructure needs increased vs. previous FY

56% 45%

41%

Population 10,001-30,000

Population >30,000

TOTAL

Plans to increase infrastructure spending in coming FY

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Plans for the coming year: many of the largest local governments will seek more intergovernmental cooperation, but most others plan no increases In terms of how those services will be provided, plans to increase efforts to privatize, outsource, or share service provision collaboratively with other jurisdictions are generally holding steady compared with last year. Overall, only 11% of Michigan local leaders say their jurisdictions expect to increase service privatization efforts in the coming year (essentially the same percentage each year since 2014), while just 1% expect to decrease these efforts. Meanwhile, when it comes to intergovernmental service sharing activities, 18% of Michigan local jurisdictions expect to increase the number and/or scope of their cooperative service sharing activities with other governments, again unchanged from 2016 (see Figure 11a). However, for the first time since 2011, the number of officials from the state’s largest jurisdictions who say they will seek to increase the number and/or scope of their intergovernmental agreements has increased, from 28% in 2016 to 40% today (see Figure 11b). Meanwhile, among jurisdictions with between 10,001 to 30,000 residents, fewer plan to increase intergovernmental approaches to service delivery compared with last year, and among smaller jurisdictions plans to expand collaborative approaches are mostly holding steady with the prior year. But while expansions of cooperative efforts are unlikely among all but the largest jurisdictions this year, only 1% statewide say they actively plan to decrease the number and/or scope of their intergovernmental agreements; most (65%) expect the number and/or scope of their interlocal agreements to remain unchanged.

Figure 11a Percentage of jurisdictions reporting plans to increase number and/ or scope of interlocal agreements next year, 2009-2017, by population size

38%

40%

40% 34%

32%

30% 22%

18%

18% Increase

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Decrease

Note: responses for “no change,” “not applicable,” and “don’t know” not shown

Figure 11b Percentage of jurisdictions reporting plans to increase number and/ or scope of interlocal agreements next year, 2009-2017, by population size

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 2009

2010 <1,500

2011

2012

1,500-5,000

2013

2014

5,001-10,000

2015

10,001-30,000

2016

2017

>30,000

Again, data from 2009-2017 on local officials’ plans for the coming year on a range of topics is available in Appendix C.

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Optimism about local economies returns to upward trend, but much less confidence in future local government fiscal health In addition to questions about the fiscal health of local governments themselves, the MPPS also asks respondents to think about general business conditions locally and to predict whether their communities will have good times or bad times financially in the coming twelve months (irrespective of the jurisdiction’s own fiscal health). Last year the number of local officials predicting good times leveled off compared with the trend of improvement that began in 2010, but today a majority (51%) predict good economic times for their communities, the highest percentage to date (see Figure 12). Only 8% of local officials predict bad times for their local economies, the lowest percentage since the start of the MPPS in 2009. However, this optimism about the general economy does not extend to local leaders’ expectations for their own governments’ fiscal health. Similar to last year, less than a third (29%) currently predict that their jurisdictions will be better able to meet fiscal needs next year than they were this year, while 22% believe they will be worse off (see Figure 13). By jurisdiction type, city officials are the least optimistic, with 36% predicting they will be less able to meet fiscal needs next year while 32% predict they will be better able to do so.

Figure 12 Percentage of jurisdictions overall predicting their community will have good or bad times financially, 2009-2017

36%

40%

46%

51%

27% 6% 2009

13% 2010

19% Good times 2011

2012

22%

2013

18%

2014

2015

2016

2017

12%

11%

Bad times

33% 50% 58%

Note: responses for “neither” and “don’t know” not shown

Figure 13 Percentage of jurisdictions predicting they will be better or less able to meet their fiscal needs in coming year, 2009-2017

2009

2010

15% 2011

22%

28%

35%

36%

2014

28%

29%

2015

2016

2017

19%

22%

Better able next year 2012

2013

Less able next year 22% 34%

30%

50% 62%

65%

Note: responses for “neither better nor less able” and “don’t know” not shown

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Furthermore, there is particular (and increasing) pessimism for the future among those officials who say their jurisdictions are currently experiencing high levels of fiscal stress, as shown in Figure 14. A year ago, on the 2016 MPPS, 60% of these jurisdictions predicted they would still be in high stress in five years. Now on the 2017 MPPS that has increased to 65% of these jurisdictions predicting ongoing high stress levels. By comparison, among jurisdictions that report low fiscal stress today, there is increasing optimism about the future. A year ago 77% of these low stress jurisdictions predicted they would still have low stress in five years, while that has increased to 80% as of the 2017 survey predicting low future stress.

