DRAFT
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Contents
Executive Summary ...... 4 Background ...... 6 Summary of Findings...... 7 Fair Housing Equity and Impediments Action Plan ...... 11 Introduction ...... 14 Plan Structure ...... 14 Purpose of the Plan ...... 14 Planning Context ...... 15 Regional Planning Context ...... 15 Community Background ...... 15 Glossary of Terms...... DRAFT...... 16 Affordable Housing Methodology ...... 20 Targeted Income Groups ...... 20 Monthly Housing Allowance ...... 21 Affordability Thresholds ...... 22 Copperton ...... 24 Summary ...... 24 Population & Demographics ...... 25 Current Housing Stock ...... 41 Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need ...... 49 5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections ...... 57 Forecast of Affordable Housing Need ...... 59 Emigration Canyon ...... 60 Summary ...... 61 Population & Demographics ...... 62 Current Housing Stock ...... 78 Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need ...... 86 5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections ...... 94 Forecast of Affordable Housing Need ...... 96 Kearns ...... 97
1 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Summary ...... 97 Population & Demographics ...... 98 Current Housing Stock ...... 113 Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need ...... 121 5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections ...... 132 Forecast of Affordable Housing Need ...... 134 Magna ...... 135 Summary ...... 135 Population & Demographics ...... 136 Current Housing Stock ...... 152 Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need ...... 159 5-Year and 10-YearDRAFT Population Projections ...... 170 Forecast of Affordable Housing Need ...... 172 Millcreek ...... 173 Summary ...... 173 Population & Demographics ...... 174 Current Housing Stock ...... 190 Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need ...... 198 5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections ...... 209 Forecast of Affordable Housing Need ...... 211 White City ...... 213 Summary ...... 213 Population & Demographics ...... 214 Current Housing Stock ...... 230 Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need ...... 236 5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections ...... 244 Forecast of Affordable Housing Need ...... 246 Unincorporated Islands ...... 247 Summary ...... 247 Population & Demographics ...... 248 Current Housing Stock ...... 260
2 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need ...... 268 5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections ...... 275 Forecast of Affordable Housing Need ...... 275 Fair Housing Equity and Impediments Action Plan ...... 277 Summary of Findings – Salt Lake County FHEA ...... 277 Impediments Identified ...... 278 Summary of Findings - County Analysis of Impediments ...... 288 Fair Housing Action Plan ...... 290 Financial Resources ...... 297 Financial Tools and Mechanisms ...... 300 Appendix A: General Plan Housing Goals ...... 305 DRAFT
3 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank
4 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Executive Summary
5 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Executive Summary
Key Findings Greater population growth is expected to occur on the west side of Salt Lake County. Higher incomes, both household and per capita, are generally located on the east side of Salt Lake County. There is a distinct divide in the affordability of homes between the east and west sides of Salt Lake County, with the more affordable communities located on the west side of the County, including Copperton, Kearns, and Magna. Overall, there is a large need for more affordable units for households with low and very low incomes. Furthermore, there are more units affordable to households with moderate incomes than there are households, indicating that many low- and very-low income households are living in homes that they cannot afford or that higher-income households are choosing to live in homes that are below what they can afford. Current housing demands indicate a lack of 3,637 housing units for households with very low income, and an additional lack of 1,058 units for households with low income. There is currently anDRAFT excess of 8,986 units for households with moderate incomes. Projected needs will increase for all moderate- and low-income household groups.
Background Salt Lake County is the largest county in Utah, with approximately 37 percent of the entire State’s population residing within one of the approximately 369,805 housing units.1 The 2010 Census indicated a total population of 1,029,655, which the Census Bureau estimates has increased to 1,107,314 in 2015, an increase of approximately 15,547 people per year. Likewise, employment in Salt Lake County has also increased in recent years. The Department of Workforce Services estimates that the total employment in Salt Lake County has increased from 573,449 in 2009 to 639,453 in 2014, approximately 13,200 jobs per year. These recent increases in population and employment have created additional demand for housing options throughout the County. Not only is long-term planning for affordable and moderate- income housing required of municipalities by State Code, it is also vital so that growth is beneficial and fair to all residents.
Prior to 2016, the unincorporated Salt Lake County consisted of six townships and numerous other unincorporated areas. In 2015 the Township of Millcreek voted to become an incorporated city, while the remaining five townships voted to become metro townships. The changes associated with these new forms of government will become effective in January 2017. In this report, Millcreek City is referred to as the City, while Copperton, Emigration Canyon, Kearns, Magna, and White City are referred to as Metro Townships. This study also includes an analysis of housing in the unincorporated islands of Salt Lake County, located within Sandy City, South Jordan, and Cottonwood Heights. The unincorporated islands do not include the unincorporated mountain regions of Salt Lake County. This plan covers Millcreek City, the five Metro Townships, and the unincorporated islands, with the boundaries of these areas shown in the map below.
1 2014 ACS
6 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
The objectives of this plan are to: Meet regulatory requirements by reporting the current status of housing to the State of Utah and to provide a methodology to meet community needs; Provide a plan and tools for implementing goals; Provide Salt Lake County, Millcreek City, and each of the Metro Townships with the resources needed to inform residential development decisions to be beneficial, fair, equitable, and a good fit for the needs of residents and to enhance quality of life in each community; and Meet requirements laid out by various federal, local, and other grants and funding sources where the County is either already a grantee or is a source the County wishes to pursue.
This plan complies with and is presented in accordance with Utah State Code 17-27a-408.
Summary of Findings
Demographics The population projections used here were formed using both Census block data and population figures listed by the American Community Survey (ACS). Most areas use the ACS figure, with the exception of Millcreek, which uses a population number calculated by using geographic tabulation with Census blocks, as the boundaries vary significantly than the ones used by the ACS. The population figures from
7 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
2010 and 2014 establish the baseline growth rate that was then extended into straight-line projections for the future populations of each community.
Table E1: Salt Lake County Population Estimates and Projections (Source: 2014 ACS) AAGR 2010 2014 2010- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2014 Copperton 721 551 -2.000% 540 529 519 508 498 488 Emigration 1,566 1,649 1.301% 1,670 1,692 1,714 1,736 1,759 1,782 Canyon Kearns 35,776 34,865 -0.643% 34,641 34,418 34,197 33,977 33,759 33,542 Magna 26,520 28,182 1.532% 28,614 29,052 29,497 29,949 30,407 30,873 Millcreek 55,055 56,586 0.688% 56,976 57,368 57,763 58,161 58,561 58,965 White City 5,689 5,488 -0.893% 5,439 5,390 5,342 5,295 5,247 5,200 Remaining 8,041DRAFT 8,128 0.271% 8,150 8,172 8,194 8,217 8,239 8,261 Unincorporated
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Copperton 478 469 459 450 441 432 Emigration Canyon 1,805 1,829 1,852 1,877 1,901 1,926 Kearns 33,326 33,112 32,899 32,688 32,478 32,269 Magna 31,346 31,826 32,313 32,808 33,311 33,821 Millcreek 59,370 59,779 60,191 60,605 61,022 61,443 White City 5,154 5,108 5,062 5,017 4,972 4,928 Remaining 8,283 8,306 8,328 8,351 8,373 8,396 Unincorporated
The demographics of each metro township vary greatly; however, there are some similarities based on geography, including: Higher incomes, both household and per capita, are generally located on the east side of Salt Lake County. Larger households and lower median ages are typically found on the west side of Salt Lake County.
Table E2: Demographic Summary Household Household Per Capita Population Median Age Size Income Income Copperton 529 35.9 2.74 $43,450 $17,458 Emigration Canyon 1,692 44.4 2.98 $175,272 $74,607 Kearns 34,418 29.5 3.61 $57,097 $17,764 Magna 29,052 28.6 3.56 $55,913 $18,738
8 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Household Household Per Capita Population Median Age Size Income Income Millcreek 57,368 36.1 2.51 $57,429 $32,362 White City 5,390 32.6 3.22 $60,219 $21,691 Unincorporated Islands NA NA NA NA NA Salt Lake County Total 1,107,314 31.5 3.02 $61,446 $26,747
Current Affordable Housing Availability The table below shows the percent of dwelling units in each community that are affordable, based on the following percentages of Salt Lake County Area Median Income (AMI). There is a distinct divide in the affordability of homes between the east and west sides of Salt Lake County, with the more affordable communities located on the west side of the County, including Copperton, Kearns, and Magna. When compared to the countywide population with low to moderate incomes, there is a significant difference in the percent of homes in the City of Millcreek and the metro townships that are affordable to households with low to moderate incomes (1.7 and 7.6 percent) and the percent of households in those income ranges (13.2 and 11.9 percent). DRAFT Table E3: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cum. Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Unincorporated Islands 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County Population 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3%
The table below outlines current low- and moderate-income housing needs in each of the communities. These estimates are calculated by subtracting the total number of households in each income group by the total number of housing units in the income group. These numbers, both the number of households and units, are adjusted to exclude households, and their respective units, that currently do not have a mortgage.
Positive values indicate the number of housing units needed to meet current demand. Negative values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units.
Overall, there is a large need for more affordable units at the 30 and 50 percent income thresholds. Furthermore, there are more units at 80 percent than there are households, indicating that many low- income households (30 and 50 percent AMI) are living in homes that they cannot afford or that households making more than 80 percent AMI are choosing to live in less than what they can afford.
9 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table E4: Current Affordable Housing Needs by Community and Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cumulative Total Copperton - (10) (73) (83) Emigration Canyon 19 12 (14) 17 Kearns 695 849 (3,942) (2,398) Magna 730 306 (3,003) (1,967) Millcreek 2,067 (195) (1,823) 49 White City 126 96 (131) 91 Unincorporated Islands NA NA NA NA Salt Lake County 3,637 1,058 (8,986) (4,291)
Projected Affordable Housing Needs The following table shows the projected affordable housing needs by community and targeted income group from 2016 to 2026, based on population projections for each of the communities.2 In some cases where population declines are projected, the number of units needed (or households created) is negative. This does not necessarily mean that there will be a surplus of units for the given community and income range; rather,DRAFT this indicates that there will be fewer units needed than what is currently needed. For example, population projections indicate the Kearns will decrease by 58 households in the 30 percent AMI income range over the next 10 years. This means that Kearns Metro Township will need 58 fewer affordable units in this income range over the next 10 years; however, they still have a current need of 695. Therefore, the total need over the next 10 years is 637 units (see Table __).
Table E5: Projected Affordable Housing Needs by Community and Targeted Income Group HHs in Targeted < 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Income Groups Income Range <$20,160 $20,161-$33,250 $33,251-$53,150 Copperton - (21) (14) Emigration Canyon 5 2 2 Kearns (58) (77) (135) Magna 143 163 255 Millcreek 217 212 318 White City (17) (18) (30) Total 290 261 396 Note: Negative values do not indicate a surplus of units; rather, they indicate that fewer units are needed for the given income range over the next 10 years than what are currently needed.
The following table combines data from the two previous tables to show the total affordable housing needs, including current and projected, by community and targeted income group. Like the tables above, positive values indicate the number of needed units to meet the current demand; negative
2 The population counts outlined previously are used for basic demographic reference; however, to project housing unit needs the number of households was calculated in a slightly different manner in order to correspond with differing data from the County Assessor. To make this data consistent, the total number of households was based on the number of units listed by the Assessor multiplied by the occupancy rate listed by ACS for each township. To translate these figures to low and moderate income group distributions, that value was then multiplied by the percentage of households in each income group (ACS) to determine the number of households in each targeted income group.
10 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units. Note that in all cases, there is no need for units between 50 and 80 percent AMI, due to the general excess of units within this income group. There are significant current and projected needs, however, for the 30 and 50 percent income groups.
Table E6: Total Affordable Housing Needs by Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Projected Projected Projected Current Total Current Total Current Total 10-year 10-year 10-year Need Need Need Need Need Need Need Need Need Copperton - - - (10) (21) (31) (73) (14) (87) Emigration 19 5 24 12 2 14 (14) 2 (12) Canyon Kearns 695 (58) 637 849 (77) 772 (3,942) (135) (4,077) Magna 730 143 873 306 163 469 (3,003) 255 (2,748) Millcreek 2,067 217 2,284 (195) 212 17 (1,823) 318 (1,505) White City 126 (17) 109 96 (18) 78 (131) (30) (161) Unincorporated NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Islands Total 3,637DRAFT 290 3,927 1,058 261 1,319 (8,986) 396 (8,590)
Fair Housing Equity and Impediments Action Plan The Fair Housing Equity and Impediments Action Plan includes several goals and action items to provide a fair housing opportunity for those currently or seeking to live in Salt Lake County. Below is a list of the goals listed in the action plan.
Goal 1: Increase Regional Collaboration Goal 2: Encourage Development of Affordable Housing Goal 3: Focus Development of Affordable Housing at Transit Sites and Significant Transportation Corridors Goal 4: Encourage Energy Efficient Housing that Reduces Resident Costs Goal 5: Provide More Affordable Housing through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), Vouchers, and Other Assistance Programs Goal 6: Support Housing Needs for Special Needs Residents Goal 7: Provide More Affordable Housing through Accessory Unit Support Goal 8: Address Issues of Disparate Housing Impacts and Discrimination Goal 9: Work with UTA to Improve and Increase Bus Routes in Low-Opportunity Areas Goal 10: Provide Opportunities for Residents to Reside in the Community throughout the Lifecycle Goal 11: Maintain Existing Housing Stock Appeal and Quality
11 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank
12 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT Introduction . Plan Structure . Purpose of the Plan . Planning Context . Regional Planning Context . Community Background
13 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Introduction
Plan Structure This housing plan is organized into four major sections: 1. Introduction 2. Affordable Housing Methodology 3. Affordable Housing Analysis 4. Fair Housing Equity and Impediments Action Plan
The Introduction, Affordable Housing Methodology, and Fair Housing Equity and Impediments Action Plan are written as a general overview for Salt Lake County, while the Affordable Housing Analysis is segmented into sections for Millcreek City and the individual Metro Townships. It is intended that the individual Affordable Housing Analyses are to be grouped with the other three sections to serve as stand-alone documents for Millcreek City and each of the Metro Townships.
Purpose of the Plan This plan has the followingDRAFT objectives:
Meet regulatory requirements by reporting the current status of housing to the State of Utah and to provide a methodology to meet community needs. In 1996 the Utah Legislature passed House Bill 295 to address the availability of moderate income housing in response to rapid increases in housing prices. Utah had the highest rise in prices in the nation from 1992 to 1997 with prices increasing nearly 70 percent3 in that time period. Under threats to the dream of homeownership, as well as to community strength and stability, House Bill 295 (represented in Utah Code 10-9a-403 and 10-9a-408) requires municipalities to consider affordable housing concerns and housing needs of residents as part of their general plans and other planning efforts. The Code requires an estimate of the “need for the development of additional moderate income housing within the city, and a plan to provide a realistic opportunity to meet estimated needs” to “(A) meet the needs of people desiring to live there; and (B) to allow persons with moderate incomes to benefit from and fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life.” This plan complies with and is presented in accordance with Utah State Code 17-27a-408.
Provide a plan and tools for implementing goals. An action plan is presented in the form of goals and action items with a timeline specific to the current and future needs of each community.
Provide Salt Lake County, Millcreek City, and each of the Metro Townships with the resources needed to inform residential development decisions to be beneficial, fair, equitable, and a good fit for the needs of residents and to enhance quality of life in each community. Decisions made by the planning authority in each community regarding zoning, fees, land use planning, and other choices can impact housing, and thus the long-term character of each community and the County as a whole. These decisions are best made with full and detailed information of current and future conditions and needs.
3 http://www.bebr.utah.edu/Documents/studies/AffordableHousing.pdf
14 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Meet requirements laid out by various federal, local, and other grants and funding sources where the County is either already a grantee or sources the County wishes to pursue.
Planning Context State Code requires that general plans estimate the need for moderate income housing. This plan estimates this need and projects the future need in the metro townships and Millcreek City. These findings can inform future planning and General Plan updates. The findings can also be used in developing an updated housing element for General Plans in each community. This Plan will further develop goals and action items to address community needs and to extend established goals set by individual General Plans.
Regional Planning Context Salt Lake County is a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement community and is required, as a condition of Community Development Block Grant funding, to provide an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing or participate in a regional AI. A regional AI for Salt Lake County has already been completed through a Sustainable Communities Grant by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). This study provides data and goals for Millcreek City and the metro townships to be used in conjunction with the regionalDRAFT AI.
Community Background Salt Lake County is the largest county in Utah, with approximately 37 percent of the State’s population and approximately 369,805 housing units.4 The 2010 Census indicated a total population of 1,029,655, which the Census Bureau estimates has increased to 1,107,314 in 2015, an increase of approximately 15,547 people per year. Likewise, employment in Salt Lake County has also increased in recent years. The Department of Workforce Services estimates that the total employment in Salt Lake County has increased from 573,449 in 2009 to 639,453 in 2014, approximately 13,200 jobs per year. These increases in population and employment have created additional demand for housing options throughout the County. Not only is long-term planning for affordable and moderate-income housing required of municipalities by State Code, it is also vital so that growth is beneficial and fair to all residents.
Prior to 2016, the unincorporated Salt Lake County consisted of six townships and numerous other unincorporated areas. In 2015 the Township of Millcreek voted to become an incorporated city, while the remaining five townships voted to become metro townships. The changes associated with these new forms of government will become effective in January 2017. In this report, Millcreek City is referred to as the City, while Copperton, Emigration Canyon, Kearns, Magna, and White City are referred to as Metro Townships. This study also includes an analysis of housing in the unincorporated islands of Salt Lake County, located within Sandy City, South Jordan, and Cottonwood Heights. The unincorporated islands do not include the unincorporated mountain regions of Salt Lake County. The boundaries for each of the areas included in this study are shown in the following map.
This plan covers Millcreek City, the five Metro Townships, and the unincorporated islands, with the boundaries of these areas shown in the map below.
4 2014 ACS
15 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Facilitating housing development that is safe, efficient and diverse in type and affordability can improve the economic performance of the municipality, encourage a safe and uplifting environment to raise families, promote a feeling of community, and enhance the quality of life for residents. A variety of housing options is important to ensure that the needs are met for all stages of the lifecycle, including entry-level home buyers, larger households, aging population, low-income residents and special needs populations. Ensuring that housing development fairly and equitably meets the needs of families is influenced by government regulations, policies and programs, zoning, existing land uses, and market forces.
Glossary of Terms This report uses a variety of terms relative to housing affordability. Below is a summary of the terms used:
Housing Unit: A house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.
Single-Family Residential: Housing units that are individually assessed and can be bought and sold as a single unit. This includes single-family dwellings, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes. While a portion of these units are rented, rental rates are unknown and the unit can become owner-occupied. The value of these units, regardless of rental status, are based on their market value as given by the County Assessor.
16 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Multi-Family Residential: Includes duplexes and apartments, and are studied by their rental rates, based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
Area Median Income: The median family income level for Salt Lake County, as determined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, based on US Census Data. The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the median income and one-half above the median. HUD uses the median income to calculate income limits for eligibility in a variety of housing programs. HUD estimates the median family income for an area and adjusts that amount for different family sizes. Also referred to as AMI in this report.
Target Income Groups: Low-income households are split into three groups based on a percentage of the Area Median Income, and are referred to as the Targeted Income Groups in this report. The three groups include: Moderate income: 80 percent of the Area Median Income; Low income: 50 percent of the Area Median Income; and Very low income: 30 percent of the Area Median Income. These three groups together are referred to as the Target Income Groups. DRAFT Monthly Housing Allowance: The maximum amount that a household can spend on housing costs per month, included utilities and other fees. The monthly housing allowance also represents the total housing costs affordable at 30 percent of gross income.
Affordability Thresholds: Translate the monthly housing allowance to the maximum home price for each of the targeted income groups.
17 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank
18 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Affordable Housing Methodology . Targeted Income Groups . Monthly Housing Allowance . Affordability Thresholds
19 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordable Housing Methodology
Targeted Income Groups Both state guidelines and federal programs require housing to consider targeted low- and moderate- income groups in relation to housing affordability on a regional scale by using an Area Median Income (AMI) calculation. This is to ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for moderate-income households to move to any community. The AMI used in this study is based on the AMI for Salt Lake County. Targeted income groups are based on low-income levels at 80 percent, 50 percent and 30 percent of the AMI.
The overall FY2016 HUD Area Median Income for Salt Lake County is $73,800. Using this figure as a base, HUD calculates income limits by household size, given in the table below. These limits by household size are used for programs such as Section 8 housing and other HUD programs. AMI thresholds in this report are based on the average household size of 3.02 in Salt Lake County, as highlighted in the table below.
Table 1: Salt Lake CountyDRAFT 2016 HUD Median Family Income Thresholds by Household Size Household Size 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1 person $15,550 $25,850 $41,350 $51,688 2 persons $17,750 $29,550 $47,250 $59,063 3 persons $20,160 $33,250 $53,150 $66,438 4 persons $24,300 $36,900 $59,050 $73,813 5 persons $28,440 $39,900 $63,800 $79,750 6 persons $32,580 $42,850 $68,500 $85,625 7 persons $36,730 $45,800 $73,250 $91,563 8 persons $40,890 $48,750 $77,950 $97,438
Using these AMI income levels, the table below shows the percent of low- to moderate-income households. Copperton, Kearns, Magna, and Millcreek all have a larger portion of households below 80 percent AMI than the County average.5
Table 2: Percent of Households in Targeted Income Groups by Community (Source: 2014 ACS) 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Cum. Total Copperton 0.64% 35.31% 23.65% 59.59% Emigration Canyon 8.20% 3.75% 2.50% 14.44% Kearns 9.59% 12.56% 22.12% 44.28% Magna 11.77% 13.38% 20.94% 46.09% Millcreek 13.30% 12.98% 19.50% 45.79% White City 10.75% 11.81% 19.26% 41.82% Unincorporated Islands NA NA NA NA Salt Lake County 13.15% 11.87% 17.56% 42.58%
5 The number of households is the estimated occupied households in 2016, as estimated from the number of housing units (SLCO Assessor) and the estimated occupancy rate (2014 ACS). The total number of households in 2016 is multiplied by the income distributions for each category, as estimated in the 2014 ACS.
20 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Monthly Housing Allowance This study considers two housing categories: 1. Single-Family Residential: Housing units that are individually assessed and can be bought and sold as a single unit. This includes single-family dwellings, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes. While a portion of these units are rented, rental rates are unknown and the unit can become owner-occupied. The value of these units, regardless of rental status, are based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. 2. Multi-Family Residential: Includes duplexes and apartments, and are studied by their rental rates, based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
HUD considers an affordable monthly housing payment for either a mortgage or rent to be no greater than 30 percent of gross monthly income, which should include utilities and other housing costs such as mortgage and hazard insurance.
The table below shows affordable monthly allowances for each of the targeted income groups. These amounts represent total housing costs affordable at 30 percent of gross income. The allowance considers affordability for either a mortgage or rental rate. A family choosing housing would need to factor utilities and otherDRAFT fees for a given housing unit within this affordable range. For example, a household at the 80 percent AMI threshold has a monthly housing allowance of $1,329. If utilities are $250, the family can afford a rent or mortgage payment of $1,079 per month.
Table 3: Affordable Monthly Housing Allowances for Targeted Income Groups 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Monthly Housing Allowance (Including $250 in Utilities) $504 $831 $1,329 Monthly Housing Allowance (less $250 in Utilities) $254 $581 $1,079
The following table shows the home price ranges by income group in Millcreek, and is used to illustrate the difference interest rates make on affordability. This assumes utility payments at $250 per month, current property tax rates, mortgage and hazard insurance, interest at the given rates, 30-year mortgage term and a 10 percent down payment. Through the remainder of the report a four percent interest rate is used; however, while current rates are closer to four percent, making housing much more affordable now, affordability in each community will likely decrease if interest rates rise.
Table 4: Affordable Home Price Ranges by Income Category and Mortgage Interest Rate Home Price Range Household Income 4% Mortgage 5% Mortgage 6% Mortgage Range Low High Low High Low High $10,000 - $14,999 $0 $10,002 $0 $8,895 $0 $7,964 $15,000 - $24,999 $10,002 $56,146 $8,895 $49,933 $7,964 $44,708 $25,000 - $34,999 $56,146 $102,290 $49,933 $90,971 $44,708 $81,453 $35,000 - $49,999 $102,290 $171,507 $90,971 $152,527 $81,453 $136,569 $50,000 - $74,999 $171,507 $286,868 $152,527 $255,122 $136,569 $228,429 $75,000 - $99,999 $286,868 $402,228 $255,122 $357,717 $228,429 $320,290 $100,000 - $149,999 $402,228 $632,950 $357,717 $562,906 $320,290 $504,011 $150,000 - $199,999 $632,950 $863,672 $562,906 $768,095 $504,011 $687,732 $200,000 or more $863,672 $768,095 $687,732
21 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordability Thresholds Translating these affordable home values to affordability for targeted income groups, the following tables outline the maximum home price and maximum rental allowance for households below 80 percent of AMI. The maximum home price and the maximum monthly rent allowance are used in the next section (“Moderate–Income Housing Affordability”) to determine the number of affordable housing units available for each targeted income group.
Table 5: Maximum Home Price Household Income Level 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Copperton $33,711 $93,925 $185,465 Emigration Canyon $33,656 $93,771 $185,161 Kearns $33,180 $92,445 $182,543 Magna $32,848 $91,521 $180,719 Millcreek $33,817 $94,220 $186,047 White City $35,128 $95,642 $187,638 Unincorporated Islands $33,369 $92,971 $183,582 DRAFT Rental rates for households are not affected by property tax or mortgage rates; therefore, the monthly housing payment allowance for rental units is the same in each community, and is listed for each target income group in the table below. Households at 80 percent of AMI that rent in Salt Lake County can afford a monthly rate of $1,329 including utilities.
Table 6: Rental Allowances by Targeted Income Group Monthly Rental Allowance Household Income Level Income Range (including $250 in Utilities) < 30% AMI $0 $20,160 $504 30-50% AMI $20,160 $33,250 $831 50-80% AMI $33,250 $53,150 $1,329
22 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Housing Affordability .DRAFT Copperton . Emigration Canyon . Kearns . Magna . Millcreek . White City . Unincorporated Islands
23 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Copperton
Key Findings Housing in Copperton is very affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI. There are no units affordable for households with very low incomes (30 percent AMI) There are no single-family housing units available at the 50 and 30 percent thresholds. MFR units are primarily affordable at the 50 percent AMI threshold It is not anticipated that Copperton will have additional demand for affordable housing through 2026.
Summary Copperton is located in the southwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, and is the smallest of the metro townships, with a total estimated population 551. Copperton has a smaller household size and an older median age than the average for Salt Lake County. Furthermore, Copperton has the second lowest household and per capita incomes in Salt Lake County, second only to the City of South Salt Lake. The housing stock in CoDRAFTpperton is primarily single-family homes, and while housing in Copperton is extremely affordable, with 88 percent of housing units affordable to moderate-income households, most housing in Copperton is very old and in average or poor condition.
24 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Population & Demographics Demographic characteristics greatly influence housing demands. Population growth, age, income and other characteristics of an area’s population influence what types of housing are desired and how many units need to be available. This section evaluates these factors in Copperton. This section will also summarize how the population has changed over the past decade and address the number of households Copperton has in targeted income groups with needs for affordable housing. Current demographic data is according to the most recent data as available – usually the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated for 2014 unless otherwise noted.
Population The population in Copperton has dropped in past years. The 2010 population was 721 while the 2014 population was 551 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of -6.489 percent. A negative rate of 6.489 is extremely high and will not likely continue. In order to avoid the compounding effect of a high negative rate on a low population, a constant rate of 2 percent decline per year is used to project Copperton’s population.
Table 7: Salt Lake County Population Estimates and Projections (Source: 2014 ACS) DRAFTAAGR 2010 2014 2015 2016 2010-2014 Copperton 721 551 -2.000% 540 529
Age and Household Size Copperton has a household size of 2.74 people per household, which is slightly greater than the national average of 2.63, but lower than the Utah average of 3.14. Utah as a state tends to have a very high household size compared to the rest of the country, but Salt Lake County is one of the lower average counties at 3.02 persons in a household. The 2000 household size was not tracked by the Census for Copperton.
Table 8: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Avg. HH Size Herriman 4.00 Bluffdale 3.74 Riverton 3.64 Kearns 3.61 South Jordan 3.60 West Valley 3.57 Magna 3.56 West Jordan 3.45 Draper city 3.38 White City 3.22 Sandy 3.13 Taylorsville 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon 2.98 Cottonwood Heights 2.82
25 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Municipality Avg. HH Size Copperton 2.74 Holladay 2.66 South Salt Lake 2.66 Midvale 2.60 Murray 2.56 Millcreek 2.51 Salt Lake City 2.47 Alta 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
Copperton’s median age is 35.9 years old, but with 42.8 percent of households with children. Copperton also has a high proportion of population over 65 years old compared to the County as a whole. Copperton’s median age is higher than the very low Utah and Salt Lake County medians of 29.9 and 31.5 respectively and is similar to the national average of 37.4. The median age was also not tracked for Copperton in the 2000 Census.
