Midvale Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Midvale is one of 51 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2024. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform general planning processes. Additional analysis is underway and this report may be updated over time.

We are grateful to all those who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. We are grateful to a number of entities for funding: the Utah League of Cities and Towns, USU Extension, USU’s Institute for Land Water and Air, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, and the cities of Alpine, Cedar Hills, Draper, Millcreek, Nephi, North Salt Lake, Ogden, Orem, Pleasant Grove, Providence, Springdale, Tremonton, West Bountiful, and West Valley City.

This report describes findings from the 2024 Midvale survey and comparative information with other project cities. In April and May 2024, Midvale City advertised the survey for residents largely through newsletters, utility bills, and the city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 68 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort.
  • The Midvale 2022 survey had 52 responses.
  • The adult population of Midvale was estimated at 27,560, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 68 survey responses in 2024 represent 0.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 11.87%. Due to the low number of respondents and the high conservative margin of error, caution should be used when interpreting these survey results.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of Midvale 100.0%
Part Time Residents of Midvale 0.0%
Length of Residency — Range 1-73 years
Length of Residency — Average 12.6 years
Length of Residency — Median 8 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 37.3%
ZIP Code Percent
84047 97.1%
84070 2.9%
City Area Percent
1 - Bonnie Billings (Blue) 21.5%
2 - Paul Glover (Green) 20.0%
3 - Heidi Robinson (Yellow) 23.1%
4 - Bryant Brown (Purple) 15.4%
5 - Dustin Gettel (Red) 20.0%

A Map of Midvale City Areas

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey. In the graph below, gray bars indicate differences between the American Community Survey estimates and the Utah Wellbeing Project surveys. The wider the gray bars, the larger the differences. Also note that estimates for religious affiliation, adult non-conforming or non-binary gender, disability, and chronic conditions are unavailable from the census data. There can also be a variable margin of error in the American Community Survey estimates, and caution should be used when comparing estimates. Not all respondents provided demographic information. As the graph shows, 2024 survey respondents were not fully representative of Midvale. People who are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, have an income $150,000 or over, are married, and own their homes were overrepresented while those who are age 18-29, are adult males, do not have a college degree, are nonwhite, and are renters were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Midvale 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 27%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 27%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 12%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 20%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 12%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 8%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 6%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 8%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 21%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 9%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 17%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 19%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 16%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 28%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 13%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 49%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 67%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 51%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 31%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 73%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 74%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 2%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 25%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 25%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 68%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 32%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 70%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 55%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 45%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 87%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 42%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 83%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 31%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 26%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 35%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 17%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 28%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 28%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 42%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Midvale

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Midvale. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Midvale was 3.71 with 69% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Midvale was 3.24 with 40% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The 5 different council districts in Midvale did not have statistically significant different overall personal and community wellbeing scores, but each district had relatively few responses.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 54% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 15% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Midvale? Data — 1 Poor: 7% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 46% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 6% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Midvale over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score declined between 2022 and 2024. The average community wellbeing score remained nearly the same between 2022 and 2024. Note that the number of respondents differed between years, there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next, and the low end of the scale was "Poor" in 2024 but "Very Poor" in prior years which may account for differences in scores over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Midvale. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.24; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.24; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.94; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 3.71

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns clusters cities and towns into five different categories based on size and growth rates. We utilize these clusters in our analysis. Midvale is classified as an Established/Mid-sized City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster.

Within the more Urban city cluster, Midvale was below the average overall personal wellbeing score and below the average overall community wellbeing score.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.81; Ogden Average Score 3.91; Layton Average Score 3.96; West Jordan Average Score 4.01; Orem Average Score 4.05; South Jordan Average Score 4.13; Sandy Average Score 4.18; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.66; Midvale Average Score 3.71; Cedar City Average Score 3.94; South Ogden Average Score 4.04; Pleasant Grove Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.08; Bountiful Average Score 4.13; Draper Average Score 4.22; West Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.29; Alpine Average Score 4.32; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.33; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.97; Saratoga Springs Average Score 4.02; Lehi Average Score 4.05; Clinton Average Score 4.07; Hyrum Average Score 4.10; Spanish Fork Average Score 4.10; Nibley Average Score 4.14; West Haven Average Score 4.17; Vineyard Average Score 4.22; Hyde Park Average Score 4.23; Wellsville Average Score 4.24; Mapleton Average Score 4.26; Providence Average Score 4.27; Ivins Average Score 4.40; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Vernal Average Score 3.60; Price Average Score 3.62; Monticello Average Score 3.71; East Carbon Average Score 3.75; Delta Average Score 3.78; Helper Average Score 3.79; Tremonton Average Score 3.81; Blanding Average Score 3.85; Nephi Average Score 3.92; Beaver Average Score 3.95; Heber Average Score 4.01; La Verkin Average Score 4.13; Bluff Average Score 4.20; Springdale Average Score 4.21; Park City Average Score 4.22; Midway Average Score 4.27; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.42

