Prepared by:
Utah Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations
Governor's Office of Planning and Budget
116 State Capitol Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
October 1993

Senator Craig A. Peterson, Chair Commissioner Jerry B. Lewis, First Vice Chair
Mayor Russell F. Fjeldsted, Second Vice Chair
Wayne C. Parker, Executive Director
Eileen Frisbey, Secretary

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Governor
State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Dear Governor Leavitt:

The Utah Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations is pleased to present to you our study on Utah's seven Associations of Governments.

The State of Utah established seven Associations of Governments (AOGS) in 1970 to assist the state and local governments with multi-county planning, integration, and optimization of economies of scale. The AOGs have been successful in providing these services; however, with increased planning complexities, we have found the need to form a new advisory and support relationship with the AOGs.

In order to best organize and utilize the resources available, we underwent a comprehensive review of the AOGs, the services they provide, and how effective they are at assisting their member local governments and private citizens. Part of this study includes a survey of each of the AOG executive board members, county commissioners, mayors, and other recipients of AOG services.

From the survey results we determine that AOGs are perceived highly as an effective tool for the community and regionwide service provision; however, better coordination between the state and the AOGs will improve the capability of these tools and reduce unnecessary duplication. Also, by better educating the public to the AOG programs available we can increase the utilization of these services and come closer to attaining our ultimate goal, a better quality of life for Utah and its citizens.

Sincerely,
Senator Craig A. Peterson
Chairman

The Associations of Governments (AOGs) are an important part of the governmental structure in Utah. They provide many important services to local governments, benefitting from economies of scale. However, their roles and responsibilities are often misunderstood, or unknown. Consequently, and as the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) forms a new advisory and support relationship with Utah's seven AOGs, we have conducted this study to best utilize and coordinate activities with the AOGs.

The purpose of the study is to assess what services each of the AOGs provide, how well they provide these services, and how effectively the AOGs meet the needs of the local governments and their many customers. This report includes a brief discussion surrounding the concept of multi-county planning districts, their formation, and the creation of Utah's seven Associations of Government. Following the background discussion is a detailed examination of each of the AOGs', reviewing their purpose and goals, organization, programs, and funding. We have included matrices to compare the AOGs by these factors, helping to understand the differences in quantity and quality of service provision.

The primary emphasis of this research is to analyze the results of the survey we conducted, receiving input from the various local government entities (AOG board members, commissioners, mayors, and councilmen) and their customers (private/public organizations and local citizens). From these findings we give recommendations for structural improvements within the state and the AOGs. We also suggest changes to better organize service provision and to more effectively utilize the resources available.

Ultimately, multi-county districts were established to realize the benefits of economies of scale and provide a framework to effectively conduct regional planning and implement state and federal programs/policy consistently on a local level. However, Utah's AOGs have yet to fully actualize all of these overall objectives. Hopefully, with the improved advisory and support relationship of GOPB and some minor structural and program adjustments, Utah's AOGs can capitalize on regional planning and coordination to improve the utilization of Utah's vast resources and the quality of life for all of its citizens.

We need to recognize the much needed assistance and cooperation we received from each of the AOG executive directors, their staffs, the board members, county commissioners, city mayors, and many customers who responded to the survey and data requests. From their input--information relative to their purpose and goals, organization, programs, funding, and lists of participants--we were able to both construct and conduct the survey and a background study. This collaborative effort exemplifies the efforts of the state to increase cooperation and integration of service provision both laterally and vertically.

We include in the background section a discussion of the concept of AOGs, the reasons for their creation, and the development of Utah's seven AOGs. We then include the evolving functions of the AOGs, from the role laid out in the original executive order to current legislation that redefines the functions of the AOGs.

Concept

Associations of Governments implement the vision of multi-county or regional planning districts to coordinate planning and governmental activities within a specified geographic area of the state. These multi-county planning districts, or Associations of Governments (AOG)s, encompass and combine two or more counties with the primary concern to

provide a framework to aid and encourage better coordination of and communication between plans and programs and to facilitate more efficient and effective ways for the administration and delivery of services that will carry out the responsibilities of government. . . (and) provide and operate various types of services or to develop facilities that would be more efficient on a district basis.  Thus, regional planning districts have a few distinct purposes:

• regional (and state-wide) planning and integration
• reduce duplication of local government efforts
• economies of scale.

Necessity

Several factors pushed Utah to consider regional planning districts, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Utah's rural county makeup--and its declining rural county population--enhanced the difficulty of providing effective state and federal programs.
• These local government entities also found it difficult to resolve and develop support services for the rising social and economic problems of modern society.
• Many state or federal programs encompassed boundaries broader than, and separate from, city and county lines, resulting in overlapping jurisdictions, duplication, and competition for resources (i.e. law enforcement and employment security).
• Various regional groups had been formed, but not in any organized fashion, increasing the difficulty of approving, funding, and administering government programs.

On the federal level, a presidential memorandum issued in 1966 recognized the problem and requested federal agencies to coordinate and establish the multi-jurisdictional planning units with boundaries congruous with state planning and development districts. Subsequently, circulars A-80 (1967) and A-95 (1969) were issued by the Bureau of the Budget encouraging the establishment of these state planning and development districts. The catalyst of circular A-95, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, requested the creation of mechanisms to evaluate and review federal programs that heavily influence local planning and development.

In conjunction with federal developments, the State Advisory Planning Committee, under supervision of Governor Calvin L. Rampton, issued the report Recommended Preliminary Utah State Multi-County Regions in 1966. The Committee originally proposed five main regions and three sub-regions, later deciding on eight full-scale regions. The Governor released the official multi-county district boundaries in an executive order on May 17, 1970, to take effect two months later (July 1, 1970).

Although eight districts were defined, seven multi-county districts were created, numbers two and three combined from the beginning to form the Wasatch Front Regional Council. The table below lists the original districts, their name (with their current name, if changed, in italics/parentheses), and constituent counties. Originally, the multi-county districts were not all named Associations of Government. Since then, all the districts, except the Wasatch Front, have been renamed to reflect the term Association of Governments. 

The State Advisory Planning Committee looked at various factors in determining the original boundaries for the multi-county districts, including two major assumptions. The first assumption stated that boundaries should reflect county lines, since the counties are already established as the primary unit for gathering, analyzing, and disseminating data and other information. The Planning Committee also assumed that local preferences of working relationships between counties and cities existed and should be considered.
 

