By Dr. Courtney Flint | July 8, 2021

Carbon County Wellbeing Survey Report

July 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing Project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 survey from four cities in Carbon County: East Carbon, Price, Wellington, and Helper. Please see the individual city reports on the Utah Wellbeing Project website for more details.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, cities in Carbon County advertised the survey via social media, email lists, and local news coverage. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 500 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort from Carbon County.
  • Price had 230 responses, Helper had 100 responses, East Carbon had 104 responses, and Wellington had 66 responses.

Additional information

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

This project benefits from the partnership with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which is helping cities envision ways to use the findings from the wellbeing survey to inform their general planning processes.

Key Findings in Carbon County

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing were above average in Helper, average in Wellington, and below average in Price and East Carbon compared to 29 study cities. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Categories:

  • Connection with Nature

Most Important Wellbeing Categories:

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

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

  • Physical Health (Helper, Price, Wellington)
  • Mental Health (Helper, Price)
  • Leisure Time (Price)
  • Safety and Security (East Carbon)
  • Local Environmental Quality (East Carbon)

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 35% of respondents (45% in Price). Community wellbeing in Price declined in the last year for 32%-56% of respondents in Carbon County cities and towns.

The majority of respondents felt the Pace of Economic Development in Price, Wellington, and East Carbon was too slow, while more in Helper thought it was just right.

Top concerns for the future of Carbon County were:

  • Opportunities for Youth
  • Substance Abuse
  • Employment Opportunities
  • Water Supply
  • Recreation Opportunities

What do people value most about Carbon County?
Small-town, connected feel, access to nature, quiet and peacefulness, and feeling safe.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Price has a good number of responses at 230, but Helper, Wellington, and East Carbon had about 100 or fewer responses. Survey respondents were not selected to be fully representative of Carbon County or these cities. More females than males, more people with college degrees, and more people who are married with children in their household responded to the survey than what the Census reports. Demographic tables with the characteristics of survey respondents compared to Census data can be found on the individual report for each city.

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Carbon County Cities

The weighted average overall personal wellbeing score for all Carbon County survey respondents was 3.92 on a scale from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent). This is a bit lower than the aggregate score of 3.99 for all Utahns in the survey across 29 cities and a bit lower than the average score of 3.94 for all respondents from Rural, Rural Hub and Resort Cities. Helper and Wellington were above average and Price and East Carbon were below average on overall personal wellbeing.

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Carbon County Cities

Community Wellbeing in Carbon County Cities

The weighted average overall personal wellbeing score for all Carbon County survey respondents was 3.38 on a scale from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent) which is below average for the Rural City Cluster (3.57). The graph below shows that Helper and Wellington scored above the Carbon County average on community wellbeing, while East Carbon and Price were below average.

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Carbon County Cities

Wellbeing Domains (Categories)

The survey asked respondents to rate their wellbeing for ten domains and indicate the importance of these domains to their overall wellbeing. The matrix graph below shows the relationship between the ratings and the importance of the ten wellbeing domains for the combined and unweighted Carbon County data. These variables were measured on 5-point scales. For all four cities, the highest rated domain was Connection to Nature. Most important categories of wellbeing consistent for these 4 places were Safety and Security, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Living Standards. For all of Carbon County, Physical Health fell within the “Red Zone” of high importance, but lower than average rating.

There were differences in wellbeing domain ratings and importance across the four cities. In Helper and Price, Mental Health and Physical Health were in the “Red Zone,” (as well as Leisure Time for Price). In Wellington, Physical Health was in the “Red Zone.” In East Carbon, Safety and Security and Local Environmental Quality fell in the “Red Zone.”

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

COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Wellbeing

Findings indicate that personal and community wellbeing declined in the last year corresponding to the COVID-19 Pandemic in each of the four cities surveyed from Carbon County.

