Grand Vision: Kalkaska Perspective

8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Kalkaska Perspective

1/52

KALKASKA COUNTY

PERSPECTIVE

thegrandvision.org


2/52


3/52

A Kalkaska 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.


4/52


5/52

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Public Participation and Outreach 6

Kalkaska 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


6/52


7/52

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska 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 Kalkaska

County results in terms of public par-

ticipation, the Kalkaska County work-

shop, values survey data, scorecard

results, and follow-up survey data.

Kalkaska County data are shown in a

side-by-side comparison with regional

data, to demonstrate how Kalkaska

County results play out in the regional

Grand Vision. It is hoped that this

information will be valuable in 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)

Introduction

The Grand Vision:

A Kalkaska County Perspective


8/52


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


9/52


Healthcare ($10,000), and county contributions

totaling $30,000. Kalkaska 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 4,

Grand Vision Participation, page 11). Work-

shops focusing specifically on Antrim, Benzie,

Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties were

held in each county in May 2008.

Grand Vision Scorecard


10/52


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 atwww.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

participation and representation through a Grand

Vision partnership and working group structure.


11/52


NewHous-

ingUnits

in

Walk-

ableAreas

Acresof

Farmand

ForestLand

Consumed

NewHomes

andMulti-

familyUnits

Annual

HoursSpent

DrivingPer

Person

Total

Costof

Lane

Miles

Needed

Annu

al

Housh

old

GasE

x-

pendit

ure

Annual

Tonsof

CO2

Emis-

sions

ScenarioA:Futuregrowthwillfollowtheexistingtrendof

low-densitydevelopmentin

ruralareas,withminimalgrowth

inexistingcitiesandvilla

ges.Transportationinvestments

willbelargelyinwidened

roadwaysforcommuters,and

includesomemulti-usetrails,butminimalinvestmentsin

busserviceandwalkability.

2,010

6,566

(farmland)

7,460(forest)

3,296

(multi-family

)

21,041

(single

family)

227

$142

million

$2,83

5

1.2

million

ScenarioB:Futuregrowth

willoccurinruralareas,butwith

newhomesclusteredtomaximizeopenspace,andminimal

growthinexistingcitiesan

dvillages.Transportationinvest-

mentswillbelargelyinneworwidenedroadwaysforcom-

muters.Thisscenarioinclu

dessomeinvestmentinwalking

andbicyclingtrailsbutthe

effectivenessoftransitandwalk-

abilityforcommutingislimitedbylowdensities.

4,666

8,244

(farmland)

14,232

(forest)

6,049

(multi-family

)

18,581

(single

fam

-

ily)

212

$86mil-

lion

$2,72

1

1.14

million

ScenarioC:Futuregrowthwilloccurprimarilyinthere-

gionscitiesandvillages,w

ithadditionalgrowthinthemain

citiesofTraverseCityand

Cadillac.Largeamountsofrural

openspacearepreserved.Thisdevelopmentpatternwill

requireinvestmentsinregionalbusservice,sidewalks,and

biketrailsinvillagesand

cities,withsomeinvestmentsin

neworwidenedroadways.

4430

2,079

(farmland)

2,469(forest)

10,100(multi-

family)

15,466

(single

family)

208

$78mil-

lion

$2,60

8

1.13

million

ScenarioD:Futurehousingdevelopmentandjobgrowth

willoccurprimarilyintheregionstwomaincities,Traverse

CityandCadillac.Largea

mountsofruralopenspaceare

preserved.Thisdevelopme

ntpatternwillrequireinvestment

inurbanbuscirculators,

sidewalks,andbikingpathsin

thosetwomaincities.This

scenariohaslimitedinvestment

inneworwidenedroadway

s.

5,970

1,968

(farmland)

2,173(forest)

10,100

(multi-family

)

15,466

(single

family)

189

$58mil-

lion

$2,38

1

1.04

million

Table1:FutureGrowthSce

narios:DescriptionsandMeasu

rements


12/52


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 (PIC), 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 result in maximum participation levels

and awareness throughout the region. The com-mittee developed a comprehensive marketing

and communications plan that focused on

hands-on involvement 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


13/52


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 Kalkaska County participation

November2007

Kaliseum

Kalkaska County GVWorkshop

Visioning Workshop May 7, 2008 Kaliseum

Kalkaska County GVUpdate

Presentation and discussion on GrandVision progress and update on coming

events

August 2008 Kalkaska CivicCenter

Kalkaska County GVScorecard Kickoff

Presentation on scorecard to encour-age maximum response

October 9,2008

Kalkaska HighSchool

Kalkaska CountyDraft Grand Vision

Presentation

Discuss draft Grand Vision and obtaininput

February2009

Kalkaska CountyGovernment Build-

ing

Table 2: Kalkaska County Grand Vision Events


14/52


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 3.

