grand vision: leelanau perspective

8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective

1/49

LEELANAU COUNTY

PERSPECTIVE

thegrandvision.org


2/49

A Leelanau County PerspectiveThis summary report includes information from previously released reports.

Original reports were prepared by:

Fregonese Associates

Mead&Hunt

Harris Interactive

Grand Vision Public Involvement Committee

Public Policy Associates, Inc.

Information was compiled by the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments for the purposes of this

summary in September 2009.


3/49

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Public Participation and Outreach 6

Leelanau County Workshop Results 12

Values Survey Data and Comparison with Regional Results 15

Scorecard Results 23

Follow Up Survey 31

The Grand Vision 37

Appendices

Appendix A: Grand Vision Coordinating Group Representative Agencies 41

Appendix B: Grand Vision Consultant Team 42

Appendix C: Grand Vision Champions 43

Appendix D: Scorecard Responses 44


4/49

The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 1

The Grand Vision is a citizen-led vision for the

future of transportation, land use, economic de-

velopment, and environmental stewardship in

Antrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Lee-

lanau, and Wexford Counties. The Grand Vision

was created with input from thousands of citi-

zens and was supported by dozens of commu-

nity partners throughout the regionincluding

private, nonprofit, and public agencieswith

financial backing from local, county, state, and

federal units of government as well as both pri-

vate and public organizations This unprece-

dented collaboration has resulted in a vision for

the regions future that will enhance our sense of

place, building the foundation for a strong econ-

omy while preserving those parts of our commu-

nities that are most important to residents.

This report summarizes the process

and results of the Grand Vision re-

gion-wide, while highlighting Leelanau

County results in terms of public par-

ticipation, the Leelanau County work-

shop, values survey data, scorecard

results, and follow-up survey data.

Leelanau County data are shown in a

side-by-side comparison with regionaldata, to demonstrate how Leelanau

County results play out in the regional

Grand Vision. It is hoped that this

information will be valuable in the any

Grand Vision implementation activities

that may occur in the County and in other future

planning efforts in the community.

Data and analysis was excerpted from previ-

ously released reports including:

Grand Vision Public Involvement Committee

2007-08 Report

Values research survey; analysis conducted

by Harris Interactive, Inc., November 2008

Scorecard results; analysis by Fregonese

Associates, January 2009

Grand Vision 2009 Public Opinion Survey

Results; conducted by Public Policy Associ-

ates, Inc., March-April 2009

Socio-Economic Report; prepared by

Mead&Hunt, August 2009 (draft)

The Grand Vision:

A Leelanau County PerspectiveIntroduction


5/49


Copies of the reports are provided as an attach-

ment to this summary and are also available

online at www.thegrandvision.org.

Please note that a transportation-specific report,

Travel Demand Model Methodology, is forthcom-

ing; data was not available at the time this report

was completed.

History

The process leading up to the Grand Vision be-

gan with a conflict over a proposed connection

of Hartman and Hammond Roads in Grand

Traverse County, south of Traverse City. Be-cause of disagreement over the advantages and

disadvantages of this connection, the proposal

was put on hold to allow the community to study

its impacts in more detail. In the spring of 2005,

$3.3 million in federal transportation money was

reallocated from plans for the bypass and given

to the Grand Traverse area for the creation and

implementation of a comprehensive, multimodal

transportation plan.

To ensure that this planning process would be

accountable, transparent, representative, and

citizen-focused, the Grand Traverse County

Board of Commissioners created and appointed

the Land Use & Transportation Coordinating

Group (LUTS), now known as the Grand Vision

Coordinating Group. This body included a

broadly representative group of citizens con-

cerned about transportation and land use issues

including county representatives from Antrim,

Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau,

and Wexford Counties; transportation agencies;

business leaders; environmental organizations;

township, city, and tribal representatives; educa-

tional institutions; nonprofits; and the general

public (list of representatives included in Appen-

dix A). These members acted with the following

mission:

Our mission is to use a transparent and citizen

led discussion and process to ensure the devel-opment of a community vision, plans for the fu-

ture, and projects that address land use and

transportation challenges facing the region.

The Coordinating Group developed a request for

proposals for a study and process that would

meet the groups mission of transparency and

public involvement while addressing transporta-

tion and land use in a comprehensive plan. Us-

ing $1.3 million of the reallocated transportation

dollars, the Coordinating Group hired a consult-

ant team led by Mead & Hunt that included

Robert Grow and John Fregonese, the nations

foremost experts in scenario planning and public

participation (for consultant bios, see Appendix

B). The process was to begin with public plan-

ning workshops that would ask citizens to de-

velop different scenarios for the future. Consult-

ants would show how these scenarios would

move traffic, develop land, and supply housing;

then the public would be asked to choose the

scenario that best fits the future of the region.

The LUTS Coordinating Group recognized early

on that transportation issues in Grand Traverse

County were directly and significantly impacted

by surrounding counties. In 2007 and 2008, the

study was expanded to include Antrim, Benzie,

Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties. The

expansion of the study increased the total cost

of the study by $240,000. The added cost wasfunded by a combination of sources including

the Michigan Department of Transportation

($100,000), the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa

and Chippewa Indians ($50,000), Traverse City

Area Chamber of Commerce ($10,000), North-

western Michigan College ($10,000), Munson


6/49


Healthcare ($10,000), and county contributions

totaling $30,000. Leelanau County committed

$6,000 to the expanded scope of the project.

Study ProcessIn September 2007, LUTS became The Grand

Vision, and the citizen input phase of the project

began on October 17,2007, with a scenario

planning workshop at the Park Place Hotel in

Traverse City. The event was widely publicized

throughout the region, resulting in high atten-

dance: over 500 participants from all counties in

the region worked in groups of 6-10 to create

maps showing their vision for land use over the

next 50 years. Subsequent workshops were held

throughout the winter and spring of 2008. Small

area workshops, focusing in-depth on Traverse

City, Acme, and Interlochen were held in Febru-

ary 2008; and two regional transportation work-shops were held on March 20, 2008. Participa-

tion levels for all workshops were high, totaling

several hundred participants (see table 3,

Grand Vision Participation, page 12). Work-

shops focusing specifically on Antrim, Benzie,

Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties were

held in each county in May 2008.

Grand Vision Scorecard


7/49


At the scenario planning workshops, consultants

presented information on current growth patterns

and discussed how our population will change in

the coming years. Citizens were provided with a

large map and asked to identify transportationchanges and future locations of agriculture, open

space and different development types using

special stickers, or chips, that reflected the

amount of population growth the region will ex-

perience through 2060. Participants worked in

groups of 6-10, discussing chip locations in de-

tail along with their values and concerns relative

to each land use type; comments were written

on the maps and were included in later analyses

of the maps.

Based on the input received at the workshops, a

random-sample survey was designed by Harris

Interactive, a national polling firm. This survey

questioned participants on their values and con-

cerns. Results were accurate to the county level.

Survey results and workshop maps were ana-

lyzed to develop four different scenarios that

would reflect different public preferences and

development patterns. Each scenario included

indicators relative to housing units, land con-

sumed, annual driving hours and gas expenses,

and cost of lane miles (see table 1 for scenarios

and descriptions).

These scenarios were presented in a Grand Vi-

sion scorecard that asked for input on the four

scenarios. The scorecard provided information

and graphics on how each scenario would im-

pact the number of housing units, investments inroad lane miles, and acres of land consumed.

