Grand Vision: Wexford Perspective

8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Wexford Perspective

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/grand-vision-wexford-perspective 1/52

WEXFORD COUNTY

PERSPECTIVE

thegrandvision.org



A Wexford County Perspective

This summary report includes information from previously released reports.Original reports were prepared by:

Fregonese AssociatesMead&Hunt

Harris InteractiveGrand Vision Public Involvement Committee

Public Policy Associates, Inc.

Information was compiled by the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments for the purposes of thissummary in September 2009.



Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Public Participation and Outreach 6

Wexford 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



The Grand Vision: A Wexford County PerspectivePage 1

The Grand Vision is a citizen-led vision for thefuture of transportation, land use, economic de-velopment, and environmental stewardship inAntrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Lee-lanau, and Wexford Counties. The Grand Visionwas created with input from thousands of citi-zens and was supported by dozens of commu-nity partners throughout the region—includingprivate, nonprofit, and public agencies—withfinancial backing from local, county, state, andfederal units of government as well as both pri-vate and public organizations This unprece-dented collaboration has resulted in a vision forthe region’s future that will enhance our sense ofplace, 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 processand results of the Grand Vision re-gion-wide, while highlighting WexfordCounty results in terms of public par-ticipation, the Wexford County work-shop, values survey data, scorecardresults, and follow-up survey data.Wexford County data are shown in a

side-by-side comparison with regionaldata, to demonstrate how WexfordCounty results play out in the regionalGrand Vision. It is hoped that thisinformation will be valuable in anyGrand Vision implementation activities

that may occur in the County and in other futureplanning efforts in the community.

Data and analysis was excerpted from previ-ously released reports including:

Grand Vision Public Involvement Committee2007-08 ReportValues research survey; analysis conductedby Harris Interactive, Inc., November 2008Scorecard results; analysis by FregoneseAssociates, January 2009Grand Vision 2009 Public Opinion SurveyResults; conducted by Public Policy Associ-ates, Inc., March-April 2009Socio-Economic Report; prepared byMead&Hunt, August 2009 (draft)

Introduction

The Grand Vision:A Wexford County Perspective




Copies of the reports are provided as an attach-ment to this summary and are also availableonline 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 reportwas completed.

HistoryThe process leading up to the Grand Vision be-gan with a conflict over a proposed connectionof Hartman and Hammond Roads in Grand

Traverse County, south of Traverse City. Be-cause of disagreement over the advantages anddisadvantages of this connection, the proposalwas put on hold to allow the community to studyits impacts in more detail. In the spring of 2005,$3.3 million in federal transportation money wasreallocated from plans for the bypass and givento the Grand Traverse area for the creation andimplementation of a comprehensive, multimodaltransportation plan.

To ensure that this planning process would beaccountable, transparent, representative, andcitizen-focused, the Grand Traverse CountyBoard of Commissioners created and appointedthe Land Use & Transportation CoordinatingGroup (LUTS), now known as the Grand VisionCoordinating Group. This body included abroadly 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 generalpublic (list of representatives included in Appen-

dix A). These members acted with the followingmission:

“Our mission is to use a transparent and citizen

led discussion and process to ensure the development of a community vision, plans for the future, and projects that address land use and transportation challenges facing the region.”

The Coordinating Group developed a request forproposals for a study and process that wouldmeet the group’s mission of transparency andpublic involvement while addressing transporta-tion and land use in a comprehensive plan. Us-ing $1.3 million of the reallocated transportationdollars, the Coordinating Group hired a consult-ant team led by Mead & Hunt that includedRobert Grow and John Fregonese, the nation’sforemost experts in scenario planning and publicparticipation (for consultant bios, see AppendixB). 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 wouldmove traffic, develop land, and supply housing;then the public would be asked to choose thescenario that best fits the future of the region.

The LUTS Coordinating Group recognized earlyon that transportation issues in Grand TraverseCounty were directly and significantly impactedby surrounding counties. In 2007 and 2008, thestudy was expanded to include Antrim, Benzie,Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties. Theexpansion of the study increased the total cost

of the study by $240,000. The added cost wasfunded by a combination of sources includingthe Michigan Department of Transportation($100,000), the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawaand Chippewa Indians ($50,000), Traverse CityArea Chamber of Commerce ($10,000), North-western Michigan College ($10,000), Munson




Healthcare ($10,000), and county contributionstotaling $30,000. Wexford County committed$6,000 to the expanded scope of the project.

Study ProcessIn September 2007, “LUTS” became “The GrandVision;” and the citizen input phase of the projectbegan on October 17, 2007, with a scenarioplanning workshop at the Park Place Hotel inTraverse City. The event was widely publicizedthroughout the region, resulting in high atten-dance: over 500 participants from all counties inthe region worked in groups of 6-10 to createmaps showing their vision for land use over the

next 50 years. Subsequent workshops were heldthroughout the winter and spring of 2008. “Smallarea” workshops, focusing in-depth on TraverseCity, 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, totalingseveral hundred participants (see Table 4,“Grand Vision Participation,” page 11). Work-shops focusing specifically on Antrim, Benzie,Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties wereheld in each county in May 2008.

Grand Vision Scorecard




At the scenario planning workshops, consultantspresented information on current growth patternsand discussed how our population will change inthe coming years. Citizens were provided with a

large map and asked to identify transportationchanges and future locations of agriculture, openspace and different development types usingspecial stickers, or “chips,” that reflected theamount of population growth the region will ex-perience through 2060. Participants worked ingroups of 6-10, discussing chip locations in de-tail along with their values and concerns relativeto each land use type; comments were writtenon the maps and were included in later analysesof the maps.

Based on the input received at the workshops, arandom-sample survey was designed by HarrisInteractive, a national polling firm. This surveyquestioned 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 thatwould reflect different public preferences anddevelopment patterns. Each scenario includedindicators relative to housing units, land con-sumed, annual driving hours and gas expenses,and cost of lane miles (see Table 1 for scenariosand descriptions).

These scenarios were presented in a Grand Vi-sion “scorecard” that asked for input on the fourscenarios. The scorecard provided informationand 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 whichscenario they felt did the best job of promotingthe values that were identified during the valuessurvey and workshop process; and additionalquestions asked for input on transportation in-vestments, housing types, and other land use

patterns.

The Grand Vision scorecard was printed anddistributed 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 developthe “preferred scenario,” which included ele-ments of all scenarios with a focus on scenarioC – otherwise known as the “village-based” sce-nario. This preferred scenario was presented tothe public in February 2009 with a public com-ment period open through March 2009. Afteradditional public input was received, the sce-nario was further ref ined into apreferred scenario that became the Grand Vi-sion. The Grand Vision was further tested inApril 2009 through a random-sample survey thatasked respondents questions based both on thesurvey, and on the final Grand Vision.