  % Indicating Decline in Overall
Personal Wellbeing in Last Year		 % Indicating Decline in Community
Wellbeing in Last Year
East Carbon 35% 56%
Helper 35% 49%
Price 45% 33%
Wellington 35% 33%


Respondents were asked to indicate if their wellbeing changed in any of the ten domains. Overall, in Carbon County, wellbeing declined the most regarding Social Connections (for 67% of respondents), Cultural Opportunities (for 64% of respondents) and Mental Health (for 53% of respondents). The Mental Health decline was not as pronounced in East Carbon as the other three cities. This information has not been weighted by city population, city sample proportion, or demographic variables.

Type: Likert. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Effect on Wellbeing Domains in Utah Study Cities (2021). Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data- Category: Social Connections – 76% indicated declined, 22% indicated no change, 2% indicated improved; Cultural Opportunities – 70% indicated declined, 29% indicated no change, 1% indicated improved; Mental Health – 56% indicated declined, 41% indicated no change, 3% indicated improved; Leisure Time – 42% indicated declined, 41% indicated no change, 17% indicated improved; Physical Health – 39% indicated declined, 51% indicated no change, 9% indicated improved; Education – 36% indicated declined, 60% indicated no change, 4% indicated improved; Connection with Nature – 30% indicated declined, 51% indicated no change, 18% indicated improved; Living Standards – 22% indicated declined, 71% indicated no change, 6% indicated improved; Safety and Security – 21% indicated declined, 75% indicated no change, 4% indicated improved; Local Environmental Quality – 20% indicated declined, 70% indicated no change, 9% indicated improved;

Community Connectedness and Action

The survey asked about the degree to which people feel connected to their city as a community and the degree to which people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities on 5-point scales. Community connectedness and perceptions of local action were generally higher for respondents from the Traditional Rural, Rural Hub, and Resort Cities (3.16 and 3.32 respectively). Helper stood out with the highest community connection score of all 29 study cities, while East Carbon has the lowest community action score of all 29 study cities.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5;
Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5;

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

For most cities, there were differences in perspectives over population growth versus economic growth. In Helper, the majority of respondents felt that population growth was “just right,” while in East Carbon, Price, and Wellington most respondents thought it was “too slow.” Similarly with the pace of economic growth, more people in Helper viewed it as “just right” while the overwhelming majority in Price, Wellington, and East Carbon feel that economic growth was “too slow.”


