[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]





                                      A[SURVEY OF RESIDENTS
                             CONCERNING ISSUES RELATING TO
                                       LONG-RANGE PLANNING
                                                           IN
                                           LEELANAU COUNTY


                                         Growth  Management Plan Working Paper #2











                                               0








                                                         b




                                Prepared for                                   Prepared By
                     Leelanau County Planning Department           Anderson, Niebuhr, and Associates, Inc.
                                   and                                      1885 University Ave.
                   Leelanau County Board of Commi3sioners                   St. Paul, MN 55104
                                                                              (612) 645-5577


                                                        May 29,1990


                                                           J a 'e
                                                           ;W

                                                       This Document is
                                                    Printed on Recycled Paper









                        A@SURVEY OF RESIDENTS CONCERNING
                          ISSUES RELATING TO LONG-RANGE

                           PLANNING IN LEELANAU COUNTY


                       Growth Management Plan Working Paper #2






                                       Prepared for:

                          Leelanau County Planning Department
                              and Board of Commissioners






                                       Prepared by:

                              Anderson, Nlebuhr & Associates, Inc.
                                   1885 University Avenue
                                     St. Paui, IVIN 55104
                                      (612) 645-5577




                                       May, 1990







                                                                                   LEELANAU COUNTY

                                                                  A Survey of Residents In Leelanau County


                                                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS



                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                      ................................................................................................1

                                  BACKGROUND                ..............................................................................................................7

                                  RESEARCH METHOD                    ....................................................................................................8

                                            1. Population and Sample                  ...................................................................................8
                                            .11. Questionnaire Design               .....................................................................................8
                                            111. Data Collection          ...............................................................................................9
                                            IV. Data Analysis          ................................................................................................ 10

                                  RESULTS          ..................................................................................................................... 12

                                            1.   Demographic Information About County Residents                                ...................................... 13

                                            11.  Importance of Selected Actions that May be Taken in Leelanau County                                         ....... 19

                                            Ill. Opinions Regarding Selected Actions in Leelanau County                                  ........................... 21

                                            IV.  Opinions Regarding Who Should Be Responsible for Enforcement of
                                                 Development Controls in Leelanau County                           ................................................... 22

                                            V.   Satisfaction with Selected Aspects of Leelanau County                               ................................ 23

                                            vi.  Perceived Helpfulness of Selected County Officials                            ...................................... 24

                                          VII.   Sources of Information About What Happens in Leelanau County                                       ................ 25

                                         VIII.   Opinions Regarding Selected Problems in Leelanau County                                     ....................... 25

                                            IX.  Opinions Regarding Consequences of Increased
                                                 Development in Leelanau County                      ................................................................. 26

                                            X.   Preferences Regarding Zoning Regulations in Leelanau County                                      .................. 27

                                            XI.  Suggestions Regarding Improving the Quality of Ufe
                                                 in Leelanau County              ...................................................................................... 28

                                          XII.   Residents' Opinions Regarding What Most Threatens
                                                 the Quality of I-ife in Leelanau County                   ........................................................... 34

                                         XIII.   Additional Statistical Analyses               ....................................................................... 38


                                  APPENDIXES

                                  Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire

                                  Appendix B: Cover Letter and Mail Follow-up Reminders

                                  Appendix C: Data Tables












                                                     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



                             The survey of Leelanau County residents conducted by Anderson, Niebuhr

                     Associates, Inc. provided information regarding residents' opinions about important

                     issues relating to the quality of life in Leelanau County. Specifically, information was

                     obtained concerning preferences for types of development in the County, residents'

                     satisfaction with County services, opinions about the impact of future development, and

                     preferences for zoning regulations and development controls. In addition to providing

                     information about County residents'as a whole, the survey provided information about

                     various subgroups of residents.

                             This summary of the study findings is divided into two parts: (1) Conclusions,

                     and (2) Recommendations. Complete findings are presented in the Results section of

                     this report.



                                                          1. Conclusions



                             Based on the survey findings, it is a pparent that the residents in the County

                     comprise a diversity of constituencies with a variety of special interests. As a result,

                     residents' views tend to coincide with their specific areas of interest. In general,

                     residents are very concerned with improving the quality of life in Leelanau County.

                     Residents are not interested in developing Leelanau County primarily as a Nresorto area;

                     however, they are interested in limited development as long as the environment is

                     protected.

                             Analysis of the survey information obtained from Leelanau County residents

                     p
                          ts to the following other conclusions:
                       oin

                                    Approximately one-half of the residents are over 50 years of age, are

                                    college graduates, and have lived in the County for over 20 years. Nearly

                                    all respondents indicated they own their home, and 42 percent own








                                                                                                               2


                                     lakeshore property. Approximately one-thir   d of the survey respondents

                                     are employed in Leelanau County.

                                     The actions residents feel are most important for Leelanau County to take

                                     are coordinating planning efforts between County, Township, and Village

                                     governments and maintaining agricultural production in the County.

                                     Encouraging the development of more resorts, such as The Homestead

                                     or Sugar Loaf, and stimulating the development of more businesses

                                     related to tourism are actions that residents tend to feel are the least

                                     important. Residents who have lived in the County for over 20 years and

                                     those who are over the age of 55 are most likely to not favor development

                                     that would change the County. For example, respondents in these two

                                     resident groups tend to feel that preventing development at the west end

                                     of the proposed Traverse City beltline highway is ve(y important.

                                     Regarding actions that could be taken in Leekinau County, residents

                                     indicated the strongest support for installing an effective emergency

                                     radio communications system for      requesting medical, police, or fire

                                     services. Over half of the residents indicated they believe this radio

                                     system should be installed, even if it increiaseï¿½ their taxes. Residents

                                     also indicated strong support for actions relating to environmental

                                     issues, such as the following: initiating a County effort to monitor water

                                     quality; operating a County-wide program to collect and recycle materials

                                     such as newspaper, glass, and cans; and establishing stricter sanitary

                                     codes related to sewage disposal, including individual septic tanks.

                                     Residents expressed the least support forlactions relating to increased

                                     development in the County, such as: encouraging the development of

                                     affordable apartment buildings, condominiums, or other multi-family

                                     housing; building a new "central corridor" highway between Traverse City

                                     and Suttons Bay; and increasing the number of public access points to

                                     lakes.









                                     Although residents tend to be satisfied with the aspects of Leelanau

                                     County included in the questionnaire, fewer than one-third are ve

                                     satisfied with any of these aspects. Residents expressed the most

                                     satisfaction with the recreational opportunities available, the fire

                                     protection provided, and the quality of the roads.            The greatest

                                     dissatisfaction was expressed regarding a number of items relating to

                                     residents' basic needs, including: the types of jobs available, the number

                                     of year-round jobs available for County residents, and the availability of

                                     housing they can afford. In addition, a fairly high level of dissatisfaction

                                     was found regarding the enforcement of local zoning ordinances and the

                                     capacity of the roads to handle traffic.

                                     The majority of residents who have received information or services from

                                     County administrative offices (e.g., County Clerk, Treasurer, or Register

                                     of Deeds) and the County Road Commission indicated that these County

                                     officials have been helpful. Over one-half of the residents have not

                                     received information or services from either the County Board        or the

                                     County Planning Commission. However, nearly one-third of the residents

                                     (30%) who have received information or services from these County

                                     officials indicated these officials have not been helpful.

                                     There is not a general consensus among residents regarding who should

                                     be responsible for enforcement of development controls in the County.

                                     Over one-third of the residents (38%) indicated the County should be

                                     responsible for this enforcement; however, 43 percent indicated this

                                     should be the responsibility of the Townships and Villages.

                                     A major information source for County residents is           the Leelanau

                                     Enterprise. Over one-half of the County residents (56%) receive overy

                                     mucho of their information about what happens in Leelanau County from

                                     this newspaper.








                                                                                                                    4


                                       The issue hat residents tend to feel is the greatest problem in Leelanau

                                       County is the level of property taxation. Residents also tended to indicate

                                       that pollution of both ground and surface water, the rapid rate of

                                       population growth, and the increasing number of tourists who visit

                                       Leelanau County are problems.

                                       With regard to the possible consequences of increased development in

                                       Leelanau County, it is clear that residents favor controlled growth that will

                                       provide an increase in the number of jobs and that will not result in

                                       damage to the environment. These views are also supported by specific

                                       suggestions given by respondents relating to jobs, restriction of

                                       development, and environmental protection.



                                                          111. Recommendations



                               Based on the findings of the survey of Leelanau County residents, the following

                        recommendations are made:'

                                       Leelanau County should recognize the diversity in opinions that exist

                                       among the varying demographic subgroups of residents.                   These

                                       differences need to be Understood by County officials and staff, and

                                       should be taken into consideration when developing future planning

                                       strategies and determining directions for future development.

                                       Based on the overall results of the survey, the County should focus future

                                       strategic planning efforts on controlled development which provides jobs

                                       yet ensures protection of the environment.

                                       It is clear that the residents do not favor developing Leelanau County into

                                       a major recreational or resort center, and that residents also do not favor

                                       large increases in the population of the County. Therefore, the County

                                       may wish to consider changing the current zoning regulations to limit

                                       population growth to 50,000 residents or less.








                                                                                                                5


                                    Based on the responses concerning satisfaction with selected aspects of

                                    Leelanau County, officials should take steps to improve in all areas

                                    inquired about in the questionnaire. Particular attention should be paid to

                                    the areas in which the greatest dissatisfaction was expressed.             In

                                    addition, the County should recognize that the responses to this question

                                    reflect a somewhat negative image of the County on the part of the

                                    residents. As changes or improvements are made, County officials

                                    should be sure to keep residents informed, and should emphasize the

                                    positive effects these changes will have on the residents' quality of life.

                                    The relatively low levels of satisfaction expressed by County residents

                                    and the concern residents have regarding the level of property taxes may

                                    imply that residents do not feel their tax money is well spent. Therefore,

                                    the County may wish to further inform residents about how their tax

                                    monies are spent to provide them with services and benefits.

                                    The Coun  ty should recognize the importance of public relations and how

                                    this contributes to its image. Because a number of residents indicated
                                    that the Couniy Board and County Planning Commission have not been

                                    helpful in providing information and services, the County may wish to

                                    identify ways in which these two bodies can become more helpful to

                                    County residents.

                                    Since the Leelanau Enterprise is a primary source of information, the

                                    County should continue to provide the Enterprise with accurate and

                                    detailed information on a regular basis.           To facilitate improved

                                    communication and response to residents' inquiries, the County may

                                    also wish to explore the possibility of having space in the paper provided

                                    for County officials to respond to questions submitted by residents. In

                                    addition, because County residents receive the majority of their

                                    information through written media, the County may wish to consider the








                                                                                                                6


                                     feasibility of distributing information to
                                                                             residents through a newsletter or

                                     some other written form of communication on a periodic basis.

                                     Given the attitude of residents regarding coordination of planning efforts

                                     between County, Township, and Village governments, and residents'

                                     opinions about who should be responsible for enforcement of

                                     development controls, County officials may wish to develop strategies

                                     designed to facilitate planning and communication between these levels

                                     of government.

                                     If the County decides to pursue development at the west end of the

                                     proposed Traverse City beltline highway, County officials should be

                                     aware that long-term residents (i.e., those who have been residents in the

                                     County for over 20 years) do not favor this development. Therefore, the

                                     County will need to inform residents, particularly long-term residents,

                                     about the possible advantages of such development.            In addition,

                                     because a fairly high percentage of residents indicated they do not

                                     understand the concept of a *new town,N the County may also wish to

                                     increase communication with residents to further inform them about this

                                     concept, if this is being considered as part of the County's long-range

                                     planning.

