[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6559094,"mediaKeyId","3218844-97c73799293b6ef8bf5981f9bc2e2597","parentId",3218844,"title","West Haven reviews resident survey draft; council presses on police-department wording and cost framing","audioSeconds",2467,"startMs",60000,"endMs",2527000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3218844-97c73799293b6ef8bf5981f9bc2e2597&start=60&end=2527","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3218844-97c73799293b6ef8bf5981f9bc2e2597/thumbnail_60000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6559094/West-Haven/Weber-County/Utah/West-Haven-reviews-resident-survey-draft-council-presses-on-police-department-wording-and-cost-framing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559094-afda50e17554518cf19f950239d3f8df/orig.mp4?Expires=1770428694&Signature=F70IMQIrItwSWw2UztAmhasYda6Tbtp~7fV-1K7XhVaEWOoW0GpbZWwwv-Kttu-HAoPdPZgl4089-ppvQbtE32EtcFsl7swAjJxpIL5668H53X8246EQxxKe-4Osw~BPIH63vqLGLwdlGZN8vaugfOJMhI6zqNnxdwaufUihPKwwQj3sUQMk-mcWvbY97nxODexholTFZGSbW78j1yFs2oNuZ6~2oLe~~Zy2rmVQKRzxbbKQFVxpqf4YhwaYQD7Tr4r4VyzVfI4TstpTvi0dMJxXifqfaxZfy8pWL5YQfB2z2-YVLBu10HEyHxn1IQ0usvkenMZC6EZaSjRf2CL9kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","West Haven","date","2025-05-08T12:17:22Z","article","West Haven staff presented a draft of the city’s resident survey and council members spent the bulk of the discussion pressing staff to clarify how questions frame costs tied to a potential local police department and to add a follow‑up asking why respondents hold a preference.

The draft survey, which staff said was designed to preserve trend‑line questions from 2022, includes warm‑up items on quality of life, a $100 hypothetical budget allocation exercise, 0–100 service satisfaction scales, communications preferences and a section on law enforcement that asks whether residents would prefer the city to form its own police department or continue contracting with the Weber County Sheriff’s Office.

City staff said they made “a few changes around the edges” from the 2022 instrument and that the survey will use address‑based sampling and geocoding so results can be mapped to neighborhoods. The staff presenter said the survey will include an open text box so respondents can explain missing services or the reasons behind their preferences.

Why it matters: the council will rely on the survey to measure resident sentiment on public safety, budgets and infrastructure. Answers about policing and willingness to pay would shape any future discussion about whether to pursue a city police department, purchase additional contracted deputies, or pursue revenue measures.

Council members’ main questions centered on how the policing questions describe cost. Several members said the draft wording implies costs would fall only on the city rather than directly on residents and recommended the question be rephrased so respondents understand the cost implications for them personally. One council member cautioned, “Often people don't know that they don't have a property tax. Right,” and urged clearer language about whether higher service would mean higher resident costs.

Staff responded that the city does not yet have definitive cost figures tied to creating a department and that the survey should avoid promising specific outcomes. The presenter recommended splitting the item into a primary preference question (city police vs. continuing the county contract) followed by a follow‑up asking whether the respondent would still hold that preference if it cost residents more and, if so, why. Staff said they will “shift the question wording here so that it reflects the cost directly to residents and add that follow‑up ‘why’” text box before programming.

Other technical edits and content items the council asked staff to fix or add included: removing one no‑longer relevant option from a ranking question, correcting a numeric label error (the ranking scale listed seven positions but only six choices), replacing a “Twitter” reference with “X,” fixing a proofreading typo in a communications item, and confirming that address‑based sampling will allow neighborhood mapping after anonymization.

Council members also discussed whether to include explicit property‑tax wording. One member warned that a direct property‑tax question can be “a two‑edged sword” because residents often oppose property tax increases; the presenter said the draft instead uses a set of hypotheticals (property tax, sales tax, other mechanisms) to gauge support for different revenue levers. A separate programming note recorded that the budget‑allocation question asks respondents to divide a hypothetical $100 among priority services.

The law enforcement section included operational context: staff said the sheriff’s office can increase dedicated deputies for contract cities if cities agree to fund them, and one council member mentioned a cited rate for a dedicated deputy of about $85,000 per year. Staff noted that contracting cities face staffing constraints and that bringing a department in‑house could be more expensive depending on the level of service residents expect.

The draft also retains questions about fiber Internet (awareness and satisfaction with the city’s Utopia network), growth and commercial development preferences, transit coordination with UTA, and a short demographics block. Members suggested surveying local businesses separately if the council pursues specific economic development or rezoning efforts.

Next steps: staff said they will revise the questionnaire to: correct programing and copy errors, reword policing questions to make clear costs to residents, add a follow‑up open‑ended “why” question for policing preference, keep address‑based sampling/geocoding, and return with a final draft for approval.

