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

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.