Salt Lake County Wellbeing Survey Report

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information
Dr. Courtney Flint
courtney.flint@usu.edu
435-797-8635

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing Survey project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents, and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning processes. Questions include rating and importance of ten different domains or categories of wellbeing, participation in recreation and nature-related activities, perspectives on local population growth and economic development, the influence of landscape features on wellbeing, concerns for the future, and an array of demographic characteristic questions. Some cities added additional questions to their survey, particularly regarding housing and city amenities.

What is in this report?

This report summarizes findings from the 2022 survey from eight cities in Salt Lake County: Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Herriman, Midvale, Millcreek, Sandy, South Jordan, and West Jordan. Please see the individual city reports on the Utah Wellbeing Project website for more details.

How was the survey conducted?

In early 2022, cities in Salt Lake County advertised the survey via social media, email lists, newsletters, and other ways of reaching out to local residents. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

Who Responded?

  • 3,525 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort from Salt Lake County.
  • Cottonwood Heights had 227 responses, Draper had 888 responses, Herriman had 136 responses, Midvale had 52 responses, Millcreek had 274 responses, Sandy had 809 responses, South Jordan had 467 responses, and West Jordan had 672 responses.

Additional Information

Reports summarizing city-specific results from the survey may be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website. This information may help cities refine their messaging with residents on key issues, affirm existing plans, support future planning, and have practical implications for spending and providing services.

This project benefits from the partnership with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which is helping cities envision ways to use the findings from the wellbeing survey to inform their general planning processes. Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Midvale, Millcreek, Sandy, South Jordan, and West Jordan are all classified as Established/Mid-Sized Cities or Cities the 1st and 2nd class, while Herriman falls in the Rapid Growth cluster of cities according to the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

Key Findings in Salt Lake County


Overall Personal Wellbeing scores and Community Wellbeing scores were above average for Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Millcreek, Sandy, and South Jordan and below average for Herriman, Midvale, and West Jordan compared to other study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Categories:

  • Living Standards

 

Most Important Wellbeing Categories:

  • Safety and Security
  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Living Standards

Red Zone Wellbeing Categories:
(High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Cottonwood Heights - Local Environmental Quality
  • Herriman - Leisure Time
  • Midvale - Safety and Security
  • Millcreek - Local Environmental Quality and Safety and Security
  • Draper, Sandy, and West Jordan - None (Local Environmental Quality approached this zone)

Top concerns for the future of Salt Lake County cities:

  • Air Quality 
  • Water Supply
  • Roads and Transportation
  • Affordable Housing 

What do people value most about their city in Salt Lake County?
Great location, positive social climate, and sense of safety. 

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Salt Lake County Study Cities

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing scores were above average for Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Millcreek, Sandy, and South Jordan and below average for Herriman, Midvale, and West Jordan compared to other study cities.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.27; Millcreek: Average Score 4.24; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 4.19; Layton: Average Score 4.16; Bountiful: Average Score 4.09; Sandy: Average Score 4.07; South Jordan: Average Score 4.06; West Jordan: Average Score 4.03; Midvale: Average Score 3.94; Logan: Average Score 3.89; Tooele: Average Score 3.76. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Vineyard: Average Score 4.31; Highland: Average Score 4.28; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.25; Nibley: Average Score 4.20; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.15; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Lehi: Average Score 4.10; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.02; Santaquin: Average Score 3.98; Herriman: Average Score 3.87. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Beaver: Average Score 4.18; Helper: Average Score 4.15; Nephi: Average Score 4.11; Tremonton: Average Score 4.10; Park City: Average Score 4.04; Bluff: Average Score 3.96; Ephraim: Average Score 3.89; Delta: Average Score 3.88; Blanding: Average Score: 3.85; Price: Average Score 3.83; East Carbon: Average Score: 3.73; Moab: Average Score: 3.50. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.03; South Jordan: Average Score 4.02; Bountiful: Average Score 3.84; Sandy: Average Score 3.79; Millcreek: Average Score 3.79; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 3.72; Layton: Average Score 3.71; West Jordan: Average Score 3.55; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Midvale: Average Score 3.24; Tooele: Average Score 3.15. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Highland: Average Score 4.15; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.05; North Logan: Average Score 3.99; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.98; Nibley: Average Score 3.87; Vineyard: Average Score 3.84; Santaquin: Average Score 3.72; Lehi: Average Score 3.61; Herriman: Average Score 3.49; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Helper: Average Score 4.09; Bluff: Average Score 3.84; Beaver: Average Score 3.82; Ephraim: Average Score 3.75; Nephi: Average Score 3.62; Park City: Average Score 3.50; Delta: Average Score 3.44; Blanding: Average Score 3.44; Tremonton: Average Score: 3.32; Price: Average Score 3.15; East Carbon: Average Score: 2.98; Moab: Average Score: 2.84. 

