Grand Vision: Kalkaska Perspective

KALKASKA COUNTY
PERSPECTIVE
thegrandvision.org
A Kalkaska County Perspective
This 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.
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
The Grand Vision:
A Kalkaska County Perspective
Introduction
The Grand Vision is a citizen-led vision for the that may occur in the County and in other future
future of transportation, land use, economic de- planning efforts in the community.
velopment, and environmental stewardship in
Antrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Lee- Data and analysis was excerpted from previ-
lanau, and Wexford Counties. The Grand Vision ously released reports including:
was created with input from thousands of citi-
zens and was supported by dozens of commu-  Grand Vision Public Involvement Committee
nity partners throughout the region—including 2007-08 Report
private, nonprofit, and public agencies—with  Values research survey; analysis conducted
financial backing from local, county, state, and by Harris Interactive, Inc., November 2008
federal units of government as well as both pri-  Scorecard results; analysis by Fregonese
vate and public organizations This unprece- Associates, January 2009
dented collaboration has resulted in a vision for  Grand Vision 2009 Public Opinion Survey
the region’s future that will enhance our sense of Results; conducted by Public Policy Associ-
place, building the foundation for a strong econ- ates, Inc., March-April 2009
omy while preserving those parts of our commu-  Socio-Economic Report; prepared by
nities that are most important to residents. Mead&Hunt, August 2009 (draft)
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
The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Page 1
dix A). These members acted with the following
Copies of the reports are provided as an attach- mission:
ment to this summary and are also available
online at www.thegrandvision.org. “Our mission is to use a transparent and citizen
led discussion and process to ensure the devel-
Please note that a transportation-specific report, opment of a community vision, plans for the fu-
Travel Demand Model Methodology, is forthcom- ture, and projects that address land use and
ing; data was not available at the time this report transportation challenges facing the region.”
was completed.
The Coordinating Group developed a request for
History proposals for a study and process that would
The process leading up to the Grand Vision be- meet the group’s mission of transparency and
gan with a conflict over a proposed connection public involvement while addressing transporta-
of Hartman and Hammond Roads in Grand tion and land use in a comprehensive plan. Us-
Traverse County, south of Traverse City. Be- ing $1.3 million of the reallocated transportation
cause of disagreement over the advantages and dollars, the Coordinating Group hired a consult-
disadvantages of this connection, the proposal ant team led by Mead & Hunt that included
was put on hold to allow the community to study Robert Grow and John Fregonese, the nation’s
its impacts in more detail. In the spring of 2005, foremost experts in scenario planning and public
$3.3 million in federal transportation money was participation (for consultant bios, see Appendix
reallocated from plans for the bypass and given B). The process was to begin with public plan-
to the Grand Traverse area for the creation and ning workshops that would ask citizens to de-
implementation of a comprehensive, multimodal velop different scenarios for the future. Consult-
transportation plan. ants would show how these scenarios would
move traffic, develop land, and supply housing;
then the public would be asked to choose the
To ensure that this planning process would be
scenario that best fits the future of the region.
accountable, transparent, representative, and
citizen-focused, the Grand Traverse County
The LUTS Coordinating Group recognized early
Board of Commissioners created and appointed
on that transportation issues in Grand Traverse
the Land Use & Transportation Coordinating
County were directly and significantly impacted
Group (LUTS), now known as the Grand Vision
by surrounding counties. In 2007 and 2008, the
Coordinating Group. This body included a
study was expanded to include Antrim, Benzie,
broadly representative group of citizens con-
Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties. The
cerned about transportation and land use issues
expansion of the study increased the total cost
– including county representatives from Antrim,
of the study by $240,000. The added cost was
Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau,
funded by a combination of sources including
and Wexford Counties; transportation agencies;
the Michigan Department of Transportation
business leaders; environmental organizations;
($100,000), the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa
township, city, and tribal representatives; educa-
and Chippewa Indians ($50,000), Traverse City
tional institutions; nonprofits; and the general
Area Chamber of Commerce ($10,000), North-
public (list of representatives included in Appen-
western Michigan College ($10,000), Munson

Page 2
Healthcare ($10,000), and county contributions next 50 years. Subsequent workshops were held
totaling $30,000. Kalkaska County committed throughout the winter and spring of 2008. “Small
$6,000 to the expanded scope of the project. area” workshops, focusing in-depth on Traverse
City, Acme, and Interlochen were held in Febru-
Study Process ary 2008; and two regional transportation work-
In September 2007, “LUTS” became “The Grand shops were held on March 20, 2008. Participa-
Vision;” and the citizen input phase of the project tion levels for all workshops were high, totaling
began on October 17, 2007, with a scenario several hundred participants (see Table 4,
planning workshop at the Park Place Hotel in “Grand Vision Participation,” page 11). Work-
Traverse City. The event was widely publicized shops focusing specifically on Antrim, Benzie,
throughout the region, resulting in high atten- Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties were
dance: over 500 participants from all counties in held in each county in May 2008.
the region worked in groups of 6-10 to create
maps showing their vision for land use over the
Grand Vision Scorecard

Page 3
At the scenario planning workshops, consultants patterns.
presented information on current growth patterns
and discussed how our population will change in The Grand Vision scorecard was printed and
the coming years. Citizens were provided with a distributed throughout the region in early Octo-
large map and asked to identify transportation ber 2008, and was also made available online at
changes and future locations of agriculture, open www.thegrandvision.org. A total of 11,603 score-
space and different development types using cards were received in a three week time period.
special stickers, or “chips,” that reflected the Results were reviewed and analyzed to develop
amount of population growth the region will ex- the “preferred scenario,” which included ele-
perience through 2060. Participants worked in ments of all scenarios with a focus on scenario
groups of 6-10, discussing chip locations in de- C – otherwise known as the “village-based” sce-
tail along with their values and concerns relative nario. This preferred scenario was presented to
to each land use type; comments were written the public in February 2009 with a public com-
on the maps and were included in later analyses ment period open through March 2009. After
of the maps. additional public input was received, the sce-
nario was further refined into a
Based on the input received at the workshops, a preferred scenario that became the Grand Vi-
random-sample survey was designed by Harris sion. The Grand Vision was further tested in
Interactive, a national polling firm. This survey April 2009 through a random-sample survey that
questioned participants on their values and con- asked respondents questions based both on the
cerns. Results were accurate to the county level. survey, and on the final Grand Vision.
Survey results and workshop maps were ana- The Grand Vision
lyzed to develop four different scenarios that The Grand Vision is a vision of regional growth
would reflect different public preferences and that is built on public input. While it represents
development patterns. Each scenario included one of the region’s most far-reaching planning
indicators relative to housing units, land con- efforts and reflects our community’s highest pri-
sumed, annual driving hours and gas expenses, orities, the Grand Vision has no authority to re-
and cost of lane miles (see Table 1 for scenarios quire change. Making the Grand Vision a reality
and descriptions). will require policy changes, new models for de-
velopment, and innovative new programs—all of
These scenarios were presented in a Grand Vi- which will require cooperation between organiza-
sion “scorecard” that asked for input on the four tions and across governmental boundaries. In
scenarios. The scorecard provided information precisely the same spirit of cooperation that cre-
and graphics on how each scenario would im- ated the Grand Vision, implementation of the
pact the number of housing units, investments in Grand Vision will depend on the participation
road lane miles, and acres of land consumed. and collaboration of local and county govern-
Questions asked participants to choose which ments, citizens, and private, nonprofit, and pub-
scenario they felt did the best job of promoting lic organizations. To facilitate this collaboration,
the values that were identified during the values Grand Vision stakeholders have endorsed an
survey and workshop process; and additional implementation structure that will invite broad
questions asked for input on transportation in- participation and representation through a Grand
vestments, housing types, and other land use Vision partnership and working group structure.