                                     County officials may wish to examine in greater detail the specific

                                     suggestions or comments provided by individual respondents. The

                                     County should consider taking action on suggestions that are feasible

                                     and would enhance the County's ability to meet its short- and long-range

                                     goals.










                                                          BACKGROUND



                             One of the major goals established by Leela      nau County is to maintain and

                     enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Leelanau County. To achieve this goal, the

                     Leelanau County Planning Commission and the County Board of Commissioners are

                     developing long- and short-range strategic plans. To implement successful planning
                     for the County, it was determined that the opinions and perceptions of county residents

                     should be obtained. One means of obtaining this information involved conducting a

                     survey of county residents.

                             The purpose of the survey was to gather information from County resi   dents (both

                     year-round and seasonal residents) about the following issues:

                             a       Preferences regarding specific types of development that may be

                                     possible in the County,

                             0       Satisfaction with selected County services,

                             0       The extent to which selected issues are perceived to      be problems in

                                     Leelanau County,

                             0       The impact of future development on the quality of        life in Leelanau

                                     County,

                             a       Preferences for zoning regulations, and

                             8       Demographic information about County residents.

                     The information obtained in the survey will be used for developing and refining planning

                     strategies to meet the needs of County residents and provide a stable social and

                     economic environment for the future.

                             Leelanau County retained the services of the independent research firm of

                     Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. to conduct a survey of Leelanau County residents.

                     This report describes the research method used to conduct the study, the complete

                     results obtained, and our conclusions and recommendations based on these results.








                                                                                                               8



                                                       RESEARCH METHOD



                              This section of the report describes the research methods used to conduct the

                       survey of Leelanau County residents. The description includes the population and

                       sample for the survey, the process used to design the survey questionnaire, the data

                       collection methods used, and the procedures used in data analysis.



                                                     1. Population and Sample



                              The population of interest for this study was defined as residents of Leelanau

                       County, including both year-round and seasonal residents. To obtain a representative

                       sample of this population, Anderson-Niebuhr first obtained a list of residences in

                       Leelanau County. From this list, Anderson-Niebuhr drew an equal probability random

                       sample of 350 households using computer-generated random digits. This sampling

                       procedure yielded data that are generalizable to Leelanau County residents as a whole

                       and are accurate within ï¿½ 5 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.



                                                      11. Ouestionnaire Design



                              Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. met with Leelanau County representatives

                       in Leland to identify the primary issues and topics to be addressed in the survey. Using

                       information from this meeting and other background materials provided Anderson-
                       Niebuhr constructed a draft questionnaire for 'review by Leelanau County

                       representatives, including County citizens and government officials.         The draft

                       questionnaire was revised based on this review and approved by Leelanau County

                       representatives for pretesting. The survey pretest was conducted with 25 Leelanau

                       County residents using the same methods that would be implemented in the main

                       study.

                              Upon completion of the pretest, the questionnaire was revised based on the








                                                                                                                9


                      results of the pretest and discussion of the results with Leelanau County representatives.

                      When Leelanau County representatives were confident that the questionnaire would

                      obtain the information needed, the questionnaire was approved and data collection

                      began. A copy of the final questionnaire may be found in Appendix A.



                                                        Ill. Data Collection



                             The survey of Leelanau County residents was conducted using Anderson-

                      Niebuhr's established mail survey methods from March through April, 1990. An initial

                      questionnaire and cover letter were sent by first-class mail with a pre-addressed,

                      postage-paid return envelope to facilitate participation in the survey.

                             Because many of the seasonal residents do not live at their Leelanau County

                      address during the time the survey was to be administered, Leelanau County

                      representatives provided Anderson-Niebuhr with computer diskettes containing current

                      mailing address information. Information contained on these diskettes was used to

                      cross-check current addresses for seasonal residents.

                             Residents not responding to the initial questionnaire mailing were sent a

                      reminder post-card. Those still not responding to the survey were then sent a second

                      reminder which included another copy of the questionnaire. Copies of the cover letter

                      and the mail follow-up reminders are shown in Appendix B. These follow-up procedures

                      were followed by extensive telephone callbacks. Using these follow-up methods, an

                      overall response rate of 92 percent was achieved. . Because such a high response rate

                      was achieved, Leelanau County representatives can be -assured that nonresponse bias

                      is not a factor and that the data accurately represent the opinions of Leelanau County

                      citizens as a whole.








                                                                                                               10


                                                          IV. Data Analysis



                              All completed surveys were reviewed for accuracy and consistency, and

                       responses were transferred to magnetic media for computer analysis. All transfer of

                       data was verified. Computer facilities at the offices of Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates,

                       Inc. and computer programs contained in the Statistical Package for the Social

                       Sci ences (SPSS/PC+) were used in the analyses.

                              Initially, complete descriptive statistics were conducted based on the survey

                       findings. This analysis was followed by additional statistical analyses to determine if

                       statistically significant differences exist among specific subgroups of respondents.

                       Statistically significant differences (p < .05) are discussed in the report.

                              The subgroups used in the additional analyses are defined as follows:



                              Lencrth of Residence in Leelanau Coun

                              (1)     10 years or less

                              (2)     11 - 20 years

                              (3)     Over 20 years

                              Area of Residence

                              (1)     Rural area:   Uves on a farm or in a rural area

                              (2)     Urban area: Uves in a town, village, or city

                              Lakeshore Propeft OwnershIR

                              (1)     Owns lakeshore property

                              (2)     Does not own lakeshore property

                              Age

                              (1)     Under 40 years of age

                              (2)     40 - 55 years of age

                              (3)     Over 55 years of age











                            Income

                            (1)    Less than $25,000

                            (2)    $25,000 but less than $55,000

                            (3)    $55,000 or more








                                                                                                                                                      12



                                                                                   RESULTS




                                         Results of the survey of Leelanau County residents conducted by Anderson,

                              Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. are presented in this section of the report. The results are

                              discussed in the following 13 subsections:

                                         1. Demographic Information About County Residents

                                       11.  Importance of Selected Actions that May be Taken in Leelanau County

                                       Ill. Opinions Regarding Selected Actions in Leelanau County

                                       IV.  Opinions Regarding Who Should Be Responsible for Enforcement of

                                            Development Controls in Leelanau County

                                       V.   Satisfaction with Selected Aspects of Leelanau County

                                       Vi.  Perceived Helpfulness of Selected County Officials

                                      V11.  Sources of Information About What Happens in Leelanau County

                                     VIII.  Opinions Regarding Selected Problems in Leelanau County

                                       IX   Opinions Regarding Consequences of Increased Development in Leelanau

                                            County

                                       X.   Preferences Regarding Zoning Regulations in Leelanau County
                                       A.   Suggestions Regarding Improving the'Quality of Life in Leelanau County

                                     XII.   Residents' Opinions Regarding What Most Threatens the Quality of Life in

                                            Leelanau County

                                     XIII.  Additional Statistical Analyses

                                         Within the sections specified above, information may be organized into
                              subsections according to information addressed in                          the questionnaire. Data tables

                              referred to in the discussion of results are located in Appendix C.







                                                                                                              13


                                     1. Demographic Information About County Residents



                             Information regarding selected demographic characteristics of Leelanau County

                     residents were obtained from a number of survey questions. This information is

                     summarized below.



                     A.      Age and Gender of Respondents

                             As shown in Figure 1, over half of the respondents (52%) are over 50 years of

                     age. The mean (average) age of the survey respondents is 53 years. The median

                     (midpoint) is 52 years, the modes (most frequent responses) are 38 and 60 years, and

                     ages ranged from 25 years to 91 years.

                             Seventy percent of the survey respondents are male and 30 percent are female.



                                                            FIGURE 1

                                                       Age of Respondents

                                                                               Percent
                                    Age                                       LN = a U4

                                    30 years or younger                            5

                                    31 to 40 years                               23

                                    41 to 50 years                               20

                                    51 to 64 years                               24

                                    65 years or older                            28

                                                                                 100








                                                                                                                 14


                       B.      Educatign

                               To obtain information regarding respondents' level of education, county

                       residents were asked to indicate the highest level of education they have completed. As

                       shown in Figure 2, over two-thirds of the respondents (67%) have attended college, with

                       nearly  half. (48%) indicating they have graduated from college, attended graduate

                       school, or received a graduate degree.



                                                               FIGURE 2

                                  Highest Level of Education Completed by Survey Respondents



                                                                                                 Percent
                       Level of Education                                                       LN = 31%

                       Attended elementary school                                                    4

                       Attended high school                                                          6

                       Graduated from high school or received GED                                  22

                       Attended a four-year, two-year, or technical college                        19

                       Graduated from a four-year, two-year, or technical college                  24

                       Attended graduate school or received graduate degree                        24

                       Refused                                                                       1


                                                                                                   100





                       C.      Income

                               Survey participants were also asked to indicate their total household income in

                       1989 before taxes. As may be seen in Figure 3,. over half of the respondents (54%)

                       indicated their income was less than $40,000. Complete results are shown below.








                                                                                                             15



                                                            FIGURE 3

                                        Respondents' Household Income Before Taxes

                                                                                           Percent
                                    Income                                                (N = 29Z

                                    Less than $10,000                                        8

                                    $10,000 but less than $25,000                           26

                                    $25,000 but less than $40,000                           20

                                    $40,000 but less than $55,000                           14

                                    $55,000 but less than $70,000                            8

                                    $70,000 but less than $90,000                            3

                                    $90,000 or more                                         15

                                    Don't know                                               2


                                    Refused                                                  4


                                                                                            100




                     D.      Leng1h of Residence in Leelanau Counly

                             Respondents were asked to indicate how many years they have been a year-

                     round or season  al resident in Leelanau County. As may be seen in Figure 4, over three-

                     quarters of the respondents (77%) have lived in Leelanau county for over 10 years, and

                     51 percent have resided in the County for over 20 years. The mean length of time

                     respondents reported living in Leelanau County is 28 years. The median is 21 years, the

                     mode is 20 years, and length of residence ranged from 1 year to 89 years.








                                                                                                                           16



                                                                    FIGURE 4

                               Number of Years Respondents Have Been Residents of Leelanau County

                                                                                      Percent
                                         Number of Years                             LN = 312)

                                         Less than 5 years                               7

                                         5 to 10 years                                 16

                                         11 to 15 years                                11

                                         16 to 20 years                                15

                                         Over 20 years                                 51

                                                                                      100





                         E.      Area of Residence

                                 Respondents were also asked to indicate whi            ch one of four options best

                         describes the area where they currently live in Leelanau County. As shown in Figure 5,

                         over half of the respondents (53%) live in a rural area, and nearly one-third (32%) live in a

                         town or village.


                                                                    FIGURE 5

                                              Current Area of Residence in Leelanau County

                                                                                      Percent
                                         Area of Residence                           (N = 318)

                                         A farm                                        14

                                         A rural area, but not a farm                  53

                                         A town or village                             32

                                         A city                                           1

                                                                                      100

    ko









                                                                                                             17


                     F.      Home and Property OwnersWR

                            %Respondents were also asked to indicate if they currently own or rent their home

                     in Leelanau County. As shown in Figure 6 below, nearly all of the residents (94%)

                     indicated they own their home. Six percent indicated they rent their home.



                                                            FIGURE 6


                                                    HOME OWNER              SHIP
                                                              (N    319)









                                        OWN HOME
                                            94%

                                                                                    RENT HOME
                                                                                         6%











                             Residents were also asked to indicate if they own lakeshore property in Leelanau

                     County. A majority of residents (58%) indicated they do not own lakeshore property in

                     Leelanau County. Results are illustrated in Figure 7.