The Grand VisionThe Grand Vision is a vision of regional growththat is built on public input. While it representsone of the region’s most far-reaching planningefforts and reflects our community’s highest pri-orities, the Grand Vision has no authority to re-quire change. Making the Grand Vision a realitywill require policy changes, new models for de-velopment, and innovative new programs—all ofwhich will require cooperation between organiza-tions and across governmental boundaries. Inprecisely the same spirit of cooperation that cre-ated the Grand Vision, implementation of theGrand Vision will depend on the participationand collaboration of local and county govern-ments, citizens, and private, nonprofit, and pub-lic organizations. To facilitate this collaboration,Grand Vision stakeholders have endorsed animplementation structure that will invite broadparticipation and representation through a GrandVision partnership and working group structure.




N e w

H o u s -

i n g

U n i t s

i n

W a l k -

a b l e A r e a s

A c r e s o f

F a r m a n d

F o r e s t L a n d

C o n s u m e d

N e w

H o m e s

a n d M u l t i -

f a m i l y U n i t s

A n n u a l

H o u r s

S p e n t

D r i v i n g

P e r

P e r s o n

T o t a l

C o s t o f

L a n e

M i l e s

N e e d e d

A n n u a l

H o u s h o l d

G a s E x -

p e n d i t u r e

A n n u a l

T o n s o f

C O 2

E m

i s -

s i o n s

S c e n a r i o

A :

F u t u r e g r o w t

h w

i l l f o l l o w t h e e x i s t i n g

t r e n d o f

l o w - d e n s i t y

d e v e l o p m e n t i n

r u r a l a r e a s , w

i t h m

i n i m a l g r o w

t h

i n e x i s t i n g c i t i e s a n d v i l l a g e s .

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n v e s t m e n t s

w i l l b e l a r g e l y i n w

i d e n e d

r o a d w a y s

f o r c o m m u t e r s , a n d

i n c l u d e s o m e m u l t i - u s e t r a i l s ,

b u t m

i n i m a l

i n v e s t m e n t s

i n

b u s s e r v i c e a n d w a l k a b i l i t y .

2 , 0 1 0

6 , 5 6 6

( f a r m l a n d )

7 , 4 6 0 ( f o r e s t )

3 , 2 9 6

( m u l t i - f a m i l y

)

2 1 , 0 4 1

( s i n g l e

f a m i l y )

2 2 7

$ 1 4 2

m i l l i o n

$ 2 , 8 3 5

1 . 2

m i l l i o n

S c e n a r i o

B : F u t u r e g r o w t h

w i l l o c c u r i n r u r a l a r e a s ,

b u t w i t h

n e w h o m e s c l u s t e r e d

t o m a x i m

i z e o p e n s p a c e , a n d m

i n i m a l

g r o w t h i n e x i s t i n g c i t i e s a n

d v i l l a g e s .

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n v e s t -

m e n t s w

i l l b e l a r g e l y i n n e w o r w

i d e n e d r o a d w a y s

f o r c o m -

m u t e r s .

T h i s s c e n a r i o

i n c l u d e s s o m e

i n v e s t m e n t

i n w a l k i n g

a n d b i c y c l i n g t r a i l s b u t t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t r a n s i t a n d w a l k -

a b i l i t y f o r c o m m u t i n g

i s l i m i t e d b y l o w d e n s i t i e s .

4 , 6 6 6

8 , 2 4 4

( f a r m l a n d )

1 4 , 2 3 2

( f o r e s t )

6 , 0 4 9


)

1 8 , 5 8 1

( s i n g l e f a m -

i l y )

2 1 2

$ 8 6 m

i l -

l i o n

$ 2 , 7 2 1

1 . 1 4

m i l l i o n

S c e n a r i o

C :

F u t u r e g r o w

t h w

i l l o c c u r p r i m a r i l y

i n t h e r e -

g i o n ’ s c i t i e s a n d v i l l a g e s , w

i t h a d d i t i o n a l g r o w

t h i n t h e m a i n

c i t i e s o f T r a v e r s e

C i t y a n d

C a d i l l a c .

L a r g e a m o u n t s o f r u r a l

o p e n s p a c e a r e p r e s e r v e

d . T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t p a t t e r n w

i l l

r e q u i r e i n v e s t m e n t s

i n r e g

i o n a l b u s s e r v i c e , s i d e w a l k s , a n d

b i k e t r a i l s i n v i l l a g e s a n d c i t i e s , w

i t h s o m e

i n v e s t m e n t s

i n

n e w o r w

i d e n e d r o a d w a y s .

4 4 3 0

2 , 0 7 9

( f a r m l a n d )

2 , 4 6 9 ( f o r e s t )

1 0 , 1 0 0 ( m u l t i -

f a m i l y )

1 5 , 4 6 6

( s i n g l e

f a m i l y )

2 0 8

$ 7 8 m

i l -

l i o n

$ 2 , 6 0 8

1 . 1 3

m i l l i o n

S c e n a r i o

D :

F u t u r e h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a n d

j o b g r o w

t h

w i l l o c c u r p r i m a r i l y

i n t h e r e g i o n ’ s

t w o m a i n c i t i e s ,

T r a v e r s e

C i t y a n d

C a d i l l a c .

L a r g e a m o u n t s o f r u r a l o p e n s p a c e a r e

p r e s e r v e d . T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t p a t t e r n w

i l l r e q u i r e i n v e s t m e n t

i n u r b a n

b u s c i r c u l a t o r s , s i d e w a l k s , a n d

b i k i n g p a t h s

i n

t h o s e t w o m a i n c i t i e s .

T h i s

s c e n a r i o h a s l i m i t e d i n v e s t m e n t

i n n e w o r w

i d e n e d r o a d w a y s .

5 , 9 7 0

1 , 9 6 8

( f a r m l a n d )

2 , 1 7 3 ( f o r e s t )

1 0 , 1 0 0


)

1 5 , 4 6 6

( s i n g l e

f a m i l y )

1 8 9

$ 5 8 m

i l -

l i o n

$ 2 , 3 8 1

1 . 0 4

m i l l i o n

T a b l e 1 : F u t u r e G r o w

t h S c e n a r i o s : D e s c r i p t i o n s a n d

M e a s u r e m e n t s




Public input and involvement formed the founda-tion of the Grand Vision process. To help en-courage this involvement, a subcommittee of theCoordinating Group, known as the Public In-volvement Committee (PIC), became active inOctober 2007. The group included consultants,staff, and volunteers throughout the six-countyregion, and met weekly to develop strategiesthat would result in maximum participation levels

and awareness throughout the region. The com-mittee developed a comprehensive marketingand communications plan that focused onhands-on involvement through a series of largeand small events, direct communication, earnedmedia exposure, and targeted communicationsto youth and seniors.