Table 9: Median Age andDRAFT % of Population by Group (Source: 2014 ACS) Median % HHs w/ % of Total
Age Pop. Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Herriman 21.6 Herriman 72.6% 2.8% Bluffdale 28.0 Riverton 57.0% 6.4% Magna 28.6 Magna 54.1% 5.3% West Jordan 29.4 West Jordan 51.9% 5.4% Riverton 29.5 Draper 51.1% 5.9% Kearns 29.5 Kearns 51.0% 6.1% South Salt Lake 29.8 Bluffdale 50.6% 5.0% West Valley 30.1 West Valley 50.1% 7.4% South Jordan 30.8 South Jordan 48.9% 7.8% Midvale 31.0 Copperton 42.8% 18.5% Draper 31.1 Sandy 42.2% 10.5% Salt Lake City 31.4 White City 39.5% 13.4% Taylorsville 32.2 Taylorsville 38.3% 9.7% White City 32.6 Emigration Canyon 37.8% 9.2% Sandy 34.6 South Salt Lake 35.3% 6.5% Murray 34.9 Cottonwood Heights 34.9% 13.4% Cottonwood Heights 35.6 Midvale 31.8% 9.2% Copperton 35.9 Holladay 30.1% 17.6% Millcreek 36.1 Murray 29.1% 13.8% Holladay 38.1 Millcreek 27.8% 15.9% Alta 42.2 Salt Lake City 27.6% 9.9% Emigration Canyon 44.4 Alta 13.0% 5.0% Remaining Unincorp. NA Remaining Unincorp. NA NA
26 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
27 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Copperton is very different compared to County-wide population distributions. The general population and housing type within Copperton is more homogeneous and the population is smaller than other communities in the County, leading to certain populations being over-represented and skewed in proportions. There are significantly more females in Copperton than males, especially in elderly age groups.
Salt Lake County Copperton 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years DRAFT 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 Years -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%
Age data was not collected in 2000 for Copperton, so it is difficult to note any long-term trends in the area regarding age distribution However, since 2010 there has been a relatively significant rise in the number of 30-40 year olds in Copperton.
Copperton Age Categories – Trends 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
2014 ACS 2010 ACS
28 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Income Household incomes in Copperton are the second lowest in the County, both on a household and individual basis above only the City of South Salt Lake. Copperton’s median household income is $43,450 compared to the County’s average at $61,446. Copperton also has the second lowest per capita income in the County at $17,458 per person.
Table 10: Household and Per Capita Incomes (Source: 2014 ACS) Median Per Capita HH Income Income Emigration Canyon $175,272 Emigration Canyon $74,607 Draper $94,852 Holladay $40,211 South Jordan $91,228 Cottonwood Heights $38,477 Bluffdale $88,731 Draper $34,083 Riverton $84,718 Millcreek $32,362 Herriman $78,141 Sandy $31,552 Sandy $78,048 Alta $31,210 Alta DRAFT$77,500 Bluffdale $30,137 Cottonwood Heights $76,630 South Jordan $29,964 Holladay $72,827 Murray $29,013 West Jordan $69,404 Salt Lake City $28,428 Salt Lake County $61,446 Riverton $28,013 White City $60,219 Salt Lake County $26,747 Taylorsville $57,779 Midvale $23,716 Millcreek $57,429 Taylorsville $23,224 Kearns $57,097 Herriman $22,840 Magna $55,913 West Jordan $22,808 Murray $53,797 White City $21,691 West Valley City $52,814 Magna $18,738 Midvale $51,077 West Valley City $18,179 Salt Lake City $45,833 Kearns $17,764 Copperton $43,450 Copperton $17,458 South Salt Lake $37,238 South Salt Lake $17,421 Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
29 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
30 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Copperton has almost exclusive representation in middle income brackets, compared to County as a whole, and has low to non-existent representation in the lowest and highest income categories.
Table 11: Households by Income Bracket (Source: 2014 ACS) Households by Income Bracket Copperton Salt Lake County Less than $10,000 0.0% 5.0% $10,000 to $14,999 0.0% 3.8% $15,000 to $24,999 19.9% 8.8% $25,000 to $34,999 16.9% 9.0% $35,000 to $49,999 20.9% 13.2% $50,000 to $74,999 20.4% 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 21.4% 14.8% $100,000 to $149,999 0.5% 14.8% $150,000 to $199,999 0.0% 5.1% $200,000 or more 0.0% 4.8% DRAFT
30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
Copperton Salt Lake County
Income Distribution
Employment Although employment data is not consistently collected by the Department of Workforce Services for Copperton, the history of Copperton has been based on employment around the nearby mining operations.
31 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 12: Employment by City (Source: DWS; 2014 ACS; ZPFI) 2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Alta NA NA NA 54 NA Copperton 1,954 NA NA 304 NA Emigration Canyon NA NA NA 878 NA Remaining NA NA NA 5,381 NA Unincorporated South Salt Lake 27,827 33,879 46,207 8,540 5.41 Salt Lake City 197,906 234,499 239,627 74,652 3.21 Murray 42,372 42,599 47,525 18,646 2.55 Draper 12,010 21,437 28,276 12,287 2.30 West Valley City 54,215 64,386 64,557 36,946 1.75 Sandy 36,834 40,415 46,824 28,478 1.64 Cottonwood Heights 14,889 6,051 19,093 12,042 1.59 South Jordan 12,883 15,515 23,408 15,713 1.49 Bluffdale DRAFT701 3,020 3,204 2,220 1.44 Midvale 20,845 12,329 15,287 11,434 1.34 Millcreek NA 19,578 27,349 25,085 1.09 West Jordan 19,180 26,237 30,735 31,116 0.99 Taylorsville 11,044 16,698 18,968 19,570 0.97 Riverton 4,318 6,843 9,394 11,044 0.85 Holladay 18,959 3,583 8,430 10,054 0.84 Herriman NA 1,276 2,493 6,257 0.40 Magna 5,229 5,647 3,543 8,920 0.40 Kearns 6,246 3,650 3,433 10,652 0.32 White City NA 171 249 1,812 0.14 Note: For those areas noted as “NA”, data was not collected by DWS for those years.
The venn diagram to the right illustrates the commuting and employment situation in Copperton. Only a very small number of people work and live in Copperton, while Copperton has more people coming to work there than actually live in the community.
Of employees working in Copperton, mining is overwhelmingly the largest employment sector at 96.6 percent. Of Copperton’s residents that are commuting to other employment centers, manufacturing and educational services are the most represented sectors.
32 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 13: Percent of Employees by Industry (Source: Census “On the Map”) % Employees Working % Copperton in Copperton Residents Agriculture, Forestry, Finishing and Hunting 0.0% 0.0% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 96.6% 1.2% Utilities 0.1% 0.5% Construction 0.2% 6.7% Manufacturing 0.0% 13.9% Wholesale Trade 0.0% 4.5% Retail Trade 0.3% 10.0% Transportation and Warehousing 0.4% 3.1% Information 0.0% 3.1% Finance and Insurance 1.0% 5.3% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.0% 1.4% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 0.0% 6.9% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.0% 1.7% Admin. & Support, WasteDRAFT Mgt. and Remediation 0.3% 5.7% Educational Services 0.0% 11.7% Health Care and Social Assistance 0.0% 10.3% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0% 1.7% Accommodation and Food Services 0.0% 5.7% Other Services 1.0% 2.9% Public Administration 0.0% 3.6%
Transportation Average commute times for working individuals in Copperton are higher than the average for Salt Lake County. In Copperton, 52 percent of working individuals have a total commute time of 45 to 59 minutes, compared to only 5 percent in Salt Lake County. Furthermore, the 72 percent of all working individuals in Salt Lake County commute less than 30 minutes each day, compared to only 19 percent in Copperton. Longer commute times increase monthly expenses for households, which ultimately affects the amount that could be spent on housing.
Table 14: Commute Times to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton Salt Lake County Copperton Cum. % SLCO Cum. %
Less than 5 minutes 15% 2% 15% 2% 5 to 9 minutes 1% 9% 16% 11% 10 to 14 minutes 0% 15% 16% 25% 15 to 19 minutes 3% 19% 19% 45% 20 to 24 minutes 0% 20% 19% 65% 25 to 29 minutes 0% 7% 19% 72% 30 to 34 minutes 8% 15% 28% 87% 35 to 39 minutes 0% 2% 28% 89% 40 to 44 minutes 15% 3% 42% 92% 45 to 59 minutes 52% 5% 94% 96% 60 to 89 minutes 6% 2% 100% 99%
33 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Copperton Salt Lake County Copperton Cum. % SLCO Cum. %
90 or more minutes 0% 1% 100% 100%
A very small portion of Copperton households do not have at least one vehicle available. The large number of homes with vehicles is reflected in the above average commute times for workers in Copperton.
Table 15: Number of Vehicles per Household (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton Salt Lake County
No vehicles 2% 6% 1 vehicle 26% 30% 2 vehicles 51% 41% 3 or more vehicles 20% 24%
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) does not have any active bus routes in Copperton, and the nearest light rail Trax Station (5600 W Station in West Jordan) is approximately three miles away. The lack of public transit optionsDRAFT in Copperton requires Copperton residents to have other forms of transportation, which is reflected in the significant percent of households that have access to at least one vehicle.
34 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The most common means of transportation to work for Copperton residents is driving alone, at 61 percent, followed by carpooling, at 24 percent. Further analysis of the use of specific routes outside of Copperton may identify the effectiveness of the current routes in getting passengers to key employment centers. Increased public transit options, and the location of affordable housing near public transit, can help to increase ridership while simultaneously decreasing monthly household expenses for transportation, ultimately increasing the total amount that could be spent on housing.
Table 16: Means of Transportation to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton Salt Lake County
Car – Drive Alone 61.1% 76.0% Car – Carpooled 23.6% 11.8% Public Transportation 0.0% 3.5% Walk 9.9% 2.1% Bicycle 0.0% 0.8% Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other 0.0% 1.1% Work at Home 5.4% 4.6%
Education DRAFT Copperton has a good high school education rate that is fairly average for the County at 91 percent of residents with a high school degree. However, only 5.3 percent of residents have a college degree – the lowest in the County. The maps and tables below show how Copperton compares to the rest of the County in both High School and College graduation rates.
Table 17: Percent of Population by Education Level (Source: 2014 ACS) High School or Higher Bachelors or Higher Emigration Canyon 98.6% Emigration Canyon 67.8% Bluffdale 97.4% Holladay 51.5% Cottonwood Heights 96.7% Cottonwood Heights 46.8% Herriman 96.6% Millcreek 42.2% Holladay 96.5% Salt Lake City 42.1% South Jordan 96.4% Draper 39.8% Draper 96.3% South Jordan 38.7% Riverton 96.1% Sandy 38.7% Sandy 95.5% Alta 36.8% Millcreek 94.0% Riverton 31.4% White City 93.7% Murray 30.0% Murray 92.3% Bluffdale 29.9% Copperton 91.0% Herriman 29.4% West Jordan 90.4% White City 24.4% Taylorsville 89.0% Midvale 23.8% Alta 88.4% West Jordan 23.5% Salt Lake City 86.5% South Salt Lake 23.3% Midvale 85.9% Taylorsville 20.5% Magna 80.8% West Valley City 12.7% South Salt Lake 78.4% Kearns 11.0%
35 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
High School or Higher Bachelors or Higher Kearns 77.9% Magna 9.4% West Valley City 77.7% Copperton 5.3% Remaining Unincorp. NA Remaining Unincorp. NA
DRAFT
36 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Race and Ethnicity Compared to the County-wide proportion, Copperton is slightly more diverse than the rest of the County, especially in categories for Asian populations and populations identifying as two or more races. Copperton is significantly less Hispanic/Latino than the County, however. Only 4.2 percent of the residents are Hispanic or Latino compared to a much higher 17 percent County-wide.
Table 18: Percent of Population by Race (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton Salt Lake County
Race
White Alone 80.9% 83.40% Black or African American Alone 0.0% 1.64% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.0% 0.80% Asian Alone 5.6% 3.53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 2.0% 1.57% Some Other Race Alone 0.0% 6.34% Two or More Races: 11.4% 2.71% Ethnicity DRAFT Hispanic or Latino 4.2% 17.47%
Maps show Copperton with a small, slightly diverse pocket in the County. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment noted that a dissimilarity index based on 2012 data showed this pocket of minority representation compared to white populations in the area. Although there is a little more diversity in Copperton, it is not concentrated in any significantly diverse Census Blocks.
37 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
38 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Special Needs Groups
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Copperton has 47 veterans, none with a service-connected disability rating; no veterans in Copperton are over 65 years of age.
DRAFT
Disability Among the noninstitutionalized population, 10.5 percent of the population is estimated to have a disability. For people under 18 years old, none have a disability, 4.7 percent for those between 18 and 64 years old, and 45.1 percent of those 65 and over. A total of 58 individuals were noted in 2014 as having a disability in Copperton. The table below shows for those that report a disability, the types of disabilities by age that could need accommodation in housing choices.
Table 19: Total Population with a Disability (Source: 2014 ACS) Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 0 12 46 58 With a hearing difficulty 0 0 0 24 24 With a vision difficulty 0 0 0 0 0 With a cognitive difficulty NA 0 0 0 0 With an ambulatory difficulty NA 0 12 17 29 With a self-care difficulty NA 0 0 0 0 With an independent living difficulty NA NA 0 5 5
39 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Elderly There were 102 individuals living in Copperton over 65 years old in 2014. This represents 18.5 percent of Copperton’s population. This is the highest proportion for a metro township or municipality in the County.
Table 20: Percent of Population over 65 Years Old (Source: 2014 ACS) West Herriman Alta Bluffdale Magna Draper Kearns Riverton Jordan 2.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4% South Salt West South Emigration Salt Lake Midvale Taylorsville Sandy Lake Valley Jordan Canyon City 6.5% 4.4% 7.8 9.2% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 10.5% Cottonwood White Murray Millcreek Holladay Copperton Heights City 13.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.9% 17.6% 18.5%
40 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Other Groups Individuals that are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, or youth aging out of foster care are often tracked by the various Local Homeless Coordinating Committees6 for a given area – Salt Lake County is represented by a single LHCC which collects data in each of these special populations. For 2015, it was estimated that there are a total of 2,140 individuals that are without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On a single night count, there were 548 individuals that were counted as victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 were veterans.
Current Housing Stock Copperton is heavily single-family homes “SFR”, with the County reporting no new developments having occurred in recent years. Most housing in the Copperton is very old and in average or poor condition, with 82 percent of units built before 1959. This section relies primarily on the most recent Salt Lake County property assessments to determine the current available housing stock, with supplemental information from the ACS.
Total Housing Units with Breakdown by Type and Occupancy As of the 2016 County assessment, there are a total of 304 units in Copperton, including all single-family residences, townhomes,DRAFT mobile homes, duplexes, condos, apartment units. Detailed totals are given in the table below. For the purposes of this study, all single-family units (i.e., SFRs, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes) are grouped and analyzed as for-sale product, while multi-family residential units (i.e., duplexes and apartment units) are grouped and analyzed as for-rent product.
Table 21: Residential Units by Type (Source: SLCO Assessor) Total Percent of Total
Single-Family Residential 261 85.9% SFR 261 85.9% Multi-Family Residential 43 14.1% Apartment 21 6.9% Duplex 22 7.2% Total 304 100.0%
The 2014 ACS estimates that zero percent of units in Copperton, both SFR and MFR, are vacant.
Table 22: Copperton Vacancy Rates (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton Salt Lake County
Single-Family Residential 0.0% 2.1% Multi-Family Residential 0.0% 6.3% All Units 0.0% 3.6%
Housing Size The average single-family unit is 1,907 square feet, which is about 500 square feet smaller than the County average of 2,626 square feet. Apartment units in Copperton are also smaller by about 100 square feet.
6 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
41 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 23: Average Unit Size (Sources: SLCO Assessor; EquiMark Multi-Family Report 2014) Copperton Salt Lake County
SFR 1,907 2,626 Apartments 859 863
Furthermore, SFR lot sizes in Copperton are smaller than the average SFR lot in Salt Lake County, with lots in Copperton averaging 0.16 acres, compared to 0.27 acres in Salt Lake County.
Table 24: Average Lot Size (Source: Salt Lake County Assessor) Copperton Salt Lake County
SFR 0.16 0.27
Copperton has housing units in a variety of sizes; however, the majority of units are between 1,500 and 1,999 square feet, with 73 percent of units being less than 2,000 square feet. Additionally, there are very few units with more than 2,500 square feet. The smaller unit sizes may reflect the historical nature of Copperton as a mining town. DRAFT Table 25: Percent of Residential Units by Unit Square Feet (Source: SLCO Assessor) Square Feet Copperton % of Units Copperton Cum. % 999 or less 6% 6% 1,000 – 1,499 18% 24% 1,500 – 1,999 49% 73% 2,000 – 2,499 20% 93% 2,500 – 2,999 3% 96% 3,000 or more 4% 100%
Residential units in Copperton have approximately 2.07 bedrooms per unit, compared to 3.11 in Salt Lake County. The table below shows the percent of units by the number of bedrooms. In Copperton, 66 percent of units have no more than 2 bedrooms, compared to 33 percent in Salt Lake County. On the other hand, 40 percent of units in Salt Lake County have 4 or more bedrooms, compared to only 5 percent in Copperton.
Table 26: Percent of Residential Units by Number of Bedrooms (Sources: 2014 ACS) Copperton SLCO Number of Bedrooms Copperton SLCO Cum. % Cum. % No bedrooms 0% 0% 1% 1% 1 bedroom 32% 32% 10% 11% 2 bedrooms 34% 66% 22% 33% 3 bedrooms 28% 95% 27% 60% 4 bedrooms 5% 100% 22% 82% 5 or more bedrooms 0% 100% 18% 100%
42 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Census data indicates that 9.5 percent of households have more than one occupant per room,7 which is more than double the County estimate of 4.1 percent of homes. This is likely a combination of smaller homes and larger household size.
Table 27: Percent of Households by Number of Occupants per Room (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton Cum. SLCO Occupants per Room Copperton SLCO % Cum. % 1.00 or less 90.5% 90.5% 95.9% 95.9% 1.01 to 1.50 9.5% 100.0% 3.4% 99.3% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 0.7% 100.0%
In Copperton, the number of occupants per room is higher for owner-occupied units than for renter- occupied units. This may indicate either a lack of larger for-sale units, or a lack of larger for-sale units that are also affordable.
Table 28: Percent of Households by Occupants per Room and Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton SLCO Occupants per Room DRAFTCopperton SLCO Cum. % Cum. % Owner Occupied 1.00 or less 89.6% 89.6% 97.8% 97.8% 1.01 to 1.50 10.4% 100.0% 1.8% 99.6% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 0.3% 100.0% Renter Occupied 1.00 or less 100.0% 100.0% 92.0% 92.0% 1.01 to 1.50 0.0% 100.0% 6.5% 98.5% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 1.4% 100.0%
Housing Quality Housing units in Copperton are relatively old, compared to other units in Salt Lake County. In Copperton, 56 percent of units were built before 1939, compared to only 9 percent in Salt Lake County. No new units were built since 2010, while only six percent of all units in Copperton were built between 2000 and 2009.
Table 29: Percent of Residential Units by Year Built (Sources: SLCO Assessor, 2014 ACS) Salt Lake Copperton Copperton % Copperton Salt Lake Year Built County Cum. Units of Units Cum. % County % 1939 or earlier 169 56% 56% 9% 9% 1940 to 1949 39 13% 68% 4% 13% 1950 to 1959 40 13% 82% 10% 23% 1960 to 1969 16 5% 87% 9% 32% 1970 to 1979 12 4% 91% 20% 52% 1980 to 1989 0 0% 91% 14% 66% 1990 to 1999 10 3% 94% 16% 82%
7 Includes any rooms in the house
43 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Salt Lake Copperton Copperton % Copperton Salt Lake Year Built County Cum. Units of Units Cum. % County % 2000 to 2009 18 6% 100% 16% 98% 2010 or later 0 0% 100% 2% 100%
DRAFT
The condition of units in Copperton is average, with 73 percent of units indicated as average by the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office. The average condition of the homes in Copperton is likely a result of the age of housing stock.
Table 30: Percent of Residential Units by Condition (Source: SLCO Assessor) Condition Units % Total Cum. % Special Obsolesced 1 0% 0% Excellent 6 2% 2% Very Good 9 3% 5% Good 15 5% 10% Average 222 73% 83% Fair 51 17% 100% Poor 0 0% 100% Total 304 100% 100%
44 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Market Values and Rental Rates An overview of housing values and market conditions is given here to further illustrate Copperton’s housing stock. Housing prices are analyzed in more detail in the next section titled “Current Affordable Housing and Need” in regards to affordability for targeted groups. The 2014 ACS indicates that the median home value in Copperton is $164,100, nearly $67,000 less than the County median of $231,000.
The maps below show assessed market value by property and by acres for SFR, townhomes, and condo units within Copperton. The market value per acre in Copperton increases due to the smaller lot sizes.
45 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
46 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The table below shows the SFR units, listed by the County-assessed market value. These units may also include some accessory dwelling units unlisted by the County.
Table 31: Assessed Housing Values in Copperton (Source: SLCO Assessor) Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cumulative % of Total <$100,000 - 0% 0% $100,000 - $124,999 10 4% 4% $125,000 - $139,999 22 8% 12% $140,000 - $149,999 18 7% 19% $150,000 - $159,999 82 31% 51% $160,000 - $169,999 71 27% 78% $170,000 - $179,999 21 8% 86% $180,000 - $189,999 4 2% 87% $190,000 - $199,999 5 2% 89% $200,000 - $219,999 11 4% 93% $220,000 - $239,999 10 4% 97% $240,000 - $259,999 DRAFT 5 2% 99% $260,000 - $279,999 1 0% 100% $280,000 - $299,999 1 0% 100% $300,000 - $324,999 - 0% 100% $325,000 - $349,999 - 0% 100% $350,000 - $374,999 - 0% 100% $375,000 - $399,999 - 0% 100% $400,000 - $424,999 - 0% 100% $425,000 - $449,999 - 0% 100% $450,000 - $474,999 - 0% 100% $475,000 - $499,999 - 0% 100% $500,000 - $599,999 - 0% 100% $600,000 - $699,999 - 0% 100% $700,000+ - 0% 100% Total SFR Units 261 100% 100%
Rental prices are also important to consider in the affordability of the current housing stock. Copperton currently has approximately 43 MFR units, nearly split evenly between apartments and duplexes. The percent of rental units by gross rent, according to the 2014 ACS, for units in Copperton are listed in the table below.
Table 32: Gross Rent for Rental Units in Copperton (Source: 2014 ACS) Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total No Rent - 0% 0% $0 - $99 - 0% 0% $100 - $149 - 0% 0% $150 - $199 - 0% 0% $200 - $249 - 0% 0% $250 - $299 - 0% 0%
47 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total $300 - $349 - 0% 0% $350 - $399 - 0% 0% $400 - $449 - 0% 0% $450 - $499 - 0% 0% $500 - $549 - 0% 0% $550 - $599 - 0% 0% $600 - $649 - 0% 0% $650 - $699 - 0% 0% $700 - $749 43 100% 100% $750 - $799 - 0% 100% $800 - $899 - 0% 100% $900 - $999 - 0% 100% $1,000 - $1,249 - 0% 100% $1,250 - $1,499 - 0% 100% $1,500 - $1,999 - 0% 100% >$2,000 DRAFT - 0% 100% Total 43 100% 100%
Percent of Monthly Income to Housing Costs The 2014 ACS estimates that 31 percent of Copperton households spend more than the recommended 30 percent of total monthly income on housing costs. This is slightly lower than the County estimate of 34 percent.
Table 33: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton SLCO
Less than 20 percent 53.8% 39.8% 20 to 29 percent 15.5% 24.7% 30 percent or more 30.8% 33.6% Zero or negative income 0.0% 1.0% No cash rent 0.0% 1.1%
The percent of households that spend more than 30 percent on housing costs is greater for renter- occupied units than owner-occupied units, indicating a need for more affordable rental options. It is estimated that 100 percent of renter-occupied households spend more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing costs, compared to 47 percent in Salt Lake County. The percent for owner-occupied units in Copperton is 24 percent, which is slightly lower than the County estimate of 27 percent.
Table 34: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs by Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton SLCO
Owner Occupied Less than 20 percent 59.1% 48.1% 20 to 29 percent 17.0% 24.9% 30 percent or more 24.0% 26.7% Zero or negative income 0.0% 0.5%
48 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Copperton SLCO
Renter Occupied Less than 20 percent 0.0% 23.0% 20 to 29 percent 0.0% 24.3% 30 percent or more 100.0% 47.3% Zero or negative income 0.0% 1.9% No cash rent 0.0% 3.3%
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need The findings of the affordability analysis for Copperton include:
Housing in Copperton is very affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI. There are no units affordable for households with very low incomes (30 percent AMI) There are no single-family housing units available at the 50 and 30 percent thresholds. MFR units are primarily affordable at the 50 percent AMI threshold
Availability for TargetedDRAFT Income Groups As in the housing stock analysis, affordability is broken into two housing categories: one for SFRs, condos, mobile homes, townhomes and a second for multi-family rentals. The affordability of the first category of units is based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. The affordability of multi-family units is based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
SFR, Condo, Townhome, and Mobile Homes For the targeted low- and moderate-income households, there are no SFR units that are affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI.
Table 35: Number of Affordable SFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Income Max Home Price # Affordable Cum. % Income Max % of Units Level (4% Mortgage) SFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $33,711 0 0.0% 0.0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $93,925 0 0.0% 0.0% 50%-80% AMI $53,150 $185,465 225 86.2% 86.2%
The following map shows all SFR and their affordability.
49 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
According to assessment data, zero SFR units that are affordable at 80 percent AMI have been constructed since 2010. Assessment records indicate that the most recent affordable SFR unit constructed was completed in1996.
Table 36: Affordable SFR by Year Built Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1939 or earlier - - 158 5 1940 - 1949 - - 36 3 1950 - 1959 - - 20 - 1960 - 1969 - - 1 - 1970 - 1979 - - 9 1 1980 - 1989 - - - - 1990 - 1999 - - 1 9 2000 - 2009 - - - 18 2010 or later - - - - Total - - 225 36
50 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordability of SFR by Year Built 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
DRAFT30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Above 80% AMI
Apartments and Duplexes Rentals are generally more affordable to low-income households than purchasing a home. Copperton has no rental units that are affordable to households at or below 30 percent of AMI, with all rental units being affordable to households at 50 percent of AMI.
Table 37: Number of Affordable MFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Monthly # Affordable Cumulative % Income Max % of Units Income Level Rental Max MFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $504 0 0.0% 0.0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $831 43 100.0% 100.0% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $1,329 0 0.0% 100.0%
Summary of Affordability and Number of Additional Units Needed If only considering whether housing is affordable at the 80 percent of AMI threshold, housing in Copperton is extremely affordable, with 88 percent of units being affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI (see the table below).
Table 38: Number of Affordable Units by Targeted Income Group Household Affordable % Households Units Households Income Level Units Affordable % Cum. % Cum. % < 30% AMI 0 0.00% 0.64% 0.00% 0.64% 30-50% AMI 43 14.14% 35.31% 14.14% 35.95% 50-80% AMI 225 74.01% 23.65% 88.16% 59.59%
In many cases, low- to moderate-income households consist of elderly residents who may not have a mortgage. Furthermore, the income for many of these households without mortgages is not sufficient enough to purchase the home. In order to more accurately state the current housing stock and need for
51 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
affordable units, the difference in the number of households and number of units by income level shown below exclude households and units that do not currently have a mortgage.
The number of units currently needed for each income group is outlined in the table below. Positive values indicate the number of needed units to meet the current demand; negative values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units. Despite a lack of units affordable to households below 30 percent of AMI, there are currently no households in Copperton within that income group. On the other hand, there is a surplus of units within the 30 to 50 and 50 to 80 percent AMI income groups, with a deficit in units for households above 80 percent of AMI, indicating that many households could afford homes that are more expensive than the homes in which they currently live. Overall, there are 83 more units affordable to households below 80 percent AMI than households in that income group.