Questions asked participants to choose which

scenario they felt did the best job of promoting

the values that were identified during the values

survey and workshop process; and additional

questions asked for input on transportation in-

vestments, housing types, and other land use

patterns.

The Grand Vision scorecard was printed and

distributed throughout the region in early Octo-ber 2008, and was also made available online at

www.thegrandvision.org. A total of 11,603 score-

cards were received in a three week time period.

Results were reviewed and analyzed to develop

the preferred scenario, which included ele-

ments of all scenarios with a focus on scenario

C otherwise known as the village-based sce-

nario. This preferred scenario was presented to

the public in February 2009 with a public com-

ment period open through March 2009. After

additional public input was received, the sce-

nar io was fur ther ref ined into a

preferred scenario that became the Grand Vi-

sion. The Grand Vision was further tested in

April 2009 through a random-sample survey that

asked respondents questions based both on the

survey, and on the final Grand Vision.

The Grand Vision

The Grand Vision is a vision of regional growth

that is built on public input. While it represents

one of the regions most far-reaching planning

efforts and reflects our communitys highest pri-

orities, the Grand Vision has no authority to re-

quire change. Making the Grand Vision a reality

will require policy changes, new models for de-

velopment, and innovative new programsall of

which will require cooperation between organiza-

tions and across governmental boundaries. In

precisely the same spirit of cooperation that cre-

ated the Grand Vision, implementation of the

Grand Vision will depend on the participation

and collaboration of local and county govern-

ments, citizens, and private, nonprofit, and pub-

lic organizations. To facilitate this collaboration,

Grand Vision stakeholders have endorsed an

implementation structure that will invite broad


8/49


9/49


Public input and involvement formed the founda-

tion of the Grand Vision process. To help en-

courage this involvement, a subcommittee of the

Coordinating Group, known as the Public In-

volvement Committee, became active in October

2007. The group included consultants, staff, and

volunteers throughout the six-county region, and

met weekly to develop strategies that would re-

sult in maximum participation levels and aware-

ness throughout the region. The committee de-veloped a comprehensive marketing and com-

munications plan that focused on hands-on in-

volvement through a series of large and small

events, direct communication, earned media

exposure, and targeted communications to youth

and seniors.

Public events. Numerous presentations

were provided to the general public, local

service groups, human service collaborativegroups, chambers of commerce, local and

county governments, and many

other organizations. Presentations

were provided by a speakers

bureau consisting of consultants

and PIC members.

Displays and materials. Informa-

tional displays including banners,

posters, update newsletters,

bumper stickers, informational

tool kits, PowerPoint presenta-

tions, and distribution and collec-

tion boxes were made available to

all interested citizens; with dis-

plays and materials set up at

high-traffic community events and

locations.

Direct mail. Postcards were mailed to every

household in each county announcing the

scorecard kickoffs and encouraging readers

to fill out their scorecard. An additional post-

card with a similar message was sent to

each American Association of Retired Per-

sons (AARP) member household, allowing

the PIC to reinforce the message with an

audience that was less likely to use the

Internet. Earned media. Regular press releases

were issued to update the public on the lat-

est Grand Vision events and progress.

Email blasts. Viral networking was used to

communicate directly with groups and indi-

viduals; announcements and updates were

frequently emailed to interested parties and

passed on to associated individuals, and

stories were shared in newsletters and

meetings.

Public Participation & Outreach


10/49


www.thegrandvision.org. A website was

developed to store and promote the project,

including comprehensive information such

as:

Reports and maps Opportunities for engagement

Update emails generated through an

automated mailing list

Easy-to-use forums

Videos

Dynamic calendar of events

Social networking links

Connection to resources

Paid media. Advertisements were printed in

newspapers and aired on television; bill-board advertisements were displayed along

South Airport Road and U.S 31 in East Bay

Township.

Champions. Champions are community

leaders with the ability to convene key local

constituenciesincluding representatives

from businesses, philanthropy, and other

community organizations. Champions were

committed to an open, citizen-led planning

process, willing to speak in support of the

project, and dedicated to ensuring measur-

able outcomes that would benefit future gen-

erations. These individuals were instrumen-

tal in building public support for the project.

Youth Outreach. A comprehensive out-reach effort was directed towards the re-

gions youth, through assemblies, classroom

presentations, online networking sites, and

school scorecard distribution. Every local

school program in the region was able to

involve their high school students in the

scorecard process in October 2008.

Senior Outreach: More than 21,700 AARP

member households received Grand Vision/

AARP postcards. Scorecard distribution. A scorecard distri-

bution strategy was created to ensure

awareness and availability of the scorecard

to all audiences in the region.

These activities were critical in achieving the

Grand Visions unprecedented level of public

participation. However, because they were not

funded by the original contract, a great deal of

fundraising was necessary to cover the ex-

Event Description Date Location

Introductory GVPresentation

Introduce the Grand Vision and en-courage Leelanau County participation

November2007

Black Star Farms

Leelanau County GVWorkshop

Visioning Workshop May 8, 2008 Suttons Bay HighSchool

Leelanau County GVUpdate

Presentation and discussion on GrandVision progress and update on upcom-

ing events

August 2008 Bellaire Senior Cen-ter

Leelanau County GVScorecard Kickoff

Presentation of scorecard to encour-age maximum response

October 13,2008

NW Michigan Horti-cultural Research

Station

Leelanau CountyDraft Grand Vision

Presentation

Discuss draft Grand Vision and obtaininput

February2009

Leelanau CountyGovernment Build-

ing

Table 2: Leelanau County Grand Vision Events


11/49


penses of communication activities. $160,000

was raised by the PIC from local foundations.

Report Card

More than 15,700 people participated in someway in the Grand Vision processmore than

8.5% of the regions population. The participa-

tion on a per capita basis exceeds some of the

most highly successful public involvement plan-

ning efforts ever conducted across the country.

Data collected by the PIC shows that youth and

senior outreach was particularly effective, with

nearly 27% of scorecards completed by individu-

als age 15-19; and 14% completed by those

aged 65 years and older.

The Grand Vision outreach and communication

efforts were analyzed by the PIC through various

demographic surveys and reports in order to

determine the level at which various populations

participated. The demographic breakdowns of

Grand Vision participants are shown in Table .

The PIC report detailing activities, including the

groups marketing plan and budget, accompa-

nies this report and is also available online at

www.thegrandvision.org.

Leelanau County Participation

To encourage public involvement in each

county, the regional PIC engaged stakeholders

in each county to identify strategies specific to

that county. These county stakeholders worked

with the PIC to schedule event dates and loca-

tions, distribute scorecards, and plan presenta-

tions and events (see Table 2 for specific event

information).

Public events were held in Leelanau County

throughout 2007 and 2008, beginning with an

introductory meeting in November 2007 to en-

courage Leelanau County participation in the

project. The Leelanau County workshop was

held in May 2008 at the Suttons Bay School. To

announce the workshop, postcards were mailed

to every county household in spring 2008; media

releases resulted in extensive news coverage;

and viral email blasts reached a wide range ofnetworks and individuals. These efforts helped

draw over 200 participants to the workshop, re-

sulting in 20 workshop maps and invaluable in-

put on the communitys values and preferences

for future growth.

Leelanau County Scorecard Outreach

Scorecards were easily available both in print

and online. Postcards were also mailed to every

household in October 2008 announcing the

scorecard, encouraging participation, and direct-

ing readers to the website to fill out their score-

card. For those without internet access, a toll

free number was provided on the scorecard,

allowing readers to call and have a scorecard

mailed directly to them.