• Along with these assumptions, the Planning Committee chose the following factors as the criteria for determining the regional boundaries and groupings.
• Economic and demographic development patterns.
• Organized inter- and intra-county relationships.
• Existing intra-state and federal classifications recognized by government agencies, state-wide organizations, and other non-governmental groups and planners.
• Natural economic subdivisions.

The organization of each AOG was to reflect the population, economic patterns, resources, and problems of its particular region. However, to avoid a wide array of differences in local organization and to ensure effective operation between the associations, their constituents, and the state, official guidelines for organization were established in the governor's executive order in compliance with the Utah Inter-Local Cooperation Act of 1965.⁽⁴⁾

The executive order called for an executive board, consisting of representatives of city and county governments and other local agencies. The role of the executive board is defined as follows:
 

• Develop goals and policy for the entire region.
• Strengthen role of locally elected officials in the region.
• Serve as a vehicle for communication between local and state levels.
• Act as a coordination tool.

Functions

In regards to the functions of the AOGs, the following is taken from the original document by the State Planning Coordinator that establishes the AOGs.

The functions of a multi-county association of government should include, but not be limited to, the following:
 

1. Preparing, adopting, and from time to time, revising or amending plans and guideline for the development of the district. Such plans and guidelines should be adequate for the purpose of making policies and directing a coordinated effort in the economic, physical and social development of the district which will, in accordance with present and future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, order, prosperity, and welfare of its citizens.

2. Providing information to officials in departments, agencies, and instrumentalities; to federal, state, and local governments; and to the public at standing of the objectives and functions of the district and to stimulate public interest and participation in the orderly, integrated development of the district.

3. Cooperating with and providing assistance to instrumentalities or planning agencies within the district for coordinating district or area-wide planning with planning activities of the counties, municipalities, special districts or other local governmental units within the district as well as of neighboring districts, and with the programs of federal departments and agencies.

4. Receiving designation as a recognized sponsoring agency to receive federal grants for planning and development purposes, which may have district-wide significance, including:

a. Section 403, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (economic development districts)
b. Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 (multi-county planning)
c. Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 (law enforcement planning)
d. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (human resources planning)
e. Area-wide Health Planning Act of 1965
f. Resource conservation and development programs
g. Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963
h. Any other state and federal programs providing funds for multi-county planning, coordination, and development purposes.

5. Acting as the central organization unit for coordination of common programs of mutual interest and impact in the regions. District associations will be encouraged to provide for or support, wherever feasible, a single integrated staff to perform the area-wide functions to preclude requiring separate staff for each area-wide program.

6. Employing staff and contracting with consultants, federal and state departments and agencies to provide services as required and offering technical assistance and advice to units of local government on intergovernmental actions and relationships.

7. Preparing studies on the district's resources, with respect to existing and emerging problems of industry, commerce, transportation, population, housing agriculture, public services, local governments and any other matters which are relevant for the associations efforts.⁽⁵⁾
 

The AOGs were originally funded out of contributions and matching funds from participating local governments, direct grants from various federal or state agencies, and revenue from gifts, donations, or fees. Revenue from the state legislature included the Multi-County Assistance Grant. The legislature did not mandate the use of the general fund appropriation, but allocated the grant in support of multi-county planning to be used at the AOGs' discretion. In most cases, the revenue supported administrative costs and was used as matching funds for other programs.

In 1986, the Permanent Community Impact Board (CIB) became the source of the multi-county assistance funds. The CIB was commissioned to oversee the appropriation of the mineral lease funds back to the local governments.

The legislature tied strings to the CIB funds in 1990, requiring the associations to perform:
 

1) Economic development planning and coordination
2) Travel and tourism planning and coordination
3) Capital planning and infrastructure development
4) Intergovernmental coordination
5) Cultural resource development and coordination.

The requirements for the use of these funds, in Fiscal Year 1994, will change again. The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), under direction of the State Planning Coordinator, will direct the utilization of these funds. The new mandate attached to the CIB funds include the following:
 

1) Support for city and county planning
2) Assist in plan implementation
3) Participate in state initiatives
4) Maintain and strengthen intra-regional coordination
5) Maintain and distribute economic and demographic data to local governments
6) Report on planning activities
7) Support Utah Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (UACIR) activities.
 

Likewise, GOPB has defined the state's role in the mandate attached to the funds:
 

1) Improve access to state resources
2) Provide referral services to other state agencies
3) Raise the awareness of local government concerns
4) Establish federal government contacts for the AOGs and their local governments
5) Provide technical assistance with economic and demographic information
6) Support regional planning.

Role definition has helped to increase the functionality and effectiveness of the AOGs and their coordination with the state. However, each of Utah's seven AOGs operates somewhat differently, a result of the different needs and characteristics of the regions. In order to better comprehend the AOGs and the variation in their roles, we will examine each AOG separately.
 

Now that a basic understanding of what the AOGs are, how they are organized, and the services they provide has been presented, we can move on to the survey and its results. Again, the purpose of the survey is to assess what services each AOG provides, how well they provide these services, and how effectively each AOG meets the needs of the local government entities and customers within their region. These results will enhance GOPB's capability to best organize and coordinate activities with the seven AOGs in establishing its new advisory and support relationship. The bottom line is to improve the way government operates and increase effective use of the state's resources through better inter- and intra-governmental coordination and planning.

Before presenting the results, we will discuss some of the limitations/considerations of the survey and data. General observations about the survey will be introduced, generic to all AOGs. Next, we present the answers by AOG, allowing us to recognize areas of improvement as well as note the areas that are performing well. Finally, recommendations will be made, both generic and specific to the various regions.

Overview

The following points summarize the logistics surrounding the survey:

The survey was conducted in a window from August 1 through September 15, 1993.

Names were randomly chosen from lists provided by each AOG. These mailing lists contained the AOGs' Executive Board/Council members, commissioners, mayors, staff, and recipients/constituents of AOG services.

Approximately 60 surveys per AOG were distributed, for a total of 400.

161 survey forms were completed. A few respondents answered in reference to more than one AOG due to overlapping jurisdiction, resulting in 174 total responses. The response rate was 43.5 percent, a high confidence rate for the type of survey conducted, anonymous mail-in with no incentive for reply.

Limitations

The survey is an excellent method to distinguish customer satisfaction, program effectiveness, and areas of improvement. The results, however, are limited by the nature of the survey, its focus, and the level of response. Some of the most important limitations and considerations include:

Anonymity of the survey produced more candid and honest answers, but created difficulty in tracking responses and response rate

The mailing lists contained incorrect addresses and were incomplete or not as thorough as desired for true random selection of the targeted population.

The time frame, August to mid September, may have hindered the response rate. August is the most prevalent vacation time and many government offices may not have been fully operating.

