Full Text
2013 Summit County Citizens Survey Final Project Report Submitted to: Summit County Manager’s Office and Summit County Council Summit County, Utah Submitted by: Richard S. Krannich, PhD Paradise, Utah September 20, 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- i Table of Contents Page Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Respondent Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Summit County Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Summit County Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Growth and Growth Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Economic Development Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Public Safety and Law Enforcement Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Recreation Opportunities and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Setting Priorities for County Government and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Appendix: Survey questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii Executive Summary Background A mail survey focusing on Summit County residents’ views about local quality of life conditions, satisfaction with government services, economic development preferences, and future priorities for the county was conducted during the spring and summer of 2013. The survey was designed as a follow-up to a similar survey conducted in 2011, in order to allow for assessment of possible changes in citizens’ views about a number of issues that were addressed in both surveys. The 2013 survey was also designed to allow for comparison of the views expressed by residents living in western, northern, and southern portions of Summit County. Methodology To insure a high level of accuracy in estimating the response tendencies of residents living in all parts of Summit County, initial samples of 1,000 residential mailing addresses were selected at random from zip code areas corresponding to western, northern, and southern portions of the county. Following deletion of addresses determined to be invalid or vacant, requests for survey participation were mailed to 910 randomly-selected residential addresses in the west-county area, 937 addresses in the north- county area, and 955 addresses in the south-county area. Completed questionnaires were returned by 356 west-county residents (39.1% response rate), 452 north-county residents (48.2% response rate), and 403 south-county residents (42.2% response rate). The overall survey response rate (43.3%) was higher than that obtained in 2011. The total number of responses obtained countywide was 56% larger than the number obtained in the 2011 survey, providing for a higher degree of confidence in the accuracy of survey results. For the county as a whole the statistical margin of error for response percentages associated with the combined countywide sample is approximately 2.7%. Margins of error for data based on responses from the three designated portions of the county are approximately 5.2% for the west-county area, 4.3% for the north-county area, and 4.7% for the south- county area. Overall Quality of Life A majority of survey participants living in each of the three designated areas indicated that they considered overall quality of life in Summit County to be above average. For the county as a whole, the data indicate that over 89% of residents considered overall quality of life to be either above average or excellent. West-county residents were considerably more likely than either north-county or south- county residents to rate quality of life as “excellent.” In all three areas residents placed considerable emphasis on the importance of outdoor recreation opportunities, the clean environment, and the rural and agricultural character of some portions of the county as factors that contribute in positive ways to local quality of life. ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Overall, survey participants were pleased with a variety of specific conditions in the county. For example, a substantial majority of residents in each of the three areas considered levels of safety from crime and violence to be above average or excellent. Citizens also provided high overall ratings of the area’s air quality. Responses to items focusing on the availability of various public facilities and services such as recreation centers, trail systems, and county road maintenance revealed that most residents throughout the county are satisfied. At the same time, levels of satisfaction with such conditions did vary across the three county areas west-county residents tended to be most highly- satisfied with various public services and facilities, while north-county residents generally were less satisfied. Issues of concern identified by more substantial numbers of survey participants included the availability of affordable housing and the availability of employment opportunities for local residents. Taxes Survey results indicate that nearly six out of ten residents countywide considered the current level of county-imposed taxes to be “about right,” and nearly 11% felt taxes are or considerably lower than they should be. At the same time, a significant minority of residents countywide (about 31%) viewed taxes as being at least if not considerably higher than they should be. Views that taxes are too high were more widespread among south-county residents, and considerably more widespread among residents of the north-county area, than was the case among those living in western areas of Summit County. However, even in the north-county area only one in five respondents expressed a belief that county taxes are considerably higher than they should be. Services For the county as a whole the data indicate that 93% of residents considered the quality of county- provided services to be average, above average, or excellent. The combined percentage of residents rating county services as either above average or excellent was higher in 2013 (40%) than was observed in 2011 Responses indicating a belief that county services are above average or excellent were most common among west-county residents (about 45% of responses), less common among those living in the south-county area (about 29%), and lowest among north-county residents (about 22%). Value for Tax Dollars Similarly, for Summit County as a whole the data indicate that a large majority (over 85%) of residents considered the value of county services they receive relative to the amount of taxes and fees they pay to be at least “average” or better than average. The combined percentage of residents rating the value of services relative to taxes/fees as either above average or excellent was notably higher in 2013 (40.9%) than was the case in 2011 This suggests a generally positive reaction to increased efficiencies pursued by county agencies in response to budget limitations experienced over the past two years. As with ratings of overall service quality, responses to this question varied considerably across the three county areas. West-county residents more likely to rate the value received in government services as better than average (a combined 47.6% of responses) than was the case among either south-county (25.2%) or especially north-county (17.2%) residents. At the same time, the percentages of respondents rating the value of services in relation to taxes and fees paid as “very poor” ---PAGE BREAK--- iv were quite low across all three areas (only 2% in the west-county area, 9.5% in the north-county area, and 3.1% in the south-county area). Customer Service About two-thirds of survey respondents reported they had contacted at least one Summit County government office during the past year. Among those who did report such contact, a substantial majority indicated that they were either somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with various aspects of that experience. Respondents who expressed dissatisfaction with how effectively county offices had responded to their needs and concerns (about 28% of those who reported contact with a county office) were much more likely to indicate that their contact had involved offices responsible for planning and building matters than to identify any other county office. Growth and Development Residents throughout Summit County expressed considerable concern about the consequences of growth and development. A substantial majority of residents countywide agreed that rapid growth is causing a loss of important and valued characteristics of the area, and most agreed policies are needed to manage future growth and development and insure protection of the environment. At the same time, north-county residents in particular expressed considerable ambivalence about policies that might be viewed as imposing limits on private property rights in order to manage growth, preserve open space or protect the environment. North-county residents were considerably more likely than either west- county or south-county residents to support increased flexibility in the application of county land use regulations. West-county residents were generally most supportive of growth management policies, and also more likely than those living in other portions of Summit County to support an increase in property taxes to allow for purchase of private lands for open space protection and public recreation uses. Employment and Business Development Although most residents agreed that there is a need to increase employment opportunities for local residents, survey participants were on the whole not enthusiastic about having various types of new business or commercial development occur within a 1-2 mile distance of their homes. Indeed, there is evidence of considerable ambivalence countywide regarding a range of specific types of commercial development that could conceivably occur in various Summit County locations. Opposition was especially high with respect to the potential of having a new multi-business shopping complex, an industrial park, a “big box” store, a regional warehouse/distribution center, or a manufacturing facility located nearby. More mixed patterns of support and opposition were generated in response to questions focusing on the potential for development of a utility-scale wind power facility or a high- tech/scientific/professional business center. Yet even with the latter type of facility, countywide response patterns indicate that there would likely be a fairly even split between support for and opposition to such development. ---PAGE BREAK--- v Public Safety In general, county residents considered the quality and effectiveness of law enforcement services to be average to above average. Ratings of specific topics and issues related to county law enforcement consistently revealed that in each of the three county areas residents were considerably more likely to say they are satisfied than to express dissatisfaction. Overall, satisfaction levels with county law enforcement services were somewhat higher in 2013 than was the case at the time of the 2011 survey. Recreation Responses to several questions focusing on recreation opportunities and services revealed that residents of western Summit County are generally more satisfied about such conditions than are either north-county or south-county residents. In particular, west-county residents indicated very high levels of satisfaction with the local availability of hiking and biking trails. Both west-county and south- county residents were also generally very satisfied with the availability of indoor recreation centers and outdoor recreation facilities such as ball fields, while north-county residents were more likely to express dissatisfaction with the local availability of such facilities. One noteworthy area of dissatisfaction highlighted most frequently by north-county and south-county residents involved the availability of bicycle lanes or road shoulders of sufficient width to address concerns about safety associated with bicycle use on area roadways and reduce the potential for conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles. Program Funding When asked to consider whether allocations of county funds for various programs and services should increase, decrease, or remain at current levels, a majority of residents in each of the three county areas generally expressed a preference for retention of current funding levels. Among west-county residents, expressions of support for increased funding allocations exceeded 20% of responses for questions focusing on provision of hiking and biking trails, senior citizen centers and services, fire protection services, public water supply services, solid waste recycling, air and water quality monitoring, annual maintenance of county roadways, and purchase of private lands for open space and public recreation uses. Twenty percent or more of north-county residents supported increased funding for emergency response services, indoor recreation facilities, senior citizen centers and services, fire protection services, public water supply systems, annual maintenance of county roads, and winter road plowing. Among south-county residents, 20% or more of respondents expressed support for increased funding of emergency response services, senior citizen centers and services, fire protection services, annual maintenance of county roads, and purchase of private lands for open space and recreation uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents an overview of findings from a 2013 survey of adult residents of Summit County, Utah. Commissioned by the Summit County Manager’s office and the County Council as a part of broader strategic planning activities, the study was designed to assess citizens’ views about local quality of life conditions and trends, satisfaction with government services, and future priorities for the county. In addition, the study was intended to provide an update of findings from a similar county-wide survey conducted in 2011. The project was conducted by Dr. Richard Krannich, professor of Sociology at Utah State University. The information presented here outlines study procedures, summarizes survey results, and highlights key findings. STUDY APPROACH A self-completion survey questionnaire was developed to measure residents’ views about selected conditions and issues in Summit County, including their opinions about local quality of life, the effectiveness of county government, public safety and law enforcement, economic development options, recreation opportunities and services, and priorities for future funding of various services by the county. Administered during the spring and early summer of 2013, the survey was designed to repeat most of the questions from a similar county-wide survey conducted by Dr. Krannich for Summit County in 2011, so that possible shifts in citizens’ views could be assessed. At the same time, several new questions were incorporated to address selected topics not considered in the 2011 study. Drafts of the questionnaire were reviewed by the county manager, assistant county manager and members of the county council, and their comments, questions and suggestions were taken into account in developing a final version of the survey questionnaire. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Levels of development and population concentration in Summit County differ substantially between the more heavily-populated western portion of the county encompassing and surrounding the Park City area, and the less-populated, more rural northern and southern portions of the county. Approximately 67% of county residents live in the zip code areas (84060, 84068, 84098) comprising Park City and the adjoining Snyderville Basin area in western Summit County. About 21% of county residents live in southern Summit County, which includes Kamas, Oakley and Peoa towns and surrounding areas (zip codes areas 84036, 84055 and 84061). The northern portion of the county, which includes the county seat of Coalville as well as smaller community areas such as Echo and Henefer (zip code areas 84017, 84024 and 84033), contains just over 12% of the county population. To insure adequate representation of residents from these three distinct parts of the county and sufficient numbers of observations from each area to allow for statistically accurate comparisons, a stratified probability sampling procedure was used to select potential survey respondents. Separate random samples of residential mailing addresses located within the zip code areas corresponding to the western, northern, and southern portions of the county were obtained through Marketing Systems Group, a national commercial service that provides samples drawn from the U.S. Postal Service delivery sequence files. The initial sampling procedure produced 1,000 residential mailing addresses for each of the three county segments.1 Survey administration involved a multi-wave, mixed-mode strategy based on the “tailored design” principles outlined by Dillman (2009). Potential participants were presented with the option of responding via either a traditional printed questionnaire or an on-line (SurveyMonkey) system. Sampled households received up to five separate mailings soliciting participation in the survey process. 1 The 2011 survey involved a separation of the county into two areas for sampling and analysis purposes – western portions of the county, and eastern portions of the county. In combination the northern and southern portions of the county as designated in the 2013 survey correspond to what was categorized as the eastern portion of the county in the 2011 study. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 A pre-notification post card was sent via first-class mail on March 29, 2013 to sampled households announcing the survey and indicating that a questionnaire would be mailed soon; the postcard also provided information on how those selected for participation could access the on-line version of the questionnaire if they preferred that option over a traditional printed survey format. A full survey packet containing the printed questionnaire booklet, explanatory cover letter, and postage-paid return envelope was sent to all sampled households on April 12th, following deletion of addresses for which pre-notification cards were returned as undeliverable and those that had responded on-line. The explanatory cover letter and questionnaire instructions requested that the survey be completed and returned by the adult household member whose birthday had occurred most recently, an effective and straightforward method for randomizing selection of individual respondents within sampled households. In addition, the letter again provided recipients with information about the on-line option for survey participation. This first questionnaire mailing was followed one week later by a postcard reminder requesting that recipients complete and return the questionnaire if they had not already done so. A follow-up mailing of full survey packets to non-responding households was sent on May 3rd. On May 31st a final follow-up mailing of survey packets was sent to all households that had still not responded by that date. Deletion of mailing address listings for which survey materials were returned as undeliverable (primarily vacant households) produced final samples of 910 residential addresses in the western portion of Summit County, 937 addresses in the northern portion of the county, and 955 in the southern portion of the county. At the time of the July 23rd cut-off date for processing returns, completed questionnaires had been returned by 356 west-county residents, 452 north-county residents, and 403 south-county residents.2 Of the 1213 total survey responses, only 89 were provided via the on-line 2 Two survey participants removed the identification number that had been written on the back of the survey questionnaire, making it impossible to allocate their responses to a specific portion of the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 survey option. Survey response rates (43.3% countywide; 39.1% for western Summit County, 48.2% for northern areas of the county, and 42.2% for southern areas of the county) are reasonably high given recent trends of declining response rates for mail as well as other types of surveys in the U.S. (see Dillman 2009; Lozar et al. 2008). For the county as a whole, the statistical margin of error associated with the combined countywide sample is approximately 2.7%. The margins of error for data based on survey responses from the three designated portions of the county are approximately 5.2% for western areas of the county, 4.3% for north-county areas, and 4.7% for south-county areas.3 In this report the response patterns for individual survey questions are presented separately for the western, northern, and southern portions of Summit County, and also for the county as a whole. Where questions included in the 2013 are identical to those asked in 2011, the countywide response patterns for 2013 are compared to those obtained in the 2011 survey. Because the proportions of households included in the samples for western, northern and southern portions of the county are not identical, it is important to point out that survey response patterns for the county as a whole cannot be derived from a simple averaging of responses across those three areas. In order to produce accurate countywide estimates the survey data were statistically weighted prior to analysis, to adjust for variations in numbers of residents, differing sampling proportions, and differing numbers of responses for the three county segments. As a result, all data charts representing county-wide response patterns are based on data that have been adjusted using this statistical weighting procedure. 