Scorecard kickoffs were held in each county to

provide an update and to introduce the score-

card. These events successfully energized the

community, provided an opportunity for earned

media coverate, and kicked off the three-week

scorecard collection period. The Leelanau

County Scorecard Kickoff was held October 13

at the MSU Horticultural Research Station.

A key element of the scorecard strategy was the

need to make scorecards easily available to all

individuals throughout the region. Scorecard

distribution and collection boxes were set up in

high-traffic locations including:

Leelanau County Government Cen-

terSuttons Bay

Toms Food MarketNorthport

Toms Food Market West Bay

Greilickville


12/49


Deerings MarketEmpire

NJs MarketLake Leelanau

Andersons IGAGlen Arbor

MC ShortstopMaple City

BahlesSuttons Bay

Silvertree DeliSuttons Bay

Cedar City MarketCedar

Leland MercantileLeland

Glen Lake Community Schools

Leland Public School

Northport Public School

Suttons Bay Public School

The Leelanau School

St Marys of Lake Leelanau Leelanau County Commission on

Aging

Elmwood Township Hall

Public involvement and scorecard distribution

efforts in Leelanau County and throughout the

region resulted in an enormous scorecard re-

sponse. 1,772 scorecards were received from

Leelanau County, or about 8% of the Countys

population; 11,600 responses were receivedregion-wide. These level of interest and partici-

pation in a planning process is unprecedented in

our region.


13/49


Table3:GRA

NDVISIONSCORECARDS

D

emographicbreakdown

AsofDecember3,2008

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

COUNTYOFRESIDENCE

#

%ofallre-

spondents

Goal(

10%of

population)

Population

%of6-

county

total

Antrim

1209

10.0%

2,311

23110

12.5%

Benzie

963

7.9%

1,600

15998

8.7%

GrandTraverse

6486

53.4%

7,765

77654

42.0%

Kalkaska

536

4.4%

1,657

16,571

9.0%

Leelanau

1772

14.6%

2,112

21,119

11.4%

Wexford

755

6.2%

3,048

30,484

16.5%

Others

420

3.5%

0.0%

TOTAL

12141

100.0%

18,494

184936

AGE

#

%ofallre-

spondents

6-countytotal

%of6-

county

total

An-

trim

Ben-

zie

Grand

Traverse

Kal-

kaska

Lee-

lanau

Wex-

ford

15-19

3188

27.3%

12,959

8.8%

1

,497

950

5566

1155

1414

2377

20-24

552

4.7%

8,868

6.0%

969

679

4118

835

741

1526

25-44

2263

19.4%

51,613

35.2%

5

,843

4331

23044

4734

5106

8555

45-65

4067

34.9%

46,068

31.4%

6

,139

4127

18627

4060

5980

7135

65+

1598

13.7%

27,205

18.5%

4

,033

2803

10144

2278

3669

4278

TOTAL

11668

100.0%

146,713

100.0%

1

8,48 1

12,890

61,499

13,062

16,910

23,871

LENGTHOFRESIDENCE

TOTAL

%ofallre-

spondents

Full-time

10646

94.0%

Part-time

674

6.0%

TOTAL

11320

100.0%

RURAL/SUBURBAN/CITY

TOTAL

%ofallre-

spondents

Rural

5142

45.2%

Surburban

2625

45.2%

City

3604

31.7%

TOTAL

11371

122.1%


14/49


Table 4: Grand Vision ParticipationAs of Dec. 3, 2008

EVENT DATE Atten-dance Scenario mapscreated

Forum posts as of 5/1/08 27 0

Opening Workshop 10/17/2007 450 41

Central City Workshop 1/23/2008 240 30

East Arm/Acme workshop 1/24/2008 144 18

Southwest-Interlochen workshop 1/24/2008 120 15

TC West High School Workshop 3/10/2008 410 0

TC Central High School Workshop 3/10/2008 320 0

Transportation workshop - afternoon 3/20/2008 168 21

Transportation workshop - evening 3/20/2008 224 28

Antrim County Workshop 5/27/2008 150 16

Benzie County Workshop 5/28/2008 180 19

Kalkaska County Workshop 5/7/2008 195 18

Leelanau County Workshop 5/8/2008 205 20

Wexford County Workshop 5/27/2008 75 10

Community Values Survey - phone June 2008 476 n/a

Values survey participants 5/1/2008 504 n/a

Advanced Strategy Lab 6/2/2008 50 n/a

TOTAL SCENARIO MAPS 236

TOTAL SCORECARDS 11,603

Comments on draft Vision spring 2009

Random survey on draft Vision spring 2009

TOTAL PARTICIPANTS* 15,541

POPULATION PROVIDING INPUT 8.5%

Total information session participants 2007-2008

*Includes duplicates


15/49


The Leelanau County workshop was held on

May 8, 2008 at Suttons Bay School. 205 partici-

pants worked in groups of 6-10 to create 20

maps showing preferred locations of different

development types and land uses. These differ-

ent land uses were identified by stickers or

chips, with each chip representing 640 acres

and a specified number of households (total and

per acre). Instructions were provided, including a

description and sample photo of each land use

type, to help participants in discussions onwhere to locate different land uses. The types of

land uses and their descriptions are as follows:

Rural. The Rural Housing development typeconsists of dispersed lots. Rural housing devel-

opment provides residents with access to rural

areas while being within reach of urban ameni-

ties. (128 households = 1 household/5 acres)

Rural Cluster. The Rural Cluster development

type consists of collections of housing in a rural

setting. Rural clusters are often used to focus

development around an amenity, such as a lake,

while retaining larger areas of open space. 128

households = 1 household/5 acres

Large Lot. Large Lot subdivisions consist ofsingle-family, detached homes. With up to one-

acre lots, this development type is characterized

by very large residences without sidewalks.Street connectivity is low and travel to and from

destinations is usually by automobile. 640

households = 1 household/I acre

Neighborhood. Residential subdivisions are

comprised of single-family, detached homes and

duplexes. Street networks are typical of post-

World War II suburbs. 1,920 households = 3

household/1 acre

Leelanau County Workshop Results

May Workshop Chip Menu


16/49


Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural Preser-

vation chips are used to highlight agricultural

areas the community wishes to retain.

Open Space. Open space chips are used to

highlight open space and environmental areasthe community wishes to retain.

Workshop map results, including both chip loca-

tions and comments, were collected and com-

piled into a digital format, and analyzed by con-

sultants to identify participant values and con-

cerns. These results were subsequently used in

the creation of the values survey and in the de-

velopment of the four alternative growth scenar-

ios that appeared in the scorecard.

Images of all Leelanau County Workshop maps

are available online at www.thegrandvision.org.Methodology is detailed in the draft Grand Vision

Socio-Economic Report (August 2009), prepared

by Mead&Hunt.

Highest Development Type. This map shows all locations of 2 or more hits - meaningthat at least two maps showed the same chip type in the same location.

Map 1: Leelanau County Workshop MapHighest Development Type


17/49


AverageNumberofHouseholds.Thismapshowschipplacement

bynumberofhouseholdstoindicatedesireddensitiesinthoseareas.

AgriculturalPrese

rvation+Openspace.Thismapshowsagricul-

tureandopenspacechipplacementbynumberofhits

ornumberof

timestheyappearedonworkshopmaps.