Public events. Numerous presentationswere provided to the general public, local

service groups, human service collaborativegroups, chambers of commerce, local andcounty governments, and manyother organizations. Presentationswere provided by a “speaker’sbureau” consisting of consultantsand PIC members.Displays and materials. Informa-tional displays including banners,posters, update newsletters,bumper stickers, informationaltool kits, PowerPoint presenta-tions, and distribution and collec-tion boxes were made available toall interested citizens; with dis-plays and materials set up athigh-traffic community events andlocations.

Direct mail. Postcards were mailed to everyhousehold in each county announcing thescorecard kickoffs and encouraging readersto fill out their scorecard. An additional post-card with a similar message was sent toeach American Association of Retired Per-sons (AARP) member household, allowingthe PIC to reinforce the message with anaudience that was less likely to use the

Internet.Earned media. Regular press releaseswere issued to update the public on the lat-est Grand Vision events and progress.Email blasts. “Viral” networking was used tocommunicate directly with groups and indi-viduals; announcements and updates werefrequently emailed to interested parties andpassed on to associated individuals, andstories were shared in newsletters and

meetings.

Public Participation & Outreach




www.thegrandvision.org . A website wasdeveloped to store and promote the project,including comprehensive information suchas:

Reports and mapsOpportunities for engagementUpdate emails generated through anautomated mailing listEasy-to-use forumsVideosDynamic calendar of eventsSocial networking linksConnection to resources

Paid media. Advertisements were printed in

newspapers and aired on television; bill-board advertisements were displayed alongSouth Airport Road and U.S 31 in East BayTownship.Champions. Champions are communityleaders with the ability to convene key localconstituencies—including representativesfrom businesses, philanthropy, and othercommunity organizations. Champions werecommitted 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-gion’s youth, through assemblies, classroompresentations, online networking sites, andschool scorecard distribution. Every localschool program in the region was able toinvolve their high school students in thescorecard process in October 2008.Senior Outreach. More than 21,700 AARPmember households received Grand Vision/

AARP postcards.Scorecard distribution. A scorecard distri-bution strategy was created to ensureawareness and availability of the scorecardto all audiences in the region.

These activities were critical in achieving theGrand Vision’s unprecedented level of publicparticipation. However, because they were notfunded by the original contract, a great deal offundraising was necessary to cover the ex-

Event Description Date Location

Wexford County GVWorkshop

Visioning Workshop May 28,2008

Wexford CountyCivic Center

Wexford County GVUpdate

Presentation and discussion on GrandVision progress and update on coming

events

August 26,2008

County Building

Wexford County GVScorecard Kickoff

Presentation on scorecard to encouragemaximum response

October 13,2008

Cadillac MiddleSchool Auditorium

Wexford CountyDraft Grand Vision

Presentation

Discuss draft Grand Vision and obtaininput

February 11,2009

Wexford CountyGovernment Build-

ing

Table 2: Wexford County Grand Vision Events




penses of communication activities. $160,000was raised by the PIC from local foundations.

Report Card

More than 15,700 people participated in someway in the Grand Vision process—more than8.5% of the region’s population. The participa-tion on a per capita basis exceeds some of themost highly successful public involvement plan-ning efforts ever conducted across the country.Data collected by the PIC shows that youth andsenior outreach was particularly effective, withnearly 27% of scorecards completed by individu-als age 15-19; and 14% completed by thoseaged 65 years and older.

The Grand Vision outreach and communicationefforts were analyzed by the PIC through variousdemographic surveys and reports in order todetermine the level at which various populationsparticipated. The demographic breakdowns ofGrand Vision participants are shown in Table 3.The PIC report detailing activities, including thegroup’s marketing plan and budget, accompa-nies this report and is also available online atwww.thegrandvision.org.

Wexford County ParticipationTo encourage public involvement in eachcounty, the regional PIC engaged stakeholdersin each county to identify strategies specific tothat county. These county stakeholders workedwith the PIC to schedule event dates and loca-tions, distribute scorecards, and plan presenta-tions and events (see Table 2 for events anddates).

Public events were held in Wexford Countythroughout 2008. The Wexford County workshopwas held in May 2008 at the Wexford CountyCivic Center. To announce the workshop, post-cards were mailed to every county household in

the spring of 2008; media releases resulted inextensive news coverage; and viral email blastsreached a wide range of networks and individu-als. These efforts helped draw 75 participants to

the workshop, resulting in 10 workshop mapsand invaluable input on the community’s valuesand preferences for future growth.

Wexford County Scorecard OutreachScorecards were easily available both in printand online. Postcards were also mailed to everyhousehold in October 2008 announcing thescorecard, directing readers to the website, andencouraging them to fill out their scorecard. Forthose without internet access, a toll free numberwas provided on the scorecard, allowing readersto call and have a scorecard mailed directly tothem.

Scorecard kickoffs were held in each county toprovide an update and to introduce the score-card. These events successfully energized thecommunity, provided an opportunity for earnedmedia coverage, and kicked off the three-weekscorecard collection period. The Wexford CountyScorecard Kickoff was held October 13, 2008.

A key element of the scorecard strategy was theneed to make scorecards easily available to allindividuals throughout the region. Scorecarddistribution and collection boxes were set up inhigh-traffic locations including:

Cadillac City Government BuildingWexford Public Library—Cadillac

Manton City officeEllen’s Corners—MesickGlen’s Market—CadillacLittle Caesar’s—CadillacCadillac Area Public SchoolsManton Consolidated SchoolsMesick Consolidated Schools




Cadillac Heritage Christian SchoolWexford County Council on Aging

Public involvement and scorecard distributionefforts in Wexford County and throughout theregion resulted in an enormous scorecard re-sponse. 678 scorecards were received fromWexford County, or about 2% of the County’spopulation; 11,600 responses were receivedregion-wide. These response rates demonstratea level of awareness and interest in a planningprocess that is unprecedented in our region.




T a b l e 3 : G R A N D V I S I O N S C O R E C A R D S

D e m o g r a p h i c

b r e a k d o w n

A s o f D e c e m

b e r 3 , 2 0 0 8

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

C O U N T Y O F R E S I D E N C E

#

% o f a l l r e -

s p o n d e n t s

G o a l (

1 0 % o f

p o p u l a t i o n )