                                                                                                         18



                                                          FIGURE 7



                                 WATER      FRONT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
                                                           (N    319)




                                                                     YES, OWN
                                                                       42%
















                                           NO. DO NOT OWN
                                                  58%






                     G.     Counly of EM12loyment

                            Survey respondents were asked to indicate the county in which they currently

                     work, if they are currently employed. As shown in Figure 8, nearly one-third of the

                     respondents (3r/o) indicated they work in Leelanau Counjy. Eleven percent of the

                     residents indicated they are employed in Grand Traverse County, and 11 percent

                     indicated they are retired.








                                                                                                                19



                                                              FIGURE 8

                                          County of Employment or Employment Status


                                                                              Percent
                                     Counjy                                  (N = 322@

                                     Leelanau                                   32

                                     Grand Traverse                             11

                                     Retired                                    11

                                     Not employed                                 4

                                     Oakland                                      2

                                     Wayne                                        2

                                     Employed out of state                        2

                                     Inghams                                      1

                                     Kent                                         1


                                     Kalamazoo                                    1


                                     Genesee                                      1

                                     Saginaw                                      I

                                     Cook                                         1

                                     Other counties mentioned by
                                     one respondent each
                                     (Norfolk, Bergen, and Uvingston)             1

                                     No response given                          28

                                     Does not apply                               1

                                                                               100



                           11. Importance of Selected Actions that May Be Taken in Leelanau County



                             County residents were asked to indicate how important they feel it is for the

                      County of Leelanau to take selected actions. As may be seen in Table 1, the two items

                      residents tend to feel are most imgortant are coordination of planning efforts between

                      County, Township, and Village governments and maintaining agricultural production in








                                                                                                                       20


                        Leelanau County. Over two-thirds of         the residents surveyed feel that coordinated

                        planning efforts are ye[y imgortant (691%1), and over two-thirds feel that agricultural

                        maintenance is ve[y important (68%).

                                Regarding planning for the development of more commercially operated harbors

                        for recreational boating, over half of the residents (53%) feel this is Y= or somewhat

                        imgortant. However, 43 percent of the residents indicated this is not important.

                                Residents are somewhat divided in opinion regarding the importance of

                        development of light industry and residential lots. Slightly over one-third (34%) indicated

                        that it is very imgortant to restrict development of small residential lots to only those

                        areas supplied with sewer and water utility services; however, 35 percent indicated this

                        is noCimportant. Thirty percent of the residents feel it is ve[y iml2ortant to develop one

                        or two industrial parks for light industry, 31 percent feel this is somewhat imgortan , and

                        34 percent indicated this development is not important.

                                Residents are also somewhat divided in opinion with regard to preventing

                        development at the west end of the proposed Traverse City beltline highway and the

                        creation of a new town. W    hile 40 percent feel that preventing development at the west

                        end of the proposed highway is yM or somewhat imgortant, 30 percent feel this is not

                        imgortant, and 30 percent indicated they do not know how to rate the importance of this

                        issue. Nearly one-third of the residents (31%) indicated that supporting creation of a

                        new town instead of more suburban development in the southeastern part of the County

                        is yM or somewhat iml2orta . However, nearly half of the residents (48%) indicated

                        this is not important and over one-fifth (21%) indicated they do not know how to rate the

                        importance of this development.

                                Over one-half of the residents participating in the survey (5219/6) indicated they feel

                        it is not important to stimulate the development of more businesses related to tourism in

                        Leelanau County.        Nearly three-quarters of the residents (71%) indicated that

                        encouraging the development of more resorts such as The Homestead or Sugar Loaf is

                        not ftortan .









                                                                                                                     21


                                   Ill. Opinions Regarding Selected Actions in Leelanau County



                              Residents were next asked to indicate if they believe Leelanau County should

                      implement selected actions, considering the effect such actions would have on taxes.

                      These results are discussed below and are shown in Table 2.

                              Over one-half of the residents (51%) indicated that Leelanau County should

                      install an effective emergency radio communications system for requesting medical,

                      police, or fire services even if it raisgs their taxes. In addition, nearly one-third (32%)

                      indicated this system should be installed, but only if it would not raise their taxes.

                              A majority of residents indicated they feel Leelanau County should initiate a

                      County effort to monitor water quality, with 42 percent indicating this should be done

                      even if it raises taxes and 41 percent indicating this should be done only if taxes are not

                      raja@. Similar support was indicated for operation of a County-wide recycling program

                      and establishment of stricter sanitary codes related to sewage disposal. Forty-one

                      percent feel that a County-wide recycling program should be operated even if it raises

                      their taxes, and nearly half (47%) indicated they favor this but only if taxes are not raised.

                      Forty-one percent also feel that stricter sanitary codes should be established even if this

                      action raises taxes, and nearly one-third (32%) support this action only if taxes would

                      not be raised. Slightly less support was shown for initiation of a policy to promote the

                      preservation of open space in Leelanau County. Over one-third of the residents (37%)

                      feel this policy should be initiated even if this means raising taxes; however, 40 percent

                      feel this action should only be taken if taxes are not raised.

                              Over one-third of the survey participants indicated they feel the County should

                      sponsor more recreation and youth      programs for children (36%) and should encourage

                      the County Road Commission to develop more bicycle paths (36%) even if these

                      actions would raise taxes. In addition, over one-third of the residents feel more bicycle

                      paths should be developed (39%) and that recreation programs should be increased

                      (38%), but only if their taxes are not raised.








                                                                                                                     22


                               Over one-quarter of the residents (26%) feel.the County should take steps to

                        improve the quality of Leelanau County's inland lake fisheries even if taxes are raised.

                        However, nearly half (49%) feel these improvement should only be made if this does not

                        raise taxes. Similarly, over half of the residents (58%) feel the County should encourage

                        the development of affordable single family housing, but only if this does not raise their

                        taxes. In addition, slightly over one-quarter of the residents (26%) indicated they do not

                        believe the County should encourage this development.

                               Residents are somewhat divided in opinion regarding the building of public

                        recreation facilities and establishing more open space areas. Nearly one-quarter of the

                        residents (24%) feel more open space areas should be established even if taxes are

                        raised, over one-third (38%) support this if taxes are not raised, and nearly one-third

                        (32%) feel this action should not be taken. Slightly over one-fifth of the residents (21%)

                        support building public recreation facilities even if taxes are raised; however, 34 percent

                        only support this if taxes are not raised, and 40 percent feel these facilities should not be

                        built.

                               Umited support was indicated by residents for increasing the number of public

                        access points to lakes, building a new "central corridor" highway between Traverse City

                        and Sufforis Bay, and encouraging the development of affordable apartment buildings,

                        condominiums, or other multi-family housing. Nearly halt of the residents (49%) do not

                        support increasing the number of lake access points, over half feel the new central

                        corridor highway should not be built (51%),          and over half do not support the

                        development of multi-family housing (54%).



                               IV. Opinions Regarding Who Should Be Responsible for Enforcement
                                             of Development Controls In Leelanau Co'unty


                               Residents were asked to indicate which government entity should be responsible

                        for enforcing devel opment controls in Leelanau County. As shown in Figure 9, 43

                        percent feel, this should be the responsibility of the Townships and Villages, and over








                                                                                                                 23


                      one-third (38%) feel this responsibility should rest with the County. Complete results

                      may be seen below.



                                                              FIGURE 9

                               Responses of Leelanau County Residents Concerning Who Should
                                    Be Responsible for Enforcement of Development Controls


                                                                               Percent
                                     Response                                 LN = 315)

                                     The County                                  38

                                     The Townships and Villages                  43

                                     Don'tknow                                    8

                                     No preference                                5

                                     Both the County and the
                                     Townships and Villages                       4

                                     The voters                                   1

                                     No controls should be enforced               1

                                                                               100.





                                    V. Satisfaction with Selected Aspects of Leelanau County



                              Overall, resid4nts are satisfied with most of the aspects of Leelanau County

                      included in the survey. However, residents tended to indicate they are satisfied with

                      each aspect rather than indicating they are yM satisfied.              In addition, some

                      dissatisfaction was expressed regarding all aspects of Leelanau County.

                              As shown in Table 3, the greatest satisfaction was expressed regarding the

                      following aspects of Leelanau County: the fire protection provided (26% very satisfied,

                      60% satisfied), the quality of the roads in Leelanau County (22% very satisfied, 62%

                      satisfied), the recreational opportunities available for people in their household (31%

                      very satisfied, 50% satisfied), the health care services available (17% very satisfied, 61%








                                                                                                                   24


                       satisfied), and the police protection provided (17% very satisfied, 61 % satisfied).

                               Residents expressed a relatively high degree of dissatisfaction concerning job-

                       related issues, with 44 percent of the residents indicating they are dissatisfied or yM
                       dissatisfied with the types of jobs available for County residents. In addition, 42 percent

                       are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the number of year-round jobs available for

                       County residents.

                               Although over one-half of the residents are satisfied with the enforcement of local

                       zoning ordinances and the availability of housing they can afford, nearly one-third of the

                       residents are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with enforcement of zoning ordinances

                       (32%), and one-quarter are dissatisfied with the availability of affordable housing. In

                       addition, while three-quarters of the residents are satisfied with the capacity of the roads

                       in Leelanau County for handling traffic, nearly one-quarter (24%) are dissatisfied or very

                       dissatisfied with the capacity of the roads.



                                       VI. Perceived Helpfulness of Selected County Officials



                               Residents were asked to indicate how helpful selected County officials have

                       been in providing them with information or services. This information is summarized

                       below and is shown in Tables 4A and 4B.

                               As shown in Table 4A, over half of the residents have not received information or

                       services from either the County Planning Commission (59%) or the County Board (58%).

                       Forty-one percent have not received information or services from the County Building

                       Inspections Department, and over one-third (37%) have not received services from the

                       County Road Commission.

                               In general, those rest'dents reporting they have had experience with these

                       County officials indicated the officials have been very or somewhat helpful in providing

                       information or services (see Table 4B). In particular, the majority of residents who have

                       had experience with County administrative offices (55% very helpful), the County Road

                       Commission (45% very helpful, 46% somewhat helpful), and the County Building








                                                                                                                     25


                       Inspections Department (39% very helpful, 48% somewhat helpful) indicated these

                       officials have been very or somewhat helpful.

                                As shown in Table 413, The majority of residents who have received information

                       or services from the County Planning Commission or the County Board also indicated

                       these officials have been helpful. However, near          ly one-third of those who have

                       experience with the County Board (41 of 134 residents; 30%) and the County Planning

                       Commission (39 of 129 residents; 30%) indicated these officials have not been helpful.



                                VII. Sources of Information About What Happens In Leelanau County



                                Residents were asked to indicate how much of their information about what

                       happens in Leelanau County they receive from selected sources. These results are

                       presented below and are shown in Table 5.

                                A majority of residents (56%) indicated they receive veU much information about

                       what happens in the County from the Leelanau Enterprise newspaper. Nearly two-thirds

                       of the residents receive very much (21%) or some (43%) County information from the

                       Traverse City Record Eagle. Over one-half receive very much (19%) or some (39%) of

                       their information about Leelanau County from television. The least used information

                       source is radio, with one-quarter indicating they receive no information about the County

                       from this source.



                                  VIII. Opinions Regarding Selected Problems in Leelanau County



                                County residents.were also.asked to indicate if they feel selected issues are

                       problems in Leelanau County. These results are presented below and may be seen in

                       Table 6.

                                The one issue that over half of the residents feel is a major l2roblem is the level of

                       prope!n taxation, with over half of the survey participants (58%) indicating this is a major

                       problem. Over one-third of the residents (37%) also feel that the rapid rate of population








                                                                                                                   26


                       growth in the County is a major problem, and over one-third (34%) feel that the

                       increasing number of tourists who visit Leelanau County is a major problem.