Page 4
Table 1: Future Growth Scenarios: Descriptions and Measurements
New Hous- Acres of New Homes Annual Total Annual Annual

ing Units Farm and and Multi- Hours Spent Cost of Houshold Tons of
in Walk- Forest Land family Units Driving Per Lane Gas Ex- CO2
able Areas Consumed Person Miles penditure Emis-
Needed sions
Scenario A: Future growth will follow the existing trend of 2,010 6,566 3,296 227 $142 $2,835 1.2
low-density development in rural areas, with minimal growth (farmland) (multi-family) million million
in existing cities and villages. Transportation investments
will be largely in widened roadways for commuters, and 7,460 (forest) 21,041
include some multi-use trails, but minimal investments in (single
bus service and walkability. family)
Scenario B: Future growth will occur in rural areas, but with 4,666 8,244 6,049 212 $86 mil- $2,721 1.14
new homes clustered to maximize open space, and minimal (farmland) (multi-family) lion million
growth in existing cities and villages. Transportation invest-
ments will be largely in new or widened roadways for com- 14,232 18,581
muters. This scenario includes some investment in walking (forest) (single fam-
and bicycling trails but the effectiveness of transit and walk- ily)
Page 5
ability for commuting is limited by low densities.
Scenario C: Future growth will occur primarily in the re- 4430 2,079 10,100 (multi- 208 $78 mil- $2,608 1.13
gion’s cities and villages, with additional growth in the main (farmland) family) lion million
cities of Traverse City and Cadillac. Large amounts of rural
open space are preserved. This development pattern will 2,469 (forest) 15,466
require investments in regional bus service, sidewalks, and (single
bike trails in villages and cities, with some investments in family)

new or widened roadways.
Scenario D: Future housing development and job growth 5,970 1,968 10,100 189 $58 mil- $2,381 1.04
will occur primarily in the region’s two main cities, Traverse (farmland) lion million
City and Cadillac. Large amounts of rural open space are (multi-family)
preserved. This development pattern will require investment 2,173 (forest)
in urban bus circulators, sidewalks, and biking paths in 15,466
those two main cities. This scenario has limited investment (single
in new or widened roadways. family)
Public Participation & Outreach
Public input and involvement formed the founda-  Direct mail. Postcards were mailed to every
tion of the Grand Vision process. To help en- household in each county announcing the
courage this involvement, a subcommittee of the scorecard kickoffs and encouraging readers
Coordinating Group, known as the Public In- to fill out their scorecard. An additional post-
volvement Committee (PIC), became active in card with a similar message was sent to
October 2007. The group included consultants, each American Association of Retired Per-
staff, and volunteers throughout the six-county sons (AARP) member household, allowing
region, and met weekly to develop strategies the PIC to reinforce the message with an
that would result in maximum participation levels audience that was less likely to use the
and awareness throughout the region. The com- Internet.
mittee developed a comprehensive marketing  Earned media. Regular press releases
and communications plan that focused on were issued to update the public on the lat-
hands-on involvement through a series of large est Grand Vision events and progress.
and small events, direct communication, earned  Email blasts. “Viral” networking was used to
media exposure, and targeted communications communicate directly with groups and indi-
to youth and seniors. viduals; announcements and updates were
frequently emailed to interested parties and
 Public events. Numerous presentations passed on to associated individuals, and
were provided to the general public, local stories were shared in newsletters and
service groups, human service collaborative meetings.
groups, chambers of commerce, local and
county governments, and many
other organizations. Presentations
were provided by a “speaker’s
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.

Page 6
 www.thegrandvision.org. A website was project, and dedicated to ensuring measur-
developed to store and promote the project, able outcomes that would benefit future gen-
including comprehensive information such erations. These individuals were instrumen-
as: tal in building public support for the project.
 Reports and maps  Youth Outreach. A comprehensive out-
 Opportunities for engagement reach effort was directed towards the re-
 Update emails generated through an gion’s youth, through assemblies, classroom
automated mailing list presentations, online networking sites, and
 Easy-to-use forums school scorecard distribution. Every local
 Videos school program in the region was able to
 Dynamic calendar of events involve their high school students in the
scorecard process in October 2008.
 Social networking links
 Senior Outreach. More than 21,700 AARP
 Connection to resources
member households received Grand Vision/
 Paid media. Advertisements were printed in
AARP postcards.
newspapers and aired on television; bill-
 Scorecard distribution. A scorecard distri-
board advertisements were displayed along
bution strategy was created to ensure
South Airport Road and U.S 31 in East Bay
awareness and availability of the scorecard
Township.
to all audiences in the region.
 Champions. Champions are community
leaders with the ability to convene key local
These activities were critical in achieving the
constituencies—including representatives
Grand Vision’s unprecedented level of public
from businesses, philanthropy, and other
participation. However, because they were not
community organizations. Champions were
funded by the original contract, a great deal of
committed to an open, citizen-led planning
fundraising was necessary to cover the ex-
process, willing to speak in support of the
Table 2: Kalkaska County Grand Vision Events
Event Description Date Location
Introductory GV Introduce the Grand Vision and en- November Kaliseum

Presentation courage Kalkaska County participation 2007
Kalkaska County GV Visioning Workshop May 7, 2008 Kaliseum

Workshop
Kalkaska County GV Presentation and discussion on Grand August 2008 Kalkaska Civic
Update Vision progress and update on coming Center
events
Kalkaska County GV Presentation on scorecard to encour- October 9, Kalkaska High
Scorecard Kickoff age maximum response 2008 School
Kalkaska County Discuss draft Grand Vision and obtain February Kalkaska County
Draft Grand Vision input 2009 Government Build-
Presentation ing

Page 7
penses of communication activities. $160,000 held in May 2008 at the Kaliseum. To announce
was raised by the PIC from local foundations. the workshop, postcards were mailed to every
county household in the spring of 2008; media
Report Card releases resulted in extensive news coverage;
More than 15,700 people participated in some and viral email blasts reached a wide range of
way in the Grand Vision process—more than networks and individuals. These efforts helped
8.5% of the region’s population. The participa- draw 150 participants to the workshop, resulting
tion on a per capita basis exceeds some of the in 15 workshop maps and invaluable input on
most highly successful public involvement plan- the community’s values and preferences for fu-
ning efforts ever conducted across the country. ture growth.
Data collected by the PIC shows that youth and
senior outreach was particularly effective, with Kalkaska County Scorecard Outreach
nearly 27% of scorecards completed by individu- Scorecards were easily available both in print
als age 15-19; and 14% completed by those and online. Postcards were also mailed to every
aged 65 years and older. household in October 2008 announcing the
scorecard, directing readers to the website, and
The Grand Vision outreach and communication encouraging them to fill out their scorecard. For
efforts were analyzed by the PIC through various those without internet access, a toll free number
demographic surveys and reports in order to was provided on the scorecard, allowing readers
determine the level at which various populations to call and have a scorecard mailed directly to
participated. The demographic breakdowns of them.
Grand Vision participants are shown in Table 3.
The PIC report detailing activities, including the Scorecard kickoffs were held in each county to
group’s marketing plan and budget, accompa- provide an update and to introduce the score-
nies this report and is also available online at card. These events successfully energized the
www.thegrandvision.org. community, provided an opportunity for earned
media coverage, and kicked off the three-week
Kalkaska County Participation scorecard collection period. The Kalkaska
To encourage public involvement in each County Scorecard Kickoff was held October 9,
county, the regional PIC engaged stakeholders 2008.
in each county to identify strategies specific to
that county. These county stakeholders worked A key element of the scorecard strategy was the
with the PIC to schedule event dates and loca- need to make scorecards easily available to all
tions, distribute scorecards, and plan presenta- individuals throughout the region. Scorecard
tions and events (see Table 2 for events and distribution and collection boxes were set up in
dates). high-traffic locations including:
Public events were held in Kalkaska County  Kalkaska County Government Cen-
throughout 2007 and 2008 (see table), beginning ter
with an introductory meeting in November 2007  Kalkaska Village offices
to encourage Kalkaska County participation in  Kalkaska Memorial Hospital
the project. The Kalkaska County workshop was  South Boardman Senior Center

Page 8
 Kalkaska Area Chamber of Com-
merce
 Glen’s Market—Kalkaska
 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 County’s
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.

Page 9
Table 3: GRAND VISION SCORECARDS
Demographic breakdown
As of December 3, 2008
A B C D E F G H I J K L
% of 6-
% of all re- Goal (10% of county
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE # spondents population) Population total
Antrim 1209 10.0% 2,311 23110 12.5%
Benzie 963 7.9% 1,600 15998 8.7%
Grand Traverse 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
% of 6-
% of all re- county An- Ben- Grand Kal- Lee- Wex-
AGE # spondents 6-county total total trim zie Traverse kaska lanau ford
Page 10
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
18,48
TOTAL 11668 100.0% 146,713 100.0% 1 12,890 61,499 13,062 16,910 23,871

% of all re-
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE TOTAL spondents
Full-time 10646 94.0%
Part-time 674 6.0%
TOTAL 11320 100.0%
% of all re-
RURAL/SUBURBAN/CITY TOTAL spondents
Rural 5142 45.2%
Surburban 2625 45.2%
City 3604 31.7%
TOTAL 11371 122.1%
Table 4: Grand Vision Participation
As of December 3, 2008
Atten- Scenario maps