A few survey recipients expressed concern over the inappropriateness or relevance of their response. Others may have felt the same and not responded.

The survey instrument disaggregated responses by region but not between board members, staff, local officials, and clientele. Knowledge of the source of results may have been helpful in addressing concerns from dissatified respondents.

Various scaling techniques (Likert, importance, percentage, Yes/No, and open response) improved honest and careful responses but the complexity of the subject and generically worded questions did not allow for detailed and pointed answer in important areas

Weighting of "Uncertain" and "N/A" in average response

By considering these limitations, we can more appropriately address the results of the survey objectively and account for discrepancies that may exist.
 

General Observations

These observations are in reference to the summary responses of all forms, incorporating the answers specific to each AOG. Thus, the comments made are blanket remarks and may not pertain specifically to any AOG but the group and the concept of AOGs as a whole.

1. AOGs are essentially good and assist in the programs of government.

In response to an initial question, respondents felt that AOGs are positively seen as an effective tool for the community. The figure below displays the response rate by AOG of those that either "agree(d)"/"strongly agree(d)," chose "neutral," or "disagree(d)"/"strongly disagree(d)." Although respondents perceived the AOGs high in value, 40 percent did not agree that AOGs' resources were allocated fairly among cities and counties. The majority, 60 percent, also did not believe the state's resources to be distributed fairly among AOGs.

2. Multi-county organizations are seen as more advantageous in regionwide service delivery.

Many of the 10 percent who chose "other" actually preferred AOGs--commenting, ". . .existing organization is fine. . .AOG is doing a super job. . ."--but did not associate the term multi-county with AOG. Of those supporting multi-county organizations, 76 percent were from the less urbanized areas (all AOGs except Mountainland and WFRC), suggesting they see more of a role of multi-county planning agencies in their areas.

3. Respondents view the AOG role as vital in working with the state.

The questionnaire listed seven areas for those surveyed to agree or disagree on as the AOGs' role in working with state government. These role concepts come from the recent agreement that defines the state/AOG relationship. These role concepts and results are listed below. All ranking above 75 percent, the three most commonly accepted and important roles ranked the highest: local planning, regional coordination, and statewide clearinghouse (data distribution and assistance).

We perceive "Support UACIR activities" rank relatively low because of the apparent unfamiliarity of UACIR--Utah Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations--to the general public.

4. The state should have a strong role in serving AOGs and local governments.

Six areas were listed for response to the state's role with the AOGs and their member local governments, beyond direct service provision (see results below). These role concepts also came from the state/AOG relationship agreement. In this context, when we refer to the state's role, we are referring to GOPB and the State Planning Coordinator. It is important to note the even higher positive response for the state to increase its support of the AOGs and local governments. Again, the less urbanized areas, almost unanimously, expressed a need for the state to advocate local government concerns.

5. Perceived overlap exists between AOG activities and state/federal agencies in the following areas:

One-third of respondents see AOG overlap with the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED)

Other possible areas of duplication include:

UDOT
Job Service
Health
Economic Development Administration (EDA)

The AOGs see a part of their role as filling in the gaps for other government entities. Also, AOGs work very closely with many government entities to coordinate planning and service provision. Thus, the activities of these groups are so interrelated that perceived overlap can be expected. We do not discount the perception; hopefully, it will be an impetus for the state and the AOGs to take a look at the services provided and eliminate any duplication.

6. Of the services listed,

Those performing well (percent of programs ranked excellent or good) include:
Those not performing well (percent ranked fair or poor) include:

Those ranking above one-third "N/A" (not applicable) include:

Homeless employment
Urban transportation planning
Classroom education
Emergency services
Air quality planning
Youth development programs

We surmise that "N/A" was chosen for two reasons. Either some of the AOGs do not provide these services or the constituents do not know what services are available to them. Even more interesting, WFRC ranked the highest in programs that it does not even provide. Thus, the constituents appear to be rather unknowledgeable regarding the AOGs.

7. AOG customers/constituents are not well informed as to the scope of the services offered.

When asked how well informed the public and possible participants are of the AOGs and their services, nearly 50 percent responded low or very low (please see figure below).
 
8. Although pleased with current operations, respondents see room for improvement.

"Other":

More uniform capabilities with state (electronic hi-way)
More physical planning, economic development, and housing assistance
More timely response (with data and other requests)
Add Utah County to WFRC (3 responses suggested this option)

As shown above, when posed with various options for change and/or improvement of the AOGs, the largest number of respondents felt that their AOG does not need to be changed/improved. However, the majority of them crossed out the word "change," noting that any entity can seek for improvement. The next highest percentage chose "other" and gave numerous responses, the most frequent of which are included above. Interestingly, of the 9 percent who marked "geographic alignment" only three gave suggestions as to how, and that is to include Utah County in WFRC. We highlighted these suggestions but feel that 9 percent is too small a number to consider actual realignment.
 
9. Respondents see a definite need for state/federal funds for AOGs to exist:
 
"Other" options proposed:

Contracting with state/federal agencies
Mineral lease funds
Service delivery charges
Private sector support
Eliminate

Given the above funding options if state and federal funds were not available, local government revenues ranked the highest. Even though this option was the top choice, we must point out that still less than half would be willing to support AOGs financially from local revenues. Of the "other" options listed, most either listed funding sources that presently exist-contracting with state/federal agencies, mineral lease funds, service delivery charges--or stated that AOGs would not survive without state/federal funding. A few suggested the private sector as a funding source or even a service provision source. And a couple others, obviously disgruntled or unhappy with AOGs, felt that they should receive no funding and be eliminated. The general feeling we grasped from this question is that respondents see state and federal funds as a vital part in maintaining AOGs; otherwise, they would cease to exist.

These general observations have been helpful in understanding the results of the survey in the context of AOGs as a whole. These observations may pertain to all AOGs similarly, as the observations are from a summary of the results, not specific to AOGs. Specific observations by AOG are not included, as our focus is on AOGs as a whole. The results of the survey by AOG are compiled in a matrix format in Appendix A, for individual analysis.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are also in reference to AOGs as a whole. Specific recommendations by AOG would be very cumbersome and difficult, as each varies widely in its makeup and structure. These recommendations are vital to the state in developing a new gameplan for operation. Also, it is our hope that the AOGs can detail these observations and recommendations in an effort to improve.

I. Clearly define roles
Decide whether AOGs should provide direct services, contract out, or focus specifically on planning functions.
Streamline functions--eliminate those duplicated or not in defined roles.