P o p u l a t i o n

% o f 6 -

c o u n t y

t o t a l

A n t r i m

1 2 0 9

1 0 . 0 %

2 , 3 1 1

2 3 1 1 0

1 2 . 5 %

B e n z i e

9 6 3

7 . 9 %

1 , 6 0 0

1 5 9 9 8

8 . 7 %

G r a n d

T r a v e r s e

6 4 8 6

5 3 . 4 %

7 , 7 6 5

7 7 6 5 4

4 2 . 0 %

K a l k a s k a

5 3 6

4 . 4 %

1 , 6 5 7

1 6 , 5 7 1

9 . 0 %

L e e l a n a u

1 7 7 2

1 4 . 6 %

2 , 1 1 2

2 1 , 1 1 9

1 1 . 4 %

W e x f o r d

7 5 5

6 . 2 %

3 , 0 4 8

3 0 , 4 8 4

1 6 . 5 %

O t h e r s

4 2 0

3 . 5 %

0 . 0 %

T O T A L

1 2 1 4 1

1 0 0 . 0 %

1 8 , 4 9 4

1 8 4 9 3 6

A G E

#

% o f a l l r e -

s p o n d e n t s

6 - c o u n t y t o t a l

% o f 6 -

c o u n t y

t o t a l

A n -

t r i m

B e n -

z i e

G r a n d

T r a v e r s e

K a l -

k a s k a

L e e -

l a n a u

W e x -

f o r d

1 5 - 1 9

3 1 8 8

2 7 . 3 %

1 2 , 9 5 9

8 . 8 %

1 , 4 9 7

9 5 0

5 5 6 6

1 1 5 5

1 4 1 4

2 3 7 7

2 0 - 2 4

5 5 2

4 . 7 %

8 , 8 6 8

6 . 0 %

9 6 9

6 7 9

4 1 1 8

8 3 5

7 4 1

1 5 2 6

2 5 - 4 4

2 2 6 3

1 9 . 4 %

5 1 , 6 1 3

3 5 . 2 %

5 , 8 4 3

4 3 3 1

2 3 0 4 4

4 7 3 4

5 1 0 6

8 5 5 5

4 5 - 6 5

4 0 6 7

3 4 . 9 %

4 6 , 0 6 8

3 1 . 4 %

6 , 1 3 9

4 1 2 7

1 8 6 2 7

4 0 6 0

5 9 8 0

7 1 3 5

6 5 +

1 5 9 8

1 3 . 7 %

2 7 , 2 0 5

1 8 . 5 %

4 , 0 3 3

2 8 0 3

1 0 1 4 4

2 2 7 8

3 6 6 9

4 2 7 8

T O T A L

1 1 6 6 8

1 0 0 . 0 %

1 4 6 , 7 1 3

1 0 0 . 0 %

1 8 , 4 8 1

1 2 , 8 9 0

6 1 , 4 9 9

1 3 , 0 6 2

1 6 , 9 1 0

2 3 , 8 7 1

L E N G T H O F R E S I D E N C E

T O T A L

% o f a l l r e -

s p o n d e n t s

F u l l - t i m e

1 0 6 4 6

9 4 . 0 %

P a r t - t i m e

6 7 4

6 . 0 %

T O T A L

1 1 3 2 0

1 0 0 . 0 %

R U R A L / S U B U R B A N / C I T Y

T O T A L

% o f a l l r e -

s p o n d e n t s

R u r a l

5 1 4 2

4 5 . 2 %

S u r b u r b a n

2 6 2 5

4 5 . 2 %

C i t y

3 6 0 4

3 1 . 7 %

T O T A L

1 1 3 7 1

1 2 2 . 1 %




Table 4: Grand Vision Participation

As 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 21Transportation 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




The Wexford County workshop was held on May27, 2008 at the Wexford County Civic Center. 75participants worked in groups of 6-10 to create10 maps identifying preferred locations of differ-ent development types and land uses. Thesedifferent land uses were shown by stickers or“chips,” with each chip representing 640 acresand a specified number of households (total andper acre). Instructions were provided, including adescription and sample photo of each land use

type, to help participants in discussions onwhere to locate different land uses. The types ofland 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 ruralareas while remaining within reach of urbanamenities. (128 households = 1 household/5acres)

Rural Cluster . The Rural Cluster developmenttype consists of collections of housing in a ruralsetting. Rural clusters are often used to focusdevelopment around an amenity, such as a lake,while retaining larger areas of open space. (128households = 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 fromdestinations is usually by automobile. (640households = 1 household/I acre)

Neighborhood. Residential subdivisions arecomprised of single-family, detached homes andduplexes. Street networks are typical of post-World War II suburbs. (1,920 households = 3household/1 acre)

Wexford County WorkshopResults

May Workshop Chip Menu




Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural Preser-vation chips are used to highlight agriculturalareas the community wishes to retain.

Open Space. Open space chips are used tohighlight 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 inthe 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 Wexford County Workshop mapsare available online at www.thegrandvision.org.Methodology is detailed in the draft Grand VisionSocio-Economic Report (August 2009), preparedby Mead&Hunt.

Highest Development Type. This map shows all locations of 2 or more “hits” - meaning that at leasttwo maps showed the same chip type in the same location.

Map 1: Wexford County Workshop Map—Highest Development Type




A v e r a g e

N u m

b e r o f H o u s e h o l d s .

T h i s m a p s h o w s c h i p p

l a c e m e n t

b y n u m

b e r o f h o u s e h o l d s

t o i n d i c a t e d e s i r e d d e n s i t i e s i n t h o s e a r e a s .

A g r i c u l t u r a l P r e s e r v a t i o n +

O p e n s p a c e .

T h i s m a p s h o w s a g r i c u l -

t u r e a n d o p e n s p a c e c h i p p l a c e m e n t b y n u m

b e r o f h i t s — o r n u m

b e r o f

t i m e s

t h e y a p p e a r e

d o n w o r k s h o p m a p s .

M a p

3 : W e x f o r d

C o u n t y

W o r k s h o p

M a p —

A g r i c u

l t u r a l P r e s e r v a -

t i o n a n d

O p e n

S p a c e

M a p

2 : W e x f o r d

C o u n t y

W o r k s h o p

M a p —

A v e r a g e

N u m

b e r o f

H o u s e h o l d s




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 wasconducted to ensure that regional planning andvisioning process of the Grand Vision will protectand promote the things about which the popula-tion cares most. 547 interviews were conductedby phone across the region. 81 interviews wereconducted in Wexford County, enabling county-level analysis. Data was weighted to match USCensus information for age, gender, race/ ethnicity, household income and county. Themargin of error is +/- 5.6%.

Following is an excerpt from the Harris Interac-tive survey report, with additional charts and in-formation specific to Wexford County. Completesurvey results by county accompany this reportand are also available online atwww.thegrandvision.org.

MethodologyHarris designed a two-stage research study. Thequalitative research stage identified values im-portant to residents. These values were con-firmed in quantitative surveys representing thepopulation 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 livingin a scenic area, having access to nature, sur-rounded by friends and family, and experiencinglittle crime. Some of the themes that emerged forthe region include (excerpted from the Harris

report):

Residents of the Grand Traverse Region aremore positive about their quality of life thanthe rest of the country and are more optimis-tic about their futures.

Residents in the region are morelikely to feel their communities are

headed in the right direction than therest of the country – 52% vs. 39%.They are less likely to believe theirchildren and grandchildren will ex-perience a decrease in quality of life.Differences exist between counties:Overall residents of Leelanau,Grand Traverse, Wexford have amore positive orientation, while An-trim residents lean more negatively.Kalkaska residents say they areheaded in the wrong direction pres-ently, but are optimistic it will im-prove. Wexford residents are am-bivalent, with no clear orientationemerging.

