PodcastBanner4-212x167Since January, the Michigan Municipal League has been filling the airwaves with our exciting new podcast series, We Love Where You Live. The episodes have always been on our Podcasts page, but now we’ve made it even easier to catch your favorite episodes by making them available on iTunes and Google Play. Just log on and search for “Michigan Municipal League” or “We Love Where You Live.”

Each week, we bring you insightful interviews on city innovations and politics, delve into the challenges of local government finance, share our members’ amazing accomplishments, and take a fresh look at stories in the League’s magazine, The Review. Recent topics have included placemaking, the state of the American city, financial challenges facing Michigan communities, ethical public leadership, talent attraction, the gender balance, and much more.

Listen in on your favorite device – smartphone, tablet, laptop, or desktop – any time it’s convenient for you!


The Economics of Place segments feature people on the cutting edge of making cities better.

Host: Dan Gilmartin, CEO & executive director, Michigan Municipal League


On the SaveMICity segments, we talk about the financial challenges facing Michigan local governments.

Host: Tony Minghine, deputy executive director & COO, Michigan Municipal League


The Michigan Politics, Huh? segments look at Lansing politics from the perspective of a novice. What’s happening in Lansing that might impact your community?

Host: Matt Bach, director of communications, Michigan Municipal League


The Review Déjà vu segments take a fresh look at stories that have appeared in the League’s magazine, The Review.

Host: Lisa Donovan, The Review magazine editor, Michigan Municipal League


The Limelight segments highlight the incredible work being done at the local level, the stories behind the people that do it, and topics that matter to them.

Host: Emily Kieliszewski, membership engagement specialist, Michigan Municipal League.


Earlier this week, the city of Ypsilanti released an RFQ seeking developers for one of the sites they identified as a priority through the Redevelopment Ready Communities process. The League created the RFQ document with the support of Beckett & Raeder, Inc., as part of a project, funded by MSHDA through the MML Foundation, to advance placemaking planning into implementation.

Taking plans off the shelf

The first of our development RFQ pilots, recently sent out by the city of Ypsilanti.

The first of our development RFQ pilots, recently sent out by the city of Ypsilanti.

“Planners can make all the plans they want, but it takes developers to execute them.”

This quote on the relationship of city planners to developers in creating communities has stuck with me as much as anything else from planning school. That’s why I’m enthusiastic about these RFQs.

When a community undertakes a PlacePlan, or prepares a residential target market analysis, or undertakes any kind of planning process, they are defining their desired outcomes; a community that goes through RRC then lays the groundwork to ensure they’re not hindering their desired outcomes.

To accelerate the actual completion of these plans, though, the community needs to clearly and actively communicate their expected outcomes, and the work they’ve done. This is the role our RFQs can play.

Traditional stumbling blocks

This project began from a less specific desire to accelerate developments that contribute to a local sense of place, and we arrived at supporting locals with RFQs after conversations with some of our PlacePlans alums, developer partners, and MSHDA and MEDC staff about why things hadn’t worked in the past. Some themes included,

  • Developers often aren’t familiar with the work communities have done—traditional real estate listings don’t elevate that groundwork or communicate the vision.
  • Communities sometimes default to their known procurement processes when trying to communicate with developers, burying the lede under reams of legal requirements and disclosure documents. “Every page has to keep you reading, and if you see it’s 100 pages, you’re not even going to pick it up,” was feedback we got from a broker’s perspective.
  • Local staff don’t have good channels for getting word out about their development priorities: often, they only know a small pool of local builders (or may even lack that!) and don’t know where to find others. “We created an RFQ and put it on our website and sent a press release to the local paper—we don’t know if anybody saw it.” said one city.
  • Similarly, smaller developers may only know the opportunities in their own backyards, and not those just a few communities down the road; larger developers may only have a limited set of “high-profile” places on their radar.

Improving the outreach

The approach we’re taking has two parts, to help address these gaps.