II. Increase public awareness of AOG programs and resources available

III. Strengthen partnership between AOGs, GOPB, and UACIR.

Issues to be resolved:

Coordination
State funding accountability

We continually mention the wide variety of services the AOGs provide and the variance in their structure. The survey results also illustrate the deviation in the AOGs and their operations. Before the AOGs can act on the suggestions for improvement noted in the survey results, their roles must clearly be defined. This role definition can be done by not only looking at the original purposes of multi-county districts--regional (and state-wide) planning and integration, reduced duplication of local government efforts, and economies of scale--but comparing these original benefits with curent AOG benefits and operations. 

Once the roles are defined, the issue of uniformity between the AOGs-- standardizing structure and service provision--must be addressed. Because the regions vary so widely in demographics and characteristics, we do not suggest standardizing structure and service provision. However, we do suggest establishing parameters around which the AOGs can operate, to both improve performance and institute better coordination and state funding accountability, two issues yet to be resolved. As in the case of simply compiling Appendix B for this study, we were hampered by the inconsistencies between the numerous listings of AOG programs, funding sources, and expenditures.

As our society continues to demand a larger bang (more and better services) for the buck (less taxes), we will need to streamline and optimize government functions. In the survey, we note possible duplication of services that can be eliminated. This does not necessarily mean elimination on the part of the AOGs. The entity who best--most efficient and effectively--provides these services should continue to do so. In other cases where only an appearance of duplication exists, increased coordination between the AOGs and other entities will assist in eliminating the misperception and possible waste. Also, AOGs can focus on eliminating those services that do not fit in their broadly prescribed roles.

The survey has been done, the results published, recommendations made. However, for the goal of improving utilization of Utah's vast resources and the quality of life for all of its citizens, the state and the AOGs must act, act together to increase the cooperation and integration of service provision upon which this study was conducted.
 
 

BRAG Bear River
Five Co Five County
MAG Mountainland
SEUALG Southeastern Utah
Six Co Six County
UBAG Uintah Basin
WFRC Wasatch Front Regional Council

Again, there were 161 forms returned with some references to more than one AOG, for a total of 174 responses.

A few of the questions allowed for more than one response; thus, the totals may exceed 100 percent (and this is noted on the specific questions where a total percentage does not exist).

A copy of the original survey is included in Appendix C.
 
 

Obviously, difficulty lies in comparing organizations of such wide variance. Thus, keep in mind the characteristics of each region with its population, problems, other established public service entities, resources, and capabilities. As well, because of the diversity of the AOGs' organizational structure and service provision, minor inconsistencies may occur in the coding of the matrices.

We begin with Bear River Association of Governments, and continue through each in alphabetical order.
 
 

Bear River Association of Governments, termed BRAG, was formed in 1971 and serves Box Elder, Cache, and Rich Counties. BRAG defines itself as "a voluntary organization of local governments to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation and to insure the orderly and harmonious coordination of federal, state, and local programs for the solution of mutual problems of the region."

BRAG's goal is to serve as a multi-purpose organization, utilizing their combined total resources, to provide a more effective means for planning and development of the physical, economic, and human resources of the region.

BRAG focuses on four areas as its main purposes: intergovernmental collaboration, planning, program operations, and administrative services to local governments.
 
 

The Governing Board of the association consists of fifteen elected officials. The nine county representatives include three County Commissioners from each of Box Elder and Rich Counties and two County Council members and the County Executive from Cache County. Six members are mayors with two from each county representing all incorporated cities and towns in their county.

There are five advisory boards and councils charged with providing oversight and direction to their respective programs and also advising the BRAG Governing Board members regarding program operations.

BRAG has a staff of 25 organized in four departmental areas: Aging, Housing and Human Resources, Weatherization, and Community and Economic Development.
 
 

The association operates 12 major federally funded programs and 20 smaller state and federally funded programs.

The programs and their services are categorized into six areas (see below). Explanations and highlights for Fiscal Year 1993 include ("" reflects program definition or goals, and "" denote results):
 
 

Aging

Providing funding to senior citizen centers and programs.
In-home services to income-eligible elderly.
Advocacy for needs of the elderly.
Serving as long term care ombudsman.
Provided funding to four senior citizen centers resulting in services to 5,019 persons and also 34,430 congregate meals and 39,736 home delivered meals.
Volunteers gave 27,710 hours of service at the senior centers assisting with meals, transportation, recreation, telephone reassurance, and friendly visitor.
Provided case management and a range of homemaker/personal care in-home services to 94 elderly clients in order to prevent premature institutionalization.
Provided funding to senior centers for three new transportation vehicles.
Long-term-care ombudsman investigated 39 calls.
Preparing to begin utilizing Medicaid funds to expand in-home services program.

Housing

Provide rental assistance to income eligible families.
Making the homes of income eligible individuals and families more energy efficient through insulation, airsealing, etc.
Rental assistance to 220 households each month as well as self-sufficiency planning and assistance to many housing clients.
Preparing comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy.
Providing low interest or interest free loans for rehabilitation of 30 homes.
Assisted nine families with emergency water/wastewater repairs and 17 families with water system connection fees.
Weatherized 125 homes during past fiscal year bringing the total units completed since 1977 to 2070, resulting in $300,000 per year in energy savings.
Conducting survey of rental rates in tri-county area.

Job Training

Classroom and on-the-job training to help eligible youth and adults gain the job skills they need to become successful.
Made job training available for 85 persons.
Employed 106 on Summer Youth Employment Program
Conducted survey of former Thiokol employees to assess their current status and employment needs.
Received national reserve dislocated worker funding ($2,263,159) to provide over 300 former Thiokol employees with retraining and other employment related assistance.

Community Development

Assist area communities with planning and needs assessment.
Provide federal funding for important infrastructure projects.
Provide low interest home rehabilitation loans for income-eligible families.
Survey of infrastructure needs of all cities, towns, and counties in the region.
Assistance to City of Logan's public transit system.
Study of transit needs of persons with disabilities in Cache County.
Sponsored two-day seminar on land-use planning for planning commissioners, boards of adjustment and local elected officials.
Provided land-use planning assistance to four communities.
Completed Rich County Solid Waste Management Plan.
Serve as regional data center providing census and other data for planning.
Provided block grant funding for 11 projects.
Participated in Cache 2010 Plan Development.

Economic Development

Help area businesses become aware of government and other large procurement opportunities.
Provide staff assistance and a Revolving Loan Fund which can be used to finance small business expansions to create or retain jobs.
Provide federal funding for worthy economic development projects.
Provided information regarding small business financing to over 80 businesses and helped package financing requests for two businesses.
Closed on five loans from Revolving Loan Fund with two others in process.
Helped local businesses secure $11.5 million in government procurement contracts.
Created micro loan fund for low-income entrepreneurs and small businesses.
Started entrepreneurial skills training course for those interested in loans.