Table 39: Number of Units Currently Needed by Targeted Income Group Cum. Households Units Difference Difference < 30% AMI 0 0 0 0 30-50% AMI DRAFT33 43 (10) (10) 50-80% AMI 46 119 (73) (83) > 80% AMI 83 0 83 0 Total 162 162 0
Copperton - Comparison of Units to Households 140
120
100
80
60 Total Units
40
20
0 < 30% of AMI 30% to 50% of AMI 50% to 80% of AMI > 80% of AMI Households Units
52 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordable Housing – County-Wide Comparison Compared to the other metro townships in Salt Lake County, Copperton is the most affordable, with 88 percent of all units affordable to households below 80 percent of AMI.
Table 40: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cumulative Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2% Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Unincorporated 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Islands Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3% Population DRAFT
Availability of Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups While fair housing laws and enforcement are an important part of clearing impediments or obstacles to housing opportunities for minorities, the core impediment to fair housing choice is still most often affordability. County-wide minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-income categories. With this in mind, the primary analysis on affordable housing for low-income households is the most important determination of housing availability for minority groups. Copperton is unique in that none of the racial groups are disproportionately under the poverty level.
Table 41: Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: 2014 ACS) Copperton Total SLCO Race/Ethnic Race/Ethnic Total Salt Lake Copperton Population Below Population Below County Population Population Poverty Level Poverty Level Race
White Alone 80.9% 0.0% 83.4% 12.7% Black or African American 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 10.5% Alone American Indian and 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 27.9% Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone 5.6% 0.0% 3.5% 32.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2.0% 0.0% 1.6% 18.0% Alone Some Other Race Alone 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 24.1% Two or More Races: 11.4% 0.0% 2.7% 30.6% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 4.2% 0.0% 17.5% 26.7% White Alone, Not Hispanic 0.0% 8.5% or Latino
53 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
For Salt Lake County, about 17 percent of the population belongs to a minority and 17 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino (not necessarily the same population, the similar numbers are coincidental). There are no areas in Copperton with Census Block Groups that have populations greater than this County average.
Although there are no areas with high minority concentrations, it is noted in the County’s Analysis of Impediments to fair housing that zoning issues can contribute to segregation and limitations to affordable housing. The following zoning categories are those that intersect with minority concentrations in the County along with notes on potential housing impediments they might cause.
Table 42: Copperton Zoning Categories Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments A-1 Low Density, but two-family units are allowed conditionally A-2 Very Low Density C-1 Commercial only C-2/C-2/zc C-3/C-3/zc R-1-5 DRAFT Restrictions to Accessory Units Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-6 SFR Only Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-8/R-1-8/zc SFR Only Large Lot Size Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-10 SFR Only Large Lot Size R-2-6.5
Restrictions to Accessory Units R-2-8 No dwelling groups R-2-10 R-M/R-M/zc R-4-8.5 M-1/M-1/zc Non-residential except very special exceptions, including very large lot size M-2 MD-3/zc
Some common zoning8 and policy issues9 that can be generally limiting on affordable or fair housing availability are listed below. While these may not necessarily be specific to current County zoning laws, they are issues found around the country and are known to have disparate impacts. Caution should be taken around these types of approaches as they can limit fair and affordable housing availability for special groups.
. Codes that provide a definition of a “family”, specifically codes that discuss if family members are defined by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship
8 Salt Lake County Regional Analysis of Impediments 2013 9 http://www.ctfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CFHC-AffirmFurthGuideGrantees.pdf
54 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
o Utah courts have not ruled on potentially discriminatory aspects of family definitions but other states have noted that defining a family – specifically in number of people, type of relation and capping the number of unrelated persons in a household – does not serve any legitimate objective under the zoning powers of a municipality. . Limits on unrelated people residing together; . Absence of density bonuses, fee waivers, and accessory units, . Strict zoning requiring conditional use permits for certain housing types, such as accessory units; . Community “friendliness” of local zoning ordinances to rental housing that influences the siting of rental housing to segregated areas of the community; . Occupancy limits; . Zones that only permit elderly housing; . Limits on who can live in an affordable housing system, such as local applicants or municipal employees only; . Lack of targeted marketing to protected classes for public housing or subsidy programs; . Requiring large lots and limited areas zoned for multifamily housing; . Tax assessments that are higher in neighborhoods of color; . Failure to have a housing authority or family voucher program; . Lack of a complaintDRAFT process; and . Lack of training for municipal staff on direct and indirect impacts on fair housing opportunity.
Specific to RDA funds, the failure to actively use RDA set-aside funds for affordable housing in a timely manner – back-loading affordable housing expenditures to the end of the life of the RDA – also contributes to a lack of affordable and fair housing availability.
A more detailed analysis of fair housing issues is outlined later in this report.
Availability of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Groups
Disability Countywide, about two-thirds of those with a disability are in very low income households. If this holds true in Copperton, then at least 58 individuals with a disability in Copperton need some sort of affordable housing with accessibility and/or wheelchair access. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Assessment and Analysis of Impediments noted that, while the exact number of accessible rental units is untracked, it can be estimated from building permits up to 2013 that there are about 7,400 apartments in the entire County that meet the basic FHA accessibility standards. For those requiring a wheelchair, the supply is much lower with about 285 units in the County available for about 1,800 needing wheelchair access County-wide. Many of these individuals live in assisted care facilities, but many do not. There are no assisted living facilities in Copperton. Not only is this not enough to cover the disability needs in the area, but the shortage is magnified when considering the larger need for elderly care.
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Copperton has 47 veterans, none with a service-connected disability rating; no veterans in Copperton are over 65 years of age. This special needs group overlaps with the disability and elderly populations with likely needs for assisted living facilities. However, they also have access to additional resources through the federal government and non-profit programs.
55 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Elderly As mentioned, there are no assisted living and nursing home facilities within Copperton. The Salt Lake County Analysis of Impediments found that the location distribution is generally not heavily determined by zoning, but more by corporate location policies that tend to prefer locations with above average incomes and property values. As a result, opportunities for the elderly and disabled to live in care facilities are more available in and around Millcreek, White City, and the Unincorporated Islands and less available in Kearns and Magna. SLCo Homeless and Transitional Shelter Other Groups (Beds) For 2015, there were an estimated 2,140 individuals10 that were without 24 permanent housing in Salt Lake 334 Emergency Shelter County. On one single night count of these individuals, among them were Transitional 1,506 548 victims of domestic violence (both Housing adults and children) and 286 veterans. There are an estimated 4,517 beds Permanent Supportive Housing available across the DRAFT various providers 1,929 in the County – more than enough to Rapid Re-Housing cover the County’s needs for these 724 special and at-risk groups. While the Safe Haven population of displaced individuals is likely concentrated in Salt Lake City, it’s possible that the lack of distribution of shelters in the County may be harmful to individuals in urgent need or with transportation difficulty.
10 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
56 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections
Population Projections Population projections for the next five to ten years were formed using both Census block data and the population figures listed by the American Community Survey (ACS). Recent data indicates an extreme decrease in Copperton’s population – the 2010 population was 721 while the 2014 population was 551 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of -6.489 percent. Despite no reported building permits issued in Copperton in recent years, a negative rate of 6.489 is extremely high and will not likely continue. In order to avoid the compounding effect of an extremely high rate on a low population, a constant rate of 2 percent is used to project Copperton’s population.
Table 43: Population Estimates and Projections AAGR 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2014 Copperton 721 551 -2.0% 540 529 519 508 498 488
DRAFT2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Copperton 478 469 459 450 441 432
Targeted Groups – Projections
Income Groups Projections for income groups assume a similar proportion of the households will fall into the targeted income groups as they do today.
Table 44: Projected Households and Population by Targeted Income Group Total AMI < 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Households % Households 0.6% 35.3% 23.6% 59.5% 2014 Households 2 107 72 181 2021 Households 2 96 65 163 2026 Households 2 86 58 145
Disability The proportion of those with a disability is also expected to stay the same. These proportions are based on the 2014 population to directly compare ACS disability data. However, the proportions are then applied to the 2021 and 2026 projections. Many low-income households are represented by disabled populations that have a high need for accessible rental housing.
Table 45: Projected Disability Population in 2021 Total 2021 Population: 478 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 0 7 25 31 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 0 0 13 13 With a Vision Difficulty 0 0 0 0 0
57 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Total 2021 Population: 478 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 0 0 0 0 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 0 7 10 16 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 0 0 0 0 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 0 3 3
Table 46: Projected Disability Population in 2026 Total 2026 Population: 432 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 0 6 23 28 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 0 0 12 12 With a Vision Difficulty 0 0 0 0 0 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 0 0 0 0 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 0 6 9 14 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 0 0 0 0 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 0 2 2
Veterans DRAFT The 2014 ACS estimates Copperton has 47 veterans, none of whom are over 65 years of age. To project the number of veterans under 65 years old, the 2014 population proportion was maintained and applied to the total population. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 47: Projected Veteran Population Veterans in Copperton 2014 2021 2026 Under 65 47 41 37 Over 65 0 0 0 Total 47 41 37
Elderly There were 102 individuals living in Copperton over 65 years old in 2014. This represents over 18 percent of the metro township’s population. The proprotion of elderly age groups in Copperton has remained fairly steady since 2010, so it is assumed that the population will continue to maintain the same proportion of elderly residents with future population changes.
Table 48: Projected Elderly Population Population 2014 2021 2026 Total 65 and Over 102 88 80
Other Groups Populations for youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, or the homeless, are measured on a regional basis. The numbers in these categories are largely independent of population growth and any population in these categories are likely temporary or transitionary. Housing facilitites in these categories are located regionally and the County provides operational support to the regional programs.
58 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Forecast of Affordable Housing Need The following section analyzes the future demand for housing in Copperton using population projections, historical building permit data, and current projects in the development pipeline.
Expected Housing Construction Salt Lake County building permit data indicates that no building permits were issued for residential developments in Copperton between 2010 and 2015.
Table 49: Copperton Residential Building Permits (Source: SLCO Planning) Annual 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Copperton ------
As of February 2017, there were no current permit projects in the development pipeline in Copperton.
Projected Number of Needed Housing Units The population countsDRAFT are used for basic demographic reference; however, to project housing unit needs the number of households were calculated in a slightly different manner in order to correspond with differing data from the County Assessor. To make this data consistent, the total number of households was based on the number of units listed by the Assessor multiplied by the occupancy rate listed by ACS for each metro township. To translate these figures to low and moderate income group distributions that value was then multiplied by the percentage of households in each income group (ACS) to determine the number of households in each targeted income group. The table below shows these household numbers by income group. Due to the projected decline in population and households in Copperton, it is not anticipated that Copperton will have additional demand for affordable housing through 2026.
Table 50: Total Affordable Housing Needs by Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Projected Projected Projected Current Current Current 10-year Total 10-year Total 10-year Total Need Need Need Need Need Need Copperton - - - (10) (21) (31) (73) (14) (87)
59 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank
60 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Emigration Canyon
Key Findings Housing in Emigration Canyon is not affordable, with only 15 percent of units affordable to low- and moderate-income households (below 80 percent AMI). Although 77 percent of MFR units in Emigration Canyon are affordable to low- and moderate-income households, MFR units make a very small portion of all units in Emigration Canyon. The overall lack of affordable options in Emigration Canyon may not be of great concern, considering the large number of homes that are either recreational or secondary homes. Moderate population and household growth indicates minor increase in demand for affordable units in Emigration Canyon through 2026.
Summary Emigration Canyon is located in the northeast quadrant of Salt Lake County. Census figures estimate that Emigration Canyon isDRAFT the second smallest metro township by population, second only to Copperton. Emigration Canyon has the highest median age in Salt Lake County, as well as the highest household and per capita incomes. A large portion of the housing units in Emigration Canyon are recreational or secondary-use homes, and are generally newer than other units in Salt Lake County. Housing in Emigration Canyon is not very affordable, with only 5 percent of housing units affordable to moderate – income households.
61 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Population & Demographics Demographic characteristics greatly influence housing demands. Population growth, age, income and other characteristics of an area’s population influence what types of housing are desired and how many units need to be available. This section evaluates these factors in Emigration Canyon. This section will also summarize how the population has changed over the past decade and address the number of households Emigration Canyon has in targeted income groups with needs for affordable housing. Current demographic data is according to the most recent data as available – usually the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated for 2014 unless otherwise noted.
Population The population in Emigration Canyon has risen slightly in past years. The 2010 population was 1,566 while the 2014 population was 1,649 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 1.3 percent. In 2000, the area’s population was 816 with population doubling since that time. The area’s population is expected to remain fairly constant in absolute terms, projected to reach 1,926 by 2026.
Table 51: Salt Lake County Population Estimates and Projections (Source: 2014 ACS) AAGR DRAFT2010 2014 2015 2016 2010-2014 Emigration Canyon 1,566 1,649 1.301% 1,670 1,692
Age and Household Size Emigration Canyon has an average household size in the County with 2.98 people per household, which is larger than the national average of 2.63, but smaller than the Utah average of 3.14. The 2000 household size was not tracked by the Census for Emigration Canyon.
62 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 52: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Avg. HH Size Herriman 4.00 Bluffdale 3.74 Riverton 3.64 Kearns 3.61 South Jordan 3.60 West Valley 3.57 Magna 3.56 West Jordan 3.45 Draper city 3.38 White City 3.22 Sandy 3.13 Taylorsville 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon 2.98 Cottonwood Heights DRAFT 2.82 Copperton 2.74 Holladay 2.66 South Salt Lake 2.66 Midvale 2.60 Murray 2.56 Millcreek 2.51 Salt Lake City 2.47 Alta 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
63 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Emigration Canyon’s median age is 44.4 years old, with 37.8 percent of households with children. Emigration Canyon also has a slightly lower proportion of population over 65 years old compared to the County as a whole. Emigration Canyon’s median age is similar to the very low Utah and Salt Lake County medians of 29.9 and 31.5 respectively; the national average is 37.4. The median age was also not tracked for Emigration Canyon in the 2000 Census.
Table 53: Median Age and % of Population by Group (Source: 2014 ACS) Median % HHs w/ Pop. % of Total Age Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Herriman 21.6 Herriman 72.6% 2.8% Bluffdale 28.0 Riverton 57.0% 6.4% Magna 28.6 Magna 54.1% 5.3% West Jordan 29.4 West Jordan 51.9% 5.4% Riverton 29.5 Draper 51.1% 5.9% Kearns 29.5 Kearns 51.0% 6.1% South Salt Lake 29.8 Bluffdale 50.6% 5.0% West Valley DRAFT30.1 West Valley 50.1% 7.4% South Jordan 30.8 South Jordan 48.9% 7.8% Midvale 31.0 Copperton 42.8% 18.5% Draper 31.1 Sandy 42.2% 10.5% Salt Lake City 31.4 White City 39.5% 13.4% Taylorsville 32.2 Taylorsville 38.3% 9.7% White City 32.6 Emigration Canyon 37.8% 9.2% Sandy 34.6 South Salt Lake 35.3% 6.5% Murray 34.9 Cottonwood Heights 34.9% 13.4% Cottonwood Heights 35.6 Midvale 31.8% 9.2% Copperton 35.9 Holladay 30.1% 17.6% Millcreek 36.1 Murray 29.1% 13.8% Holladay 38.1 Millcreek 27.8% 15.9% Alta 42.2 Salt Lake City 27.6% 9.9% Emigration Canyon 44.4 Alta 13.0% 5.0% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA NA
Emigration Canyon is very different compared to County-wide population distributions. The general population and housing type within Emigration Canyon is more homogeneous than other parts of the County, leading to certain populations being over-represented and skewed in proportions. This effect is magnified by the small population in Emigration Canyon.
64 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Salt Lake County Emigration Canyon 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 Years -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% DRAFT
Age data was not collected in 2000 for Emigration Canyon, so it is difficult to note any long-term trends in the area regarding age distribution However, since 2010 there has been a relatively significant rise in the number of children in Emigration Canyon.
Emigration Canyon Age Categories – Trends 250
200
150
100
50
0
2014 2010
Income Household incomes in Emigration Canyon are the highest in the County, both on a household and individual basis. Emigration Canyon’s median household income is $175,272 which is almost triple the County’s at $61,446 and significantly higher than anywhere else in the County. Emigration Canyon also has the highest per capita incomes in the County at $74,607 per person. Income data is not available for Emigration Canyon from the year 2000.
65 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 54: Household and Per Capita Incomes (Source: 2014 ACS) Median HH Per Capita
Income Income Emigration Canyon $175,272 Emigration Canyon $74,607 Draper $94,852 Holladay $40,211 South Jordan $91,228 Cottonwood Heights $38,477 Bluffdale $88,731 Draper $34,083 Riverton $84,718 Millcreek $32,362 Herriman $78,141 Sandy $31,552 Sandy $78,048 Alta $31,210 Alta $77,500 Bluffdale $30,137 Cottonwood Heights $76,630 South Jordan $29,964 Holladay $72,827 Murray $29,013 West Jordan $69,404 Salt Lake City $28,428 Salt Lake County $61,446 Riverton $28,013 White City $60,219 Salt Lake County $26,747 Taylorsville DRAFT$57,779 Midvale $23,716 Millcreek $57,429 Taylorsville $23,224 Kearns $57,097 Herriman $22,840 Magna $55,913 West Jordan $22,808 Murray $53,797 White City $21,691 West Valley City $52,814 Magna $18,738 Midvale $51,077 West Valley City $18,179 Salt Lake City $45,833 Kearns $17,764 Copperton $43,450 Copperton $17,458 South Salt Lake $37,238 South Salt Lake $17,421 Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
66 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
67 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Emigration Canyon as the highest representations in upper income brackets, compared to the County as a whole, and has low to non-existent representation in the lowest and middle income categories.
Table 55: Households by Income Bracket (Source: 2014 ACS) Households by Income Bracket Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County Less than $10,000 0.0% 5.0% $10,000 to $14,999 8.1% 3.8% $15,000 to $24,999 1.8% 8.8% $25,000 to $34,999 3.1% 9.0% $35,000 to $49,999 0.0% 13.2% $50,000 to $74,999 5.6% 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 6.1% 14.8% $100,000 to $149,999 23.0% 14.8% $150,000 to $199,999 15.4% 5.1% $200,000 or more 36.9% 4.8% DRAFT
40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County
Income Distribution
Employment Although employment data is not collected by the Department of Workforce Services for Emigration Canyon, it can be easily inferred by the land use and general character of Emigration Canyon that the area is primarily residential, with most residents commuting to other employment centers.
Table 56: Employment by City (Source: DWS; 2014 ACS; ZPFI) 2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Alta NA NA NA 54 NA Copperton 1,954 NA NA 304 NA
68 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Emigration Canyon NA NA NA 878 NA Remaining NA NA NA 5,381 NA Unincorporated South Salt Lake 27,827 33,879 46,207 8,540 5.41 Salt Lake City 197,906 234,499 239,627 74,652 3.21 Murray 42,372 42,599 47,525 18,646 2.55 Draper 12,010 21,437 28,276 12,287 2.30 West Valley City 54,215 64,386 64,557 36,946 1.75 Sandy 36,834 40,415 46,824 28,478 1.64 Cottonwood Heights 14,889 6,051 19,093 12,042 1.59 South Jordan 12,883 15,515 23,408 15,713 1.49 Bluffdale 701 3,020 3,204 2,220 1.44 Midvale 20,845 12,329 15,287 11,434 1.34 Millcreek NA 19,578 27,349 25,085 1.09 West Jordan DRAFT19,180 26,237 30,735 31,116 0.99 Taylorsville 11,044 16,698 18,968 19,570 0.97 Riverton 4,318 6,843 9,394 11,044 0.85 Holladay 18,959 3,583 8,430 10,054 0.84 Herriman NA 1,276 2,493 6,257 0.40 Magna 5,229 5,647 3,543 8,920 0.40 Kearns 6,246 3,650 3,433 10,652 0.32 White City NA 171 249 1,812 0.14 Note: For those areas noted as “NA”, data was not collected by DWS for those years.
The venn diagram to the right illustrates the commuting and employment situation in Emigration Canyon. Most people leave Emigration Canyon to work elsewhere with very few working in Emigration Canyon and even fewer living and working there.
Of employees working in Emigration Canyon, “Management of Companies and Enterprises” is the largest employment sector at 33 percent, followed by “Accommodation and Food Services”. Of the Emigration Canyon’s residents that are commuting to other employment centers, “Health Care and Social Services” and “Educational Services” are the most represented sectors.
69 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 57: Percent of Employees by Industry (Source: Census “On the Map”) % Employees Working in % Emigration Canyon Emigration Canyon Residents Agriculture, Forestry, Finishing and Hunting 0.0% 0.2% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0% 0.7% Utilities 0.0% 0.5% Construction 6.1% 2.7% Manufacturing 0.0% 5.9% Wholesale Trade 0.0% 2.6% Retail Trade 0.0% 8.6% Transportation and Warehousing 0.0% 2.1% Information 0.4% 3.3% Finance and Insurance 2.6% 5.5% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3.9% 1.1% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 9.1% 7.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises 33.0% 2.1% Admin. & Support, WasteDRAFT Mgt. and Remediation 1.3% 4.1% Educational Services 2.2% 17.4% Health Care and Social Assistance 10.0% 18.7% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0% 3.1% Accommodation and Food Services 29.1% 7.4% Other Services 2.2% 3.0% Public Administration 0.0% 3.7%
Transportation Average commute times for working individuals in Emigration Canyon are comparable to the average for Salt Lake County. In Emigration Canyon, 42 percent of working individuals have a total commute time of 19 minutes or less, compared to 45 percent in Salt Lake County. Longer commute times increase monthly expenses for households, which ultimately affects the amount that could be spent on housing.
Table 58: Commute Times to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Emigration Salt Lake Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County Canyon County Cum. % Cum. % Less than 5 minutes 0% 2% 15% 2% 5 to 9 minutes 2% 9% 16% 11% 10 to 14 minutes 12% 15% 16% 25% 15 to 19 minutes 29% 19% 19% 45% 20 to 24 minutes 17% 20% 19% 65% 25 to 29 minutes 3% 7% 19% 72% 30 to 34 minutes 20% 15% 28% 87% 35 to 39 minutes 3% 2% 28% 89% 40 to 44 minutes 3% 3% 42% 92% 45 to 59 minutes 8% 5% 94% 96% 60 to 89 minutes 4% 2% 100% 99% 90 or more minutes 0% 1% 100% 100%
70 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
A very small portion of Emigration Canyon households do not have at least one vehicle available. In fact, households in Emigration Canyon generally have more vehicles available than the typical household in Salt Lake County, with 99 percent of households with at least one available vehicle, and 86 percent with two or more, compared to 94 percent with at least one and 65 percent with at least two in Salt Lake County.
Table 59: Number of Vehicles per Household (Source: 2014 ACS) Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County
No vehicles 1% 6% 1 vehicle 13% 30% 2 vehicles 38% 41% 3 or more vehicles 48% 24%
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) does not have any active public transit routes in Emigration Canyon. The nearest bus stop to Emigration Canyon is located approximately one mile away at This is the Place Heritage Park, while the nearest light rail or commuter rail stations are located on the University of Utah campus, approximately three miles from Emigration Canyon. The lack of public transit options in Emigration Canyon requiresDRAFT residents to have other forms of transportation, which is reflected in the large percent of households that have access to at least one vehicle.
The 2014 ACS estimates that zero percent of Emigration Canyon residents use public transportation as a means of transportation to work. The most common form of transportation is driving alone, at 82 percent, followed by carpooling, at 8 percent. Further analysis of the use of specific routes in and around Emigration Canyon may identify the effectiveness of the current routes in getting passengers to key employment centers. Increased public transit options, and the location of affordable housing near public transit, can help to increase ridership while simultaneously decreasing monthly household expenses for transportation, ultimately increasing the total amount that could be spent on housing.
71 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 60: Means of Transportation to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County
Car – Drive Alone 82.4% 76.0% Car – Carpooled 8.4% 11.8% Public Transportation 0.0% 3.5% Walk 0.0% 2.1% Bicycle 4.4% 0.8% Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other 2.0% 1.1% Work at Home 2.9% 4.6%
Education Emigration Canyon has the highest education rates in the County with a strong 98.6 percent of residents with a high school degree and 67.8 percent of residents with a college degree. The maps and tables below show how Emigration Canyon compares to the rest of the County in both High School and College graduation rates.
Table 61: Percent of PopDRAFTulation by Education Level (Source: 2014 ACS) High School or Higher Bachelors or Higher Emigration Canyon 98.6% Emigration Canyon 67.8% Bluffdale 97.4% Holladay 51.5% Cottonwood Heights 96.7% Cottonwood Heights 46.8% Herriman 96.6% Millcreek 42.2% Holladay 96.5% Salt Lake City 42.1% South Jordan 96.4% Draper 39.8% Draper 96.3% South Jordan 38.7% Riverton 96.1% Sandy 38.7% Sandy 95.5% Alta 36.8% Millcreek 94.0% Riverton 31.4% White City 93.7% Murray 30.0% Murray 92.3% Bluffdale 29.9% Copperton 91.0% Herriman 29.4% West Jordan 90.4% White City 24.4% Taylorsville 89.0% Midvale 23.8% Alta 88.4% West Jordan 23.5% Salt Lake City 86.5% South Salt Lake 23.3% Midvale 85.9% Taylorsville 20.5% Magna 80.8% West Valley City 12.7% South Salt Lake 78.4% Kearns 11.0% Kearns 77.9% Magna 9.4% West Valley City 77.7% Copperton 5.3% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
72 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
73 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Race and Ethnicity Compared to the County-wide proportion, Emigration Canyon is not very diverse racially or ethnically. The Asian population proportion is slightly higher in Emigration Canyon than the rest of the County, but otherwise the area is primarily non-Hispanic and white.
Table 62: Percent of Population by Race (Source: 2014 ACS) Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County
Race
White Alone 94.72% 83.40% Black or African American Alone 0.00% 1.64% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.00% 0.80% Asian Alone 3.94% 3.53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0.00% 1.57% Some Other Race Alone 1.33% 6.34% Two or More Races: 0.00% 2.71% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino DRAFT10.61% 17.47%
Maps show that Emigration Canyon is one of the least diverse areas in the County. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment noted that a dissimilarity index based on 2012 data showed low concentrations of minorities compared to white populations in the area.
74 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
75 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Special Needs Groups
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Emigration Canyon has 111 veterans, 19 with a service-connected disability rating; 34.2 percent of all veterans in Emigration Canyon are over 65 years of age.
DRAFT
Disability Among the noninstitutionalized population, 6.5 percent of the population is estimated to have a disability. For people under 18 years old, 6.4 percent have a disability, 4.9 percent for those between 18 and 64 years old, and 19.1 percent of those 65 and over. A total of 108 individuals were noted in 2014 as having a disability in Emigration Canyon. The table below shows, for those that report a disability, the types of disabilities by age that could need accommodation in housing choices.
Table 63: Total Population with a Disability (Source: 2014 ACS) Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 26 53 29 108 With a hearing difficulty 0 20 0 16 36 With a vision difficulty 0 20 22 0 42 With a cognitive difficulty NA 26 11 23 60 With an ambulatory difficulty NA 20 31 22 73 With a self-care difficulty NA 20 11 0 31 With an independent living difficulty NA NA 11 16 27
76 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Elderly There were 152 individuals living in Emigration Canyon over 65 years old in 2014. This represents 9.2 percent of Emigration Canyon’s population. This is one of the lowest proportions for a metro township or municipality in the County.
Table 64: Percent of Population over 65 Years Old (Source: 2014 ACS) West Herriman Alta Bluffdale Magna Draper Kearns Riverton Jordan 2.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4% South Salt West South Emigration Salt Lake Midvale Taylorsville Sandy Lake Valley Jordan Canyon City 6.5% 4.4% 7.8 9.2% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 10.5% Cottonwood White Murray Millcreek Holladay Copperton Heights City 13.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.9% 17.6% 18.5%
77 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Other Groups Individuals that are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, or youth aging out of foster care are often tracked by the various Local Homeless Coordinating Committees11 for a given area – Salt Lake County is represented by a single LHCC which collects data in each of these special populations. For 2015, it was estimated that there are a total of 2,140 individuals that are without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On a single night count, there were 548 individuals that were counted as victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 were veterans.
Current Housing Stock Emigration Canyon is heavily single-family homes “SFR,” with the County reporting very few new developments in recent years. Many of the homes in Emigration Canyon are secondary or recreational homes, which may not be occupied throughout the year. Most housing in the Emigration Canyon is relatively new and in above average condition, with 48 percent of units built after 1989. This section relies primarily on the most recent Salt Lake County property assessments to determine the current available housing stock, with supplemental information from the ACS.
Total Housing Units with Breakdown by Type and Occupancy As of the 2016 CountyDRAFT assessment, there are a total of 586 units in Emigration Canyon, including all single-family residences, townhomes, mobile homes, duplexes, condos, apartment units. Detailed totals are given in the table below. Of the 575 SFR units in Emigration Canyon, 104 of them, or 18 percent, are listed by the Assessor’s Office as recreational or secondary homes, For the purposes of this study, all single-family units (i.e., SFRs, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes) are grouped and analyzed as for- sale product, while multi-family residential units (i.e., duplexes and apartment units) are grouped and analyzed as for-rent product.