Map3:Leelanau

CountyWorkshopMapAgriculturalPreserva-

tionandOpenSpace

Map2:LeelanauCou

ntyWorkshopMapAverageNu

mberof

Households


18/49


A values survey was conducted by Harris Inter-

active in July 2008, with a goal of assessing val-

ues of those living in the region. The survey was

conducted to ensure that regional planning and

visioning process of the Grand Vision will protect

and promote the things about which the popula-

tion cares most. 547 interviews were conducted

by phone across the region. 74 interviews were

conducted in Leelanau County, enabling county-

level analysis. Data was weighted to match US

Census information for age, gender, race/

ethnicity, household income and county. The

margin of error is +/- 5.6%.

The following is an excerpt from the Harris Inter-

active survey report on regional results. Addi-

tional charts and information specific to Lee-

lanau County are also included. Complete sur-

vey results by county accompany this report and

a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t

www.thegrandvision.org.

Methodology

Harris designed a two-stage research study. The

qualitative research stage identified values im-

portant to residents. These values were con-

firmed in quantitative surveys representing the

population of the six-county Grand Traverse re-

gion.

The survey showed that residents in the region

have similar values, despite their county of resi-

dence, and enjoy a high quality of life from living

in a scenic area, having access to nature, sur-

rounded by friends and family, and experiencing

little crime. Some of the themes that emerged for

the region include (excerpted from the Harris

report):

Residents of the Grand Traverse Region are

more positive about their quality of life than

the rest of the country and more optimistic

about their futures.

Residents in the region are more

likely to feel their communities areheaded in the right direction than the

rest of the country 52% vs. 39%.

They are less likely to believe their

children and grandchildren will ex-

perience a decrease in quality of life.

Differences exists between counties:

Overall residents of Leelanau,

Grand Traverse, Benzie have a

more positive orientation, while An-

trim residents lean more negatively.

Kalkaska residents say they are

headed in the wrong direction pres-

ently, but are optimistic it will im-

prove. Wexford residents are am-

bivalent, with no clear orientation

emerging.

A number of issues figure prominently in

residents minds. The strong positive feel-

ings about local natural beauty/outdoor rec-

reation and friends and family clearly out-

weigh the concerns over availability of jobs

and a somewhat high cost of living.

In the eyes of most residents, economic

growth and developmentoutweigh the need

to protect the environment. While this is

Values Survey


19/49


Of the following, what is MOST Important to you?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Having friends or family in the area

Plenty of jobs or w ork available

Scenic beauty of the region and having access to nature

Low crime

High cost of living

A family-f riendly environment

High quality education system

Clean lakes and rivers

Rural areas and open space

Outdoor recreation opportunities

Friendly people or neighbors

Planning for grow th

The weather or c limate

Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure

Being close to places like schools, stores or freew ays

Quiet neighborhoodsLeelanau

Region

Quality of Life (QOL): Present, Past and Future

1 = Worst; 10 = Best

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

Present QOL QOL 5 yrs ago QOL 5 yrs in future

LeelanauRegion


20/49


common during periods of economic turmoil,

the level of importance placed on protecting

the environment is uncommonly high in the

Grand Traverse region compared to senti-

ments across the rest of the nation. More-

over, momentum over the past few years

has been has been towards greater support

for both environmental protection.

Residents throughout the region express

high levels of support for smart growth

strategies such as clustering homes on

smaller lots, creating walkable communities,

building affordable housing, and expanding

public transportation. Harris reports that ex-

perience in other smart growth research

around the country reveals that the Grand

Traverse region demonstrates uncharacter-

istically high levels of smart growth support

for a region that has such a high number of

rural residents.

Residents place a high priority on regional

planning and creating a vision for the region

and feel that efforts up to this point have

mostly been only fair or poor.

The core value that shapes feelings and

choices about life in the Grand Traverse re-

gion centers around a feeling of peace of

mind. Residents of this region feel a keen

sense of peace of mind that emanates pri-

Of the following, what is the SECOND most important to you?

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Scenic beauty of the region and having access to nature

A family-f riendly environment

Plenty of jobs or w ork available

Having friends or family in the area

Low crime

High cost of living

High quality education system

Clean lakes and rivers

Outdoor recreation opportunities

Rural areas and open space

Friendly people or neighbors

Quiet neighborhoods

Planning for grow th

The weather or c limate

Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure

Being close to places like schools, stores or f reew aysLeelanau

Region


21/49


marily from their enjoyment of the scenic

beauty and access to the outdoors. In addi-

tion, the strong sense of community and

family of the region also contributes to their

peace of mind.

Life in the Grand Traverse Region

Quality of Life (QOL) Assessment of

Grand Traverse Region

When this survey was conducted in July 2008,

residents of the Grand Traverse Region were

generally more optimistic than the rest of the

country. One in two said things in their commu-

nity are going in the right direction (GT: 52%;

US: 39%). When thinking about the more dis-

tant future, residents of the Grand Traverse Re-gion also express a more sanguine outlook: they

are less likely than Americans nationwide to say

that the quality of life for their children and

grandchildren would decrease (42% vs. 56%).

Perspectives, however, differ by county: a

majority of residents in Leelanau, Benzie and

Grand Traverse counties have a generally

positive outlook; those in Antrim and Kal-

kaska counties are somewhat more pessi-mistic, while residents of Wexford County are

largely split.

There is a timeless high quality of live in the

Grand Traverse region. Residents of the Grand

Traverse region are satisfied with the quality of

life today and believe it will improve in the next

five years. Other Americans, while also content,

do not rate their quality of life as highly. On a ten

point scale, with 10 representing the best possi-

ble lifeand 1 representing the worst possible life,

residents of the Grand Traverse Region rate

their quality of life presently as 7.1, about one

point higher than other Americans (6.1). Thinking

about five years in the future, residents of the

Grand Traverse Region believe their quality of

life will climb to 7.5 ahead of the rest of the na-

tion at 6.8.

Quality of life differs across the region: Leelanau

residents report the highest QOL for the present

and the future (8.1; 8.1). Kalkaska residents say

they have the lowest QOL in the region presently

(6.3), but are most optimistic about its improve-

ment in the future (Present: 6.3; Future: 7.2; In-

crease: +0.9). Residents of Antrim county noted

a decline in overall quality of life, reporting QOL

of 7.8 five years ago, 7.1 currently and 6.8 in the

future the sole county to register a negative

trend from the present to the future.

Factors in Quality of Life AssessmentQuality of life is subjective an issue that is

most important to one resident may be trivial to

her neighbor. Through qualitative work in the

Grand Traverse Region, Harris Interactive identi-

fied the key drivers of quality of life mentioned by

area residents. From this list of factors, residents

in the quantitative survey were asked which ele-

ments have the most significant impact on their

quality of life.

Overall, residents mention the area's scenic

beauty most often (39%), followed by the family-

friendly environment (32%), availability of jobs

(32%), the presence of family and friends (31%)

and the high cost of living (31%).

As each resident could list up to three elements

that impact their quality of life, it is often useful to

look at which issues were mentioned first. These

'top of mind' issues are more salient in resident's

minds than they may appear in the rankings

overall. Having friends and family in the area

(16%) and the availability of jobs (15%) were

mentioned first most often, followed by scenic

beauty (11%), the high cost of living (10%) and

low crime (10%). The differences in the rank or-

dering of these issues depending on whether the


22/49


first mention or all mention are tallied indicates

that the relative position of the issue is less im-

portant rather these issues together can be

viewed as playing an important role in how resi-

dents assess their quality of life.