Emergency Assistance

Emergency food and shelter assistance and counseling to homeless, those at risk of becoming homeless, and other low-income persons.
Helped 920 low-income families meet emergency needs for shelter, utilities, etc., including 238 (26 percent) homeless families.
Provided food boxes to 1,501 families in need.
Received donations of food, cash, and services totalling $133,000 along with 23,878 volunteer hours.
Meeting with community leaders and interested citizens to seek help in finding a permanent location for the Cache Food Bank.
 
 

The Five County Association of Governments grew out of an organization known as the Five County Organization which was formally established in 1957 and included the counties of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington. The main purposes of the organization were to secure cooperation among the several member counties and to work for the development of the Five County Area, both industrially and in the promotion of tourist travel in the area.

The Five County Association of Governments, as presently constituted, was established in 1972. The intent of the local governments in establishing the organization is given in the Articles of Association:

Therefore, we the representatives of local government of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington Counties in the State of Utah, hereby join together in a voluntary organization. . . for the purpose of meeting at regular intervals to discuss and study areawide problems of common interest and concern, and to develop and action recommendations for ratification and implementation by member governments in the area served by the region.

The overall mission of the association is to serve as a multi-purpose organization to provide a forum to identify, discuss, study, and resolve areawide problems of common interest and concern and to engage and carry out planning and development programs with respect to the physical, economic, and human resources of the area.
 
 

The policy body of the organization is known as the Steering Committee, and the membership consists of :

1) the chairman of each County Commission
2) a mayor of town president from each county
3) the chairman of each county school board
4) a representative from Southern Utah University, a representative from Dixie College, and all state senators and representatives whose districts extend into the Five County area are to serve on the Steering Committee as non-voting members.

There are five advisory boards and councils which have the responsibility for providing direction to the programs under their charge. These groups also advise the Steering Committee members concerning the operation of their respective programs. The members of the boards and councils serve voluntarily and give freely of their time in order to help the programs run smoothly and to help improve the quality of the life in Southwestern Utah.

The Five County Association of Governments staff, under guidance of the executive director, includes 17 employees divided into two departments: Community & Economic Development and Human Resources. The staff also manages the Color Country Travel Board.
 
 

The association oversees numerous programs under the two divisions: Community & Economic Development and Human Services. The programs and their functions for Fiscal Year 1992 are highlighted below.

Planning Assistance

Through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Economic Development Administration (EDA) funding, provides technical planning assistance to the counties and communities of the region by request.

Community Impact Board

Assists with the preparation and presentation of Community Impact Board applications from communities and counties within the region

Total grants equalled $303,000 with total loans at $2,197,000 (Fiscal Year 1992).

Natural Resources

Reviews and evaluates many of the proposals received by the association that may have environmental or natural resource implications for the benefit of the constituent counties and interested parties.

Participated in over 61 reviews and evaluations in 1992.

EDA Projects

Assists the region in its economic and community development efforts. Many of the funded efforts are noted under the "Industrial Promotion" and "Planning Assistance" sections.

Revolving Loan Fund

The purpose of the RLF is to create jobs for low moderate income persons by providing gap financing to qualified businesses within the region.

The RLF has experienced great success since 1987. The original fund combined EDA and CDBG funds, totaling $841,753. As of June 30, 1992, the fund approved $1,532,276 in 22 loans, creating 450 new jobs and committing 450 more.

Industrial Promotion

Provides technical assistance and information to the counties and communities of the district and to their respective economic development entities. The purpose of such assistance is to further the cause of industrial promotion of the district in order to develop more basic industries, to create more employment opportunities, and to diversify the economic base.

Community Development Grants

Receives and evaluates applications for Community Development Block Grant funds within the southwest region. Traditionally, the majority of CDBG funds has been allocated to "brick and mortar" projects such as fire stations, culinary water systems, wastewater system, etc. Also, funds are normally allocated to assist communities through the provision of technical planning assistance.

Six out of ten applications were selected for a total funding of $879,056.

Color Country/ Travel & Tourism

Travel and trade shows

Media advertising & public relations

Familiarization tours

Welcome Centers

Weatherization

Provide energy cost reduction assistance to low income households.

89 homes were serviced at a cost of $146,197 in Fiscal Year 1992.

Human Services

Food Commodity Cheese and Butter distribution and administration for Care and Shares and Senior citizen Programs--7,621 cases.

Wrote, funded and administered Emergency Shelter Grants and grant for working with homeless, $10,000. Set up working council for the homeless and 34 people were placed.

Investigated 23 nursing home complaints as Ombudsman, with one still pending.

Administered the Alternatives Program. Served 42 active cases throughout FY92.

Procurement Outreach

Assist business firms in Southwest Utah secure federal, state, and private contracts. The office maintains a plan room and contractors library to serve its clients.

232 firms registered in the system, with 127 contracts awarded at a total value of $21,011,830 (Fiscal Year 1992).

Job Training Partnership (JTPA)

Assistance is provided in the following areas: job search skills, basic education, classroom training, on-the-job training, youth try-out employment, customized training, and support services.

520 enrolled in FY92, resulting in 162 total job placements, 176 completions, and 135 currently enrolled.

Aging and Nutrition Services

Transportation (shopping, doctors, senior centers, etc.)--20,558 rides.
Congregate/Home Delivered Meals--128,398 meals.
Outreach (home visits to identify clients)--3,664 client hours.
Information and referral--11,627 client requests.
Friendly visiting/Telephone reassurance (comfort and visits)--31,708 client hours.
Chore Services (help with household chores)--4,864 client hours.
Recreation & Socialization--6,705 client hours.
Alternatives/Homemaker (help persons to stay in own homes)--9,803 client hours.

Retired Senior Volunteer Program

Assists and coordinates the efforts of retired senior citizens to volunteer their time to positions with hospitals, senior citizen centers, schools, chambers of commerce, and nursing homes.

Increase of 221 volunteers in FY92 to a total of 1,203 volunteers.
 

The Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) is a voluntary association of local governments in Utah, Wasatch and Summit Counties. The association was formed in 1971 to address problems which extend beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries and affect the entire tri-county region. MAG was also designed to eliminate duplication of effort and to provide a stronger role for local government officials in planning, coordinating, and administering state and federal programs at the local level.