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.

Kalkaska 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 events and

dates).

Public events were held in Kalkaska County

throughout 2007 and 2008 (see table), beginning

with an introductory meeting in November 2007

to encourage Kalkaska County participation in

the project. The Kalkaska County workshop was

held in May 2008 at the Kaliseum. To announce

the workshop, postcards were mailed to every

county household in the spring of 2008; media

releases resulted in extensive news coverage;

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

draw 150 participants to the workshop, resulting

in 15 workshop maps and invaluable input on

the communitys values and preferences for fu-

ture growth.

Kalkaska 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, directing readers to the website, and

encouraging them to fill out their scorecard. 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 coverage, and kicked off the three-week

scorecard collection period. The Kalkaska

County Scorecard Kickoff was held October 9,

2008.

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:

Kalkaska County Government Cen-

ter

Kalkaska Village offices

Kalkaska Memorial Hospital

South Boardman Senior Center


15/52


Kalkaska Area Chamber of Com-

merce

Glens MarketKalkaska

Northland Food and Family Center

Save-a-lot

Kalkaska Library

Kaliseum

Forest Area Community Schools

Kalkaska Public Schools

Public involvement and scorecard distribution

efforts in Kalkaska County and throughout the

region resulted in an enormous scorecard re-

sponse. 536 scorecards were received from Kal-

kaska County, or about 3% of the Countys

population; 11,600 responses were received

region-wide. These response rates demonstrate

a level of awareness and interest in a planning

process that is unprecedented in our region.


16/52


Table3:GRA

NDVISIONSCOR

ECARDS

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

8,481

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%


17/52


Table 4: Grand Vision ParticipationAs of December 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


18/52


The Kalkaska County workshop was held on

May 7, 2008 at the Kaliseum in Kalkaska. 195

participants worked in groups of 6-10 to create

24 maps identifying preferred locations of differ-

ent development types and land uses. These

different land uses were shown 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 type

consists of dispersed lots. Rural housing devel-

opment provides residents with access to rural

areas while remaining within reach of urban

amenities. (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

Kalkaska County Workshop

Results

May Workshop Chip Menu


19/52


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 areas

the 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 Kalkaska County Workshop maps

are available online at www.thegrandvision.org.

Methodology is detailed in the draft Grand VisionSocio-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: Kalkaska County Workshop MapHighest Development Type


20/52


AverageNumberofHouseholds.Thismapshowschipplacement

bynumberofhouseholdstoindicatedesireddensitiesinthoseareas.

AgriculturalPrese

rvation+Openspace.Thismapshowsagricul-

tureandopenspacechipplacementbynumberofhits

ornumberof

timestheyappearedonworkshopmaps.

Map3:Kalkaska

CountyWorkshopMapAgriculturalPreserva-

tionandOpenSpace

Map2:KalkaskaCou

ntyWorkshopMapAverageNu

mberof

Households


21/52


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. 81 interviews were

conducted in Kalkaska 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%.

Following is an excerpt from the Harris Interac-

tive survey report, with additional charts and in-

formation specific to Kalkaska County. Complete

survey results by county accompany this report

and are also available online at


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 regionhave 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 are

headed in the right direction than therest 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 exist 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

common during periods of economic turmoil,

Values Survey


22/52


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 w eather or c limate

Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure

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

Quiet neighborhoodsKalkaska

Region

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

1 = Worst; 10 = Best

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.47.6

Present QOL QOL 5 yrs ago QOL 5 yrs in future

Kalkaska

Region


23/52


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

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

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

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 w eather or c limate

Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure

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

Kalkaska

Region


24/52


sense of peace of mind that emanates pri-

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 1 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, re-

porting QOL of 7.8 five years ago, 7.1 cur-

rently 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 Assessment

Quality 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 qualify 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-


25/52


dering of these issues depending on whether the

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 resi-

dents think about the region. Forty-two percentof residents assert protecting the environment is

of greater importance fifteen points higher than

Americans nationwide (27%) despite the eco-

nomic 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 theother counties. In Benzie, Leelanau and Grand

Traverse, 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 among

residents 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 GrowthThere are exceptionally high levels of support for

a 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:


26/52


While preserving open space generally

receives high marks, building homes

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 inGrand Traverse county (55%). Resi-

dents in Kalkaska and Wexford counties

offer 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 aboutbuilding multi-family housing in their community

or area, residents are largely split --- fifty-two

percent 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.

