Tooele Wellbeing Survey Findings 2026

By Dr. Courtney Flint, Nicolas Holden, and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Tooele is one of 57 cities and towns participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2026. 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 make this possible. A special thank you goes to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the following cities for funding this project: Cedar City, Delta, Heber, La Verkin, South Weber, Vernal, West Bountiful, and West Valley City. We also acknowledge support from the Institute for Disability Research, Policy & Practice (IDRPP).

This report describes findings from the 2026 Tooele survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In May 2026, Tooele City advertised the survey for residents. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey. Cities and towns generally advertised the survey through newsletters, social media, emails, or other various efforts.

How many people responded?

  • 109 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The Tooele 2022 survey had 322 responses, the Tooele 2021 survey had 210 responses, and the Tooele 2020 survey had 252 responses.
  • The adult population of Tooele was estimated at 27,288, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 109 survey responses in 2026 represent 0.4% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.37%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Tooele 100.0%
Part Time Residents of Tooele 0.0%
Length of Residency — Range 1-67 years
Length of Residency — Average 21.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 19 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 13.8%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2020-2024 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, 2026 survey respondents were not fully representative of Tooele. People who are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, or have children under 18 in their household were overrepresented, while those who are age 18-29, are adult males, or do not have a college degree were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Tooele 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 25%, UWS: 6%; Age 30-39: ACS: 22%, UWS: 28%; Age 40-49: ACS: 19%, UWS: 29%; Age 50-59: ACS: 14%, UWS: 27%; Age 60-69: ACS: 11%, UWS: 5%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 9%, UWS: 3%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 8%, UWS: 8%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 12%, UWS: 2%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 13%, UWS: 11%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 18%, UWS: 22%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 29%, UWS: 34%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 18%, UWS: 23%; Adult Female: ACS: 48%, UWS: 69%; Adult Male: ACS: 52%, UWS: 29%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 1%; Employed: ACS: 69%, UWS: 78%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 3%, UWS: 3%; Other: ACS: 29%, UWS: 19%; No College Degree: ACS: 81%, UWS: 39%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 19%, UWS: 61%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 21%, UWS: 13%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 79%, UWS: 87%; Married: ACS: 54%, UWS: 84%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 42%, UWS: 57%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 14%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 31%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 17%, UWS: 10%; Nonwhite: ACS: 17%, UWS: 11%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 40%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 25%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 35%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Tooele

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Tooele. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Tooele was 3.66 with 64% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Tooele was 3.06 with 28% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 8% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 47% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 17% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Tooele? Data — 1 Poor: 6% of respondents; 2: 17% of respondents; 3: 49% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 7% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Tooele over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that from 2022 to 2026, both the average personal wellbeing score and the average community wellbeing score declined. Note that the number of respondents differed between years, and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Tooele. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2020: 3.14; Community Wellbeing 2021: 3.28; Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.15; Community Wellbeing 2026: 3.06; Personal Wellbeing 2020: 3.77; Personal Wellbeing 2021: 3.79; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.76; Personal Wellbeing 2026: 3.66

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. Tooele is classified as an Established/Mid-sized City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. Each cluster average represents the mean of the city and town means within each cluster.

Within the more Urban city cluster, Tooele 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 (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.73; Ogden Average Score 3.80; West Jordan Average Score 4.00; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Sandy Average Score 4.23; South Jordan Average Score 4.25; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.66; Logan Average Score 3.79; Cedar City Average Score 3.80; Woods Cross Average Score 4.03; Murray Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.07; South Ogden Average Score 4.16; West Bountiful Average Score 4.20; Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Lindon Average Score 4.23; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.27; Alpine Average Score 4.35; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.35; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Lehi Average Score 3.88; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.92; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.95; Grantsville Average Score 3.97; Mapleton Average Score 4.00; Wellsville Average Score 4.04; Enoch Average Score 4.08; Herriman Average Score 4.08; Bluffdale Average Score 4.16; Kamas Average Score 4.19; Kaysville Average Score 4.19; South Weber Average Score 4.20; Providence Average Score 4.26; Uintah City Average Score 4.34; Ivins Average Score 4.45; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 3.67; Tremonton Average Score 3.72; Vernal Average Score 3.75; Blanding Average Score 3.78; Moab Average Score 3.81; Bluff Average Score 3.98; Richfield Average Score 3.99; Nephi Average Score 4.01; Manila Average Score 4.13; Heber Average Score 4.19; Morgan Average Score 4.23; Springdale Average Score 4.27; Midway Average Score 4.38; Alta Average Score 4.44; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Delta Average Score 3.77; Ferron Average Score 3.89; Stockton Average Score 3.92; Orangeville Average Score 3.96; La Verkin Average Score 3.97; Lake Point Average Score 4.13; Lewiston Average Score 4.22; Toquerville Average Score 4.24; Mayfield Average Score 4.27