EVENT DATE dance created
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

Page 11
Kalkaska County Workshop
Results
The Kalkaska County workshop was held on Rural Cluster. The Rural Cluster development
May 7, 2008 at the Kaliseum in Kalkaska. 195 type consists of collections of housing in a rural
participants worked in groups of 6-10 to create setting. Rural clusters are often used to focus
24 maps identifying preferred locations of differ- development around an amenity, such as a lake,
ent development types and land uses. These while retaining larger areas of open space. 128
different land uses were shown by stickers or households = 1 household/5 acres
“chips,” with each chip representing 640 acres
and a specified number of households (total and Large Lot. Large Lot subdivisions consist of
per acre). Instructions were provided, including a single-family, detached homes. With up to one-
description and sample photo of each land use acre lots, this development type is characterized
type, to help participants in discussions on by very large residences without sidewalks.
where to locate different land uses. The types of Street connectivity is low and travel to and from
land uses and their descriptions are as follows: destinations is usually by automobile. 640
households = 1 household/I acre
Rural. The Rural Housing development type
consists of dispersed lots. Rural housing devel- Neighborhood. Residential subdivisions are
opment provides residents with access to rural comprised of single-family, detached homes and
areas while remaining within reach of urban duplexes. Street networks are typical of post-
amenities. (128 households = 1 household/5 World War II suburbs. 1,920 households = 3
acres) household/1 acre
May Workshop Chip Menu

Page 12
Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural Preser- the creation of the values survey and in the de-
vation chips are used to highlight agricultural velopment of the four alternative growth scenar-
areas the community wishes to retain. ios that appeared in the scorecard.
Open Space. Open space chips are used to Images of all Kalkaska County Workshop maps
highlight open space and environmental areas are available online at www.thegrandvision.org.
the community wishes to retain. Methodology is detailed in the draft Grand Vision
Socio-Economic Report (August 2009), prepared
Workshop map results, including both chip loca- by Mead&Hunt.
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
Map 1: Kalkaska County Workshop Map—Highest Development Type
Highest Development Type. This map shows all locations of 2 or more “hits” - meaning
that at least two maps showed the same chip type in the same location.

Page 13
Map 2: Kalkaska County Workshop Map—Average Number of Map 3: Kalkaska County Workshop Map—Agricultural Preserva-
Households tion and Open Space
Page 14
Average Number of Households. This map shows chip placement Agricultural Preservation + Open space. This map shows agricul-
by number of households to indicate desired densities in those areas. ture and open space chip placement by number of hits—or number of
times they appeared on workshop maps.
Values Survey
A values survey was conducted by Harris Inter- report):

active in July 2008, with a goal of assessing val-
ues of those living in the region. The survey was  Residents of the Grand Traverse Region are
conducted to ensure that regional planning and more positive about their quality of life than
visioning process of the Grand Vision will protect the rest of the country and more optimistic
and promote the things about which the popula- about their futures.
tion cares most. 547 interviews were conducted  Residents in the region are more
by phone across the region. 81 interviews were likely to feel their communities are
conducted in Kalkaska County, enabling county- headed in the right direction than the
level analysis. Data was weighted to match US rest of the country – 52% vs. 39%.
Census information for age, gender, race/  They are less likely to believe their
ethnicity, household income and county. The children and grandchildren will ex-
margin of error is +/- 5.6%. perience a decrease in quality of life.
 Differences exist between counties:
Following is an excerpt from the Harris Interac- Overall residents of Leelanau,
tive survey report, with additional charts and in- Grand Traverse, Benzie have a
formation specific to Kalkaska County. Complete more positive orientation, while An-
survey results by county accompany this report trim residents lean more negatively.
and are also available online at Kalkaska residents say they are
www.thegrandvision.org. headed in the wrong direction pres-
ently, but are optimistic it will im-
Methodology prove. Wexford residents are am-
Harris designed a two-stage research study. The bivalent, with no clear orientation
qualitative research stage identified values im- emerging.
portant to residents. These values were con-
firmed in quantitative surveys representing the  A number of issues figure prominently in
population of the six-county Grand Traverse re- residents’ minds. The strong positive feel-
gion. ings about local natural beauty/outdoor rec-
reation and friends and family clearly out-
The survey showed that residents in the region
weigh the concerns over availability of jobs
have similar values, despite their county of resi-
and a somewhat high cost of living.
dence, and enjoy a high quality of life from living
in a scenic area, having access to nature, sur-
 In the eyes of most residents, economic
rounded by friends and family, and experiencing
growth and development outweigh the need
little crime. Some of the themes that emerged for
to protect the environment. While this is
the region include (excerpted from the Harris
common during periods of economic turmoil,

Page 15
Quality of Life (QOL): Present, Past and Future
1 = Worst; 10 = Best
Kalkaska
7.6
7.4 Region
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
5.6
Present QOL QOL 5 yrs ago QOL 5 yrs in future
Of the following, what is MOST Important to you?
Quiet neighborhoods
Kalkaska
Being close to places like schools, stores or freew ays Region
Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure
The w eather or climate
Planning for grow th
Friendly people or neighbors
Outdoor recreation opportunities
Rural areas and open space
Clean lakes and rivers
High quality education system
A family-friendly environment
High cost of living
Low crime
Scenic beauty of the region and having access to nature
Plenty of jobs or w ork available
Having friends or family in the area
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Page 16
the level of importance placed on protecting around the country reveals that the Grand
the environment is uncommonly high in the Traverse region demonstrates uncharacter-
Grand Traverse region compared to senti- istically high levels of smart growth support
ments across the rest of the nation. More- for a region that has such a high number of
over, momentum over the past few years rural residents.
has been has been towards greater support
for both environmental protection.  Residents place a high priority on regional
planning and creating a vision for the region
 Residents throughout the region express and feel that efforts up to this point have
high levels of support for smart growth mostly been only “fair” or “poor”.
strategies such as clustering homes on
smaller lots, creating walkable communities,  The core value that shapes feelings and
building affordable housing, and expanding choices about life in the Grand Traverse re-
public transportation. Harris reports that ex- gion centers around a feeling of peace of
perience in other smart growth research mind. Residents of this region feel a keen
Of the following, what is the SECOND most important to you?
Being close to places like schools, stores or freew ays
Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure Kalkaska
The w eather or climate Region
Planning for grow th
Quiet neighborhoods
Friendly people or neighbors
Rural areas and open space
Outdoor recreation opportunities
Clean lakes and rivers
High quality education system
High cost of living
Low crime
Having friends or family in the area
Plenty of jobs or w ork available
A family-friendly environment
Scenic beauty of the region and having access to nature
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Page 17
sense of peace of mind that emanates pri- life will climb to 7.5 ahead of the rest of the na-
marily from their enjoyment of the scenic tion at 6.8.
beauty and access to the outdoors. In addi-
tion, the strong sense of community and Quality of life differs across the region: Leelanau
family of the region also contributes to their residents report the highest QOL for the present
peace of mind. and the future (8.1; 8.1). Kalkaska residents say
they have the lowest QOL in the region presently
Life in the Grand Traverse Region (6.3), but are most optimistic about its improve-
Quality of Life (QOL) Assessment of ment in the future (Present: 6.3; Future: 7.2; In-
Grand Traverse Region crease: +0.9). Residents of Antrim county
When this survey was conducted in July 2008, noted a decline in overall quality of life, re-
residents of the Grand Traverse Region were porting QOL of 7.8 five years ago, 7.1 cur-
generally more optimistic than the rest of the rently and 6.8 in the future – the sole county
country. One in two said things in their commu- to register a negative trend from the present
nity are going in the right direction (GT: 52%; to the future.
US: 39%). When thinking about the more dis-
tant future, residents of the Grand Traverse Re- Factors in Quality of Life Assessment
gion also express a more sanguine outlook: they Quality of life is subjective – an issue that is
are less likely than Americans nationwide to say most important to one resident may be trivial to
that the quality of life for their children and her neighbor. Through qualitative work in the
grandchildren would decrease (42% vs. 56%). Grand Traverse Region, Harris Interactive identi-
fied the key drivers of qualify of life mentioned by
Perspectives, however, differ by county: a area residents. From this list of factors, residents
majority of residents in Leelanau, Benzie and in the quantitative survey were asked which ele-
Grand Traverse counties have a generally ments have the most significant impact on their
positive outlook; those in Antrim and Kal- quality of life.
kaska counties are somewhat more pessi-
mistic, while residents of Wexford County are Overall, residents mention the area's scenic
largely split. beauty most often (39%), followed by the family-
friendly environment (32%), availability of jobs
There is a “timeless” high quality of live in the (32%), the presence of family and friends (31%)
Grand Traverse region. Residents of the Grand and the high cost of living (31%).
Traverse region are satisfied with the quality of
life today and believe it will improve in the next As each resident could list up to three elements
five years. Other Americans, while also content, that impact their quality of life, it is often useful to
do not rate their quality of life as highly. On a ten look at which issues were mentioned first. These
point scale, with 10 representing the best possi- 'top of mind' issues are more salient in resident's
ble life and 1 representing the worst possible life, minds than they may appear in the rankings
residents of the Grand Traverse Region rate overall. Having friends and family in the area
their quality of life presently as 7.1, about 1 point (16%) and the availability of jobs (15%) were
higher than other Americans (6.1). Thinking mentioned first most often, followed by scenic
about five years in the future, residents of the beauty (11%), the high cost of living (10%) and
Grand Traverse Region believe their quality of low crime (10%). The differences in the rank or-