Table 65: Residential Units by Type (Source: SLCO Assessor) Total Percent of Total
Single-Family Residential 575 98.1% Condo 6 1.0% Townhome 228 38.9% SFR 332 56.7% SFR w/ Mother-in-law Apt 1 0.2% SFR – Multiple Homes 8 1.4% Multi-Family Residential 11 1.9% Duplex 10 1.7% Mother-in-law Apt 1 0.2% Total 586 100.0%
The 2014 ACS estimates that 18 percent of units in Emigration Canyon are vacant. Despite the high vacancy rates, the ACS indicates that all of the vacant units are either seasonal, recreational, occasional use, or other; therefore, the high vacancy rates should not be of concern.
11 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
78 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 66: Emigration Canyon Vacancy Rates (Source: 2014 ACS) Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County
Single-Family Residential 17.7% 2.1% Multi-Family Residential 17.7% 6.3% All Units 17.7% 3.9%
Housing Size The average single-family detached or townhome unit in Emigration Canyon is 3,707 square feet, which is significantly higher than the County average of 2,626 square feet. This may be a result of the recreational nature of many of the homes.
Table 67: Average Unit Size (Sources: Salt Lake County Assessor; EquiMark Multi-Family Report 2014) Year Built Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County SFR, Townhome 3,707 2,626
When considering all unit types, only 22 percent of units in Emigration Canyon are less than 2,000 square feet, in fact, mostDRAFT units exceed 3,000 square feet.
Table 68: Percent of Residential Units by Unit Square Feet (Source: SLCO Assessor) Year Built Emigration Canyon % of Units Emigration Canyon Cum. % 999 or less 6% 6% 1,000 – 1,499 6% 12% 1,500 – 1,999 10% 22% 2,000 – 2,499 15% 37% 2,500 – 2,999 9% 47% 3,000 or more 53% 100%
Likewise, lot sizes in Emigration Canyon are much larger than the average SFR lot size in Salt Lake County. The average SFR lot in Emigration Canyon is 1.38 acres, compared to 0.27 in Salt Lake County.
Table 69: Average Lot Size (Source: Salt Lake County Assessor) Year Built Emigration Canyon Salt Lake County SFR 1.38 0.27
Residential units in Emigration Canyon have approximately 3.28 bedrooms per unit, compared to 3.11 in Salt Lake County. The table below shows the percent of units by the number of bedrooms. In Emigration Canyon, only 21 percent of units have no more than 2 bedrooms, compared to 33 percent in Salt Lake County.
Table 70: Percent of Residential Units by Number of Bedrooms (Sources: 2014 ACS) Emigration Number of Emigration SLCO Canyon SLCO Bedrooms Canyon Cum. % Cum. % No bedrooms 4% 4% 1% 1% 1 bedroom 4% 8% 10% 11%
79 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Emigration Number of Emigration SLCO Canyon SLCO Bedrooms Canyon Cum. % Cum. % 2 bedrooms 12% 21% 22% 33% 3 bedrooms 34% 55% 27% 60% 4 bedrooms 29% 83% 22% 82% 5 or more bedrooms 17% 100% 18% 100%
Census data indicates that 100 percent of households have 1 or less occupants per room,12 compared to the County average of 96 percent. This is likely a result of the larger homes in Emigration Canyon.
Table 71: Percent of Households by Number of Occupants per Room (Source: 2014 ACS) Emigration Emigration SLCO Occupants per Room Canyon SLCO Canyon Cum. % Cum. % 1.00 or less 100.0% 100.0% 95.9% 95.9% 1.01 to 1.50 DRAFT0.0% 100.0% 3.4% 99.3% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 0.7% 100.0%
Housing Quality Housing units in Emigration Canyon are relatively new, compared to other units in Salt Lake County. In Emigration Canyon, 48 percent of units were built after 1989, compared to 34 percent in Salt Lake County. More recent growth in Emigration Canyon is comparable to growth in the County, with three percent of homes in Emigration Canyon having been built after 2010.
Table 72: Percent of Residential Units by Year Built (Sources: SLCO Assessor, 2014 ACS) Emigration Emigration Salt Lake Salt Lake Emigration Year Built Canyon Canyon County County Cum. Canyon Units % of Units Cum. % % of Units % 1939 or earlier 44 8% 8% 9% 9% 1940 to 1949 26 4% 12% 4% 13% 1950 to 1959 56 10% 22% 10% 23% 1960 to 1969 52 9% 30% 9% 32% 1970 to 1979 72 12% 43% 20% 52% 1980 to 1989 55 9% 52% 14% 66% 1990 to 1999 170 29% 81% 16% 82% 2000 to 2009 95 16% 97% 16% 98% 2010 or later 16 3% 100% 2% 100%
12 Includes any rooms in the house
80 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
The condition of units in Copperton is above average, with 66 percent of units indicated as excellent, very good, or good by the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office. The better condition of the homes in Emigration Canyon is likely a result of the relatively young age of housing stock.
Table 73: Percent of Residential Units by Condition (Source: SLCO Assessor) Condition % Total Cum. % Special Obsolesced 0% 0% Excellent 16% 16% Very Good 28% 44% Good 22% 66% Average 23% 89% Fair 9% 97% Poor 2% 99% Other 1% 100% Total 100% 100%
81 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Market Values and Rental Rates An overview of housing values and market conditions is given here to further illustrate Emigration Canyon’s housing stock. Housing prices are analyzed in more detail in the next section titled “Current Affordable Housing and Need” in regards to affordability for targeted groups.
The 2014 ACS indicates that the median home value in Emigration Canyon is $695,000, more than three times the median value of $231,000 in Salt Lake County.
The maps below show assessed market value by property and by acres for SFR, townhomes, and condo units within Emigration Canyon. Generally, less expensive properties tend to be west of Highland Drive. Due to the larger lot sizes, the market value per acre for many properties in Emigration Canyon decreases.
82 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
83 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The table below shows the SFR units, listed by the County-assessed market value. These units may also include some accessory dwelling units unlisted by the County.
Table 74: Assessed Housing Values in Emigration Canyon (Source: SLCO Assessor) Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cumulative % of Total <$100,000 2 0% 0% $100,000 - $124,999 4 1% 1% $125,000 - $139,999 2 0% 1% $140,000 - $149,999 1 0% 2% $150,000 - $159,999 1 0% 2% $160,000 - $169,999 4 1% 2% $170,000 - $179,999 5 1% 3% $180,000 - $189,999 3 1% 4% $190,000 - $199,999 1 0% 4% $200,000 - $219,999 4 1% 5% $220,000 - $239,999 17 3% 8% $240,000 - $259,999 DRAFT 9 2% 9% $260,000 - $279,999 15 3% 12% $280,000 - $299,999 25 4% 16% $300,000 - $324,999 43 7% 24% $325,000 - $349,999 33 6% 29% $350,000 - $374,999 24 4% 34% $375,000 - $399,999 23 4% 38% $400,000 - $424,999 31 5% 43% $425,000 - $449,999 14 2% 45% $450,000 - $474,999 14 2% 48% $475,000 - $499,999 10 2% 50% $500,000 - $599,999 43 7% 57% $600,000 - $699,999 31 5% 62% $700,000+ 216 38% 100% Total SFR Units 575 100% 100%
Rental prices are also important to consider in the affordability of the current housing stock. Emigration Canyon currently has approximately 11 MFR units, almost all of which are duplexes. The percent of rental units by gross rent, according to the 2014 ACS, for units in Emigration Canyon are listed in the table below.
Table 75: Gross Rent for Rental Units in Emigration Canyon (Source: 2014 ACS) Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cumulative % of Total No Rent - 0% 0% $0 - $99 6 50% 50% $100 - $149 - 0% 50% $150 - $199 - 0% 50% $200 - $249 - 0% 50% $250 - $299 - 0% 50%
84 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cumulative % of Total $300 - $349 - 0% 50% $350 - $399 - 0% 50% $400 - $449 - 0% 50% $450 - $499 - 0% 50% $500 - $549 - 0% 50% $550 - $599 - 0% 50% $600 - $649 - 0% 50% $650 - $699 - 0% 50% $700 - $749 - 0% 50% $750 - $799 2 14% 64% $800 - $899 - 0% 64% $900 - $999 0 4% 68% $1,000 - $1,249 1 6% 74% $1,250 - $1,499 1 8% 83% $1,500 - $1,999 - 0% 83% >$2,000 DRAFT 2 18% 100% Total 11 100% 100%
Percent of Monthly Income to Housing Costs The 2014 ACS estimates that 19 percent of Emigration Canyon households spend more than the recommended 30 percent of total monthly income on housing costs. This is much lower than the County estimate of 34 percent. This may likely be a result of the recreational or secondary use of many homes in Emigration Canyon.
Table 76: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Emigration Canyon SLCO Less than 20 percent 62.5% 39.8% 20 to 29 percent 18.3% 24.7% 30 percent or more 19.2% 33.6% Zero or negative income 0.0% 1.0% No cash rent 0.0% 1.1%
The percent of households that spend more than 30 percent on housing costs is greater for renter- occupied units than owner-occupied units, indicating a need for more affordable rental options.
Table 77: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs by Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Emigration Canyon SLCO Owner Occupied Less than 20 percent 65.7% 48.1% 20 to 29 percent 20.2% 24.9% 30 percent or more 14.1% 26.7% Zero or negative income 0.0% 0.5% Renter Occupied Less than 20 percent 44.6% 23.0%
85 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Occupants per Room Emigration Canyon SLCO 20 to 29 percent 7.2% 24.3% 30 percent or more 48.2% 47.3% Zero or negative income 0.0% 1.9% No cash rent 0.0% 3.3%
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need The findings of the affordability analysis for Emigration Canyon include:
Housing in Emigration Canyon is not affordable, with only 15 percent of units affordable to low- and moderate-income households (below 80 percent AMI). Although 77 percent of MFR units in Emigration Canyon are affordable to low- and moderate- income households, MFR units make a very small portion of all units in Emigration Canyon. The overall lack of affordable options in Emigration Canyon may not be of great concern, considering the large number of homes that are either recreational or secondary homes.
Availability for TargetedDRAFT Income Groups As in the housing stock analysis, affordability is broken into two housing categories: one for SFRs, condos, mobile homes, and townhomes and a second for multi-family rentals. The affordability of the first category of units is based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. The affordability of multi-family units is based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
SFR, Condo, Townhome, and Mobile Home For the targeted low- and moderate-income households, only 3.8 percent of SFR units are affordable to households below 80 percent of AMI.
Table 78: Number of Affordable SFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Max Home Price # Affordable Cum. % Income Max % of Units Income Level (4% Mortgage) SFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $33,656 0 0.0% 0.0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $93,771 1 0.2% 0.2% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $185,161 21 3.7% 3.8%
The following map shows all SFR and their affordability.
86 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
According to assessment data, zero SFR units that are affordable at 80 percent AMI have been constructed since 2010. Assessment records indicate that the most recent affordable SFR unit constructed was completed in 1978.
Table 79: Affordable SFR by Year Built Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1939 or earlier - - 6 38 1940 - 1949 - - 3 23 1950 - 1959 - - 7 47 1960 - 1969 - 1 4 43 1970 - 1979 - - 1 69 1980 - 1989 - - - 53 1990 - 1999 - - - 169 2000 - 2009 - - - 95 2010 or later - - - 16 Total - 1 21 553
87 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordability of SFR by Year Built 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
DRAFT30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Above 80% AMI
Apartments and Duplexes Rentals are generally more affordable to low-income households than purchasing a home. Of the 11 MFR units in Emigration Canyon, 77 percent are affordable to households below 80 percent of AMI. Despite the high affordability of MFR units in Emigration Canyon, the overall lack of MFR units in Emigration Canyon does not indicate much opportunity for households to rent in Emigration Canyon.
Table 80: Number of Affordable MFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Monthly # Affordable Cumulative % Income Max % of Units Income Level Rental Max MFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $504 6 50.0% 50.0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $831 2 13.9% 63.9% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $1,329 1 12.9% 76.8%
Summary of Affordability and Number of Additional Units Needed If only considering whether housing is affordable at the 80 percent of AMI threshold, housing in Emigration Canyon is not affordable, with only 5 percent of all units affordable to households below 80 percent of AMI (see the table below).
Table 81: Number of Affordable Units by Targeted Income Group Household Affordable % Households Units Households Income Level Units Affordable % Cum. % Cum. % < 30% AMI 6 0.9% 8.20% 0.9% 8.20% 30-50% AMI 3 0.4% 3.75% 1.4% 11.94% 50-80% AMI 22 3.8% 2.50% 5.2% 14.44%
In many cases, low- to moderate-income households consist of elderly residents who may not have a mortgage. Furthermore, the income for many of these households without a mortgage is not sufficient enough to purchase the home. In order to more accurately state the current housing stock and need for
88 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
affordable units, the difference in the number of households and number of units by income level shown below exclude households and units that do not currently have a mortgage.
The number of units currently needed for each income group is outlined in the table below. Positive values indicate the number of needed units to meet the current demand; negative values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units. The lack of affordable units is less severe than it may seem, considering that 18 percent of all SFR units in Emigration Canyon are secondary or recreational homes. Regardless, there are 19 fewer units than households at 30 percent of AMI, and 12 fewer units than households at 50 percent of AMI. Overall, there is a deficiency of 17 affordable units for households below 80 percent AMI.
Table 82: Number of Units Currently Needed by Targeted Income Group Households Units Difference Cum. Difference < 30% AMI 24 6 19 19 30-50% AMI 15 3 12 31 50-80% AMI 8 22 (14) 17 > 80% AMI DRAFT343 464 (121) (104) Total 390 494 (104)
Emigration - Comparison of Units to Households 500 450 400 350 300 250
Total Units 200 150 100 50 0 < 30% of AMI 30% to 50% of AMI 50% to 80% of AMI > 80% of AMI Households Units
Affordable Housing – County-Wide Comparison Compared to the other metro townships in Salt Lake County, Emigration Canyon is the least affordable, with an overall affordability of 5.2 percent of units.
Table 83: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cum. Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2%
89 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cum. Total Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Unincorporated Islands 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County Population 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3%
Availability of Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups While fair housing laws and enforcement are an important part of clearing impediments or obstacles to housing opportunities for minorities, the core impediment to fair housing choice is still most often affordability. County-wide minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-income categories. With this in mind, the primary analysis on affordable housing for low-income households is the most important determination of housing availability for minority groups. DRAFT Table 84: Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: 2014 ACS) Emigration SLCO Canyon Total Emigration Total Salt Lake Race/Ethnic Race/Ethnic Canyon County Population Population Population Population Below Poverty Below Poverty Level Level Race
White Alone 94.72% 3.3% 83.4% 12.7% Black or African 0.00% NA 1.6% 10.5% American Alone American Indian and 0.00% NA 0.8% 27.9% Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone 3.94% 0.0% 3.5% 32.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.00% NA 1.6% 18.0% Alone Some Other Race 1.33% 0.0% 6.3% 24.1% Alone Two or More Races: 0.00% NA 2.7% 30.6% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 10.61% 0.0% 17.5% 26.7% White Alone, Not 3.7% 8.5% Hispanic or Latino
For Salt Lake County, about 17 percent of the population belongs to a minority and 17 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino (not necessarily the same population; the similar numbers are coincidental). There are no areas in Emigration Canyon with Census Block Groups that have populations greater than this County average.
90 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Although there are no areas with high minority concentrations, it is noted in the County’s Analysis of Impediments to fair housing that zoning issues can contribute to segregation and limitations to affordable housing. The following zoning categories are those that intersect with minority concentrations in the County along with notes on potential housing impediments they might cause.
Table 85: Emigration Canyon Zoning Categories Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments A-1 Low Density, but two-family units are allowed conditionally A-2 Very Low Density C-1 Commercial only C-2/C-2/zc C-3/C-3/zc R-1-5 Restrictions to Accessory Units Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-6 SFR Only Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-8/R-1-8/zc SFR Only DRAFT Large Lot Size Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-10 SFR Only Large Lot Size R-2-6.5
Restrictions to Accessory Units R-2-8 No dwelling groups R-2-10 R-M/R-M/zc R-4-8.5 M-1/M-1/zc Non-residential except very special exceptions, including very large lot size M-2 MD-3/zc
Some common zoning13 and policy issues14 that can be generally limiting on affordable or fair housing availability are listed below. While these may not necessarily be specific to current County zoning laws, they are issues found around the country and are known to have disparate impacts. Caution should be taken around these types of approaches as they can limit fair and affordable housing availability for special groups.
. Codes that provide a definition of a “family,” specifically codes that discuss if family members are defined by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship o Utah courts have not ruled on potentially discriminatory aspects of family definitions but other states have noted that defining a family – specifically in number of people, type of relation and capping the number of unrelated persons in a household – does not serve any legitimate objective under the zoning powers of a municipality. . Limits on unrelated people residing together;
13 Salt Lake County Regional Analysis of Impediments 2013 14 http://www.ctfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CFHC-AffirmFurthGuideGrantees.pdf
91 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Absence of density bonuses, fee waivers, and accessory units; . Strict zoning requiring conditional use permits for certain housing types, such as accessory units; . Community “friendliness” of local zoning ordinances to rental housing that influences the siting of rental housing to segregated areas of the community; . Occupancy limits; . Zones that only permit elderly housing; . Limits on who can live in an affordable housing system, such as local applicants or municipal employees only; . Lack of targeted marketing to protected classes for public housing or subsidy programs; . Requiring large lots and limited areas zoned for multifamily housing; . Tax assessments that are higher in neighborhoods of color; . Failure to have a housing authority or family voucher program; . Lack of a complaint process; and . Lack of training for municipal staff on direct and indirect impacts on fair housing opportunity.
Specific to RDA funds, the failure to actively use RDA set-aside funds for affordable housing in a timely manner – back-loading affordable housing expenditures to the end of the life of the RDA – also contributes to a lack ofDRAFT affordable and fair housing availability.
A more detailed analysis of fair housing issues is outlined later in this report.
Availability of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Groups
Disability Countywide, about two-thirds of those with a disability are in very low income households. If this holds true in Emigration Canyon, then at least 72 individuals with a disability in Emigration Canyon need some sort of affordable housing with accessibility and/or wheelchair access. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Assessment and Analysis of Impediments noted that, while the exact number of accessible rental units is untracked, it can be estimated from building permits up to 2013 that there are about 7,400 apartments in the entire County that meet the basic FHA accessibility standards. For those requiring a wheelchair, the supply is much lower with about 285 units in the County available for about 1,800 needing wheelchair access County-wide. Many of these individuals live in assisted care facilities, but many do not. There are no assisted living facilities in Emigration Canyon. Not only is this not enough to cover the disability needs in the area, but the shortage is magnified when considering the larger need for elderly care.
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Emigration Canyon has 111 veterans, 19 with a service-connected disability rating; 34.2 percent of all veterans in Emigration Canyon are over 65 years of age. This special needs group overlaps with the disability and elderly populations with likely needs for assisted living facilities. However, they also have access to additional resources through the federal government and non-profit programs.
Elderly As mentioned, there are no assisted living and nursing home facilities within Emigration Canyon. The Salt Lake County Analysis of Impediments found that the location distribution is generally not heavily determined by zoning, but more by corporate location policies that tend to prefer locations with above
92 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
average incomes and property values. As a result, opportunities for the elderly and disabled to live in care facilities are more available in and around Millcreek, White City, and the Unincorporated Islands and less available in Kearns and Magna.
Other Groups SLCo Homeless and Transitional Shelter For 2015, there were an estimated 2,140 (Beds) individuals15 that were without permanent 24 housing in Salt Lake County. On one single night count of these individuals, among them were 548 334 Emergency Shelter victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 veterans. There are an 1,506 Transitional estimated 4,517 beds available across the various Housing providers in the County – more than enough to Permanent cover the County’s needs for these special and 1,929 Supportive Housing at-risk groups. While the population of displaced Rapid Re-Housing individuals is likely concentrated in Salt Lake City, 724 it’s possible that the lack of distribution of Safe Haven shelters in the CountyDRAFT may be harmful to individuals in urgent need or with transportation difficulty.
15 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
93 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections
Population Projections Population projections for the next five to ten years were formed using both Census block data and the population figures listed by the American Community Survey (ACS). These populations from 2010 and 2014 established the baseline growth rate that was then extended into straight-line projections for the future populations of each community.
Table 86: Population Estimates and Projections AAGR 2010 2014 2010- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2014 Emigration Canyon 1,566 1,649 1.301% 1,670 1,692 1,714 1,736 1,759 1,782
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Emigration Canyon DRAFT1,805 1,829 1,852 1,877 1,901 1,926
Targeted Groups – Projections
Income Groups Projections for income groups assume a similar proportion of the households will fall into the targeted income groups as they do today.
Table 87: Projected Households and Population by Targeted Income Group Total AMI < 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Households % Households 8.20% 3.70% 2.50% 14.4% 2014 Households 40 18 12 70 2021 Households 43 19 13 75 2026 Households 45 20 14 79
Disability The proportion of those with a disability is also expected to stay the same. These proportions are based on the 2014 population to directly compare ACS disability data. However, the proportions are then applied to the 2021 and 2026 projections. Many low-income households are represented by disabled populations that have a high need for accessible rental housing.
Table 88: Projected Disability Population in 2021 Total 2021 Population: 1,805 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 28 58 32 118 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 22 0 18 39 With a Vision Difficulty 0 22 24 0 46 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 28 12 25 66 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 22 34 24 80
94 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Total 2021 Population: 1,805 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 22 12 0 34 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 12 18 30
Table 89: Projected Disability Population in 2026 Total 2026 Population: 1,926 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 30 62 34 126 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 23 0 19 42 With a Vision Difficulty 0 23 26 0 49 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 30 13 27 70 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 23 36 26 85 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 23 13 0 36 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 13 19 32
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Emigration Canyon has 111 veterans, 19 with a service-connected disability rating; 34.2 percent ofDRAFT all veterans in Emigration Canyon are over 65 years of age. To project the number of veterans for the next five to ten years, two approaches were taken based on the assumption that there are two primary groupings – senior veterans that were drafted and younger veterans that enlisted voluntarily at a lower rate. To project the number of the younger group under 65 years old, the 2014 population proportion was maintained and applied to the total population. For those over 65, Salt Lake County’s mortality rate16 of 7.8 per year per 1000 people for those 55 to 65 and older was applied, assuming this group would not grow with the population. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 90: Projected Veteran Population Veterans in Emigration Canyon 2014 2021 2026 Under 65 73 80 85 Over 65 38 36 34 Total 111 116 120
Elderly There were 152 individuals living in Emigration Canyon over 65 years old in 2014. This represents over six percent of the Emigration Canyon’s population. The proprotion of elderly age groups in Emigration Canyon has remained fairly steady since 2010, so it is assumed that the population will continue to maintain the same proportion of elderly residents with future population changes.
Table 91: Projected Elderly Population Population 2014 2021 2026 Total 65 and Over 152 166 178
Other Groups Populations for youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, or the homeless, are measured on a regional basis. The numbers in these categories are largely independent of population growth and any population in these categories are likely temporary or transitionary. Housing facilitites
16 CDC WONDER data, 1999-2014
95 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
in these categories are located regionally and the County provides operational support to the regional programs.
Forecast of Affordable Housing Need The following section analyzes the future demand for housing in Emigration Canyon using population projections, historical building permit data, and current projects in the development pipeline.
Expected Housing Construction Salt Lake County building permit data indicates that approximately three new single-family building permits have been issued per year in Emigration Canyon between 2010 and 2015. No other types of residential building permits have been issued during this time.
Table 92: Emigration Canyon Residential Building Permits (Source: SLCO Planning) Annual 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Single-Family 3 3 2 5 3 3 19 3.17 DRAFT As of February 2017, there were no current permit projects in the development pipeline in Emigration Canyon.
Projected Number of Needed Housing Units The population counts are used for basic demographic reference; however, to project housing unit needs the number of households were calculated in a slightly different manner in order to correspond with differing data from the County Assessor. To make this data consistent, the total number of households was based on the number of units listed by the Assessor multiplied by the occupancy rate listed by ACS for each metro township. To translate these figures to low and moderate income group distributions, that value was then multiplied by the percentage of households in each income group (ACS) to determine the number of households in each targeted income group. The table below shows these household numbers by income group. Moderate population and household growth indicates minor increase in demand for affordable units in Emigration Canyon through 2026.
Table 93: Total Affordable Housing Needs by Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Projected Projected Projected Current Current Current 10-year Total 10-year Total 10-year Total Need Need Need Need Need Need Emigration 19 5 24 12 2 14 (14) 2 (12) Canyon
96 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Kearns
Key Findings Housing is very affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI). Despite the vast majority of units being affordable to households at 80 percent AMI, there is a significant lack of units affordable to low-income households (below 50 percent AMI), especially among single-family housing units. Due to the projected decline in population and households in Kearns, it is not anticipated that Kearns will have additional demand for affordable housing through 2026.
DRAFT
Summary Kearns is located on the western side of the Salt Lake County. Census figures estimate that Kearns is the second largest metro township, second only to Millcreek. Recent population projections, however, indicate a declining population in Kearns. Kearns has a slightly lower median age, as well as lower household and per capita incomes, but larger household sizes than the County. The household stock in Kearns is primarily single-family homes, older, and in average condition. Housing in Kearns is very affordable, with 69 percent of housing units affordable to moderate –income households.
97 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Population & Demographics Demographic characteristics greatly influence housing demands. Population growth, age, income and other characteristics of an area’s population influence what types of housing are desired and how many units need to be available. This section evaluates these factors in Kearns. This section will also summarize how the population has changed over the past decade and address the number of households Kearns has in targeted income groups with needs for affordable housing. Current demographic data is according to the most recent data as available – usually the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated for 2014 unless otherwise noted.
Population The population in Kearns has dropped slightly in past years. The 2010 population was 35,776 while the 2014 population was 34,865 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of -0.643 percent. In 2000, the area’s population was 31,948 with a small increase since that time. The area’s population is expected to remain fairly constant, projected to fall at a slow rate to 32,269 by 2026.
Table 94: Population Estimates and Projections (Source: 2014 ACS) 2010 2014 AAGR 2010-2014 2015 2016 DRAFT Kearns 35,776 34,865 -0.643% 34,641 34,418
Age and Household Size Kearns has nearly the highest household size in the County with 3.61 people per household, while only parts of the southwest part of the County are larger. Kearns’ household size is much larger than the national average of 2.63 and even higher than the Utah average of 3.14. The 2000 household size in Kearns was about the same at 3.65 persons per household.
Table 95: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Avg. HH Size Herriman 4.00 Bluffdale 3.74 Riverton 3.64 Kearns 3.61 South Jordan 3.60 West Valley 3.57 Magna 3.56 West Jordan 3.45 Draper city 3.38 White City 3.22 Sandy 3.13 Taylorsville 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon 2.98 Cottonwood Heights 2.82 Copperton 2.74 Holladay 2.66 South Salt Lake 2.66
98 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Municipality Avg. HH Size Midvale 2.60 Murray 2.56 Millcreek 2.51 Salt Lake City 2.47 Alta 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
Kearns’ median age is 29.5 years old with 45 percent of households with children. Kearns also has among the lowest proportion of population over 65 years old. Kearns’ median age is closer to the very low Utah and Salt Lake County medians of 29.9 and 31.5 respectively than the national average of 37.4. Kearns’ median age has risen, up from 26.1 in 2000.
DRAFT
Table 96: Median Age and % of Population by Group (Source: 2014 ACS) Median % HHs w/ Pop. % of Total Age Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Herriman 21.6 Herriman 72.6% 2.8% Bluffdale 28.0 Riverton 57.0% 6.4% Magna 28.6 Magna 54.1% 5.3% West Jordan 29.4 West Jordan 51.9% 5.4% Riverton 29.5 Draper 51.1% 5.9% Kearns 29.5 Kearns 51.0% 6.1%
99 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Median % HHs w/ Pop. % of Total Age Under 18 Pop. Over 65 South Salt Lake 29.8 Bluffdale 50.6% 5.0% West Valley 30.1 West Valley 50.1% 7.4% South Jordan 30.8 South Jordan 48.9% 7.8% Midvale 31.0 Copperton 42.8% 18.5% Draper 31.1 Sandy 42.2% 10.5% Salt Lake City 31.4 White City 39.5% 13.4% Taylorsville 32.2 Taylorsville 38.3% 9.7% White City 32.6 Emigration Canyon 37.8% 9.2% Sandy 34.6 South Salt Lake 35.3% 6.5% Murray 34.9 Cottonwood Heights 34.9% 13.4% Cottonwood Heights 35.6 Midvale 31.8% 9.2% Copperton 35.9 Holladay 30.1% 17.6% Millcreek 36.1 Murray 29.1% 13.8% Holladay DRAFT38.1 Millcreek 27.8% 15.9% Alta 42.2 Salt Lake City 27.6% 9.9% Emigration Canyon 44.4 Alta 13.0% 5.0% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA NA
Kearns is fairly similar to County-wide population distributions with the exception of being a little less represented in the older age groups.