                               Pollution of ground water is viewed as a major problem by 31 percent of the

                       residents and is considered to be a minor problem by over one-third of the residents

                       (34%). Similarly, pollution of surface water is considered to be a major problem by 29

                       percent of the survey participants and is viewed as a minor problem by over one-third of

                       the residents (37%). Slightly over one-quarter of the County residents (26%) feel.traffic

                       congestion is a major problem and nearly half (45%) feel this is a minor problem.

                               Regarding the development in the southeastern part of Leelanau County,

                       although 22 percent feel this is a major problem and 32 percent feel this is a minor

                       problem, over one-fifth of the residents (21%) indicated this is not a problem in Leelanau

                       County. In addition, one-quarter of the residents indicated they do not know if this is a

                       problem.

                               The two issues that residents most often indicated are not problema in Leelanau

                       County are lack of affordable recreation opportunities for Leelanau County residents

                       (52% feel this is not a problem), and access to emergency medical services (49% feel

                       this is not a problem).



                                        IX. Opinions Regarding Consequences of Increased

                                                   Development In Leelanau County



                               Of particular interest to Leelanau       County officials is the issue of the

                       consequences related to increased development in the County and residents' opinions

                       regarding the perceived effects of this development. To assess this, residents were

                       asked to indicate if they would favor or oppose development in Leelanau County if the

                       outcome meant particular consequences. These results are discussed below and are

                       shown in Table 7.

                               As noted previously in this report, the availability of jobs is an important concern

                       for Leelanau County residents. This concern is reflected in residents' responses to this









                                                                                                                  27


                      question as well, with a majority of residents indicating they would strongly favor or favo r

                      increased development if this meant a few more jobs (73%) or many more jobs (62%).

                             Regarding an increase in tourism, three-quarters of the residents indicated they

                      would oppose or strongly oppose development if much more tourism were to result.

                      However, if increased development meant a little more tourism, 44 percent would

                      strongly favor or favor this increase.

                             Forty-eight percent of the residents indicated they would strongly oopose and 34

                      percent would oppose development if this meant much less land for agriculture. If

                      development meant a little less land for agriculture, over one-quarter of the residents

                      (28%) Would strongly favor or favor increased development.

                             The greatest opposition to increased development was expressed with regard to

                      pollution and reduction in opportunities to view the scenic features of Leelanau County.

                      Over two-thirds of the residents (69%) would strongly oppose increased development if

                      this meant much more water or air pollution, and over half (52%) would strongly

                      oggose this development if this meant a little more pollution. Over half of the residents

                      (56%) also indicated they would strongly oppgse increased development if this meant

                      fewer opportunities to view the scenic features of Leelanau County.



                               X. Preferences Regarding Zoning Regulations in Leelanau County



                             As part of the survey, County residents were informed that current local zoning

                      regulations permit the population of Leelanau County to increase to 300,000 residents,

                      and that the current population is between 15,200 and 18,500 residents. With this as

                      background information, 'residents were asked to indicate which of four choices they

                      would select as their preference for future population growth restrictions. These results

                      are presented below.

                             As may be seen in Figure 10, over two-thirds of the residents (36%) would

                      choose to change zoning regulations to permit the population to increase between the

                      current population level but less than 25,000 residents. Over one-quarter (29%) prefer to








                                                                                                                28


                       change regulation's to permit the population to increase to 25,000 but less  than 50,000

                       residents. Complete results are shown below.



                                                             FIGURE 10

                        Responses of Leelanau County Residents Concerning Their Choice for Changes
                               in Current Zoning Regulations Designed to Urnit Population Growth


                                                                                      Percent
                              Response Option                                        LN = 317)

                              Keep the current zoning regulations
                              which would permit the population
                              to increase to 300,000 residents                           7

                              Change the zoning regulations
                              to permit the population to increase
                              to 50,000 to 100,000 residents                           11

                              Change the zoning regulations
                              to permit the population to increase
                              to 25,000 but less than 50,000 residents                 29

                              Change the zoning regulations
                              to permit the population to increase
                              between the current population level
                              but less than 25,000 residents                           36

                              No preference                                              7

                              Don't know                                               10


                                                                                       100




                           X1. Suggestio  ns Regarding Improving the Quality of Ufe in Leelanau County



                              Residents were asked to indicate if they had any suggestions regarding how the

                       quality of life in Leelanau County could be improved. Responses to this question are

                       reported below.
                              Overall, comments relating to development and environmental issues 'were

                       mentioned most often by survey respondents. However, the individual responses

                       mentioned most often are as follows: more jobs or more good jobs (n = 21); tax issues,









                                                                                                                   29


                       such as lowering property taxes and stabilizing taxes (n         17); keep the small town

                       atmosphere or hold down development (n = 13); satisfied as it is or leave it alone (n

                       13); maintain the quality of the environment (n     10); and improve the roads (n = 10).

                       Other responses mentioned by survey participants are shown by category in Figure 11.



                                                               FIGURE 11

                                       Suggestions Given By Residents Concerning How the
                                      Quality of We In Leelanau County Could Be Improved*


                                                                                                      Number of
                                                                                                    Respondents
                                                                                                      LN = 322)

                       Development Issues                                                                 (67)

                       Keep the small town atmosphere by holding down development                          13

                       Keep an agricultural community or discourage industry                                9

                       Promote tourist and public activities                                                8

                       Need more low income housing or low cost housing services                            5

                       Reduce zoning, such as reducing restrictions for businesses                          4

                       Support small and clean industry                                                     4

                       Improve the zoning situation, including stronger zoning controls                     4

                       Umit businesses that have a negative impact on the environment                       3

                       Less development along shorelines                                                    2

                       Keep out low cost developers of small houses and condos                              2

                       Implement effective future planning, including better local planning                 2

                       More resort development is needed                                                    1

                       More shopping facilities are needed                                                  1

                       More positive and controlled development                                             1

                       Support local small businesses                                                       1

                       Restrict property divisions to 10 acres per family                                   1

                                                                 (Cont.)









                                                                                                                       30


                                                             FIGURE 11 (Cont.)

                        No commercial food chains or fast food places                                           1

                        Public purchase of waterfront and agricultural property to prevent
                        developers and downstate seasonal residents from taking it                              I

                        Introduce conservation easements and deed restrictions at the local level               1

                        Establish light industry parks where
                        public utilities can be made readily available                                          1

                        We cannot stop growth                                                                   1


                        Environmental Issue                                                                  (49)

                        Maintain the quality of the environment                                                10

                        Make recycling a priority; have a mandatory recycling program                           8

                        Preserve the beauty of Leelanau County                                                  6

                        Maintain water quality, including paying closer attention to pollution of the
                        lakes; spend money to improve water quality in lakes and rivers                         6

                        Add ordinances to keep roadsides free of litter                                         3

                        Control junkyards and landfills, including allowing only residents to Use landfills     3

                        Stop the filling of wetlands                                                            3

                        Preserve the forests; save the shade trees                                              2

                        Work to solve pollution problems, including curbing agricultural poisons                2

                        Clean up junky areas, such as the junk cars on Lincoln Road                             2

                        Ban burning of leaves and prunings                                                      1

                        Ban billboards and other roadside advertising                                           1

                        Landscape inventories                                                                   1

                        Have a county-wide open space policy                                                    1


                        Communily Service Issues                                                             (35)

                        Solve sewer system problems such as dealing with sewer problems, sewer
                        system requirements or restrictions, and having sewer systems in each town              8

                        Better law enforcement                                                                  7

                                                                    (Cont.)









                                                                                                                    31


                                                           FIGURE 11 (Cont.)

                       Provide services for senior citizens such as building senior citizens
                       centers and promote more cooperation with senior citizens                              4

                       Improve fire protection                                                                2

                       Improve medical facilities                                                             2

                       Improve garbage and waste disposal                                                     2

                       Have home postal service and delivery                                                  1

                       Get illegal drugs out of the County                                                    1

                       Implement a 911 system                                                                 1

                       Install a radio system                                                                 1

                       Encourage volunteer support of programs and activities                                 1

                       Continued viability of Leelanau Memorial Hospital                                      1

                       Open up continuing education programs/open the schools to the community                1

                       Consolidate the public schools                                                         1

                       Have a phone service that is not long distance calling within the County               1

                       Establish a County'health office                                                       1


                       Recreation-related Issues                                                           (30)

                       Put in more and wider bicycle paths                                                    8

                       Maintain public recreation opportunities                                               6

                       Control bicyclists and bicycle tours, including
                       ticketing bicyclists who are not following the rules                                   4

                       Make lakes more accessible, including improvement of existing boat launches            3

                       Establish fishing and hunting restrictions, including
                       outlawing gill net fishing and hunting in populated areas                              2

                       No keyholing on lakes                                                                  2

                       Keep the parks from controlling hunting                                                1

                       Prevent events such as the Northport speed race                                        1

                       .No amusement areas                                                                    1

                       Upgrade the fishing in our lakes                                                       1

                                                                 (Cont.)








                                                                                                                    32


                                                           FIGURE 11 (Cont.)

                        HighwAy/Iraffic Issues                                                             (24)

                        improve roads, including repairing roads and improving
                        the County Road Commission                                                          10

                        Improve traffic flow on M-22 north of Traverse City                                   4

                        Realize that we have an adequate highway network                                      I

                        Build more roads when needed, not to foster development                               1

                        Build roads in the southwest end of the County that go to the National Park           1

                        Ticket slow drivers at every opportunity                                              I

                        Establish a better mass transit system                                                1

                        Do not widen the streets; it will promote more automobiles                            I

                        Do not establish a central corridor                                                   1


                        Cut back on traffic                                                                   1


                         ow roads                                                                             1

                        Encourage nonmotorized travel                                                         1
                        P,




                        Government Issues                                                                  (22)

                        Improvements in government, including improving
                        the helpfulness of County officials                                                   9

                        Reduce government control or regulation                                               6

                        Better coordination between the County and Townships
                        regarding planning and zoning                                                         4

                        Educate people about zoning                                                           1

                        Provide low cost health services                                                      1

                        Create a building inspection department to enforce building codes                     1


                        Job Issues                                                                         (21)

                        Provide more jobs, including more good jobs                                         21

                                                                  (Cont.)









                                                                                                                  33


                                                          FIGURE 11 (Cont.)

                      Taxissues                                                                          (19)

                      Tax reduction, including lower property taxes, stabilizing taxes,
                      or taking the tax burden away from property owners; remove property taxes           17

                      Tax all downstate people at the County line                                          1

                      Have a sales tax on food so the land owners do not support everything                1


                      Youth Issues                                                                         (7)

                      Establish better and more demanding schooling                                        3

                      Show more concern for teens, including building a teen center                        2

                      Promote more programs and activities for children                                    2


                      Otherlssues                                                                        (46)

                      Keep it the same                                                                    13

                      Reduce or do not encourage tourism                                                   7

                      Concentrate on retaining the current good quality of life                            5

                      Population control; fewer people                                                     4

                      Clean up the swimmers' itch in the lakes                                             4

                      Increase salaries                                                                    3

                      Restore lawful money pursuant to Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution            2

                      Better management                                                                    I

                      Lower prices on food and merchandise                                                 1

                      Open more taverns                                                                    1

                      Year-round residents should realize that summer people are helpful                   1

                      Encourage family farm operations                                                     I

                      Leland needs to improve the attitude of the year-round residents                     1

                      The town of Leland needs to be incorporated                                          1

                      Put a fence up at the south end of the County and don't let anyone in                1

                      Nothing, no comment                                                                 10

                                                                 (Cont.)








                                                                                                              34


                                                        FIGURE 11 (Cont.)