As stated in the Articles of Association, "The Mountainland Association of Governments . . . shall be a voluntary organization of governments to facilitate inter-governmental cooperation and insure the orderly and harmonious coordination of federal, state, and local programs for the solution of mutual problems of the region."

The overall goal is "to serve as a multi-purpose organization, utilizing our combined total resources, to provide a more effective means for planning and development of the physical, economic, and human resources of the region."

MAG is not intended to become a new layer of government, but rather provide a share professional staff to local elected officials enabling them to better meet the needs of their constituents.
 
 

The Governing Board of the association consists of the nine county commissioners and the mayors of the cities located within the boundaries of Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties. The Board, known as the Executive Council, has full authority over the activities, budgets, and policies of the association.

The council is assisted by advisory committees consisting of both elected officials and private citizens who are appointed by the Executive Council. The committees' purposes entail developing proposals to operate programs authorized by the Executive Council and providing guidance in the administration of adopted programs.

The Executive Council is assisted by an Executive Director, who serves at the pleasure of the council and is responsible to the council for the administration of the association's policies and programs. The director administers the programs through a staff of 33 professionals, all selected because of expertise in their respective fields.
 
 

The association administers programs in the following areas: physical planning, community and economic planning, job and business development, administrative services, area agency on aging, Utah County Housing Authority, and Mountainland Community Action Agency. The objectives and some recent accomplishments of the programs are given below.

Physical Planning

Extend the O&D study consulting contract to evaluate the current transportation model, make changes where necessary and calibrate the revised model.
Undertake three special transportation studies and an aerial photography project at the special request of member agencies.
Effectively administer the water quality program in order to meet the beneficial uses of water in the Mountainland area
Strengthen the local involvement of elected officials in the water quality process.
Have a productive region in harmony with a quality environment
Listen, anticipate, and respond to customer's needs.
A transportation engineer was added to the staff and a consulting firm was retained to analyze and recommend the most effective carbon monoxide emissions mitigating transportation control measures for inclusion in the SIP.
The draft UVATS Long-Range Transportation Plan was completed in June and should be reviewed/approved by the public and Executive Council by October 1, 1993.
The water quality program completed Phase 2 Clean Lakes projects on Deer Creek Reservoir and Salem Pond.
Staff produced a water quality video for Heber Valley and continued a diagnostic and feasibility study on Utah Lake.
The RC&D program updated its application for federal designation and submitted it to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The RC&D program coordinated with Brigham Young University and Utah State University to provide a series of conservation workshops for 75 school teachers in Utah County.
Community Development
Economic Development Planning
Community Development Planning
Diversify and build local economies through Recreation Planning
Maintain a visible presence for the region in Utah promotional programs and increase the length of visitor stays and expenditures in the region.
$128 million in contracts awarded to Mountainland firms in the past year
30,000 bid opportunities per month being mailed to client firms
Preparation of an area wide Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Drafting and graphic illustration of community parks, swimming pools, and county trails programs
Production of Mountainland Travel Region Brochures and Group Tour Manuals
Operation of the Echo Welcome Center on I-80.

Aging and Adult Services

Successful implementation of the Medicaid Waiver for in-home services
Statewide recognition of an implementation plan for Medicare counseling
Inauguration of a unique annual outdoor activity for adults with disabilities
Growth in participation at training symposia
Over 221,000 meals served and in-home services supplied to 130 needy adults and elderly.
Recruited 162 new volunteers during calendar year 1992.
Established a new contract with the Nebo School District to provide volunteer tutors similar to those already in Alpine and Provo districts.
12 clients have been placed on the Medicaid Waiver program.
All care center managers are aware of the Ombudsman service, as 28 cases were investigated in 1991, 79 were opened in 1992, with two more remaining open.

Job and Business Development

Emphasize service to those most in need and have the most serious barriers to employment with a desired outcome of employment that provides economic self-sufficiency. Increase awareness and access to technology-based training.

On-The-Job Training Programs
Classroom Training and Education Services
Summer Youth Employment Program
Single Parent Economic Independence Development Program
Procurement Assistance
Provided services to over 1,100 job seekers.
Over 500 employers have utilized the resources and expertise of the department to meet their needs for training employees.
Trainees have located full-time employment at a hourly rate of $6.30 per hour.
Instituted a Local Coordination Council to bring together all community resources for disadvantaged job seekers.
Utah County Housing Authority (UCHA) Contract
The weatherization program has serviced 255 homes during the past fiscal year.
Mountainland Community Action Agency (MCAA) Contract
Purchased a four-plex for the purpose of providing transitional housing for homeless families
Established the 501(c)(3) private non-profit agency.
Created the Family Development Program which provides case management and other services to homeless and at risk homeless families.
Provided over 83,000 services to low-income persons, and 5,226 families.
 
 

The Six County Association of Governments was originally established in 1970 as the Six County Commissioners' Organization to serve Juab, Millard, Sevier, Sanpete, Piute, and Wayne counties. Recently, the organization was renamed an "Association of Governments" to be consistent with the term AOG.

The purpose of the Six County AOG is to serve the cities and county members and their residents as directed by the Governing Board. The Executive Director, therefore, represents the interests of the Association as directed by the Board with the Office of the Governor of the State of Utah, Utah State government agencies, regional offices in Denver, and the Utah Congressional Delegation in Washington.

Central financial, management, and personnel functions are provided from the executive office.
 
 

The Governing Board consists of one county commissioner and one mayor appointed from each county. The officers consist of a chairman, vice chairman, and an immediate past chairman, each serving one year in office.

The AOG board is appointed to oversee various programs or areas of concern and conduct the routine business of the Association through the executive director and teh department directors. They study and make recommendations on policy matters and issues. The officers act as the association's agent for the signing of contracts, checks, and other documents.

The following departments provide services directly to the cities and counties and residents thereof: Aging/Human Resources, Economic Development, Panoramaland, Mental Health, and Public Health.
 
 

Executive Office
Administration
Fiscal Services--provided to Public Health and Mental Health/Alcohol & Drug Departments by contract.
Aging/HumanResources
Aging
Nutrition
Community Services Block Grant
Community Development Block Grants
Federal Emergency Management Assistance
Economic Development
Community Assistance
Procurement Outreach
Community Development Block Grants
Revolving Loan Fund
Economic Development (Recruitment, Retention, Rural Development)
Panoramaland Travel Region
Housing Services
Weatherization
Houisng (HUD and CHAS)
TEFAP (Surplus Commodoties)
Employment & Training
Adult Services
Youth Services
Aging Services
Dislocated Workers
Single Heads of Household
 
 

The Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments (SEUALG) is a voluntary assoication of local governments in Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan counties. The association was formed in 1970.