Attitudes Toward Growth

Economic Development versus Envi-

ronmental Protection

A majority of residents of the Grand Traverse

Region prioritize economic growth and develop-

ment over protecting the environment. Nonethe-

less, there is evidence of the important role that

nature and the environment play in how many

residents think about the region. Forty-two per-

cent of residents assert protecting the environ-ment is of greater importance fifteen points

higher than Americans nationwide (27%) despite

the economic downturn.

Opinion on the role of the priority of economic

development varies by county. Two-thirds of

residents of the Antrim, Kalkaska and Wexford

counties say economic development is more

important versus less than half of resident of the

other counties. In Benzie, Leelanau and GrandTraverse, all of which border the water, residents

split nearly evenly as to whether the environ-

ment or the economy should take priority.

Both of these issues have become more impor-

tant over the past five years according to resi-

dents. Those who prefer protecting the environ-

ment are somewhat more likely to believe that it

has become more important in the past five

years than those supporters of economic growth

and development (72% vs. 60%). Most notable,

however, is that a majority of both groups indi-

cate that their respective issue has gained in

importance, evidence that neither is the domi-

nant priority of the region.

Density of Future Development

Greater density in future development enjoys

widespread support in the Grand Traverse Re-

gion. By a margin of two to one, residents say

they would prefer to see future growth occur in

existing communities rather than through the

creation of new towns in yet undeveloped areas

(69% vs. 27%). The margin contracts somewhat

when asked about their preference on specific

housing design clustering homes on smaller

lots to preserve space (55%) versus using

homes on larger lots without neighborhood parks

(39%) -- however, a majority still support greater

density in housing development.

Support for greater density is greater amongresidents with higher educational attainment.

Ninety percent of residents with a post-BA edu-

cation prefer to see future growth occur in exist-

ing communities and nearly three-quarters would

select communities that cluster homes to pre-

serve open space (73%).

Strategies for Growth

There are exceptionally high levels of support fora variety of smart growth strategies. Over four in

five residents of the Grand Traverse Region sup-

port creating walkable neighborhoods (90%),

locating places of residential and employment

areas closer together (88%), preserving agricul-

tural and open space (85%; 82%), encouraging

more affordable housing (85%) and locating new

growth in existing development areas (80%).

Support for these growth strategies is relatively

consistent across the different counties.

Less popular strategies, however, reveal differ-

ences in preferences and priorities across the

region:

While preserving open space generally

receives high marks, building homes


23/49


with smaller yards to preserve forest

land garners significant support in Lee-

lanau and Benzie counties (78%, 68%),

but markedly less support in Wexford

and Kalkaska counties (47%, 44%).

Overall, highway related strategies are

not popular but widening existing free-

ways earns support from two in three

residents of Antrim and Kalkaska resi-

dents (63%, 60%). Residents of Wexford

county in particular offer little support for

this strategy (37%).

Locating growth in the Traverse City

area is, not surprisingly, more popular in

Grand Traverse county (55%). Resi-

dents in Kalkaska and Wexford countiesoffer less support (28%, 34%)

Multi-family housing enjoys mixed support as a

growth strategy for the Grand Traverse Region.

Seventy percent of area residents agree that a

range of housing types should be planned and

built and three-quarters of residents would en-

courage mixed-use housing. When asked about

building multi-family housing in their community

or area, residents are largely split --- fifty-twopercent would support its construction, while

forty-three percent would oppose.

Providing affordable housing options is the main

driver behind support for multi-family housing.

Nine in ten area residents say that providing an

affordable option to young people and seniors

would make multi-family housing more accept-

able. Multi-story buildings are the least attractive

potential aspect of multi-family housing with

barely half of residents (54%) saying that it

would make such a proposal more acceptable.

Leelanau County Results

Complete survey results, and the accompanying

report from Harris Interactive, are attached to

this report. Some highlights for Leelanau County

include:

Having friends and family in the area and a

family-friendly environment were identified

as the most important factors leading to a

high quality of life in Leelanau County.

In terms of growth strategies in Leelanau

County, the two most popular options were

it should be convenient to walk or bike in

new developing areas, with 90% of respon-

dents indicating agreement with this state-

ment. 90% of respondents also agreed that

the development of more affordable hous-

ing should be encouraged.

The two least popular growth strategies for

Leelanau County are that most new hous-

ing should be separated from jobs and exist-

ing centers, with 62% of respondents in

disagreement with this statement; and more

regional freeways should be built, with 54%

of respondents indicating disagreement with

this strategy.


24/49


Total Somew hat/Strongly AGREE

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

%

It should be convenient to w alk or bike in new developing areas.

New jobs should be located closer to w here people live

The development of more affordable housing should be

encouraged

Agriculture should be preserved even if it means limiting some

development opportunities

Open space should be preserved even if it means limiting some

development opportunities

New grow th should be directed primarily to existing cities, tow ns

and villages.

Q1210K More mixed use development should be encouraged

Regional mass transit should be expanded

New grow th should be focused along major roads and highways.

range of housing types or sizes should be planned for and built

New housing and jobs should be spread out to avoid crow ding.

Cities and tow ns should build more homes w ith smaller yards or

apartments in order to preserve farm and forest lands.

Existing regional freew ays should be w idened

Growth should be located mainly in the Traverse City part of the

region

Most new housing should be separated f rom jobs and existingcenters

More regional freew ays should be built Leelanau

Region


25/49


Total Strongly/Somewhat DISAGREE

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

More regional freeways s hould be bui lt

Most new housing should be separated from jobs &

existing centers

Growth should be located mainly in the Traverse City

part of the region

Existing regional freeways should be widened

Cities & towns should build more homes w/ sm aller

yards/ apartments to preserve farm & forest lands .

New housing & jobs should be spread out to avoid

crowding.

A range of housing types or sizes should be planned

for & built

New growth should be focused along major roads &

highways.

New growth should be directed primarily to existing

cities, towns & villages .

Regional mass transit should be expanded

More mixed use development should be encouraged

Open space should be preserved even if it means

limiting some development opportunities

Agriculture should be preserved even if it means

limiting some development opportunities

The development of more affordable housing s hould

be encouraged

New jobs should be located closer to where peoplelive

It should be convenient to walk or bike in new

developing areas.Leelanau

Region


26/49


To determine the publics preferred growth sce-

nario, Grand Vision consultants developed a

scorecard that asked for input on the four sce-

narios. The values survey results and workshop

input formed the basis for the scenarios and

questions that were presented in the scorecard.

The scorecard provided information on how

each scenario would affect land use and trans-

portation indicators such as the number of hous-

ing units, investments in road lane miles, andacres of land consumed. Questions asked par-

ticipants to choose which scenario they felt did

the best job of promoting the values that were

identified during the values survey and workshop

process; and questions in the second portion of

the scorecard asked for input on transportation

investments, housing types, and other land use

patterns.

Scorecard responses were self-selected; thatis, similar to an election or public hearing, the

responses reflect the opinions of residents who

took the time to get involved. An extensive out-

reach campaign was used to build awareness of

the scorecard process and to ensure that score-

cards were readily available, both in print and

online, to all interested citizens.

Approximately 11,603 responses were received

region-wide; 1,771 responses were received

from Leelanau County residents, representing

about 8% of the countys total population. The

scorecards asked respondents to choose a sce-

nario in 5 questions that were based on accom-

panying scenario descriptions and graphs. An

additional 7 questions asked respondents to

state how much they agreed with statementsregarding transportation and development types.

