San Juan County Wellbeing Survey Report

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

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. Over the years, we have found that each city and town has a unique experience and the Utah Wellbeing Survey allows for focused analysis at the community level. Survey questions include rating and importance of twelve different domains or categories of wellbeing, participation in recreation and nature-related activities, perspectives on local population growth and economic development, transportation perspectives, concerns for the future, and an array of demographic characteristic questions. Some cities added additional questions to their survey.

In early 2024, participating cities in San Juan 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.

What is in this report?

This report summarizes findings from the 2024 survey from three cities in San Juan County (Blanding, Bluff, and Monticello). Please see the individual city reports on the Utah Wellbeing Project website for more details. This information may help cities and other regional entities refine their messaging with residents on key issues, affirm existing plans, support future planning, and have practical implications for spending and providing services.

Utah League of Cities and Towns Cluster Classifications and Response Numbers

From San Juan County, 329 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort. It should be noted that there were very few responses from Monticello and caution should be taken when interpreting these results. 

This project benefits from the partnership with, and funding from, 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. 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 and have combined Rural Hub & Resort communities with Traditional Rural Communities. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. The San Juan County cities with their cluster classification and number of responses are listed below:

Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities

Blanding (236)
Bluff (65)
Monticello (28)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in their respective cities or towns. The San Juan County cities are highlighted in the graph below. wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average of the city average personal wellbeing scores in San Juan County was 3.92 with 74% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average of the city average scores for community wellbeing in San Juan County was 3.43 with 50% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. As the graphs below show, scores vary across the three participating cities.

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

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from San Juan County (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Bluff: 4.20; Blanding: 3.85; Monticello: 3.71

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from San Juan County (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Bluff: 3.88; Blanding: 3.31; Monticello: 3.11

Wellbeing Domains

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 the three San Juan County study cities were:

  • Connection with Nature (all 3 cities)
  • Safety and Security (all 3 cities)
  • Family Life (Blanding)
  • Local Environmental Quality (Bluff)
  • Physical Health (Monticello)

The most important wellbeing domains for the three San Juan County study cities were:

  • Mental Health (all 3 cities)
  • Physical Health (Bluff, Monticello)
  • Safety and Security (Blanding, Monticello)
  • Connection with Nature (Bluff)
  • Family Life (Blanding)
  • Leisure Time (Monticello)
  • Local Environmental Quality (Bluff)

The “Red Zone” Domains (higher importance, lower quality) for the three San Juan County study cities were:

  • Blanding — Living Standards, Physical Health
  • Monticello — Leisure Time, Living Standards

Community Connection

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to their city on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5). Community Connection was highest for Bluff and lowest for Monticello.

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

Dot Plot. Title: Community Connetion Scores from San Juan County (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — Bluff: 3.97; Blanding: 3.15; Monticello: 3.04

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 in San Juan County were community events (90%), walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (90%), using trails in or near your city (83%), and gardening at home (81%).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in San Juan County. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 90% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 90% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 83% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 81% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 80% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 69% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 58% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 58% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 46% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 8% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

Activities for each city that were found to be significantly correlated with higher levels of wellbeing, community connection, mental health or physical health are shown below in the table. Due to low response numbers, no statistical tests were able to be performed for Monticello.

  Personal Wellbeing Community Wellbeing Community Connection Mental Health Physical Health
Blanding  
  • Recreating in Parks
  • City Rec Programs
  • Recreating in Parks
  • Non-Motorized Recreation
  • Non-Motorized Recreation
Bluff    
  • City Rec Programs
    
Monticello          

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The largest proportion of respondents felt the Rate of Population Growth was too slow in Monticello and just right in Bluff and Blanding.

The largest proportion of respondents felt the Pace of Economic Growth was too slow in Monticello and Blanding and just right in Bluff.