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.27; West Valley City Average Score 3.38; West Jordan Average Score 3.50; Layton Average Score 3.52; Orem Average Score 3.63; Millcreek Average Score 3.82; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.00; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.18; Midvale Average Score 3.24; Cedar City Average Score 3.42; Pleasant Grove Average Score 3.61; South Ogden Average Score 3.72; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.75; Bountiful Average Score 3.84; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.90; West Bountiful Average Score 4.00; Draper Average Score 4.03; Alpine Average Score 4.15; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.15; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.40; Vineyard Average Score 3.43; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.46; Lehi Average Score 3.50; West Haven Average Score 3.67; Hyrum Average Score 3.76; Clinton Average Score 3.79; Spanish Fork Average Score 3.80; Ivins Average Score 3.91; Providence Average Score 3.91; Nibley Average Score 3.92; Hyde Park Average Score 4.02; Mapleton Average Score 4.02; Wellsville Average Score 4.11; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Price Average Score 2.88; East Carbon Average Score 3.03; Tremonton Average Score 3.09; Monticello Average Score 3.11; Vernal Average Score 3.12; Blanding Average Score 3.31; Heber Average Score 3.42; Delta Average Score 3.43; Nephi Average Score 3.43; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Beaver Average Score 3.59; Springdale Average Score 3.68; Helper Average Score 3.71; Park City Average Score 3.85; Bluff Average Score 3.88; Midway Average Score 4.07; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.28

Wellbeing Domains in Midvale

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. Survey respondents rated twelve domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Midvale were Family Life (71%), Living Standards (70%), and Mental Health (64%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (97%), and Living Standards (95%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Transportation - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 58% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 42% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 71% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 29% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 73% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 27% rated as good or excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Midvale. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health -10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Family Life -15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time -16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Transportation -21% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 79% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Education -31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important

Wellbeing Matrix for Midvale

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Midvale. Family Life, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Physical Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Local Environmental Quality and Safety and Security fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings.

Scatterplot. Title: Midvale Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Family Life, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Physical Health; High rating, lower importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time and Transportation; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Cultural Opportunities, Education, and Social Connections; Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality and Safety and Security

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Midvale

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Midvale residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Note that the two domains Family Life and Transportation were new categories in the 2024 survey and were not measured in previous years. Most domains increased in ratings from 2022 to 2024, except for Mental Health, Physical Health, and Education which stayed the same or declined. Living Standards, Mental Health, and Physical Health were among the top rated domains in both survey years.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Midvale. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2022: 3.42; Connection with Nature 2024: 3.50; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 2.98; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 3.08; Education 2022: 3.81; Education 2024: 3.32; Family Life 2024: 4.02; Leisure Time 2022: 3.50; Leisure Time 2024: 3.68; Living Standards 2022: 3.68; Living Standards 2024: 3.80; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 2.74; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 2.95; Mental Health 2022: 3.71; Mental Health 2024: 3.64; Physical Health 2022: 3.71; Physical Health 2024: 3.59; Safety and Security 2022: 3.28; Safety and Security 2024: 3.36; Social Connections 2022: 3.30; Social Connections 2024: 3.45; Transportation 2024: 3.68

Community Connection in Midvale

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Midvale on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.71. The 5 different council districts in Midvale did not have statistically significant different community connection scores, but each district had relatively few responses.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Midvale. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Midvale as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 16% of respondents; 2: 28% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 19% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Midvale over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score improved between 2022 and 2024.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Midvale. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2022: 2.41; 2024: 2.71

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing, but no clear relationship was found between community connection and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Midvale. Data — Of the 6 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 15 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 80% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 37 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 73% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 10 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 60% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Midvale. Data — Of the 8 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 75% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 16 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 75% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 33 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 79% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 9 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 56% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

The graph below shows how Wellbeing Project cities and towns compare on feelings of community connection based on the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or a 5 on a 5-point scale from “not at all” to “a great deal” connected to their city or town. Midvale ranked 47 out of the 51 cities that participated.