A small procedural note that opened the meeting: council members briefly praised a recent Touch‑a‑Truck community event, which staff noted served roughly 1,000 hot dogs and ran smoothly.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","West Haven City Council","oneSentenceSummary","City staff presented a draft resident questionnaire and council members focused on how questions describe potential costs and trade‑offs for creating a local police department, while requesting edits to question wording, geocoding and follow‑ups.","taxTitle","West Haven, Weber County, Utah","taxId",7515,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6559088,"UTA outlines 2025–28 service changes that will reshape West Haven‑area routes",955,3068000,4023000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3218844-97c73799293b6ef8bf5981f9bc2e2597&start=3068&end=4023","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3218844-97c73799293b6ef8bf5981f9bc2e2597/thumbnail_3068000.jpg","/articles/6559088/West-Haven/Weber-County/Utah/UTA-outlines-202528-service-changes-that-will-reshape-West-Havenarea-routes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559088-3015598968f68cf1a06e4d46bcd760a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770428694&Signature=jfAuiRLA8OFcvG1uAHEuU9h9KmZUv1J7~qjPXGCuJ62CbQrxWW9DH7O-NQHLV-UZwHqgQsU-qA6N8~YaUXnkjWLRfJ-S-cqS7D920-7nj6IBHCSwqTpckw4stQwiNg4E~Q6eDk7kjH8kNTpnFSI~z-Y8GArsUs3NjFBWFtVdLH4XtAxM2TWpkhDw97biANk5YEkTaY1NzxNyD6JXRVd6~Cgz8-NW7PIb-qTnaKtOo7e~2CCfUyr7yKiVW~sNg17H71LQjx4EyqfBPSEFyFzZeIK9FkDifnCc0YAMMXVTrf0QU3UJwnTPZoXqqUgy2L9USQxEuKpNSqBJ1NvxnxZR8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representatives from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) presented a five‑year service plan to the West Haven City Council, describing route realignments, frequency increases and a new emphasis on mobility hubs and on‑demand service areas that will affect residents who use regional routes.

UTA presenters said the plan includes changes effective in 2026 through 2028. Key elements highlighted for the West Haven area are: truncating several southbound routes at Farmington Station so those trips become part of a future high‑frequency BRT/connector (referred to in the presentation as 470x or OGX), increased frequency on selected routes (including a 10‑minute OGX spine in core corridors), and new IMZ (innovative mobility zone) on‑demand services that operate app‑based, geofenced shuttles for local connectivity.

UTA staff said the IMZ pilot will be geofenced to specific local areas (North Ogden, Merritt, Slaterville, Harrisville, Plain City and Pleasant View were cited as examples) and will offer the same standard fare for passholders; cash or single‑ride fares would be set at the standard $2.50 UTA fare. The agency described the IMZ service as intended to act like a local connector—usable by older residents for short trips to grocery or retail locations—while tying into higher‑frequency trunk routes and regional stations.

Specific route notes UTA mentioned: the 455 and 470 will change alignments around Farmington as the Farmington Station becomes a regional mobility hub; the 604 and 610 will be re‑timed or shortened in places; the 609 and several other lines will see frequency improvements; and several flex routes will be discontinued as higher‑frequency fixed routes replace them.

UTA staff also described longer‑term capital priorities: negotiations with Union Pacific and double‑tracking FrontRunner are part of a multi‑agency build‑out aimed at supporting 15‑minute peak and 30‑minute off‑peak FrontRunner frequencies and adding Sunday service. The presentation flagged double‑tracking as a substantial capital project tied to larger timelines (UTA discussed 2032–2034 in the context of regional planning and Olympics‑era windows for delivery).

Why it matters: the planned changes aim to increase overall frequency and reliability on key north‑south corridors, create a Farmington‑centered mobility node and use on‑demand IMZ services to extend coverage in lower‑density neighborhoods. For West Haven residents, the changes could alter how and where they catch regional routes and introduce new local on‑demand options.

Council members asked about specifics on stop locations, rights‑of‑way and timing; UTA staff said some stops and station work require coordination with Union Pacific and regional partners and that several items are contingent on capital investments and right‑of‑way agreements. UTA staffers said April 2026 is a recurring system change date for the agency and that many 2026 adjustments are already scheduled.

UTA representatives invited council members and staff to request additional details and data; a presenter closed by offering to follow up by phone or email and to share the study materials UTA used for its planning assumptions.

","UTA representatives presented a five‑year service plan, describing route frequency increases, the creation of on‑demand IMZ zones, and a Farmington Station mobility hub that will truncate some southbound routes; the plan includes steps toward FrontRunner double‑tracking in a later phase.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

West Haven reviews resident survey draft; council presses on police-department wording and cost framing

UTA outlines 2025–28 service changes that will reshape West Haven‑area routes