                      Don'tknow                                                                        4

                      No response given                                                              109


                      *More than one suggestion could be mentioned per respondent.





                                          XII. Opinions Regarding What Most Threatens

                                              the Quality of Life in Leelanau County



                              County residents were next asked to consider what most threatens the quality of

                      life in Leelanau County. The responses that were mentioned by more than 10 residents

                      are as follows: environmental threats such as pollution, harm to the environment, or

                      water contamination (n = 59); overpopulation, congestion, or growth (n = 47); over-

                      development of industry, resorts, or lakeshores (n = 38); the increasing number of

                      tourists and seasonal residents (n = 27), high taxes (n = 26); lack of uniform zoning or

                      regulation (n = 14), and job problems (n = 13). A complete summary of responses is

                      detailed in Figure 12.



                                                             FIGURE 12

                                   Responses of Leelanau County Residents Concerning What
                                     Most Threatens the Quality of Life in Leelanau County*

                                                                                                  Number of
                                                                                                Respondents
                                                                                                  LN = 322)

                      Environmental Issues                                                           (88)

                      Pollution, including water pollution                                            32

                      Water contamination, including misuse of water
                      and pollution with agricultural chemicals                                       16

                      Harm to the ecosystem, including shrinking of open spaces
                      and erosion of the natural habitat due to development                           11

                                                               (Cont.)








                                                                                                                     35


                                                            FIGURE 12 (Cont.)

                       Problems with sewage, including lack of public sewage systems,
                       lack of septic system control, and improper disposal of wastes                        10

                       Apathetic treatment of nature and the environment                                      6

                       Overuse of landfills                                                                   2

                       Need for more recycling or mandatory recycling                                         2

                       Negative impacts on fish from gill netting                                             2

                       Junkyardt and other eyesores                                                           2

                       Not enough natural energy sources                                                      1

                       A Great Lakes oil disaster                                                             1

                       Unrealistic environmental concerns by negative people                                  1

                       Overuse or misuse of land                                                              1

                       Too many gravel pits in Kasson Township along 669                                      1


                       Development Issues                                                                   (55)
                       Overdevelopment, including encburaging industrial deve      'lopment, large
                       scale development, too much resort development, too much tourist
                       development, overbuilding of lakeshores, and
                       overcommercialization                                                                 38

                       Unrestricted or random development                                                     6

                       Developers that are insensitive to the public or do anything they choose               2

                       Lack of control in general or lack of control of industries                            2

                       Congestion in waterfront areas and on lakes                                            2

                       Outside developmental pressures distracting locals financially                         1

                       Outside developers                                                                     1

                       The scenic railroad would be a pain for residents along the route                      1

                       Lack of industry                                                                       1

                       Residents who are anti-development; unchecked environmental activists                  1

                                                                  (Cont.)








                                                                                                                      36


                                                             FIGURE 12 (Cont.)

                        Economic Issues                                                                       (52)

                        High taxes, including property taxes                                                  26

                        Job problems, including lack of jobs, low wages, lack of high-paying jobs             13

                        Property inflation                                                                       7

                        Poor or unbalanced economy                                                               3

                        High cost of trash disposal                                                              1

                        High cost of living, including increased prices during tourist season                    1

                        Downstate banks taking their profits and running                                         1


                        Population Issues                                                                    (49)

                        Overpopulation, congestion, or growth                                                 47

                        Downstate people moving up here.                                                         1

                        Too many rich people squeezing out the little guy                                        1


                        Govern mentlPla n n Ing Issues                                                       (41)

                        Zoning, including lack of uniform zoning and regulations                              14

                        Lack of planning or centralized planning,
                        inconsistency in planning, and enforcement                                            10

                        Weak County leadership or politicians                                                    9

                        The National Park Service or park systems                                                4

                        County Board members                                                                     2

                        Bureaucratic controls                                                                    1

                        Too many laws                                                                            1


                        Tourism ISeasonal Resident Issues                                                    (34)

                        The increasing number of tourists and seasonal residents                              27

                        Lack of concern by summer residents; no respect
                        for the land by summer residents and tourists                                            4

                        Encouragement of more tourism                                                            1

                                                                    (Cont.)








                                                                                                                      37


                                                            FIGURE 12 (Cont.)

                        Negative attitude toward summer people                                                  1

                        Tourbuses                                                                               1



                        Agricultural Issues                                                                     (7)

                        Decrease in agricultural production or potential                                        4

                        Lack of agricultural policies                                                           1

                        Depressed agricultural prices                                                           1

                        The County could do with a lot less agriculture                                         1


                        Other Issues                                                                         (40)

                        Traffic problems, including heavy traffic and safety                                    7

                        Law enforcement issues, including crime, liberal treatment of
                        criminals, lack of law enforcement, litter laws that are too lenient,
                        lack of patrol cars, and the need for a lower speed limit                               6

                        Drugs, drinking, or increases in liquor licenses                                        6

                        Housing issues, including development of multi-housing units on small
                        pieces of land, high density home development, affordable housing
                        construction, the increase in mobile home permits, lack of affordable
                        housing, and high-rent condo projects                                                   6

                        Problems with schools, including overcrowding, poor schools, the high
                        cost of schooling, and reductions in the quality of education                           4

                        Noise or loss of quiet country atmosphere                                               3

                        People who resist change or are indifferent to modern trends                            3

                        Greed or greedy people                                                                  2

                        Lack of support for senior citizens                                                     I

                        Lack of recreational opportunities                                                      1

                        Overstaffing of public institutions                                                     1

                        Leelanau is a land of extremes; it needs more balance                                   I

                        Downstate people with their ideas                                                       1

                        The Indian Reservation (Peshawbestown)                                                  1

                                                                   (Cont.)








                                                                                                                         38


                                                              FIGURE 12 (Cont.)

                         The gambling at the Indian Reservation                                                    1

                         Lack of people-oriented things                                                            1

                         Too many people moving up from Detroit                                                    1

                         Lack of parking facilities                                                                1

                         Don't know                                                                              10

                         Nothing                                                                                   4

                         No response given                                                                       72



                         *More than one response could be given per respondent.





                                                    XIII. Additional Statistical Analyses



                                 Additional statistical analyses were conbucted to determine whether significant

                         statistical differences , exist among selected subgroups of County residents. The

                         definitions of these subgroups may be found in the Data Analysis section of this report.

                         Responses of residents in the specified subgroups were compared for the following

                         questions: importance of selected actions (Question #1), actions that Leelanau County

                         could take (Questions #2 and #3), satisfaction with selected aspects of Leelanau

                         County (Question #5), problems in Leelanau County (Question #8),. and opinions

                         regarding the consequences of increased development in the County (Question #9).

                         Significant findings from these additional analyses are discussed below.



                         A.      Com2arlsons Based on Leng1h of Residence in Leelanau Count

                                 Residents participating in the survey were divided into three groups according to

                         the length of time they have been residents in the County. Responses of residents in
   k9                    these three groups were compared to determine if statistically significant differences
                         exist for selected questions included in the survey. Significant findings are discussed








                                                                                                               39


                      below and are illustrated in Figures 13 through 17.

                             Residents who have lived in Leelanau County for over 20 years are significantly

                      more likely than residents who have lived in the County for 20 years or less to feel that

                      preventing development at the west end of the proposed Traverse City beitline highway

                      is ve[y imgortant. Survey respondents who have lived in the County for over 20 years

                      are also significantly more likely than residents in the other two subgroups to feel that

                      supporting creation of a new town instead of more suburban development in the

                      southeastern part of Leelanau County is not important. In contrast, residents who have

                      lived in the County from 11 to 20 years are more likely than other residents to feel the

                      creation of a now town is ve!y important.


                                                            FIGURE 13

                                          Significant Findings Regarding Importance of
                                         Selected Actions Based on Length of Residence


                                                10 years or less        11 -20 years         Over 20 years
                                                    (n = 71)              (n = 81)              (n = 160)


                                                 Very      Not         Very      Not          Very     Not
                                                 Imp.     Imp.          Imp.    Imp.          Imp.     Imp.
                      Selected Action             %        %             %        %            %        %


                      Prevent development at'
                      Traverse City highway        11      29           22       31            32       30

                      Support creation of
                      a mnew town'                  8      36            19      42             9       56



                             As shown in Figure 14, long-term residents (over 20 years) are significantly more

                      likely than other residents to feel that Leelanau County should not initiate a policy to

                      promote the preservation of open space, and are also more likely to feel that the County

                      should not initiate an effort to monitor water quality.








                                                                                                                   40



                                                               FIGURE 14

                                   Significant Findings Based on Length of Residence Regarding
                                      Whether Leelanau County Should Take Selected Actions


                                                  10 years or less          11 -20 years         Over 20 years
                                                      (n = 71)               (n = 81)               (n = 160)


                                                 Yes, with              Yes, with              Yes, with
                                                    Inc.      No            Inc.     No           Inc.      No
                       Selected Action               %        %             %        %             %        %

                       Preserve open space           46        5            43       7             38       22

                       Monitor water quality         50.       8            58       8             36       15




                               Survey respondents who have been residents in Leelanau County for 20 years or

                       less are significantly more likely than those who have lived in the County for over 20

                       years to indicate they are ve!y satisfied or satisfied with the availability of housing they

                       can afford, and are more likely to by very satisfied or satisfied with the capacity of the

                       roads for handling traffic. Residents who have lived in the county for over 10 years are

                       more likely than residents who have lived there 10 years or less to be ve!y satisfied or

                       satisfied with the types of jobs available for County residents. These results are shown

                       in Figure 15.








                                                                                                                   41




                                                              FIGURE 15

                                        Significant Findings Based on Length of Residence
                                           Regarding Satisfaction with Selected Services



                                                  10 years or less         11 -20 years         Over 20 years
                                                     (n = 71)                (n = 81).             (n   160)


                                                  Very Satisfied/        Very Satisfied/        Very Satisfied/
                                                     Satisfied              Satisfied              Satisfied
                      Service                            %                      %                      %


                      Availability of
                      affordable housing                 66                     62                     44

                      Type of jobs                       16                     29                     31

                      Capacity of roads                  84                     81                     69



                              As shown in Figure 16, residents who have been residents for 11 to 20 years are

                      significantly more likely than other residents to indicate that pollution of ground water is

                      a major problem. In contrast, residents who have lived in the County for over 20 years

                      are more likely to indicate this is not a groblem. Survey respondents who have been

                      residents for over 20 years are also more likely than other residents to feel that the level

                      of property tax is a mamor problem.








                                                                                                                     42




                                                                FIGURE 16

                                   Significant Findings Based on Length of Residence Regarding
                                     Whether Selected Issues Are Problems In Leelanau County



                                                   10 years or less         11 -20 years          Over 20 years
                                                       (n    71)              (n   81)               (n = 160)


                                                    Major    Not a         Major    Not a         Major     Not a
                                                    Prob.    Prob.         Prob.    Prob.         Prob.     Prob.
                        Selected Issue               %         %             %         %            %         %


                        Pollution of
                        ground water                 30        13           40         13           27       24

                        Level of
                        property tax                 46        20            51        20           69       11



                               Residents who have lived in the County for over 20 years are significantly more

                        likely than other residents to favor development in Leelanau County if that development

                        meant a little more water or air pollution. Residents in this subgroup are also more

                        likely to ogl2ose development if this meant much more tourism. Residents who have

                        lived in the County for 10 years or less are significantly more likely than residents in the

                        other two subgroups to ol2gose development if this meant a little more water or air

                        pollution, and are also more likely to opl2ose development if this meant fewer

                        opportunities to view the scenic features of Leelanau County. Results of these analyses

                        may be seen in Figure 17.