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 and 5 being a great deal. Data — City: Bluff 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midway 44% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Springdale 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Helper 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ivins 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Park City 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Emigration Canyon 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 58% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Orem 59% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 60% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyrum 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Pleasant Grove 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal 64% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ogden 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Heber 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Clinton 67% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Monticello 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Providence 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Haven 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 70% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 71% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Price 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale 75% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in various activities in the last 12 months. The most popular activities were walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (98%), gardening at home (85%), and community events (78%).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in Midvale. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 98% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 85% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 78% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 75% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 68% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 68% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 65% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 37% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 20% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 2% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

None of the recreation activities above were significantly related to higher ratings of personal wellbeing, community wellbeing, or community connection.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The largest proportion of respondents in Midvale indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (49%). For the pace of economic development, respondents were split between opinions that it was just right (37%) and too slow (32%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Midvale? Data — Too Slow: 2% of respondents; Just Right: 33% of respondents; Too Fast: 49% of respondents; No Opinion: 16% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Midvale? Data — Too Slow: 32% of respondents; Just Right: 37% of respondents; Too Fast: 15% of respondents; No Opinion: 16% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Midvale have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. Perception that the rate of population growth is too fast saw a large decrease from 2022 to 2024, while the perception that it is just right increased. Perceptions for the pace of economic development saw slight changes and a drop in the perception that it is too fast.

Line Graph. Title: Midvale Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2022: 2.2% rated too slow, 15.2% rated just right, 71.7% rated too fast; 2024: 1.8% rated too slow, 33.3% rated just right, 49.1% rated too fast

Line Graph. Title: Midvale Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2022: 26.1% rated too slow, 30.4% rated just right, 26.1% rated too fast; 2024: 32.3% rated too slow, 37.1% rated just right, 14.5% rated too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Midvale compared to other participating cities and towns in the Established/Mid-sized Cities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Established/Mid-sized Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Cedar City 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 15% indicated that it was just right, 80% indicated that it was too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Logan 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 18% indicated that it was just right, 70% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Draper 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 67% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Pleasant Grove 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 65% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Alpine 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 64% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: South Ogden 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 63% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Midvale 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: Bountiful 9% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% indicated that it was just right, 46% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 42% indicated that it was too fast, and 17% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 52% indicated that it was just right, 32% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Established/Mid-sized Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Draper 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 47% indicated that it was just right, 37% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Logan 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% indicated that it was just right, 34% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: South Ogden 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% indicated that it was just right, 32% indicated that it was too fast, and 20% had no opinion; City: Pleasant Grove 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Cedar City 43% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 27% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights 16% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 50% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Alpine 23% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 56% indicated that it was just right, 21% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful 10% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 53% indicated that it was just right, 19% indicated that it was too fast, and 18% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake 30% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 19% had no opinion; City: Midvale 32% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: Bountiful 35% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 14% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion

The graph below illustrates how many respondents perceived the pace of economic development as too slow, just right, too fast, or had no opinion, with additional breakdowns for the number of respondents who provided comments.

Sankey Graph. Title: Perceptions about the Pace of Economic Development in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Midvale? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 62; No opinion: 10; Too fast: 9; Just right: 23; Too slow: 20; 'Too fast' without comment: 2; 'Too fast' with comment: 7; 'Too slow' without comment: 3; 'Too slow' with comment: 17

The 32% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too slow” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they would like to see more of in Midvale. The main themes in these comments were the desire for more retail businesses and things to do, as well as better infrastructure and walkability.

Additionally, the 15% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too fast” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they feel are growing too quickly in Midvale. The dominant concern from respondents was about removing single family residences and building apartments.

Transportation in Midvale

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in Midvale. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (100%) and walking (36%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in Midvale. Subtitle: What are your primary modes of transportation? (select all that apply on a regular basis) Data — 100% of respondents indicated yes to Personal Car; 36% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 23% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 18% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 7% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 7% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft); 0% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Midvale. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (52%) and Safety (45%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Midvale. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Travel time - 48% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 52% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 55% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 45% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 57% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 43% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Cost - 73% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 27% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 82% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 18% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 84% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 16% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 86% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 14% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 100% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 0% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a set of possible transportation developments in Midvale. The most important development to respondents were Enhancing safety (79%), Improving walkability (68%), Improving public transit (62%), and More trails (61%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in Midvale. Subtitle: On a scale of 1 - Not at all important to 5 - Very important, please rate the importance of the following developments to you. Data — Category: Enhancing safety - 21% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 79% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 32% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 68% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 38% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 62% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 39% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 61% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 41% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 59% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving road surfaces - 46% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 54% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 77% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 23% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of Midvale to another city or town. The most commonly indicated reasons for traveling to another city or town at least sometimes or once a month were Friends and Family (93%), Eating Out (91%), and Other Services (84%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of Midvale Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of Midvale to another city or town? Data — Category: Friends and Family - 7% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 93% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Eating Out - 9% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 91% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 16% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 84% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 18% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 82% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Groceries - 20% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 80% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 23% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 77% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 32% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 68% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 71% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 29% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 79% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 21% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns in Midvale

