Michigan local leaders say property tax appeals are common, disagree with “dark stores” assessing

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Michigan Public Policy Survey October 2016

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy >> University of Michigan

Michigan local leaders say property tax appeals are common, disagree with “dark stores” assessing

Key Findings •

By Debra Horner, Thomas Ivacko, and Sarah Mills

The issue of property tax appeals has been increasingly important in Michigan recently as “big box” stores (e.g. Lowe’s, Costco, etc.) have been able to significantly decrease their taxes by arguing property assessments should be based on the value of vacant comparable buildings rather than on their “highest and best use.” This is known as “dark stores” assessing, which has resulted in significant cuts in property tax revenue for some local governments. This report presents Michigan local government leaders’ views on the impact of tax assessment appeals—for big box stores and other types of property—in their jurisdictions, including effects on local fiscal health. It also provides local leaders’ opinions on decisions made by the Michigan Tax Tribunal, including about “dark stores” appeals policies. These findings are based on statewide surveys of local government leaders in the Spring 2016 wave of the Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS).

Overall, 89% of Michigan cities and 72% of townships—the units typically responsible for property tax assessment—report experiencing tax appeals by property owners in the last two years (whether for commercial, industrial, residential, or agricultural properties). »»

Among jurisdictions that report having “big box” commercial stores, 57% of cities and 32% of townships say there has been at least one tax appeal for these types of properties within the previous two years.

•

Nearly a quarter (23%) of local officials statewide say tax appeals are somewhat of a problem or a significant problem for their jurisdictions’ fiscal health, including 65% of officials in jurisdictions that have faced an appeal by a commercial big box retailer.

•

If property owners are unsatisfied with the outcome of an appeal to their local Board of Review, they can subsequently appeal those decisions to the state-level Michigan Tax Tribunal. Among jurisdictions that had a tax appeal to their local Board of Review in the last 2 years, 72% of city officials and 59% of township officials report property owners further appealed at least one local Board of Review determination to the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

>> 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 2016 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 1,378 jurisdictions across the state.

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

»»

•

Local leaders’ views on the Tax Tribunal’s determinations are mixed, with 22% of city officials and 41% of township officials saying they were generally satisfied with those outcomes, while 56% and 38%, respectively, say they were dissatisfied.

When it comes to recent Michigan Tax Tribunal rulings that tax assessments for big box properties should be based upon the selling price of comparable vacant “dark stores,” local officials express opposition. Half (50%) of all local officials disagree with this approach by the Tribunal, including 81% of officials from jurisdictions that have directly faced an appeal by a commercial big box retailer.

www.closup.umich.edu

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Background In Michigan, as in other states, property taxes are the lifeblood of local government budgets. They are one of the fundamental revenue sources for local government and, until recently, one of the most stable. However, during and after the Great Recession, declines in real property values and associated tax revenues meant a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars from local government budgets, and these revenues have been slow to recover.1 Although Michigan property values have since rebounded significantly in many places, local officials reported in 2016 that the post-recession year-over-year trend of improvements in local jurisdictions’ property tax revenues has begun to level off. 2 Michigan’s constitutional restrictions on growth in local property taxes—namely, the Headlee Amendment and Proposal A —have been a source of concern for local governments trying to maintain their fiscal footing.3 In addition, there may be another cause for apprehension regarding local property tax revenues in Michigan: the tax appeal process.

In Michigan, property values are typically set by township and city assessors (before they are “equalized” across jurisdictions at the county level).4 These local assessments may be appealed to a local Board of Review5 or, further, the Michigan Tax Tribunal — a fivemember administrative court appointed by the governor to hear assessment appeals.6 Since 2010, the volume of property tax appeals before the Michigan Tax Tribunal has significantly increased over the previous decade, with some experts predicting that successful appeals may inspire other property owners to try to reduce their property tax bills. 7 The result of widespread successful property tax appeals is the reduction of critical local revenues as well an increase in the difficulty of forecasting local government budgets.8 One particular type of tax appeal has recently been making news in Michigan: the so-called “dark stores” method of property assessment for large retail properties. Owners of “big box” stores—commercial properties such as Target or Lowe’s—have been successfully appealing their tax assessments to the Michigan Tax Tribunal and winning signficantly lower tax rates for their properties.9 The big-box store owners’ appeals are based on contesting the method used for assessing their properties’ values. While local governments generally prefer assessments to value big box stores based on underlying land values plus construction costs (less depreciation), store owners want assessors to use “comparable” sales values. They argue that big box stores have unique layouts and building characteristics that make them unsuitable for other uses, limiting potential buyers. Thus, they argue, assessors should look at sales of stores that have gone out of business and are vacant—referred to as “dark stores”— since those are what their properties would sell for on the market and are the closest comparable ones for valuation.