Figure 14 Officials’ predictions of their jurisdiction’s fiscal stress in 5 years, 2017, by their current fiscal stress index score

There are also different five-year outlooks when breaking the responses down along the urban-rural spectrum. Officials who characterize their jurisdiction as “rural” or “mostly rural” are more likely to predict low fiscal stress in five years (57% and 61%, respectively), while fewer than half of jurisdictions that self-identify as “mostly urban” (50%) or “urban” (42%) say the same.

Note: responses for “don’t know” not shown

80%

77%

19%

49%

17% 54%

9% 18% 60%

9% 16% 65%

Predict low stress in 5 years Predict medium stress in 5 years Predict high stress in 5 years

13%

Low stress in 2016

12% Low stress in 2017

22%

23%

Medium stress in 2016

Medium stress in 2017

High stress in 2016

High stress in 2017

Figure 15 Officials’ predictions of their jurisdiction’s fiscal stress in 5 years, 2017, by urban-rural self-assessment

57%

60%

50%

42% Predict low stress in 5 years

26% 21%

20%

12%

Rural

Mostly Rural

31%

Predict medium stress in 5 years Predict high stress in 5 years

20%

18%

Mostly Urban

Urban

Note: responses for “don’t know” not shown; calculation for “urbanrural self-identification” does not include county responses

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Conclusion While 2016 saw a reversal in the trends of gradually improving fiscal health that Michigan local governments have reported since the end of the Great Recession, the 2017 MPPS finds many of those indicators have turned once more in a positive direction, if only marginally. Statewide, more than a third (35%) of local governments overall say they are now better able to meet their fiscal needs, an increase of four percentage points from the 31% that said the same in 2016. Meanwhile, 18% say they are less able to meet their needs this year, down from 22% last year. However, when considering the number of jurisdictions with improving health minus those with declining health, the net improvement overall is concentrated among Michigan’s smaller jurisdictions, with mid-size and larger jurisdictions tending to hold steady or even experience slight declines compared with last year. Meanwhile, although most local governments (63%) self-rate their levels of fiscal stress as relatively low today, this is down from 64% last year and 66% in 2015. And, among each of the top three community population categories, the percentage of jurisdictions reporting high fiscal stress rose in 2017, for the second year in a row. Of particular note are jurisdictions with 10,001 to 30,000 residents, where those reporting high fiscal stress increased from 5% in 2016 to 12% in 2017. Reports on individual fiscal indicators are mixed as well. While many local officials report that property tax revenues are modestly increasing or that they are able to return to offering higher wages to employees, some also report stagnant or decreasing levels of revenue from state aid, as well as increasing service needs that are outpacing actual service spending. Looking to the near future, local officials are increasingly optimistic about their communities’ broader economies, but only 29% predict their own governments will be better able to meet fiscal needs next year, while 22% predict they will less able to do so (which represents no improvement over 2016). After nine years of tracking local government fiscal health statewide, with varying results but overall a slow and gradual trend of improvement, one thing stands out: Michigan’s ongoing statewide economic recovery from the Great Recession has left a very mixed and underwhelming record of improvement for local government fiscal conditions. If the next recession comes any time soon, the substantial number of local governments that have not yet fully recovered from the Great Recession will face very difficult choices to cut costs again, unless the state’s system of funding local government allows for greater revenue growth.

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Notes 1.

National League of Cities. (2017). City Fiscal Conditions. Retrieved from http://nlc.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/NLC%20 City%20Fiscal%20Conditions%202017.pdf

2. Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy. (2010, August). Local governments struggle to cope with fiscal, service, and staffing pressures. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/michigan-public-policy-survey/6/local-governments-struggle-to-copewith-fiscal-service-and-staffing-pressures/