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Midvale. Air Quality (93%), Homelessness (87%), and Public Safety (87%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about recreation opportunities (+20%) and shopping opportunities (+15%) notably increased, while concern about access to mental health care (-16%), suicide (-12%), employment opportunities (-11%), water supply (-10%), and access to health care (-10%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Midvale. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Midvale, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Air Quality - 7% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 93% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 80% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 20% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for Midvale

Neighbors Taking Action in Midvale

Respondents in Midvale were asked to indicate how likely it is that one of their neighbors would take action given certain scenarios. Their responses are shown in the graph below. Respondents indicated that their neighbors were likely or very likely to take action if someone on their block was firing a gun (78%), there was a fight in front of their house and someone was being beaten or threatened (70%), and if someone was trying to break into a house (67%).

Likert Graph. Title: Likelihood of Neighbors Taking Action in Midvale. Subtitle: How likely is it that one of your neighbors would do something if: Data — Category: Someone on your block was firing a gun? - 19% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 4% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 78% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: There was a fight in front of your house and someone was being beaten or threatened? - 22% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 7% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 70% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: Someone was trying to break into a house? - 20% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 13% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 67% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: Some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building? - 26% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 19% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 56% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: Drugs were being sold on your block? - 35% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 15% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 50% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: A group of underage kids were drinking alcohol? - 33% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 20% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 46% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: Suspicious people were hanging around the neighborhood? - 35% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 19% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 46% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: People were having a loud argument in the street? - 28% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 35% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 37% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: Someone on your block was playing loud music? - 43% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 31% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 26% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: Someone was illegally parked in the street? - 50% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 17% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 33% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: A child was showing disrespect to an adult? - 44% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 31% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 24% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act; Category: A group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner? - 46% of respondents indicated that their neighbors are unlikely or very unlikely to act, 30% indicated that they are neither likely or unlikely, and 24% indicated that they are likely or very likely to act

Neighborhood Culture in Midvale

Respondents were also asked to indicate how much they agree with statements regarding neighborhood cultures in Midvale.

Likert Graph. Title: Culture of Neighborhoods in Midvale. Subtitle: Please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements Data — Category: People in my neighborhood are willing to help their neighbors - 17% of respondents indicated that they disagreed or strongly disagreed, 31% indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed, and 52% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed; Category: I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighborhood - 22% of respondents indicated that they disagreed or strongly disagreed, 20% indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed, and 57% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed

Influence of Residents in Midvale

Residents were also asked to indicate how much they agree with the following statements regarding residents’ influence in their communities. The highest statement that respondents agreed or strongly agreed with was that residents can work together to successfully influence positive change (57%).

Likert Graph. Title: Residents in your neighborhood.... Data — Category: Can work together to successfully influence positive change - 19% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 24% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 57% indicated that they agree or strongly agree; Category: Bounce back well after a setback - 22% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 43% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 35% indicated that they agree or strongly agree; Category: Have a sense of optimism about influencing positive change - 24% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 39% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 37% indicated that they agree or strongly agree; Category: Can identify key ways to influence positive change - 24% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 44% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 31% indicated that they agree or strongly agree; Category: Can influence local decision makers - 26% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 43% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 31% indicated that they agree or strongly agree; Category: Are willing to work hard to influence positive change - 22% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 50% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 28% indicated that they agree or strongly agree; Category: Can create a plan to influence positive change - 28% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 43% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 30% indicated that they agree or strongly agree; Category: Can carry out a plan to influence positive change - 30% of respondents indicated that they disagree or strongly disagree, 43% indicated that they are neither agree nor diagree, and 28% indicated that they agree or strongly agree

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here.

What Respondents Value Most in Midvale

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Midvale. The most common words and phrases from all city comments are included in the word cloud below. It is possible that negative or unrelated words may appear since these words have been taken out of context, and they may not indicate the respondent’s intended meaning. Most comments expressed appreciation for the city’s location and its proximity to freeway access. Comments also spoke of Midvale's sense of community.

A word cloud of most common words about what respondents value most in their city

Local Environmental Quality in Midvale

The 73% of respondents who rated the Local Environmental Quality domain as 1, 2, or 3 (Poor, Fair, or Moderate) were further asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel are problematic. Air quality and water quality were the two most pressing concerns mentioned for Midvale. Trash and noise pollution were also common mentions.

Improving Wellbeing in Midvale

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Midvale. Comments expressed concerns about the need for crime prevention in the city and police responsiveness. In addition, some comments noted road issues and desires for enhanced walkability.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Midvale. Most positive comments stated the city is improving over time and expressed excitement for the future. Some comments suggested the need for improvements of the roadways. There were also some critiques about the priorities of local government leaders.

On This Page