These “dark stores” assessed values can be further depressed by deed restrictions that retailers may place on their big box stores when they close one outlet to open a larger one nearby, intended to restrict how the old store can be used so a future buyer doesn’t compete with the new retail property.

By some estimates, the dark stores valuation approach has cost Michigan municipalities about $100 million in lost property tax revenue since 2013.10 Furthermore, opponents of the dark stores approach have argued that it has not only resulted in decreased local tax revenues, but also in an increase in empty buildings and blight in communities where unsold big box properties stand, and that the appeal strategy may be spreading beyond big box retailers to fast food restaurants, auto parts stores and national chain pharmacies.11 However, there have been a number of recent developments in Michigan regarding dark stores tax assessing. In May 2016, a threejudge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled against the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s dark stores valuation—including the use of deed restrictions—in a case brought by the City of Escanaba against Menards. The appeals court found that the Tax Tribunal “committed an error of law” in how it re-assessed the Menard store’s value in a way that lowered the city’s tax assessment on the property by more than 50%.12 Shortly thereafter, in June, the Michigan Legislature approved House Bill 5578, which contains reforms aimed at blocking the dark stores approach and requiring assessors to determine the “highest and best use” of a property for purposes of assigning value.13 The bill passed by a large, bipartisan majority, and is now in the Senate awaiting consideration.

To find out more about the impact of property tax appeals in general and the dark stores approach in particular on Michigan local governments, the Spring 2016 MPPS survey asked local officials statewide to provide their insights on tax appeals in their jurisdictions.

2

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Local jurisdictions report frequent property tax appeals, and nearly a quarter say they are a problem for fiscal health According to local leaders from Michigan’s cities and townships (the units where most property tax appeals begin through their local Boards of Review), property tax appeals are quite common.

The MPPS asked local officials to indicate whether landowners with residential, agricultural, industrial, or commercial property (including “big box” stores) in their jurisdictions had appealed their tax assessments to either the jurisdiction’s Board of Review or directly to the state-level Michigan Tax Tribunal in the last two years.

Overall, 89% of Michigan cities and 72% of townships report they have experienced one or more such tax appeals in that time frame (see Figure 1). Appeals from residential property owners are the most common type, reported by 83% of cities and 75% of townships.

Not surprisingly, cities are more likely to report commercial and industrial property tax appeals, while townships see significantly more agricultural property tax appeals.

When asked specifically about tax appeals related to commerical big box stores, across the state 31% of Michigan cities and 10% of townships report experiencing such appeals in the last two years (see Figure 2). However, these percentages are relatively low because 45% of cities and 70% of townships report their jurisdictions do not have any big box stores within their borders.

When considering only those jurisdictions that do report having big box stores within their borders, this specific type of tax appeal is more prevalent: 57% of cities and 32% of townships with big box properties report experiencing tax appeals for those stores within the previous two years.

Figure 1 Percentage of local jurisdictions reporting incidence of various property tax appeals (to local Board of Review and/or Michigan Tax Tribunal) within the last two years Any property tax appeals

Residential property tax appeals

Commercial property tax appeals

Industrial property tax appeals

Agricultural property tax appeals

89%

Cities Townships

72%

Cities

83%

Townships

75%

Cities

75%

Townships

28%

Cities

53%

Townships

19%

Cities

5%

Townships

45%

Figure 2 Percentage of local jurisdictions reporting commercial property tax appeals related to “big box” stores within the last two years

Among all cities Big box appeals

Big box appeals

Among all townships

31% 10%

Among only cities with big box stores Among only townships with big box stores

57% 32%

3

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Cities and townships are the units of government responsible for appointing Boards of Review to hear tax appeals. However, the determinations made by these Boards impact a property’s taxable value and thus the tax revenues allocated to other local governments too, including counties, villages, school districts, and others. While property tax appeals are not likely the primary source of fiscal stress for most of Michigan’s local jurisdictions,14 many local leaders say that tax appeals do have a negative impact on their local government. Statewide, 23% of local officials say tax appeals are somewhat of a problem or a signficant problem for their jurisdictions’ fiscal health (see Figure 3). By contrast, only a quarter of officials statewide (25%) say that property tax appeals are not a problem at all for their fiscal health.