Page 18
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- Density of Future Development
portant – rather these issues together can be Greater density in future development enjoys
viewed as playing an important role in how resi- widespread support in the Grand Traverse Re-
dents assess their quality of life. gion. By a margin of two to one, residents say
they would prefer to see future growth occur in
Attitudes Toward Growth existing communities rather than through the
Economic Development versus Envi- creation of new towns in yet undeveloped areas
ronmental Protection (69% vs. 27%). The margin contracts somewhat
A majority of residents of the Grand Traverse when asked about their preference on specific
Region prioritize economic growth and develop- housing design – clustering homes on smaller
ment over protecting the environment. Nonethe- lots to preserve space (55%) versus using
less, there is evidence of the important role that homes on larger lots without neighborhood parks
nature and the environment play in how resi- (39%) -- however, a majority still support greater
dents think about the region. Forty-two percent density in housing development.
of residents assert protecting the environment is
of greater importance – fifteen points higher than Support for greater density is greater among
Americans nationwide (27%) despite the eco- residents with higher educational attainment.
nomic downturn. Ninety percent of residents with a post-BA edu-
cation prefer to see future growth occur in exist-
Opinion on the role of the priority of economic ing communities and nearly three-quarters would
development varies by county. Two-thirds of select communities that cluster homes to pre-
residents of the Antrim, Kalkaska and Wexford serve open space (73%).
counties say economic development is more
important versus less than half of resident of the Strategies for Growth
other counties. In Benzie, Leelanau and Grand There are exceptionally high levels of support for
Traverse, all of which border the water, residents a variety of smart growth strategies. Over four in
split nearly evenly as to whether the environ- five residents of the Grand Traverse Region sup-
ment or the economy should take priority. port creating walkable neighborhoods (90%),
locating places of residential and employment
Both of these issues have become more impor- areas closer together (88%), preserving agricul-
tant over the past five years according to resi- tural and open space (85%; 82%), encouraging
dents. Those who prefer protecting the environ- more affordable housing (85%) and locating new
ment are somewhat more likely to believe that it growth in existing development areas (80%).
has become more important in the past five Support for these growth strategies is relatively
years than those supporters of economic growth consistent across the different counties.
and development (72% vs. 60%). Most notable,
however, is that a majority of both groups indi- Less popular strategies, however, reveal differ-
cate that their respective issue has gained in ences in preferences and priorities across the
importance, evidence that neither is the domi- region:
nant priority of the region.

Page 19
 While preserving open space generally report from Harris Interactive, are attached to
receives high marks, building homes this report. Some highlights for Kalkaska County
with smaller yards to preserve forest include:
land garners significant support in Lee-
lanau and Benzie counties (78%, 68%),  Adequate job opportunities and clean lakes
but markedly less support in Wexford and water were identified as the most impor-
and Kalkaska counties (47%, 44%). tant factors leading to a high quality of life in
 Overall, highway related strategies are Kalkaska County.
not popular but widening existing free-
ways earns support from two in three  Kalkaska County respondents indicated the
residents of Antrim and Kalkaska resi- strongest support for the following three
dents (63%, 60%). Residents of Wexford growth strategies:
county in particular offer little support for  It should be convenient to walk or
this strategy (37%). bike in new developing areas (94%
 Locating growth in the Traverse City agree)
area is, not surprisingly, more popular in  More affordable housing should be
Grand Traverse county (55%). Resi- encouraged (91% agree)
dents in Kalkaska and Wexford counties  Open space should be preserved
offer less support (28%, 34%) even if it means limiting some devel-
opment (91% agree)
Multi-family housing enjoys mixed support as a
growth strategy for the Grand Traverse Region.  The two least popular growth strategies for
Seventy percent of area residents agree that a Kalkaska County are that “growth should be
range of housing types should be planned and located mainly in the Traverse City part of
built and three-quarters of residents would en- the region,” with 71% of respondents in dis-
courage mixed-use housing. When asked about agreement with this statement; and that
building multi-family housing in their community more regional freeways should be built, with
or area, residents are largely split --- fifty-two 60% in disagreement.
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

Page 20
Total Somewhat/Strongly AGREE
More regional freew ays should be built

Kalkaska
Region
Most new housing should be separated from jobs and existing
centers
Grow th should be located mainly in the Traverse City part of the

region
Existing regional freew ays should be w idened
Cities and tow ns should build more homes w ith smaller yards or
apartments in order to preserve farm and forest lands.
New housing and jobs should be spread out to avoid crow ding.
range of housing types or sizes should be planned for and built
New grow th should be focused along major roads and

highw ays.
Regional mass transit should be expanded
Q1210K More mixed use development should be encouraged
New grow th should be directed primarily to existing cities, tow ns

and villages.
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 w here people live
It should be convenient to w alk or bike in new developing areas.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%

Page 21
Total Strongly/Somewhat DISAGREE
It should be convenient to walk or bike in new developing

areas. Kalkaska
Region
New jobs should be located closer to where 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
More mixed use development should be encouraged
Regional mass transit should be expanded
New growth should be directed primarily to existing cities,

towns & villages.
New growth should be focused along major roads &

highways.
A range of housing types or sizes should be planned for

& built
New housing & jobs should be spread out to avoid

crowding.
Cities & towns should build more homes w/ smaller

yards/ apartments to preserve farm & forest lands.
Existing regional freeways should be widened
Growth should be located mainly in the Traverse City part

of the region
Most new housing should be separated from jobs &

existing centers
More regional freeways should be built
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Page 22
Scorecard Results
To determine the public’s preferred growth sce- cards were readily available, both in print and
nario, Grand Vision consultants developed a online, to all interested citizens.
“scorecard” that asked for input on the four sce-
narios. The values survey results and workshop Approximately 11,603 responses were received
input formed the basis for the scenarios and region-wide; 536 responses were received from
questions that were presented in the scorecard. Kalkaska County residents, representing about
The scorecard provided information on how 3% of the county’s total population. The score-
each scenario would affect land use and trans- cards asked respondents to choose a scenario
portation indicators such as the number of hous- in five questions that were based on accompa-
ing units, investments in road lane miles, and nying scenario descriptions and graphs. An addi-
acres of land consumed. Questions asked par- tional seven questions asked respondents to
ticipants to choose which scenario they felt did state how much they agreed with statements
the best job of promoting the values that were regarding transportation and development types.
identified during the values survey and workshop
process; and questions in the second portion of Scorecard results are generally consistent
the scorecard asked for input on transportation across county boundaries, age, income, and
investments, housing types, and other land use other factors. However, there are some minor
patterns. differences between regional and county re-
sponses to individual questions. This section will
Scorecard responses were “self-selected;” that review the questions asked in the scorecard and
is, similar to an election or public hearing, the discuss the overall picture along with Kalkaska
responses reflect the opinions of residents who County responses. Results by number of re-
took the time to get involved. An extensive out- sponses for each question and by percentage,
reach campaign was used to build awareness of for each county, are included in Appendix D.
the scorecard process and to ensure that score-
Table 5: Scorecard Responses by County
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%

Page 23
In general, Kalkaska County responses showed for each question by county in Appendix C.
somewhat less support for urban growth pat- Analysis is excerpted from Fregonese and Asso-
terns, as represented by Scenario D, than the ciates “top line” memo from January 2009. The
region as a whole. Likewise, there was more memo accompanies this report and is also avail-
support for the essentially village-based growth able online at www.thegrandvision.org.
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
Grand Vision Scorecard Responses

Narrative provided by Fregonese Associates, January 2009
Question #1: I think the scenario that

does the best job of preserving the re- Question #1
gion’s farmland and open space is: Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results
[Scenario A, B, C, or D]
50.0%
Scenario D resulted in the least amount of Kalkaska
rural land converting to urban. Scenario C 45.0%
followed closely. The village focus of Sce- 40.0% Total
nario C was partially intended to minimize Responses
35.0%
pressure on agricultural land while also being
visible and accessible to residents living and 30.0%
visiting the villages. While they both scored
25.0%
highly, the selection of scenario D as the re-
gional favorite indicated a desire to minimize 20.0%
pressures in rural areas, including housing
15.0%
growth and traffic, as much as possible.
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
A B C D