A number of issues figure prominently inresidents’ minds. The strong positive feel-ings about local natural beauty/outdoor recreation and friends and family clearly out-weigh the concerns over availability of job sand a somewhat high cost of living.

In the eyes of most residents, e conomic growth and development outweigh the needto protect the environment. While this iscommon during periods of economic turmoil,

Values Survey




Of the follow ing, what is M OST 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 neighborhoodsWexford

Region

Quality of Life (QOL): Present, Past and Future1 = Worst; 10 = Best

6.66.76.86.9

77.17.27.37.4

7.57.6

Present QOL QOL 5 yrs ago QOL 5 yrs in future

Wexford

Region




the level of importance placed on protectingthe environment is uncommonly high in theGrand 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 supportfor environmental protection.

Residents throughout the region expresshigh levels of support for smart growthstrategies such as clustering homes onsmaller lots, creating walkable communities,building affordable housing, and expandingpublic transportation. Harris reports that ex-perience in other smart growth research

around the country reveals that the GrandTraverse region demonstrates uncharacter-istically high levels of smart growth supportfor a region that has such a high number ofrural residents.

Residents place a high priority on regionalplanning and creating a vision for the regionand feel that efforts up to this point havemostly been only “fair” or “poor”.

The core value that shapes feelings andchoices 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%

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 fr eew ays Wexford

Region




sense of peace of mind that emanates pri-marily from their enjoyment of the scenicbeauty and access to the outdoors. In addi-tion, the strong sense of community andfamily of the region also contributes to their

peace of mind.

Life in the Grand Traverse RegionQuality of Life (QOL) Assessment of Grand Traverse Region When this survey was conducted in July 2008,residents of the Grand Traverse Region weregenerally more optimistic than the rest of thecountry. One in two said things in their community 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: theyare less likely than Americans nationwide to saythat the quality of life for their children andgrandchildren would decrease (42% vs. 56%).

Perspectives, however, differ by county: a major-ity of residents in Leelanau, Benzie and GrandTraverse counties have a generally positive out-

look; those in Antrim and Kalkaska counties aresomewhat more pessimistic, while residents ofWexford County are largely split.

There is a “timeless” high quality of life in theGrand Traverse region. Residents of the GrandTraverse region are satisfied with the quality oflife today and believe it will improve in the nextfive years. Other Americans, while also content,do not rate their quality of life as highly. On a tenpoint scale, with 10 representing the best possible life and 1 representing the worst possible life, residents of the Grand Traverse Region ratetheir quality of life presently as 7.1, about 1 pointhigher than other Americans (6.1). Thinkingabout five years in the future, residents of theGrand 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: Leelanauresidents report the highest QOL for the present

and the future (8.1; 8.1). Kalkaska residents saythey 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 noteda decline in overall quality of life, reporting QOLof 7.8 five years ago, 7.1 currently and 6.8 in thefuture – the sole county to register a negativetrend from the present to the future.

Factors in Quality of Life Assessment Quality of life is subjective – an issue that ismost important to one resident may be trivial toher neighbor. Through qualitative work in theGrand Traverse Region, Harris Interactive identi-fied the key drivers of qualify of life mentioned byarea residents. From this list of factors, residentsin the quantitative survey were asked which ele-ments have the most significant impact on their quality of life.

Overall, residents mention the area's scenicbeauty 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 elementsthat impact their quality of life, it is often useful tolook at which issues were mentioned first. These'top of mind' issues are more salient in resident'sminds than they may appear in the rankingsoverall. Having friends and family in the area(16%) and the availability of jobs (15%) werementioned first most often, followed by scenicbeauty (11%), the high cost of living (10%) andlow crime (10%). The differences in the rank or-dering of these issues depending on whether the




Total Strongly/Somewhat DISAGREE

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

More regional freew ays should be built

Most new housing should be separated from jobs & existingcenters

Grow th should be located mainly in the Traverse City partof the region

Existing regional freew ays should be widened

Cities & tow ns should build more homes w / smaller yards/ apartments to preserve farm & forest lands.

New housing & jobs should be spread out to avoidcrow ding.

A range of housing types or s izes should be planned for &

built

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

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

Regional mass transit should be expanded

More mixed use development should be encouraged

Open space should be preserved even if it means limitingsome development opportunities

Agriculture should be preserved even if it means limitingsome development opportunities

The development of more affordable housing should beencouraged

New jobs should be located closer to w here people live

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

Wexford

Region




To determine the public’s preferred growth sce-nario, Grand Vision consultants developed a“scorecard” that asked for input on the four sce-narios. The values survey results and workshopinput formed the basis for the scenarios andquestions that were presented in the scorecard.The scorecard provided information on howeach 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 didthe best job of promoting the values that wereidentified during the values survey and workshopprocess; and questions in the second portion ofthe scorecard asked for input on transportationinvestments, housing types, and other land usepatterns.

Scorecard responses were “self-selected;” thatis, similar to an election or public hearing, theresponses reflect the opinions of residents whotook the time to get involved. An extensive out-reach campaign was used to build awareness ofthe scorecard process and to ensure that score-

cards were readily available, both in print andonline, to all interested citizens.

Approximately 11,603 responses were receivedregion-wide; 678 responses were received fromWexford County residents, representing about2% of the county’s total population. The score-cards asked respondents to choose a scenarioin five questions that were based on accompa-nying scenario descriptions and graphs. An addi-tional seven questions asked respondents tostate how much they agreed with statementsregarding transportation and development types.

Scorecard results are generally consistentacross county boundaries, age, income, andother factors. However, there are some minordifferences between regional and county re-sponses to individual questions. This section willreview the questions asked in the scorecard andwill show the overall picture along with WexfordCounty 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




Question #1: I think the scenario that

does the best job of preserving the re-gion’s farmland and open space is:[Scenario A, B, C, or D]

Scenario D resulted in the least amount ofrural land converting to urban. Scenario Cfollowed closely. The village focus of Sce-nario C was partially intended to minimizepressure on agricultural land while also beingvisible and accessible to residents living inand visiting the villages. While they bothscored highly, the selection of scenario D as

the regional favorite indicated a desire tominimize pressures in rural areas, includinghousing growth and traffic, as much as possi-ble.

In the second part of the scorecard, respondentswere given a statement and asked to what de-gree they agreed or disagreed. The questionswere all directly related to scenario evaluations

described in the scorecard document, which fo-cused on measuring future impacts based onpublic values, as determined through the GrandVision values survey. Wexford County re-sponses were very closely aligned with regionalresponses in both sections of the scorecard.

Responses, by number and percent, are shownfor each question by county in Appendix C.Analysis is excerpted from Fregonese and Asso-

ciates “top line” memo from January 2009. Thememo accompanies this report and is also avail-able online at www.thegrandvision.org.