Scorecard results are generally consistent

across county boundaries, age, income, and

other factors. However, there are some minor

differences between regional and county re-

sponses to individual questions. This section will

review the questions asked in the scorecard and

discuss the overall picture along with Leelanau

County responses. Results by number of re-sponses for each question and by percentage,

for each county, are included in Appendix D.

Scorecard responses were received from 1,771

Leelanau County residents, which equates to

about 8% of the Countys population (22,112),

as reported in the 2000 U. S. Census.

Responses Population PercentageAntrim 1,209 24,463 4.94%

Benzie 962 17,652 5.45%

Grand Traverse 6,447 84,952 7.59%

Kalkaska 536 17,330 3.09%

Leelanau 1,771 22,112 8.01%

Wexford 678 31,994 2.12%

Total Responses 11,603 198,503 6%

Scorecard Results

Table 5: Scorecard Responses by County


27/49


Question #1: I think the scenario that

does the best job of preserving the re-

gions farmland and open space is:

[Scenario A, B, C, or D}

Scenario D resulted in the least amount ofrural land converting to urban. Scenario C

followed closely. The village focus of Sce-

nario C was partially intended to minimize

pressure on agricultural land while also being

visible and accessible to residents living and

visiting the villages. While they both scoredhighly, the selection of scenario D as the re-

gional favorite indicated a desire to minimize

pressures in rural areas, including housing

growth and traffic, as much as possible.

In questions relative to scorecard preferences,

Leelanau County responses were consistent

with regional response, with slightly higher sup-

port for village-based Scenario C than regional

preferences.

In the second part of the scorecard, respondents

were given a statement and asked to what de-

gree they agreed or disagreed. The questions

were all directly related to scenario evaluations

described in the scorecard document, which fo-

cused on measuring future impacts based on

public values, as determined through the Grand

Visions values survey.

While, again, generally consistent with regional

responses, Leelanau County responses showed

less support for transportation investments pri-

oritizing new and widened roads than the region

as a whole. In Question #8, 52.5% of County

responses indicated disagreement with this

statement, compared to 42% of regional re-

sponses. These response patterns closely re-

flect the values survey results, which identify

new regional freeways as one of County re-

spondents least desired growth strategies.

There was also more support in Leelanau

County for urban-oriented growth patterns, as

represented by Questions #9 and #10, with

about 8% more positive responses to both ques-

tions (I think increased traffic in our cities and

villages would be okay if I could park once and

walk to shops, jobs, schools, and parks; and I

would consider living in a neighborhood with

smaller yards and some multi-family buildings if

it meant that I could walk or ride my bike to

shops, jobs, schools, and parks.)

Responses, by number and percent, are detailed

for each question by county in Appendix C.

Analysis is excerpted from Fregonese and Asso-

ciates top line memo from January 2009. The

memo accompanies this report and is also avail-

able online at www.thegrandvision.org.

Grand Vision Scorecard ResponsesNarrative provided by Fregonese Associates, January 2009

Question #1

Leelanau County vs. Regional Results

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Leelanau

Total Responses


28/49


Question #2. I think the scenario that does

the best job at balancing our needs for mo-

bility with our desires for thriving cities and

towns and a cleaner environment is:

Scenario C was by far the most popular

choice. One of the more significant compo-nents of the village based scenario was intra-

regional transit service. Many participants in

the workshops asked for such an amenity. Sce-

nario D, with the highest concentrations of peo-

ple involved the highest level of transit service.

However, with limited congestion in any sce-

nario, the option to have multiple choices for

traveling between villages and towns seemed

to prevail. At the same time, it is clear that sim-

ply building more roads alone will not be well

received.

Question #3: I think the scenario that best pro-

vides jobs and affordable housing for working

families is:

The popularity of Scenarios C and D echo con-

cernsvoiced during the Grand Visions values re-

search and at the public workshopsabout rising

home prices rising and the need to see more hous-

ing options so that people can afford to remain in

the region. Respondents see homes with acreage

as too expensive for many residents including work-

ing families, young people and senior citizens.

Smaller yards and other options such as townhomes

and apartments offer the benefit of being more af-

fordable.

Question #2


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Leelanau

Total

Responses

Question #3

Lee lanau County vs. Regional Results

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Leelanau

Total Respons es


29/49


Question #5: I think the scenario that does the

best job depicting a future I support is:

Cleary Scenario C received the most support

when ranked overall. The focus on town and vil-

lage life was expected to perform well because itembodies much of what people say they like in the

region. Town and village living is easy to imagine

for people on all ends of the spectrum, from Trav-

erse City to rural homes along Torch Lake. There

was also significant support for the more urban

lifestyle portrayed in scenario D. More than one-

third of respondents identified themselves as living

in rural areas. However, Scenarios A and B which

represent the more rural development patterns of

the set together received less than 10% of the

overall tally for support. People were evidently

voicing the opinion of what they want to see, not just what they are used to. The cities, towns and

villages of the region are well regarded by people

in all living situations.

Question #4: I think the scenario that does the

best job of enhancing our regions cities and

villages

Scenario C had by far the largest support. It isclear that people do not want the future to simply

be a continuation of the patterns seen today, whichcould result in additional sprawl, loss of the rural

lifestyle and potential decay of the towns and vil-

lages. There is significant support for the very ur-

ban lifestyle exhibited by Scenario D. However,

most are looking for change that enhances the

many towns and villages of today, rather than sig-

nificantly transforming just a few areas. The strong

villages of Scenario C also resound with partici-

pants desires for shared prosperity among the

counties of the region.

Question #4


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

A B C D

Leelanau

Total

Responses

Question #5


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

LeelanauTotal Responses


30/49


Question #6: I think transportation invest-

ments should prioritize new and widened

roads.

The strong disagreement to this statement

says three things: 1. Dont spend too much

money on new and widened roads, and 2.Maintain the system we have, and 3. Invest

more money on transit, walking and biking.

Participants in the public transportation work-

shops were generally conservative about

spending on any new infrastructure, highlight-

ing the need for careful consideration of future

investments.

Question #7: I think new transportation in-

vestments should include biking and walk-

ing facilities even if it means some roads

arent widened.

It is abundantly clear that residents want to see

additional spending on bike and walking facili-

ties. The question goes a step further and

states specifically that the funding may be at

the expense of investment in road widening for

capacity. That the answers were this close to

unanimous, given the tradeoff, shows signifi-

cant support for public investments. Such in-

vestments will assure safer and more conven-

ient biking and may attract additional people to

utilize this mode of transportation.

Question #6


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree

Leelanau

Total Responses

Question #7


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Strongly

Disagree


Leelanau

Total Responses


31/49


Question #8: I think new transportation

investments should include enhanced

transit, including in-town buses and re-

gional bus service, even if it means some

roads arent widened.

This section was also engineered to probedeeper into people attitudes about transpor-

tation investment. People have the same

strong feelings of support for transit as they

do for bike and walk amenities. The question

purposely limited the transit options to in-

town and regional bus service which are both

modest investments compared to rail transit.

Question #9: I think increased traffic con-

gestion in our cities and villages would be

okay if I could park once and walk to shops,

jobs, schools and parks.

People generally support the notion of trading

slightly more congestion for the benefits of full

service towns and villages where they could

walk between jobs and shopping. However, the

number of people disagreeing, or remaining

neutral shows that this style of growth is not for

everyone. Additionally, it may hint at the inter-

nal conflict between a desire to do the right

thing and a belief that people will be able to

stick to it when the wind is blowing and snow is

falling.