Wellbeing Domains

The highest rated wellbeing domains for the eight Salt Lake County study cities were:

  • Living Standards (all 8 cities)
  • Mental Health (all but Draper and Sandy)
  • Education (all but Cottonwood Heights)
  • Physical Health (all but South Jordan and Herriman)
  • Safety and Security (Draper, Herriman, Sandy, and South Jordan)
  • Connection with Nature (Cottonwood Heights only)

The most important wellbeing domains for the eight Salt Lake County study cities were:

  • Safety & Security (all 8 cities)
  • Mental Health (all 8 cities)
  • Living Standards (all 8 cities)
  • Physical Health (all 8 cities)

The Red Zone Domains (higher importance, lower quality) for the eight Salt Lake County study cities were:

  • Cottonwood Heights - Local Environmental Quality
  • Herriman – Leisure Time
  • Midvale – Safety and Security
  • Millcreek – Local Environmental Quality and Safety and Security
  • South Jordan – Mental and Physical Health
  • Draper, Sandy and West Jordan – none, but Local Environmental quality approached this zone

Community Connectedness and Action

Community Connection and Perceived Community Action were higher for respondents from Millcreek, South Jordan and Draper than for those from the other Salt Lake County study cities. 

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; East Carbon 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents in each Salt Lake County city were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (82%) and recreating in parks in the city (79%) were the most common activities for all Salt Lake County respondents, followed by gardening (77%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (73%). 

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Salt Lake County. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 73% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 82% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 33% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 79% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 77% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 34% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 57% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 56% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

Landscapes and Wellbeing in Salt Lake County Study Cities

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of various landscape features on their wellbeing. As the graph shows below, natural landscapes had a predominantly positive influence on wellbeing, while respondents were a bit more divided about development and industry. 

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Salt Lake County Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 67% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 68% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 40% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 21% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 61% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents felt the Rate of Population Growth was too fast, with only West Jordan respondents indicating a majority felt it was just right. Respondents were more divided on the Pace of Economic Development.

Graph 23: Population Growth Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Logan – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Draper – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 56% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 51% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek - 1% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 66% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast;City: Highland – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 82% of respondents rated too fast;City: Tremonton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 60% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 40% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast.  Graph 24: Economic Development Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 41% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Jordan – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 34% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 22% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 49% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: Highland – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 29% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 77% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tremonton – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 45% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 31% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 30% of respondents rated too slow, 18% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 61% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 67% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns for the Future of Salt Lake County Study Cities

Top concerns varied across the study cities in Salt Lake County as follows:

Moderate to Major Concerns by Over Two-Thirds of Respondents

  • Cottonwood Heights
    • Air Quality 93%
    • Water Supply 88%
    • Affordable Housing 82%
    • Climate Change 82%
    • Roads and Transportation 80%
    • Public Safety 79%
    • Recreation Opportunities 71%
    • Access to Public Land 69%
  • Draper
    • Air Quality 88%
    • Water Supply 85%
    • Roads and Transportation 76%
    • Affordable Housing 73%
    • Public Safety 67%
    • Access to Public Land 67%
  • Herriman
    • Water Supply 88%
    • Roads and Transportation 88%
    • Affordable Housing 83%
    • Air Quality 80%
    • Public Safety 79%
    • Recreation Opportunities 71%
    • Opportunities for Youth 69%
  • Midvale
    • Water Supply 93%
    • Air Quality 89%
    • Affordable Housing 85%
    • Public Safety 83%
    • Climate Change 80%
    • Suicide 70%
    • Roads and Transportation 70%
    • Access to Mental Health Care 70%
    • Opportunities for Youth 67%
  • Millcreek
    • Air Quality 93%
    • Water Supply 91%
    • Climate Change 83%
    • Affordable Housing 79%
    • Roads and Transportation 78%
    • Public Safety 75%
    • Access to Public Land 74%
    • Recreation Opportunities 67%
  • Sandy
    • Water Supply 89%
    • Air Quality 86%
    • Public Safety 76%
    • Affordable Housing 75%
    • Roads and Transportation 71%
    • Climate Change 69%
    • Access to Public Land 67%
  • South Jordan
    • Air Quality 89%
    • Water Supply 86%
    • Affordable Housing 80%
    • Roads and Transportation 76%
    • Public Safety 68%
  • West Jordan
    • Water Supply 87%
    • Air Quality 87%
    • Affordable Housing 84%
    • Roads and Transportation 83%
    • Public Safety 78%
    • Opportunities for Youth 70%
    • Recreation Opportunities 69%
    • Climate Change 67%

Other concerns were raised by respondents who filled in the “other” category. The most frequently mentioned topics specific to each city included:

  • Police and city government/budget in Cottonwood Heights
  • High-density housing and traffic in Draper
  • Traffic and government in Herriman
  • Only 7 responses in Midvale – please see individual report
  • Walkability/bike-ability and high-density housing in Millcreek
  • High-density housing and overpopulation in South Jordan and Sandy
  • Traffic and education/school crowding in West Jordan

Open Comments Relating to Value

Respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about their cities at the end of each survey. All responses have been read, compiled, and then shared with city leaders. The main themes in Salt Lake County in the responses to this question were valuing the overall social climate of their cities. Many people also valued the locations of their cities and their sense of safety.

On This Page