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.19; West Valley City Average Score 3.22; West Jordan Average Score 3.53; Millcreek Average Score 3.81; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.06; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.06; Cedar City Average Score 3.23; Logan Average Score 3.42; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.71; Woods Cross Average Score 3.74; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.81; Murray Average Score 3.86; Bountiful Average Score 3.93; South Ogden Average Score 3.99; Alpine Average Score 4.04; West Bountiful Average Score 4.06; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.16; Lindon Average Score 4.24; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Grantsville Average Score 3.08; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.29; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.38; Kamas Average Score 3.50; Lehi Average Score 3.56; Herriman Average Score 3.66; Enoch Average Score 3.69; Mapleton Average Score 3.71; South Weber Average Score 3.75; Bluffdale Average Score 3.78; Wellsville Average Score 3.93; Kaysville Average Score 3.95; Ivins Average Score 4.00; Providence Average Score 4.03; Uintah City Average Score 4.13; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 2.92; Tremonton Average Score 2.94; Moab Average Score 3.12; Vernal Average Score 3.21; Blanding Average Score 3.33; Heber Average Score 3.51; Manila Average Score 3.51; Nephi Average Score 3.51; Richfield Average Score 3.57; Springdale Average Score 3.71; Bluff Average Score 3.80; Morgan Average Score 3.89; Alta Average Score 4.15; Midway Average Score 4.24; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Stockton Average Score 3.30; Delta Average Score 3.35; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Lake Point Average Score 3.62; Orangeville Average Score 3.72; Ferron Average Score 3.76; Toquerville Average Score 3.83; Lewiston Average Score 3.99; Mayfield Average Score 4.08

Wellbeing Domains in Tooele

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 Tooele were Family Life (73%), Safety and Security (64%), and Mental Health (58%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (97%), Living Standards (95%), Mental Health (94%), and Family Life (94%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 27% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 73% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 36% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 64% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 42% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 58% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Living Standards - 44% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 56% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 45% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 55% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 48% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 52% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 56% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 44% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 58% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 42% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 59% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 41% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 61% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 39% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 66% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 34% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 80% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 20% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Tooele. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 97% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Living Standards - 5% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 95% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Family Life - 6% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 94% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Mental Health - 6% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 94% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 91% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -10% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 90% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Leisure Time -11% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 89% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -21% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 79% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Connection with Nature -25% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 75% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections -26% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 74% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Transportation -34% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 66% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -44% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 56% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Tooele

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Tooele residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Since 2022, most domain ratings increased, except for Connection with Nature and Education which decreased.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Tooele. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2020: 3.45; Connection with Nature 2021: 3.21; Connection with Nature 2022: 3.33; Connection with Nature 2026: 3.26; Cultural Opportunities 2020: 2.66; Cultural Opportunities 2021: 2.48; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 2.55; Cultural Opportunities 2026: 2.70; Education 2020: 3.39; Education 2021: 3.25; Education 2022: 3.28; Education 2026: 3.21; Family Life 2026: 4.00; Leisure Time 2020: 3.11; Leisure Time 2021: 3.17; Leisure Time 2022: 3.13; Leisure Time 2026: 3.40; Living Standards 2020: 3.53; Living Standards 2021: 3.61; Living Standards 2022: 3.42; Living Standards 2026: 3.53; Local Environmental Quality 2020: 3.00; Local Environmental Quality 2021: 3.15; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 2.96; Local Environmental Quality 2026: 3.05; Mental Health 2020: 3.25; Mental Health 2021: 3.27; Mental Health 2022: 3.41; Mental Health 2026: 3.56; Physical Health 2020: 3.19; Physical Health 2021: 3.09; Physical Health 2022: 3.37; Physical Health 2026: 3.54; Safety and Security 2020: 3.45; Safety and Security 2021: 3.34; Safety and Security 2022: 3.37; Safety and Security 2026: 3.69; Social Connections 2020: 3.17; Social Connections 2021: 2.84; Social Connections 2022: 2.97; Social Connections 2026: 3.17; Transportation 2026: 3.19

Wellbeing Matrix for Tooele

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

Scatterplot. Title: Tooele 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, Physical Health, and Safety and Security; High rating, lower importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Cultural Opportunities, Education, Social Connections, and Transportation; Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality

Community Connection in Tooele

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Tooele on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.94.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Tooele. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Tooele as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 12% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 42% of respondents; 4: 15% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 11% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Tooele over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score improved between 2022 and 2026.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Tooele. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2020: 2.82; 2021: 2.81; 2022: 2.81; 2026: 2.94