Grand Vision Scorecard ResponsesNarrative provided by Fregonese Associates, January 2009

Question #1Wexford 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

Wexford

TotalResponses




Question #2. I think the scenario that doesthe best job at balancing our needs for mo-bility with our desires for thriving cities andtowns 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 inthe 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 fortraveling between villages and towns seemedto 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 workingfamilies is:

The popularity of Scenarios C and D echo con-cerns—voiced during the Grand Vision’s valuesresearch and at the public workshops—about ris-ing home prices rising and the need to see morehousing options so that people can afford to re-main in the region. Respondents see homes withacreage as too expensive for many residents in-cluding working families, young people and seniorcitizens. Smaller yards and other options such astownhomes and apartments offer the benefit ofbeing more affordable.


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Wexford

TotalResponses


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

Wexford

TotalResponses




Question #5: I think the scenario that does thebest 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 theregion. Town and village living is easy to imaginefor people on both ends of the spectrum, fromTraverse City to rural homes along Torch Lake.There was also significant support for the moreurban lifestyle portrayed in scenario D. More thanone-third of respondents identified themselves asliving in rural areas. However, Scenarios A and Bwhich represent the more rural development pat-terns 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 andvillages of the region are well regarded by peoplein all living situations.

Question #4: I think the scenario that does thebest job of enhancing our region’s cities andvillages is:

Scenario C had by far the largest support. It isclear that people do not want the future to simplybe a continuation of the patterns seen today whichcould result in additional sprawl, loss of the rurallifestyle 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 themany towns and villages of today, rather than sig-nificantly transforming just a few areas. The strongvillages of Scenario C also resound with partici-pants’ desires for shared prosperity among thecounties of the region.


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Wexford

TotalResponses


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

A B C D

Wexford

TotalResponses




Question #6: I think transportation invest-ments should prioritize new and widenedroads.

The strong disagreement to this statement

says three things: 1. Don’t spend too muchmoney on new and widened roads, and 2.Maintain the system we have, and 3. Investmore money on transit, walking a biking. Par-ticipants in the public transportation workshopswere generally conservative about spending onany new infrastructure, highlighting the needfor 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 roadsaren’t widened.

It is abundantly clear that residents want to seeadditional spending on bike and walk facilities.The question goes a step further and statesspecifically that the funding may be at the ex-pense of investment in road widening for ca-pacity. That the answers were this close tounanimous, 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 toutilize this mode of transportation.


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

S t r o n g l y D i s a g

r e e

D i s a g r e e

N e u t r a l

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y A g

r e e

Wexford Total Responses


0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%

20.0%25.0%

30.0%35.0%

40.0%45.0%

S t r o n g l y D i s a g

r e e

D i s a g r e e

N e u t r a l

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y A g

r e e

Wexford

TotalResponses




Question #8: I think new transportationinvestments should include enhancedtransit, including in-town buses andregional bus service, even if it meanssome roads aren’t widened.

This section was also engineered to probedeeper into people attitudes about trans-portation investment. People have thesame strong feelings of support for transitas they do for bike and walk amenities.The question purposely limited the transitoptions to in-town and regional bus ser-vice which are both modest investmentscompared to rail transit.

Question #9: I think increased traffic con-gestion in our cities and villages would beokay if I could park once and walk to shops,jobs, schools and parks.

People generally support the notion of tradingslightly more congestion for the benefits of fullservice towns and villages where they couldwalk between jobs and shopping. However, thenumber of people disagreeing, or remainingneutral shows that this style of growth is not foreveryone. Additionally, it may hint at the inter-nal conflict between a desire to ‘do the rightthing’ and a belief that people will be able tostick to it when the wind is blowing and snow isfalling.


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%40.0%

S t r o n g l y D i

s a g r e e

D i s a g r e e

N e u t r a l

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y A g r

e e

Wexford

Total Responses


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

S t r o n g l y D i

s a g r e e

D i s a g r e e

N e u t r a l

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y A

g r e e

Wexford

TotalResponses




Question #12: I think people should be ableto have a home on rural acreage even if itincreases new public investment in roads,sewers and schools.

This statement forces people to link planningwith personal decisions and limits to privateproperty rights. Generally, people do not fullylink the two. This is the only question in theentire scorecard with such an even divide. Re-sponses indicate approximately equal supportfor two different positions in this matter. On onehand, some believe that they should be able tolocate a home on, or even subdivide their ruralproperty 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 linkingindividual property decisions with public costsand benefits is not intuitive. Alternatively, itcould reflect people being truly torn betweenthe notion of the public good and the privategood.


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

S t r o n g l y D

i s a g r e e

D i s a g r e e

N e u t r a l

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y A

g r e e

Wexford

Total




To compare the preferences expressed in theGrand Vision scorecard results with the prefer-ences of the general public, a telephone surveywas 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 thescorecard; in some cases, the questions thatwere tested were exact duplicates of the score-

card questions. In other cases, the statementwas paraphrased to make the question moreeasily understood during a telephone survey.

The survey, which resulted in 578 valid re-sponses, was accurate to the county level, witha 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 FindingsThe survey results provide strong confirmationthat regional residents at large share the pref-erences and priorities of scorecard partici-pants.

Both survey and scorecard participants weremost likely to favor future development vi-sion “C,” with its emphases on growth inthe region’s cities and villages; preserva-tion of open space; and investment intrails, public transportation, and roads .Vision “D,” the most compact developmentoption, was also frequently chosen (see Fig-ure 1).

Residents of the region expressed strong

support for future investments in trailsand sidewalks and in public transporta-tion, “even if it means some roads aren’twidened .” More than 75% of participants inboth processes supported these choices.

Eighty percent of survey participants and67% of scorecard participants would toler-ate more traffic in cities and villages if

they could “park once and walk” to theirdestinations. Many regional residents wouldalso consider a neighborhood “with smalleryards and some apartments and condomini-ums” if they could walk or ride a bike towork, school, shopping, and amenities.

Residents would prefer taller buildings incities and villages to developing farmand forestlands . Only about one in four

participants in either process agreed withthe statement, “I oppose taller buildings inour villages and cities even if it means thatwe need to build on farm and forest lands.”

The region is most divided on the issuesof new pavement for roads and new resi-dential development in areas lackingsupportive infrastructure . Fifty-nine per-cent of survey respondents and 46% of

scorecard participants agreed “strongly” or“somewhat” that “building new roads andwidening existing roads should be the firstpriority for transportation spending in theregion.” Similarly, 46% of survey respon-dents and 53% of scorecard participantsagreed “strongly” or “somewhat” with thestatement, “I think people should be able to

Follow-up Survey Report




build new homes in country areas, even if itmeans we have to spend tax dollars to buildroads, sewers and schools.”