Page 24
Question #2. I think the scenario that does Question #2
the best job at balancing our needs for mo- Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results
bility with our desires for thriving cities and
towns and a cleaner environment is: 60.0%
Kalkaska
Scenario C was by far the most popular
50.0% Total
choice. One of the more significant compo-
nents of the village based scenario was intra- Responses
regional transit service. Many participants in 40.0%
the workshops asked for such an amenity. Sce-
nario D, with the highest concentrations of peo- 30.0%
ple involved the highest level of transit service.
However, with limited congestion in any sce-
nario, the option to have multiple choices for 20.0%
traveling between villages and towns seemed
to prevail. At the same time, it is clear that sim- 10.0%
ply building more roads alone will not be well
received.
0.0%
A B C D
Question #3 Question #3: I think the scenario that best pro-

Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results vides jobs and affordable housing for working
families is:
60.0% Kalkaska The popularity of Scenarios C and D echo con-
cerns—voiced during the Grand Vision’s values
50.0% Total research and at the public workshops—about ris-
Responses
ing home prices rising and the need to see more
40.0% housing options so that people can afford to re-
main in the region. Respondents see homes with
30.0% acreage as too expensive for many residents in-
cluding working families, young people and senior
20.0% citizens. Smaller yards and other options such as
townhomes and apartments offer the benefit of
10.0% being more affordable.
0.0%
A B C D

Page 25
Question #4: I think the scenario that does the
best job of enhancing our region’s cities and Question #4
villages is: Kalkaksa County vs. Regional Results
Scenario C had by far the largest support. It is

70.0% Kalkaska
clear that people do not want the future to simply
be a continuation of the patterns seen today which 60.0%
could result in additional sprawl, loss of the rural Total
lifestyle and potential decay of the towns and vil- Responses
50.0%
lages. There is significant support for the very ur-
ban lifestyle exhibited by Scenario D. However, 40.0%
most are looking for change that enhances the
many towns and villages of today, rather than sig- 30.0%
nificantly transforming just a few areas. The strong
villages of Scenario C also resound with partici- 20.0%
pants’ desires for shared prosperity among the
counties of the region. 10.0%
0.0%
A B C D
Question #5
Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results Question #5: I think the scenario that does the
best job depicting a future I support is:
60.0%
Kalkaska Cleary Scenario C received the most support
when ranked overall. The focus on town and vil-
Total Responses
50.0% 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
40.0%
for people on all ends of the spectrum, from Trav-
erse City to rural homes along Torch Lake. There
30.0% was also significant support for the more urban
lifestyle portrayed in scenario D. More than one-
third of respondents identified themselves as living
20.0% in rural areas. However, Scenarios A and B which
represent the more rural development patterns of
10.0% the set together received less than 10% of the
overall tally for support. People were evidently
voicing the opinion of what they want to see, not
0.0% just what they are used to. The cities, towns and
A B C D villages of the region are well regarded by people
in all living situations.

Page 26
Question #6: I think transportation invest-
ments should prioritize new and widened Question #6
roads. Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results
Kalkaska Total Responses

The strong disagreement to this statement 30.0%
says three things: 1. Don’t spend too much
money on new and widened roads, and 2. 25.0%
Maintain the system we have, and 3. Invest
more money on transit, walking a biking. Par- 20.0%
ticipants in the public transportation workshops
were generally conservative about spending on 15.0%
any new infrastructure, highlighting the need
for careful consideration of future investments. 10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
e
e
l
ee
e
tra
re
re
re
gr
Ag
Ag
eu
ag
isa
N
is
y
gl
D
D
n
y
ro
gl
St
n
ro
St
Question #7 Question #7: I think new transportation in-

Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results vestments should include biking and walk-
ing facilities even if it means some roads
45.0% aren’t widened.
Kalkaska
40.0%
It is abundantly clear that residents want to see
35.0% Total
additional spending on bike and walk facilities.
30.0% Responses
The question goes a step further and states
25.0% specifically that the funding may be at the ex-
20.0% pense of investment in road widening for ca-
15.0% pacity. That the answers were this close to
10.0% unanimous, given the tradeoff, shows signifi-
cant support for public investments. Such in-
5.0%
vestments will assure safer and more conven-
0.0% ient biking and may attract additional people to
utilize this mode of transportation.
e
e
l
ee
e
tra
re
re
re
gr
Ag
Ag
eu
ag
isa
N
is
y
gl
D
D
n
y
ro
gl
St
n
ro
St

Page 27
Question #8: I think new transportation Question #8
investments should include enhanced Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results
transit, including in-town buses and re-
gional bus service, even if it means some
40.0%
roads aren’t widened. Kalkaska
35.0% Total Responses
This section was also engineered to probe 30.0%
deeper into people attitudes about transpor-
tation investment. People have the same 25.0%
strong feelings of support for transit as they 20.0%
do for bike and walk amenities. The ques-
15.0%
tion purposely limited the transit options to
in-town and regional bus service which are 10.0%
both modest investments compared to rail 5.0%
transit.
0.0%
e
e
l
ee
e
tra
re
re
re
gr
Ag
Ag
eu
ag
isa
N
is
y
gl
D
D
n
y
ro
gl
St
n
ro
St
Question #9 Question #9: I think increased traffic con-

Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results gestion in our cities and villages would be
okay if I could park once and walk to shops,
jobs, schools and parks.
40.0% Kalkaska
35.0% People generally support the notion of trading

Total
slightly more congestion for the benefits of full
30.0% Responses
service towns and villages where they could
25.0% walk between jobs and shopping. However, the
20.0% number of people disagreeing, or remaining
neutral shows that this style of growth is not for
15.0% everyone. Additionally, it may hint at the inter-
10.0% nal conflict between a desire to ‘do the right
thing’ and a belief that people will be able to
5.0% stick to it when the wind is blowing and snow is
0.0% falling.
e
e
l
ee
e
tra
re
re
re
gr
Ag
Ag
eu
ag
isa
N
is
y
gl
D
D
n
y
ro
gl
St
n
ro
St

Page 28
Question #10: I would consider living in a
neighborhood with smaller yards and some Question #10
Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results
multi-family buildings if it meant that I could
walk or ride my bike to shops, jobs, schools
35.0% Kalkaska
and parks.
30.0%
Walking and biking were two things that scored Total
25.0% Responses
well in the scientific research. They were at-
tached to smaller yards, apartments and con- 20.0%
dos to intentionally force a tradeoff. However,
15.0%
the results point to a much greater acceptance,
and even desire, for multi-family housing than 10.0%
might be expected. 5.0%
0.0%
e
e
l
ee
e
tra
re
re
re
gr
Ag
Ag
eu
ag
isa
N
is
y
gl
D
D
n
y
ro
gl
St
n
ro
St
Question #11: I oppose taller buildings in

Question #11 our cities and villages even if it means that
Kalkaska County vs. Regional Results we need to build on farm and forest lands.
40.0%
With this statement participants were asked to
Kalkaska reflect on the dramatic changes that might be
35.0% Total Responses seen in cities and towns. The scorecard even
mentioned 8-story buildings in places such as
30.0% Traverse City and Cadillac. The overwhelming
response hints at two things. First, 6- and 8-
25.0% story buildings do not cause the panic or con-
cern that might have been expected. Coupled
20.0% with the desire for an improved urban fabric as
evidenced by previous questions, one could
15.0%
presume that downtown buildings taller than 10
10.0% stories would indeed by embraced by many.
Although, the roughly even split between
5.0% ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ suggests that
support will wane proportionately as building
0.0% heights go up. This again reveals that there
may be more desire for urban lifestyle in some
e
e
l
ee
e
tra
re
re
specific locations than there is region-wide.

re
gr
Ag
Ag
eu
ag
isa
N
is
Second, this response indeed affirms residents

y
gl
D
D
n
y
ro
desire to retain the farming, forestry and rural

gl
St
n
ro
lifestyle that is present in the region.

St

Page 29
Question #12: I think people should be able
to have a home on rural acreage even if it
Question #12
Kalkaksa County vs. Regional Results
increases new public investment in roads,
sewers and schools.
35.0%
Kalkaska This statement forces people to link planning
30.0% Total with personal decisions and limits to private
property rights. Generally, people do not fully
25.0% link the two. This is the only question in the
entire scorecard with such an even divide. Re-
20.0% sposes indicate approximately equal support
for two different positions in this matter. On one
15.0%
hand, some believe that they should be able to
locate ahome on, or even subdivide their rural
10.0%
property no matter what. On the other hand,
5.0% some feel that they are not willing to support a
lifestyle that has cost impacts on the rest of
0.0% society. Note that many people chose to re-
main neutral. This could be because linking
e
e
l
ee
e
tra
re
re
individual property decisions with public costs

re
gr
Ag
Ag
eu
ag
isa
and benefits is not intuitive. Alternatively, it

is
y
gl
D
D
n
y
could reflect people being truly torn between

ro
gl
St
n
ro
the notion of the public good and the private

St
good.