                                                                                                                   43



                                                              FIGURE 17

                                  Significant Findings Based on Length of Residence Regarding
                                 Views About Possible Consequences of Increased Development


                                                 10 years or less          11 -20 years         Over 20 years
                                                      (n = 71)               (n  81)               (n = 160)


                                                  Favor Oppose           Favor Oppose           Favor Oppose
                      Conseguence                    %        %            %                      %        %

                      A little more water
                      or air pollution                3       97           10       90            16       84

                      Much more tourism             25        75           34       66.           16       84-

                      Fewer opportunities
                      view scenic features            3       97           13       87            16       84



                      B.      Comparisons Based on Area of Residence

                              Residents were divided into two categories based on the area in which they live

                      (i.e., urban or rural). Comparisons of responses between residents in these two groups

                      indicated that two significant differences exist: Residents who live in urban areas are

                      significantly more likely than those living in rural areas to indicate that the County

                      should install an effective emergency communications system if this does not raise their

                      taxes. In addition, urban residents are more likely to indicate that the County should

                      initiate an effort to monitor water quality if this does not raise their taxes. In contrast,

                      rural residents are more likely to indicate both of these actions should not be taken.

                      These results are also shown in Figure 18.








                                                                                                                 44



                                                              FIGURE 18

                                   -Significant Findings Based on Area of Residence Regarding
                                     Whether Leelanau County Should Take Selected Actions


                                                                  Rural                        Urban
                                                               (n = 213)                      (n = 105)


                                                      Yes, without                  Yes, without
                                                        Increase          No          Increase          No
                       Selected Action                      %              %              %              %


                       Install an effective
                       emergency radio
                       communications system                28             15             44             5

                       Monitor water quality               39              16            53              3




                       C.      Comparisons Based on Lakeshore Ownersh!R

                               Survey residents were divided into two subgroups based on lakeshore property

                       ownership (owner and nonowner). Statistical analyses were conducted to determine if

                       residents in these two groups differ significantly with regard to the questionnaire items
                       specified previously. Several significant differences were noted and are discussed

                       below.

                               As shown in Figure 19, residents who do not own lakeshore prol2eft are

                       significantly mo re likely than owners to indicate that the number of public access points

                       to lakes should be increased, even if this raises their taxes. In contrast, lakeshore

                       property owners are much more likely to indicate that the number of access points to

                       lakes should not be increased.








                                                                                                               45



                                                             FIGURE 19

                            Significant Findings Based an Lakeshore Property Ownership Regarding
                                    Whether Leelanau County Should Take Selected Actions


                                                           Own Lakeshore                  Do Not Own
                                                              Property                Lakeshore Property
                                                              (n = 133)                     (n = 186)


                                                      Yes, with                     Yes, with
                                                       Increase          No         Increase           No
                      Selected Action                      %             %              %              %


                      Increase the number of
                      public access points
                      tolakes                              6             73             25             39



                             Regarding problems in Leelanau County, residents who are nonowners are

                      significantly more likely than owners'to indicate that traffic congestion and lack of

                      affordable recreation opportunities are major problems in Leelanau County. Owners are

                      more likely than nonowners to indicate that traffic congestion is a minor problem, and

                      are more likely to indicate that lack of recreation opportunities is not a groblem. These

                      results are summarized in Figure 20.


                                                             FIGURE 20

                            Significant Findings Based on Lakeshore Property Ownership Regarding
                                   Whether Selected Issues Are Problems In Leelanau County


                                                           Own Lakeshore                  Do Not Own
                                                              Property                Lakeshore Property
                                                              (n = 133)                     (n = 186)


                                                         Major         Not a          Major          Not a
                                                       Problem        Problem        Problem        Problem
                      Selected Issue                       %             %              %              %


                      Traffic congestion                   17            29             33             27

                      Lack of affordable
                      recreation opportunities             7             67             15             53








                                                                                                               46


                              As shown in Figure 21, residents who do not own lakeshore property are

                       significantly more likely than owners to favor development in Leelanau County if this

                       development means many more jobs, and to favor development if this means fewer

                       opportunities to view the County's scenic features. Residents who do own lakeshore

                       property are more likely to opgose increased development if the result of the

                       development were many more jobs, and to opgose development if this meant fewer

                       opportunities to view scenic features in the County.


                                                             FIGURE 21
                             Significant Findings Based on Lakeshore Property Ownership Regard'ing
                                 Views About Possible Consequences of Increased Development



                                                           Own Lakeshore                  Do Not Own
                                                               Property                Lakeshore Property
                                                              (n   133)                     (n = 186)


                                                         Favor        Oppose          Favor         Oppose
                       Conseguencg                         %             %               %             %

                       Many more jobs                     55             45              75            25

                       Fewer opportunities to
                       view scenic features                 8            92              17            83



                       D.     Comparisons Based on Age

                              Residents were divided into three subgroups based on age, and comparisons of

                       responses for the questions specified previously were conducted. Results of these

                       analyses are presented below and are shown in Figures 22 through 25.

                              Residents who are over 55 years of age are significantly more likely than those

                       who are 55 years of age or younger to feel that preventing development at the west end

                       of the Traverse City beltline highway and restricting development of residential lots to

                       only areas  supplied w ith sewer and water utility services are ve!y important. These

                       results are illustrated in Figure 22.








                                                                                                                                  47



                                                                        FIGURE 22

                                                        Significant Findings Based on Age
                                                   Regarding Importance of Selected Actions


                                                        Under 40 years               40-55 years             Over 55 years
                                                              of age                    of age                    of age
                                                              (n   79)                  (n   96)                (n    139)


                                                         Very         Not            Very       Not          Very        Not
                                                         Imp.         Imp.           Imp.       Imp.          Imp.       Imp.
                         Selected Action                    %         %              %          %              %         %

                         Prevent development
                         at Traverse City
                         highway                            18        37             17         38             33        20

                         Restrict development
                         to only areas supplied
                         with sewer and water
                         utility services                  26         51             29         39             51        30



                                  As may be seen in Figure 23, County residents who are over the age of 55 are
                         significantly more likely than residents in the other age groups to indicate that the

                         following two actions should not be taken in Leelanau County: building of public

                         recreation facilities, and initiation of a policy to promote the preservation of open space.


                                                                        FIGURE 23

                                                 Significant Findings Based on Age Regarding
                                          Whether Leelanau County Should Take Selected Actions


                                                        Under 40 years               40-55 years             Over 55 years
                                                              of age                    of age                    of age
                                                              (n = 79)                  (n = 96)                (n = 139)


                                                      Yes, with                 Yes, with                  Yes, with -
                                                           Inc.       No             Inc.       No            Inc.       No
                         Selected Action                    %         %              %          %              %         %

                         Build public
                         recreation facilities             34         27             26         43             15        50


                         Promote the
                         preservation of
                         open space                        35         27             24         28            20         42








                                                                                                            48


                             As illustrated in Figure 24, residents who are over 55 years of age are also

                      significantly more likely than younger residents to feel that the level of property taxation

                      in Leelanau County is a major problem.


                                                           FIdURE 24

                                     Significant Findings Based on Age Regarding Whether
                                       Selected Issues Are Problems in Leelanau County


                                               Under 40 years          40-55 years         Over 55 years
                                                    of age               of age                of age
                                                   (n = 79)              (n = 96)            (n = 139)


                                                Major    Not a       Major    Not a        Major    Not a
                                                Prob.    Prob.        Prob.   Prob.        Prob.    Prob.
                      Selected Issue              %       %            %        %            %       %


                      Level of
                      property tax               51       18           53       15          70       13



                             Regarding increased development in Leelanau County, residents who are over

                      55 years of age are significantly more likely than other residents to oppose

                      development if this development means a little more tourism, and are also more likely

                      to oppose development if this means many more jobs. On the other hand, residents

                      who are 40 years of age or younger are more likely than residents who are over the age

                      of 40 to favor development if this means a little more tourism and many more jobs.

                      These results may be seen in Figure 25.









                                                                                                              49



                                                            FIGURE 25

                                      Significant Findings Based on Age Regarding Views
                                   About Possible Consequences of Increased Development


                                                Under 40 years          40-55 years         Over 55 years
                                                    of age                of age                of age
                                                   (n = 79)              (n = 96)              (n = 139)


                                                Favor Oppose          Favor Oppose          Favor Oppose
                     Conseguence                  %        %            %         %            %       %

                     A little more
                     tourism                     60       40            46       54            38      62

                     Many more jobs              83       17            67       33            59      41



                     E.      Corngarlsons Based on Income

                             Responses of residents in the three income groups (high income, moderate

                     income, and low income) were compared to determine if statistically significant

                     differences in responses exist for the questions specified previously. A number of

                     significant findings were noted and are discussed below.

                             As shown in Figure 26, residents in the high income group ($55,000 or more) are

                     significantly more likely than residents in the two lower income groups to feel that

                     development of affordable single family housing should not be encouraged, and are

                     more likely to indicate that the number of access points to lakes should not be

                     increased. In contrast, residents in the low income group (less than $25,000) are

                     significantly more likely than residents with higher incomes to indicate that stricter

                     sanitary codes related to sewage disposal should not be established. Those residents

                     in the moderate ($25,000 but less than $55,000) and high income groups are more
                     likely to injicate that stricter sanitary codes should be established even if this would

                     increase their taxes. In addition, residents in the moderate and high income groups are

                     significantly more likely than low income residents to indicate that the County should

                     initiate an effort to monitor water quality even if this would increase their taxes.








                                                                                                                   50



                                                               FIGURE 26

                                           Significant Findings Based on Income Regarding
                                      Whether Leelanau County Should Take Selected Actions


                                                 Less than $25,000       $25,000 but less          $55,000 or
                                                      per year              than $55,000              more
                                                       (n = 98)              (n = 101)              (n = 75)


                                                 Yes, with              Yes, with              Yes, with
                                                     Inc.      No           Inc.     No            Inc.     No
                        Selected Action              %         %            %        %             %        %

                        Encourage single
                        family home
                        development                  11        20           15       21            10       44

                        Increase public
                        access points
                        to lakes                     23        :97          25       50             8       70

                        Establish stricter
                        sanitary codes
                        related to sewage
                        disposal                     31        28           51       17            57       11

                        Initiate water
                        quality monitoring           31        .12          50       11            59         7



                               Regarding pollution of surface water, residents in the moderate and high income

                        groups are more likely than residents in the low income group to indicate that this is a

                        maior groblem. The level of property tax is more likely to be perceived as not a

                        2robIgm by residents in the high income group, while those in the low income group

                        tend to feel this is a major problem. These results may be seen in Figure 27.









                                                                                                                51



                                                             FIGURE 27

                                    Significant Findings Based on Income Regarding Whether
                                        Selected Issues Are Problems in Leelanau County


                                               Less than $25,000      $25,000 but less         $55,000 or
                                                    per year            than $55,000              more
                                                    (n = 98)              (n = 101)               (n  75)


                                                 Major    Not a        Major    Not a         Major    Not a
                                                 Prob.    Prob.        Prob.    Prob.         Prob.    Prob.
                      Selected Issue               %        %            %        %            %         %

                      Pollutiop of
                      surface water               22        13           33       17           32        15

                      Level of
                      prope rty tax               69         9           56       15           43        26



                             As shown in Figure 28, residents in the moderate income group are significantly

                      more likely than other residents to favor increased development in Leelanau County if

                      this means a little less land for agriculture. Residents in the low income group are more

                      likely to oppose development if this means a little less land for agriculture. Increased

                      development is more likely to be ogposed by !esidents in the high income group if this

                      development means many more jobs. In contrast, residents in the moderate and low

                      income groups are more likely to favor increased development if this means many

                      more jobs.