Question #8


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Strongly

Disagree


Leelanau

Total Responses

Question #9


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Strongly

Disagree


Leelanau

Total Responses


32/49


Question #10: I would consider living in a

neighborhood with smaller yards and some

multi-family buildings if it meant that I could

walk or ride my bike to shops, jobs, schools

and parks.

Walking and biking were two things that scoredwell in the scientific research. They

were attached to smaller yards, apartments

and condos to intentionally force a tradeoff.

However, the results point to a much greater

acceptance, and even desire, for multi-family

housing than might be expected.

Question #11: I oppose taller buildings in

our cities and villages even if it means that

we need to build on farm and forest lands.

With this statement participants were asked to

reflect on the dramatic changes that might beseen in cities and towns.The scorecard even

mentioned 8-story buildings in places such as

Traverse City and Cadillac. The overwhelming

response hints at two things. First, 6- and 8-

story buildings do not cause the panic or con-

cern that might have been expected. Coupled

with the desire for an improved urban fabric as

evidenced by previous questions, one could

presume that downtown buildings taller than 10

stories would indeed by embraced by many.

Although, the roughly even split between

strongly disagree and disagree suggests thatsupport will wane proportionately as building

heights go up. This again reveals that there

may be more desire for urban lifestyle in some

specific locations than there is region-wide.

Second, this response indeed affirms residents

desire to retain the farming, forestry and rural

lifestyle that is present in the region.

Question #10


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Strongly

Disagree


Leelanau

Total Responses

Question #11


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Strongly

Disagree


Leelanau

Total Responses


33/49


Question #12: I think people should be able

to have a home on rural acreage even if it

increases new public investment in roads,

sewers and schools.

This statement forces people to link planning

with personal decisions and limits to private

property rights. Generally, people do not fully

link the two. This is the only question in the

entire scorecard with such an even divide. Re-

sposes indicate approximately equal support

for two different positions in this matter. On one

hand, some believe that they should be able to

locate a home on, or even subdivide their rural

property no matter what. On the other hand,

some feel that they are not willing to support a

lifestyle that has cost impacts on the rest ofsociety. Note that many people chose to re-

main neutral. This could be because linking

individual property decisions with public costs

and benefits is not intuitive. Alternatively, it

could reflect people being truly torn between

the notion of the public good and the private

good.

Question #12


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Strongly

Disagree


Leelanau

Total


34/49


To compare the preferences expressed in the

Grand Vision scorecard results with the prefer-

ences of the general public, a telephone survey

was conducted by Public Policy Associates, Inc.

in April and May 2009, using a random-digit-dial

sample of residential telephone numbers. The

survey tested 10 questions from the scorecard;

in some cases, the questions that were tested

were exact duplicates of the scorecard ques-

tions. In other cases, the statement was para-phrased to make the question more easily un-

derstood during a telephone survey.

The survey, which resulted in 578 valid re-

sponses, was accurate to the county level, with

a margin of error for regional results estimated at

+/- 5.1%. The following is an excerpt from the

executive summary. The full survey report is

attached to this document.

Key Regional Findings

The survey results provide strong confirmation

that regional residents at large share the pref-

erences and priorities of scorecard partici-

pants.

Both survey and scorecard participants were

most likely to favor future development vi-

sion C, with its emphases on growth in

the regions cities and villages; preserva-

tion of open space; and investment in

trails, public transportation, and roads.

Vision D, the most compact development

option, was also frequently chosen (see Fig-

ure 1).

Residents of the region expressed strong

support for future investments in trails

and sidewalks and in public transporta-

tion, even if it means some roads arent

widened. More than 75% of participants in

both processes supported these choices.

Eighty percent of survey participants and

67% of scorecard participants would toler-

ate more traffic in cities and villages if

they could park once and walk to theirdestinations. Many regional residents would

also consider a neighborhood with smaller

yards and some apartments and condomini-

ums if they could walk or ride a bike to

work, school, shopping, and amenities.

Residents would prefer taller buildings in

cities and villages to developing farm

and forestlands. Only about one in four

participants in either process agreed withthe statement, I oppose taller buildings in

our villages and cities even if it means that

we need to build on farm and forest lands.

The region is most divided on the issues

of new pavement for roads and new resi-

dential development in areas lacking

supportive infrastructure. Fifty-nine per-

cent of survey respondents and 46% of

scorecard participants agreed strongly orsomewhat that building new roads and

widening existing roads should be the first

priority for transportation spending in the

region. Similarly, 46% of survey respon-

dents and 53% of scorecard participants

agreed strongly or somewhat with the

statement, I think people should be able to

Follow-up Survey Report


35/49


build new homes in country areas, even if it

means we have to spend tax dollars to build

roads, sewers and schools.

Most issues explored in the survey show no per-sistent or sharp differences in opinion on the

basis of personal characteristics including

age, gender, income, education, own/rent status,

employment status, type of home community, or

county. For example, support for investment in

public transportation and interest in vision C

was drawn from younger and older respondents,

males and females, higher- and lower-income

families, residents of all types of communities,

and residents of all counties. The lone excep-

tion to this pattern was prioritization of in-

vestment in new and wider roads, which was

sensitive to respondents home counties.

Survey respondents support their communi-

ties involvement in the regional Grand Vi-

sion process. Respondents were strongly sup-

portive whether they had past direct involvement

in the Grand Vision, familiarity without involve-

ment, or no prior familiarity with the process (see

Figure 2). More than 90% also agreed strongly

or somewhat that, to help create a future that I

want, I want my local elected officials to partici-

pate in the Grand Vision.

Leelanau County Results

Leelanau County results largely mirrored re-

gional results, with slight differences on some

questions. In particular, support for Statement

#4, I think building new roads and widening ex-

isting roads should be the first priority for trans-

portation spending in the region, had signifi-

cantly less support from Leelanau County than

from the region overall. Statement #6 received

substantially more support from LeelanauCounty residents than from the region as a

whole.

Statement #1 corresponds to question #7on the Grand Vision scorecard, whichasked participants to rank their support ofthe statement, I think new transportationinvestments should include biking andwalking facilities, even if it means someroads arent widened. Regional scorecard

responses, excluding neutral responses,showed that 84% of participants stronglyagreed or agreed with this statement.The PPA survey results were consistent,with approximately 80% of respondentsregion-wide expressing agreement. Lee-lanau County support was stronger thanthat of the region, with 86% of LeelanauCounty respondents indicating agreement.

Grand Vision Follow-up Survey ResponsesNarrative provided by Public Policy Associates, May 2009

Statement #1: "I think future investments in

transportation should include trails and s idewalks f or

biking and w alking, even if it means some roads aren't

w idened." (% Agree "Strongly" or "Somew hat")

80%86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Leelanau Region


36/49


Statement #2 corresponds to question #8 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participantsto rank their support of the statement, I think newtransportation investments should include en-hanced transit, including in-town buses and re-

gional bus service, even if it means some roadsarent widened. Excluding neutral responses, 80%of regional scorecard participants strongly agreedor agreed with this statement.

Statement #3 corresponds to question #9 onthe Grand Vision scorecard, which asked partici-pants to rank their support of the statement, Ithink increased traffic congestion in our citiesand villages would be okay if I could park onceand walk to shops, jobs, schools, and parks.Regionally, scorecard responses, excludingneutral responses, showed that 67% of partici-pants strongly agreed or agreed with thisstatement. Support was substantially higher inresponses to the PPA survey, with approxi-mately 80% of respondents region-wide ex-pressing agreement and 91% of Antrim Countyresidents supporting the statement.