Salt Lake County Kearns 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 Years -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%
While most of the age categories have remained at roughly the same levels since 2000, there have been increases in the 15-30-year-old categories since then.
100 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Kearns Age Categories – Trends 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - DRAFT
2014 ACS 2009 ACS 2000 Census
Income Household incomes in Kearns are slightly lower than the County. Kearns’ median household income is $57.097 compared to the County at $61,446. On the other hand, Kearns has among the lowest per capita incomes in the County at $17,764 per person. After adjusting for inflation, the 2000 median household income was higher at $63,964 and the per capita was $19,744.
Table 97: Household and Per Capita Incomes (Source: 2014 ACS) Median HH Income Per Capita Income Emigration Canyon $175,272 Emigration Canyon $74,607 Draper $94,852 Holladay $40,211 South Jordan $91,228 Cottonwood Heights $38,477 Bluffdale $88,731 Draper $34,083 Riverton $84,718 Millcreek $32,362 Herriman $78,141 Sandy $31,552 Sandy $78,048 Alta $31,210 Alta $77,500 Bluffdale $30,137 Cottonwood Heights $76,630 South Jordan $29,964 Holladay $72,827 Murray $29,013 West Jordan $69,404 Salt Lake City $28,428 Salt Lake County $61,446 Riverton $28,013 White City $60,219 Salt Lake County $26,747 Taylorsville $57,779 Midvale $23,716 Millcreek $57,429 Taylorsville $23,224 Kearns $57,097 Herriman $22,840
101 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Median HH Income Per Capita Income Magna $55,913 West Jordan $22,808 Murray $53,797 White City $21,691 West Valley City $52,814 Magna $18,738 Midvale $51,077 West Valley City $18,179 Salt Lake City $45,833 Kearns $17,764 Copperton $43,450 Copperton $17,458 South Salt Lake $37,238 South Salt Lake $17,421 Remaining Unincorp. NA Remaining Unincorp. NA
DRAFT
102 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Kearns has among the highest representations in middle-class income brackets, compared to the County as a whole, and has low representation in the lowest and highest income categories.
Table 98: Households by Income Bracket (Source: 2014 ACS) Households by Income Bracket Kearns Salt Lake County Less than $10,000 2.8% 5.0% $10,000 to $14,999 2.6% 3.8% $15,000 to $24,999 7.4% 8.8% $25,000 to $34,999 11.0% 9.0% $35,000 to $49,999 16.6% 13.2% $50,000 to $74,999 28.4% 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 20.7% 14.8% $100,000 to $149,999 8.2% 14.8% $150,000 to $199,999 2.2% 5.1% $200,000 or more 0.1% 4.8%
103 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
Kearns Salt Lake County DRAFT Income Distribution
Employment Kearns has the second lowest employment activity compared to other areas of the County, second only to White City, with decreasing employment since 2004. The ratio of jobs per household is 0.32, indicating that more people commute out of Kearns than commute in to work.
Table 99: Employment by City (Source: DWS; 2014 ACS; ZPFI) 2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Alta NA NA NA 54 NA Copperton 1,954 NA NA 304 NA Emigration Canyon NA NA NA 878 NA Remaining Unincorporated NA NA NA 5,381 NA South Salt Lake 27,827 33,879 46,207 8,540 5.41 Salt Lake City 197,906 234,499 239,627 74,652 3.21 Murray 42,372 42,599 47,525 18,646 2.55 Draper 12,010 21,437 28,276 12,287 2.30 West Valley City 54,215 64,386 64,557 36,946 1.75 Sandy 36,834 40,415 46,824 28,478 1.64 Cottonwood Heights 14,889 6,051 19,093 12,042 1.59 South Jordan 12,883 15,515 23,408 15,713 1.49 Bluffdale 701 3,020 3,204 2,220 1.44 Midvale 20,845 12,329 15,287 11,434 1.34 Millcreek NA 19,578 27,349 25,085 1.09 West Jordan 19,180 26,237 30,735 31,116 0.99 Taylorsville 11,044 16,698 18,968 19,570 0.97 Riverton 4,318 6,843 9,394 11,044 0.85
104 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Holladay 18,959 3,583 8,430 10,054 0.84 Herriman NA 1,276 2,493 6,257 0.40 Magna 5,229 5,647 3,543 8,920 0.40 Kearns 6,246 3,650 3,433 10,652 0.32 White City NA 171 249 1,812 0.14 Note: For those areas noted as “NA”, data was not collected by DWS for those years.
The venn diagram to the right illustrates the commuting and employment situation in Kearns. Most people leave Kearns to work elsewhere with very few working in Kearns and even fewer living and working there.
Of employees working in Kearns, Education services is the largest employment sector at 38.4 percent, followed by retail trade. Of Kearns’ residents, the sectors most represented are manufacturingDRAFT and retail trade.
Table 100: Percent of Employees by Industry (Source: Census “On the Map”) % Employees Working in Kearns % Kearns Residents Agriculture, Forestry, Finishing and Hunting 0.0% 0.2% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0% 0.6% Utilities 1.2% 0.5% Construction 5.7% 6.8% Manufacturing 7.6% 12.5% Wholesale Trade 0.4% 5.0% Retail Trade 15.0% 12.3% Transportation and Warehousing 1.8% 5.8% Information 1.8% 2.1% Finance and Insurance 2.2% 4.8% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.6% 1.4% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1.2% 5.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.1% 1.7% Admin. & Support, Waste Mgt. and Remediation 4.1% 8.4% Educational Services 38.4% 7.5% Health Care and Social Assistance 6.1% 8.7% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 3.6% 1.6% Accommodation and Food Services 4.5% 8.5% Other Services 1.8% 2.4% Public Administration 4.0% 3.7%
105 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Transportation The average travel time to work for individuals in Kearns is 26.4 minutes, which is slightly above the Salt Lake County average of 22.3 minutes. Approximately 52 percent of individuals in Kearns commute less than 24 minutes to work, compared to 65 percent of individuals in Salt Lake County.
Table 101: Commute Times to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Kearns Salt Lake County Kearns Salt Lake County Cum. % Cum. % Less than 5 minutes 2% 2% 2% 2% 5 to 9 minutes 3% 9% 5% 11% 10 to 14 minutes 7% 15% 12% 25% 15 to 19 minutes 14% 19% 26% 45% 20 to 24 minutes 26% 20% 52% 65% 25 to 29 minutes 8% 7% 60% 72% 30 to 34 minutes 24% 15% 84% 87% 35 to 39 minutes 2% 2% 87% 89% 40 to 44 minutes DRAFT2% 3% 88% 92% 45 to 59 minutes 6% 5% 95% 96% 60 to 89 minutes 3% 2% 98% 99% 90 or more minutes 2% 1% 100% 100%
Approximately 4 percent of households in Kearns do not have access to at least one vehicle, compared to 6 percent in Salt Lake County. The large number of homes with vehicles is reflected in the above average commute times for workers in Kearns.
Table 102: Number of Vehicles per Household (Source: 2014 ACS) Kearns Salt Lake County
No vehicles 4% 6% 1 vehicle 24% 30% 2 vehicles 43% 41% 3 or more vehicles 30% 24%
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) currently has six bus routes that run through Kearns, with approximately 55 stops. There are currently no light or commuter rail stations in Kearns; however, there are two stations that are within approximately four miles.17 Despite the number of bus routes in Kearns, approximately only 2.9 percent of working individuals in Kearns use public transportation as a means of transportation to work. Further analysis of the use of specific routes in Kearns may identify the effectiveness of the current routes in getting passengers to key employment centers. Increased public transit options, and the location of affordable housing near public transit, can help to increase ridership while simultaneously decreasing monthly household expenses for transportation, ultimately increasing the total amount that could be put to housing.
17 West Valley Central Station – 3590 S 2700 W, West Valley City; Jordan Valley Station – 3400 W 8600 S, West Jordan
106 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 103: Means of Transportation to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Kearns Salt Lake County
Car – Drive Alone 77.7% 76.0% Car – Carpooled 15.5% 11.8% Public Transportation 2.9% 3.5% Walk 0.5% 2.1% Bicycle 0.3% 0.8% Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other 0.6% 1.1% Work at Home 2.5% 4.6%
DRAFT
Education Kearns has one of the lowest education rates in the County with only 77.9 percent of residents with a high school degree and eleven percent of residents with a college degree. The maps and tables below show how Kearns compares to the rest of the County in both High School and College graduation rates.
107 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
108 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 104: Percent of Population by Education Level (Source: 2014 ACS) % High School % Bachelors
or Higher or Higher Emigration Canyon 98.6% Emigration Canyon 67.8% Bluffdale 97.4% Holladay 51.5% Cottonwood Heights 96.7% Cottonwood Heights 46.8% Herriman 96.6% Millcreek 42.2% Holladay 96.5% Salt Lake City 42.1% South Jordan 96.4% Draper 39.8% Draper 96.3% South Jordan 38.7% Riverton 96.1% Sandy 38.7% Sandy 95.5% Alta 36.8% Millcreek 94.0% Riverton 31.4% White City 93.7% Murray 30.0% Murray 92.3% Bluffdale 29.9% Copperton 91.0% Herriman 29.4% West Jordan DRAFT90.4% White City 24.4% Taylorsville 89.0% Midvale 23.8% Alta 88.4% West Jordan 23.5% Salt Lake City 86.5% South Salt Lake 23.3% Midvale 85.9% Taylorsville 20.5% Magna 80.8% West Valley City 12.7% South Salt Lake 78.4% Kearns 11.0% Kearns 77.9% Magna 9.4% West Valley City 77.7% Copperton 5.3% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
Race and Ethnicity Compared to the County-wide proportion, Kearns is similar in racial diversity but twice as ethnically diverse in its Hispanic or Latino population.
Table 105: Percent of Population by Race (Source: 2014 ACS) Kearns Salt Lake County
Race
White Alone 82.32% 83.40% Black or African American Alone 1.12% 1.64% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 1.30% 0.80% Asian Alone 1.60% 3.53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 2.25% 1.57% Some Other Race Alone 7.90% 6.34% Two or More Races: 3.51% 2.71% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 32.07% 17.47%
109 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
110 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Maps show that Kearns is one of the most diverse areas in the County. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment noted that a dissimilarity index based on 2012 data showed high concentrations of minorities compared to white populations in Kearns. The map below showing this index clearly shows almost all of Kearns with a high rate of racial dissimilarity.
Special Needs Groups
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Kearns has 1,418 veterans, 191DRAFT with a service- connected disability rating; 36.6 percent of all veterans in Kearns are over 65 years of age.
111 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Disability Among the noninstitutionalized population, 8.9 percent of the population is estimated to have a disability. For people under 18 years old, 5.9 percent have a disability, 7.9 percent for those between 18 and 64 years old, and 44.6 percent of those 65 and over. A total of 3,117 individuals were noted in 2014 as having a disability in Kearns. The table below shows for those that report a disability, the types of disabilities by age that could need accommodation in housing choices.
Table 106: Total Population with a Disability (Source: 2014 ACS) Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 489 1,676 952 3,117 With a hearing difficulty 0 82 344 430 856 With a vision difficulty 0 58 261 164 483 With a cognitive difficulty NA 283 703 263 1,249 With an ambulatory difficulty NA 91 981 614 1,686 With a self-care difficulty NA 91 210 182 483 With an independent living difficulty NA NA 734 397 1,131 DRAFT
Elderly There were 2,135 individuals living in Kearns over 65 years old in 2014. This represents 6.1 percent of Kearns’ population. This is one of the lowest proportions for a metro township or municipality in the County.
112 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 107: Percent of Population over 65 Years Old (Source: 2014 ACS) West Herriman Alta Bluffdale Magna Draper Kearns Riverton Jordan 2.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4%
South Salt West South Emigration Salt Lake Midvale Taylorsville Sandy Lake Valley Jordan Canyon City 6.5% 4.4% 7.8 9.2% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 10.5%
Cottonwood White Murray Millcreek Holladay Copperton Heights City 13.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.9% 17.6% 18.5%
Other Groups Individuals that are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, or youth aging out of foster care are often tracked by the various Local Homeless Coordinating Committees18 for a given area – Salt Lake County is represented by a single LHCC which collects data in each of these special populations. For 2015, it was estimated that there DRAFTare a total of 2,140 individuals that are without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On a single night count, there were 548 individuals that were counted as victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 were veterans.
Current Housing Stock Kearns is heavily single-family homes “SFR”, with the County reporting relatively few new developments in recent years. Most housing in Kearns is older and in average condition. This section relies primarily on the most recent Salt Lake County property assessments to determine the current available housing stock, with supplemental information from the ACS.
Total Housing Units with Breakdown by Type and Occupancy As of the 2016 County assessment, there are a total of 10,050 units in Kearns, including all single-family residences, townhomes, mobile homes, duplexes, condos, apartment units. Detailed totals are given in the table below. For the purposes of this study, all single-family units (i.e., SFRs, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes) are grouped and analyzed as for-sale product, while multi-family residential units (i.e., duplexes and apartment units) are grouped and analyzed as for-rent product.
Table 108: Residential Units by Type (Source: SLCO Assessor) Total Percent of Total
Single-Family Residential 9,608 95.6% Condo 20 0.2% Townhome 12 0.1% SFR 9,358 93.1% SFR w/ Mother-in-law Apt 14 0.1% Trailer Park 204 2.0% Multi-Family Residential 442 4.4% Apartment 395 3.9%
18 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
113 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Total Percent of Total
Duplex 22 0.2% Low Income 9 0.1% Mother-in-law Apt 14 0.1% Other MFR 2 0.0% Total 10,050 100.0%
The 2014 ACS estimates that 6 percent of all units are vacant in Kearns, with 5 percent of SFR units are vacant and 10 percent of MFR. Kearns has a higher vacancy rate compared to the entire County, which has an overall vacancy rate of 4 percent.
Table 109: Kearns Vacancy Rates (Source: 2014 ACS) Kearns Salt Lake County
Single-Family Residential 4.7% 2.1% Multi-Family Residential 10.0% 6.3% All Units 5.7% 3.6% DRAFT Housing Size The average single-family detached or townhome unit in Kearns is 1,768 square feet, which is nearly 900 square feet smaller than the County average of 2,626. Likewise, apartment units in Kearns are about 250 square feet smaller than the average apartment in Salt Lake County.
Table 110: Average Unit Size (Sources: SLCO Assessor; EquiMark Multi-Family Report 2014) Year Built Kearns Salt Lake County SFR, Townhome 1,768 2,626 Apartments 604 863
When considering all unit types, approximately 44 percent of all units in Kearns are less than 2,000 square feet.
Table 111: Percent of Residential Units by Unit Square Feet (Source: SLCO Assessor) Year Built Kearns % of Units Kearns Cum. % 999 or less 6% 6% 1,000 – 1,499 27% 33% 1,500 – 1,999 44% 77% 2,000 – 2,499 19% 95% 2,500 – 2,999 3% 99% 3,000 or more 1% 100%
SFR lot sizes in Kearns are smaller than the average SFR lot in Salt Lake County, while townhome lots are of comparable size.
Table 112: Average Lot Size (Source: Salt Lake County Assessor) Year Built Kearns Salt Lake County SFR 0.17 0.27
114 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Year Built Kearns Salt Lake County Townhome 0.15 0.14 Residential units in Kearns have approximately 3.46 bedrooms per unit, compared to 3.11 in Salt Lake County. The table below shows the percent of units by the number of bedrooms. In Kearns, 9 percent of units have no more than 2 bedrooms, compared to 33 percent in Salt Lake County.
Table 113: Percent of Residential Units by Number of Bedrooms (Sources: 2014 ACS) Year Built Kearns Kearns Cum. % SLCO SLCO Cum. % No bedrooms 0% 0% 1% 1% 1 bedroom 1% 2% 10% 11% 2 bedrooms 9% 10% 22% 33% 3 bedrooms 44% 54% 27% 60% 4 bedrooms 35% 88% 22% 82% 5 or more bedrooms 12% 100% 18% 100%
Census data indicates that 6.6 percent of households have more than one occupant per room,19 which is higher than the CountyDRAFT estimate of 4.1 percent of homes.
Table 114: Percent of Households by Number of Occupants per Room (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Kearns Kearns Cum. % SLCO SLCO Cum. % 1.00 or less 93.4% 93.4% 95.9% 95.9% 1.01 to 1.50 6.3% 99.7% 3.4% 99.3% 1.51 or more 0.3% 100.0% 0.7% 100.0%
In Kearns, the number of occupants per room is higher for renter-occupied units than for owner- occupied units. This may indicate either a lack of larger for-rent units, or a lack of larger for-rent units that are also affordable.
Table 115: Percent of Households by Occupants per Room and Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Kearns Kearns Cum. % SLCO SLCO Cum. % Owner Occupied 1.00 or less 94.3% 94.3% 97.8% 97.8% 1.01 to 1.50 5.3% 99.6% 1.8% 99.6% 1.51 or more 0.3% 100.0% 0.3% 100.0% Renter Occupied 1.00 or less 89.0% 89.0% 92.0% 92.0% 1.01 to 1.50 11.0% 100.0% 6.5% 98.5% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 1.4% 100.0%
Housing Quality Kearns is a post-World War II community, and this is reflected in the age of the housing stock. In Kearns, 35 percent of all housing units were built between 1950 and 1959. Although development slowed down in the 1960s, another large portion of Kearns’ housing stock was built during the 1970s. Compared to
19 Includes any rooms in the house
115 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
the entire Country, the age of housing stock in Kearns is fairly comparable to the age of housing stock throughout the County. Assessment records indicate that very little development has occurred in Kearns since 2000, with only 15 units constructed since 2010 and 623 between 2000 and 2009.
Table 116: Percent of Residential Units by Year Built (Sources: SLCO Assessor, 2014 ACS) Kearns Kearns Kearns Salt Lake County Salt Lake County Year Built Units % of Units Cum. % % of Units Cum. % 1939 or earlier 0 0% 0% 9% 9% 1940 to 1949 0 0% 0% 4% 13% 1950 to 1959 3,535 35% 35% 10% 23% 1960 to 1969 62 1% 36% 9% 32% 1970 to 1979 2,668 27% 62% 20% 52% 1980 to 1989 1,518 15% 78% 14% 66% 1990 to 1999 1,615 16% 94% 16% 82% 2000 to 2009 623 6% 100% 16% 98% 2010 or later 15 0% 100% 2% 100% The condition of unitsDRAFT in Kearns is average, with 74 percent of units indicated as average by the Salt Lake
County Assessor’s Office. As reflected in Year Built and Condition maps, the condition of the unit in large part corresponds with the age of the unit. New units are generally in better condition, while older units typically are in worse condition.
116 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 117: Percent of Residential Units by Condition (Source: SLCO Assessor) Condition Units % Total Cum. % Special Obsolesced 1 0% 0% Excellent 114 1% 1% Very Good 586 6% 7% Good 1,442 14% 21% Average 7,445 74% 95% Fair 432 4% 100% Poor 0 0% 100% NA 30 0% 100% Total 304 100% 100%
DRAFT
Market Values and Rental Rates An overview of housing values and market conditions is given here to further illustrate Kearns’ housing stock. Housing prices are analyzed in more detail in the next section titled “Current Affordable Housing and Need” in regards to affordability for targeted groups.
The 2014 ACS indicates that the median home value in Kearns is $149,700, which is approximately $80,000 less than the County median of $231,000.
117 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The maps below show assessed market value by property and by acres for SFR, townhomes, and condo units within Kearns. Generally, the more expensive units are located in the development directly west of Oquirrh Park, which consequently, was built within the last 15 years. Due to the smaller lot sizes, homes in Kearns generally have a higher market value per acre.
DRAFT
118 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The table below shows the SFR units, listed by the County-assessed market value. These units may also include some accessory dwelling units unlisted by the County.
Table 118: Assessed Housing Values in Kearns (Source: SLCO Assessor) Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cumulative % of Total <$100,000 217 2% 2% $100,000 - $124,999 88 1% 3% $125,000 - $139,999 1,078 11% 14% $140,000 - $149,999 1,225 13% 27% $150,000 - $159,999 1,221 13% 40% $160,000 - $169,999 1,544 16% 56% $170,000 - $179,999 1,106 12% 67% $180,000 - $189,999 692 7% 75% $190,000 - $199,999 614 6% 81% $200,000 - $219,999 950 10% 91% $220,000 - $239,999 555 6% 97% $240,000 - $259,999 DRAFT 233 2% 99% $260,000 - $279,999 69 1% 100% $280,000 - $299,999 13 0% 100% $300,000 - $324,999 3 0% 100% $325,000 - $349,999 - 0% 100% $350,000 - $374,999 - 0% 100% $375,000 - $399,999 - 0% 100% $400,000 - $424,999 - 0% 100% $425,000 - $449,999 - 0% 100% $450,000 - $474,999 - 0% 100% $475,000 - $499,999 - 0% 100% $500,000 - $599,999 - 0% 100% $600,000 - $699,999 - 0% 100% $700,000+ - 0% 100% Total SFR Units 9,608 100% 100%
Rental prices are also important to consider in the affordability of the current housing stock. Kearns currently has approximately 43 MFR units, nearly split evenly between apartments and duplexes. The percent of rental units by gross rent, according to the 2014 ACS, for units in Kearns are listed in the table below.
Table 119: Gross Rent for Rental Units in Kearns (Source: 2014 ACS) Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cumulative % of Total No Rent 44 9.8% 9.8% $0 - $99 - 0.0% 9.8% $100 - $149 - 0.0% 9.8% $150 - $199 - 0.0% 9.8% $200 - $249 - 0.0% 9.8% $250 - $299 - 0.0% 9.8%
119 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cumulative % of Total $300 - $349 7 1.7% 11.5% $350 - $399 - 0.0% 11.5% $400 - $449 - 0.0% 11.5% $450 - $499 - 0.0% 11.5% $500 - $549 2 0.5% 12.0% $550 - $599 3 0.7% 12.7% $600 - $649 2 0.5% 13.2% $650 - $699 - 0.0% 13.2% $700 - $749 5 1.0% 14.2% $750 - $799 12 2.6% 16.9% $800 - $899 13 2.9% 19.7% $900 - $999 42 9.4% 29.2% $1,000 - $1,249 137 31.0% 60.1% $1,250 - $1,499 100 22.6% 82.7% $1,500 - $1,999 76 17.3% 100.0% >$2,000 DRAFT - 0.0% 100.0% Total 442 100% 100%
Percent of Monthly Income to Housing Costs The 2014 ACS estimates that 32 percent of Kearns households spend more than the recommended 30 percent of total monthly income on housing costs.
Table 120: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Kearns SLCO Less than 20 percent 38.1% 39.80% 20 to 29 percent 27.7% 24.70% 30 percent or more 31.6% 33.60% Zero or negative income 0.7% 1.00% No cash rent 1.7% 1.10%
The percent of households that spend more than 30 percent on housing costs is only slightly greater for renter-occupied units than owner-occupied units, indicating a need for more affordable for-sale and for- rent options.
Table 121: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs by Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Kearns SLCO Owner Occupied Less than 20 percent 42.7% 48.10% 20 to 29 percent 25.5% 24.90% 30 percent or more 31.3% 26.70% Zero or negative income 0.5% 0.50% Renter Occupied Less than 20 percent 16.2% 23.00% 20 to 29 percent 37.8% 24.30%
120 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Occupants per Room Kearns SLCO 30 percent or more 34.3% 47.30% Zero or negative income 1.9% 1.90% No cash rent 9.8% 3.30%
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need The findings of the affordability analysis for Kearns include:
Housing is very affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI). Despite the vast majority of units being affordable to households at 80 percent AMI, there is a significant lack of units affordable to low-income households (below 50 percent AMI), especially among single-family housing units.
Availability for Targeted Income Groups As in the housing stock analysis, affordability is broken into two housing categories: one for SFRs, condos, mobile homes, and townhomes and a second for multi-family rentals. The affordability of the first category of units DRAFTis based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. The affordability of multi-family units is based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
SFR, Condo, Townhome, and Mobile Home For the targeted low- and moderate-income households, there are no SFR units that are affordable to households below 30 percent of AMI, 214 units at 50 percent, and 6,448 units available at 80 percent.
Table 122: Number of Affordable SFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Max Home Price # Affordable % of Cum. % Income Max Income Level (4% Mortgage) SFR Units Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $33,180 - 0% 0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $92,445 214 2% 2% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $182,543 6,448 67% 69%
The following map shows all SFR and their affordability. As noted previously, the affordability of units in Kearns corresponds with the age of the unit, with older homes being more affordable than newer homes.
121 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
According to assessment data, one SFR unit that is affordable at 80 percent AMI has been constructed since 2010.
Table 123: Affordable SFR by Year Built Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1939 or earlier - - - - 1940 - 1949 - - - - 1950 - 1959 - - 3,438 61 1960 - 1969 - - 57 5 1970 - 1979 - - 2,145 517 1980 - 1989 - 10 721 694 1990 - 1999 - 204 86 1,032 2000 - 2009 - - - 623 2010 or later - - 1 14 Total - 214 6,448 2,946
122 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordability of SFR by Year Built 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Above 80% AMI
Apartments and DuplexesDRAFT Rentals are generally more affordable to low-income households than purchasing a home. This is definitely the case in Kearns, in which 67 percent of MFR units are affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI.
Table 124: Number of Affordable MFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Monthly # Affordable Cumulative % Income Max % of Units Income Level Rental Max MFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $504 51 12% 12% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $831 27 6% 18% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $1,329 219 50% 67%
Summary of Affordability and Number of Additional Units Needed If only considering whether housing is affordable at the 80 percent of AMI threshold, housing in Kearns is extremely affordable, with 69 percent of units being affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI (see the table below).
Table 125: Number of Affordable Units by Targeted Income Group Household Income Affordable % Households Units Households Level Units Affordable % Cum. % Cum. % < 30% AMI 51 0.5% 9.6% 0.5% 9.6% 30-50% AMI 241 2.4% 12.6% 2.9% 22.2% 50-80% AMI 6,667 66.3% 22.1% 69.3% 44.3%
In many cases, low- to moderate-income households consist of elderly residents who may not have a mortgage. Furthermore, the income for many of these households without a mortgage is not sufficient enough to purchase the home. In order to more accurately state the current housing stock and need for affordable units, the difference in the number of households and number of units by income level shown below exclude households and units that do not currently have a mortgage.
123 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The number of units currently needed for each income group is outlined in the table below. Positive values indicate the number of needed units to meet the current demand; negative values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units. There is a significant lack of units affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI, and 3,942 excess units affordable at up to 80 percent of AMI, indicating that many low- to moderate-income households in Kearns are living in units that are above their income. Furthermore, there is a deficit in units affordable to households above 80 percent of AMI, which means that there are many households that could afford homes that are more expensive than their current home. Working with developers to provide additional housing opportunities for households above the 80 percent threshold will not only increase property values in the area, but could also create a trickle- down effect, shifting homes that were once at a higher threshold into a lower threshold. Overall, there are 2,398 more units affordable to households below 80 percent of AMI than there are households in that income group.
Table 126: Number of Units Currently Needed by Targeted Income Group Households Units Difference Cum. Difference < 30% AMI 695 0 695 695 30-50% AMI DRAFT927 78 849 1,544 50-80% AMI 1,783 5,725 (3,942) (2,398) > 80% AMI 4,562 2,738 1,824 (574) Total 7,967 8,541 (574)
Kearns - Comparison of Units to Households 7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000 Total Units 2,000
1,000
0 < 30% of AMI 30% to 50% of AMI 50% to 80% of AMI > 80% of AMI
Households Units
Affordable Housing – County-Wide Comparison Compared to the other metro townships in Salt Lake County, Kearns is very affordable, third only to Copperton and Magna.
Table 127: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison
124 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cum. Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2% Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Unincorporated Islands 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County Population 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3%
Availability of Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups While fair housing laws and enforcement are an important part of clearing impediments or obstacles to housing opportunities for minorities, the core impediment to fair housing choice is still most often affordability. County-wide minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-income categories. With this in mind, the primary analysis on affordable housing for low-income households is the most important determinationDRAFT of housing availability for minority groups. Some minority racial and ethnic groups in the County and Kearns are below the poverty level at much greater rates than the white and non-Hispanic/Latino population.