3 Theoretical margins of error are calculated based on an assumed even distribution of responses across response categories to a given question. The actual margin of error is smaller when response distributions are uneven and higher proportions of response fall into one category rather than another. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 SURVEY RESULTS Respondent Characteristics An overview of selected socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents reveals both similarities and differences when comparing those who live in west-county, north-county, and south- county areas. Overall, the proportion of male and female respondents was fairly balanced across all three portions of the county, with more women than men responding in the west-county north-county and south-county (54.2%) areas. Residents of north-county and south-county areas were considerably more likely to report having lived in the county for an extended time period than were those from the western portion of Summit County. More than three-quarters of north-county (79.7%) and south-county (77.6%) residents said they had lived in the county for longer than 10 years, and more than half (62.3% of north-county respondents, 59% of south county respondents) had lived there for longer than 20 years. In contrast, 63.8% of west-county residents said they had lived in Summit County for longer than 10 years, and about one-third (35.1%) had lived there for longer than 20 years. In all three areas a large majority of respondents indicated that they own or are buying their homes (90.2% of west-county, 90.6% of north-county, and 94.7% of south-county respondents). However, residents of the north-county and south-county areas were considerably more likely to also report ownership of agricultural or other undeveloped land within the county (40.5% of north-county respondents and 35.2% of south-county respondents) than were those living in the western portion of the county (10.9% of respondents). And, among those who did report ownership of such undeveloped land, those living in the north-county area were far more likely to report ownership of over 50 acres ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 (29.9% of those reporting land ownership) than were south-county residents (18.3%) and especially west-county residents (just 1.8% of those reporting land ownership). In all three portions of the county more than half of respondents reported that their household was comprised of two or fewer persons (56.6% in the west-county area, 54.6% in the north-county area, and 61.8% in the south-county area). The mean household size was 2.7 persons in the west- county and south-county areas, and 2.9 persons in the northern areas of Summit County. The percentage of respondents reporting one or more children under the age of 18 as members of their households was similar in all three portions of the county (34.8% in the both the west-county and north-county areas, and 29.6% in the south-county area). Summit County Quality of Life Overall quality of life rating. The first survey question asked respondents to rate the “overall quality of life in Summit County.” As indicated in Figure 1a, very few respondents in any part of the county considered quality of life to be either “very poor” or “below average.” In all three areas just over half of respondents rated quality of life in the county as “above average.” At the same time, west- county residents were considerably more likely to rate quality of life in the county as “excellent” (43.8%) than were those living in either north-county (14.4%) or south-county (22.9%) areas. Figure 1b presents statistically weighted countywide response patterns to this quality of life question for both the 2013 survey and the 2011 survey of Summit County residents.4 Response patterns for 2011 and 2013 are generally quite similar, with approximately 85% to 90% of respondents in both years indicating that they considered quality of life in the county to be either above average or excellent. 4 For both years, the countywide response percentages are based on data that were statistically weighted to adjust for disproportionate sampling ratios across segments of the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 1a. Citizens' ratings of quality of life in Summit County West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 1b. Citizens' ratings of quality of life in Summit County, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Factors contributing to quality of life. Respondents were next asked to indicate the extent to which several factors do or do not contribute in positive ways to the quality of life they experience in Summit County. Response to an item focusing on “outdoor recreation opportunities” (Figure 2a) revealed that while residents of all three portions of the county consider this to be important, those living in the west-county area were far more likely to consider outdoor recreation opportunities “very important” to their quality of life (81.4%) than were either north-county (39.4%) or south-county (53.8%) residents. Countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 2b) were very similar. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 2a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of outdoor recreation opportunities West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Similarly, responses to an item addressing the importance of the “clean environment of the area” (Figure 3a) were concentrated in the “moderately important” and “very important” categories across all three portions of the county. However, the percentage of residents highlighting this as “very important” to their quality of life was notably higher in the west-county area (91.7%) than was the case in either the north-county (72.9%) or south-county (77.2%) areas. Countywide response patterns for this question were very similar in 2011 and 2013 (Figure 3b), with nearly identical percentages of responses falling into the “very important” category in both years (88.1% in 2011, 87.5% in 2013). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 2b. Citizens' ratings of outdoor recreation opportunities, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 3a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of the clean environment of the area West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 3b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of the clean environment of the area, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 A majority of respondents throughout Summit County indicated that they consider “the rural and agricultural character” of portions of the county as an important and positive contributor to quality of life. Response distributions summarized in Figure 4a reveal that those living in the more rural north-county and south-county areas were considerably more likely to consider this “very important” (73.5% and 71.6%, respectively) than were those living in western Summit County A comparison of countywide responses from the 2011 and 2013 (Figure 4b) surveys reveals that a higher weighted percentage of county residents viewed the rural/agricultural character of some county areas as “very important” in 2013 (60.3%) than was the case in 2011 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 4a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of the rural and agricultural character of some parts of Summit County West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 In contrast, residents of the three county areas were generally similar in their evaluations of the importance of “local availability of retail shopping and commercial services” as a quality of life factor (Figure 5a). In all areas the most common response (39.3% for the west-county area, 36.7% for the north-county area, and 39.3% for the south-county area) was that this is a “moderately important” contributor to local quality of life. When considering the county as a whole, overall response patterns from the 2013 survey are very similar to those obtained in 2011 (Figure 5b), with over 60% of respondents in both years considering availability of shopping/commercial facilities to be either moderately or very important. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 4b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of the rural and agricultural character of some parts of Summit County, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 5a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of local availability of retail shopping and commercial services West County North County South County 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 5b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of local availability of retail shopping and commercial services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Preferences for the future of Summit County. The next series of survey questions asked respondents to indicate how important a variety of factors might be to their vision about what they would prefer to see happen in Summit County over the next ten years or so. When asked about the importance of “protecting and preserving agricultural land and open space,” the most common response was “very important” among west-county north-county (66.3%) and south-county (74.6%) residents (Figure 6a). The combined countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were quite similar, with three-fourths of responses in both years falling into the “very important” category (Figure 6b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 6a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of protecting and preserving agricultural lands West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 By comparison, relatively few respondents felt that it is very important to “increase the number of commercial shopping facilities” in the county (Figure 7a). Not surprisingly, a higher proportion of respondents in the more heavily developed western portion of the county with far more commercial development and relatively easy access to the Salt Lake City area considered this “not at all important” (57.6%) than was the case among residents of more rural north-county (35%) and south-county (39.4%) areas. The statistically weighted countywide response patterns from the 2013 survey are nearly identical to those obtained in 2011, with just over half of residents in both survey years considering an increase in the number of commercial shopping facilities to be “not at all important” to the future of Summit County (Figure 7b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 6b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of protecting and preserving agricultural lands, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 7a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of increasing the number of commercial shopping facilities West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 7b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of increasing the number of commercial shopping facilities, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Broad-based concerns about the effects of ongoing residential growth and development in Summit County are revealed by responses to an item that asked survey participants to indicate the importance of “limiting the expansion of new residential development.” As indicated in Figure 8a, most respondents from all three portions of the county considered this either moderately or very important to the future of the county. Not surprisingly, such concerns were most prevalent in the more heavily-developed west-county area, where nearly half of survey respondents (48.3%) said that limiting residential expansion is “very important.” In contrast, only one out of four respondents (25.7%) living in north-county areas and just over one-third (37.3%) of those in south-county areas selected the “very important” response category. Comparison of results from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 8b) reveals generally similar overall response tendencies, with 44-46% of residents countywide considering limitations on new residential development to be “very important.” 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 8a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of limiting the expansion of new residential development West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 A similar pattern is evident in responses to a question asking about the importance of “placing limits on future land development through enforcement of ordinances involving housing density and parcel size requirements” (Figure 9a). A substantial majority of responses were in the “moderately important” or “very important” categories (a combined 85% for west-county respondents, 62.4% for north-county respondents, and 77.5% for south-county respondents). At the same time, it is important to note that west-county residents were far more likely to consider this “very important” (66.9%) than were those living in either the northern (32.9%) or southern (48.4%) portions of Summit County. Overall countywide response patterns for 2011 and 2013 were highly similar (Figure 9b), with about six out of ten county residents in both years considering it very important to place limits on future land development. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 8b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of limiting the expansion of new residential development, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 9a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of placing limits on future land development through housing density and parcel size requirements West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 9b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of placing limits on future land development through housing density and parcel size requirements, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 When asked about the importance of “increasing job opportunities in clean, high-tech industries, health services, and other professional service occupations” (Figure 10a), a majority of respondents in all three portions of the county said that this is either moderately or very important to the future of Summit County. Response distributions were similar across the all three areas of the county, although a higher percentage of north-county residents selected the “very important” response option (33.8%) than was the case among those living in western (28%) or southern (30.7%) areas of the county. The statistically weighted countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were virtually identical, with about three out of ten residents considering such job opportunities “very important” and four out of ten saying they are “moderately important” to the future of Summit County (Figure 10b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 10a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of increasing job opportunities in high-tech, health services, and professional service occupations West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Most respondents also considered it at least moderately important to “increase tourism and recreation-based business activity as a means of improving economic opportunities” in the county. As indicated in Figure 11a, those living in the west-county area were somewhat more likely to rate this as “very important” to the future of the county (33.6%) than were residents of north-county (20.2%) or south-county (21.4%) areas. Comparison of overall countywide response tendencies reveals that views regarding this issue were very similar in 2011 and 2013 (Figure 11b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 10b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of increasing job opportunities in high-tech, health services, and professional service occupations, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 11a. Citizens' ratings of the importance of increasing tourism and recreation-based business activity West County North County South County 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Not At All Important Important Moderately Important Very Important Figure 11b. Citizens' ratings of the importance of increasing tourism and recreation-based business activity, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Changes in the desirability of Summit County. The next question in this portion of the survey questionnaire asked respondents to indicate whether over the past 4-5 years Summit County had become “more or less desirable as a place to live.” As indicated in Figure 12a, across all three portions of the county relatively few residents expressed a view that local living conditions had become either “much more desirable” or “much less desirable.” At the same time, the combined percentage of respondents indicating that the county had become either somewhat or much more desirable as a place to live was higher among those living in west-county areas (38%) than was the case for either north- county (23.3%) or south-county (27.8) residents. For the county as a whole (Figure 12b), statistically weighted results from the 2013 survey reflect a slight increase in the percentage of residents who believe that the county has become somewhat or much more desirable (combined 34.9%) compared to what was observed in 2011 this may in part be a reflection of positive reactions to a national as well as local recovery from the global economic downturn that began in 2008. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Much More Desirable Somewhat More Desirable Stayed About The Same Somewhat Less Desirable Much Less Desirable Figure 12a. Has Summit County become more or less desirable as a place to live? West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Survey participants were also asked to explain in their own words why they thought the county had become more or less desirable over the past 4-5 years. West-county residents who thought conditions had become less desirable and who also provided an explanation as to why they felt that way commented most often on the effects of widespread population growth and “overdevelopment” (37.3% of volunteered comments), excessive commercial development (19.6% of comments), and excessive traffic and congestion (10.8% of responses). North-county residents who thought conditions had become less desirable most frequently commented on population growth and overdevelopment (22.3% of volunteered comments), excessive county government control on property use or other private matters non-responsiveness or ineffectiveness of county government and 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Much More Desirable Somewhat More Desirable Stayed About The Same Somewhat Less Desirable Much Less Desirable Figure 12b. Has Summit County become more or less desirable as a place to live? Countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 inequities in power and resource allocations across portions of the county Among south- county residents who felt conditions had become less desirable, the most common explanations included population growth and overdevelopment (46.9% of volunteered comments) and non- responsiveness or ineffectiveness of county government Similarly, some of those who believed conditions in Summit County had become more desirable over the past 4-5 years also provided comments to explain their viewpoints. Among west- county residents, the specific reasons provided for such positive views about county conditions included outdoor recreation opportunities and areas (30% of volunteered responses) and expanded availability and convenience of shopping and other commercial facilities Explanations for positive views about changes provided by north-county residents focused most frequently on the high quality of environmental conditions in the area (21.2% of volunteered responses) and improved or expanded public infrastructure and services Among south-county residents who perceived positive change patterns, the most frequently-volunteered explanations included the high quality of the environment (15.3% of comments), expanded availability and convenience of shopping and other commercial facilities and improved or expanded public infrastructure and services ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Ratings of specific conditions in Summit County. An extended series of questions asked respondents to rate a variety of specific conditions in Summit County, on a scale ranging from “very poor” to “excellent.” As indicated in Figure 13a, very few respondents from any part of the county indicated that they considered conditions related to “overall levels of safety from crime and violence” to be either very poor or below average. At the same time, west-county residents were more likely to select either the “above average” or “excellent” categories (a combined 89% of responses) for this question than were either north-county (61.6%) or south-county (77.4%) residents. A comparison of countywide response tendencies reveals that in 2013 residents were more likely to rate safety from crime and violence as either above average or excellent than had been the case in 2011 (Figure 13b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 13a. Citizens' ratings of overall levels of safety from crime and violence West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Figure 14a summarizes responses to a question that asked respondents to rate “air quality conditions” in the county. Only a small handful of respondents in any part of the county considered air quality to be either “very poor” or “below average,” with most selecting the “above average” response option. At the same time, perceptions of air quality conditions as “excellent” were lower among west- county residents (26.9%) than among either north-county (33%) or south-county (40.4%) residents. Weighted countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 countywide surveys (Figure 14b) reveal a slight decline over that two-year period in the percentage of residents who consider air quality conditions to be excellent (34.6% in 2011 vs. 29.8% in 2013). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 13b. Citizens' ratings of overall levels of safety from crime and violence, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 14a. Citizens' ratings of air quality conditions West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 14b. Citizens' ratings of air quality conditions, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 When asked about “water quality conditions,” respondents were less positive overall, even though relatively few considered water quality to be either very poor or below average (Figure 15a). Among west-county residents the most common responses were “average” (35.4%) and “above average” while only 9.5% considered water quality to be “excellent.” North-county residents were also most likely to consider water quality to be either average (34.3%) or above average though about one in six (17.6%) selected the “excellent” response option. South-county residents had the most positive perceptions of water quality, with 47.4% indicating that water quality was “above average” and 31.9% calling it “excellent.” For the county as a whole, weighted response distributions derived from the 2013 survey were very similar to those observed in 2011 (Figure 15b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 15a. Citizens' ratings of water quality conditions West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 Responses regarding “the availability of suitable employment opportunities for local residents” (Figure 16a) revealed a tendency for residents to consider this aspect of local life as either “below average” or “average” in all three areas of Summit County. Those living in north-county areas were most likely to select the “below average” or “very poor” response options (a combined 52.2%), followed by those in the south-county (40.2%) and west-county (34.6%) areas. Overall countywide response tendencies summarized in Figure 16b indicate that between 2011 and 2013 there was little change in residents’ views about the availability of local employment opportunities. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 15b. Citizens' ratings of water quality conditions, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 16a. Citizens' ratings of employment opportunities for local residents West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 16b. Citizens' ratings of employment opportunities for local residents, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 Respondents’ ratings of the “availability of developed recreation centers and facilities” were considerably less positive among north-county residents than was the case for those living in southern or western portions of Summit County (Figure 17a). North-county residents were most likely to rate the availability of such facilities as “average” while only about 5% selected the “excellent” response option. West-county residents were far more likely to consider availability of developed recreation facilities to be either above average (54.5%) or excellent as were those living in south-county areas (46.5% “above average” and 21.5% “excellent”). Combined countywide response patterns were more positive overall in 2013 than in 2011 (Figure 17b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 17a. Citizens' ratings of availability of recreation centers and facilities West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 West-county residents were considerably more positive in their assessments of the “availability of public use trail systems for walking and biking” (Figure 18a) than were those living in either the north-county or south-county areas. Two-thirds (66.4%) of survey participants from the western portion of Summit County considered the availability of such trail systems to be “excellent,” while only 16.1% of north-county residents and 21.1% of south-county residents selected that response option. In 2013 a higher percentage of residents countywide considered availability of trail systems to be “excellent” (53.9%) than was the case at the time of the 2011 Summit County survey 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 17b. Citizens' ratings of availability of recreation centers and facilities, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 18a. Citizens' ratings of availability of trail systems West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 18b. Citizens' ratings of availability of trail systems, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 When asked to rate “the availability of public bus transportation systems” (Figure 19a), west- county respondents were generally very positive, with over half (51%) of respondents indicating such services are “excellent” and nearly one-third (30.9%) rating them as “above average.” By comparison relatively few respondents from the north-county and south-county areas rated public transportation so highly. These differences are not at all surprising, since public transportation systems are currently in operation only in the Park City/Snyderville Basin areas of western Summit County. As indicated in Figure 19b, the weighted countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were very similar. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 19a. Citizens' ratings of availability of public bus transportation systems West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 Figure 20a summarizes responses across the three county areas to a question that asked participants to rate the “availability of county-operated clinics to address public health needs.” In all areas of the county only a small minority of respondents rated the availability of such clinics as being below average or very poor. About half of those living in the north-county (50.9%) and south-county (49.9%) areas, and just over one-third (35.1%) of those in west-county areas, selected the “average” response option. Responses among west-county residents were more positive overall, with 38% of residents from that area rating availability of county-operated health clinics as “above average” and 23.4% rating this as “excellent.” Overall, countywide response tendencies revealed little difference between 2011 and 2013 in residents’ views about health clinic availability (Figure 20b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 19b. Citizens' ratings of availability of public bus transportation systems, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 20a. Citizens' ratings of availability of county public health clinics West County North County South County 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 20b. Citizens' ratings of availability of county public health clinics, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 Responses to a question asking about “environmental health programs that provide for monitoring and protection of air and water quality” were generally similar among residents of the three portions of Summit County (Figure 21a). In all areas the most common response was that such programs are “average” in Summit County (44.2% among west-county residents, 56.5% for north- county residents, and 54.9% for south-county residents). Countywide, very few residents considered such programs to be “very poor.” Response patterns observed for the county as a whole in 2013 were generally similar to those derived from the 2011 survey (Figure 21b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 21a. Citizens' ratings of environmental health (air and water quality) programs West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 When asked about the “availability of senior citizen centers and senior services programs,” about one-half of respondents from the west-county, north-county, and south-county areas indicated that they consider such services to be of “average” quality (Figure 22a). At the same time, residents of western Summit County were more likely to rate senior centers and services as “below average” or “very poor” (a combined 39.4%) than were either north-county residents (14.1%) or south- county residents The statistically weighted countywide response distributions were very similar for the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 22b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 21b. Citizens' ratings of environmental health (air and water quality) programs, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 22a. Citizens' ratings of availability of senior citizen centers and programs West County North County South County 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 22b. Citizens' ratings of availability of senior citizen centers and programs, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 County residents’ responses to a question asking about the “effectiveness of the county road department in maintaining and plowing roads” revealed relatively little dissatisfaction (Figure 23a). Only a combined 9% of west-county residents, 18.5% of north-county residents, and 10.8% of south- county residents responded by indicating that they considered county road maintenance/plowing to be “below average” or “poor.” In all three areas respondents were most likely to rate the effectiveness of the road department as either “average” (29.9% for the west-county area, 39.1% in the north-county area and 29.5% in the south-county area) or “above average” (44.6%, 30.4% and 43.5%, respectively). Countywide response patterns in 2013 (Figure 23b) revealed a higher percentage of residents who considered the county road department to be either above average or excellent (a combined 59.1%) than was the case at the time of the 2011 survey 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 23a. Citizens' ratings of effectiveness of the county road department West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 Ratings of “the availability of county-supported library facilities and services” also produced very few responses in the “very poor” or “below average” categories. As indicated in Figure 24a, the most common responses were that library services are “average” or “above average” among both north-county residents (a combined 78.3%) and south-county residents West-county residents were more positive in their evaluations of county library services, with 38.2% of respondents from that area rating such services as “above average” and 25.6% rating them as “excellent.” Overall, countywide response patterns summarized in Figure 24b reveal that ratings of library services were more positive in 2013 (a combined 60.9% of ratings in the “above average” and “excellent” categories) than was the case at the time of the 2011 survey 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 23b. Citizens' ratings of effectiveness of the county road department, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 24a. Citizens' ratings of the availability of county-supported library services West County North County South County 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 24b. Citizens' ratings of the availability of county-supported libary services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 Figure 25a highlights responses across the three county areas to a question that asked survey participants to rate the “provision of recycling programs as part of the county’s waste management services.” Overall, citizens’ views about these programs were far more positive than negative. The combined percentage of respondents who considered the county’s recycling programs to be very poor or below average was just 13.9% in the west-county area, 10.9% in the north-county area, and 7.5% in the south-county area. By comparison, respondents were far more likely to indicate that such services are either above average or excellent in each of the areas (a combined 56% for the west-county area, 48.2% in the north-county area, and 59.6% in the south-county area). Weighted countywide response patterns reveal that residents were more positive about the county’s provision of recycling programs in 2013 than was the case in 2011 (Figure 25b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 25a. Citizens' ratings of the provision of waste recycling programs West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 The final question in this series asked respondents to rate the “availability of an adequate supply of affordable housing” in Summit County. Response patterns were general similar across all three areas of the county (Figure 26a), revealing some degree of concern county-wide about affordable housing conditions. Among west-county respondents 42.3% considered affordable housing availability to be either below average or very poor, as did 49.6% of north-county and 38.4% of south- county respondents. The weighted countywide response distributions were very similar in 2011 and 2013 (Figure 26b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 25b. Citizens' ratings of the provision of waste recycling programs, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 26a. Citizens' ratings of the availability of affordable housing West County North County South County 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 26b. Citizens' ratings of the availability of affordable housing, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 Summit County Government The next major section of the survey questionnaire included a number of questions asking respondents to express their opinions about current county tax levels and provide input regarding their experiences and satisfaction with Summit County government offices and services. Opinions about Summit County tax levels. The first item in this portion of the survey questionnaire asked participants to express their opinions as to whether county-imposed taxes are too low, about right, or too high. As indicated in Figure 27a, very few respondents living in any of the three county areas indicated that they consider current tax levels to be considerably lower than they should be. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that west-county respondents were considerably more likely to consider taxes to be either or considerably lower than they should be (a combined 13.1%) than were either north-county or south-county residents. In all three areas the most common response to this question was that tax levels are “about right at current levels.” At the same time, those living in northern and southern portions of the county were considerably more likely than west-county residents to indicate that they consider taxes to be higher than they should be. North- county residents were especially prone to expressing concern about high tax rates, with one out of three respondents from that area saying taxes are higher” than they should be, and one in five saying taxes are “considerably higher” than they should be. When the combined countywide data are considered (Table 27b), it is clear that overall Summit County residents were most likely to consider tax levels to be “about right at current levels” (57.7% of the statistically weighted responses) when the 2013 citizens survey was conducted. This question was not included in the 2011 countywide survey, so evaluation of possible shifts in public opinions about this issue is not possible. ---PAGE BREAK--- 48 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Taxes Considerably Lower Than Should Be Taxes Lower Than Should Be Taxes About Right At Current Levels Taxes Higher Than Should Be Taxes Considerably Higher Than Should Be Figure 27a. Citizens' views about current tax levels in Summit County West County North County South County 1.9% 9.0% 57.7% 21.9% 9.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Taxes Considerably Lower Than Should Be Taxes Lower Than Should Be Taxes About Right At Current Levels Taxes Higher Than Should Be Taxes Considerably Higher Than Should Be Figure 27b. Citizens' views about current tax levels in Summit County, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 Ratings of county government performance. Respondents were asked next to provide their assessment of the “overall quality of services provided by county government.” As indicated in Figure 28a, a combined 15.9% of north-county residents and 10.8% of south-county residents considered the quality of services provided by the county to be either “very poor” or “below average,” while among west-county residents only 5% of responses were in the “very poor” or “below average” categories. In all three sections of the county a majority of respondents rated the quality of services provided by the county as “average” (50.1% of west-county residents, 62.2% of north-county residents, and 60.1% of south-county residents). Those living in western Summit County were considerably more likely to rate county services as either “above average” or “excellent” (a combined 44.9% of responses) than were either north-county (21.9%) or south-county (29.1%) residents. The overall county-wide response patterns to this question indicate that in 2013 just over half of residents considered the overall quality of county services to be “average” while four out of ten considered county-provided services to be either above average or excellent and only 7% felt they are either very poor or below average (Figure 28b). Overall, the response distribution observed in 2013 is very similar to that produced by the 2011 survey of county residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 28a. Citizens' ratings of the overall quality of services provided by Summit County government West County North County South County 1.5% 6.5% 56.4% 31.3% 4.3% 1.3% 5.7% 53.0% 35.6% 4.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 28b. Citizens' ratings of the overall quality of services provided by Summit County government, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 The next survey question asked respondents to assess the “overall value of services, facilities and programs you receive from the county in return for what you pay in taxes and fees.” Over one-half of north-county and south-county residents, and about four out of ten of those living in western portions of the county, indicated that they consider the value of services received for what they pay in taxes and fees to be “average” (Figure 29a). West-county residents were considerably more likely to rate the value received in county services as either “above average” or “excellent” (47.6% in combination) than were those living in northern (17.2%) or southern (25.2%) areas of Summit County. Although the weighted county-wide response distributions for 2011 and 2013 (Figure 29b) are generally similar, as of 2013 there was a slight increase in the percentage of residents who considered the value of county services to be better than average. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 29a. Citizens' ratings of the value of county services relative to taxes and fees West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 52 Ratings of “the availability of information about Summit County services, facilities and programs” (Figure 30a) again revealed a tendency among county residents to characterize this aspect of county government as “average,” with roughly one-half of respondents from both the north-county and south-county areas and 60% of west-county respondents selecting that response option. Approximately 36% of west-county residents, but only 15% of north-county residents and 23% of south-county residents rated the availability of information about county services as either above average or excellent. When overall countywide response patterns for 2011 and 2013 are compared (Figure 30b), there is evidence that by 2013 there had been a slight increase in the percentage of residents rating the availability of information about county-provided services as above average or excellent. 3.1% 12.8% 50.4% 28.4% 5.3% 2.9% 11.3% 44.8% 34.0% 6.