Figure 3 Local officials’ assessments of tax appeals as a problem for their jurisdictions’ fiscal health

7%

8%

16%

19%

22% 43%

49%

44%

A significant problem Somewhat of a problem Not much of a problem

28%

25% 7%

23% 2%

Cities and townships All jurisdictions with any appeal in (cities, counties, townships, and villages) the last 2 years

Not a problem at all Don't know

4% 2% Cities and townships with commercial big box appeal in last 2 years

Among just those cities and townships that have faced a tax appeal in the last two years, these appeals have more of an impact, particularly among larger jurisdictions. Overall, 27% of jurisdictions that say they have faced any appeal report that those appeals are somewhat of a problem or a signficant problem for their jurisdictions’ fiscal health. But among the largest cities and townships that have faced a recent tax appeal, 55% report these appeals are at least somewhat of a problem for their jurisdictions’ fiscal health (see Appendix A).

For jurisdictions that have faced appeals related to big box stores, the fiscal impact appears to be even worse. In those jurisdictions that have faced a big box appeal in the last two years, 65% say property tax appeals overall have been either a signficant problem (22%) for their jurisdictions’ fiscal health, or somewhat of a problem (43%). By contrast, just 4% of local leaders in jurisdictions that have recently faced a tax appeal by a commerical big box retailer say that tax appeals are not a problem at all for their jurisdiction’s fiscal health.

4

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Local jurisdictions often defend appeals before the Michigan Tax Tribunal, but satisfaction with outcomes is mixed While some property tax appeals go directly to the Michigan Tax Tribunal, typically landowners pursue a state-level determination only after first appealing their property tax assessments to a local township or city Board of Review. According to local officials, these further appeals to the Michigan Tax Tribunal—whether by big box retailers or other landowners—are relatively common. Among those jurisdictions that had any tax appeal in the last two years, 72% of cities and 59% of townships report having faced at least one appeal taken by the landowners to the Michigan Tax Tribunal (see Figure 4).

Local governments have several actions they can take in response to Michigan Tax Tribunal appeals. They can concede, by accepting the value the landowner claims in their Michigan Tax Tribunal petition.

Another option is to agree to an alternate taxable value with the landowner prior to the Tax Tribunal hearing. Or, alternatively, they can defend the original tax assessment before the Tax Tribunal.

When asked how their jurisdictions have responded to recent appeals before the Tax Tribunal, 17% of city officials and 14% of townships officials whose jurisdictions faced a Tax Tribunal appeal report that, in at least one instance, they accepted the value the landowner claimed in their Tribunal petition (see Figure 5). In addition, 53% of cities and 31% of townships say they agreed to an alternate taxable value prior to the Tribunal hearing. Finally, 64% of cities and 63% of townships report that, in at least one instance, they defended the local tax assessment before the Tax Tribunal.

One reason local governments may choose to simply accept landowners’ claims of lower assessments is that, financially, it may cost too much in legal expenses to defend assessments before the Tax Tribunal. In cases where the jurisdiction chose not to defend the original assessment, the MPPS asked local officials whether the potential cost of legal representation for the appeal impacted their decision. The survey found that 28% say potential costs of legal representation affected that decision a great deal, while 29% say that it affected the decision somewhat. By comparison, 21% say it did not impact their jurisdiction’s decision at all.

Officials from jurisdictions that defended an assessment before the Michigan Tax Tribunal in the last two years express mixed views of the Tribunal’s determinations. Overall, 22% of city officials and 41% of township officials say they were generally satisfied with those outcomes, while 56% and 38%, respectively, say they were dissatisfied (see Figure 6). Note that this is for all types of property tax appeals that went before the Tribunal, not just those for big box stores.