Page 30
Follow-up Survey Report
To compare the preferences expressed in the support for future investments in trails
Grand Vision scorecard results with the prefer- and sidewalks and in public transporta-
ences of the general public, a telephone survey tion, “even if it means some roads aren’t
was conducted by Northwestern Michigan Col- widened.” More than 75% of participants in
lege in April and May 2009, using a random- both processes supported these choices.
digit-dial sample of residential telephone num-
bers. The survey tested 10 questions from the  Eighty percent of survey participants and
scorecard; in some cases, the questions that 67% of scorecard participants would toler-
were tested were exact duplicates of the score- ate more traffic in cities and villages if
card questions. In other cases, the statement they could “park once and walk” to their
was paraphrased to make the question more destinations. Many regional residents would
easily understood during a telephone survey. also consider a neighborhood “with smaller
yards and some apartments and condomini-
The survey, which resulted in 578 valid re- ums” if they could walk or ride a bike to
sponses, was accurate to the county level, with work, school, shopping, and amenities.
a margin of error for regional results estimated at
+/- 5.1%. Following is an excerpt from the ex-  Residents would prefer taller buildings in
ecutive summary. The full survey report is at- cities and villages to developing farm
tached to this document. and forestlands. Only about one in four
participants in either process agreed with
Key Regional Findings the statement, “I oppose taller buildings in
The survey results provide strong confirmation our villages and cities even if it means that
that regional residents at large share the pref- we need to build on farm and forest lands.”
erences and priorities of scorecard partici-
pants.  The region is most divided on the issues
of new pavement for roads and new resi-
 Both survey and scorecard participants were dential development in areas lacking
most likely to favor future development vi- supportive infrastructure. Fifty-nine per-
sion “C,” with its emphases on growth in cent of survey respondents and 46% of
the region’s cities and villages; preserva- scorecard participants agreed “strongly” or
tion of open space; and investment in “somewhat” that “building new roads and
trails, public transportation, and roads. widening existing roads should be the first
Vision “D,” the most compact development priority for transportation spending in the
option, was also frequently chosen (see Fig- region.” Similarly, 46% of survey respon-
ure 1). dents and 53% of scorecard participants
agreed “strongly” or “somewhat” with the
 Residents of the region expressed strong statement, “I think people should be able to

Page 31
build new homes in country areas, even if it portive whether they had past direct involvement
means we have to spend tax dollars to build in the Grand Vision, familiarity without involve-
roads, sewers and schools.” ment, or no prior familiarity with the process (see
Figure 2). More than 90% also agreed “strongly”
Most issues explored in the survey show no per- or “somewhat” that, “to help create a future that I
sistent or sharp differences in opinion on the want, I want my local elected officials to partici-
basis of personal characteristics including pate in the Grand Vision.”
age, gender, income, education, own/rent status,
employment status, type of home community, or
Kalkaska County Results
county. For example, support for investment in
Kalkaska County results reflected regional re-
public transportation and interest in vision “C”
sponse patterns in most cases and differed
was drawn from younger and older respondents,
somewhat in statements related to transportation
males and females, higher- and lower-income
investments. In particular, Kalkaska County resi-
families, residents of all types of communities,
dents showed more support for the prioritization
and residents of all counties. The lone excep-
of new and wider roads. County residents were
tion to this pattern was prioritization of in-
also more likely to disagree with statement #5,
vestment in new and wider roads, which was
which indicated opposition to taller buildings in
sensitive to respondents’ home counties.
cities and villages.
Survey respondents support their communi-

Complete survey results are available online at
ties’ involvement in the regional Grand Vi-
www.thegrandvision.org.
sion process. Respondents were strongly sup-
Grand Vision Follow-up Survey Responses

Narrative provided by Public Policy Associates, May 2009
Statement #1: "I think future investments in Statement #1 corresponds to question #7

transportation should include trails and sidew alks for on the Grand Vision scorecard, which asked
biking and w alking, even if it means some roads
participants to rank their support of the
statement, “I think new transportation in-
aren't w idened." (% Agree "Strongly" or
vestments should include biking and walk-
"Somew hat")
ing facilities, even if it means some roads
100% aren’t widened.” Regional scorecard re-
90% sponses, excluding neutral responses,
80%
showed that 84% of participants “strongly
80%
70% agreed” or “agreed” with this statement. The
70% PPA survey results were consistent, with
60% approximately 80% of respondents region-
50% wide expressing agreement.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Kalkaska Region

Page 32
Statement #2: "I think future investments Statement #2 corresponds to question #8 on the
in transportation should include more Grand Vision scorecard, which asked participants to
public transportation, including in-town rank their support of the statement, “I think new
buses and regional bus service, even if it transportation investments should include enhanced
means some roads aren’t widened." (% transit, including in-town buses and regional bus
Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat") service, even if it means some roads aren’t wid-
100% ened.” Excluding neutral responses, 80% of regional
83% scorecard participants “strongly agreed” or “agreed”
76%
80% with this statement. PPA survey results at both the
regional and county level were consistent with
60% scorecard responses.
40%
20%
0%
Kalkaska Region
Statement #3: "I think increased traffic in our

Statement #3 corresponds to question #9 on the villages and cities would be okay if I could
Grand Vision scorecard, which asked participants park once and walk to shops, jobs, schools
to rank their support of the statement, “I think in- and parks." (% Agree "Strongly" or
creased traffic congestion in our cities and villages "Somewhat")
would be okay if I could park once and walk to 100%
shops, jobs, schools, and parks. Regionally, score- 90%
card responses, excluding neutral responses, 77% 80%
80%
showed that 67% of participants “strongly agreed”
70%
or “agreed” with this statement. Support was sub-
stantially higher in responses to the PPA survey, 60%
with approximately 80% of respondents region- 50%
wide expressing agreement and 77% of Kalkaska 40%
County residents supporting the statement. 30%
20%
10%
0%
Kalkaska Region
Statement #4: "I think building new roads and

widening existing roads should be the first
Statement #4 corresponds to question #6 on the
Grand Vision scorecard, which asked participants
priority for transportation spending in the
to rank their support of the statement, “I think new
region." (% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")
transportation investments should prioritize new
100%
and widened roads.” Regional scorecard re-
80% 74% sponses, excluding neutral responses, showed that
59% 46% of participants “strongly agreed” or “agreed”
60% with this statement. There was significantly more
support for this statement from Kalkaska County
40% than from the region as a whole.
20%
0%
Kalkaska Region

Page 33
Statement #5: Percentages prioritizing Statement #5 does not have an exact scorecard
maintenance of existing roads over parallel. The question asked respondents to choose
expanding capacity with new and wider a priority between repairing and improving existing
roads roads, or expanding capacity with new roads. There
was significant support for prioritizing maintenance,
on both a regional and county-wide level.
100%
86%
90%
78%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Kalkaska Region
Statement #6: "I would consider living in a
neighborhood with smaller yards and some
Statement #6 corresponds to question #10 on
the Grand Vision scorecard, which asked par- apartments or condominiums if I could walk or
ticipants to rank their support of the statement, ride a bike to shops, jobs, schools and parks."
“I would consider living in a neighborhood with (% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")
smaller yards and some multi-family buildings
100%
if it meant that I could walk or ride my bike to
shops, jobs, schools, and parks.” Regional 80%
scorecard responses, excluding neutral re-
sponses, showed that 64% of participants 60% 53%
49%
“strongly agreed” or “agreed” with this state-
ment. 40%
20%
0%
Kalkaska Region
Statement #7: "I oppose taller buildings in Statement #7 corresponds to question #11 on the
our villages and cities even if it means that Grand Vision scorecard, which asked participants to
we need to build on farm and forest lands." rank their support of the statement, “I would oppose
(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat") taller buildings in our cities and villages even if it
means that we need to build on farm and forest
lands.” Regional scorecard responses, excluding neu-
100% tral responses, showed that 21% of participants
“strongly agreed” or “agreed” with this statement.
80%
60%
39%
40%
21%
20%
0%
Kalkaska Region

Page 34
Statement #8: "I think people should be able to
build new homes in country areas, even if it
Statement #8 corresponds to question #12
on the Grand Vision scorecard, which asked
means we have to spend tax dollars to build
participants to rank their support of the state-
roads, sewers, and schools." (% Agree
ment, “I think people should be able to have
"Strongly" or "Somewhat")
a home on rural acreage even if it increases
100% new public investment in roads, sewer, and
90% schools.” Regional scorecard responses,
80%
excluding neutral responses, showed that
55% of participants “strongly agreed” or
70% 62%
“agreed” with this statement.
60%
46%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Kalkaska Region
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
Statement #9 tested responses to the
places with a main street and a downtown." (%
“vision” of creating a group of unique villages
Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")
and cities that are active and charming
places with a main street and downtown. 100%
Support was very high in all counties and
90% 81%
demographics for the statement. 80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Kalkaska Region

Page 35
"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."
Disagree Somew hat

0.6% Don't Know
0.5%
Agree Somew hat

18%
Agree Strongly
81%
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 don’t know.” Given the overwhelm-
ing support for this principle, no demographic analysis was pursued.