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 29b. Citizens' ratings of the value of county services relative to taxes and fees, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 30a. Citizens' ratings of the availability of information about county services West County North County South County 2.0% 15.7% 55.2% 22.7% 4.4% 1.9% 16.0% 50.5% 26.6% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 30b. Citizens' ratings of the availability of information about county services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 54 A similar pattern of responses was obtained for a question asking about “the efforts of Summit County government to keep you informed about local issues and events” (Figure 31a). In all three portions of the county roughly one-half of responses fell into the “average” category, and west-county residents were more likely to rate this facet of county government as above average or excellent than were those living in the north-county or south-county areas. The statistically weighted countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 31b) indicate that citizens’ views on this topic were very similar at both points in time. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 31a. Citizens' ratings of the effectiveness of county government in providing information about issues and events West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 When asked to evaluate “Summit County’s fiscal responsibility in using available funds to address the most important needs of county residents” (Figure 32a), survey participants from all three county areas were most likely to rate this aspect of local government as “average” (56.1% of west- county residents, 47.2% of north-county residents, and 59.4% of south-county residents). At the same time, west-county residents were considerably more likely than those living in other areas to rate the county’s fiscal responsibility as better than average, while north-county residents were more likely than those living in either western or southern parts of the county to select the “below average” and “very poor” response options. Comparison of the combined countywide response tendencies to this question in 2011 and 2013 (Figure 32b) reveal a very slight increase over time in the percentage of respondents who considered the fiscal responsibility of county government to be less than average. 5.4% 16.6% 51.4% 21.6% 5.0% 3.8% 18.7% 50.7% 21.8% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 31b. Citizens' ratings of the effectiveness of county government in providing information about issues and events, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 32a. Citizens' ratings of the fiscal responsibility of Summit County government West County North County South County 5.4% 12.2% 56.8% 22.4% 3.2% 4.4% 16.9% 55.8% 18.8% 4.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 32b. Citizens' ratings of the fiscal responsibility of Summit County government, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 Figure 33a summarizes responses to a question that asked residents to rate “the responsiveness of county government to citizen input.” Once again the most common response across all three areas of Summit County was to rate this aspect of county government as “average.” However, a substantial minority of responses from north-county residents fell into the “below average” (32%) or “very poor” (15.6%) categories, as was true to a lesser extent for south-county residents (27% and 7.3%, respectively). West-county residents were considerably more likely to rate the responsiveness of county government as “above average” to “excellent” (a combined 23.8%) than were either north- county or south-county (10.4%) residents. A comparison of county-wide response tendencies for 2011 and 2013 (Figure 33b) indicates that overall residents were less positive in their assessments of the responsiveness of county government in 2013 than was the case in 2011. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 33a. Citizens' ratings of the responsiveness of county government to citizen input West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 58 Survey participants were also asked to rate the “quality and availability of information on the county’s web site” (Figure 34a). A majority of respondents from the west-county north- county (62.9%) and west-county (64.9%) areas rated the county’s web site as “average.” A combined 29.3% of west-county residents, 16% of north-county residents, 20.2% of south-county residents provided ratings of “above average” or “excellent” in response to this question. When 2011 and 2013 countywide response patterns are compared (Figure 34b), it is clear that there has been very little change in citizens’ views about this issue. 7.4% 15.2% 53.5% 21.8% 2.1% 5.6% 20.3% 54.1% 17.0% 2.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 33b. Citizens' ratings of the responsiveness of county government to citizen input, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 34a. Citizens' ratings of the quality and availability of information on the county's web site West County North County South County 2.6% 7.9% 63.6% 22.8% 3.1% 1.6% 10.0% 62.0% 23.0% 3.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 34b. Citizens' ratings of the quality and availability of information on the county's web site, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 Recent experiences with county government offices. The next series of survey questions focused on residents’ recent experiences in contacting Summit County government offices to obtain information, obtain a permit, or do other business. As indicated in Figure 35a, approximately one out of three respondents from the west-county (34.6%) and south-county (35.5%) areas and about four out of ten (42.8%) of those living in northern parts of the county said they had contacted a county government office at least once during the past year to conduct such business. For the county as a whole, the percentage of residents indicating contact with a county office was lower in 2013 than had been the case in 2011 (Figure 35b). When asked to identify the specific office they had contacted most recently, respondents from across the county identified a total of 19 different county offices. Of these, the most frequently identified point of recent contact was the county’s planning/zoning/building permit offices, which were mentioned by 23.7% of west-county respondents reporting contact with a county office, 29.9% of north-county respondents, and 30.8% of south-county respondents.5 The only other offices reported as a point of contact by more than 10% of respondents in any portion of the county were the county recorder’s office (listed by 13.1% of south-county respondents), the county assessor’s office (listed by 11.2% of north-county respondents), and the county clerk’s office (listed by 10.5% of west-county respondents). 5 Many residents did not make a clear distinction between the planning department and the building department. Because of this, responses involving reference to those offices are combined for analysis purposes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 65.4% 57.2% 64.5% 34.6% 42.8% 35.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% West County North County South County Figure 35a. Percentage of survey participants reporting contact with a county office during the past year Yes No 40.0% 35.5% 60.0% 64.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 2011 2013 Figure 35b. Percentage of residents reporting contact with a county office during the past year, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 Yes No ---PAGE BREAK--- 62 Following these initial questions, respondents were asked several questions focusing on their satisfaction with the county government office they had most recently contacted to conduct business or obtain information. As indicated in Figure 36a and 36b, across all portions of Summit County most survey participants were satisfied with “the accuracy of the information or assistance” they received from the county office they had contacted most recently. A substantial majority of respondents from each of the three county areas expressed satisfaction with “how quickly the county staff in this office responded” to their needs (Figures 37a and 37b). Generally high levels of satisfaction were also expressed with respect to “how effectively your concerns or needs were addressed” (Figure 38a and 38b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 36a. Levels of satisfaction with accuracy of information or assistance from most recently contacted county office West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 7.8% 9.5% 17.1% 20.3% 45.3% 11.0% 11.5% 16.5% 22.0% 39.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 36b. Levels of satisfaction with accuracy of information or assistance from most recenty contacted county office, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 37a. Levels of satisfaction with how quickly county staff responded West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 8.9% 8.2% 18.4% 16.1% 48.3% 11.6% 9.7% 15.9% 23.3% 39.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 37b. Levels of satisfaction with how quickly county staff responsed, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 38a. Levels of satisfaction with how effectively concerns or needs were addressed by county offices West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 On balance, responses to this series of questions reveal generally high levels of satisfaction among most Summit County residents regarding their experiences in contacting county offices for information or to conduct business, in both 2011 and in 2013. At the same time, it is important to note that about 28% of residents who reported contact with a county office during the past year expressed some degree of dissatisfaction with how effectively their needs were addressed. Because the overall response patterns outlined to this point do not allow for a determination as to whether such expressions of dissatisfaction occur at a higher rate among survey participants reporting contact with any particular county office, additional analyses were conducted. Specifically, we selected only those respondents who were very or somewhat dissatisfied with how effectively their needs were addressed (see Figure 38a above), and then looked at the specific county offices those dissatisfied individuals reported as having contacted most recently. For the county as a whole, only 84 individuals who indicated 11.9% 10.0% 14.4% 17.4% 46.3% 12.7% 15.2% 15.1% 20.0% 37.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 38b. Levels of satisfaction with how effectively concerns or needs were addressed by county offices, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 66 dissatisfaction in response to this question also provided information identifying a specific county office they had contacted during the past year. Among those 84 individuals, 33 of them (39.3%) mentioned the planning and/or building departments (many residents appear not to distinguish between these two county departments). No other county department was listed by more than 10% of those who had expressed dissatisfaction. Across the three areas of the county, the percentages of respondents who expressed dissatisfaction and identified the planning and/or building departments as their most recent point of contact were 33.3% 7 individuals) among west-county residents, 41.7% (15 individuals) among north-county residents, and 40.7% (11 individuals) among south-county residents. Growth and Growth Management The next major theme addressed in the survey involved issues related to growth and development experiences and growth management strategies in Summit County. The first in this series of questions asked survey participants to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement that “rapid growth and development is causing a loss of important and valued characteristics” traditionally associated with the area. As indicated in Figure 39a, a majority of residents in all three portions of the county expressed agreement with this statement, and few disagreed. Over one-third of west-county residents (34.6%) and south-county (37.8%) residents and over one-fourth (26.2%) of those living in northern portions of the county said they “strongly agree” that rapid growth is causing a loss of valued county characteristics, with generally similar proportions indicating that they “somewhat agree.” The statistically weighted countywide response distributions from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were nearly identical (Figure 39b), with a strong majority of residents in both years expressing agreement that growth is causing a loss of valued characteristics in Summit County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 39a. Levels of agreement that rapid growth is causing a loss of important & valued characteristics West County North County South County 36.4% 34.1% 17.9% 8.1% 3.6% 34.3% 33.3% 18.7% 10.6% 3.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 39b. Levels of agreement that rapid growth is causing a loss of important & valued characteristics, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 68 Given the concern expressed by county residents over the impacts of growth and development, it is not surprising to find that most survey participants believe that “public policies to manage growth and development are needed to control the rate and locations of development in Summit County” (see Figure 40a). In all three portions of the county a majority of survey participants expressed some level of agreement with this statement, and relatively few expressed disagreement. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the percentage of respondents saying they “strongly agree” with the need for growth management policies is considerably higher among west-county residents (50.3%) than among those who live in the north-county (26%) or south-county (33.8%) areas. On balance, residents of the northern and southern portions of Summit County tend to be somewhat less enthusiastic with respect to growth management policies than are their counterparts in more heavily-developed west-county areas. Overall county-wide response distributions for 2011 and 2013 (Figure 40b) are very similar, reflecting a clear tendency among most residents of the county to agree that growth management policies are necessary. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 40a. Levels of agreement that policies to manage growth and development are needed West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 A similar response pattern was produced when survey participants were asked to consider a statement that “policies to manage growth and development should emphasize the protection of environmental quality, including clean air and water, even if this means some properties cannot be developed.” As indicated in Figure 41a, a majority of residents across all portions of the county expressed some level of agreement with this statement. However, west-county residents were far more likely to say they “strongly agree” (57.3%) than were north-county (27.2%) or south-county (36.4%) residents. Again, there is some evidence in responses to this question of higher levels of ambivalence about growth management among residents of the north-county area, where growth and development pressures have to date been considerably less widespread than has occurred across other portions of the county. Overall, the weighted county-wide response distribution derived from the 2013 survey was nearly identical to that obtained in 2011 (Figure 41b), indicating that roughly eight out of ten county residents are supportive of growth management policies that help to protect environmental quality. 48.1% 30.8% 10.5% 6.2% 4.4% 45.2% 34.6% 11.1% 6.5% 2.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 40b. Levels of agreement that policies to manage growth and development are needed, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 41a. Levels of agreement that growth management policies should emphasize environmental protection West County North County South County 50.1% 29.9% 8.6% 7.0% 4.5% 50.9% 29.8% 7.8% 7.0% 4.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 41b. Levels of agreement that growth management policies should emphasize environmental protection, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 Distinctions between the orientations of east-side and west-side residents become more apparent when we turn attention to several questions that examine growth management issues in the context of private property rights concerns. For example, when presented with a statement that “it is not acceptable to restrict private property rights in order to protect the environment or preserve open space,” expressions of agreement were considerably more widespread among those living in the southern and especially northern portions of Summit County than was the case among west-county residents (Figure 42a). Over half of west-county residents indicated that they either somewhat or strongly disagreed with this pro-private property rights statement (a combined 57.3% of responses). In contrast, only 37.7% of south-county residents and just 24.4% of north-county residents expressed disagreement. Expressions of agreement that private property rights should not be restricted were most common among north-county residents (29.2% said they “strongly agree” and 27.3% “somewhat agree”). For the county as a whole, response patterns from the 2011 and 2013 surveys indicate that in both years county residents were generally more likely to disagree than to agree with the notion that it is not acceptable to restrict private property rights in order to protect the environment or preserve open space (Figure 42b). ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 42a. Levels of agreement that it is not acceptable to restrict private property rights to protect the environment or preserve open space West County North County South County 13.3% 20.9% 14.1% 27.2% 24.5% 12.7% 19.3% 17.4% 28.1% 22.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 42b. Levels of agreement that it is not acceptable to restrict private property rights to protect the environment or preserve open space, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 Similarly, nearly three-fourths of west-county residents expressed some level of disagreement with a statement that “uses of private land should be based on what the owner wants, without being restricted by regulations or land use ordinances,” while only 41% of south-county residents and just 26.9% of north-county residents expressed disagreement (Figure 43a). Agreement that private property owners should be able to use their lands as they wish was far higher among north-county residents (a combined 62.6% of responses) than was the case for either of the other county areas. The statistically weighted countywide response distributions were very similar in 2011 and 2013 (Figure 43b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 43a. Levels of agreement that uses of private land should be based on what the owner wants West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 Figure 44a summarizes responses to a statement that “Summit County land use and development regulations need to be more flexible in allowing owners of existing residences to add on to their homes or expand into areas that currently are restricted by lot size or set back requirements.” A clear majority of north-county residents expressed agreement with this statement; 33.3% said they “strongly agree” and 31% selected the “somewhat agree” response option. South-county residents also tended to express agreement (a combined 49.5% of responses). In contrast, only one-fourth (24.8%) of west-county residents expressed some level of agreement with the statement, while in combination half (50.8%) expressed some level of disagreement. Clearly, residents of northern Summit County tend to express higher levels of discomfort with land use regulations that some may consider restrictive than is the case among those who live in western portions of the county. Overall, response distributions derived from the 2013 survey for the county as a whole were very similar to those observed in 2011 (Figure 44b). 10.1% 17.1% 10.9% 31.2% 30.7% 8.1% 17.4% 11.2% 33.0% 30.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 43b. Levels of agreement that uses of private land should be based on what the owner wants, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 44a. Levels of agreement that Summit County land use regulations need to be more flexible West County North County South County 14.5% 19.9% 23.4% 24.6% 17.6% 11.2% 21.6% 23.1% 26.1% 18.