Figure 4 Percentage of local jurisdictions facing appeals to the Michigan Tax Tribunal within the last two years, among those with any property tax appeals

Cities

72% 59%

Townships

Figure 5 Local jurisdictions’ responses to property tax appeal(s) within the last two years, among those appealed to the Michigan Tax Tribunal

Accepted value the landowner claimed in Tribunal petition Agreed to alternate taxable value prior to Tribunal hearing

Defended appeal to Michigan Tax Tribunal

17%

Cities Townships

14% 53%

Cities Townships

31%

Cities

64%

Townships

63%

Note: values do not sum to 100% as jurisdictions may have experienced multiple appeals

Figure 6 Local officials’ satisfaction with Michigan Tax Tribunal’s determinations, among jurisdictions that defended any property tax assessment appeal(s) before the Tax Tribunal within the last two years

Cities

Townships

Very dissatisfied

33%

18%

Somewhat dissatisfied

23%

20%

15%

28%

Somewhat satisfied

7%

13%

Very satisfied

5

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Widespread opposition among local jurisdictions regarding Tribunal’s “dark stores” rulings As noted earlier, there has been much controversy over the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s rules regarding big box stores. In recent years, the Tribunal has heard a number of appeals by big box retailers claiming their buildings will ultimately be hard to sell for another use, and so the market value of the properties will be significantly lower than construction costs (plus underlying land values). The Tax Tribunal has generally allowed their assessments to be based on the relatively low value of comparable vacant “dark stores” rather than on a property’s “highest and best use.” When asked about this on the MPPS, local leaders express strong negative feelings about these rulings, with 50% of all local officials (i.e., from all responding cities, counties, townships, and villages) saying they disagree with this approach, while just 9% agree with it (see Figure 7). Opinions are even more lopsided among officials in cities and townships that have directly faced a tax appeal by a commercial big box retailer, with 81% disagreeing with the Tribunal’s rulings on the dark store assessment method.

One option local governments may consider in an attempt to limit tax revenue losses from the dark stores tax rulings is to enact local ordinances that require new commercial buildings to be constructed for more general reuse (e.g., when a Costco store closes it could then be used by an alternative retailer in a different field, or perhaps used as a warehouse, etc.) or that address deed restrictions that limit subsequent alternative uses of a property.15 However, there are a number of reasons these actions may not be practical or effective even if local governments pursued them. First, any new ordinances would likely only apply to new buildings and would not retroactively apply to existing buildings, including those which have already had their assessments adjusted. Second, there is too little experience in Michigan with design standards for big box stores to know if such standards do result in reuse of the buildings.

Third, it is not clear that attempting to limit or prohibit relevant deed restrictions would even be legally allowable. Whether because of these concerns regarding local action or other factors, only 4% of the state’s local units have discussed enacting a local ordinance related to addressing “dark stores” tax appeals, and less than 1% report having actually enacted any such ordinance (see Figure 8).

Even among jurisdictions that have recently faced property tax appeals by big box retailers, only 13% have discussed enacting a related local ordinance, although 54% say they may discuss doing so in the future.

6

Figure 7 Percentage of local officials’ who agree or disagree that tax assessments of retail chain stores should be based on comparable vacant “dark stores” 2% 7% 15%

3% 5%

12%

8%

Strongly agree

11%

Somewhat agree

70%

Neither agree nor disagree

38% Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 26%

Don't know 3%

All jurisdictions Cities and townships (cities, counties, with commercial townships, and villages) big box appeal in last two years

Figure 8 Percentage of local jurisdictions that have taken action on local ordinances regarding “dark stores” appeals

4%

1%

18%

12% 54%

55%

Enacted local ordinance Discussed enacting; decided not to Discussed enacting; not yet decided Not discussed; likely in future

23%

21%

Not discussed; unlikely in future Don't know

11% All jurisdictions

Cities and townships with commercial big box appeal in last two years

Note: Fewer than 1% of jurisdictions have currently enacted local ordinances to address dark stores tax appeals

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Conclusion Given the fiscal stress faced currently by many local governments across the state and the importance of property tax revenue to local government finances, property tax appeals may pose a further threat to local fiscal health beyond other cuts in revenue and generally rising costs. The MPPS finds that local property tax appeals are a frequent occurrence, with 89% of cities and 72% of townships—the units typically responsible for tax assessment—reporting an appeal within the last two years. Nearly a quarter (23%) of local officials statewide say tax appeals are somewhat of a problem or a signficant problem for their jurisdictions’ fiscal health. This number increases to 65% of officials in cities and townships that say they have faced an appeal by a commercial big box retailer, underscoring the importance of state-level policies addressing how properties are assessed. While local officials’ views on the full range of Michigan Tax Tribunal rulings are generally mixed, there is strong opposition for the Tribunal’s dark stores assessing method for big box retailers.