                                                                                                 52



                                                     FIGURE 28

                                 Significant Findings Based on Income Regarding Views
                                About Possible Consequences of Increased Development


                                         Less than $25,000   $25,000 but less      $55,000 or
                                              peryear          than $55,000           more
                                              (n  98)            (n = 101)           (n  75)


                                           Favor Oppose       Favor Oppose        Favor Oppose
                    Conseguence              %      %           %      %            %       %

                    A little less land
                    for agriculture         21      79          39     61           29      71

                    Many more jobs          77      23          74     26           50      50

































                                   APPENDIX A
                               Survey Questionnaire



















  ko










                                                            LEELANAU COUNTY
                                                          SURVEY OF RESIDENTS



           1. How important do you feel it is for the County of Leelanau to do the following: (Please circle one response
               for each item)

                                                                            Very        Somewhat          Not          Don't
                                                                         Important      Important      Important       Know

               a.  Maintain agricultural production
                   in Leelanau County?                                       V1             Sl             N1          DK


               b.  Stimulate the development of
                   more businesses related to
                   tourism in Leelanau County?                               V1             Sl             NI          DK


               c.  Encourage the development of
                   more resorts, such as The
                   Homestead or Sugar Loaf?                                  V1             Sl             N1          DK


               d., Plan for the development of
                   more commercially operated
                   harbors for recreational
                   boating?                                                  V1             S1             N1          DK


               e.  Develop one or two industrial
                   parks for light industry?                                 V1             Sl             NI          DK


               f.  Prevent development at the
                   west end of the proposed
                   Traverse City beltline highway
                   (intersection of Gray Road
                   and M-72 in Elmwood Township)?                            V1             S1             N1          DK.


               g.  Coordinate planning efforts
                   between County, Township, and
                   Village governments?                                      V1             S1             NI          DK


               h.  Restrict development of small
                   reside-ntial lots to only those
                   area, supplied with sewer
                   and water utility services?                               V1             S1             N1          DK


               i.  Support creation of a new town
                   instead of more suburban
                   development in the southeastern part
                   of Leelanau CoUnty?                                       V1             51             NI          DK.






        2. Do you     believe the County of Leelanau should do the following with regard to local residents: (Please circle
             one response for each item)


                                                                                             Yes, only if it
                                                                       Yes, even if it       does not raise               Don't
                                                                      raises my taxes           my taxes          No      Know


             a. Encourage the development of
                affordable s        family housing?                          YE                    YO             N        DK


             b. Encourage the development of
                affordable apartment buildings,
                condominiums, or other
                multi-family housing?                                        YE                    YO             N        DK


             c. Build public recreation
                facilities, such as swimming
                pools, recreation centers, or
                ballfields?                                                  YE                    YO             N        DK


             d. Sponsor more recreation and
                youth programs for children?                                 YE                    YO             N        DK


             e. Encourage the County Road
                Commission to develop more
                bicycle paths?                                               YE                    YO             N        DK


             f. Establish more open space
                areas for the public, such as
                County parks?                                                YE                    YO             N        DK


             g. increase the number of public
                access points to lakes?                                      YE                    YO             N        DK


             h. Establish stricter sanitary
                codes related to sewage
                disposal, including individual
                septic tanks?                                                YE                    YO             N        DK


             i. Take steps to improve the quality
                of Leelanau County's inland
                lake fisheries?                                              YE                    YO             N        DK


             j. Anitiate a policy to promote
                the preservation of open space?                              YE                    YO             N        DK






           3. Do you believe the following actions should be taken in Leelanau County: (Please circle one response for
               each item)



                                                                                           Yes, only if it
                                                                      Yes, even if it     does not raise             Don't
                                                                     raises my taxes         my taxes          No    Know


               a.  Build a new "central corridor"
                   highway between Traverse City
                   and Suttons Bay?                                         YE                  YO             N       DK


               b.  Install an effective emergency
                   radio communications system
                   for requesting medical,
                   police, or fire services?                                YE                  YO             N       DK


               c.  Initiate a County effort
                   to monitor water quality?                                YE                  YO,            N       DK


               d.  Operate a County-wide program
                   to collect and recycle
                   materials such as newspaper,
                   glass, and cans?                                         YE                  YO             N       DK







          4. Which one of the following do you believe should be responsible for enforcement of development controls
               in Leelzin-au County? (Check one)


                                                   a.         The Townships and Villages


                                                   b.         The County


                                                   c.         No preference


                                                   d.         Don't know



                                                   e.         Other (Please specify:
    k9





       '5. How -satisfied,a-re you with the following in Leelanau County: '(Please circle one- response for each item),-


                                                                                                                    Does not
                                                         Very                                          Very        apply/Have
                                                       Satisfied    Satisfied     Dissatisfied     Dissatisfied      not used



           a.  The availability of housing
               you can afford?                            VS             S              D              VD               NA


           b.  The number of year-round
               jobs available for County
               residents?                                 VS             S              D              VD               NA



           C.  The types of jobs available
               for County residents?                      VS             S              D              VD               NA


           d.  The police protection
               provided?                                  VS             S              D              VD               NA


           e.  The fire protection provided?              VS             S              D              VD               NA


           f.  The health care services
               available?                                 VS             S              D              VD               NA



           g.  The recreational
               opportunities available
               for people in your
               household?                                 VS             S              D              VD               NA



           h.  The quality of the roads
               in Leelanau County?                        VS             S              D              VD               NA


           i.  The capacity of the roads
               in Leelanau County for
               handling traffic?                          VS             S              D              VD               NA


           j.  The enforcement of local
               zoning ordinances?                         VS             S              D              VD               NA





          6. How-helpful are the following in providing you with information or services: (Please circle one response for
              each item)


                                                                    Very     Somewhat         Not      Have Not
                                                                   Helpful     Helpful      Helpful       Used

              a. The County Board?                                  VH           SH           NH           NU

              b. County administrative offices,
                 such as the County Clerk,
                 Treasurer, or Register of Deeds?                   VH           SH           NH           NU


              c. County Planning Commission?.                       VH           SH           NH           NU

              d. County Building
                 Inspections Department?                            VH           SH           NH           NU


              e. County Road Commission?                            VH           SH           NH           NU





          7 How much of your information about what happens in Leelanau County do you get from the following
              sources: IPlease circle one response for each item)



                                                                       Very             Only a
                                                                     Much       Some      Little   None


              a. Traverse City Record Eagle?                           VM        S          L        N


              b. Leelanau Enterprise?                                  VNI       S          L        N


              C. Television?                                           VM        S          L        N


              d. Radio?                                                VNI       S          L        N






         8. Do you feel the following are problems in Leelanau County: (Please circle one response for each item)

                                                                 Yes, a Major      Yes, a Minor          No         Don't
                                                                   Problem           Problem         Problem        Know

              a. Access to emergency
                 medical services?                                    MAJ              MIN               N          DK

              b. Pollution of ground water?                           MAJ              MIN               N          DK

              c. Pollution of surface water?                          MAJ              MIN               N          DK

              d. The increasing number of
                 tourists who visit
                 Leelanau County?                                     MAJ              MIN               N          DK

              e. Traffic congestion?                                  MAJ              MIN               N          DK
              f. Lack of affordable   '                                                                                                 I
                 recreation opportunities
                 for Leelanau County
                 residents?                                           MAJ              MIN               N          DK

              9. The level of property tax?                           MAJ              MIN               N          DK

              h. The development in
                 southeastern Leelanau
                 County?                                              MAJ              MIN               N          DK

              i. The rapid rate of population
                 growth in the County?                                MAJ              MIN               N          DK



        9. How would you feel about increased development in Leelanau County if this development meant: (Please
              circle one response for each item)                 Strongly                           Strongly       Don't
                                                                  Favor      Favor     Oppose       Oppose         Know

              a. Much more water
                 or air pollution?                                 SF           F          0           so           DK

              b. A little more water
                 or air pollution?                                 SF           F          0           so           DK

              c. Much less land for
                 agriculture?                                      SF           F          0           so           DK

              d. A little less land
                 for agriculture?                                  SF           F          0           so           DK
              e. Much more tourism?                                SF           F          0           so           bK

              f. A little-more tourism?                            SF           F          0           so           DK

              g. Many more jobs?                                   SF           F          0           so           DK

              h. A few more jobs?                                  SF           F          0           so           DK

              I. Fewer opportunities to view
                 the scenic features of
                 Leelanau County?                                  SF           F          0           so           DK






         10. Current local zoning regulations would permit the population of Leelanau County to increase to 300,000
            residents. The current population is between 15,200 and 18,500 residents. Based on this information, which
            one of the following do you believe Leelanau County should choose: (Check one)


                                           a.        Keep the current zoning regulations which would permit the
                                                     population to increase to 300,000 residents.


                                           b.        Change the zoning regulations to permit the population to
                                                     increase to 50,000 to 100,000 residents.


                                           c.        Change the zoning regulations to permit the population to
                                                     increase to 25,000 but less than 50,000 residents.


                                           d.        Change the zoning regulations to permit the population to
                                                     increase between the current population level but less than
                                                     25,000 residents.


                                           e.        No preference


                                           f.        Don't know


        11. What other suggestions do you  have regarding how the quality of life in Leelanau County
            could be improved?












        12. What do you believe most threatens the quality of life in Leelanau County?











         13. How many years have you been a year-round or seasonal resident of Leelanau County?

                                                            years






        14. Which of the following best describes the area where you currently live in Leelanau County?
            (Check only one)
                                              a.        On a farm
                                              b.        Rural area, but not a farm
                                              c.        A town or village
                                              d.        A city


        15. Do you currently own or rent your   home in Leelanau County?
                                              a.        Own your home
                                              b.        Rent your home


        16. Do you own lakeshore property in    Leelanau County?
                                              a.        Yes

                                              b.        No


        17. If you are currently employed, in what county do you work?                                            -County


        18. What is your age?                           years


        19. Are you:                          a.        Female
                                              b.        Male


        20. Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed: (Check one)
                                              a.        Attended elementary school
                                              b.        Attended high school
                                              c.        Graduated from high   school or received GED
                                            A           Attended a four-year, two-year, or technical college
                                              e.        Graduated from a four-year, two-year, or technical college
                                              f.        Attended graduate school or received graduate degree


        21. What was your total household     income in 1989 before taxes? (Check one)
                                              a.        Less than $10,000
                                              b.        $10,000 but less than $25,000
                                              c.        $25,000 but less than $40,000
                                              d,        $40,000 but less than $55,000
                                              e.        $55,000 but less than $70,000
                                              f.        $70,000 but less than $90,000
                                              g.        $90,000 or more


                                                         THANK YOU!
                                                         Please return to:
                                              Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc.
                                                     1885 University Avenue
                                                   St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
                                                         1-800-678-5577



  I
  I
  10
  I
  I
  I
  I                                                     I
  I
  I                                 APPENDIX B
                      Cover Letter and Mail Follow-U'p Reminders


  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I                                               I I
  I
  10
  I




                                   ILEEILANAU COUNTY




                  February, 19M






                  Dear Leelanau County Citizen:

                  Maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Leelanau County Is one of the
                  major goals of government officials In Leelanau County. One Important stop In this process Is
                  gathering Information from the people who live In Leelanau County. This Includes both people
                  who live here throughout the year and those who live here for part of the year. For this reason,
                  we have asked the independent research firm of Anderson, Nlebuhr & Associates, Inc. to
                  conduct a survey of Leelanau County citizens.

                  Your  opinions about these issues are highly valued. The responses we receive from you are
                  essential for helping us in planning where to focus our efforts for improving services, programs,
                  and facilities in Leelanau County. Enclosed is a brief questionnaire. Please take a few minutes
                  from your busy schedule today to complete and return it in the postage-paid return envelope
                  provided for your convenience.