Statement #4 corresponds to question #6 onthe Grand Vision scorecard, which asked partici-pants to rank their support of the statement, Ithink new transportation investments shouldprioritize new and widened roads. Regionalscorecard responses, excluding neutral re-sponses, showed that 46% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this state-ment. Support for Statement #4 was significantlylower in Leelanau County, with only 41% ex-pressing agreement for that statement.

"I think future investments in transportation

should include more public transportation,

including in-town buses and regional bus

service, even if it means some roads arent

widened." (% Agree "Strongly" or

"Somewhat")

76%73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Leelanau Region

Statement #3: "I think increased traffic in our

villages and cities would be okay if I couldpark once and walk to shops, jobs , schools

and parks." (% Agree "Strongly" or

"Somewhat")

76%80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Leelanau Region

Statement #4: "I think building new roads and

widening existing roads s hould be the first

priority for transportation spending in the

region." (% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

42%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

Leelanau Region


37/49


Statement #5 does not have an exact scorecardparallel. The question asked respondents to choosea priority between repairing and improving existingroads, or expanding capacity with new roads. Therewas overwhelming support for prioritizing mainte-nance on existing roads, with 95% of LeelanauCounty residents choosing maintenance as a prior-ity.

Statement #6 corresponds to question #10 onthe Grand Vision scorecard, which asked par-ticipants to rank their support of the statement,I would consider living in a neighborhood withsmaller yards and some multi-family buildingsif it meant that I could walk or ride my bike toshops, jobs, schools, and parks. Regionalscorecard responses, excluding neutral re-sponses, showed that 64% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this state-ment. Regional support was slightly lower in

the PPA survey, but Leelanau County re-sponses in the PPA survey were consistentwith scorecard results.

Statement #6: "I would cons ider living in a

neighborhood with sm aller yards and some

apartments or condominiums if I could walk or

ride a bike to shops, jobs, schools and parks."

(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

66%

53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Leelanau Region

Statement #5: Percentages prioritizing

maintenance of existing roads over

expanding capacity with new and wider

roads95%

86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Leelanau Region


38/49


Statement #7 corresponds to question #11 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participants to

rank their support of the statement, I would opposetaller buildings in our cities and villages even if itmeans that we need to build on farm and forestlands. Regional scorecard responses, excludingneutral responses, showed that 21% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this statement.Leelanau County responses to the PPA survey wereabout 8 percentage points lower than regional re-sults.

Statement #7: "I oppose taller buildings in

our villages and cities even if it means

that we need to build on farm and fores tlands."

(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

39%31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Leelanau Region

Statement #8 corresponds to question #12on the Grand Vision scorecard, which askedparticipants to rank their support of the state-ment, I think people should be able to havea home on rural acreage even if it increasesnew public investment in roads, sewer, andschools. Regional scorecard responses,excluding neutral responses, showed that55% of participants strongly agreed oragreed with this statement. PPA surveyresponses showed that slightly less than halfof residents at both the regional and countylevels agreed with this statement.

Statement #8: "I think people should be able

to build new homes in country areas, even if it

means we have to spend tax dollars to build

roads, sewers, and schools." (% Agree

"Strongly" or "Somewhat")

47% 46%

0%

10%

20%

30%40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Leelanau Region


39/49


"As the region develops in the future, it is important that we

protect and preserve the farm land, orchards, forests, water

quality, and scenic beauty of the region."

Don't Know

0.5%

Agree Strongly

81%

Agree Somewhat

18%

DisagreeSomewhat

0.6%

Statement #10 tested responses to the vision of protecting and preserving the farm land, orchards, for-ests, water quality, and scenic beauty of the region. Of the nearly 600 people responding tho the survey,three disagreed somewhat and three volunteered the response of I dont know. Given the overwhelm-ing support for this principle, no demographic analysis was pursued.

Statement #9 tested responses to thevision of creating a group of uniquevillages and cities that are active andcharming places with a main street and

downtown. Support was very high in allcounties and demographics for thestatement.

Statement #9: "As the region develops in the future, it

is important that we create a group of unique villages

and cities that are active and charming places with a

main s treet and a downtown." (% Agree "Strongly" or

"Somewhat")

80%85%

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Leelanau Region


40/49


Through the Grand Vision process, the commu-

nity identified six issue areas and action state-

ments that together will help move the vision into

reality:

Create a group of unique villages and cities

that are active and charming places with a

main street or a downtown.

Provide more variety in housing choices tomatch peoples needs and preferences for

lower cost, higher efficiency, central location

and low-maintenance lifestyle options.

Strengthen the local economy with more

jobs offering security and a living wage in

cities and villages around the region. Train

the workforce for Michigans new economy

with a quality education and opportunities for

lifelong learning.

Maintain and improve the existing road sys-tem and place new investment in public

transportation, bicycling and pedestrian in-

frastructure to provide choices in mobility,

support energy conservation and maximize

system efficiencies.

Protect and preserve the farmland, or-

chards, forests, open water, water quality,

other natural areas and the scenic beauty of

the region.

Make decisions today that support sustain-able development for the environment, the

economy and the community for the next

fifty years and beyond.

Implementation

Community efforts are now beginning to move

these Grand Vision principles into action. Like

the creation of the Grand Vision, this effort will

be a collaborative, region-wide, bottom-up ap-

proach that will require commitment and action

from citizens, public agencies, nonprofits, and

the private sector.

Grand Vision Supporters

Individuals throughout the region are invited to

publicly support the Grand Vision through astatement of support. Supporters receive regular

updates on progress and activities related to the

Grand Vision, and also commit to activities such

as participating in a working group; working as a

volunteer at Grand Vision events and with out-

reach; advocating for Grand Vision policies and

projects; and participating in an annual summit

Partnership

All organizations, groups, and agencies that sup-port the principles of the Grand Vision are invited

to sign a Partnership Agreement. Through the

agreement, partners agree that it is in the best

interest of the community to:

Cooperatively engage in activities that will

result in progress toward the goals of the

Grand Vision

Attend the annual Grand Vision community

event to share progress

Provide assistance as available to support

Grand Vision related activities and events

Participating organizations receive support from

other Grand Vision partners in communicating

their mission and activities to the public through

marketing avenues including media releases,

The Grand Vision


41/49


online information materials, and viral network-

ing.

All Grand Vision partners will receive regular

updates on progress and activities related to the

Grand Vision. Partners will be publicly identified

as supporters of the Grand Vision.

Working Groups

Because many organizations throughout the

region are involved in activities that are consis-

tent with the principles of the Grand Vision, a

Grand Vision working group structure has been

developed to support these organizations and

activities. Working groups will function as col-

laborative councils on specific subject areas and

will include diverse regional participation, with

members including citizens and representatives

from public agencies, nonprofits, and the private

sector that are involved in the subject area. Con-

veners will host initial meetings and provide staff

support in terms of meeting agendas and other

resources.

Growth and Investment Areas: ensure that

both public and private investments are made in

areas that are suitable for new growth and that

will give the region the best return on the dollar

for strengthening the economy and designing

vibrant communities.

Convener: New Designs for Growth/Northwest

Michigan Council of Governments

Housing: offer a diverse mix of regional housing

choices with affordable options that fit in with the

small town character of the neighborhoods, vil-

lages, and cities as well as rural housing.

Convener: Housing Task Force and Northwest

Michigan Council of Governments

Transportation:maintain and improve the exist-

ing road system, increase public transportation

services between cities and villages in the re-

gion, and

grand vision: leelanau perspective

Documents