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing as well as mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Tooele. Data — Of the 12 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 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 24 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 47 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 70% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 15 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 47% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Tooele. Data — Of the 14 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 2, 93% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 7% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 27 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 85% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 38 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 19 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 47% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% 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 “1 Not at all” to “5 A great deal” connected to their city or town. Tooele ranked 50 out of the 57 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 35% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 65% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Uintah City 39% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 61% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 40% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 60% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lindon 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alta 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Midway 45% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 55% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Morgan 46% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Murray 49% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 50% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kamas 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ogden 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ivins 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Moab 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mayfield 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wendover 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ferron 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Delta 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Springdale 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Richfield 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Orangeville 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Weber 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lewiston 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Heber 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Manila 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Nephi 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Enoch 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 61% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 39% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Sandy 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Toquerville 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kaysville 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Logan 64% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Vernal 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bluffdale 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Blanding 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Herriman 66% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Providence 67% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lake Point 68% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 69% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Woods Cross 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 71% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tooele 73% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 27% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Stockton 74% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lehi 75% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 76% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Eagle Mountain 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Grantsville 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5

Disability in Tooele

Survey participants were asked how well Tooele included individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities. The largest proportion of respondents indicated they had no opinion or that the question was not relevant (36%). For those expressing an opinion, the largest proportion of respondents felt that they were somewhat (29%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Tooele. Subtitle: How well does Tooele include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 8% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 29% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 21% of respondents; 4 Fully: 6% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 36% of respondents

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they participated in various activities over the past year. The activities in which respondents most commonly participated at least sometimes (about once a month or more frequently) were Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (74%) and Gardening at home (73%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Tooele. Subtitle: How often have you participated in any of the following activities over the past year? Data — Category: Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city - 26% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 74% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Gardening at home - 27% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 73% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Recreating in parks in your city - 36% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 64% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Using trails in or near your city - 49% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 51% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Community events - 52% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 48% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 54% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 46% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: City recreation programs - 59% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 41% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Buying food from a farmer's market - 66% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 34% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 68% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 32% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week)

Higher levels of community connection correlated with more frequent participation in community events, use of trails in or near your city, participation in non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, and walking or biking in your neighborhood or city.

Wellbeing and Urban/Rural Settings

Respondents were asked to indicate how important spending time in the different settings were to their wellbeing. The most important setting for Tooele respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Tooele. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 20% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 80% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 60% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 40% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 61% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 39% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 84% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 16% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Tooele indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (81%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was too fast (44%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Tooele? Data — Too Slow: 0% of respondents; Just Right: 13% of respondents; Too Fast: 81% of respondents; No Opinion: 6% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Tooele? Data — Too Slow: 27% of respondents; Just Right: 20% of respondents; Too Fast: 44% of respondents; No Opinion: 9% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Tooele have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys.

Line Graph. Title: Tooele Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 3% rated it too slow, 20% just right, and 70% too fast; 2021: 2% rated it too slow, 24% just right, and 67% too fast; 2022: 3% rated it too slow, 14% just right, and 78% too fast; 2026: 0% rated it too slow, 13% just right, and 81% too fast

Line Graph. Title: Tooele Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 63% rated it too slow, 17% just right, and 10% too fast; 2021: 37% rated it too slow, 29% just right, and 28% too fast; 2022: 40% rated it too slow, 14% just right, and 40% too fast; 2026: 27% rated it too slow, 20% just right, and 44% too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Tooele 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: Tooele - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 13% just right, 81% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 15% just right, 80% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Logan - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 14% just right, 73% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Alpine - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 67% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: South Ogden - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% just right, 62% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Murray - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% just right, 61% too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 54% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Lindon - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% just right, 53% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 31% just right, 52% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights - 6% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 50% too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 39% just right, 46% too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Woods Cross - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 44% just right, 45% too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 61% just right, 27% too fast, and 11% 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: Tooele - 27% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 20% just right, 44% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Cedar City - 33% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 17% just right, 42% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Logan - 32% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 32% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Murray - 17% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% just right, 30% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights - 21% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% just right, 29% too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Lindon - 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 49% just right, 29% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: South Ogden - 23% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 29% too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills - 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 55% just right, 25% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Alpine - 24% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% just right, 25% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful - 9% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 52% just right, 24% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Woods Cross - 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 45% just right, 20% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Bountiful - 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% just right, 19% too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake - 31% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% just right, 14% too fast, and 17% had no opinion

Survey respondents were asked if there are any aspects of the local economy they would like to see changed in the next five years. Respondents emphasized a need for more affordable housing options, citing rising costs and lack of availability. Many also highlighted the need for better infrastructure, including roads and public transportation, to support the growing population. Some expressed concerns about the impact of rapid development on the community’s character and open spaces, suggesting that a focus on planning and governance is needed to ensure sustainable growth. Respondents also mentioned the need for more job opportunities, particularly in industries that align with the local economy, as well as increased recreational activities and family-friendly entertainment options.