7

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Notes 1. Dadayan, L. (2012). The Impact of the Great Recession on Local Property Taxes. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Retrieved from http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/2012-07-16-Recession_Local_%20Property_Tax.pdf 2. Horner, D. & Ivacko, T. (2016). Michigan local governments report first declines in fiscal health trend since 2010. 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/files/mpps-fiscal-health-2016.pdf 3. SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. (2014, November). Running on Empty: SEMCOG’s Local Government Revenue Task Force Report. Detroit, MI: SEMCOG. Retrieved from http://semcog.org/Reports/RunningOnEmpty/RunningOnEmpty/files/assets/common/downloads/publication.pdf 4. Michigan Legislature. (2016, January). Michigan Taxpayers Guide. Retrieved from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/Publications/TaxpayerGuide2016.pdf 5. State Tax Commission. (2016, February). State Tax Commission Boards of Review. Lansing, MI: State Tax Commission.

Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/treasury/BOR_QA_423899_7.pdf 6. Michigan Legislature. (2016, January). Michigan Taxpayers Guide. Retrieved from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/Publications/TaxpayerGuide2016.pdf 7. Newsmax Media. (2010, December 8). Tax Appeals Swamp Towns as Property Prices Dive. Retrieved from http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Headline/Tax-Appeals-Swamp-Towns/2010/12/08/id/379372/ 8. Randall, M. (2016, October 5). The dark world of property assessment. Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/dark-world-property-assessment 9. Dawsey, C.P. (2015, August 11). Lawmakers to big box stores: Pay your fair share of taxes! Bridge Magazine. Lansing, MI: Center for Michigan. Retrieved from http://bridgemi.com/2015/08/lawmakers-seek-a-halt-to-dark-stores-tax-cutting-strategy/ 10. Manes, N. (2016, June 8). Michigan House advances ‘Dark Store’ legislation. Grand Rapids, MI: MiBiz. Retrieved from https://mibiz.com/item/23713-michigan-house-advances-‘dark-store’-legislation 11. MTA Government Relations Department.(2016). ‘Dark store’ issue requires legislative fix. Michigan Townships Association.

Retrieved from https://www.michigantownships.org/darkstores.asp 12. Menard, Inc. v. City of Escanaba. (Mich. App. 2016). Retrieved from http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160526_C325718_46_325718.OPN.PDF 13. Manes, N. (2016, June 8). Michigan House advances ‘Dark Store’ legislation. Grand Rapids, MI: MiBiz. Retrieved from https://mibiz.com/item/23713-michigan-house-advances-‘dark-store’-legislation 14. Horner, D. & Ivacko, T. (2016). Michigan local governments report first declines in fiscal health trend since 2010. 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/files/mpps-fiscal-health-2016.pdf 15. Sochar, B. H. (2008). Shining the light on greyfields: A Wal-Mart case study on preventing abandonment of big box stores through land use regulations. Albany Law Review. 71(3): 697-730

8

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Appendix A Impact of property tax appeals on local government fiscal health (among jurisdictions that have experienced property tax appeals within the past two years), by population size

<1,500

1,500-5,000

5,001-10,000

10,001-30,000

>30,000

Total

A significant problem

3%

7%

6%

21%

14%

8%

Somewhat of a Problem

11%

14%

33%

34%

41%

19%

Not much of a problem

54%

51%

50%

33%

38%

49%

Not a problem at all

32%

26%

10%

11%

2%

23%

1%

2%

1%

1%

6%

2%

Don’t know

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 2016 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, 278 cities, 255 villages, and 1,240 townships in the state of Michigan.

The Spring 2016 wave was conducted from April 4 – June 6, 2016. A total of 1,378 jurisdictions in the Spring 2016 wave returned valid surveys (63 counties, 222 cities, 190 villages, and 903 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.

9

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Previous MPPS reports 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) 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)

10

www.closup.umich.edu

Michigan Public Policy Survey

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

11

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

Laurence B. Deitch

Bloomfield Hills

Shauna Ryder Diggs

Grosse Pointe Denise Ilitch

Bingham Farms Andrea Fischer Newman

Ann Arbor

Andrew C. Richner

Grosse Pointe Park

Katherine E. White

Ann Arbor

Mark S. Schlissel

(ex officio)