Table 128: Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: 2014 ACS) Kearns SLCO Race/Ethnic Salt Lake Race/Ethnic Kearns Population County Population Population Below Poverty Population Below Poverty Level Level Race
White Alone 82.3% 14.9% 83.4% 12.7% Black or African American 1.1% 13.0% 1.6% 10.5% Alone American Indian and Alaska 1.3% 13.1% 0.8% 27.9% Native Alone Asian Alone 1.6% 16.2% 3.5% 32.8% Native Hawaiian and Other 2.3% 2.0% 1.6% 18.0% Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone 7.9% 69.9% 6.3% 24.1% Two or More Races: 3.5% 22.4% 2.7% 30.6% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 32.1% 21.7% 17.5% 26.7% White Alone, Not Hispanic 9.7% 8.5% or Latino
125 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
For Salt Lake County, about 17 percent of the population belongs to a minority and 17 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino (not necessarily the same population, the similar numbers are coincidental). The maps below show in Kearns the Census Block Groups that have populations greater than this County average.
DRAFT
126 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The next maps show these groups overlapped maps of affordable units by income category within Kearns. Upon visual inspection, there doesn’t appear to be any strong correlation with race or ethnicity and affordable units.
DRAFT
127 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
It is also of note whether zoning regulations are any impediment obstacles that would limit the availability of affordable housing in areas with large numbers of minorities. The following maps show the current zoning overlaid with the areas with large numbers of minority groups.
DRAFT
128 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The following zoning categories cover areas with high minority concentrations in Kearns:
Table 129: Kearns Zoning Categories Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments A-1 Low Density, but two-family units are allowed conditionally A-2 Very Low Density C-1 Commercial only C-2/C-2/zc C-3/C-3/zc R-1-5 Restrictions to Accessory Units Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-6 SFR Only Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-8/R-1-8/zc SFR Only Large Lot Size Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-10 DRAFT SFR Only Large Lot Size R-2-6.5 Restrictions to Accessory Units R-2-8 No dwelling groups R-2-10 R-M/R-M/zc R-4-8.5 M-1/M-1/zc Non-residential except very special exceptions, including very large lot size M-2 MD-3/zc
Some common zoning20 and policy issues21 that can be generally limiting on affordable or fair housing availability are listed below. While these may not necessarily be specific to current County zoning laws, they are issues found around the country and are known to have disparate impacts. Caution should be taken around these types of approaches as they can limit fair and affordable housing availability for special groups.
. Codes that provide a definition of a “family,” specifically codes that discuss if family members are defined by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship o Utah courts have not ruled on potentially discriminatory aspects of family definitions but other states have noted that defining a family – specifically in number of people, type of relation and capping the number of unrelated persons in a household – does not serve any legitimate objective under the zoning powers of a municipality. . Limits on unrelated people residing together; . Absence of density bonuses, fee waivers, and accessory units; . Strict zoning requiring conditional use permits for certain housing types, such as accessory units;
20 Salt Lake County Regional Analysis of Impediments 2013 21 http://www.ctfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CFHC-AffirmFurthGuideGrantees.pdf
129 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Community “friendliness” of local zoning ordinances to rental housing that influences the siting of rental housing to segregated areas of the community; . Occupancy limits; . Zones that only permit elderly housing; . Limits on who can live in an affordable housing system, such as local applicants or municipal employees only; . Lack of targeted marketing to protected classes for public housing or subsidy programs; . Requiring large lots and limited areas zoned for multifamily housing; . Tax assessments that are higher in neighborhoods of color; . Failure to have a housing authority or family voucher program; . Lack of a complaint process; and . Lack of training for municipal staff on direct and indirect impacts on fair housing opportunity.
Specific to RDA funds, the failure to actively use RDA set-aside funds for affordable housing in a timely manner – back-loading affordable housing expenditures to the end of the life of the RDA – also contributes to a lack of affordable and fair housing availability.
A more detailed analysisDRAFT of fair housing issues is outlined later in this report.
Availability of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Groups
Disability Countywide, about two-thirds of those with a disability are in very low income households. If this holds true in Kearns, then at least 2,078 individuals with a disability in Kearns need some sort of affordable housing with accessibility and/or wheelchair access. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Assessment and Analysis of Impediments noted that, while the exact number of accessible rental units is untracked, it can be estimated from building permits up to 2013 that there are about 7,400 apartments in the entire County that meet the basic FHA accessibility standards. For those requiring a wheelchair, the supply is much lower with about 285 units in the County available for about 1,800 needing wheelchair access County-wide. Many of these individuals live in assisted care facilities, but many do not. There are no assisted living facilities in Kearns. Not only is this not enough to cover the disability needs in Kearns, but the shortage is magnified when considering the larger need for elderly care.
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Kearns has 1,418 veterans, 191 with a service-connected disability rating; 36.6 percent of all veterans in Kearns are over 65 years of age. This special needs group overlaps with the disability and elderly populations with likely needs for assisted living facilities. However, they also have access to additional resources through the federal government and non-profit programs.
Elderly As mentioned, there are no assisted living and nursing home facilities within Kearns. The Salt Lake County Analysis of Impediments found that the location distribution is generally not heavily determined by zoning, but more by corporate location policies that tend to prefer locations with above average incomes and property values. As a result, opportunities for the elderly and disabled to live in care facilities are more available in and around Millcreek, White City, and the Unincorporated Islands and less available in Kearns and Magna.
130 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Other Groups For 2015, there were an estimated 2,140 SLCo Homeless and Transitional Shelter individuals22 that were without permanent (Beds) housing in Salt Lake County. On one single 24 night count of these individuals, among Emergency them were 548 victims of domestic violence 334 Shelter (both adults and children) and 286 veterans. There are an estimated 4,517 1,506 Transitional beds available across the various providers Housing in the County – more than enough to cover the County’s needs for these special and at- 1,929 Permanent risk groups. Kearns is relatively close to a Supportive number of the shelters, though none of 724 Housing them are located in Kearns. While the Rapid Re-Housing population of displaced individuals is likely concentrated in Salt Lake City, it’s possible Safe Haven that the lack of distribution of shelters in the County may be harmfulDRAFT to individuals in urgent need or with transportation difficulty.
22 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
131 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections
Population Projections Population projections for the next five to ten years were formed using both Census block data and the population figures listed by the American Community Survey (ACS). These populations from 2010 and 2014 established the baseline growth rate that was then extended into straight-line projections for the future populations of each community.
Table 130: Population Estimates and Projections AAGR 2010 2014 2010- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2014 Kearns 35,776 34,865 -0.643% 34,641 34,418 34,197 33,977 33,759 33,542
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Kearns 33,326DRAFT 33,112 32,899 32,688 32,478 32,269
Targeted Groups – Projections
Income Groups Projections for income groups assume a similar proportion of the households will fall into the targeted income groups as they do today.
Table 131: Projected Households and Population by Targeted Income Group < 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Cum. Total % Households 9.60% 12.60% 22.10% 44.3% 2014 Households 909 1,191 2,096 4,196 2021 Households 880 1,153 2,029 4,061 2026 Households 851 1,114 1,961 3,926
Disability The proportion of those with a disability is also expected to stay the same. These proportions are based on the 2014 population to directly compare ACS disability data. However, the proportions are then applied to the 2021 and 2026 projections. Many low-income households are represented by disabled populations that have a high need for accessible rental housing.
Table 132: Projected Disability Population in 2021 Total 2021 Population: 33,326 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 467 1,602 910 2,979 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 78 329 411 818 With a Vision Difficulty 0 55 249 157 462 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 271 672 251 1,194 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 87 938 587 1,612 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 87 201 174 462
132 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Total 2021 Population: 33,326 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 702 379 1,081
Table 133: Projected Disability Population in 2026 Total 2026 Population: 32,269 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 453 1,551 881 2,885 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 76 318 398 792 With a Vision Difficulty 0 54 242 152 447 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 262 651 243 1,156 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 84 908 568 1,560 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 84 194 168 447 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 679 367 1,047
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Kearns has 1,418 veterans, 191 with a service-connected disability rating; 36.6 percent of all veterans in Kearns are over 65 years of age. To project the number of veterans for the next five to ten years, twoDRAFT approaches were taken based on the assumption that there are two primary groupings – senior veterans that were drafted and younger veterans that enlisted voluntarily at a lower rate. To project the number of the younger group under 65 years old, the 2014 population proportion was maintained and applied to the total population. For those over 65, Salt Lake County’s mortality rate23 of 7.8 per year per 1000 people for those 55 to 65 and older was applied, assuming this group would not grow with the population. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 134: Projected Veteran Population Veterans in Kearns 2014 2021 2026 Under 65 899 859 832 Over 65 519 491 472 Total 1,418 1,350 1,304
Elderly There were 2,135 individuals living in Kearns over 65 years old in 2014. This represents over six percent of Kearns’ population. The proprotion of elderly age groups in Kearns has remained fairly steady since 2000, so it is assumed that the population will continue to maintain the same proportion of elderly residents with future population changes.
Table 135: Projected Elderly Population Population 2014 2021 2026 Total 65 and Over 2,135 2,041 1,976
Other Groups Populations for youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, or the homeless, are measured on a regional basis. The numbers in these categories are largely independent of population growth and any population in these categories are likely temporary or transitionary. Housing facilitites
23 CDC WONDER data, 1999-2014
133 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
in these categories are located regionally and the County provides operational support to the regional programs.
Forecast of Affordable Housing Need The following section analyzes the future demand for housing in Kearns using population projections, historical building permit data, and current projects in the development pipeline.
Expected Housing Construction Salt Lake County building permit data indicates that approximately two single-family building permits have been issued per year in Kearns between 2010 and 2015. No other types of residential building permits were issued during this time.
Table 136: Kearns Residential Building Permits (Source: SLCO Planning) Annual 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Single 1 1 2 5 2 1 12 2.00 Family DRAFT
As of February 2017, there were two housing developments with current permits in the development pipeline in Kearns, for a total of 37 additional lots or units. Pricing for these units was not currently available.
Table 137: Current Permit Projects Development Type Total Developments Total Units PUD 1 20 units Subdivision 1 17 lots Total 2 37 lots/units
Projected Number of Needed Housing Units The population counts are used for basic demographic reference; however, to project housing unit needs the number of households were calculated in a slightly different manner in order to correspond with differing data from the County Assessor. To make this data consistent, the total number of households was based on the number of units listed by the Assessor multiplied by the occupancy rate listed by ACS for each metro township. To translate these figures to low and moderate income group distributions that value was then multiplied by the percentage of households in each income group (ACS) to determine the number of households in each targeted income group. The table below shows these household numbers by income group. Due to the projected decline in population and households in Kearns, it is not anticipated that Kearns will have additional demand for affordable housing through 2026.
Table 138: Total Affordable Housing Needs by Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Projected Projected Projected Current Current Current 10-year Total 10-year Total 10-year Total Need Need Need Need Need Need Kearns 695 (58) 637 849 (77) 772 (3,942) (135) (4,077)
134 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Magna
Key Findings Housing in Magna is extremely affordable, with 70 percent of units being affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI. There is, however, a significant lack of units affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI. Furthermore, there is a deficit in units affordable to households above 80 percent of AMI, which means that there are many households that could afford homes that are more expensive than their current home. DRAFT
Summary Magna is located in the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County. Census figures estimate that Magna is the third largest metro township, behind Millcreek and Kearns. Magna has lower household and per capita incomes, and larger household sizes than the County. Furthermore, the median age in Magna is slightly below the County median. The housing stock in Magna is primarily single-family homes and in average or above-average condition. The age of housing stock in Magna varies greatly; however, the County reports fewer new developments occurring in recent years. Housing in Magna is very affordable, with 70 percent of housing units affordable to moderate –income households.
135 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Population & Demographics Demographic characteristics greatly influence housing demands. Population growth, age, income and other characteristics of an area’s population influence what types of housing are desired and how many units need to be available. This section evaluates these factors in Magna. This section will also summarize how the population has changed over the past decade and address the number of households Magna has in targeted income groups with needs for affordable housing. Current demographic data is according to the most recent data as available – usually the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated for 2014 unless otherwise noted.
Population The population in Magna has risen slightly in past years. The 2010 population was 26,520 while the 2014 population was 28,182 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 1.532 percent. In 2000, the area’s population was 21,851. The area’s population is expected to remain fairly constant, projected to rise at the same rate to 33,821 by 2026.
Table 139: Salt Lake County Population Estimates and Projections (Source: 2014 ACS) AAGR DRAFT2010 2014 2015 2016 2010-2014 Magna 26,520 28,182 1.532% 28,614 29,052
Age and Household Size Magna has an average household size compared to the County with 3.56 people per household. Magna’s household size is much larger than the national average of 2.63 and even higher than the Utah average of 3.14. The average household size has grown since 2000 when the household size in Kearns was 3.46 persons per household.
Table 140: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Avg. HH Size Herriman 4.00 Bluffdale 3.74 Riverton 3.64 Kearns 3.61 South Jordan 3.60 West Valley 3.57 Magna 3.56 West Jordan 3.45 Draper city 3.38 White City 3.22 Sandy 3.13 Taylorsville 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon 2.98 Cottonwood Heights 2.82 Copperton 2.74 Holladay 2.66
136 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Municipality Avg. HH Size South Salt Lake 2.66 Midvale 2.60 Murray 2.56 Millcreek 2.51 Salt Lake City 2.47 Alta 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
Magna’s median age is 28.6 years old with 54.1 percent of households with children, making it one of the youngest communities in the County. Magna also has among the lowest proportion of population over 65 years old. Magna’s median age is lower than the very low Utah and Salt Lake County medians of 29.9 and 31.5 respectively than the national average of 37.4. Magna’s median age has risen, up from 25.8 in 2000. DRAFT
Table 141: Median Age and % of Population by Group (Source: 2014 ACS) Median % HHs w/ Pop. % of Total Age Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Herriman 21.6 Herriman 72.6% 2.8% Bluffdale 28.0 Riverton 57.0% 6.4% Magna 28.6 Magna 54.1% 5.3% West Jordan 29.4 West Jordan 51.9% 5.4% Riverton 29.5 Draper 51.1% 5.9%
137 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Median % HHs w/ Pop. % of Total Age Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Kearns 29.5 Kearns 51.0% 6.1% South Salt Lake 29.8 Bluffdale 50.6% 5.0% West Valley 30.1 West Valley 50.1% 7.4% South Jordan 30.8 South Jordan 48.9% 7.8% Midvale 31.0 Copperton 42.8% 18.5% Draper 31.1 Sandy 42.2% 10.5% Salt Lake City 31.4 White City 39.5% 13.4% Taylorsville 32.2 Taylorsville 38.3% 9.7% White City 32.6 Emigration Canyon 37.8% 9.2% Sandy 34.6 South Salt Lake 35.3% 6.5% Murray 34.9 Cottonwood Heights 34.9% 13.4% Cottonwood Heights 35.6 Midvale 31.8% 9.2% Copperton 35.9 Holladay 30.1% 17.6% Millcreek DRAFT36.1 Murray 29.1% 13.8% Holladay 38.1 Millcreek 27.8% 15.9% Alta 42.2 Salt Lake City 27.6% 9.9% Emigration Canyon 44.4 Alta 13.0% 5.0% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA NA
Magna’s population distribution is more exaggerated than the rest of the County, with less population in older age groups and more in younger groups.
Salt Lake County Magna 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 Years -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%
While most of the age categories have remained at roughly the same levels since 2000, there have been increases in the 25-40-year-old categories.
138 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Magna Age Categories – Trends 3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
2014 ACS 2009 ACS 2000 Census DRAFT Income Household incomes in Magna are slightly lower than the County median. Magna’s median household income is $55,913 compared to the County at $61,446. Magna has among the lower per capita incomes in the County at $18,738 per person. After adjusting for inflation, the 2000 median household income was higher at $59,953 and the per capita was $20,087.
Table 142: Household and Per Capita Incomes (Source: 2014 ACS) Median HH Income Per Capita Income Emigration Canyon $175,272 Emigration Canyon $74,607 Draper $94,852 Holladay $40,211 South Jordan $91,228 Cottonwood Heights $38,477 Bluffdale $88,731 Draper $34,083 Riverton $84,718 Millcreek $32,362 Herriman $78,141 Sandy $31,552 Sandy $78,048 Alta $31,210 Alta $77,500 Bluffdale $30,137 Cottonwood Heights $76,630 South Jordan $29,964 Holladay $72,827 Murray $29,013 West Jordan $69,404 Salt Lake City $28,428 Salt Lake County $61,446 Riverton $28,013 White City $60,219 Salt Lake County $26,747 Taylorsville $57,779 Midvale $23,716 Millcreek $57,429 Taylorsville $23,224 Kearns $57,097 Herriman $22,840 Magna $55,913 West Jordan $22,808 Murray $53,797 White City $21,691 West Valley City $52,814 Magna $18,738
139 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Median HH Income Per Capita Income Midvale $51,077 West Valley City $18,179 Salt Lake City $45,833 Kearns $17,764 Copperton $43,450 Copperton $17,458 South Salt Lake $37,238 South Salt Lake $17,421 Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
DRAFT
140 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Magna has among the highest representations in middle-class income brackets, compared to the County as a whole. and has good representation in upper middle-class income brackets.
Table 143: Households by Income Bracket (Source: 2014 ACS) Households by Income Bracket Magna Salt Lake County Less than $10,000 3.4% 5.0% $10,000 to $14,999 3.4% 3.8% $15,000 to $24,999 9.1% 8.8% $25,000 to $34,999 11.3% 9.0% $35,000 to $49,999 14.8% 13.2% $50,000 to $74,999 27.7% 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 14.7% 14.8% $100,000 to $149,999 12.1% 14.8% $150,000 to $199,999 1.6% 5.1% $200,000 or more 2.0% 4.8%
141 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
Magna Salt Lake County
DRAFTIncome Distribution
Employment Magna has the lowest employment activity when compared to other areas of the County besides Kearns and White City with decreasing employment since 2004. The ratio of jobs per household is 0.4, indicating that more people commute out of Magna than commute in to work.
Table 144: Employment by City (Source: DWS; 2014 ACS; ZPFI) 2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Alta NA NA NA 54 NA Copperton 1,954 NA NA 304 NA Emigration Canyon NA NA NA 878 NA Remaining NA NA NA 5,381 NA Unincorporated South Salt Lake 27,827 33,879 46,207 8,540 5.41 Salt Lake City 197,906 234,499 239,627 74,652 3.21 Murray 42,372 42,599 47,525 18,646 2.55 Draper 12,010 21,437 28,276 12,287 2.30 West Valley City 54,215 64,386 64,557 36,946 1.75 Sandy 36,834 40,415 46,824 28,478 1.64 Cottonwood Heights 14,889 6,051 19,093 12,042 1.59 South Jordan 12,883 15,515 23,408 15,713 1.49 Bluffdale 701 3,020 3,204 2,220 1.44 Midvale 20,845 12,329 15,287 11,434 1.34 Millcreek NA 19,578 27,349 25,085 1.09 West Jordan 19,180 26,237 30,735 31,116 0.99 Taylorsville 11,044 16,698 18,968 19,570 0.97 Riverton 4,318 6,843 9,394 11,044 0.85 Holladay 18,959 3,583 8,430 10,054 0.84
142 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Herriman NA 1,276 2,493 6,257 0.40 Magna 5,229 5,647 3,543 8,920 0.40 Kearns 6,246 3,650 3,433 10,652 0.32 White City NA 171 249 1,812 0.14 Note: For those areas noted as “NA”, data was not collected by DWS for those years.
The venn diagram to the right illustrates the commuting and employment situation in Magna. Most people leave Magna to work elsewhere with very few working in Magna and even fewer living and working there.
Of employees working in Magna, admin & support, waste management and remediation services is the largest employment sector at 24.5 percent, followed by manufacturing at 18.5 percent. Of Magna’s residents, the sectors most representedDRAFT are manufacturing and retail trade.
Table 145: Percent of Employees by Industry (Source: Census “On the Map”) % Employees Working in Magna % Magna Residents Agriculture, Forestry, Finishing and Hunting 0.0% 0.3% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.4% 0.7% Utilities 0.6% 0.3% Construction 5.2% 7.3% Manufacturing 18.5% 12.4% Wholesale Trade 1.5% 5.3% Retail Trade 10.4% 11.6% Transportation and Warehousing 2.0% 6.4% Information 0.1% 1.8% Finance and Insurance 1.8% 4.9% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.3% 1.3% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1.2% 5.3% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.1% 1.9% Admin. & Support, Waste Mgt. and Remediation 24.5% 9.0% Educational Services 17.0% 8.1% Health Care and Social Assistance 8.6% 9.2% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.5% 1.0% Accommodation and Food Services 5.5% 6.9% Other Services 1.9% 2.3% Public Administration 0.0% 4.1%
143 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Transportation Average commute times for working individuals in Magna are higher than the average for Salt Lake County. The average travel time to work for individuals in Magna is 22.9 minutes, which is slightly above the County average of 22.3 minutes. Approximately 45 percent of individuals in Salt Lake County commute less than 20 minutes each way to work, compared to 38 percent in Magna.
Table 146: Commute Times to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Magna Salt Lake County Magna Salt Lake County Cum. % Cum. % Less than 5 minutes 1% 2% 1% 2% 5 to 9 minutes 7% 9% 8% 11% 10 to 14 minutes 10% 15% 19% 25% 15 to 19 minutes 19% 19% 38% 45% 20 to 24 minutes 23% 20% 61% 65% 25 to 29 minutes 9% 7% 69% 72% 30 to 34 minutes 18% 15% 87% 87% 35 to 39 minutes DRAFT1% 2% 88% 89% 40 to 44 minutes 4% 3% 92% 92% 45 to 59 minutes 4% 5% 96% 96% 60 to 89 minutes 3% 2% 99% 99% 90 or more minutes 1% 1% 100% 100%
A very small portion of Magna households do not have at least one vehicle available. Generally speaking, households in Magna have more vehicles compared to the entire Salt Lake County. The high percentage of households that have at least one vehicle may be indicative of limited public transportation options in Magna.
Table 147: Number of Vehicles per Household (Source: 2014 ACS) Magna Salt Lake County
No vehicles 5% 6% 1 vehicle 25% 30% 2 vehicles 43% 41% 3 or more vehicles 27% 24%
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) currently has 2 bus routes that run through Magna, with approximately 35 stops. One of the routes is a standard-service route, while the other is the MAX BRT line, which is a more efficient route with fewer stops. There are currently no light or commuter rail stations in Magna, and the closest is approximately 5.5 miles away.24 Despite no commuter rail stops being located in Magna, both bus routes that run through Magna provide direct access to the nearest light rail station.
24 West Valley Central Station (2750 West 3590 South)
144 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Despite the number of bus routes in Magna, approximately only 2 percent of working individuals in Magna use public transportation as a means of transportation to work. Further analysis of the use of specific routes in Magna may identify the effectiveness of the current routes in getting passengers to key employment centers. Increased public transit options, and the location of affordable housing near public transit, can help to increase ridership while simultaneously decreasing monthly household expenses for transportation, ultimately increasing the total amount that could be put to housing.
Table 148: Means of Transportation to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Magna Salt Lake County
Car – Drive Alone 78.2% 76.0% Car – Carpooled 14.5% 11.8% Public Transportation 2.0% 3.5% Walk 0.5% 2.1% Bicycle 0.0% 0.8% Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other 1.4% 1.1% Work at Home 3.4% 4.6%
145 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Education Magna has one of the lowest education rates in the County with 80.8 percent of residents with a high school degree and only 9.4 percent of residents with a college degree. The maps and tables below show how Magna compares to the rest of the County in both High School and College graduation rates.
Table 149: Percent of Population by Education Level (Source: 2014 ACS) % High School or % Bachelors or Higher Higher Emigration Canyon 98.6% Emigration Canyon 67.8% Bluffdale 97.4% Holladay 51.5% Cottonwood Heights 96.7% Cottonwood Heights 46.8% Herriman 96.6% Millcreek 42.2% Holladay 96.5% Salt Lake City 42.1% South Jordan 96.4% Draper 39.8% Draper 96.3% South Jordan 38.7% Riverton 96.1% Sandy 38.7% Sandy DRAFT95.5% Alta 36.8% Millcreek 94.0% Riverton 31.4% White City 93.7% Murray 30.0% Murray 92.3% Bluffdale 29.9% Copperton 91.0% Herriman 29.4% West Jordan 90.4% White City 24.4% Taylorsville 89.0% Midvale 23.8% Alta 88.4% West Jordan 23.5% Salt Lake City 86.5% South Salt Lake 23.3% Midvale 85.9% Taylorsville 20.5% Magna 80.8% West Valley City 12.7% South Salt Lake 78.4% Kearns 11.0% Kearns 77.9% Magna 9.4% West Valley City 77.7% Copperton 5.3% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
146 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
147 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Race and Ethnicity Compared to the County-wide proportion, Magna is slightly less racially diverse than the County overall; however, it is more diverse than many other parts of the County. It is ethnically diverse in its Hispanic or Latino population of any race. Magna and the northwest portion of the County have strong Hispanic and Latino representation.
Table 150: Percent of Population by Race (Source: 2014 ACS) Magna Salt Lake County
Race
White Alone 85.0% 83.40% Black or African American Alone 0.3% 1.64% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.8% 0.80% Asian Alone 1.1% 3.53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 1.4% 1.57% Some Other Race Alone 7.7% 6.34% Two or More Races: 3.8% 2.71% Ethnicity DRAFT Hispanic or Latino 26.8% 17.47%
Maps show that Magna is one of the more diverse areas in the County. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment noted that a dissimilarity index based on 2012 data showed high concentrations of minorities compared to white populations in Magna. The map below showing this index clearly shows significant portions of Magna with a high rate of racial dissimilarity.
148 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
149 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Special Needs Groups
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Magna has 1,037 veterans, 148 with a service-connected disability rating; 25 percent of all veterans in Magna are over 65 years of age.
DRAFT
Disability Among the noninstitutionalized population, 9.4 percent of the population is estimated to have a disability. For people under 18 years old, 7.2 percent have a disability, 9.5 percent for those between 18 and 64 years old, and 36.1 percent of those 65 and over. A total of 2,649 individuals were noted in 2014 as having a disability in Magna. The table below shows for those that report a disability, the types of disabilities by age that could need accommodation in housing choices.
Table 151: Total Population with a Disability (Source: 2014 ACS) Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 8 464 1,640 537 2,649 With a hearing difficulty 8 42 211 236 497 With a vision difficulty 0 86 157 29 272 With a cognitive difficulty NA 363 859 135 1,357 With an ambulatory difficulty NA 0 707 334 1,041 With a self-care difficulty NA 10 354 91 455 With an independent living difficulty NA NA 702 270 972
150 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Elderly There were 1,494 individuals living in Magna over 65 years old in 2014. This represents 5.3 percent of Magna’s population. This is one of the lowest proportions for a metro township or municipality in the County, indicating that Magna has a relatively low senior population.
Table 152: Percent of Population over 65 Years Old (Source: 2014 ACS) West Herriman Alta Bluffdale Magna Draper Kearns Riverton Jordan 2.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4%
South Salt West South Emigration Salt Lake Midvale Taylorsville Sandy Lake Valley Jordan Canyon City 6.5% 4.4% 7.8 9.2% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 10.5%
Cottonwood White Murray Millcreek Holladay Copperton Heights City 13.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.9% 17.6% 18.5%
151 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Other Groups Individuals that are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, or youth aging out of foster care are often tracked by the various Local Homeless Coordinating Committees25 for a given area – Salt Lake County is represented by a single LHCC which collects data in each of these special populations. For 2015, it was estimated that there are a total of 2,140 individuals that are without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On a single night count, there were 548 individuals that were counted as victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 were veterans.
Current Housing Stock Magna is heavily single-family homes “SFR”, with SFR comprising 88 percent of all units in Magna. The age of housing stock in Magna varies greatly; however, the County reports fewer new developments occurring in recent years. Most homes in Magna have a condition that is average or above average, likely a result of 47 percent of all units having been built since 1980. This section relies primarily on the most recent Salt Lake County property assessments to determine the current available housing stock, with supplemental information from the ACS.
Total Housing Units with Breakdown by Type and Occupancy As of the 2016 CountyDRAFT assessment, there are a total of 8,303 units in Magna, including all single-family residences, townhomes, mobile homes, duplexes, condos, apartment units. Detailed totals are given in the table below. For the purposes of this study, all single-family units (i.e., SFRs, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes) are grouped and analyzed as for-sale product, while multi-family residential units (i.e., duplexes and apartment units) are grouped and analyzed as for-rent product.