The purposes of the association are set forth in the organizational by-laws:

1. To serve as a common forum to identify, discuss, study and to bring into focus district problems, and opportunities with regard to the functioning of local governments.

2. To provide a continuing organizational means to exchange information and data of interest to local government and insure effective communication among various govenmental levels.

3. To review, comment upon, and coordinate state and federal programs pertaining to local affairs and make recommendations to the responsible agencies in outlining and executing programs to insure that programs are consistent with the overall best interests of local governments.

4. To act as a consolidated advisory body to integrate local viewpoints and to serve as advisors in the formulation and adoption of general policies.

5. To maintain liaison between governmental units and organizations.

6. To act as the parent organizational unit for the coordination, administration, and/or operation of common programs of mutual interest and impact in the region.

SEUALG is not intended to be another "layer" of government. SEUALG intends to provide a shared professional staff to local elected officials enabling them to better meet the needs of their constituents and to be an advocate for local constituencies at the state and federal levels of government.
 
 

SEUALG works in cooperation with several policy and advisory councils. The Private Industry Council (PIC) is comprised of private and public representatives with private representatives being in the majority by regulation. The District Aging Council provides advisory input to the SEUALG Area Agency on Aging. The SEUALG Executie Board also serves as the Loan Administrative Board for the SEUALG Revolving Loan Fund, adding three members who represent banking, minority, and legal interests. The Revolving Loan Fund Admiunistrative Board makes final decisions on the terms, conditions, and awarding of loans to new or expanding businesses.

The association's adminstrative staff consists of four members, including an executive director who oversees 12 program managers for the various AOG programs. Thus, there are 16 total SEUALG staff members.
 
 

Below are highlights of the services provided by SEUALG programs in FY93.

Aging Services

Provided service to 47 percent of the total 6,181 seniors of the region.
Congregate meals served 41,527 meals to 1,635 unduplicated persons
Home Deliverd Meals provided 513 unduplicated persons with 54,541 meals.
The Alternatives/Homemaker Program served 75 persons.
Volunteerism served 21,424 hours through 353 volunteers.

Community Services

Provided individual employment information and referral services to 34 clients during the final three quarters of FY93.

53 low-income residents received information and referral services regarding existing housing programs during FY93.

Emergency Services--72 low-income persons received information and referral; 285 households received financial payments not to exceed $100 for food, loans, or other payments; mediated conflicts or emergency situations for 429 additional clients; food donations worth over $40,000 were received in the final three quarters of FY93.

Nutrition--over 9,880 hot meals were provided to 190 low-income youth, senior citizens, and homebound; and 1,460 persons received counseling about nutrition.

Economic and Business Development

Economic Development Planning--$550,000 capitalization of a district revolving loan fund (EDA/CDBG); a $17,500 Navajo Strip Economic Assessment Study; and $1.1 million to convert a vacated Price school building to a 19,500 square foot Regional Business & Technical Assistance Center serving all four counties and providing new housing for the AOG technical assistance programs and incubation space for up to 20 new businesses.

Business Technical Assistance--conducted training for 20 Native-Americans going into business on the Navajo Reservation; and provided technical management assistance to 29 area businesses and 116 potential entrepreneurs.

Procurement Outreach--assisted firms in obtaining federal and private commercial contracts, awarding $5.2 million.

Loans have been closed or approved to finance projects in the four counties amounting to $476,000. The 12 new projects and one expansion will create more than 200 new jobs.
 
 Housing and Community Development

In FY93 received $75,000 to perform major rehabilitation to three homes. $160,000 has been allocated for six homes in FY94.

Human Services

Initiates and coordinates Vista Projects
Applies for Child Abuse Prevention funds for other agencies
Established the Active Re-Entry Independent Living Center
Obtained computer equipment for the Price City Police Department
Assisted in the startup of the Before and After School programs in Carbon and Emery counties
Initiated and turned over the Seekhaven Women's Shelter to Grand County

Job Training

Provide summer remediation instruction for youth lacking basic educational skills
Pay wages of youth (age 14-21) working at public and private non-profit worksites during the summer
Defray employer training costs associated with hiring JTPA participants through the On-The-Job Training program
Total enrollment of 1,031 with 352 terminations and 170 placements at wages ranging between $5.13 to $11.23 per hour
Of the adult clients 62 percent were female, 10 percent hispanic, 17 percent other minority, 26 percent dropouts, and 22 percent disabled
Weatherization
Priority is given to stopping infiltration by repairing windows, patching roofs and walls, caulking cracks and joints, and weatherstripping
86 homes weatherized, benefitting 350 individuals (16 elderly, 34 disabled)
 
 

The Uintah Basin Association of Governments was established in 1973. Their goal is to serve as a multi-purpose organization utilizing our combined total resources to provide a more effective means for planning and development of the physical, economic, and human resources of the region.

The Uintah Basin AOG's functions are as follows:

1) to serve as a common forum to identify, discuss, study, and bring into focus statewide problems with regard to local governments

2) to provide a continuing organizational system for the exchange of information and data to local government and to insure effective comunication among various governmental levels

3) to review, comment on, coordinate state and federal programs pertaining to local affairs, and make recommendations to the responsible agencies

4) to act as a consolidated advisory board and maintain liaison between governmental units and organizations.
 
 

The policy body of UBAG is a steering committee voting membership consisting of:

Two County Commissioners from each county, except Daggett County which provides three; and, two mayors from each county, except Daggett, which only has one town.

There are six advisory boards and councils which have responsibility for designated programs. They are as follows:

Private Industry council

Economic Development District (EDD)

Housing Advisory Board

Shelter Board

Revolving Loan Board

UBAG staff includes an Executive Director and 10 full time employees, three contractual employees, and three temporary employees.
 