                                                       A NOTE ON PRIVACY

                          We are concerned about protecting your privacy. You will notice a code
                          number on your questionnaire. This code -number will only be used to
                          ensure you do not receive reminders once you have completed and returned
                          your questionnaire. Your responses will be strictly confidential and your
                          completed questionnaire will never be identified by your name.


                  Thank you In advance for participating In the survey. If you have any questions, please call Mr.
                  Tom Everson at Anderson, Nlebuhr & Associates, Inc. at 14XXWS-5577, or call Mr. Timothy
                  Dolehanty, Leelanau County Planning Department, at 256-9812.

                  Sincerely,




                  Otto Mork, Ch      an                               William Mateer, Chairman
                  Leelanau County Board of Commissioners               Leelanau County Planning Commission










        P.O. Box 546, Leland, M1 49654-0546.                                                            .616-256-9812
























                                                 :VA









      Things are taldng shape but we're still missing
      a few pieces,

      It is vitally important to receive your completed
      questionnaire because your opinions will help
      build a better. future for Leelanau County.

      if you have any questions, please call Tom' at 1-800-678-5577.
                                                                    40


















                              THANK YOU

















                       We know you're busy as a beaver but  .......
                       Please help build a better future for Leelanau County
                       by returning your completed survey today.
                       If you have any questions, please
                       call Tom at 1-800-678-5577                 THANKYOUI






                       rime
                       running            out***         -
                                                        to,

                       We have received many surveys from
                       Leelanau County residents, but are still -waiting for yours.
                       Please take a few minutes to complete and return your
                       Survey of Residents. If you have any questions, please call
                       Jeff at 1-800-678-5577.                     THANK YOU!



  I
  I
  p
  I
  I
  I -
  I
  I
  I                              APPENDIX C
                                  Data Tables
  4
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  ko
  I










                                                                           TABLE 1

                                                    Responses of Residents Concerning the Importance of
                                                    Selected Actions Which Leelanau County Could Take


                                                                                                Response


                                                                      Very       Somewhat          Not          Don't
                                                                    Important     Important     Important       Know         TOTAL
                       Selected Action                                  %            %              %              %         % No.


                       Maintain agricultural production
                       in Leelanau County                               68           25              3             4        100 321

                       Stimulate the development of
                       more businesses related to
                       tourism in Leelanau County                       14           32             52             2        100 319

                       Encourage the development of
                       more resorts, such as The
                       Homestead or Sugar Loaf                            9          18             71             2        100 320

                       Plan for the development of more
                       commercially operated harbors
                       for recreational boating                         17           36             43             4        100 321

                       Develop one or two industrial
                       parks for light industry                         30           31             34             5        100 320

                       Prevent development at the west
                       end of the proposed Traverse City
                       beltline highway (intersection of
                       Gray Road and M-72 in Elmwood Township)          25           15             30             30       100 317

                                                                            (cont.)

          mom 11111M m m M                             .  m 11111=4111 M M 11111M                                 m m mo@



    mob== 111111M M M m me=== mm m mum M




                                                                         TABLE 1 (cont.),

                                                     Responses of Residents Concerning the Importance of
                                                      Selected Actions Which Leelanau County Could Take


                                                                                                 Response


                                                                        Very       Somewhat           Not         Don't
                                                                     Important     Important      Important       Know         TOTAL
                         Selected Action                                 %             %             %             %           % No.


                         Coordinate planning efforts between
                         County, Township, and Village governments       69            22               5            4        100 321

                         Restrict development of small
                         residential lots to only those
                         areas supplied with sewer and
                         water utility services                          34            21             35            10        100 316

                         Support creation of a onew towno instead
                         of more suburban development in the
                         southeastern part of Leelanau County            11            20             48            21        100 319








                                                                                         TABLE2

                                   Responses of Residents Concerning Whether Selected Actions Should be Taken In Leelanau County


                                                                                                                 Response


                                                                                                Yes, only if it
                                                                              Yes, even if it does not raise                        Don't
                                                                             raises my taxes       my taxes          No            Know            TOTAL
                             Selected Action                                         %                %              %                %           % - No.


                             Encourage the development of
                             affordable single family housing                        11               58             26               5           100 315

                             Encourage the development of
                             affordable apartment buildings,
                             condominiums, or other
                             multi-family housing                                      7              35             54               4           100 314

                             Build public recreation facilities,
                             such as swimming pools, recreation
                             centers, or ballfields                                  21               34             40               5           100 314

                             Sponsor more recreation and
                             youth programs for children                             36               38             19               7           100 313

                             Encourage the County Road
                             Commission to develop
                             more bicycle paths                                      36               39             23               2           iDO 313

                             Establish more open space
                             areas for the public, such
                             as County parks                                         24               38             32               6           100 315

                             Increase the number of public
                             access points to lakes                                  16               28             49               7           100 314

                                                                                          (cont.)
            mom M M M M                                                                                            m                         m NPM








                                                                                     TABLE 2 (cont.)

                                   Responses of Residents Concerning Whether Selected Actions Should be Taken In Leelanau County


                                                                                                                 Response


                                                                                                 Yes, only if it
                                                                               Yes, even if it does not raise                       Don't
                                                                             raises my taxes       my taxes           No            Know           TOTAL
                             Selected Action                                         %                 %              %                %           % No.


                             Establish stricter sanitary
                             codes related to sewage
                             disposal, including individual
                             septic tanks                                            41                32             19                8         100 314

                             Take steps to improve the quality
                             of Leelanau County's inland
                             lake fisheries                                          26                49             13               12         100 313

                             Initiate a policy to promote
                             the preservation of open space                          37                40             13               10         100 311

                             Build a new  "central corridor"
                             highway between Traverse City
                             and Suttons Bay                                         14                26             51                9         100 314

                             Install an effective emergency
                             radio communications system
                             for requesting medical, police,
                             or fire services                                        51                32             11                6         100 314

                             Initiate a County effort
                             to monitor water quality                                42                41             11                6         100 312

                             Operate a County-wide program
                             to collect and recycle materials
                             such as newspaper, glass, and cans                      41                47               8               4         100 314






                                                                                        TABLE3

                                   Responses of Residents Concerning Satisfaction with Selected Services Provided In Leelanau County


                                                                                                            Response


                                                                                                                                    Does not
                                                                       Very                                            Very        apply/Have
                                                                    Satisfied       Satisfied      Dissatisfied    Dissatisfied      notused          TOTAL
                         Selected Service                               %               %               %               %               %            % No.


                         The availability of housing
                         they can afford                                15              39              18                 7            21          100 313

                         The number of year-round
                         jobs available for County
                         residents                                         3            28              29              13              27          100 313

                         The types of jobs available
                         for County residents                              4            23              31              13              29          100 313

                         The police protection provided                 17              61              11                 2               9        100 316

                         The fire protection provided                   26              60                5                0               9        100    316

                         The health care services available             17              61                9                1            12          100    314

                         The recreational opportunities
                         available for people in
                         their household                                31              50                8                2               9        100    314

                         The quality of the roads
                         in Leelanau County                             22              62              11                 4               1        100    315

                         The capacity of the roads
                         in Leelanau County for
                         handling traffic                               10              65              18                 6               1        100    314

                         The enforcement of local
                         zoning ordinances                                 6            49              21              11              13          100    314



















                                                                       TABLE 4A

                                      Responses of Residents Concerning the Helpfulness of Selected County Officials


                                                                                          Response


                                                                   Very      Somewhat         Not       Have Not
                                                                  Helpful      Helpful      Helpful       Used        TOTAL
                        Selected County Officials                   %            %             %           %         % No.


                        The County Board                              8          21            13          58        100 317

                        County administrative offices,
                        such as the County Clerk,
                        Treasurer, or Register of Deeds             42           32            3           23        100 316

                        County Planning Commission                    8          21            12          59        100 314

                        County Building Inspections
                        Department                                  23           28            8           41        100 316

                        County Road Commission                      29           29            5           37        100 317



















                                                                       TABLE413

                                     Responses of Residents Concerning the Helpfulness of Selected County Officials
                                      (Based on Responses of Residents Who Have Experience with These Officials)


                                                                                           Response


                                                                          Very      Somewhat          Not
                                                                         Helpful      Helpful      Helpful      TOTAL
                             Selected County Officials                     %            %             %         % No.


                             The County Board                              19           51            30       100 134

                             County administrative offices,
                             such as the County Clerk,
                             Treasurer, or Register of Deeds               55           41              4      100 245

                             County Planning Commission                    19           51            30       100 129

                             County Building Inspections
                             Department                                    39           48            13       100 185

                             County Road Commission                        45           46              9      100 200



                                                                         4r                                               m 1mb m m





                                                                            TABLE 5

                                           Responses of Residents Concerning How Much of Their Information About
                                            What Happens In Leelanau County They Receive from Selected Sources


                                                                                                Response


                                                                       Very                       Only a
                                                                       Much         Some           Little        None         TOTAL
                        Selected Source                                 %             %             %             %          % No.


                        Traverse Chy Record Eagle                       21            43            1i            19         100 307

                        Leelanau Enterprise                             56            28              8             8        100 317

                        Television                                      19            39            25            17         100 311

                        Radio                                           14            30            31            25         100 308










                                                                                    TABLE6

                                                             Responses of Residents Concerning the Extent to
                                                         Which Selected Issues Are Problems In Leelanau County


                                                                                                            Response


                                                                           Yes, a Major Yes, a Minor            No            Don't
                                                                             Problem         Problem        Problem           Know           TOTAL
                           Selected Issue                                       %               %               %               %           % No.


                           Access to emergency medical services                 10              28              49              13          100 315

                           Pollution of ground water                            31              34              18              17          100   317

                           Pollution of surface water                           29              37              17              17          100   315

                           The increasing number of tourists
                           who visit Leelanau County                            .34             37              26               3          100.  318

                           Traffic congestion                                   26              45              27               2          100   315

                           Lack of affordable recreation
                           opportunities for Leelanau
                           County residents                                     11              27,             52              10          100   315
                           The level of property tax                            58              24              14               4          100   319

                           The development in southeastern
                           Leelanau County                                      22              32              21              25          100   316

                           The rapid rate of population
                           growth in the County                                 37              33              23               7          100   319



                                                                                                                                                      mum










                                                                                        TABLE7

                                                       Responses of Residents Concerning Their Views About Possible
                                                Consequences If Increased Development Were to Occur In Leelanau County


                                                                                                           Response


                                                                    Strongly                                        Strongly          Don't
                                                                     Favor           Favor          Oppose          Oppose            Know           TOTAL
                        Possible Consequence                            %               %               %               %               %            % No.


                        Much more water or air pollution                  2               3             23              69              3           100 315

                        A little more water or air pollution              1             10              32              52              5           100 316

                        Much less land for agriculture                    2             10              34              48              6           100 315

                        A little less land for agriculture                4             24              39              28              5           100 313

                        Much more tourism                                 5             17              33              42              3           100 307


                        A little more tourism                             6             38              32              21              3           100 311

                        Many more jobs                                  22              40              20              11              7           100 311

                        A few more jobs                                 15              58              15                7             5           100 305

                        Fewer opportunities to view the
                        scenic features of Leelanau County                2             10              26              56              6           100 312



                                                                                                                           NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY               I
                                                                                                                           3 6668 14111898 6_                              1

                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           1
                                                                                                                                                                      40
                                                                                                                                                                           1
                                                                                                                                                                           1
                                                                                                                                                                           i
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                                           I

                                                                                                                                                                           m
                                                                                                                                                                      e
                                                                                                                                                                           k,





                                                                                                                                                                           III,