Page 36
The Grand Vision
these Grand Vision principles into action. Like

Through the Grand Vision process, the commu- the creation of the Grand Vision, this effort will
nity identified six issue areas and action state- be a collaborative, region-wide, bottom-up ap-
ments that together will help move the vision into proach that will require commitment and action
reality: from citizens, public agencies, nonprofits, and
the private sector.
 Create a group of unique villages and cities
that are active and charming places with a Grand Vision Supporters
main street or a downtown. Individuals throughout the region are invited to
 Provide more variety in housing choices to publicly support the Grand Vision through a
match peoples’ needs and preferences for statement of support. Supporters receive regular
lower cost, higher efficiency, central location updates on progress and activities related to the
and low-maintenance lifestyle options. Grand Vision, and also commit to activities such
 Strengthen the local economy with more as participating in a working group; working as a
jobs offering security and a living wage in volunteer at Grand Vision events and with out-
cities and villages around the region. Train reach; advocating for Grand Vision policies and
the workforce for Michigan’s new economy projects; and participating in an annual summit
with a quality education and opportunities for
lifelong learning. Partnership
 Maintain and improve the existing road sys- All organizations, groups, and agencies that sup-
tem and place new investment in public port the principles of the Grand Vision are invited
transportation, bicycling and pedestrian in- to sign a Partnership Agreement. Through the
frastructure to provide choices in mobility, agreement, partners agree that it is in the best
support energy conservation and maximize interest of the community to:
system efficiencies.
 Protect and preserve the farm land, or-  Cooperatively engage in activities that will
chards, forests, open water, and other natu- result in progress toward the goals of the
ral areas and particularly water quality and Grand Vision
the scenic beauty of the region.  Attend the annual Grand Vision community
 Make decisions today that support sustain- event to share progress
able development for the environment, the  Provide assistance as available to support
economy and the community for tomorrow Grand Vision related activities and events
and the next fifty years.
Participating organizations receive support from
Implementation other Grand Vision partners in communicating
Community efforts are now beginning to move their mission and activities to the public through
marketing avenues including media releases,

Page 37
online information, and viral networking. Transportation: maintain and improve the exist-
ing road system, increase public transportation
All Grand Vision partners will receive regular services between cities and villages in the re-
updates on progress and activities related to the gion, and expand infrastructure serving pedestri-
Grand Vision. Partners will be publicly identified ans and bicyclists both in and out of town.
as supporters of the Grand Vision.  Convener: Traverse City Area Chamber of
Commerce
Working Groups
Because many organizations throughout the Food and Farming: preserve agriculture as a
region are involved in activities that are consis- viable economic practice in the region by pro-
tent with the principles of the Grand Vision, a tecting farmland, enhancing the affordability of
Grand Vision working group structure has been farms, and supporting agricultural infrastructure
developed to support these organizations and in the region.
activities. Working groups will function as col-  Convener: Taste the Local Difference and
laborative councils on specific subject areas and Michigan Land Use Institute
will include diverse regional participation, with
members including citizens and representatives Natural Resources: protect and enhance the
from public agencies, nonprofits, and the private region's natural environment, especially the
sector that are involved in the subject area. Con- abundant freshwater resources that define the
veners will host initial meetings and provide staff region.
support in terms of meeting agendas and other  Convener: Watershed Center
resources.
Energy: create energy options through energy

Growth and Investment Areas: ensure that
conservation and the development and promo-
both public and private investments are made in
tion of alternatives.
areas that are suitable for new growth and that
 Convener: SEEDS
will give the region the best return on the dollar
for strengthening the economy and designing
Communications-Organization-Resources-
vibrant communities.
Education (CORE): will serve as a resource to
 Convener: New Designs for Growth/
the other working groups providing resource de-
Northwest Michigan Council of Governments
velopment, identification of strategic alliances
and opportunities within working groups, training
Housing: offer a diverse mix of regional housing and education, and communications and out-
choices with affordable options that fit in with the reach through oversight of the communications
small town character of the neighborhoods, vil- committee. This group to be made up of one
lages, and cities as well as rural housing. representative from each of the working groups
 Convener: Housing Task Force and North- and one representative from each county.
west Michigan Council of Governments  Convener: Rotary Charities

Page 38
Each of the working groups will conduct open
and transparent meetings, and all of their activi-
ties will be well documented and described on
the Grand Vision website,
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.

Page 39
Appendices

Page 40
Appendix A
Grand Vision Coordinating Group
Representative Organizations
 Homebuilders Association
 Citizen-at-Large, Youth Representative
 HomeStretch
 Bay Area Transportation Authority
 Traverse City Area Public Schools
 Citizen-at-Large
 Traverse City Convention and Visitor Bureau
 Northwestern Michigan College
 Citizen-at-Large
 Grand Traverse County Road Commission
 Traverse Area Association of Realtors
 Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
 Acme Township
 Traverse City Transportation and Land Use Study (TC-TALUS)
 East Bay Township
 Michigan Land Use Institute
 Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce
 Township Association
 The Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay
 Traverse Area Recreation and Transportation Trails, Inc.
 Blair Township
 Michigan Department of Transportation
 Grand Traverse County
 Elmwood Township
 Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council
 City of Traverse City
 Citizen-at-Large, Senior Representative
 Garfield Township
 Munson Healthcare
 Antrim County
 Benzie County
 Grand Traverse County
 Kalkaska County
 Leelanau County
 Wexford County

Page 41
Appendix B
Grand Vision Consultant Team
Robert Grow
Strategic Visioning
Founding chair emeritus of Envision Utah
John A. Fregonese
Scenario Planning
Principal, Fregonese Associates
David L. Kaylor
Traffic Video Survey Specialist
ATD Northwest
Kurt J. Schulte, AICP

Traffic Modeling
Senior Planner; Kimley-Horn
Steven Landau
Economic Modeling
Director, Strategy Planning at Economic Development Research Group
Doug Christensen, PE
Project Leader
Mead & Hunt
Lynn Wilson, AICP

Community Planner
Mead & Hunt
Phil Callighan
Marketing Consultant
Knorr Marketing
Jennifer Hutchinson
Marketing & Outreach
Leelanau Communications
Andrew McFarlane
Internet Architect
Leelanau Communications

Page 42
Appendix C
Grand Vision Champions
Ms. Lois Bahle, Owner, Bahle's Department Store

Mr. Matt Case, Director of Support Services, Coldwell Banker Schmidt Realtors
Mr. Keith Charters, Chair, Natural Resources Commission
Mr. Glen Chown, Executive Director, Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy
Mr. Donald Coe, Managing Partner, Black Star Farms
Mr. Pete Correia, President/CEO, Traverse City State Bank
Ms. Terri Crandall Kimble, Executive Director, Elk Rapids Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Michael Hill, Superintendent, Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District
Mr. Gary Holcombe, Owner/Executive, Elmer's Crane & Dozer
Mr. Art Jeannot, President/CEO, Honor State Bank
Mr. Jeffrey Kimpton, President, Interlochen Center for the Arts
Mr. Doug Luciani, President/CEO, Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Jim MacInnes, President/GM, Crystal Mountain Resort
Ms. Mary Marois, Traverse City, MI
Ms. Beth Milligan, Traverse City Chamber of Commerce
Gov. & Mrs. Bill & Helen Milliken, Former Governor
Mr. Tim Nelson,President, Northwestern Michigan College
Mr. Ed Ness, President, Munson Medical Center
Mr. Homer Nye, Pastor, The Presbyterian Church of Traverse City
Mr. Jim Olson, Sr. Principal, Olson Bzdok & Howard
Mr. Bob Otwell, Executive Director, TART Trails
Mr. Ray Pleva, President, Cerise Nutraceuticals
Ms. Marsha Smith, Executive Director, Rotary Charities
Mr. Rick Stein, Owner/Broker, RE/MAX Bayshore Properties
Mr. Bob Sutherland, President, Cherry Republic
Mr. Steve Timmer, Senior Director of Marketing, Grand Traverse Resort and Spa
Mr. Brad Van Dommelen, President, Traverse City Convention and Visitors Bureau
Mr. Hans Voss, Executive Director, Michigan Land Use Institute
Ms. Elaine Wood, CEO, Northwest Michigan Council of Governments