 

Programs are divided into the following areas: economic development, area agency on aging, tribal liaison/economic development, Utah procurement, revolving loan fund, weatherization, CSBG, SSBG, Job Training, CDBG, Housing Rehabilitation, and Regional Review Committee (RRC). The activities of the programs are noted below:

Economic Development/Planning/Research

Provide demographic, economic, and procurement information
Provide technical assistance to communities for the development of financing to complete economic development projects
Assist local governments in developing an economic base, programs, and plans
State Housing Assessment, impact applications for Manila and Myton City, Manila Town zoning ordinance, survey Fruitland Water District, reviewed other impact applications
Regional Incubator, implementations of $150,255 CDBG Funds and other EDA matching funds
Privatization of Dutch John, Economic Development Planning $75,000 (CDBG, Bureau of Reclamations, U.S. Forest Service)
Added Value Wood Study, $30,000 (U.S. Forest Service)
Recreational Toursim Study, $18,000 (U.S. Forest Service)
Dinosaur field Institute, $30,000 (U.S. Forest Service)
Regional Business Infrastructure Survey

Area Agency on Aging

Information and referrals, outreach, transportation, escort, legal, home health aid, advocacy, assessment/screening, education/training, material aid, recreation, shopping, respite care, congregate meals, volunteers, alternative care, and homemakers/personal care

Due to the American Disabilities Act (ADA), a van was acquired for the handicapped/elderly

Tribal Liaison

New position to facilitate communication between tribal/non-tribal governments and cooperate with existing agencies to promote regional growth
Initiate mutually beneficial economic development projects between the Ute Tribe, local governments, and other entities
World of Work Conference, to promote communications between to the Tribe and Business/Industry doing business on the reservation
Regional Economic Development Conference to be held in the spring of 1994, focusing on Economic Development in the Uintah Basin
Empowerment, federal Enterprise, and state Enterprise Zone benefits, assessment
ICDBG Funds re-allocated for Tribal use

Revolving Loan fund Program/Procurement

Create new jobs and retain existing jobs within the Uintah Basin
Fill the finance gaps experienced by local businesses
Assist high potential start-up projects with seed capital
Provide incentives to businesses and financial institutions to invest in expansion and start-up projects
Signed agreement with Utah Technology Finance Corp.
Transacted five loans, amounting to $450,000
$900,000 generated through Procurement Programs

Job Training Partnership Act

On the job training (OJT), EDWAA program, Older worker, Classroom training and education, local coordination of training programs operated in the tri-county area (AOF)
98 adults served through OJT
Single head of household program has trained 30 individuals, of which 72 percent are currently working, resulting in reduction of ADFC grants
Summer Youth program provided work opportunities for 94 youth and paid out $144,00 in salaries

Community Development Block Grant

Small Cities program--to assist in developing viable urban communities.
Update economic and demographic data
Conduct a comprehensive homeless survey and obtain additional housing information in the area
Update current listing of existing businesses and contact new businesses to enhance economic development and promote low/moderate income jobs
Provided technical assistance to Duchesne and Uintah Counties on CDBG

Retired Senior Volunteer Program

Regional Senior Health and House Needs Survey
100 volunteers are currently working out of 10 volunteer stations
Reimbursement of mileage totaling $3,000
Annual recognition luncheon to recognize volunteers

Community Services Block Grant

Emergency food, shelter, housing, fuel or transportation, medical and dental assistance, and adequate shoes and clothing

Served 23,278 adults and 4,159 children, totaling $68,762 for this year

Weatherization

Enable low-income individuals and families (elderly and handicapped) to reduce energy consumption through conservation programs and home repairs
118 houses were contracted to be weatherized --75 completed, leaving 43
$214,539 were allocated for this program

Housing Rehabilitation

Provide low interest loans to eliminate housing deterioration and code violations
HOME Program allocated $693,853
FmHA allocated $102,767
CDBG allocations were $346,306
 
 
 

The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) is a voluntary organization of governments, established in 1970, to foster a cooperative effort in resolving problems, policies, and plans that are common to two or more counties or are regional in nature.

The purpose of WFRC is to discuss and study community challenges of mutual interest and concern, and to develop policy and action recommendations for ratification and implementation by the governments in the area served by the Council.

The goal of the organization is to retain and strengthen local home rule while combining its total resources for regional challenges beyond individual capabilities.

The WFRC is organized as an "umbrella-type" agency made up of representatives designated by each of the existing member County Councils of Governments from among elected officials serving as members of such County Councils of Governments. The Salt Lake County Council of Governments has seven voting members, the Weber Area Council of Governments has four, the Davis County Council of Governments has three, and the Morgan County Council of Governments and the Tooele County Council of Governments each have one.

The executive director, appointed by the Council, coordinates the activities of the staff. There are 27 staff employees. A program director oversees the four program areas: transportation, aviation, development planning, and information systems.

WFRC focuses heavily on transportation planning due to the urban makeup of their region. Also, the numerous local government entities provide many of the community and social services that other AOGs usually operate. Thus, the programs WFRC oversees varies quite distinctly from the other AOGs, as noted below:

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

Airport Systems Planning

HAFB Land Use Study

Small Cities

CDBG Demonstration Grant

Salt Lake COG

Economic Development

Solid Waste Management

Local Government Service

5600 West EIS

The following charts look at each of the AOGs' funding from various angles. The comparison charts include expenditures by program and revenues by source. However, pure comparisons of revenues and expenditures alone do not account for the wide disparity in the various regions and their characteristics and demographic makeup. Other variables we compared include expenditures per capita, per program, per city&county, per percentage of population in unicorporated areas, and as a percentage of local government revenues. But again, these variables do not adequately or correctly reflect the situation at hand, and thus are not contained in this report.

These charts are included as the following Lotus 1-2-3 files:

AOG$1.wk1

AOG$2.wk1

Please rate the following statements in reference to your AOG.

How do you rate your AOG in providing the following services and/or programs.
 
 

What services would you like to see your AOG provide that its does not already?
 
 

What percentage of your AOG's services are being utilized?

In what ways, if any, do AOG progra,s duplicate other existing programs?
 
 

Do you see any overlap, program or administrative, between your AOG and these other planning entities?

In what aspects does your AOG need to be changed and/or improved?

Do you feel you AOG staff is: Overmanned Undermanned Sufficient

What do you see as your AOG's role in working with state government?

What do you view as the state's role with your AOG and its member local governments (Beyond providing direct services)?

Do you think a local, multi-county, or a state-wide organization would be more advantageous in the operation of your AOG's programs?

Local Multi-county State-wide

Other

In what ways, if any, do you think your AOG could operate more effectively and efficiently?
 
 

If federal and/or state funds were not available, which of the following options would you choose to support your AOG's continuation and possible growth?

Local Government Revenues Data processing request fees

Consulting Fees

Other:

Do you think that the roles are clearly defined between the AOG board and:

What benefits, if any, does your jurisdiction and your region derive from the fact that it is served by an AOG?
 
 

How well informed are the public, or possible participants, of your AOG and its services?

Very high High Neutral Low Very Low
 
 

Which AOG are you associated with?

Bear River AOG Six County Commissioners' Org Unitah Basin AOG

Five County AOG Southeastern Utah AOG Wasatch Front Regional Council

Moutainland AOG