Iowa City survey: residents rate quality of life high but cite affordability, housing and water resources as concerns

Kirk Layman, assistant city manager, presented the results of a National Research Center (Polco) community survey and told the council that Iowa City rates highly for overall quality of life but that affordability, housing and some natural-resource measures emerged as serious concerns.

"We saw this as a really valuable way to gauge the public's opinion, not only on our services, but also on the aspects of livability within Iowa City," Layman said, describing a statistically valid mailed survey conducted Sept. 19–Nov. 8 and an open online survey collected Oct. 11–Nov. 8.

Methodology and response: Layman said the city mailed to 35,100 randomly selected households and received a statistically valid sample of 2,277 returned surveys (an 8% response rate). He said the sample was weighted to match Iowa City's demographic profile; an additional roughly 200 responses came from an open, nonrandom online survey. The survey was offered in English, Spanish, French, Arabic and Mandarin, Layman said.

Major findings: the survey shows an 84% positive rating for overall quality of life and a 75% positive rating for the quality of city services; governance ratings were lower (56% positive). The presentation highlighted a wide gap between importance and perceived quality for core services such as economy and mobility. Key subresults Layman identified: 66% positive rating for economic health, 69% for mobility overall, 38% positive for street repair and ease of public parking, 18% positive for affordable quality housing and 42% positive for water resources. The public library scored 96% positive.

Affordability and housing: Layman said affordability trends show declines since 2017 and singled out affordable quality housing (18% positive) and cost-of-living measures (31% positive) as areas of particular concern. He and council members discussed that many affordability issues reflect wider regional and national trends that local government alone cannot resolve.

Transit and other policy signals: Layman said transit perceptions and ease-of-travel measures improved since the city adopted fare-free transit, which he described as a notable success in survey comparisons. The survey included custom questions about a possible local-option sales tax; respondents prioritized investment in streets, bridges and sidewalks, then affordable housing and parks/trails/natural areas. Property-tax relief ranked lowest at 26% support; Layman noted statutory constraints related to how revenue changes would be allocated.

Participation, timing and cost: Councilors questioned the 8% response rate; Layman said mailed surveys often produce low raw response rates but that 2,277 responses were sufficient for a statistically valid sample and that the firm weights the sample to reflect the city's demographics. He told the council the full effort costs roughly $20,000 and that staff is planning to repeat the statistically valid survey every two years, using internal employee surveys in intervening years.

Use for policy and budgeting: Layman and councilors discussed using the survey to inform long-term strategy and budget priorities, including decisions about fare-free transit, street maintenance and affordable-housing investments. He asked the council to consider survey results as part of its strategic-plan alignment and budget deliberations.

Follow-up and access: Layman said the full data and a summary page will be posted on the city's website under the city manager's tab; staff also provided nonrandom response tables in the packet. He encouraged councilors to contact staff with questions and said staff could return with more analysis linking survey data to specific strategic-plan actions.