Kalkaska County Results

Complete survey results, and the accompanying

report from Harris Interactive, are attached to

this report. Some highlights for Kalkaska County

include:

Adequate job opportunities and clean lakes

and water were identified as the most impor-

tant factors leading to a high quality of life in

Kalkaska County.

Kalkaska County respondents indicated the

strongest support for the following three

growth strategies:

It should be convenient to walk or

bike in new developing areas (94%

agree)

More affordable housing should be

encouraged (91% agree)

Open space should be preserved

even if it means limiting some devel-

opment (91% agree)

The two least popular growth strategies for

Kalkaska County are that growth should be

located mainly in the Traverse City part of

the region, with 71% of respondents in dis-

agreement with this statement; and thatmore regional freeways should be built, with

60% in disagreement.


27/52


Total Somewhat/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 widened

Grow th should be located mainly in the Traverse City part of the

region

Most new housing should be separated f rom jobs and existing

centers

More regional freew ays should be built Kalkaska

Region


28/52


Total Strongly/Somewhat DISAGREE

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

More regional freeways should be built

Most new housing should be s eparated 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/ smaller

yards/ apartments to preserve farm & forest lands.

New housing & jobs should be s pread out to avoid

crowding.

A range of housing types or sizes should be planned for

& built

New growth should be focused along m ajor 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 should be

encouraged

New jobs should be located closer to where people live

It should be convenient to walk or bike in new developing

areas. Kalkaska

Region


29/52


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, and

acres 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; that

is, 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; 536 responses were received from

Kalkaska County residents, representing about

3% of the countys total population. The score-

cards asked respondents to choose a scenario

in five questions that were based on accompa-

nying scenario descriptions and graphs. An addi-

tional seven questions asked respondents to

state how much they agreed with statements

regarding 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 Kalkaska

County responses. Results by number of re-

sponses for each question and by percentage,

for each county, are included in Appendix D.

Responses Population Percentage

Antrim 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


30/52


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 scored

highly, the selection of scenario D as the re-

gional favorite indicated a desire to minimizepressures in rural areas, including housing

growth and traffic, as much as possible.

In general, Kalkaska County responses showed

somewhat less support for urban growth pat-

terns, as represented by Scenario D, than the

region as a whole. Likewise, there was more

support for the essentially village-based growth

patterns represented by Scenario C than region-

wide.

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

Vision values survey. Kalkaska County re-sponses were closely aligned with regional re-

sponses in this portion of the scorecard.

Responses, by number and percent, are shown

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 #1Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

A B C D

Kalkaska

Total

Responses


31/52


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 popularchoice. 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

research and at the public workshopsabout ris-

ing home prices rising and the need to see more

housing options so that people can afford to re-

main in the region. Respondents see homes with

acreage as too expensive for many residents in-

cluding working families, young people and senior

citizens. Smaller yards and other options such as

townhomes and apartments offer the benefit of

being more affordable.

Question #2

Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Kalkaska

Total

Responses

Question #3


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Kalkaska

TotalResponses


32/52


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 it

embodies 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 evidentlyvoicing 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 is:

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

Kalkaksa County vs. Regional Results

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

A B C D

Kalkaska

Total

Responses

Question #5


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Kalkaska

Total Responses


33/52


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 a biking. Par-

ticipants in the public transportation workshops

were generally conservative about spending on

any new infrastructure, highlighting 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 walk facilities.

The question goes a step further and states

specifically that the funding may be at the ex-

pense of investment in road widening for ca-

pacity. 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

Disagre

e

Disagre

e

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Kalkaska 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

Disagre

e

Disagre

e

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Kalkaska

Total

Responses


34/52


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 probe

deeper 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 ques-

tion 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%

Strongly

Disag

ree

Disag

ree

Neutra

l

Ag

ree

StronglyAg

ree

Kalkaska

Total Respons es

Question #9


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Strongly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Kalkaska

Total

Responses


35/52


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 scored

well in the scientific research. They were at-

tached to smaller yards, apartments and con-

dos 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%

StronglyD

isagree

D

isagree

Neutral

Agree

Strong

lyAg

ree

Kalkaska

Total

Responses

Question #11


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Strongly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neutra

l

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Kalkaska

Total Responses


36/52


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 ahome 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

Kalkaksa County vs. Regional Results

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Strongly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Kalkaska

Total


37/52


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 Northwestern Michigan Col-

lege in April and May 2009, using a random-

digit-dial sample of residential telephone num-

bers. The survey tested 10 questions from the

scorecard; in some cases, the questions that

were tested were exact duplicates of the score-

card questions. In other cases, the statementwas paraphrased to make the question more

easily understood 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%. Following is an excerpt from the ex-

ecutive summary. The full survey report is at-

tached 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


38/52


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 Iwant, I want my local elected officials to partici-

pate in the Grand Vision.