Survey Background and Methodology The MPPS is a biannual survey of each of Michigan’s 1,856 units of general purpose local government, conducted once each spring and fall. While the spring surveys consist of multiple batteries of the same “core” fiscal, budgetary and operational policy questions and are designed to build-up a multi-year timeseries of data, the fall surveys focus on various other topics. In the Spring 2017 iteration, surveys were sent by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) via the internet and hardcopy to top elected and appointed officials (including county administrators and board chairs; city mayors and managers; village presidents, clerks, and managers; and township supervisors, clerks, and managers) from all 83 counties, 280 cities, 253 villages, and 1,240 townships in the state of Michigan. The Spring 2017 wave was conducted from April 3 – June 2, 2017. A total of 1,372 jurisdictions in the Spring 2017 wave returned valid surveys (70 counties, 232 cities, 170 villages, and 900 townships), resulting in a 74% response rate by unit. The margin of error for the survey for the survey as a whole is +/- 1.34%. The key relationships discussed in the above report are statistically significant at the p<.05 level or below, unless otherwise specified. Missing responses are not included in the tabulations, unless otherwise specified. Some report figures may not add to 100% due to rounding within response categories. Quantitative data are weighted to account for non-response. “Voices Across Michigan” verbatim responses, when included, may have been edited for clarity and brevity. Contact CLOSUP staff for more information. Detailed tables of the data analyzed in this report broken down three ways—by jurisdiction type (county, city, township, or village); by population size of the respondent’s community, and by the region of the respondent’s jurisdiction—are available online at the MPPS homepage: http://closup.umich.edu/mpps.php. The survey responses presented here are those of local Michigan officials, while further analysis represents the views of the authors. Neither necessarily reflects the views of the University of Michigan, or of other partners in the MPPS.

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Appendices Appendix A Net fiscal health yearly change: percentage of jurisdictions reporting improving fiscal health minus percentage reporting declining health, 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2017, by county