Cost of Living in Tooele

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Tooele. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (67%), Housing (51%), and Healthcare (48%). Note that a high percentage (66%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Tooele. Subtitle: How EASY or DIFFICULT is it for your household to COVER EXPENSES related to the following? Among respondents for whom each expense was relevant; 'Not relevant' shown separately. Data — Category: Childcare - 66% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 67% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 33% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 2% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 51% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 49% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Healthcare - 1% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 48% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 52% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Food - 0% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 40% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 60% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Utilities - 3% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 33% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 67% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 12% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 32% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 68% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Tooele

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Tooele. The most problematic barriers were Cost (74%), Travel time (60%), Lack of routes (53%), and Knowledge (40%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Tooele. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 26% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 74% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 40% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 60% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 47% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 53% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 60% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 40% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 70% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 30% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 80% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 20% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 91% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 9% 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

Concerns in Tooele

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Tooele. Water Supply (96%), Traffic (95%), and the Great Salt Lake (79%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about shopping opportunities (-44%), access to healthy/quality food (-22%), substance use (-20%), social and emotional support (-19%), access to mental health care (-17%), suicide (-14%), public safety (-12%), and recreation opportunities (-10%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Tooele. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Tooele, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Water Supply - 4% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 96% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 5% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 95% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 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 - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 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: Homelessness - 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to 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: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 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 - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Use - 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 73% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 27% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 74% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 26% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 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 Tooele

Respondents were asked if they have participated in Tooele City arts classes, community engagement family programs, or other after school youth programs in recent years. 44% of respondents in Tooele said yes. This same question was also asked in the Granstville, Lake Point, and Stockton surveys. The percentage of respondents indicating yes are shown in the following graph.

Bar Chart. Title: Have you participated in Tooele City arts classes, community engagement family programs, or other after school youth programs in recent years?. Subtitle: Percent of Respondents in Each City Indicating Yes Data — Grantsville: 31% of respondents; Lake Point: 33% of respondents; Stockton: 35% of respondents; Tooele: 44% of respondents

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here. The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including the Llama 3 large language model, accessed locally through Ollama, and a machine learning classifier, in the analysis of open comments. These tools were used for initial topical coding and draft summaries of comments. All comments, codes, and summaries were reviewed and edited by the authors for accuracy and clarity.

What Respondents Value Most in Tooele

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Tooele. The most common words and phrases from all 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.

Respondents valued the community’s small-town feel, rural nature, and natural beauty. However, many respondents voiced concerns about these values changing with the new growth and development Tooele is experiencing. Respondents appreciated the peaceful atmosphere, freedom, and quiet surroundings, which allowed them to enjoy outdoor activities and connect with nature. Many individuals also highlighted the importance of friendly people, family ties, and a strong sense of community, noting that these aspects made Tooele a unique and welcoming place.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Tooele includes: small town, people, community, town feel, love, tooele, home, rural, salt, businesses, family, growth, and living.

Local Environmental Quality in Tooele

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Tooele. Water scarcity and quality were a major concerns for many respondents, with some expressing worry about the city’s wasteful water use. The Great Salt Lake’s shrinking levels and related air quality issues also garnered significant attention. Traffic congestion and safety concerns were another prominent theme, with respondents frustrated by the lack of bike lanes, walkable paths, and effective traffic management. Some respondents highlighted the need for more greenspaces and parks, while others expressed dismay at the increase of gravel pits and industrial developments, which they believed compromised environmental quality and community character.

Improving Wellbeing in Tooele

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Tooele. Respondents highlighted the need for controlled growth and development, with many expressing concerns about the pace and impact of new construction on the community’s infrastructure and quality of life. Traffic congestion and road safety were also major issues, as were concerns about the affordability of housing and the need for more recreational opportunities. Some respondents emphasized the importance of preserving open spaces and natural areas, while others called for greater investment in mental health resources and community programs. Additionally, many comments noted the need for improved public transportation and a focus on creating a sense of community and connection among residents.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Tooele. Many respondents expressed concerns about the rapid growth and development of Tooele, feeling that it has led to increased traffic congestion, strain on local resources, and a loss of the small-town feel. Some commented on the need for more affordable housing and infrastructure to support the growing population, while others emphasized the importance of preserving the city’s natural spaces and recreational opportunities. Additionally, several respondents highlighted the desire for improved traffic control measures and enhanced community engagement through public events and activities.

On This Page