Graph 1. Type: Likert Graph. Title: Citizens’ Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: How Would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data – Draper 0% rated too slow, 72% too fast; Layton 1% rated too slow, 71% rated too fast; Tooele 2% rated too slow, 76% rated too fast; Logan 3% rated too slow, 61% rated too fast; Sandy 1% rated too slow, 58% rated too fast; South Ogden 1% rated too slow, 52% rated too fast; Bountiful 3% rated too slow, 48% rated too fast; Herriman 1% rated too slow, 90% rated too fast; Lehi 0% rated too slow, 94% rated too fast; Hurricane 2% rated too slow, 80% rated too fast; Saratoga Springs 2% rated too slow, 79% rated too fast; Santaquin 0% rated too slow, 76% rated too fast; Nibley 1% rated too slow, 74% rated too fast; Spanish Fork 0% rated too slow, 70% rated too fast; Vineyard 0% rated too slow, 68% rated too fast; Nephi 5% rated too slow, 58% rated too fast; North Logan 0% rated too slow, 57% rated too fast; Hyde Park 2% rated too slow, 55% rated too fast; Ephraim 6% rated too slow, 35% rated too fast; Moab 6% rated too slow, 62% rated too fast; La Verkin 9% rated too slow, 46% rated too fast; Vernal 14% rated too slow, 29% rated too fast; Delta 18% rated too slow, 17% rated too fast; Richfield 7% rated too slow, 14% rated too fast; Helper 15% rated too slow, 11% rated too fast; Blanding 19% rated too slow, 10% rated too fast; Price 32% rated too slow, 9% too fast; East Carbon 35% rated too slow, 9% rated too fast; Wellington 33% rated too slow, 4% rated too fast. Graph 2. Type: Likert Graph. Title: Citizens’ Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: How Would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data – Draper 3% rated too slow, 59% too fast; Layton 8% rated too slow, 42% rated too fast; Tooele 37% rated too slow, 28% rated too fast; Logan 24% rated too slow, 30% rated too fast; Sandy 6% rated too slow, 37% rated too fast; South Ogden 17% rated too slow, 25% rated too fast; Bountiful 20% rated too slow, 19% rated too fast; Herriman 28% rated too slow, 39% rated too fast; Lehi 5% rated too slow, 61% rated too fast; Hurricane 22% rated too slow, 47% rated too fast; Saratoga Springs 33% rated too slow, 30% rated too fast; Santaquin 23% rated too slow, 38% rated too fast; Nibley 10% rated too slow, 47% rated too fast; Spanish Fork 2% rated too slow, 47% rated too fast; Vineyard 41% rated too slow, 20% rated too fast; Nephi 37% rated too slow, 20% rated too fast; North Logan 17% rated too slow, 20% rated too fast; Hyde Park 11% rated too slow, 25% rated too fast; Ephraim 39% rated too slow, 13% rated too fast; Moab 12% rated too slow, 73% rated too fast; La Verkin 27% rated too slow, 27% rated too fast; Vernal 64% rated too slow, 4% rated too fast; Delta 57% rated too slow, 1% rated too fast; Richfield 34% rated too slow, 9% rated too fast; Helper 33% rated too slow, 1% rated too fast; Blanding 51% rated too slow, 4% rated too fast; Price 75% rated too slow, 1% too fast; East Carbon 79% rated too slow, 1% rated too fast; Wellington 66% rated too slow, 0% rated too fast.

Landscapes and Wellbeing in Carbon County

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

Graph 1: Type: Likert. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Utahns’ Wellbeing within Established and Midsized cities and cities of the 1st and 2nd classes. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Data – Category: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 69% indicated positively or very positively; Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 68% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 24% indicated positively or very positively; Residential Development - 26% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 22% indicated positively or very positively; Manufacturing Industry - 42% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively; - Extractive Industry 58% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively. Graph 2: Type: Likert. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Utahns’ Wellbeing within Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Data – Category: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 67% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 33% indicated positively or very positively; Residential Development - 37% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 22% indicated positively or very positively; Manufacturing Industry - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 12% indicated positively or very positively; - Extractive Industry 51% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively. Graph 3: Type: Likert. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Utahns’ Wellbeing within Rural Hub/Resort & Traditional Rural Communities. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Data – Category: Mountains - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 70% indicated positively or very positively; Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 27% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 38% indicated positively or very positively; Residential Development - 20% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 42% indicated positively or very positively; Manufacturing Industry - 19% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 50% indicated neither, 32% indicated positively or very positively; - Extractive Industry 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 29% indicated positively or very positively.

Concerns for the Future of Carbon County Cities

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of their city. The top concerns for all 4 communities included Opportunities for Youth, Substance Abuse, Employment Opportunities, Water Supply, and Recreation Opportunities. Other concerns for each city are found in their city report.

Carbon County Concerns

Summary of Open Comments

The survey included opportunities in the survey were provided for respondents to share their ideas about their city with one question on what they value most about their city and another for any additional comments on wellbeing. A summary of values is below. Analysis is ongoing regarding all additional comments and a summary will be added to the report later in 2021.

In response to “Please tell us what you value most about living in your city,” Carbon County residents indicated that they value the small-town, connected feel, the quiet and peacefulness, being close to nature, and feeling safe. Helper residents also value access to cultural opportunities in their city. In Price, people value the low cost of living and good employment opportunities. Wellington values their good law enforcement and good local government.

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

On This Page

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Caitlyn Rogers, Madison Fjeldsted, Avery Sadowski, and Sarah Wilson.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.