% Less Able to Meet Fiscal Needs

% Neither Better nor Less Able

% Better Able to Meet Fiscal Needs

% Don't Know

Net Yearly Change for 2017

18.58

34.96

37.17

9.29

18.59%

84.15

15.85

15.85%

ALLEGAN

11.2

51.38

37.42

26.22%

ALPENA

29.39

57.17

13.44

-15.95%

ANTRIM

13.37

31.58

48.62

6.43

35.25%

ARENAC

30.37

29.55

40.09

9.72%

BARAGA

31.81

14.19

22.19%

BARRY

13.43

37.03

42.29

7.26

28.86%

BAY

35.14

51.48

13.38

-21.76%

BENZIE

22.53

47.73

29.73

7.20%

BERRIEN

22.06

32.66

41.96

3.32

19.90%

BRANCH

15.63

54.85

29.52

13.89%

CALHOUN

22.32

42.14

30.1

5.44

7.78%

County Name ALCONA ALGER

CASS

9.21

49.03

30.87

10.89

21.66%

CHARLEVOIX

9.08

48.66

42.26

33.18%

CHEBOYGAN

33.62

56.37

46.37%

CHIPPEWA

31.36

31.56

37.08

5.72%

CLARE

25.61

42.2

32.19

6.58%

CLINTON

5.86

46.61

47.53

41.67%

CRAWFORD

55.28

23.88

20.84

-34.44%

DELTA

22.47

42.52

35.01

12.54%

DICKINSON

36.19

63.81

-36.19%

EATON

5.34

46.33

48.33

42.99%

EMMET

74.54

25.46

25.46%

GENESEE

24.2

41.75

34.05

9.85%

GLADWIN

22.29

40.7

37.01

14.72%

GOGEBIC

43.3

41.71

14.99

-43.30%

GRAND TRAVERSE

15.34

42.79

33.45

8.42

18.11%

GRATIOT

35.17

33.83

25.04

5.96

-10.13%

HILLSDALE

14.79

37.28

42.65

5.27

27.86%

HOUGHTON

25.15

31.82

34.09

8.95

8.94%

HURON

9.58

53.42

27.42%

INGHAM

31.2

41.53

27.27

-3.93%

IONIA

26.12

40.85

33.03

6.91%

IOSCO

9.05

24.79

66.16

57.11%

IRON

37.07

34.39

28.55

-8.52%

ISABELLA

30.8

60.13

9.07

-21.73%

JACKSON

8.14

52.89

38.97

30.83%

KALAMAZOO

39.74

25.6

29.44

5.22

-10.30% 19

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy KALKASKA

13.96

57.55

28.49

14.53%

KENT

12.22

54.98

27.69

5.11

15.47%

KEWEENAW

19.43

62.99

17.58

-1.85%

LAKE

17.92

48.12

17.92

16.04

0.00%

LAPEER

5.92

54.73

39.36

33.44%

LEELANAU

13.9

28.98

57.12

43.22%

LENAWEE

19.17

54.35

26.48

7.31%

LIVINGSTON

20.1

50.43

29.46

9.36%

LUCE

47.01

52.99

52.99%

MACKINAC

22.85

15.73

61.41

38.56%

MACOMB

13.76

38.49

47.75

33.99%

MANISTEE

7.65

72.97

12.53

6.85

4.88%

MARQUETTE

28.65

31.7

39.65

11.00%

MASON

17.7

72.41

9.89

-7.81%

MECOSTA

61.72

38.28

38.28%

MENOMINEE

42.69

57.31

57.31%

MIDLAND

20.73

40.9

38.37

17.64%

MISSAUKEE

27.16

45.69

27.16

0.00%

MONROE

18.53

63.34

18.13

-0.40%

MONTCALM

18.28

20.55

61.17

42.89%

MONTMORENCY

27.35

28.45

44.2

16.85%

MUSKEGON

35.05

53.28

6.72

4.95

-28.33%

NEWAYGO

7.88

49.44

42.68

34.80%

OAKLAND

11.93

24.41

63.66

51.73%

OCEANA

4.8

56.33

38.87

34.07%

OGEMAW

28.82

43.47

27.72

-1.10%

ONTONAGON

41.73

29.83

28.43

-13.30%

OSCEOLA

29.39

35.37

35.23

5.84%

OSCODA

100

0.00%

OTSEGO

14.94

56.94

28.12

13.18%

OTTAWA

18.85

42.29

38.86

20.01%

PRESQUE ISLE

26.45

57.31

16.24

-10.21%

ROSCOMMON

11.44

75.64

12.92

1.48%

SAGINAW

26.9

56.14

16.96

-9.94%

SANILAC

15.39

59.93

24.67

9.28%

SCHOOLCRAFT

59.48

13.51

27.02

13.51%

SHIAWASSEE

26.71

50.36

22.93

-3.78%

ST CLAIR

4.44

70.69

24.87

20.43%

ST JOSEPH

11.71

34.16

48.11

6.02

36.40%

TUSCOLA

17.24

43.89

34.89

3.99

17.65%

VAN BUREN

18.45

27.79

49.1

4.66

30.65%

WASHTENAW

17.73

31.9

50.38

32.65%

WAYNE

34.37

23.75

41.88

7.51%

WEXFORD

13.07

7.47

-5.60%

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Appendix B Conditions in the current fiscal year compared to the previous fiscal year, 2009-2017

2009 Revenue from property tax

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Increased

27%

12%

16%

27%

36%

45%

42%

45%

Decreased

48%

78%

74%

64%

48%

38%

26%

25%

19%

Increased

10%

13%

17%

18%

19%

21%

Decreased

54%

59%

47%

34%

26%

18%

13%

12%

10%

Increased

12%

14%

12%

15%

14%

16%

Decreased

18%

21%

22%

21%

20%

21%

19%

Ability of jurisdiction to repay its debt

Increased

12%

14%

15%

18%

13%

14%

Decreased

Amount of federal aid to jurisdiction

Increased

Decreased

38%

39%

29%

22%

21%

14%

11%

13%

14%

Amount of state aid to jurisdiction

Increased

15%

17%

27%

28%

18%

17%

Decreased

69%

86%

61%

45%

34%

21%

14%

20%

19%

46%

47%

40%

30%

23%

20%

19%

16%

Revenue from fees for services, licenses, transfers, etc. Amount of debt

Number of tax delinquencies Number of home foreclosures Public safety needs Infrastructure needs Human service needs General government operations needs Number of employees Pay rates for employee wages and salaries Cost of employee pensions

Increased Decreased

20%

12%

13%

15%

16%

17%

15%

Increased

60%

56%

41%

29%

18%

15%

13%

10%

Decreased

16%

10%

17%

25%

31%

33%

29%

26%

Increased

36%

29%

28%

29%

28%

29%

33%

35%

Decreased

Increased

55%

47%

43%

45%

50%

54%

52%

56%

Decreased

12%

Increased

45%

43%

35%

29%

30%

28%

27%

28%

Decreased

Increased

34%

36%

Decreased

Increased

10%

13%

Decreased

27%

23%

19%

16%

20%

21%

27%

39%

46%

53%

51%

57%

Increased

36%

Decreased

15%

13%

10%

Increased

40%

30%

22%

21%

24%

25%

26%

28%

30%

Decreased

Cost of current employee health benefits

Increased

51%

47%

35%

32%

31%

34%

33%

36%

Decreased

Cost of retired employee health benefits

Increased

31%

24%

17%

16%

17%

15%

16%

18%

Decreased

Notes:

Responses for “no change,” “don’t know,” and “not applicable” not shown. Percentages are based on all responding jurisdictions (not just those that selected an option other than “not applicable”). The “not applicable” response option was added in 2011, so direct comparisons with earlier waves may be compromised. Question text for “pay rates for employee wage & salaries” changed slightly between 2010 and 2011. See web tables for exact question text.