Page 43
Appendix D
Scorecard 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 Total
Antrim 156 13.0% 181 15.2% 408 34.3% 446 37.4% 1191
Benzie 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% 6380
Kalkaska 63 11.9% 46 8.7% 193 36.4% 228 43.0% 530
Leelanau 166 9.6% 103 5.9% 590 34.0% 877 50.5% 1736
Wexford 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
A B C D Total
Antrim 115 9.7% 152 12.8% 612 51.5% 310 26.1% 1189
Benzie 69 7.3% 70 7.4% 544 57.7% 260 27.6% 943
Grand Traverse 380 6.0% 614 9.6% 3263 51.2% 2121 33.3% 6378
Kalkaska 45 8.5% 56 10.6% 296 56.2% 130 24.7% 527
Leelanau 153 8.8% 115 6.6% 942 54.3% 524 30.2% 1734
Wexford 47 7.1% 68 10.3% 326 49.2% 222 33.5% 663
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:
A B C D Total
Antrim 116 9.8% 161 13.6% 553 46.7% 353 29.8% 1183
Benzie 79 8.5% 91 9.8% 475 51.0% 286 30.7% 931
Grand Traverse 562 8.9% 722 11.4% 2857 45.1% 2194 34.6% 6335
Kalkaska 47 8.9% 61 11.6% 279 53.0% 139 26.4% 526
Leelanau 144 8.4% 158 9.2% 848 49.4% 567 33.0% 1717
Wexford 55 8.3% 81 12.2% 301 45.5% 225 34.0% 662
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% 1183
Benzie 60 6.4% 72 7.7% 572 60.9% 235 25.0% 939
Grand Traverse 435 6.8% 586 9.2% 3401 53.5% 1930 30.4% 6352
Kalkaska 49 9.3% 53 10.1% 312 59.3% 112 21.3% 526
Leelanau 126 7.3% 127 7.4% 1044 60.5% 430 24.9% 1727
Wexford 51 7.7% 65 9.8% 353 53.2% 194 29.3% 663
Total Responses 831 7.3% 1047 9.2% 6342 55.7% 3170 27.8% 11390

Page 44
Question 5 - I think the scenario that does the best job of depicting a future I support is:
A B C D Total
Antrim 134 11.3% 177 15.0% 592 50.0% 282 23.8% 1183
Benzie 71 7.6% 71 7.5% 548 58.4% 252 26.8% 939
Grand Traverse 475 7.5% 658 10.4% 3106 48.9% 2131 33.5% 6352
Kalkaska 50 9.5% 64 12.2% 294 55.9% 119 22.6% 526
Leelanau 149 8.6% 134 7.8% 961 55.6% 477 27.6% 1727
Wexford 63 9.5% 64 9.7% 327 49.3% 216 32.6% 663
Total Re-
942 7.3% 1168 9.2% 5828 55.7% 3477 27.8% 11390
sponses
Question 6 - I think transportation investments should prioritize new and widened roads
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total
Disagree
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% 955
Grand 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% 525
Leelanau 425 24.4% 495 28.4% 283 16.2% 327 18.8% 214 12.3% 1744
Wexford 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.
Strongly
Disagree
Antrim 79 6.6% 110 9.1% 187 15.5% 535 44.4% 293 24.3% 1204
Benzie 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% 6446
Kalkaska 35 6.6% 57 10.7% 79 14.9% 218 41.1% 142 26.7% 531
Leelanau 110 6.3% 150 8.6% 151 8.6% 690 39.3% 653 37.2% 1754
Wexford 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
Disagree
Antrim 79 6.6% 119 9.9% 274 22.8% 445 37.0% 286 23.8% 1203
Benzie 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% 6432
Kalkaska 35 6.6% 60 11.4% 77 14.6% 196 37.2% 159 30.2% 527
Leelanau 125 7.1% 145 8.3% 154 8.8% 670 38.3% 655 37.4% 1749
Wexford 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

Page 45
Question 9 - I think increased traffic congestion in our cities and villages would be okay if I could park once
and walk to shops, jobs, schools, and parks.
Strongly Dis-
agree
Antrim 94 7.8% 231 19.3% 279 23.3% 415 34.6% 180 15.0% 1199
Benzie 60 6.3% 154 16.2% 197 20.7% 392 41.2% 148 15.6% 951
Grand Traverse 540 8.4% 1197 18.6% 1265 19.7% 2384 37.1% 1043 16.2% 6429
Kalkaska 48 9.2% 126 24.0% 106 20.2% 165 31.5% 79 15.1% 524
Leelanau 117 6.7% 247 14.2% 296 17.0% 773 44.3% 311 17.8% 1744
Wexford 82 12.1% 120 17.8% 132 19.6% 244 36.1% 97 14.4% 675
Total 941 8.2% 2075 18.0% 2275 19.7% 4373 38.0% 1858 16.1% 11522
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.
Strongly Dis-
agree
Antrim 224 18.7% 209 17.5% 249 20.8% 348 29.1% 167 14.0% 1197
Benzie 125 13.1% 133 14.0% 142 14.9% 343 36.0% 210 22.0% 953
Grand Traverse 794 12.4% 1062 16.5% 1065 16.6% 1977 30.8% 1531 23.8% 6429
Kalkaska 92 17.5% 96 18.2% 97 17.4% 161 30.6% 81 15.4% 527
Leelanau 230 13.2% 201 11.5% 253 14.5% 659 37.7% 406 23.2% 1749
Wexford 144 21.5% 113 16.8% 114 17.0% 191 28.5% 109 16.2% 671
Total 1609 14.0% 1814 15.7% 1920 16.7% 3679 31.9% 2504 21.7% 11526
Question 11 - I would oppose taller buildings in our cities and villages even if it means that we need to build
on farm and forest lands.
Strongly Dis-
agree
Antrim 349 29.1% 426 35.5% 169 14.1% 156 13.0% 101 8.4% 1201
Benzie 311 32.6% 358 37.5% 124 13.0% 91 9.5% 71 7.4% 955
Grand Traverse 2103 32.7% 2295 35.7% 903 14.0% 659 10.2% 472 7.3% 6432
Kalkaska 178 33.9% 187 35.6% 60 11.4% 64 12.2% 36 6.9% 525
Leelanau 562 32.2% 652 37.4% 166 9.5% 169 9.7% 195 11.2% 1744
Wexford 226 33.7% 222 33.1% 100 14.9% 66 9.8% 57 8.5% 671
Total Re-
3729 32.3% 4140 35.9% 1522 13.2% 1205 10.5% 932 8.1% 11528
sponses
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.
Strongly Dis-
agree
Antrim 125 10.5% 168 14.1% 374 31.3% 364 30.5% 163 13.7% 1194
Benzie 121 12.7% 188 19.7% 269 28.1% 260 27.2% 118 12.3% 956
Grand Traverse 748 11.6% 1330 20.7% 1953 30.4% 1661 25.8% 742 11.5% 6434
Kalkaska 56 10.6% 71 13.4% 124 23.4% 173 32.7% 105 19.8% 529
Leelanau 228 13.0% 417 23.9% 430 24.6% 412 23.6% 261 14.9% 1748
Wexford 79 11.8% 104 15.5% 198 29.5% 183 27.2% 108 16.1% 672
Total 1357 11.8% 2278 19.8% 3348 29.0% 3053 26.5% 1497 13.0% 11533

Page 46

Grand Vision: Kalkaska Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grand Vision: Kalkaska Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KALKASKA COUNTY

The Grand Vision 37

This report summarizes the process

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Grand Vision Scorecard

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

New Hous- Acres of New Homes Annual Total Annual Annual

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Table 2: Kalkaska County Grand Vision Events

Event Description Date Location

Introductory GV Introduce the Grand Vision and en- November Kaliseum

Kalkaska County GV Visioning Workshop May 7, 2008 Kaliseum

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Public involvement and scorecard distribution

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Wexford 755 6.2% 3,048 30,484 16.5%

TOTAL 12141 100.0% 18,494 184936

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Atten- Scenario maps

Antrim County Workshop 5/27/2008 150 16

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

TOTAL PARTICIPANTS* 15,541

Total information session participants 2007-2008

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

May Workshop Chip Menu

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Map 1: Kalkaska County Workshop Map—Highest Development Type

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

A values survey was conducted by Harris Inter- report):

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

Of the following, what is MOST Important to you?

Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure

The w eather or climate

Planning for grow th

Friendly people or neighbors

Outdoor recreation opportunities

Rural areas and open space

Clean lakes and rivers

High quality education system

High cost of living

Scenic beauty of the region and having access to nature

Plenty of jobs or w ork available

Having friends or family in the area

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

The Grand Vision: A Kalkaska County Perspective

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

Being close to places like schools, stores or freew ays

Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure Kalkaska

The w eather or climate Region

Planning for grow th

Friendly people or neighbors

Rural areas and open space

Outdoor recreation opportunities

Clean lakes and rivers

High quality education system