A consultant who administered the 2025 Fruita Community Survey told the City Council on July 8 that residents gave Fruita strong marks for many municipal services but flagged the city's management of growth and development as the top opportunity for improvement. Ryan Murray, associate director of community research for ETC Institute, told the council the firm completed 715 statistically valid surveys and that the results have a margin of error of about 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Murray said the study was administered by mail, phone and online and was designed to allow every residential household in Fruita an opportunity to respond. "The sample is designed to ensure results are statistically valid and representative," he said. He added that responses are perception-based and that not every resident will have firsthand experience with every service evaluated.

The nut graf: The survey found many areas where Fruita performs above national and similarly sized-community averages, including parks, public works and communications. But an "important-satisfaction" analysis identified management of growth and development, traffic flow, and street maintenance as the three highest-return priorities for improvement in residents' views.

Murray walked the council through comparisons to 2021 results and to national benchmarks. He said overall perceptions were still positive but slightly down from 2021 in a number of areas, a trend he has seen in other communities. "If we ask a yes-no question and 50% of people said yes and 50% no, 95 out of 100 times we would expect that to fluctuate about plus or minus 3.5%," Murray said, explaining the survey's reliability.

Council members asked several technical and policy questions. Councilor Aaron asked Murray to clarify how percentages of respondents translate to the broader community when the survey shows 46% of respondents supportive of the city acquiring the former District 51 middle school property and 88% of those supporters saying they would back a bond to fund improvements. Murray explained that the 46% figure refers to the 715 respondents and that, within that group, 88% of the supportive subgroup would support a bond; when applied to the sample that produces about 38% of respondents who both support acquisition and support a bond, which Murray said would warrant further, more detailed polling before any ballot measure.

Council members said the survey results should inform outreach and budgeting. Councilor Purser and others asked for a council workshop to align survey findings with the city's strategic priorities and upcoming budget choices. Several councilors and staff also asked Murray to provide cross-tabulations (for example, retirees by income bracket) and to supply the full report and presentation; Murray said the materials would be posted on the city website and staff would forward them to council.

Staff and council described specific follow-ups: slicing the survey by demographics, conducting targeted polling if the city wants to explore a ballot measure, using the findings to guide the housing needs assessment set to begin soon, and using results to check the effects of recent staff hires (for example, the city's communications position). Murray said he would provide additional cross-tabulations and significance testing on request.

Ending: City staff said the presentation and full report will be posted publicly and that council will schedule further discussion, including a workshop, to translate the survey's priorities into budget and outreach actions.