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Appendix C Predicted actions for the coming fiscal year compared to the current fiscal year, 2009-2017

Property tax rates Charges for fees for services, licenses, etc. Reliance on general fund balance Reliance on “rainy day” funds Amount of services provided Actual public safety spending Actual infrastructure spending Actual human services spending Actual general government operations spending Funding for economic development programs Amount of debt Sale of public assets(i.e., parks, buildings, etc.) Privatizing or contracting out of services Number and/or scope of interlocal agreements or cost-sharing plans Jurisdiction’s workforce hiring Jurisdiction not filling vacant positions Number of employees Employee pay rates Employees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays on health insurance Employees’ share of contributions to retirement funds Retirees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/ or co-pays on health insurance Notes: 22

Increase

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

18%

10%

15%

22%

23%

27%

22%

26%

Decrease

17%

32%

19%

15%

12%

Increase

23%

22%

20%

19%

21%

18%

23%

Decrease

Increase

49%

36%

34%

30%

27%

26%

30%

28%

Decrease

Increase

38%

25%

21%

19%

17%

Decrease

Increase

10%

12%

13%

15%

19%

Decrease

24%

29%

21%

15%

12%

4% 33%

Increase

26%

22%

20%

22%

27%

33%

34%

Decrease

18%

22%

16%

Increase

28%

25%

23%

32%

34%

42%

43%

42%

45%

Decrease

30%

34%

21%

10%

Increase

10%

Decrease

17%

10%

Increase Decrease

39%

40%

39%

38%

Increase

14%

12%

11%

13%

12%

13%

12%

14%

Decrease

17%

20%

12%

Increase

21%

18%

11%

14%

15%

13%

15%

17%

Decrease

12%

13%

15%

16%

17%

18%

17%

15%

16%

Increase

Decrease

1% 11%

Increase

16%

18%

15%

12%

10%

Decrease

Increase

32%

38%

40%

34%

30%

22%

18%

Decrease

Increase

Decrease

20%

22%

14%

Increase

22%

23%

16%

10%

Decrease

Increase

11%

Decrease

Increase

21%

30%

40%

47%

53%

48%

56%

Decrease

Increase

33%

30%

27%

26%

22%

17%

Decrease

Increase

15%

14%

13%

11%

12%

Decrease

Increase

22%

18%

15%

14%

13%

11%

10%

Decrease

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Previous MPPS reports Michigan local leaders want their citizens to play a larger role in policymaking, but report declining engagement (August 2017) Michigan local leaders’ views on state preemption and how to share policy authority (June 2017) Improving communication, building trust are seen as keys to fixing relationships between local jurisdictions and the State government (May 2017) Local leaders more likely to support than oppose Michigan’s Emergency Manager law, but strongly favor reforms (February 2017) Local government leaders’ views on drinking water and water supply infrastructure in Michigan communities (November 2016) Michigan local leaders say property tax appeals are common, disagree with ‘dark stores’ assessing (October 2016) Local officials say Michigan’s system of funding local government is broken, and seek State action to fix it (September 2016) Michigan local governments report first declines in fiscal health trend since 2010 (August 2016) Michigan local leaders’ doubts continue regarding the state’s direction (July 2016) Hospital access primary emergency medical concern among many Michigan local officials (July 2016) Firefighting services in Michigan: challenges and approaches among local governments (June 2016) Most local officials are satisfied with law enforcement services, but almost half from largest jurisdictions say their funding is insufficient (April 2016) Local leaders say police-community relations are good throughout Michigan, but those in large cities are concerned about potential civil unrest over police use-of-force (February 2016) Report: Responding to budget surplus vs. deficit: the preferences of Michigan’s local leaders and citizens (December 2015) Michigan’s local leaders concerned about retiree health care costs and their governments’ ability to meet future obligations (October 2015) Fiscal health rated relatively good for most jurisdictions, but improvement slows and decline continues for many (September 2015) Confidence in Michigan’s direction declines among state’s local leaders (August 2015) Michigan local government leaders’ views on private roads (July 2015) Few Michigan jurisdictions have adopted Complete Streets policies, though many see potential benefits (June 2015) Michigan local leaders have positive views on relationships with county road agencies, despite some concerns (May 2015) Michigan local government leaders say transit services are important, but lack of funding discourages their development (April 2015) Michigan local leaders see need for state and local ethics reform (March 2015) Local leaders say Michigan road funding needs major increase, but lack consensus on options that would raise the most revenue (February 2015) Michigan local government leaders’ views on employee pay and benefits (January 2015) Despite increasingly formal financial management, relatively few Michigan local governments have adopted recommended policies (December 2014) Most Michigan local officials are satisfied with their privatized services, but few seek to expand further (November 2014) Michigan local governments finally pass fiscal health tipping point overall, but one in four still report decline (October 2014) Beyond the coast, a tenuous relationship between Michigan local governments and the Great Lakes (September 2014) Confidence in Michigan’s direction holds steady among state’s local leaders (August 2014) Wind power as a community issue in Michigan (July 2014) Fracking as a community issue in Michigan (June 2014) 23