Most issues explored in the survey show no per-sistent or sharp differences in opinion on thebasis of personal characteristics includingage, gender, income, education, own/rent status,employment status, type of home community, orcounty. For example, support for investment inpublic transportation and interest in vision “C”was drawn from younger and older respondents,males and females, higher- and lower-incomefamilies, residents of all types of communities,and residents of all counties. The lone excep-tion to this pattern was prioritization of invest-ment in new and wider roads, which was sensi-tive 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 involvementin the Grand Vision, familiarity without involve-ment, or no prior familiarity with the process (seeFigure 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.”

Wexford County ResultsWexford County results reflected regional re-sponse patterns in most cases, with slightlymore support for some urban development pat-terns. In particular, Wexford County residentswere more likely to disagree with statement #5,

which indicated opposition to taller buildings incities and villages.

Complete survey results are available online atwww.thegrandvision.org.

Statement #1 corresponds to question #7 onthe Grand Vision scorecard, which asked par-ticipants to rank their support of the statement,“I think new transportation investments shouldinclude biking and walking facilities, even if itmeans some roads aren’t widened.” Regionalscorecard responses, excluding neutral re-sponses, showed that 84% of participants“strongly agreed” or “agreed” with this state-ment. The PPA survey results were consistent,with approximately 80% of respondents region-wide and 83% of Wexford County residentsexpressing agreement .

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

Statement #1: "I think future investments intransportation should include trails and

sidewalks for biking and walking, even if itmeans some roads aren't widened." (% Agree

"Strongly" or "Somewhat")

83% 80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Wexford Region




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 aren’t wid-ened.” Excluding neutral responses, 80% of regionalscorecard participants “strongly agreed” or “agreed”with 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 participants torank 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 agreed” or“agreed” with this statement. Support was substan-tially higher in responses to the PPA survey, withapproximately 80% of respondents region-wide ex-

pressing agreement and 81% of Wexford Countyresidents supporting the statement.

Statement #4 corresponds to question #6 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participants torank their support of the statement, “I think newtransportation investments should prioritize new andwidened roads.” Regional scorecard responses, ex-

cluding neutral responses, showed that 46% of par-ticipants “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with thisstatement. Support for this statement was higher,particularly from Wexford County, in the PPA sur-vey.

Statement #2: "I think future investmentsin transportation should include m orepublic transportation, including in-town

buses and regional bus service, even if itmeans som e roads aren’t widened." (%

Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

76%81%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wexford Region

Statement #3: "I think increased traf fic in ourvillages and cities w ould be okay if I could

park once and walk to shops, jobs, schoolsand parks." (% Agree "Strongly" or

"Somew hat")

81% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wexford Region

"I think building new roads and wideningexisting roads should be the first priority

for transportation spending in the region."(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

67%59%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wexford Region




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 participants“strongly agreed” or “agreed” with this state-ment.

Statement #7 corresponds to question #11 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participantsto rank their support of the statement, “I would op-pose taller buildings in our cities and villages evenif it means that we need to build on farm and forestlands.” Regional scorecard responses, excludingneutral responses, showed that 21% of participants“strongly agreed” or “agreed” with this statement.Wexford County respondents showed substantiallyless support for this statement than the region as awhole.

Statement #5: Percentages prioritizingmaintenance of existing roads over

expanding capacity with new and widerroads

89% 86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Wexford Region

"I would cons ider living in a neighborhood withsm aller yards and some apartments or

condominiums if I could walk or ride a bike toshops , jobs, schools and parks." (% Agree

"Strongly" or "Somewhat")

59%53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wexford Region

Statement #7: "I oppose taller buildings inour villages and cities even if it means thatwe need to build on farm and forest lands."

(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

39%

16%

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

80%90%

100%

Wexford Region




Through the Grand Vision process, the commu-nity identified six issue areas and action state-ments that together will help move the vision intoreality:

Create a group of unique villages and citiesthat are active and charming places with amain street or a downtown.

Provide more variety in housing choices tomatch peoples’ needs and preferences forlower cost, higher efficiency, central locationand low-maintenance lifestyle options.Strengthen the local economy with more

jobs offering security and a living wage incities and villages around the region. Trainthe workforce for Michigan’s new economywith a quality education and opportunities forlifelong learning.

Maintain and improve the existing road sys-tem and place new investment in publictransportation, bicycling and pedestrian in-frastructure to provide choices in mobility,support energy conservation and maximizesystem efficiencies.Protect and preserve the farm land, or-chards, forests, open water, and other natu-ral areas and particularly water quality andthe scenic beauty of the region.

Make decisions today that support sustain-able development for the environment, theeconomy and the community for tomorrowand the next fifty years.

ImplementationCommunity efforts are now beginning to move

these Grand Vision principles into action. Likethe creation of the Grand Vision, this effort willbe a collaborative, region-wide, bottom-up ap-proach that will require commitment and actionfrom citizens, public agencies, nonprofits, andthe private sector.

Grand Vision SupportersIndividuals throughout the region are invited to

publicly support the Grand Vision through astatement of support. Supporters receive regularupdates on progress and activities related to theGrand Vision, and also commit to activities suchas participating in a working group; working as avolunteer at Grand Vision events and with out-reach; advocating for Grand Vision policies andprojects; and participating in an annual summit

Partnership

All organizations, groups, and agencies that sup-port the principles of the Grand Vision are invitedto sign a Partnership Agreement. Through theagreement, partners agree that it is in the bestinterest of the community to:

Cooperatively engage in activities that willresult in progress toward the goals of theGrand Vision

Attend the annual Grand Vision community

event to share progress

Provide assistance as available to supportGrand Vision related activities and events

Participating organizations receive support fromother Grand Vision partners in communicatingtheir mission and activities to the public throughmarketing avenues including media releases,

The Grand Vision




online information, and viral networking.

All Grand Vision partners will receive regularupdates on progress and activities related to theGrand Vision. Partners will be publicly identifiedas supporters of the Grand Vision.

Working GroupsBecause many organizations throughout theregion are involved in activities that are consis-tent with the principles of the Grand Vision, aGrand Vision working group structure has beendeveloped to support these organizations andactivities. Working groups will function as col-laborative councils on specific subject areas andwill include diverse regional participation, withmembers including citizens and representativesfrom public agencies, nonprofits, and the privatesector that are involved in the subject area. Con-veners will host initial meetings and provide staffsupport in terms of meeting agendas and otherresources.

Growth and Investment Areas: ensure that

both public and private investments are made inareas that are suitable for new growth and thatwill give the region the best return on the dollarfor strengthening the economy and designingvibrant communities.

Convener: New Designs for Growth/ Northwest Michigan Council of Governments

Housing: offer a diverse mix of regional housingchoices 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 North-west Michigan Council of Governments

Transportation: maintain and improve the exist-ing road system, increase public transportationservices between cities and villages in the re-gion, and expand infrastructure serving pedestri-ans and bicyclists both in and out of town.

Convener: Traverse City Area Chamber ofCommerce

Food and Farming: preserve agriculture as aviable economic practice in the region by pro-tecting farmland, enhancing the affordability offarms, and supporting agricultural infrastructurein the region.