Table 153: Residential Units by Type (Source: SLCO Assessor) Unit Type Total Percent of Total Single-Family Residential 7,373 88.4% Condo 292 3.5% Townhome 199 2.4% SFR 6,650 79.7% SFR w/ Mother-in-law Apt 6 0.1% SFR - Multiple Homes 18 0.2% Multi-Family Residential 930 11.1% Apartment 569 6.8% Duplex 170 2.0% Low Income 178 2.1% Mother-in-law Apartment 6 0.1% Other MFR 7 0.1% Total 8,303 100.0%
The 2014 ACS estimates a low vacancy rate for Magna, including 5 percent for SFR, 4 percent of MFR, and 4 percent for all units. Overall vacancy rates in Magna are slightly higher than those found elsewhere in Salt Lake County.
25 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
152 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 154: Magna Vacancy Rates (Source: 2014 ACS) Unit Type Magna Salt Lake County Single-Family Residential 4.6% 2.1% Multi-Family Residential 3.8% 6.3% All Units 4.4% 3.6%
Housing Size The average single-family detached or townhome unit in Magna is 1,920 square feet, which approximately 700 square feet smaller than the County average of 2,626 square feet. Apartment units in Magna, however, are approximately 100 square feet larger than other apartment units in Salt Lake County.
Table 155: Average Unit Size (Sources: Salt Lake County Assessor; EquiMark Multi-Family Report 2014) Unit Type Magna Salt Lake County SFR, Townhome 1,920 2,626 Apartments 993 863 DRAFT When considering all unit types, approximately 69 percent of all units in Magna are less than 2,000 square feet.
Table 156: Percent of Residential Units by Unit Square Feet (Source: SLCO Assessor) Square Feet Magna % of Units Magna Cum. % 999 or less 11% 11% 1,000 – 1,499 24% 35% 1,500 – 1,999 34% 69% 2,000 – 2,499 20% 89% 2,500 – 2,999 6% 96% 3,000 or more 4% 100%
Lot sizes in Magna are comparable to lot sizes throughout Salt Lake County. The average SFR lot in Magna is 0.22 acres, compared to 0.27 in Salt Lake County. Similarly, townhome lots in Magna and the County are on average 0.14 acres.
Table 157: Average Lot Size (Source: Salt Lake County Assessor) Unit Type Magna Salt Lake County SFR 0.21 0.27 Townhome 0.14 0.14
Residential units in Magna have approximately 3.36 bedrooms per unit, compared to 3.11 in Salt Lake County. The table below shows the percent of units by the number of bedrooms. In Magna, only 20 percent of units have no more than 2 bedrooms, compared to 33 percent in Salt Lake County. On the other hand, 40 percent of units in Salt Lake County have 4 or more bedrooms, compared to 45 percent in Magna.
153 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 158: Percent of Residential Units by Number of Bedrooms (Sources: 2014 ACS) Magna SLCO Bedrooms Magna SLCO Cum. % Cum. % No bedrooms 0% 0% 1% 1% 1 bedroom 3% 3% 10% 11% 2 bedrooms 17% 20% 22% 33% 3 bedrooms 34% 55% 27% 60% 4 bedrooms 31% 86% 22% 82% 5 or more bedrooms 14% 100% 18% 100%
Census data indicates that 5.4 percent of Magna households have more than one occupant per room,26 which is higher than the County estimate of 4.1 percent of homes.
Table 159: Percent of Households by Number of Occupants per Room (Source: 2014 ACS) Magna SLCO Occupants per Room Magna SLCO Cum. % Cum. % 1.00 or less DRAFT94.6% 94.6% 95.9% 95.9% 1.01 to 1.50 4.7% 99.3% 3.4% 99.3% 1.51 or more 0.7% 100.0% 0.7% 100.0%
In Magna, the number of occupants per room is higher for renter-occupied units than for owner- occupied units. This may indicate either a lack of larger for-rent units, or a lack of larger for-rent units that are also affordable.
Table 160: Percent of Households by Occupants per Room and Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Magna SLCO Occupants per Room Magna SLCO Cum. % Cum. % Owner Occupied 1.00 or less 95.8% 95.8% 97.8% 97.8% 1.01 to 1.50 3.7% 99.5% 1.8% 99.6% 1.51 or more 0.5% 100.0% 0.3% 100.0% Renter Occupied 1.00 or less 90.3% 90.3% 92.0% 92.0% 1.01 to 1.50 8.5% 98.8% 6.5% 98.5% 1.51 or more 1.2% 100.0% 1.4% 100.0%
Housing Quality The age of housing units in Magna is fairly comparable to the age of housing stock through the County, with 68 percent of units built since 1960. Very little new development has occurred in Magna in recent years, with only 115 new units since 2010.
26 Includes any rooms in the house
154 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 161: Percent of Residential Units by Year Built (Sources: SLCO Assessor, 2014 ACS) Magna % Magna SLCO % SLCO Year Built Magna Units of Units Cum. % of Units Cum. % 1939 or earlier 933 11% 11% 9% 9% 1940 to 1949 430 5% 16% 4% 13% 1950 to 1959 927 11% 28% 10% 23% 1960 to 1969 355 4% 32% 9% 32% 1970 to 1979 1,729 21% 53% 20% 52% 1980 to 1989 1,247 15% 68% 14% 66% 1990 to 1999 1,454 18% 85% 16% 82% 2000 to 2009 1,113 13% 99% 16% 98% 2010 or later 115 1% 100% 2% 100% DRAFT
The condition of units in Magna is about average, with 48 percent of units indicated as average by the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office. Furthermore, 33 percent of units are listed as above average (i.e., excellent, very good, or good). The above average to average condition of units in Magna is likely a result of the amount of newer housing stock.
155 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 162: Percent of Residential Units by Condition (Source: SLCO Assessor) Condition Units % Total Cum. % Special Obsolesced 9 0% 0% Excellent 564 7% 7% Very Good 777 9% 16% Good 1,368 16% 33% Average 3,989 48% 81% Fair 1,222 15% 95% Poor 76 1% 96% Other 298 4% 100% Total 8,303 100% 100%
Market Values and Rental Rates An overview of housing values and market conditions is given here to further illustrate Magna’s housing stock. Housing prices are analyzed in more detail in the next section titled “Current Affordable Housing and Need” in regards to affordability for targeted groups. DRAFT This study considers two housing categories: a category that includes SFRs, condos, townhomes, and mobile homes; and a second category for multi-family rentals. The first category represents units that are individually assessed and can be bought and sold as a single unit. While a portion of these units are rented, rental rates are unknown and the unit can become owner-occupied. The values of these units, regardless of rental status, are based on their market value as given by the County. Multi-family rentals include duplexes and apartments, and are studied by their rental rates, based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
The 2014 ACS indicates that the median home value in Magna is $147,100, over $84,000 less than the County median of $231,000.
The following maps show assessed market value by property and by acres for SFR, townhomes, and condo units within Magna. There does not appear to be any clustering of more expensive units. The market value per acre is in Magna increases due to the smaller lot sizes.
156 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
The table below shows the SFR units, listed by the County-assessed market value. These units may also include some accessory dwelling units unlisted by the County.
Table 163: Assessed Housing Values in Magna (Source: SLCO Assessor) Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total <$100,000 539 7% 7% $100,000 - $124,999 662 9% 16% $125,000 - $139,999 699 9% 26% $140,000 - $149,999 758 10% 36% $150,000 - $159,999 797 11% 47% $160,000 - $169,999 848 12% 58% $170,000 - $179,999 679 9% 68% $180,000 - $189,999 538 7% 75% $190,000 - $199,999 459 6% 81% $200,000 - $219,999 693 9% 90% $220,000 - $239,999 356 5% 95% $240,000 - $259,999 149 2% 97% $260,000 - $279,999 82 1% 98%
157 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total $280,000 - $299,999 43 1% 99% $300,000 - $324,999 24 0% 99% $325,000 - $349,999 19 0% 100% $350,000 - $374,999 9 0% 100% $375,000 - $399,999 5 0% 100% $400,000 - $424,999 6 0% 100% $425,000 - $449,999 1 0% 100% $450,000 - $474,999 3 0% 100% $475,000 - $499,999 - 0% 100% $500,000 - $599,999 1 0% 100% $600,000 - $699,999 - 0% 100% $700,000+ 3 0% 100% Total SFR Units 7,373 100% 100%
Rental prices are also important to consider in the affordability of the current housing stock. Magna currently has approximDRAFTately 930 MFR units, most of which are apartment units. The percent of rental units by gross rent, according to the 2014 ACS, for units in Magna are listed in the table below.
Table 164: Gross Rent for Rental Units in Magna (Source: 2014 ACS) Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total No Rent 8 0.9% 0.9% $0 - $99 - 0.0% 0.9% $100 - $149 - 0.0% 0.9% $150 - $199 - 0.0% 0.9% $200 - $249 28 3.1% 4.0% $250 - $299 12 1.2% 5.2% $300 - $349 - 0.0% 5.2% $350 - $399 15 1.6% 6.8% $400 - $449 6 0.6% 7.4% $450 - $499 - 0.0% 7.4% $500 - $549 10 1.1% 8.5% $550 - $599 4 0.5% 8.9% $600 - $649 30 3.2% 12.2% $650 - $699 24 2.5% 14.7% $700 - $749 63 6.8% 21.5% $750 - $799 78 8.4% 29.9% $800 - $899 90 9.7% 39.6% $900 - $999 141 15.2% 54.8% $1,000 - $1,249 211 22.7% 77.5% $1,250 - $1,499 168 18.1% 95.6% $1,500 - $1,999 27 2.9% 98.5% >$2,000 14 1.5% 100.0% Total 930 100% 100%
158 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Percent of Monthly Income to Housing Costs The 2014 ACS estimates that 33 percent of Magna households spend more than the recommended 30 percent of total monthly income on housing costs.
Table 165: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Magna SLCO Less than 20 percent 40.5% 39.80% 20 to 29 percent 26.0% 24.70% 30 percent or more 33.1% 33.60% Zero or negative income 0.2% 1.00% No cash rent 0.2% 1.10%
The percent of households that spend more than 30 percent on housing costs is greater for renter- occupied units than owner-occupied units, indicating a need for more affordable rental options. In both cases, these estimates in Magna are more than the countywide estimates.
Table 166: Percent of DRAFTMonthly Income Spent on Housing Costs by Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Magna SLCO Owner Occupied Less than 20 percent 45.6% 48.10% 20 to 29 percent 25.6% 24.90% 30 percent or more 28.6% 26.70% Zero or negative income 0.3% 0.50% Renter Occupied Less than 20 percent 23.5% 23.00% 20 to 29 percent 27.0% 24.30% 30 percent or more 48.7% 47.30% Zero or negative income 0.0% 1.90% No cash rent 0.9% 3.30%
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need The findings of the affordability analysis for Magna include:
Housing is very affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI). Despite the vast majority of units being affordable to households at 80 percent AMI, there are very few units affordable to households with very low incomes (30 percent AMI).
Availability for Targeted Income Groups As in the housing stock analysis, affordability is broken into two housing categories: one for SFRs, condos, mobile homes, and townhomes and a second for multi-family rentals. The affordability of the first category of units is based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. The affordability of multi-family units is based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
159 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
SFR, Condo, Townhome, and Mobile Home For the targeted low- and moderate-income households, there are only two SFR units that are affordable to households below 30 percent of AMI, and only 439 units available at 50 percent. The vast majority of affordable SFR units are within the 50 to 80 percent of AMI group, with 4,597 units.
Table 167: Number of Affordable SFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Max Home Price # Affordable Cum. % Income Max % of Units Income Level (4% Mortgage) SFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $32,848 2 0.0% 0.0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $91,521 439 6.0% 6.0% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $180,719 4,597 62.3% 68.3%
The following map shows all SFR and their affordability. Unlike, other communities, the affordability of units in Magna does notDRAFT necessarily correspond with the age of the unit.
According to assessment data, 16 SFR units that are affordable at 80 percent AMI have been constructed since 2010.
Table 168: Affordable SFR by Year Built Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1939 or earlier - 102 748 37 1940 - 1949 - 6 105 7
160 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1950 - 1959 - 4 845 58 1960 - 1969 - 3 202 70 1970 - 1979 2 3 1,352 294 1980 - 1989 - 212 897 122 1990 - 1999 - 107 311 760 2000 - 2009 - 1 122 888 2010 or later - 1 15 99 Total 2 439 4,597 2,335
Affordability of SFR by Year Built 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% DRAFT 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Above 80% AMI
Apartments and Duplexes Rentals are generally more affordable to low-income households than purchasing a home. This is definitely the case in Magna, in which 83 percent of MFR units are affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI. Furthermore, a greater percent of MFR units are affordable at 50 percent of AMI than are SFR units at the same income threshold. Like SFR, however, there is a lack of units at 30 percent of AMI, with only 7 percent of MFR units affordable to that income group.
Table 169: Number of Affordable MFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Monthly # Affordable Cumulative % Income Max % of Units Income Level Rental Max MFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $504 69 7.4% 7.4% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $831 236 25.4% 32.8% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $1,329 469 50.5% 83.3%
Summary of Affordability and Number of Additional Units Needed If only considering whether housing is affordable at the 80 percent of AMI threshold, housing in Magna is extremely affordable, with 70 percent of units being affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI (see the following table).
161 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 170: Number of Affordable Units by Targeted Income Group Household Affordable % Households Units Households Income Level Units Affordable % Cum. % Cum. % < 30% AMI 71 0.9% 11.77% 0.9% 11.77% 30-50% AMI 675 8.1% 13.38% 9.0% 25.15% 50-80% AMI 5,066 61.0% 20.94% 70.0% 46.09%
In many cases, low- to moderate-income households consist of elderly residents who may not have a mortgage. Furthermore, the income for many of these households without a mortgage is not sufficient enough to purchase the home. In order to more accurately state the current housing stock and need for affordable units, the difference in the number of households and number of units by income level shown below excludes households and units that do not currently have a mortgage.
The number of units currently needed for each income group is outlined in the table below. Positive values indicate the number of needed units to meet the current demand; negative values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units. There is a significant lack of units affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI,DRAFT and 3,003 excess units affordable at up to 80 percent of AMI, indicating that many low to moderate income households in Magna are living in units that are above their income. Furthermore, there is a deficit in units affordable to households above 80 percent of AMI, which means that there are many households that could afford homes that are more expensive than their current home. Overall, there are 1,947 more units affordable to households below 80 percent AMI than there are households in that income group.
Table 171: Number of Units Currently Needed by Targeted Income Group Cum. Households Units Difference Difference < 30% AMI 752 22 730 730 30-50% AMI 876 570 306 1,036 50-80% AMI 1,410 4,413 (3,003) (1,967) > 80% AMI 3,800 2,200 1,600 (367) Total 6,838 7,205 (367)
Magna - Comparison of Units to Households 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 Total Units 1,500 1,000 500 0 < 30% of AMI 30% to 50% of AMI 50% to 80% of AMI > 80% of AMI Households Units 162 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordable Housing – County-Wide Comparison Compared to the other metro townships in Salt Lake County, Magna is the second most affordable metro township when it comes to overall affordability to moderate-income households, second only to Copperton.
Table 172: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cum. Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2% Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Unincorporated Islands 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County Population 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3% DRAFT Availability of Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups While fair housing laws and enforcement are an important part of clearing impediments or obstacles to housing opportunities for minorities, the core impediment to fair housing choice is still most often affordability. County-wide minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-income categories. With this in mind, the primary analysis on affordable housing for low-income households is the most important determination of housing availability for minority groups. Some minority racial and ethnic groups in the County and Magna are below the poverty level at much greater rates than the white and non-Hispanic/Latino population.
Table 173: Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: 2014 ACS) Magna SLCO Race/Ethnic Salt Lake Race/Ethnic Magna Population County Population Population Below Poverty Population Below Poverty Level Level Race
White Alone 85.0% 15.8% 83.4% 12.7% Black or African American Alone 0.3% 15.6% 1.6% 10.5% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.8% 16.7% 0.8% 27.9% Alone Asian Alone 1.1% 20.0% 3.5% 32.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 1.4% 10.5% 1.6% 18.0% Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone 7.7% 20.5% 6.3% 24.1% Two or More Races: 3.8% 8.2% 2.7% 30.6% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 26.8% 24.9% 17.5% 26.7% White Alone, Not Hispanic or 12.3% 8.5% Latino
163 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
For Salt Lake County, about 17 percent of the population belongs to a minority and 17 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino (not necessarily the same population, the similar numbers are coincidental). The maps below show in Magna the Census Block Groups that have populations greater than this County average.
DRAFT
164 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The next maps show these groups overlapped maps of affordable units by income category within Magna. Upon visual inspection, there does not appear to be any strong correlation with race and affordable units. There also does not seem to be an association with Hispanic/Latino population pockets and affordable units specifically, with the exception that some areas in Magna that appear to be the most expensive also happen to not be areas with strong Hispanic/Latino presence.
DRAFT
165 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
It is also of note whether zoning regulations are any impediment obstacles that would limit the availability of affordable housing in areas with large numbers of minorities. The following maps show the current zoning overlaid with the areas with large numbers of minority groups.
DRAFT
166 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The following zoning categories cover areas with high minority concentrations in Magna:
Table 174: Magna Zoning Categories Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments A-1 Low Density, but two-family units are allowed conditionally A-2 Very Low Density C-1 Commercial only C-2/C-2/zc C-3/C-3/zc R-1-5 Restrictions to Accessory Units Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-6 SFR Only Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-8/R-1-8/zc SFR Only Large Lot Size Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-10 DRAFT SFR Only Large Lot Size R-2-6.5 Restrictions to Accessory Units R-2-8 No dwelling groups R-2-10 R-M/R-M/zc R-4-8.5 M-1/M-1/zc Non-residential except very special exceptions, including very large lot size M-2 MD-3/zc
Some common zoning27 and policy issues28 that can be generally limiting on affordable or fair housing availability are listed below. While these may not necessarily be specific to current County zoning laws, they are issues found around the country and are known to have disparate impacts. Caution should be taken around these types approaches as they can limit fair and affordable housing availability for special groups.
. Codes that provide a definition of a “family,” specifically codes that discuss if family members are defined by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship o Utah courts have not ruled on potentially discriminatory aspects of family definitions but other states have noted that defining a family – specifically in number of people, type of relation and capping the number of unrelated persons in a household – does not serve any legitimate objective under the zoning powers of a municipality. . Limits on unrelated people residing together; . Absence of density bonuses, fee waivers, and accessory units; . Strict zoning requiring conditional use permits for certain housing types, such as accessory units;
27 Salt Lake County Regional Analysis of Impediments 2013 28 http://www.ctfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CFHC-AffirmFurthGuideGrantees.pdf
167 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Community “friendliness” of local zoning ordinances to rental housing that influences the siting of rental housing to segregated areas of the community; . Occupancy limits; . Zones that only permit elderly housing; . Limits on who can live in an affordable housing system, such as local applicants or municipal employees only; . Lack of targeted marketing to protected classes for public housing or subsidy programs; . Requiring large lots and limited areas zoned for multifamily housing; . Tax assessments that are higher in neighborhoods of color; . Failure to have a housing authority or family voucher program; . Lack of a complaint process; and . Lack of training for municipal staff on direct and indirect impacts on fair housing opportunity.
Specific to RDA funds, the failure to actively use RDA set-aside funds for affordable housing in a timely manner – back-loading affordable housing expenditures to the end of the life of the RDA – also contributes to a lack of affordable and fair housing availability.
A more detailed analysisDRAFT of fair housing issues is outlined later in this report.
Availability of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Groups
Disability Countywide, about two-thirds of those with a disability are in very low income households. If this holds true in Magna, then at least 1,766 individuals with a disability in Magna need some sort of affordable housing with accessibility and/or wheelchair access. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Assessment and Analysis of Impediments noted that, while the exact number of accessible rental units is untracked, it can be estimated from building permits up to 2013 that there are about 7,400 apartments in the entire County that meet the basic FHA accessibility standards. For those requiring a wheelchair, the supply is much lower with about 285 units in the County available for about 1,800 needing wheelchair access County-wide. Many of these individuals live in assisted care facilities, but many do not. There are 40 beds available in a retirement home in Magna. Not only is this not enough to cover the disability needs in Kearns, but the shortage is magnified when considering the primary need for elderly care.
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Magna has 1,037 veterans, 148 with a service-connected disability rating; 25 percent of all veterans in Magna are over 65 years of age. This special needs group overlaps with the disability and elderly populations with likely needs for assisted living facilities that are not being met in Magna. However, they also have access to additional resources through the federal government and non-profit programs.
Elderly As mentioned, there are only 40 beds in retirement home facilities within Magna. The Salt Lake County Analysis of Impediments found that the location distribution is generally not heavily determined by zoning, but more by corporate location policies that tend to prefer locations with above average incomes and property values. As a result, opportunities for the elderly and disabled to live in care facilities are more available in and around Millcreek, White City, and the Unincorporated Islands and less available in Kearns and Magna.
168 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Other Groups For 2015, there were an estimated SLCo Homeless and Transitional Shelter 2,140 individuals29 that were without (Beds) permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On one single night count of 24 these individuals, among them were 334 Emergency Shelter 548 victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 veterans. Transitional 1,506 There are an estimated 4,517 beds Housing available across the various providers Permanent in the County – more than enough to Supportive Housing cover the County’s needs for these 1,929 special and at-risk groups. While the Rapid Re-Housing population of displaced individuals is 724 likely concentrated in Salt Lake City, it’s Safe Haven possible that the lack of distribution of shelters in the County may be harmful to individuals in urgentDRAFT need or with transportation difficulty.
29 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
169 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections
Population Projections Population projections for the next five to ten years were formed using both Census block data and the population figures listed by the American Community Survey (ACS). These populations from 2010 and 2014 established the baseline growth rate that was then extended into straight-line projections for the future populations of each community.
Table 175: Population Estimates and Projections 2010 2014 AAGR 2010-2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Magna 26,520 28,182 1.532% 28,614 29,052 29,497 29,949 30,407
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Magna 30,873 31,346 31,826 32,313 32,808 33,311 33,821
Targeted Groups – Projections DRAFT Income Groups Projections for income groups assume a similar proportion of the households will fall into the targeted income groups as they do today.
Table 176: Projected Households and Population by Targeted Income Group < 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Cum. Total % of Households 11.80% 13.40% 20.90% 46.1% 2014 Households 934 1,062 1,662 3,658 2021 Households 1,006 1,143 1,789 3,938 2026 Households 1,077 1,225 1,917 4,218
Disability The proportion of those with a disability is also expected to stay the same. These proportions are based on the 2014 population to directly compare ACS disability data. However, the proportions are then applied to the 2021 and 2026 projections. Many low-income households are represented by disabled populations that have a high need for accessible rental housing.
Table 177: Projected Disability Population in 2021 Total 2021 Population: 31,346 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 9 516 1,824 597 2,946 With a Hearing Difficulty 9 47 235 262 553 With a Vision Difficulty 0 96 175 32 303 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 404 955 150 1,509 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 0 786 371 1,158 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 11 394 101 506 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 781 300 1,081
170 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 178: Projected Disability Population in 2026 Total 2026 Population: 33,821 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 10 557 1,968 644 3,179 With a Hearing Difficulty 10 50 253 283 596 With a Vision Difficulty 0 103 188 35 326 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 436 1,031 162 1,629 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 0 848 401 1,249 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 12 425 109 546 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 842 324 1,166
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Magna has 1,037 veterans, 148 with a service-connected disability rating; 25 percent of all veterans in Magna are over 65 years of age. To project the number of veterans for the next five to ten years, two approaches were taken based on the assumption that there are two primary groupings – senior veterans that were drafted and younger veterans that enlisted voluntarily at a lower rate. To project the number of the younger group under 65 years old, the 2014 population proportion was maintained and applied to the total population. For those over 65, Salt Lake County’s mortality 30 DRAFT rate of 7.8 per year per 1000 people for those 55 to 65 and older was applied, assuming this group would not grow with the population. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 179: Projected Veteran Population Veterans in Magna 2014 2021 2026 Under 65 778 865 933 Over 65 259 245 236 Total 1,037 1,110 1,169
Elderly There were 1,494 individuals living in Magna over 65 years old in 2014. This represents over five percent of Magna’s population. The proprotion of elderly age groups in Magna has remained fairly steady since 2000, so it is assumed that the population will continue to maintain the same proportion of elderly residents with future population changes.
Table 180: Projected Elderly Population Population 2014 2021 2026 Total 65 and Over 1,494 1,662 1,793
Other Groups Populations for youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, or the homeless, are measured on a regional basis. The numbers in these categories are largely independent of population growth and any population in these categories are likely temporary or transitionary. Housing facilitites in these categories are located regionally and the County provides operational support to the regional programs.
30 CDC WONDER data, 1999-2014
171 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Forecast of Affordable Housing Need The following section analyzes the future demand for housing in Magna using population projections, historical building permit data, and current projects in the development pipeline.
Expected Housing Construction Salt Lake County building permit data indicates that approximately 17 residential building permits were issued per year in Magna between 2010 and 2015. Most of the building permits issued was for single- family residences.
Table 181: Magna Residential Building Permits (Source: SLCO Planning) Annual 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Single-Family 23 16 21 17 6 9 92 15.33 Two-Family - - - 1 - - 1 0.17 Multi-Family - - 1 - 1 8 10 1.67 Total 23 16 22 18 7 17 103 17.17 DRAFT As of February 2017, there were five housing developments with current permits in the development pipeline in Magna, for a total of 55 additional lots or units. Pricing for these units was not currently available.
Table 182: Current Permit Projects Development Type Total Developments Total Units PUD 1 8 units Subdivision 4 47 lots Total 5 55 lots/units
Projected Number of Needed Housing Units The population counts are used for basic demographic reference; however, to project housing unit needs the number of households were calculated in a slightly different manner in order to correspond with differing data from the County Assessor. To make this data consistent, the total number of households was based on the number of units listed by the Assessor multiplied by the occupancy rate listed by ACS for each metro township. To translate these figures to low and moderate income group distributions that value was then multiplied by the percentage of households in each income group (ACS) to determine the number of households in each targeted income group. The table below shows these household numbers by income group. Due to significant population and subsequent household growth projected in Magna, it is anticipated that there will be a large demand for additional units that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
Table 183: Total Affordable Housing Needs by Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Projected Projected Projected Current Current Current 10-year Total 10-year Total 10-year Total Need Need Need Need Need Need Magna 730 143 873 306 163 469 (3,003) 255 (2,748)
172 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Millcreek
Key Findings Housing is relatively affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI), with 38 percent of all units affordable at that threshold. Only13 percent of housing units are affordable to low-income households (up to 50 percent AMI). An extremely low 3 percent of housing units are affordable to households with very low incomes (30 percent AMI). Generally, MFR units are more affordable for all income groups, especially 30 and 50 percent AMI, than SFR units. It is anticipated that there will be a large demand for additional units that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households in Millcreek in the future. DRAFT
Summary Millcreek is located in the northeast quadrant of Salt Lake County. Census figures estimate that Millcreek is the largest of the Salt Lake County townships, and when incorporated as a city in 2017, Millcreek will be the eleventh largest city in the State and the sixth largest city in Salt Lake County. Millcreek has a highly educated population, a higher median age, higher per capita incomes, and smaller
173 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
household sizes. The housing stock in Millcreek is older, and is relatively affordable, with nearly 38 percent of housing units affordable to moderate-income households.
Population & Demographics Demographic characteristics greatly influence housing demands. Population growth, age, income and other characteristics of an area’s population influence what types of housing are desired and how many units need to be available. This section evaluates these factors in Millcreek. This section will also summarize how the population has changed over the past decade and address the number of households Millcreek has in targeted income groups with needs for affordable housing. Current demographic data is according to the most recent data as available – usually the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated for 2014 unless otherwise noted.
Population Millcreek is already largely built-out, thus the population in the area has remained fairly constant in past years. Based on Census block data rather than the Census Designated Place (CDP) (due to recent boundary changes), the 2010 population was 55,055 while the 2014 population was 56,586 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 0.688 percent. In 2000, the area’s population was 57,524 – still fairly steady, even thoughDRAFT there has been a slight downward change. The area’s population is expected to remain fairly constant, projected to slightly rise to 61,443 by 2026.
Table 184: Salt Lake County Population Estimates and Projections (Source: 2014 ACS) 2010 2014 AAGR 2010-2014 2015 2016
Millcreek 55,055 56,586 0.688% 56,976 57,368
Age and Household Size Millcreek has nearly the lowest household size in the County with 2.51 people per household. Only Salt Lake City and Alta have smaller households. Millcreek’s household size is closer to that of the national average of 2.63 than to the high Utah average of 3.14. The 2000 household size in Millcreek was lower at 2.34 persons per household.