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 44b. Levels of agreement that Summit County land use regulations need to be more flexible, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 76 Responses to a statement that “future growth and development should be concentrated in western Summit County” to help preserve agricultural lands and open space in other parts of the county were quite mixed across all portions of the county (Figure 45a). Among west-county residents the most frequently-selected response category was “neutral” with 25.3% expressing some level of agreement and 39.2% expressing disagreement that future growth and development should remain concentrated in western portions of the county. North-county residents were more likely to express agreement (a combined 43.3%) than disagreement (27.2%) with the statement. By comparison, south-county residents were even more likely to agree that development should be concentrated in western portions of the county (a combined 51.9%), and less likely than residents of other areas to disagree When countywide response patterns for 2011 and 2013 are compared (Figure 45b), there is evidence of a slight shift over that two-year period toward more agreement with the idea of having growth and development concentrated in west-county areas. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 45a. Levels of agreement that future development should be concentrated in western Summit County West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 Respondents from the western and northern portions of the county were more likely than those living in south-county areas to agree with a statement that “future growth and development should be dispersed throughout most parts of Summit County” to provide people living in areas other than Park City/Snyderville Basin with greater access to economic opportunities and services. As indicated in Figure 46a, west-county residents were most likely to say they “somewhat agree” with this idea and in combination just over one-half (51.8%) of respondents from that area expressed some level of agreement. In combination about one-half of those living in north-county areas also expressed some level of agreement with the statement (a combined 52.5%). The overall level of agreement with this notion of dispersed development was somewhat lower among those living in southern portions of Summit County Although the countywide response distributions for 2011 and 2012 (Figure 46b) are generally similar, a lower percentage of residents expressed agreement in 2013 than was the case in 2011. 8.2% 17.3% 40.1% 21.6% 12.8% 10.1% 21.5% 33.3% 22.3% 12.8% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 45b. Levels of agreement that future development should be concentrated in western Summit County, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 46a. Levels of agreement that future development should be dispersed throughout Summit County West County North County South County 15.4% 41.1% 30.6% 9.0% 3.9% 10.9% 39.3% 32.7% 12.4% 4.8% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 46b. Levels of agreement that future development should be dispersed throughout Summit County, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 The next item in this series asked respondents to indicate their levels of agreement or disagreement with a statement that “Summit County should require most new housing developments to be built at higher densities with smaller lot sizes, in order to preserve more open space.” The combined percentage of respondents indicating that they strongly agree or somewhat agree with the idea of policies that require higher-density housing development was considerably higher among those living in west-county areas (36.5%) than was the case among either north-county (26.6%) or south- county 27.4%) residents. The weighted countywide response distribution derived from the 2011 and 2013 survey are very similar, with data from both years revealing that perspectives on this issue are rather mixed among residents of Summit County. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 47a. Levels of agreement that housing developments should be built at higher densities West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 The final question in this series asked survey participants to indicate their agreement or disagreement that Summit County should “increase residential and commercial property taxes by up to 2% in order to generate the funds needed to purchase private lands that could be used to preserve open space and provide public recreation areas.” While most residents of western Summit County expressed support for this notion, residents of the southern and especially the northern portions of the county were considerably more likely to express opposition (Figure 48a). Nearly one in five west- county residents (17.8%) said they “strongly agree” with such a property tax hike to provide for open space and recreation areas, and over one-third (35%) said they “somewhat agree.” In contrast, nearly half (46.8%) of north-county residents and one-third (32.3%) of south-county residents said they “strongly disagree” with this idea. Clearly, willingness to pay increased taxes to provide for additional open space and public recreation areas is considerably lower among residents of the northern and 9.8% 24.3% 20.0% 28.1% 17.8% 8.5% 25.5% 22.9% 25.5% 17.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 47b. Levels of agreement that housing developments should be built at higher densities, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 southern portions of Summit County (where at present open space is generally more readily available) than is true for west-county residents. A comparison of weighted countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 48b) indicates that overall residents’ views about this issue have remained relatively stable over this time span. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 48a. Levels of agreement with a 2% property tax increase to purchase private land for open space/recreation West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 Economic Development Options A new series of questions inserted into the 2013 survey questionnaire focused on the extent to which Summit County residents do or do not support having various types of new commercial development located in close proximity (within a 1 to 2 mile distance) of where they live. The first of these asked participants to react to the possibility of having “a new shopping complex containing 6-10 small to medium sized stores selling things like clothing, hardware, furniture, household appliances, and other consumer goods, along with restaurants, book stores, and other small retail businesses” located nearby. The response distributions summarized in Figure 49a indicate that reactions to this type of potential new economic development activity were substantially more negative than positive, particularly among those living in western portions of Summit County. Over 40% of west-county residents, and over one-third of those living in the north-county and south-county areas, indicated that they would “strongly oppose” such development within 1 to 2 miles of their homes. When the 18.4% 25.9% 12.5% 18.3% 24.9% 15.2% 29.6% 14.8% 15.5% 24.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Figure 48b. Levels of agreement with a 2% property tax increase to purchase private land for open space/recreation, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 “strongly oppose” and “somewhat oppose” categories are combined, 63.3% of west-county respondents, 47.6% of north-county respondents, and 55.5% of south-county respondents expressed some level of opposition. For the county as a whole, the weighted response distribution (Figure 49b) indicates that just over 60% of county residents were opposed to the prospect of such development, while only about 25% expressed some level of support. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 49a. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new shopping complex containing small to medium-sized businesses West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 84 The next item in this series asked survey participants to consider the prospect of having a “new professional business center providing offices for doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, financial planners, insurance offices, real estate agencies, and other professional service providers” located nearby. While overall response patterns on this question were somewhat less negative than was the case for the shopping complex scenario, county residents were still more likely to oppose than to support such development. For all three areas of the county the most common response was that residents would “strongly oppose” having this type of professional business center built within 1-2 miles of their residence (Figure 50a). In combination, some degree of opposition either “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” responses) was expressed by 53.4% of west-county residents, 44.2% of north-county residents, and 49.8% of south-county residents. For the county as a whole, the data indicate that just over half of residents would oppose this type of development in proximity to their homes (Figure 50b). 40.7% 19.7% 14.0% 18.2% 7.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 49b. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new shopping complex containing small to medium-sized businesses, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 85 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 50a. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new professional business center West County North County South County 31.1% 20.9% 20.4% 21.4% 6.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 50b. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new professional business center, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 86 Responses by county residents to the prospect of having a “new industrial park providing space for 5-10 medium-scale manufacturing and production businesses such as machine shops, auto repair facilities, electronic repair shops, welding and sheet metal fabrication business, and similar operations” were also generally negative. As indicated in Figure 51a, the most common response in each of the three areas of the county was that residents would “strongly oppose” such development. Opposition to such development was strongest among west-county residents, with a combined 65.3% of respondents indicating some degree of opposition and only 21.8% expressing support. Among south-county residents 55.2% of respondents expressed some level of opposition, and 27.9% expressed support. Responses from north-county residents were somewhat more evenly balanced, but expressions of opposition (43.6%) were still more common than expressions of support Data for the county as a whole (Figure 51b) indicate that overall over 60% of residents would likely oppose development of this type of industrial park in proximity to their homes. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 51a. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new industrial park West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 87 The concept of having a new “big box store operated by one of the major national retail chains, such as Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, or Costco” built near where they live also elicited broad- based opposition among Summit County residents (Figure 52a). Approximately one-half of those living in west-county (53%) and south-county (47.9%) areas indicated they would “strongly oppose” such a development, as did over one-third (36%) of those living in the northern areas of the county. For the county as a whole, some level of opposition to the prospect of this type of development was expressed by 65% of residents (Figure 52b). 41.1% 20.4% 14.3% 18.9% 5.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 51b. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new industrial park, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 88 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 52a. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new "big box" store West County North County South County 50.5% 14.5% 9.5% 15.0% 10.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 52b. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new "big box" store, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 89 The next item in this series asked respondents to consider the prospect of having a “large regional warehouse and trucking distribution center operated by a major national retailer such as Wal- Mart or Costco” developed within 1-2 miles of their residences. Once again, expressions of opposition to such development were widespread across all parts of the county. Response patterns outlined in Figure 53a reveal that over two-thirds (68.9%) of those living in west-county areas indicated that they would strongly oppose the development of such a facility nearby, as did four out of ten (40.4%) north- county residents and over half (56.8%) of south-county residents. The weighted countywide response distribution (Figure 53b) indicates that in combination over three-fourths of county residents would be somewhat or strongly opposed to having such development occur in proximity to their residences. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 53a. Levels of support and opposition to development of a regional warehouse/distribution center West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 90 In contrast to response patterns generated by other questions in this series, residents expressed a broader range of views regarding the acceptability of having “a complex of 100 to 150 wind power turbines” built near their homes (Figure 54a). While expressions of opposition were most common among west-county residents (a combined 42.8%), nearly as many residents of that area (39.6%) indicated they would support such development. Residents of the north-county area were more likely to express support (a combined 41.3% of responses) than opposition as were those living in south-county areas (42.6% expressed some level of support and 39.3% were somewhat or strongly opposed). The countywide response estimates (Figure 54b) suggest that residents’ reactions to this development scenario are almost evenly balanced between opposition (a combined 42.2%) and support Since proposals for large-scale wind power facilities have generated substantial controversy and local opposition in many areas due to concerns about visual and environmental impacts, the higher level of support expressed by Summit County residents in response to this item compared to other economic development scenarios presented in this series of questions is somewhat surprising. 64.1% 13.3% 11.1% 7.1% 4.3% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 53b. Levels of support and opposition to development of a regional warehouse/distribution center, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 91 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 54a. Levels of support and opposition to development of a complex of 100-150 wind power turbines West County North County South County 31.1% 11.1% 18.1% 24.4% 15.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 54b. Levels of support and opposition to development of a complex of 100-150 wind power turbines, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 92 Survey participants were also asked to consider the possibility of having a “new manufacturing facility employing 50-100 production workers to construct prefabricated modular and mobile homes” built nearby. As indicated in Figure 55a, those living in western areas of Summit County were generally opposed to such a development, with nearly half (47.1%) saying they would be strongly opposed. South-county residents were also generally opposed, though about one-fourth (24.6%) of those living in this area did express some degree of support for such development. Responses were more evenly mixed among north-county residents, with 41.2% of those living in that area indicating some opposition to this type of development near their homes, and 36.9% expressing support. For the county as a whole, there is a clear tendency for more county residents to oppose rather than support development of this type of manufacturing facility in proximity to their places of residence. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 55a. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new manufacturing facility West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 93 The final question in this series presented survey participants with the idea of having a “new business park centered on high-tech, scientific, and other high-paying professional businesses” built within 1-2 miles of their homes. Overall, responses to this kind of development were generally more positive than negative (Figure 56a). Among west-county residents a combined 38% of responses were on the “opposed” side of the response scale, while 46.3% indicated some degree of support for this type of development. North-county residents were also more likely to express support (a combined 40.3% of responses) than opposition In contrast, south-county residents were more likely to express opposition (44.3%) than support The weighted countywide distribution (Figure 56b) indicates that levels of opposition to and support for having a professional business park built near their homes would likely be quite mixed among Summit County residents. 43.3% 17.8% 18.6% 15.1% 5.2% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 55b. Levels of support and opposition to development of a new manufacturing facility, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 94 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 56a. Levels of support and opposition to developing a high- tech/scientific/professional business park West County North County South County 26.1% 12.5% 17.8% 28.2% 15.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support Figure 56b. Levels of support and opposition to developing a high- tech/scientific/professional business park, countywide results for 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 95 Following this series of structured-response questions, survey participants were asked to use their own words to indicate what they would select as “the one most desirable form of new economic development” they would like to see occur in the next five years in the part of Summit County where they live. Among west-county residents, the five most frequently identified economic development preferences involved high-tech or science-oriented businesses (listed by 19.5% of the 262 individuals who provided a response), recreation/tourism-oriented businesses (listed by 13% of respondents), renewable energy facilities (listed by 11.1%), a Costco retail center (listed by and a “non- development” response indicating a belief that no further development is needed or wanted. For north- county residents, the five top responses to this question included new small or locally-owned businesses (listed by 14.6% of the 294 individuals who provided a response), expressions that “any new business” would be desirable (9.5% of responses), a Costco retail center renewable energy facilities and recreation/tourism-oriented businesses For south-county residents, the five most frequently-offered responses included a Costco retail center (13.7% of the 249 responses provided), small or locally-owned new businesses “any new business” high-tech or science oriented businesses and recreation/tourism-oriented businesses Public Safety and Law Enforcement Services The next section of the survey questionnaire focused on residents’ views about public safety and law enforcement services in Summit County. The initial question in this section asked respondents to rate the “quality and effectiveness of law enforcement services provided by the Summit County Sheriff’s Department.” As indicated in Figure 57a, responses to this question generally indicate that most county residents consider county law enforcement services to be at least average if not above average. Only a small fraction of residents in any of the three county areas considered law ---PAGE BREAK--- 96 enforcement services to be either “very poor” or “below average.” Among west-county residents the most common response was that law enforcement services are “above average” with an additional 13.2% indicating that they consider law enforcement services to be “excellent.” North- county residents were less positive – 43.6% considered law enforcement services to be “average,” while a combined 39.3% indicated that such services are either above average or excellent. And, while just over one-third of south-county respondents considered law enforcement services to be “average,” well over one-half selected either the “above average” (38.2%) or “excellent” (18.3%) categories. A comparison of overall county-wide response patterns for 2011 and 2013 (Figure 57b) reveals a small increase in residents’ overall levels of satisfaction with law enforcement services provided by the sheriff’s department. In 2011 a combined 51.4% of countywide responses fell into the “above average” or “excellent” categories, compared to 56.9% in 2013. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 57a. Citizens' ratings of law enforcement services provided by the Summit County Sheriff's Department West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 97 This question was followed by a series of more specific items designed to assess residents’ levels of satisfaction with several specific aspects of law enforcement services in Summit County. The first item in this series asked respondents to consider “how quickly the sheriff’s department responds to emergencies.” Across all three areas of the county the most common response choice was “neutral,” selected by approximately 35% to 38% of respondents (see Figure 58a). However, among those who did express an opinion, residents from all segments of the county were far more likely to say they are satisfied rather than dissatisfied with response time by the sheriff’s department. In combination, 57.8% of west-county residents, 47.9% of north-county residents, and 59.6% of south-county residents said they are either “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” with how quickly county law enforcement responds to emergency situations. Overall levels of satisfaction for the county as a whole (Figure 58b) indicate that a higher percentage of residents were satisfied with response time by the sheriff’s department in 2013 (a combined 57.2% of responses falling in the “somewhat satisfied” and “very satisfied” categories) compared to what was observed in 2011 3.9% 7.0% 37.7% 37.7% 13.7% 3.1% 5.7% 34.4% 43.0% 13.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent Figure 57b. Citizens' ratings of law enforcement services provided by the Summit County Sheriff's Deparment, countywide results for 20 11 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 98 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 58a. Levels of satisfaction with how quickly the sheriff's department responds to emergencies West County North County South County 1.6% 4.7% 44.6% 24.8% 24.4% 1.8% 3.4% 37.6% 32.6% 24.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 58b. Levels of satisfaction with how quickly the sheriff's department responds to emergencies, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 99 Respondents were also asked to evaluate “the level of professionalism on the part of law enforcement officers” in Summit County. As indicated in Figure 59a, most responses ranged from “neutral” to “very satisfied,” with only a small minority of residents indicating dissatisfaction. Among west-county residents similar percentages of respondents selected the “somewhat satisfied” (30.7%) and “very satisfied” (29.8%) response choices. North-county residents were less satisfied overall with the professionalism of law enforcement officers, with 28.1% selecting the “neutral” category, 27.5% saying they are “somewhat satisfied,” and 22.7% saying they are “very satisfied.” Among south-county residents nearly identical percentages of responses fell into the “neutral” “somewhat satisfied” and “very satisfied” (29.3%) categories. The weighted countywide response patterns reported in Figure 59b reveal that there has been a shift toward more positive views about this issue from 2011 to 2013. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 59a. Levels of satisfaction with the professionalism of law enforcement officers West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 100 Responses to the next item in this series, which asked about the “level of emphasis placed on enforcing speed limits and traffic laws,” were somewhat more mixed, though residents of each area were generally more likely to be satisfied than dissatisfied with this aspect of county law enforcement. Nearly one-fourth (24%) of west-county residents, about one-fifth (20.7%) of north-county residents, and just under one-fifth (17.8%) of south-county residents expressed some level of dissatisfaction regarding the emphasis placed by county law enforcement on enforcing speed limits and traffic laws (Figure 60a). At the same time, 51% of north-county residents, 47.3% of north-county residents, and 57% of south-county residents said they are either somewhat or very satisfied regarding this particular aspect of law enforcement activity in the county. When comparing countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 60b), it appears that satisfaction levels with this aspect of county law enforcement have increased over the past two years. 5.3% 8.9% 30.9% 27.2% 27.6% 4.1% 10.2% 26.4% 30.2% 29.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 59b. Levels of satisfaction with the profesionalism of law enforcement officers, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 60a. Levels of satisfaction with the emphasis placed on enforcing speed limits and traffic laws West County North County South County 10.1% 17.8% 24.9% 26.1% 21.2% 7.7% 15.0% 25.6% 30.1% 21.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 60b. Levels of satisfaction with the emphasis placed on enforcing speed limits and traffic laws, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 102 As indicated in Figure 61a, few county residents expressed dissatisfaction with the level of emphasis the sheriff’s department places on enforcement of impaired or DUI driving violations. Approximately half of respondents in both the west-county (55.5%) and north-county (49.2%) areas and six out of ten (60.1%) south-county residents indicated some level of satisfaction with this aspect of county law enforcement. A comparison of countywide response tendencies in 2011 and 2013 again reveals a slight increase in overall levels of satisfaction with the emphasis public safety and law enforcement services in Summit County place on impaired/DUI driving violations (Figure 61b). 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 61a. Levels of satisfaction with the emphasis placed on impaired driving and DUI enforcement West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 103 When asked about the emphasis the sheriff’s department places on “public outreach and education,” most survey participants selected the “neutral” response category (Figure 62a), most likely reflecting a lack of familiarity among many residents with these activities and programs. Among those who did express either satisfaction or dissatisfaction, very similar percentages of residents across the three areas of the county indicated that they were somewhat or very satisfied with this aspect of law enforcement effort (a combined 39.7% of west-county responses, 38.2% of north-county responses, and 40.9% of south-county responses). Overall countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were quite similar (Figure 62b). 5.4% 6.4% 38.2% 24.4% 25.5% 4.5% 8.0% 31.8% 33.2% 22.5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 61b. Levels of satisfaction with the emphasis placed on impaired driving and DUI enforcement, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 104 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 62a. Levels of satisfaction with the emphasis placed on public outreach and education West County North County South County 4.5% 7.6% 50.8% 24.6% 12.6% 3.1% 8.3% 48.9% 27.3% 12.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 62b. Levels of satisfaction with the emphasis placed on public outreach and education, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 105 When asked to express their views about the extent to which the sheriff’s department provides “fair and equal treatment of all citizens,” Summit County residents again were most likely to select the “neutral” response category (Figure 63a). Some degree of dissatisfaction was reported by 18.7% of west-county respondents, 23.8% of north-county respondents, and 15.1% of south-county respondents. At the same time, residents of each of these areas were considerably more likely to be satisfied with this aspect of law enforcement, with a combined 40.8% of responses from west-county residents, 39% of responses in the north-county area, and 48.3% of those by south-county residents falling on the “satisfied” side of the scale’s neutral midpoint. As indicated in Figure 63b, the overall response pattern obtained in 2013 for this question reveals higher levels of satisfaction than were evident at the time of the 2011 survey. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 63a. Levels of satisfaction that sheriff's deputies provide fair and equal treatment to all citizens West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 106 Evaluations of the sheriff’s department’s “effectiveness in controlling and responding to drug law violations” are summarized in Figure 64a. Once again, the most common response to this item was “neutral.” However, very few individuals from any area of the county expressed dissatisfaction about this aspect of county law enforcement; residents were far more likely to say they were either “somewhat satisfied” (30.2% of west-county responses, 26.4% of north-county responses, and 30.5% of south-county responses) or “very satisfied” (15.1% west-county, 18.4% north-county, 19.9% south- county). Countywide response tendencies derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys indicate a slight shift in satisfaction levels, with more residents in 2013 expressing some degree of satisfaction with this aspect of law enforcement services and fewer reporting a neutral response (Figure 64b). 7.4% 10.9% 46.7% 19.3% 15.7% 8.3% 10.3% 39.5% 23.9% 18.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 63b. Levels of satisfaction that sheriff's deputies provide fair and equal treatment to all citizens, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 107 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 64a. Levels of satisfaction with effectiveness in controlling and responding to drug law violations West County North County South County 4.5% 7.1% 46.4% 24.4% 17.6% 4.5% 7.2% 42.1% 29.9% 16.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 64b. Levels of satisfaction with effectiveness in controlling and responding to drug law violations, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 108 Recreation Opportunities and Services The next major section of the survey questionnaire presented respondents with a series of items designed to assess their satisfaction with various aspects of recreation opportunities and services in Summit County. First, survey participants were asked to evaluate “the availability of hiking and biking trails located in areas of the county near your home.” Response patterns summarized in Figure 65a reveal that satisfaction with this aspect of recreation opportunities is generally very high among west-county residents, and moderately high among north-county and south-county residents. In western Summit County over three-fourths (79.5%) of respondents said they are “very satisfied” with the availability of nearby hiking and biking trails. By comparison, approximately one-third of north- county (32%) and south-county (36.4%) residents said they are “very satisfied” with the availability of nearby trails. Overall response patterns for the county as a whole were generally similar in 2011 and 2013 (Figure 65b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 65a. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of hiking and biking trails West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 109 The next three items also focused on hiking and biking trails, but asked respondents to separately consider trails located in western, northern, and southern portions of the county. Satisfaction with “the current number of hiking and biking trails located in western Summit County around Park City and Snyderville Basin” (Figure 66a) was particularly high among west-side residents, with nearly three-fourths of responses (74.1%) falling into the “very satisfied” category. Roughly four out of ten respondents from north-county and south-county areas also indicated that they are “very satisfied” with the availability of hiking/biking trails in the western part of Summit County. Countywide response patterns on this item were generally similar in 2011 and 2013 (Figure 66b). 2.7% 5.4% 8.7% 20.0% 63.2% 1.8% 5.3% 6.9% 18.3% 67.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 65b. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of hiking and biking trails, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 110 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 66a. Levels of satisfaction with the number of hiking/biking trails in western Summit County West County North County South County 0.8% 1.6% 16.2% 21.2% 60.2% 0.9% 2.5% 11.8% 19.4% 65.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 66b. Levels of satisfaction with the number of hiking/biking trails in western Summit County, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 111 Responses to a similar question addressing the “number of hiking and biking trails in portions of northern Summit County” surrounding Coalville, Echo and Henefer (Figure 67a) were considerably different. Most west-county and south-county residents selected the “neutral” response to this question (likely an indication of unfamiliarity with trail conditions in the area), while about 28% of north- county residents were dissatisfied to some degree and 49% were satisfied. A comparison of the weighted countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 67b) reveals higher levels of satisfaction overall with trails in northern areas of the county in 2013 compared to those observed in 2011. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 67a. Levels of satisfaction with the number of hiking/biking trails in northern Summit County West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 112 When asked to evaluate the “number of hiking and biking trails in portions of southern Summit County” around Kamas and Oakley (Figure 68a), most west-county and north-county residents selected the “neutral” response option, while about 54% of south-county respondents expressed some degree of satisfaction with the current situation and 29% were dissatisfied. Once again, comparison of countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys reveals a modest overall increase in satisfaction with the availability of trails in this part of Summit County (Figure 68b). 3.2% 10.1% 58.8% 11.7% 16.2% 2.2% 9.8% 52.8% 15.4% 19.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 67b. Levels of satisfaction with the number of hiking/biking trails in northern Summit County, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 113 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 68a. Levels of satisfaction with the number of hiking/biking trails in southern Summit County West County North County South County 4.3% 11.5% 55.2% 13.8% 15.2% 3.0% 11.1% 49.0% 17.0% 19.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 68b. Levels of satisfaction with the number of hiking/biking trails in southern Summit County, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 114 Figure 69a summarizes responses to a question asking residents to evaluate “the availability of community indoor recreation centers in the portion of the county where you live.” In both western and southern portions of the county a majority of survey participants reported some degree of satisfaction with this aspect of recreation conditions in the county. Approximately one-fourth of west-county respondents (24.6%) were “somewhat satisfied” with the availability of such facilities, and over one- half (51.4%) were “very satisfied.” Satisfaction levels were even higher among south-county residents, with 25.9% saying they are “somewhat satisfied” and 58.9% “very satisfied” with the availability of indoor recreation centers in their portion of Summit County. In contrast, north-county residents were more likely to express dissatisfaction than satisfaction with this aspect of local recreation opportunities and services. In combination, 47.5% of responses by north-county residents fell on the “dissatisfied” side of the response scale, while only 29.6% were on the “satisfied” side of the scale. Countywide, response patterns indicate somewhat higher levels of satisfaction with indoor recreation facilities and services in 2013 than was the case at the time of the 2011 survey (Figure 69b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 69a. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of indoor recreation centers West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 115 Respondents were also asked to assess the “availability of community outdoor recreation facilities like baseball and soccer fields” in the portions of the county where they live. As indicated in Figure 70a, overall levels of satisfaction were considerably higher among those who live in the western and southern areas of Summit County than was the case among north-county residents. Over one-half (53.7%) of west-county residents and 45.2% of south-county residents selected the “very satisfied” response option for this question, compared to just 18.5% of those living in the north-county area. And, while very few residents of western or southern portions of the county expressed any degree of dissatisfaction with the availability of such outdoor recreation facilities and playing fields, nearly one- third (32.3%) of north-county residents were dissatisfied. Overall, the countywide response patterns derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were quite similar (Figure 70b). 6.4% 10.6% 14.2% 27.9% 40.9% 4.6% 9.5% 12.7% 23.8% 49.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 69b. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of indoor recreation centers, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 116 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 70a. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of community outdoor recreation facilities West County North County South County 2.3% 6.5% 20.9% 26.1% 44.1% 2.2% 6.4% 19.5% 23.0% 49.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 70b. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of community outdoor recreation facilities, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 117 The last item in this series asked county residents to indicate their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with “the availability of bike lanes or road shoulders that are wide enough to allow safe bicycling along county roadways without causing conflicts with automobile traffic.” Overall, responses to this item revealed considerable dissatisfaction among residents of northern and southern portions of Summit County, and mixed views among west-county residents (Figure 71a). North- county and south-county residents were most likely to say they are “very dissatisfied” (29.9% and 28.9% of responses, respectively) with the availability of adequate bike lanes or road shoulders to avoid vehicle conflicts with bicyclists, with an additional 21% of north-county residents and 28.4% of south-county residents saying they are “somewhat dissatisfied.” Among west-county residents about one-third (34.7%) of responses fell on the “dissatisfied” side of the neutral midpoint of the response scale, while half (51%) were on the “satisfied” side of the scale. Response distributions for the county as a whole (Figure 71b) suggest that satisfaction with bike lanes or road shoulders that allow safe bicycling was higher overall in 2013 than was the case in 2011. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 71a. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of bike lanes or road shoulders to allow safe bicycling West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 118 Setting Priorities for County Government and Services The final set of questions focusing on conditions in Summit County asked survey participants to provide input regarding the extent to which a broad range of county government services should be given higher or lower priority with respect to the future allocation of public funds. For each of these items, respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought funding for a particular service should be “significantly reduced,” “reduced “stay at current levels,” or “increased.” The first item in this series asked respondents to consider the funding of “public library services.” As indicated in Figure 72a, a substantial majority of residents across all three areas of the county said funding should stay at current levels. Among those calling for a change, higher percentages suggested that funds should be increased as opposed to decreased. Comparison of overall countywide response distributions derived from surveys conducted in 2011 and 2013 indicate higher support for increased library funding in 2013 (Figure 72b). 21.7% 24.6% 17.0% 22.5% 14.2% 14.5% 25.6% 15.8% 24.7% 19.5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 71b. Levels of satisfaction with the availability of bike lanes or road shoulders to allow safe bicycling, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 119 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 72a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public library services West County North County South County 1.9% 10.7% 73.4% 14.0% 2.3% 9.4% 71.0% 17.