Kalkaska County Results

Kalkaska County results reflected regional re-

sponse patterns in most cases and differed

somewhat in statements related to transportation

investments. In particular, Kalkaska County resi-

dents showed more support for the prioritization

of new and wider roads. County residents werealso more likely to disagree with statement #5,

which indicated opposition to taller buildings in

cities and villages.

Complete survey results are available online at


Statement #1 corresponds to question #7on the Grand Vision scorecard, which askedparticipants to rank their support of thestatement, I think new transportation in-vestments should include biking and walk-ing facilities, even if it means some roadsarent widened. Regional scorecard re-sponses, excluding neutral responses,showed that 84% of participants stronglyagreed or agreed with this statement. ThePPA survey results were consistent, with

approximately 80% of respondents region-wide expressing 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 sidew alks f or

biking and walking, even if it means some roads

aren't w idened." (% Agree "Strongly" or

"Somewhat")

70%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Kalkaska Region


39/52


Statement #2 corresponds to question #8 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participants torank their support of the statement, I think newtransportation investments should include enhancedtransit, including in-town buses and regional bus

service, even if it means some roads arent wid-ened. Excluding neutral responses, 80% of regionalscorecard participants strongly agreed or agreedwith this statement. PPA survey results at both theregional and county level were consistent withscorecard responses.

Statement #3 corresponds to question #9 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participantsto rank their support of the statement, I think in-creased traffic congestion in our cities and villageswould be okay if I could park once and walk toshops, jobs, schools, and parks. Regionally, score-card responses, excluding neutral responses,showed that 67% of participants strongly agreedor agreed with this statement. Support was sub-stantially higher in responses to the PPA survey,with approximately 80% of respondents region-

wide expressing agreement and 77% of KalkaskaCounty residents supporting the statement.

Statement #4 corresponds to question #6 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participantsto rank their support of the statement, I think newtransportation investments should prioritize newand widened roads. Regional scorecard re-

sponses, excluding neutral responses, showed that46% of participants strongly agreed or agreedwith this statement. There was significantly moresupport for this statement from Kalkaska Countythan from the region as a whole.

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")

74%59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kalkaska Region

Statement #3: "I think increased traffic in our

villages and cities would be okay if I could

park once and walk to shops, jobs , schools

and parks." (% Agree "Strongly" or

"Somewhat")

77% 80%

0%

10%

20%

30%40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Kalkaska Region

Statement #2: "I think future investments

in transportation should include m ore

public transportation, including in-town

buses and regional bus service, even if it

means some roads arent widened." (%

Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

76%83%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kalkaska Region


40/52


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 significant support for prioritizing maintenance,

on both a regional and county-wide level.

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.

Statement #7 corresponds to question #11 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participants torank 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, excluding neu-tral responses, showed that 21% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this statement.

Statement #7: "I oppose taller buildings in

our villages and cities even if it means that

we need to build on farm and forest lands."

(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

21%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kalkaska Region

Statement #6: "I would consider living in a

neighborhood with sm aller yards and s ome

apartments or condominiums if I could walk or

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

(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

53%49%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kalkaska Region

Statement #5: Percentages prioritizing

maintenance of existing roads over

expanding capacity with new and wider

roads

78%86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Kalkaska Region


41/52


Statement #9 tested responses to thevision of creating a group of unique villagesand cities that are active and charmingplaces with a main street and downtown.Support was very high in all counties and

demographics for the statement.

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 increases

new public investment in roads, sewer, andschools. Regional scorecard responses,excluding neutral responses, showed that55% of participants strongly agreed oragreed with this statement.

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 street and a downtown." (%

Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

80%81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Kalkaska Region

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")

62%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Kalkaska Region


42/52


"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 Somew hat

18%

Disagree Somewhat

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.


43/52


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 farm land, or-

chards, forests, open water, and other natu-

ral areas and particularly water quality and

the scenic beauty of the region.

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

economy and the community for tomorrow

and the next fifty years.

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


44/52


online information, and viral networking.

All Grand Vision partners will receive regular

updates on progress and activities related to

Documents

Grand Vision: Kalkaska Perspective