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy The impact of tax-exempt properties on Michigan local governments (March 2014) Michigan’s local leaders generally support Detroit bankruptcy filing despite some concerns (February 2014) Michigan local governments increasingly pursue placemaking for economic development (January 2014) Views on right-to-work legislation among Michigan’s local government leaders (December 2013) Michigan local governments continue seeking, and receiving, union concessions (October 2013) Michigan local government fiscal health continues gradual improvement, but smallest jurisdictions lagging (September 2013) Local leaders evaluate state policymaker performance and whether Michigan is on the right track (August 2013) Trust in government among Michigan’s local leaders and citizens (July 2013) Citizen engagement in the view of Michigan’s local government leaders (May 2013) Beyond trust in government: government trust in citizens? (March 2013) Local leaders support reforming Michigan’s system of funding local government (January 2013) Local leaders support eliminating Michigan’s Personal Property Tax if funds are replaced, but distrust state follow-through (November 2012) Michigan’s local leaders satisfied with union negotiations (October 2012) Michigan’s local leaders are divided over the state’s emergency manager law (September 2012) Fiscal stress continues for hundreds of Michigan jurisdictions, but conditions trend in positive direction overall (September 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) Local officials react to state policy innovation tying revenue sharing to dashboards and incentive funding (January 2012) MPPS finds fiscal health continues to decline across the state, though some negative trends eased in 2011 (October 2011) Public sector unions in Michigan: their presence and impact according to local government leaders (August 2011) Despite increased approval of state government performance, Michigan’s local leaders are concerned about the state’s direction (August 2011) Local government and environmental leadership: views of Michigan’s local leaders (July 2011) Local leaders are mostly positive about intergovernmental cooperation and look to expand efforts (March 2011) Local government leaders say most employees are not overpaid, though some benefits may be too generous (February 2011) Local government leaders say economic gardening can help grow their economies (November 2010) Local governments struggle to cope with fiscal, service, and staffing pressures (August 2010) Michigan local governments actively promote U.S. Census participation (August 2010) Fiscal stimulus package mostly ineffective for local economies (May 2010) Fall 2009 key findings report: educational, economic, and workforce development issues at the local level (April 2010) Local government officials give low marks to the performance of state officials and report low trust in Lansing (March 2010) Local government fiscal and economic development issues (October 2009)

All MPPS reports are available online at: http://closup.umich.edu/mpps.php

www.closup.umich.edu

University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy Joan and Sanford Weill Hall 735 S. State Street, Suite 5310 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-3091

Regents of the University of Michigan The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed at the University of Michiganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, conducts and supports applied policy research designed to inform state, local, and urban policy issues. Through integrated research, teaching, and outreach involving academic researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, CLOSUP seeks to foster understanding of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s state and local policy problems, and to find effective solutions to those problems. web: www.closup.umich.edu email: closup@umich.edu twitter: @closup phone: 734-647-4091

Michael J. Behm

Grand Blanc

Mark J. Bernstein

Ann Arbor

Shauna Ryder Diggs

Grosse Pointe Denise Ilitch

Bingham Farms Andrea Fischer Newman

Ann Arbor

Andrew C. Richner

Grosse Pointe Park Ron Weiser

Ann Arbor

Katherine E. White

Ann Arbor

Mark S. Schlissel

(ex officio)