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 72b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public library services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 120 A similar response pattern resulted when residents were asked to consider allocation of county funds to support public health clinics (Figure 73a). Across the three county areas between two-thirds and three-fourths of respondents thought funding levels should stay at current levels, and just under one in five felt funding for health clinics should be increased. The countywide response patterns for 2011 and 2013 exhibited only small differences (Figure 73b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 73a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public health clinics West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 121 The next item in this series focused on allocation of funding to support the county sheriff’s department. As indicated in Figure 74a, respondents were most likely to prefer that funding remain at current levels (70.8% of west-county responses, 62% of north-county responses, and 65.5% of south- county responses). North-county residents were more likely to support some reduction in funding levels for the sheriff’s department than were those living in western or northern areas of the county, although such opinions were expressed by a relatively small minority of respondents in all three areas. Response distributions for the county as a whole (Figure 74b) indicate that there was less support for a reduction in funding of the sheriff’s department in 2013 than had been the case in 2011. 2.4% 10.3% 66.7% 20.6% 3.3% 8.9% 69.0% 18.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 73b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public health clinics, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 122 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 74a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for the Summit County sheriff's department West County North County South County 6.7% 15.2% 64.2% 13.9% 4.8% 11.1% 69.0% 15.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 74b. Citizens' views about future funding priorites for the Summit County sheriff's department, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 123 When asked to consider allocation of public funds to support emergency response (EMT) services, county residents were again most likely to indicate a preference that funding remain at current levels. That response option was selected by 75.8% of west-county residents, 67.7% of north-county residents, and 69% of south-county residents (see Figure 75a). At the same time, a substantial minority of residents in all three areas indicated support for having increased public funds directed to emergency services; this was especially the case among those living in north-county (26.8%) and south-county (27.2%) areas. Countywide response patterns (Figure 75b) indicate that views about this issue remained highly stable from 2011 to 2013. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 75a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for emergency response services West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 124 The next item focused on the degree to which public funding should be allocated in support of public use indoor recreation centers. As indicated in Figure 76a, a substantial majority of west-county (65.9%) and south-county (71.7%) residents indicated a preference for funding of such recreation centers to remain at current levels. However, while north-county residents were also most likely to express a preference that funding for such facilities remain at current levels they were at the same time more likely than residents of either the west-county or south-county areas to prefer either a funding increase or a funding decrease. When considering the county as a whole (Figure 76b), response patterns derived from the 2013 survey indicate less overall support for increased allocations of funding of indoor recreation centers than was evident in 2011, with a commensurate increase in preferences that funding remain at current levels. 0.9% 5.1% 73.3% 20.6% 0.4% 4.5% 73.9% 21.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 75b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for emergency response services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 125 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 76a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public use indoor recreation centers West County North County South County 4.8% 19.2% 57.6% 18.4% 3.7% 16.3% 64.5% 15.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 76b. Citizens' views about future funding priorites for public use indoor recreation facilities, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 126 Responses to the next item, which focused on the question of funding for public use outdoor sports fields, revealed generally similar tendencies (Figure 77a). In this case a majority of respondents in all three areas of the county said funding of these facilities should remain at current levels, though the percentage selecting that response option was considerably higher among west-county (68.5%) and south-county (74.7%) residents than among north-county residents At the same time, in each of the areas those who thought funding levels should change were considerably more likely to express support for decreased funding of outdoor sports fields than to support an increase in the allocation of public funds for such facilities. The weighted countywide response distributions for 2011 and 2013 (Figure 77b) were generally similar, reflecting a strong tendency for most Summit County residents to prefer that funding of such outdoor sports facilities remain at current levels. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 77a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public use outdoor sports fields West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 127 Next, survey participants were asked to consider the question of having public funds allocated for the provision of public use hiking and biking trails (Figure 78a). Among west-county residents, two-thirds (66.3%) of respondents said funding levels for trails should remain at current levels, while over one in five (21%) expressed a preference for increased funding and only 12.7% called for decreased funding. In contrast, about one-half (49.4%) of north-county residents indicated that funding of hiking/biking trails should remain at current levels, while a combined 39% expressed a preference for some level of funding reduction and only 11.6% indicated that funding should be increased. The views of south-county residents fell between these two extremes, with over half of respondents from that portion of the county (56.4%) indicating a preference for current funding levels, 17.7% saying they would like to see increased funding of public use trails, and 25.9% calling for some degree of funding reduction. The countywide response distributions (Figure 78b) suggest that in 2013 residents were less likely than was the case in 2011 to support increase funding of hiking and biking trails, and more likely to indicate a preference that funding remain at current levels. 4.2% 20.5% 66.4% 8.8% 3.6% 17.9% 68.2% 10.3% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 77b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public use outdoor sports fields, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 128 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 78a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public use hiking and biking trails West County North County South County 6.2% 13.4% 56.6% 23.8% 4.5% 13.0% 62.9% 19.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 78b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public use hiking and biking trails, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 129 As indicated in Figure 79a, few residents from any part of Summit County indicated that they would prefer to see allocations of public funds in support of senior citizen centers and services reduced. In all three areas a majority of respondents stated that funding should remain at current levels. Support for increased funding of senior centers and programs was highest among west-county residents (32.7%, lower among north-county residents and lowest among those living in southern areas of Summit County Countywide, the statistically weighted response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 79b) reveal that by 2013 there had been a slight increase in the percentage of residents supporting increased funding of senior citizen centers and services. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 79a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for senior citizen centers and services West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 130 The next question in this series focused on future funding priorities for fire protection services (Figure 80a). In all three areas of the county, approximately seven out of ten survey respondents thought funding for fire protection should remain at current levels, and very few indicated any preference for reduced funding. Support for increased allocation of county funds for fire protection services was highest among south-county residents lower among north-county residents and lowest among west-county residents A comparison of countywide response patterns for 2011 and 2013 (Figure 80b) indicates a very slight decline over that two-year period in the percentage of residents expressing support for increased allocations of funding for fire protection services. 2.0% 8.1% 65.2% 24.7% 1.8% 7.5% 60.8% 29.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 79b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for senior citizen centers and services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 131 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 80a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for fire protection services West County North County South County 2.0% 6.4% 72.8% 18.8% 1.4% 5.1% 71.0% 22.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 80b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for fire protection services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 132 Across each of the three areas of the county, most residents said that use of public funds to support public transportation systems should remain at current levels (Figure 81a). Support for increased funding was relatively limited in all of the areas, while preferences for some level of funding reduction were more frequent among north-county residents (a combined 23.4% of responses) than among residents of either the western (11.3%) or southern (17.4%) areas of the county. The countywide response distributions (Figure 81b) indicate a slight overall decline by 2013 in the percentage of residents supporting increased use of county funds to support public transportation services. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 81a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public transportation services West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 133 Two-thirds to three-fourths of survey participants across the three areas of Summit County (65.6% of west-county residents, 68.9% of north-county residents, and 76.8% of south-county residents) indicated a preference for county allocations of funds for public water supply systems to remain at current levels (Figure 82a). Few residents from any of these areas indicated that they would want to see funding of public water systems reduced. Support for increased funding for water systems was strongest in western Summit County lower in the northern portion of the county and lowest in the south-county area Countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 citizen surveys were nearly identical (Figure 82b). 3.3% 10.2% 65.4% 21.1% 3.4% 10.1% 70.5% 16.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 81b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public transportation services, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 134 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 82a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public water supply systems West County North County South County 0.8% 5.3% 69.6% 24.2% 1.1% 5.5% 67.8% 25.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 82b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for public water supply systems, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 135 As indicated in Figure 83a, residents’ views about the allocation of funding to support county planning and zoning enforcement differed considerably across the three areas of Summit County. Two-thirds of west-county (66.6%) and south-county (67.8%) respondents, but under half (47.8%) of those living in north-county areas, said funding used for that purpose should remain at current levels. Also, a combined 45.3% of north-county residents expressed support for some reduction in funding of planning and zoning enforcement, compared to 24.2% of those living in southern parts of the county and just 15.5% of those in west-county areas. Countywide, there is evidence of less support for reduced funding of county planning and zoning enforcement by 2013 when compared to survey response patterns obtained in 2011 (Figure 83b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 83a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for county planning and zoning enforcement West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 136 Results summarized in Figure 84a indicate that across all three portions of Summit County there is relatively little support for reductions in the amount of county funding allocated to solid waste recycling. In each of the three areas a majority of respondents expressed a preference that funding of recycling programs remain at current levels. Nearly one-third (31.4%) of west-county residents, but only about 15% of those living in the north-county or south-county areas, indicated that they would prefer to see funding for such programs increased. Countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were very similar overall (Figure 84b). 7.1% 18.2% 59.9% 14.9% 5.1% 14.9% 64.9% 15.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 83b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for county planning and zoning enforcement, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 137 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 84a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for solid waste recycling programs West County North County South County 2.4% 7.0% 62.3% 28.2% 2.3% 5.5% 65.3% 27.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 84b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for solid waste recycling programs, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 138 Most county residents also support continuation of current funding allocations to support air and water quality monitoring (Figure 85a). At the same time, there is considerable variation in views about this issue across the three areas of the county. Nearly four out of ten (39.2%) of west-county residents called for an increase in funding to support of such programs, a result that undoubtedly is at least partly a consequence of greater exposure to air and water quality problems in that more heavily- populated portion of the county nearest to Utah’s heavily urbanized Wasatch Front metropolitan corridor. In contrast, only about 13% of those living in the north-county and south-county areas indicated that funding of air and water quality monitoring programs should be increased. Weighted response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 85b) indicate that by 2013 there has been a slight increase in overall support for air and water quality monitoring among Summit County residents. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 85a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for air and water quality monitoring West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 139 The next two questions in this series focused on different aspects of county road maintenance. First, respondents were asked to indicate their preferences for future funding of annual maintenance of county roadways (Figure 86a). Across the three areas of Summit County two-thirds to nearly three- fourths of residents indicated that they would prefer that funding levels for road maintenance remain at current levels. Very few respondents from any area indicated a preference for reduced funding of annual road maintenance, while 24-30% indicated that they believed funding should be increased. A comparison of countywide response patterns on this issue from the 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 86b) indicates that residents expressed less support for increased funding of county road maintenance programs (26.7%) in 2013 than was the case in 2011 2.6% 10.0% 62.1% 25.3% 2.0% 8.5% 57.3% 32.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 85b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for air and water quality monitoring, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 140 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 86a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for annual maintenance of county roadways West County North County South County 0.4% 3.8% 59.7% 36.1% 0.6% 5.0% 67.7% 26.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 86b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for annual maintenance of county roadways, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 141 When asked about funding of winter snow plowing on county roadways (Figure 87a), a large majority of residents from the west-county north-county and south-county (78.1%) areas indicated that funding should remain at current levels. At the same time, north-county residents (23.5%) and south-county residents (19.1%) were more likely to support increased funding for this purpose than was the case among those living in the western area of Summit County The statistically weighted countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were very similar (Figure 87b). 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 87a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for winter plowing of county roadways West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 142 Figure 88a summarizes responses to an item that asked county residents to indicate whether they thought allocations of public funds to support the purchase of private lands for open space protection and public recreation access should be increased or decreased. Responses to this question reveal considerable differences of opinion among residents living in different areas of Summit County. Among west-county residents the most common response was that funding should be increased South-county residents were most likely to say that funding for such programs should remain at current levels In contrast, nearly half (46.9%) of those living in north-county areas expressed a preference for some reduction in funding to purchase lands for open space and recreation areas, with many (29.4% of respondents) indicating that they would like to see funding of such programs reduced significantly. When considering the county as a whole response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were highly similar (Figure 88b), with expressions of support for increased funding of such land purchase programs (36.5% in 2013) outweighing those indicating a preference for funding reductions (a combined 24.4% in 2013). 0.5% 5.1% 75.6% 18.8% 0.6% 5.0% 78.8% 15.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 87b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for winter plowing of county roadways, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 143 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 88a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for purchase of private lands for open space and public recreation West County North County South County 12.4% 12.5% 38.7% 36.4% 11.1% 13.3% 39.1% 36.5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 88b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for purchase of private lands for open space and recreation, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 144 Finally, survey participants were asked about the allocation of public funds to support economic development and business recruitment programs. In all three areas of the county respondents were most likely to indicate that they thought funding for such programs should remain at current levels (Figure 89a). At the same time, respondents in all areas were considerably more likely to indicate a preference for some reduction in the expenditure of county funds for such economic development activities (a combined 38.7% of west county responses, 34.2% of west-county responses, and 32% of south-county responses) than to support funding increases. Countywide response distributions derived from the 2011 and 2013 surveys were generally similar (Figure 89b), though as of 2013 there was a slight increase in the percentages of residents expressing support for either significant reductions or increases in funding of economic development and business recruitment programs. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 89a. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for economic development and business recruitment programs West County North County South County ---PAGE BREAK--- 145 9.9% 23.4% 51.9% 14.8% 13.5% 23.6% 45.4% 17.