Convener: Taste the Local Difference andMichigan Land Use Institute

Natural Resources: protect and enhance theregion's natural environment, especially theabundant freshwater resources that define theregion.

Convener: Watershed Center

Energy: create energy options through energy

conservation and the development and promo-tion of alternative energy sources.Convener: SEEDS

Communications-Organization-Resources- Education (CORE): will serve as a resource tothe other working groups providing resource de-velopment, identification of strategic alliancesand opportunities within working groups, trainingand education, and communications and out-reach through oversight of the communicationscommittee. This group to be made up of onerepresentative from each of the working groupsand one representative from each county.

Convener: Rotary Charities




Each of the working groups will conduct openand transparent meetings, and all of their activi-ties will be well documented and described ont h e G r a n d V i s i o n w e b s i t e ,www.thegrandvision.org . The site currently con-tains basic information about each of the work-ing groups, and will continue to post meetings,minutes, events, and progress through blogs,articles and videos.




Appendices




Appendix A

Grand Vision Coordinating GroupRepresentative Organizations

Homebuilders AssociationCitizen-at-Large, Youth RepresentativeHomeStretchBay Area Transportation AuthorityTraverse City Area Public SchoolsCitizen-at-LargeTraverse City Convention and Visitor BureauNorthwestern Michigan CollegeCitizen-at-LargeGrand Traverse County Road CommissionTraverse Area Association of RealtorsGrand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa IndiansAcme TownshipTraverse City Transportation and Land Use Study (TC-TALUS)East Bay TownshipMichigan Land Use InstituteTraverse City Area Chamber of CommerceTownship AssociationThe Watershed Center Grand Traverse BayTraverse Area Recreation and Transportation Trails, Inc.Blair Township

Michigan Department of TransportationGrand Traverse CountyElmwood TownshipNorthern Michigan Environmental Action CouncilCity of Traverse CityCitizen-at-Large, Senior RepresentativeGarfield TownshipMunson HealthcareAntrim CountyBenzie CountyGrand Traverse CountyKalkaska CountyLeelanau CountyWexford County




Appendix DScorecard Responses

Question 1: I think the scenario that does the best job of preserving the region's farmland and open space is:

A B C D TotalAntrim 156 13.0% 181 15.2% 408 34.3% 446 37.4% 1191Benzie 90 9.5% 42 3.5% 374 39.6% 438 46.3% 944

Grand Traverse 584 9.2% 604 9.5% 2033 31.9% 3159 49.5% 6380Kalkaska 63 11.9% 46 8.7% 193 36.4% 228 43.0% 530Leelanau 166 9.6% 103 5.9% 590 34.0% 877 50.5% 1736Wexford 66 10.0% 89 13.4% 212 31.9% 298 44.8% 665

Total Responses 1125 9.8% 1065 9.3% 3810 33.3% 5446 47.6% 11446

Question 2: think the scenario that does the best job of balancing our needs for mobility with our desires for thriving cities and towns and a cleaner environment is



Total Responses 809 7.1% 1075 9.4% 5983 52.3% 3567 31.2% 11434

Question 3 - I think the scenario that best provides jobs and affordable housing for working families is:



Total Responses 1003 8.8% 1274 11.2% 5313 46.8% 3764 33.2% 11354

Question 4 - I think the scenario that does the best job of enhancing our region's cities and villages is: A B C D Total

Antrim 110 9.3% 144 12.2% 660 55.8% 269 22.7% 1183Benzie 60 6.4% 72 7.7% 572 60.9% 235 25.0% 939


Total Responses 831 7.3% 1047 9.2% 6342 55.7% 3170 27.8% 11390




Question 5 - I think the scenario that does the best job of depicting a future I support is:


Grand Traverse 475 7.5% 658 10.4% 3106 48.9% 2131 33.5% 6352Kalkaska 50 9.5% 64 12.2% 294 55.9% 119 22.6% 526Leelanau 149 8.6% 134 7.8% 961 55.6% 477 27.6% 1727Wexford 63 9.5% 64 9.7% 327 49.3% 216 32.6% 663Total Re-sponses 942 7.3% 1168 9.2% 5828 55.7% 3477 27.8% 11390

Question 6 - I think transportation investments should prioritize new and widened roads

StronglyDisagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total

Antrim 142 11.9% 267 22.4% 322 27.0% 324 27.2% 136 11.4% 1191

Benzie 186 19.5% 266 27.9% 192 20.1% 213 22.3% 98 10.3% 955Grand Traverse 1061 16.5% 1608 25.1% 1507 23.5% 1518 23.7% 720 11.2% 6414

Kalkaska 59 11.2% 100 19.0% 144 27.4% 150 28.6% 72 13.7% 525Leelanau 425 24.4% 495 28.4% 283 16.2% 327 18.8% 214 12.3% 1744Wexford 93 13.8% 142 21.1% 192 28.5% 182 27.0% 64 9.5% 673

Tpta; 1966 17.1% 2878 25.0% 2640 23.0% 2714 23.6% 1304 11.3% 11502

Question 7 - I think new transportation investments should include biking and walking facilities, even if it means some roads aren't widened.

StronglyDisagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total

Antrim 79 6.6% 110 9.1% 187 15.5% 535 44.4% 293 24.3% 1204Benzie 39 4.1% 92 9.7% 87 9.1% 417 43.8% 318 33.4% 953

Grand Traverse 250 3.9% 550 8.5% 796 12.3% 2568 39.8% 2282 35.4% 6446Kalkaska 35 6.6% 57 10.7% 79 14.9% 218 41.1% 142 26.7% 531Leelanau 110 6.3% 150 8.6% 151 8.6% 690 39.3% 653 37.2% 1754Wexford 33 4.8% 91 13.2% 109 15.9% 277 40.3% 177 25.8% 687

Total 546 4.7% 1050 9.1% 1409 12.2% 4705 40.6% 3865 33.4% 11575

Question 8 - I think new transportation investments should include enhanced transit, including in-town buses and regional bus service, even if it means roads aren't widened.

Strongly

DisagreeDisagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total

Antrim 79 6.6% 119 9.9% 274 22.8% 445 37.0% 286 23.8% 1203Benzie 57 6.0% 74 7.8% 98 10.3% 364 38.2% 359 37.7% 952

Grand Traverse 349 5.4% 734 11.4% 1117 17.4% 2353 36.6% 1879 29.2% 6432Kalkaska 35 6.6% 60 11.4% 77 14.6% 196 37.2% 159 30.2% 527Leelanau 125 7.1% 145 8.3% 154 8.8% 670 38.3% 655 37.4% 1749Wexford 35 5.2% 75 11.1% 149 22.1% 242 36.0% 172 25.6% 673

Total 680 5.9% 1207 10.5% 1869 16.2% 4270 37.0% 3510 30.4% 11536

Grand Vision: Wexford Perspective

Documents

Transcript of Grand Vision: Wexford Perspective