First, we identified a few communities that have been through the Redevelopment Ready certification process, that had identified priority sites in downtown or adjacent neighborhood settings, had done good place-based planning (through PlacePlans or otherwise), had a target market analysis to demonstrate opportunity, and, importantly, had staff capacity to engage.

We are working with those communities to digest the work they’ve already done and tease out the important bits that relate to the target site. We’ve engaged Beckett & Raeder to both prepare concept site plans that provide visual cues of what the community is looking for, and to prepare site-specific fiscal analyses that test those visions against market data—can the community reasonably expect their vision to be buildable as-is, or should they expect a financial gap that will need incentives? And we’re packaging that work into an attractive RFQ document that (hopefully) grabs interest.

BRI prepared three concept site plans for the site, which we vetted with staff and the appointed bodies (Planning Commission and Historic District Commission) that will need to approve any development. The concepts are provided in the RFQ as examples of the city's desired development, but kept general enough to allow the developer creativity.

BRI prepared three concept site plans for the site, which we vetted with staff and the appointed bodies (Planning Commission and Historic District Commission) that will need to approve any development. The concepts are provided in the RFQ as examples of the city’s desired development, but kept general enough to allow the developer creativity.

Second, we’re working on the pipeline issue with support from a number of partners. Both the Michigan chapter of Urban Land Institute and the Home Builders Association of Michigan are promoting these RFQs to their membership, and we’ve also compiled our own contact list of firms active in placemaking-friendly development around the state—over 100 so far, and we’ll continue to expand that. Looking past these initial projects, MEDC has identified a need to expand the developer community active in any given region, through both networking and training, and we’re working with them to help target that need.

As we start to get feedback, we expect we might need to refine either what goes into the RFQ documents, or our approach to targeting developers. Our goal is to figure out a few things that work, and provide some guidance to all of our members about how they can take advantage of it to see their own placemaking goals take shape.  Stay tuned!

At this year’s Convention, we invited Scott TenBrink from the University of Michigan’s School of Information’s Citizen Interaction Design program to speak about engagement, and specifically online or app-based engagement tools. The CID team has spent the past few years working in Jackson, where students have tested innovative projects and learned valuable lessons about implementing in-person and online engagement strategies. With more than 50 people in attendance and great conversation after the session, we definitely thought the information was worth sharing with a wider League audience.

Engagement means different things to different people and there are many diagrams that try to identify and illustrate the many types of engagement. Scott shared a unique diagram, below, that he and his CID team created. Click here to see a larger version of the diagram.


“It is a work in progress,” he said, and they’re still playing around with the hierarchy, but I think the types of engagement available to municipalities are identified well here.

Selecting an Online Engagement Platform

Many municipalities are eager to try out online engagement tools and apps as a way to enhance in-person engagement opportunities. Scott cautions that online engagement should never replace in-person strategies, but should only enhance other methods.

There are a lot of online tools available, and the list is changing daily. To give municipalities an idea of where to start, the CID team created this comparison table, which identifies more than 25 online platforms and the type of engagement they offer.

Scott also shared a list of recommendations and questions local leaders should consider before selecting an online engagement tool:

  1. Research your audience – who are they and how do they want to engage?
  2. Identify the type of engagement you want – use the pyramid diagram as a guideline.
  3. Identify your available resources (data, communication channels, staff, etc.) – review the process and resources necessary to implement your preferred engagement method. Do you have capacity and organizational infrastructure to implement properly?
  4. Start with a prototype – test out a product before you spend a lot of money. Make sure it’s doing what you hoped and you have the resources available to properly implement the method.

Continuing the Conversation

Many at Scott’s session were interested in learning more from their peers about online engagement tools they’ve tried and lessons learned from the experience. If you’ve tried out a product and are interested in being part of a user group discussion, let me know! The League would be happy to host and facilitate peer-to-peer workshops to explore topics like this further. Should we host a small event, start a Facebook group, or hold a video conference chat? Let us know how we can help keep the conversation going! Feel free to contact me at scraft@mml.org to let me know how you want to be involved.