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Funding Significantly Reduced Funding Reduced Funding Stay At Current Levels Funding Should Be Increased Figure 89b. Citizens' views about future funding priorities for economic development and business recruitment programs, countywide results for 2011 and 2013 2011 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- 146 Summary and Conclusions Taken as a whole, the results of this 2013 survey of people living in Summit County, Utah reveal that for the most part residents are highly satisfied with overall quality of life in the area, and generally satisfied with the facilities, programs and services provided by county government. When attention is focused on results for the county as a whole, it is clear that relatively few residents are unhappy with particular local conditions, or dissatisfied with specific aspects of county government programs and priorities. Whether asked to consider qualities of the physical environment, the availability of recreation facilities and services, the quality and effectiveness of law enforcement and public safety services, maintenance of county roadways, the overall effectiveness of county government, the value of public services relative to taxes and fees, or their experiences in conducting business with county offices, most residents of Summit County are at least moderately if not highly satisfied with most aspects of local life. In addition, when results from the 2013 survey are compared with those obtained from a similar survey conducted in 2011, it is clear that for the most part Summit County residents perceive local conditions and the performance of county government to have either remained at similar levels or improved over that two-year period. Although the overall picture painted by survey responses reflects considerable satisfaction across most issues, it is noteworthy that a minority of survey participants in both 2011 and 2013 did express a belief that conditions in the county have become less desirable over the past 4-5 years. Such beliefs are attributed most frequently to concerns about changes that residents associate with excessive growth and development. In all areas of the county a majority of residents express support for policies that would manage growth and development, protect and preserve agricultural lands and open space, and protect the quality of the environment. Given such views, it is perhaps not especially surprising to find that residents generally do not support having various types of new commercial development occur in proximity to their homes. Overall, levels of interest in new economic development activities ---PAGE BREAK--- 147 or in having county government invest in efforts to recruit new businesses appear to be fairly low countywide. While there is clear evidence of broad-based concern across the entire county about the impacts of rapid growth and development that have characterized portions of Summit County for a number of years, levels of support for imposing a variety of growth control policies are generally much higher among those who live in the more extensively developed and heavily populated west-county areas than is the case for those who live in southern and especially northern portions of the county. Indeed, views about land use policies designed to manage growth and development represent an important point of difference and disagreement among county residents that is manifested in quite different response patterns across the three areas of Summit County. Residents of northern Summit County in particular exhibit considerable ambivalence about policies and programs that might manage growth and development patterns by imposing more restrictive land development policies, and highly mixed points of view regarding the use of public funds to secure additional open space and public recreational land areas through purchase of private lands. Responses to several questions included in the survey make it clear that more than a few north-county residents are uncomfortable with land use regulations that might be considered restrictive of private property rights. Levels of concern over a tension between growth management policies and private property rights are less widespread among south-county residents, and considerably less evident among residents of western Summit County. West-county residents generally express higher levels of support for growth management efforts and a considerably higher willingness to pay increased property taxes in order to fund open space protection and provision of public recreation areas. There are also substantial differences in how residents responded to various other issues across the three areas of the county. West-county residents living in the Park City and Snyderville Basin areas reported generally higher levels of satisfaction with local living conditions, with most ---PAGE BREAK--- 148 government services, and with the performance of county government overall than did residents of the county’s more rural northern and southern areas. In contrast, in northern portions of the county especially there exists a substantial minority of residents who expressed dissatisfaction about what they perceive to be inequities and shortfalls in the allocations of county-provided resources and services, and who perceived county government as being less than fully responsive to their needs and concerns. South-county residents appear to occupy positions that fall somewhere between those of west-county and north-county residents on many issues. While these distinctions in the orientations of residents living in western, northern, and southern areas of Summit County are real, the significance of such differences should not be over- emphasized. On balance, residents of all areas of Summit County appear to be generally satisfied with the living conditions and opportunities that they experience, with the availability and quality of services and programs provided by county government, and with county government efforts to protect and enhance local quality of life. ---PAGE BREAK--- 149 References Dillman, D.A. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lozar, M.K., M. Bosnjak, J. Berzelak, I. Haas and V. Vehovar. 2008. “Web surveys versus other survey modes.” International Journal of Market Research 50: 79-104. ---PAGE BREAK--- 150 APPENDIX Self-Completion Questionnaire Used in the 2013 Summit County Citizens Survey (printed version) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2013 SUMMIT COUNTY CITIZENS SURVEY Please return to: Summit County Citizens Survey PO Box 351 Logan, Utah 84323-0351 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. To begin, how would you rate the overall quality of life in Summit County? Very poor Below average Average Above average Excellent 2. To what extent is each of the following an important factor that contributes in a positive way to the quality of life you experience as a resident of Summit County? a. Outdoor recreation opportunities b. The clean environment of the area c. The rural and agricultural character of some parts of the county d. The local availability of retail shopping and commercial services 3. Please think about what you would like to see happen in Summit County over the next 10 years or so. Then, indicate how important each of the following is to your vision of what would be best for the future of this area. a. Protecting and preserving agricultural land and open space b. Increasing the number of commercial shopping facilities c. Limiting the expansion of new residential development d. Placing limits on future land development through enforcement of ordinances involving housing density and parcel size requirements e. Increasing job opportunities in clean, high-tech industries, health services, and other professional service occupations f. Increasing tourism and recreation-based business activity as a means of improving economic opportunities Quality of Life in Summit County Not at all Moderately Very Important Important Important Important Not at all Moderately Very Important Important Important Important ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Over the past 4 to 5 years, would you say that in general Summit County has become MORE or LESS desirable as a place to live? Much more desirable Somewhat less desirable Somewhat more desirable Much less desirable Stayed about the same WHY? 5. Please rate current conditions in Summit County with regard to the following: a. Overall levels of safety from crime and violence b. Air quality conditions in the county c. Water quality conditions in the county d. Availability of suitable employment opportunities for local residents e. Availability of developed recreation centers and facilities f. Availability of public-use trail systems for walking and biking g. Availability of public bus transportation systems h. Availability of county-operated clinics to address public health needs such as immunizations, testing and health education i. Environmental health programs that provide for monitoring and protection of air and water quality j. Availability of senior citizen centers and senior services programs k. Effectiveness of the county road department in maintaining and plowing roads that are not state highways or city streets l. Availability of county-supported library facilities and services m. Provision of recycling programs as part of the county’s waste management services n. Availability of an adequate supply of affordable housing Very Below Above Poor Average Average Average Excellent ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Very few people “like” to pay taxes. However, all local governments must rely on revenue generated primarily through property taxes to provide for public services and programs such as the sheriff’s department, county road maintenance and snow plowing, library services, public recreation facilities, health clinics and programs, fire protection and EMT services, senior citizen services, solid waste collection and disposal, and various other services. Considering the range and quality of services and programs provided by your county government, which of the following best represents how you feel about the county portion of your overall tax bill in Summit County? County taxes are considerably lower than they should be County taxes are lower than they should be County taxes are about right at current levels County taxes are higher than they should be County taxes are considerably higher than they should be 7. Next, please rate the following aspects of Summit County government: a. The overall quality of services provided by county government b. The overall value of services, facilities and programs you receive from the county in return for what you pay in taxes and fees c. The availability of information about Summit County services, facilities and programs d. The efforts of Summit County government to keep you informed about local issues and events e. Summit County’s fiscal responsibility in using available funds to address the most important needs of county residents f. The responsiveness of county government to citizen input g. The quality and availability of information on the county’s website Very Below Above Poor Average Average Average Excellent ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. During the past year, have you contacted any of the Summit County government offices to obtain information, obtain a permit, or do other business involving a branch of county government? No (please skip ahead to question 11) Yes (please answer questions 9 and 10 below) 9. If you answered ‘Yes’ to question 8, which Summit County government office did you contact most recently? 10. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the Summit County office you had contact with most recently on each of the following items: a. The accuracy of the information or assistance you received b. How quickly the county staff in this office responded to your needs c. How effectively your concerns or needs were addressed Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Satisfied ---PAGE BREAK--- 11. For each of the following statements please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by checking the one answer that best reflects your opinion. a. Rapid growth and development in Summit County is causing a loss of important and valued characteristics that have traditionally been associated with the area b. It is not acceptable to restrict private property rights in order to protect the environment or preserve open space c. Public policies to manage growth and development are needed to control the rate and locations of development in Summit County d. Uses of private land should be based on what the owner wants, without being restricted by regulations or land use ordinances e. Policies to manage growth and development should emphasize the protection of environmental quality, including clean air and water, even if this means some properties cannot be developed f. Summit County land use and development regulations need to be more flexible in allowing owners of existing residences to add on to their homes or expand into areas that currently are restricted by lot size or set-back requirements g. Future growth and development should be concentrated in western Summit County, to help preserve agricultural lands and open space in other parts of the county h. Future growth and development should be dispersed throughout most parts of Summit County, to provide people living in other areas greater access to the economic opportunities and services that accompany such growth i. Summit County should require most new housing developments to be built at higher densities with smaller lot sizes, in order to preserve more open space j. It would be appropriate for Summit County to increase residential and commercial property taxes by up to 2% in order to generate the funds needed to purchase private lands that could be used to preserve open space and provide public recreation areas Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Growth and Growth Management ---PAGE BREAK--- 12. “Economic development” often means different things to different people. For each of the following, please indicate the extent to which you would oppose or support having that type of development occur within a 1 to 2 mile distance from where you currently live in Summit County. a. A new shopping complex containing 6-10 small to medium-sized stores selling things like clothing, hardware, furniture, household appliances, and other consumer goods, along with restaurants, book stores, and other small retail businesses? b. A new professional business center providing offices for doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, financial planners, insurance offices, real estate agencies, and other professional service providers? c. A new industrial park providing space for 5-10 small- to medium-scale manufacturing and production businesses like machine shops, auto repair facilities, electronic repair shops, welding and sheet metal fabrication businesses, and similar operations? d. A new “big box” store operated by one of the major national retail chains, such as Home Depot, Walmart, Sam’s Club, or Costco? e. A large regional warehouse and trucking distribution center operated by a major national retailer such as Walmart or Costco? f. A complex of 100 to 150 wind power turbines, built by a commercial utility to increase electrical generation capacity for Utah and surrounding portions of the Intermountain West region? g. A new manufacturing facility employing 50-100 production workers to construct prefabricated modular and mobile homes, for sale and distribution throughout the western region? h. A new business park centered on high-tech, scientific, and other high-paying professional businesses? 13. If it was completely up to you, what would you select as the ONE most desirable form of new economic development you would like to see occur in the next five years in the part of Summit County where you live? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Oppose Oppose Neutral Support Support ---PAGE BREAK--- 14. Overall, how would you rate the quality and effectiveness of law enforcement services provided by the Summit County Sheriff’s Department? Very poor Below average Average Above average Excellent 15. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following specific aspects of public safety and law enforcement services in Summit County: a. How quickly the sheriff’s department responds to emergencies Level of professionalism on the part of law enforcement officers Level of emphasis placed on enforcing speed limits and traffic laws Level of emphasis placed on impaired driving and DUI enforcement Level of emphasis placed on public outreach and education Fair and equal treatment of all citizens by sheriff’s deputies Effectiveness in controlling and responding to drug law violations Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Satisfied Public Safety ---PAGE BREAK--- 16. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of recreation opportunities and services in Summit County: a. The availability of hiking and biking trails located in areas of the county near your home The current number of hiking and biking trails in western Summit county around Park City and Snyderville Basin The current number of hiking and biking trails in portions of northern Summit County around Coalville, Echo, and Henefer The current number of hiking and biking trails located in portions of southern Summit County around Kamas and Oakley The availability of community indoor recreation centers in the portion of the county where you live The availability of community outdoor recreation facilities like baseball and soccer fields in the portion of the county where you live The availability of bike lanes or road shoulders that are wide enough to allow safe bicycling along county roadways without causing conflicts with automobile traffic Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Satisfied Recreation Opportunities and Services ---PAGE BREAK--- 17. Provision of all county services and programs requires allocation of public funds. As a result, Summit County officials need to make decisions about which of these will receive highest priority, and which might need to receive lower priority when funding is limited. Given this, please share your views about whether funding levels should be significantly reduced, reduced stay at current levels, or be increased for each of the following services or programs provided by Summit County: a. Public library services Public health clinics c. County sheriff’s department d. Emergency response (EMT) services Public use indoor recreation centers f. Public use outdoor sports fields Public use hiking and biking trails Senior citizen centers and services Fire protection services Public transportation services Public water supply systems l. County planning and zoning enforcement Solid waste recycling programs Air and water quality monitoring Annual maintenance of county roadways Winter plowing of county roadways Purchase of private lands for open space protection and public recreation access Economic development and business recruitment programs Funding should be Funding should be Funding should stay Funding should significantly reduced reduced at current levels be increased Setting Priorities for County Government Services ---PAGE BREAK--- To enable us to compare the responses of people with similar or different characteristics, in this final section we ask you to answer a few questions about you and your household. As with all answers, this information will remain completely confidential. 18. What is your gender? Male Female 19. How long have you lived in Summit County? Less than one year Six to ten years One to two years Eleven to twenty years Three to five years Over twenty years 20. Including yourself, how many people are living in your household at the present time? (write in number of people in household) Of that total, how many are children under the age of 18? (write in number of children in household) 21. Which of the following best describes the ownership arrangement of your residence? You own your home (mortgage, contract, or own outright) You are renting or leasing your home Some other arrangement 22. Other than the lot where your residence is located, do you own any undeveloped agricultural or vacant land in Summit County? No Yes (please answer question 23) 23. If you answered “Yes” to question 22, please indicate how many total acres of undeveloped agricultural or vacant land you own in Summit County. less than 1 acre 21 to 50 acres 1 to 5 acres 51 to 100 acres 6 to 10 acres 101 to 500 acres 11 to 20 acres over 500 acres Background Information ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you for your cooperation! Please feel free to use any available space in this questionnaire or in a separate letter to tell us any additional information or share other comments. When you are finished, please place the questionnaire in the provided return envelope and drop it in the mail – no postage is necessary.