Respondents' Opinions Regarding Population Growth and and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities (2024). Left Likert Graph Column. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — Cluster Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class: City: West Valley City, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 31% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 20% had no opinion. City: Millcreek, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 16% had no opinion. City: Sandy, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 60% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Orem, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 20% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion. City: Ogden, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 20% indicated that it was just right, 67% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: West Jordan, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 20% indicated that it was just right, 70% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: South Jordan, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 21% indicated that it was just right, 69% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion. City: Layton, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 17% indicated that it was just right, 74% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; Cluster Established/Mid-sized Cities: City: Cedar Hills, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 52% indicated that it was just right, 32% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion. City: North Salt Lake, 3% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 42% indicated that it was too fast, and 17% had no opinion. City: Bountiful, 9% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 34% indicated that it was just right, 46% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Midvale, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 16% had no opinion. City: West Bountiful, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 37% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Cottonwood Heights, 3% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion. City: South Ogden, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 63% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Pleasant Grove, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth 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 the rate of population growth was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 64% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Draper, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 67% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion. City: Logan, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 18% indicated that it was just right, 70% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Cedar City, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 15% indicated that it was just right, 80% indicated that it was too fast, and 4% had no opinion; Cluster Rapid Growth Cities: City: Wellsville, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Clinton, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 63% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion. City: Providence, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Vineyard, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 21% indicated that it was just right, 68% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Hyde Park, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Spanish Fork, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 74% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion. City: Hyrum, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 75% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion. City: West Haven, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 77% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion. City: Nibley, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 10% indicated that it was just right, 83% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion. City: Mapleton, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 80% indicated that it was too fast, and 4% had no opinion. City: Lehi, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 8% indicated that it was just right, 85% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion. City: Herriman, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 9% indicated that it was just right, 86% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion. City: Ivins, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 7% indicated that it was just right, 88% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion. City: Saratoga Springs, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 5% indicated that it was just right, 90% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; Cluster Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities: City: Monticello, 58% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 0% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: East Carbon, 22% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 9% indicated that it was too fast, and 27% had no opinion. City: Helper, 17% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 50% indicated that it was just right, 11% indicated that it was too fast, and 22% had no opinion. City: Price, 26% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 18% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion. City: Bluff, 25% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 54% indicated that it was just right, 12% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Blanding, 19% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 17% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion. City: Beaver, 14% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 53% indicated that it was just right, 26% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Delta, 13% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 29% indicated that it was just right, 47% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Springdale, 7% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 44% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion. City: Emigration Canyon, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 44% indicated that it was just right, 41% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion. City: La Verkin, 2% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 39% indicated that it was just right, 47% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Vernal, 7% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 56% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Nephi, 3% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 61% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion. City: Park City, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 17% indicated that it was just right, 75% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion. City: Tremonton, 1% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 15% indicated that it was just right, 77% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion. City: Midway, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 14% indicated that it was just right, 84% indicated that it was too fast, and 2% had no opinion. City: Heber, 0% of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth was too slow, 7% indicated that it was just right, 90% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion. Right Likert Graph Column. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — Cluster Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class: City: West Valley City, 20% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 16% indicated that it was too fast, and 22% had no opinion. City: West Jordan, 22% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 23% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion. City: Ogden, 28% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 30% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion. City: Orem, 14% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 43% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 19% had no opinion. City: Layton, 21% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 34% indicated that it was just right, 33% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Sandy, 12% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 47% indicated that it was just right, 26% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion. City: Millcreek, 7% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 28% indicated that it was too fast, and 17% had no opinion. City: South Jordan, 11% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 31% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; Cluster Established/Mid-sized Cities: City: North Salt Lake, 30% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development 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 the pace of economic development 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 the pace of economic development was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 14% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion. City: Cedar City, 43% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 27% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Alpine, 23% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 41% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: West Bountiful, 10% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 53% indicated that it was just right, 19% indicated that it was too fast, and 18% had no opinion. City: Logan, 29% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 25% indicated that it was just right, 34% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion. City: Cedar Hills, 14% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 56% indicated that it was just right, 21% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Cottonwood Heights, 16% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 50% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: South Ogden, 14% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development 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 the pace of economic development was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Draper, 5% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 47% indicated that it was just right, 37% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; Cluster Rapid Growth Cities: City: Wellsville, 37% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 44% indicated that it was just right, 7% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Vineyard, 50% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 21% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion. City: Hyde Park, 29% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 18% had no opinion. City: Herriman, 40% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 25% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion. City: Hyrum, 32% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 30% indicated that it was just right, 26% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Nibley, 19% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 30% indicated that it was too fast, and 19% had no opinion. City: West Haven, 34% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 34% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion. City: Mapleton, 31% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 33% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Clinton, 19% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Providence, 12% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 27% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion. City: Saratoga Springs, 25% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 36% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion. City: Lehi, 13% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 31% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Spanish Fork, 6% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Ivins, 15% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 55% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; Cluster Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities: City: Monticello, 76% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 12% indicated that it was just right, 0% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Price, 76% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 12% indicated that it was just right, 3% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion. City: East Carbon, 68% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 2% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Blanding, 61% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 3% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion. City: Beaver, 54% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 7% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion. City: Vernal, 48% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion. City: Delta, 52% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 16% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion. City: Helper, 45% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 10% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion. City: Tremonton, 51% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Bluff, 37% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 46% indicated that it was just right, 10% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion. City: Nephi, 35% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 19% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Emigration Canyon, 8% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 56% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 22% had no opinion. City: La Verkin, 28% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 28% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Midway, 12% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 41% indicated that it was just right, 35% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Heber, 22% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 20% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion. City: Park City, 13% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion. City: Springdale, 10% of respondents indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 69% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion

Transportation in San Juan County

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in their city. The most popular modes of transportation across San Juan County were personal car (100%) and walking (45%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary Modes of Transportation in San Juan County (2024). 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; 45% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 14% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 4% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 3% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device; 0% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft); 0% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in their city. The most problematic barriers across San Juan County were Cost (52%) and Travel time (47%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in San Juan County (2024). Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 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: Travel time - 53% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 47% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 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: Safety - 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: Lack of transport - 87% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 13% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 96% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 4% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 96% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 4% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 97% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 3% 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 their city. The most important developments to respondents in San Juan County were Improving road surfaces (60%), Enhancing safety (52%), Improving walkability (47%), and More trails (46%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in San Juan County (2024). 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: Improving road surfaces - 40% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 60% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Enhancing safety - 48% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 52% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 53% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 47% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 54% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 46% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 69% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 31% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 77% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 23% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 82% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 18% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of your city to another city or town. The most commonly indicated reasons for traveling to another city or town at least sometimes or once a month in San Juan County were Groceries (84%), Friends and Family (67%), and Eating Out (62%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of San Juan County Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities (2024). Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of your city to another city or town? Data — Category: Groceries - 16% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 84% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Friends and Family - 33% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 67% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Eating Out - 38% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 62% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 46% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 54% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 47% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 53% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 57% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 43% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 65% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 35% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 84% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 16% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 86% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 14% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns for the Future of San Juan County Cities

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of their city. Across San Juan County, Access to Healthy/Quality Food (84%), Water Supply (79%), and Affordable Housing (78%) were the top concerns.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns for San Juan County Survey Respondents. Subtitle: As you look to the future of your city, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% 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: Suicide - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 66% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 34% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 82% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 18% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Top concerns also varied across cities. The top five concerns for each city are highlighted in the graph below.

Likert Graph. Title: Top Concerns for San Juan County by City. Subtitle: As you look to the future of your city, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Blanding: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Affordable Housing - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Opportunities for Youth - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Shopping Opportunities - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Water Supply - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Bluff: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Climate Change - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Opportunities for Youth - 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Water Quality - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Water Supply - 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Monticello: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Affordable Housing - 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Opportunities for Youth - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Recreation Opportunities - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern, Water Supply - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

On This Page