The Granite County Study Commission spent the bulk of its meeting revising a draft questionnaire meant to gauge public views about possible changes to county government. Members agreed to prioritize asking whether respondents are Granite County registered voters, to keep questions about whether county commissioners should be elected at large or by district, and to retain a question about the number of commissioners and whether elections should be partisan or nonpartisan. The commission removed multiple redundant demographic items and deferred many service-specific satisfaction questions until it can consult with the state trainer.

The commission said the top priority for the single mailed survey will be identifying registered voters so staff can give greater weight to responses from those who can later decide ballot questions. Members discussed mailing the questionnaire to the registered-voter roll and allowing non-registered residents to participate in person at public forums or by completing a paper card at meetings so they can register after learning about the study. The group agreed the first draft should be concise and focused on baseline information about who responded and on core election-format options rather than on in-depth technical service ratings.

Commissioners debated a set of items carried over from a template used by another municipality. They decided to remove duplicate questions about year-round residency and many items gauging satisfaction with specific town services (roads, sidewalks, stormwater, water bills) because commissioners judged those items unlikely to help the commission decide which form of government to recommend. At the same time they kept several governance-format choices: whether commissioners should be elected at large or by district; whether the county should consider nonpartisan versus partisan elections; and whether the county should consider expanding from three commissioners to five (with discussion of options such as three district seats plus two at-large seats).

The commission also agreed to include a straightforward question asking whether residents would favor merging Phillipsburg municipal government with county government (a city–county option) while noting limitations: any city–county change depends on the legal status of incorporated towns (members flagged that an incorporated town that does not disincorporate cannot be forced into a merged city–county structure). Commissioners emphasized that the questionnaire must record respondents' town or precinct, so returns can be analyzed by place of residence (Phillipsburg, Drummond, Hall, Maxville, Georgetown Lake/unincorporated precincts).

Commissioners asked staff to prepare an initial “inclusive” first draft that will be pared back after consultation with Dan Clark, the trainer who advises study commissions and who the group plans to ask to review the draft and provide formal training. The commission directed that the first mailed round be a single questionnaire per household and that the draft should avoid technical jargon: short explanations, a one- or two-sentence description of each major government option, and a plain-language definition of “at-large.”

Next steps: staff will produce a first draft of the shortened survey for the commission to review; the commission will seek Dan Clark’s input before final approval; and the commission intends to publish a public notice and a monthly newspaper column describing the process and how residents can get copies or participate in public forums.