Table 185: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Avg. HH Size Herriman 4.00 Bluffdale 3.74 Riverton 3.64 Kearns 3.61 South Jordan 3.60 West Valley 3.57 Magna 3.56 West Jordan 3.45 Draper city 3.38 White City 3.22 Sandy 3.13 Taylorsville 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon 2.98
174 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Municipality Avg. HH Size Cottonwood Heights 2.82 Copperton 2.74 Holladay 2.66 South Salt Lake 2.66 Midvale 2.60 Murray 2.56 Millcreek 2.51 Salt Lake City 2.47 Alta 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
Millcreek’s median age is 36.1 years old with only a quarter of households with children. Millcreek also has among the highest proportion of population over 65 years old. Like Household size, Millcreek’s median age is closer to the national average of 37.4, rather than the very low Utah and Salt Lake County medians of 29.9 and 31.5 respectively. Like household size, Millcreek’s median age has risen, up from 31.1 in 2000. DRAFT
Table 186: Median Age and % of Population by Group (Source: 2014 ACS) HHs w/ Children Median Age Pop. Over 65 Under 18 Herriman 21.6 Herriman 72.6% 2.8% Bluffdale 28.0 Riverton 57.0% 6.4% Magna 28.6 Magna 54.1% 5.3% West Jordan 29.4 West Jordan 51.9% 5.4% Riverton 29.5 Draper 51.1% 5.9% Kearns 29.5 Kearns 51.0% 6.1% South Salt Lake 29.8 Bluffdale 50.6% 5.0% West Valley 30.1 West Valley 50.1% 7.4% South Jordan 30.8 South Jordan 48.9% 7.8% Midvale 31.0 Copperton 42.8% 18.5% Draper 31.1 Sandy 42.2% 10.5% Salt Lake City 31.4 White City 39.5% 13.4% Taylorsville 32.2 Taylorsville 38.3% 9.7% White City 32.6 Emigration Canyon 37.8% 9.2% Sandy 34.6 South Salt Lake 35.3% 6.5% Murray 34.9 Cottonwood Heights 34.9% 13.4% Cottonwood Heights 35.6 Midvale 31.8% 9.2% Copperton 35.9 Holladay 30.1% 17.6% Millcreek 36.1 Murray 29.1% 13.8% Holladay 38.1 Millcreek 27.8% 15.9% Alta 42.2 Salt Lake City 27.6% 9.9% Emigration Canyon 44.4 Alta 13.0% 5.0% Remaining Unincorp. NA Remaining Unincorp. NA NA
175 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
176 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
As mentioned above, Millcreek has one of the highest proportions of residents over 65 years old. The City is fairly similar to County-wide population distributions with the exception of being a little more evenly distributed across age groups, especially in the older age groups.
Salt Lake County Millcreek 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years DRAFT Under 5 Years -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%
While there has been a slight rise in the population around 50 to 70, there has been a significant decline since 2000 in the proportion of Millcreek that is between 20 and 30.
Millcreek Age Categories – Trends 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00%
2012 ACS 2009 ACS 2000 Census
177 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Income Household incomes in Millcreek are slightly lower than the County. Millcreek’s median household income is $57,429 compared to the County at $61,446. On the other hand, Millcreek has among the highest per capita incomes in the County at $32,362 per person. Adjusting for inflation, the 2000 median household income was lower at $54,400 and the per capita was $28,757.
Table 187: Household and Per Capita Incomes (Source: 2014 ACS) Median HH Per Capita
Income Income Emigration Canyon $175,272 Emigration Canyon $74,607 Draper $94,852 Holladay $40,211 South Jordan $91,228 Cottonwood Heights $38,477 Bluffdale $88,731 Draper $34,083 Riverton $84,718 Millcreek $32,362 Herriman $78,141 Sandy $31,552 Sandy $78,048 Alta $31,210 Alta DRAFT$77,500 Bluffdale $30,137 Cottonwood Heights $76,630 South Jordan $29,964 Holladay $72,827 Murray $29,013 West Jordan $69,404 Salt Lake City $28,428 Salt Lake County $61,446 Riverton $28,013 White City $60,219 Salt Lake County $26,747 Taylorsville $57,779 Midvale $23,716 Millcreek $57,429 Taylorsville $23,224 Kearns $57,097 Herriman $22,840 Magna $55,913 West Jordan $22,808 Murray $53,797 White City $21,691 West Valley City $52,814 Magna $18,738 Midvale $51,077 West Valley City $18,179 Salt Lake City $45,833 Kearns $17,764 Copperton $43,450 Copperton $17,458 South Salt Lake $37,238 South Salt Lake $17,421 Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
178 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
179 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Millcreek has among the highest representations in upper income brackets, compared to the County as whole, and has very even representation across most income categories with most categories being well represented.
Table 188: Households by Income Bracket (Source: 2014 ACS) Households by Income Bracket Millcreek Salt Lake County Less than $10,000 5.1% 5.0% $10,000 to $14,999 3.6% 3.8% $15,000 to $24,999 9.3% 8.8% $25,000 to $34,999 10.1% 9.0% $35,000 to $49,999 14.9% 13.2% $50,000 to $74,999 19.8% 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 13.2% 14.8% $100,000 to $149,999 12.8% 14.8% $150,000 to $199,999 5.4% 5.1% $200,000 or more DRAFT5.7% 4.8%
30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
Millcreek Salt Lake County
Income Distribution
Employment Millcreek has a balanced level of employment activity compared to other areas of the County and has increased employment since 2009. The ratio of jobs per household is 1.09, indicating that there are roughly equal numbers of people working in Millcreek as there are households. Of all municipalities and metro townships in the County (for those tracked), Millcreek had one of the most dramatic recoveries in employment growth since the recession.
180 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 189: Employment by City (Source: DWS; 2014 ACS; ZPFI) 2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Alta NA NA NA 54 NA Copperton 1,954 NA NA 304 NA Emigration Canyon NA NA NA 878 NA Remaining NA NA NA 5,381 NA Unincorporated South Salt Lake 27,827 33,879 46,207 8,540 5.41 Salt Lake City 197,906 234,499 239,627 74,652 3.21 Murray 42,372 42,599 47,525 18,646 2.55 Draper 12,010 21,437 28,276 12,287 2.30 West Valley City 54,215 64,386 64,557 36,946 1.75 Sandy 36,834 40,415 46,824 28,478 1.64 Cottonwood Heights 14,889 6,051 19,093 12,042 1.59 South Jordan 12,883 15,515 23,408 15,713 1.49 Bluffdale DRAFT701 3,020 3,204 2,220 1.44 Midvale 20,845 12,329 15,287 11,434 1.34 Millcreek NA 19,578 27,349 25,085 1.09 West Jordan 19,180 26,237 30,735 31,116 0.99 Taylorsville 11,044 16,698 18,968 19,570 0.97 Riverton 4,318 6,843 9,394 11,044 0.85 Holladay 18,959 3,583 8,430 10,054 0.84 Herriman NA 1,276 2,493 6,257 0.40 Magna 5,229 5,647 3,543 8,920 0.40 Kearns 6,246 3,650 3,433 10,652 0.32 White City NA 171 249 1,812 0.14 Note: For those areas noted as “NA”, data was not collected by DWS for those years.
Millcreek is an employment center in the County, with more employees commuting to Millcreek from outside areas to work than the Millcreek residents that are commuting out to other areas for employment.
Of employees working in Millcreek, Education services is the largest employment sector at 48.3 percent, followed by health care and social assistance. Of the City’s residents, only 13.3 percent work in education – much more on par with health care and social assistance. The next highest sector is retail trade among residents.
181 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 190: Percent of Employees by Industry (Source: Census “On the Map”) % Employees % Millcreek Residents Working in Millcreek Agriculture, Forestry, Finishing and Hunting 0.0% 0.1% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0% 0.2% Utilities 0.1% 0.3% Construction 1.9% 3.9% Manufacturing 1.1% 6.1% Wholesale Trade 1.8% 3.4% Retail Trade 7.0% 10.2% Transportation and Warehousing 0.9% 3.2% Information 0.8% 2.6% Finance and Insurance 5.7% 6.3% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.2% 1.6% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5.3% 8.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.7% 2.2% Admin. & Support, WasteDRAFT Mgt. and Remediation 5.9% 6.8% Educational Services 48.3% 13.3% Health Care and Social Assistance 13.0% 13.7% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.3% 2.0% Accommodation and Food Services 3.6% 8.4% Other Services 2.1% 2.7% Public Administration 0.1% 4.4%
Transportation Average commute times for working individuals in Millcreek are lower than the average for Salt Lake County. The average travel time to work for individuals in Millcreek is 20.7 minutes, which is slightly below the County average of 22.3 minutes. Approximately 51 percent of individuals in Millcreek commute less than 20 minutes each way to work, compared to 45 percent in Salt Lake County.
Table 191: Commute Times to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Millcreek SLCO Millcreek Salt Lake County Cum. % Cum. % Less than 5 minutes 2% 2% 2% 2% 5 to 9 minutes 10% 9% 12% 11% 10 to 14 minutes 13% 15% 26% 25% 15 to 19 minutes 25% 19% 51% 45% 20 to 24 minutes 23% 20% 74% 65% 25 to 29 minutes 7% 7% 81% 72% 30 to 34 minutes 10% 15% 91% 87% 35 to 39 minutes 1% 2% 92% 89% 40 to 44 minutes 2% 3% 94% 92% 45 to 59 minutes 3% 5% 97% 96% 60 to 89 minutes 1% 2% 99% 99% 90 or more minutes 1% 1% 100% 100%
182 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
A very small portion of Millcreek households do not have at least one vehicle available. Generally speaking, households in Millcreek have fewer vehicles compared to the entire Salt Lake County.
Table 192: Number of Vehicles per Household (Source: 2014 ACS) Millcreek Salt Lake County
No vehicles 6% 6% 1 vehicle 35% 30% 2 vehicles 42% 41% 3 or more vehicles 17% 24%
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) currently has 14 bus routes that run through Millcreek, with approximately 143 stops. There are currently no light or commuter rail stations in Millcreek; however, there are two stations that are just outside the city limits.31 Both light rail stations are located near the western border or Millcreek, and the only 2 direct bus routes to the stations are also on the western side of Millcreek, limitingDRAFT the accessibility to the light rail system for individuals in east Millcreek.
Despite the number of bus routes in Millcreek, approximately only 3.3 percent of working individuals in Millcreek use public transportation as a means of transportation to work. Further analysis of the use of
31Meadowbrook Station (3900 South 188 West) and Murray North Station (71 W Fireclay Ave)
183 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
specific routes in Millcreek may identify the effectiveness of the current routes in getting passengers to key employment centers. Increased public transit options, and the location of affordable housing near public transit, can help to increase ridership while simultaneously decreasing monthly household expenses for transportation, ultimately increasing the total amount that could be spent on housing.
Table 193: Means of Transportation to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) Millcreek Salt Lake County
Car – Drive Alone 76.9% 76.0% Car – Carpooled 11.8% 11.8% Public Transportation 3.3% 3.5% Walk 1.3% 2.1% Bicycle 1.0% 0.8% Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other 0.8% 1.1% Work at Home 4.9% 4.6%
Education Millcreek is highly educated with one of the highest proportions in the County of residents holding a college degree. The mapsDRAFT and tables below show how Millcreek compares to the rest of the County in both High School and College graduation rates.
Table 194: Percent of Population by Education Level (Source: 2014 ACS) % High School or % Bachelors or
Higher Higher Emigration Canyon 98.6% Emigration Canyon 67.8% Bluffdale 97.4% Holladay 51.5% Cottonwood Heights 96.7% Cottonwood Heights 46.8% Herriman 96.6% Millcreek 42.2% Holladay 96.5% Salt Lake City 42.1% South Jordan 96.4% Draper 39.8% Draper 96.3% South Jordan 38.7% Riverton 96.1% Sandy 38.7% Sandy 95.5% Alta 36.8% Millcreek 94.0% Riverton 31.4% White City 93.7% Murray 30.0% Murray 92.3% Bluffdale 29.9% Copperton 91.0% Herriman 29.4% West Jordan 90.4% White City 24.4% Taylorsville 89.0% Midvale 23.8% Alta 88.4% West Jordan 23.5% Salt Lake City 86.5% South Salt Lake 23.3% Midvale 85.9% Taylorsville 20.5% Magna 80.8% West Valley City 12.7% South Salt Lake 78.4% Kearns 11.0% Kearns 77.9% Magna 9.4% West Valley City 77.7% Copperton 5.3% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
184 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
185 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Race and Ethnicity Compared to the County-wide proportion, Millcreek is less racially and ethnically diverse overall. A higher proportion are white and a lower proportion are other races or Latino. However, looking at Black, American Indian, and Asian groups independently, Millcreek has slightly higher proportions than the rest of the County.
Table 195: Percent of Population by Race (Source: 2014 ACS) Millcreek Salt Lake County
Race
White Alone 89.02% 83.40% Black or African American Alone 1.92% 1.64% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 1.30% 0.80% Asian Alone 3.58% 3.53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0.99% 1.57% Some Other Race Alone 1.68% 6.34% Two or More Races: 1.51% 2.71% Ethnicity DRAFT Hispanic or Latino 6.67% 17.47%
186 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
While Millcreek as a whole is less diverse than the County, western portions near South Salt Lake do have high concentrations of minorities. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment noted a dissimilarity index based on 2012 data that showed concentrations of minorities compared to white populations. The map showing this index clearly shows the western portion of Millcreek with more minority population than the rest of Millcreek.
187 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Special Needs Groups
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Millcreek has 3,698 veterans, 529 with a service-connected disability rating; 56 percent of all veterans in Millcreek are over 65 years of age.
DRAFT
Disability Among the noninstitutionalized population, 12.4 percent of the population is estimated to have a disability. For people under 18 years old, 0.4 percent have a disability, 5 percent for those between 18 and 64 years old, and 36.5 percent of those 65 and over. A total of 7,731 individuals were noted in 2014 as having a disability in Millcreek. The table below shows for those that report a disability, the types of disabilities by age that could need accommodation in housing choices.
Table 196: Total Population with a Disability (Source: 2014 ACS) Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 70 482 3,698 3,481 7,731 With a hearing difficulty 70 64 1,087 1,680 2,901 With a vision difficulty 52 93 846 664 1,655 With a cognitive difficulty NA 400 1,849 886 3,135 With an ambulatory difficulty NA 77 1,607 1,927 3,611 With a self-care difficulty NA 44 608 670 1,322 With an independent living difficulty NA NA 1,211 1,400 2,611
188 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Elderly There were 10,041 individuals living in Millcreek over 65 years old in 2014. This represents 16 percent of Millcreek’s population. This is the third highest proportion for a municipality in the County.
Table 197: Percent of Population over 65 Years Old (Source: 2014 ACS) West Herriman Alta Bluffdale Magna Draper Kearns Riverton Jordan 2.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4%
South Salt West South Emigration Salt Lake Midvale Taylorsville Sandy Lake Valley Jordan Canyon City 6.5% 4.4% 7.8 9.2% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 10.5%
Cottonwood White Murray Millcreek Holladay Copperton Heights City 13.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.9% 17.6% 18.5%
189 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Other Groups Individuals that are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, or youth aging out of foster care are often tracked by the various Local Homeless Coordinating Committees32 for a given area – Salt Lake County is represented by a single LHCC which collects data in each of these special populations. For 2015, it was estimated that there are a total of 2,140 individuals that are without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On a single night count, there were 548 individuals that were counted as victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 were veterans.
Current Housing Stock Millcreek is heavily single-family homes “SFR”, with SFR comprising 69 percent of all units in Millcreek. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit, homes in Millcreek generally have fewer bedrooms than other homes in Salt Lake County. The age of housing stock in Millcreek is generally older, and the County reports very few new developments occurring in recent years. Most homes in Millcreek are in average condition, likely a result of the moderate age of units in the area. This section relies primarily on the most recent Salt Lake County property assessments to determine the current available housing stock, with supplemental information from the ACS.
Total Housing Units withDRAFT Breakdown by Type and Occupancy As of the 2016 County assessment, there are a total of 25,012 units in Millcreek, including all single- family residences, townhomes, mobile homes, duplexes, condos, apartment units. Detailed totals are given in the table below. For the purposes of this study, all single-family units (i.e., SFRs, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes) are grouped and analyzed as for-sale product, while multi-family residential units (i.e., duplexes and apartment units) are grouped and analyzed as for-rent product.
Table 198: Residential Units by Type (Source: SLCO Assessor) Total Percent of Total
Single-Family Residential 17,724 68.6% Condo 3,336 12.9% Townhome 726 2.8% SFR 13,147 50.9% SFR w/ Mother-in-law Apt 91 0.4% SFR - Multiple Homes 71 0.3% Trailer Park 353 1.4% Multi-Family Residential 7,288 28.2% Apartment 5,228 20.2% Duplex 1,232 4.8% Low Income 587 2.3% Mother-in-law Apartment 91 0.4% Other MFR 150 0.6% Total 25,012 100.0%
The 2014 ACS estimates a low vacancy rate for Millcreek, including 4 percent for SFR, 8 percent of MFR, and 5 percent for all units. Vacancy rates in Millcreek are slightly higher than elsewhere in Salt Lake County.
32 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
190 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 199: Millcreek Vacancy Rates (Source: 2014 ACS) Millcreek Salt Lake County
Single-Family Residential 3.9% 2.1% Multi-Family Residential 7.6% 6.3% All Units 5.3% 3.6%
Housing Size The average single-family detached or townhome unit in Millcreek is 2,674 square feet, which is only slightly larger than the County average of 2,626 square feet. Apartment units in Millcreek, however, are approximately 100 square feet larger than other apartment units in Salt Lake County.
Table 200: Average Unit Size (Sources: Salt Lake County Assessor; EquiMark Multi-Family Report 2014) Year Built Millcreek Salt Lake County SFR, Townhome 2,674 2,626 Apartments 966 863
Lot sizes in MillcreekDRAFT are comparable to lot sizes throughout Salt Lake County. The average SFR lot in Millcreek is 0.26 acres, compared to 0.27 in Salt Lake County. Similarly, townhome lots in Millcreek are on average 0.12 acres, compared to 0.14 in Salt Lake County.
Table 201: Average Lot Size (Source: Salt Lake County Assessor) Year Built Millcreek Salt Lake County SFR 0.26 0.27 Townhome 0.12 0.14
When considering all unit types, approximately 57 percent of all units in Millcreek are less than 2,000 square feet.
Table 202: Percent of Residential Units by Unit Square Feet (Source: SLCO Assessor) Year Built Millcreek % of Units Millcreek Cum. % 999 or less 24% 24% 1,000 – 1,499 18% 42% 1,500 – 1,999 15% 57% 2,000 – 2,499 15% 72% 2,500 – 2,999 11% 83% 3,000 or more 17% 100%
Residential units in Millcreek have approximately 2.91 bedrooms per unit, compared to 3.11 in Salt Lake County. The table below shows the percent of units by the number of bedrooms. In Millcreek, 41 percent of units have no more than 2 bedrooms, compared to 33 percent in Salt Lake County. On the other hand, 40 percent of units in Salt Lake County have 4 or more bedrooms, compared to 33 percent in Millcreek.
191 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 203: Percent of Residential Units by Number of Bedrooms (Sources: 2014 ACS) Millcreek SLCO Millcreek SLCO Cum. % Cum. % No bedrooms 2% 2% 1% 1% 1 bedroom 10% 11% 10% 11% 2 bedrooms 30% 41% 22% 33% 3 bedrooms 26% 67% 27% 60% 4 bedrooms 21% 88% 22% 82% 5 or more bedrooms 12% 100% 18% 100%
Census data indicates that only 2.1 percent of households have more than one occupant per room,33 which is below the County estimate of 4.1 percent of homes.
Table 204: Percent of Households by Number of Occupants per Room (Source: 2014 ACS) Millcreek SLCO Occupants per Room Millcreek SLCO Cum. % Cum. % 1.00 or less DRAFT97.8% 97.8% 95.9% 95.9% 1.01 to 1.50 1.8% 99.6% 3.4% 99.3% 1.51 or more 0.3% 100.0% 0.7% 100.0%
The number of occupants per room is higher for renter-occupied units than for owner-occupied units. This may indicate either a lack of either larger renter-occupied units, or larger renter-occupied units that are also affordable to moderate-income households.
Table 205: Percent of Households by Occupants per Room and Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Millcreek SLCO Occupants per Room Millcreek SLCO Cum. % Cum. % Owner Occupied 1.00 or less 99.4% 99.4% 97.8% 97.8% 1.01 to 1.50 0.6% 100.0% 1.8% 99.6% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 0.3% 100.0% Renter Occupied 1.00 or less 95.2% 95.2% 92.0% 92.0% 1.01 to 1.50 3.9% 99.1% 6.5% 98.5% 1.51 or more 0.9% 100.0% 1.4% 100.0%
Housing Quality The age of housing units in Millcreek is generally older than other units in Salt Lake County. For example, 60 percent of all units in Millcreek were built between 1950 and 1979, compared to only 39 percent throughout Salt Lake County. Furthermore, very little new development has occurred in Millcreek in recent years, with only 666 new units since 2010.
33 Includes any rooms in the house
192 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 206: Percent of Residential Units by Year Built (Sources: SLCO Assessor, 2014 ACS) Millcreek Millcreek % of Millcreek SLCO % of SLCO Cum. Year Built Units Units Cumulative Units % of Units 1939 or earlier 1,016 4% 4% 9% 9% 1940 to 1949 2,104 8% 12% 4% 13% 1950 to 1959 6,024 24% 37% 10% 23% 1960 to 1969 4,011 16% 53% 9% 32% 1970 to 1979 5,054 20% 73% 20% 52% 1980 to 1989 2,550 10% 83% 14% 66% 1990 to 1999 2,105 8% 91% 16% 82% 2000 to 2009 1,482 6% 97% 16% 98% 2010 or later 666 3% 100% 2% 100% DRAFT
The condition of units in Millcreek is about average, with 54 percent of units indicated as average by the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office. Furthermore, 27 percent of units are listed as above average (i.e., excellent, very good, or good).
Table 207: Percent of Residential Units by Condition (Source: SLCO Assessor) Condition Units % Total Cum. % Special Obsolesced 40 0% 0% Excellent 902 4% 4%
193 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Condition Units % Total Cum. % Very Good 1,198 5% 9% Good 4,731 19% 27% Average 13,407 54% 81% Fair 1,376 6% 87% Poor 10 0% 87% Other 3,348 13% 100% Total 25,012 100% 100%
DRAFT
Market Values and Rental Rates An overview of housing values and market conditions is given here to further illustrate Millcreek’s housing stock. Housing prices are analyzed in more detail in the next section titled “Current Affordable Housing and Need” in regards to affordability for targeted groups.
This study considers two housing categories: a category that includes SFRs, condos, townhomes, and mobile homes; and a second category for multi-family rentals. The first category represents units that are individually assessed and can be bought and sold as a single unit. While a portion of these units are rented, rental rates are unknown and the unit can become owner-occupied. The values of these units, regardless of rental status, are based on their market value as given by the County. Multi-family rentals include duplexes and apartments, and are studied by their rental rates, based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
194 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The 2014 ACS indicates that the median home value in Millcreek is $273,000, over $40,000 more than the County median of $231,000.
The maps below show assessed market value by property and by acres for SFR, townhomes, and condo units within Millcreek. Generally, less expensive properties tend to be west of Highland Drive. The market value per acre is higher in Millcreek, due to smaller lot sizes and higher home values.
DRAFT
195 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
The table below shows the SFR units, listed by the County-assessed market value. These units may also include some accessory dwelling units unlisted by the County.
Table 208: Assessed Housing Values in Millcreek (Source: SLCO Assessor) Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total <$100,000 605 3% 3% $100,000 - $124,999 900 5% 8% $125,000 - $139,999 268 2% 10% $140,000 - $149,999 191 1% 11% $150,000 - $159,999 239 1% 12% $160,000 - $169,999 394 2% 15% $170,000 - $179,999 325 2% 16% $180,000 - $189,999 476 3% 19% $190,000 - $199,999 594 3% 23% $200,000 - $219,999 1,278 7% 30% $220,000 - $239,999 1,553 9% 38% $240,000 - $259,999 1,500 8% 47% $260,000 - $279,999 1,281 7% 54% $280,000 - $299,999 1,097 6% 60% $300,000 - $324,999 1,177 7% 67% $325,000 - $349,999 911 5% 72% $350,000 - $374,999 835 5% 77%
196 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total $375,000 - $399,999 717 4% 81% $400,000 - $424,999 483 3% 84% $425,000 - $449,999 435 2% 86% $450,000 - $474,999 289 2% 88% $475,000 - $499,999 257 1% 89% $500,000 - $599,999 786 4% 94% $600,000 - $699,999 492 3% 96% $700,000+ 641 4% 100% Total SFR Units 17,724 100% 100%
Rental prices are also important to consider in the affordability of the current housing stock. Millcreek currently has approximately 7,288 MFR units, 72 percent of which are apartment units. The percent of rental units by gross rent, according to the 2014 ACS, for units in Millcreek are listed in the table below.
Table 209: Gross Rent for Rental Units in Millcreek (Source: 2014 ACS) Gross Rent DRAFT# of Units % Total Cum. % of Total No Rent 196 2.7% 2.7% $0 - $99 17 0.2% 2.9% $100 - $149 11 0.1% 3.1% $150 - $199 - 0.0% 3.1% $200 - $249 32 0.4% 3.5% $250 - $299 15 0.2% 3.7% $300 - $349 141 1.9% 5.7% $350 - $399 70 1.0% 6.6% $400 - $449 78 1.1% 7.7% $450 - $499 103 1.4% 9.1% $500 - $549 110 1.5% 10.6% $550 - $599 157 2.2% 12.8% $600 - $649 235 3.2% 16.0% $650 - $699 372 5.1% 21.1% $700 - $749 544 7.5% 28.6% $750 - $799 313 4.3% 32.9% $800 - $899 1,326 18.2% 51.0% $900 - $999 1,084 14.9% 65.9% $1,000 - $1,249 1,222 16.8% 82.7% $1,250 - $1,499 466 6.4% 89.1% $1,500 - $1,999 467 6.4% 95.5% >$2,000 329 4.5% 100.0% Total 7,288 100% 100%
Percent of Monthly Income to Housing Costs The 2014 ACS estimates that 33 percent of Millcreek households spend more than the recommended 30 percent of total monthly income on housing costs.
197 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 210: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Millcreek SLCO Less than 20 percent 41.5% 39.8% 20 to 29 percent 23.2% 24.7% 30 percent or more 33.2% 33.6% Zero or negative income 1.0% 1.0% No cash rent 1.0% 1.1%
The percent of households that spend more than 30 percent on housing costs is greater for renter- occupied units than owner-occupied units, indicating a need for more affordable rental options. In both cases, the Millcreek estimates are less than the countywide estimates.
Table 211: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs by Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room Millcreek SLCO Owner Occupied Less than 20 percent 50.9% 48.1% 20 to 29 percent DRAFT22.9% 24.9% 30 percent or more 25.4% 26.7% Zero or negative income 0.9% 0.5% Renter Occupied Less than 20 percent 25.8% 23.0% 20 to 29 percent 24.0% 24.3% 30 percent or more 46.4% 47.3% Zero or negative income 1.1% 1.9% No cash rent 2.7% 3.3%
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need The findings of the affordability analysis for Millcreek include:
Housing is relatively affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI), with 38 percent of all units affordable at that threshold. Only13 percent of housing units are affordable to low-income households (up to 50 percent AMI). An extremely low 3 percent of housing units are affordable to households with very low incomes (30 percent AMI). Generally, MFR units are more affordable for all income groups, especially 30 and 50 percent AMI, than SFR units.
Availability for Targeted Income Groups As in the housing stock analysis, affordability is broken into two housing categories: one for SFRs, condos, mobile homes, and townhomes and a second for multi-family rentals. The affordability of the first category of units is based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. The affordability of multi-family units is based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
198 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
SFR, Condo, Townhome, and Mobile Home For the targeted low- and moderate-income households, there are no SFR units that are affordable to households below 30 percent of AMI, and only 541 units available at 50 percent. The vast majority of affordable SFR units are within the 50 to 80 percent of AMI group, with 2,672 units. Regardless, only 18 percent of all SFR units are affordable to incomes at 80 percent AMI, and only 3 percent at 50 percent AMI.
Table 212: Number of Affordable SFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Max Home Price # Affordable Cum. % Income Max % of Units Income Level (4% Mortgage) SFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $33,817 - 0% 0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $94,220 541 3% 3% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $186,047 2,672 15% 18%
The following map showsDRAFT all SFR units and their affordability.
Unlike other communities in which the affordability of units typically corresponds with the age of the unit, this is not the case in Millcreek.
According to assessment data, only eight SFR units that are affordable at 80 percent AMI have been constructed since 2010. The remaining 327 units constructed since 2010 are only affordable to households above the 80 percent threshold.
199 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 213: Affordable SFR by Year Built Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1939 or earlier - 13 199 683 1940 - 1949 - 3 163 1,829 1950 - 1959 - 9 206 5,333 1960 - 1969 - 397 251 2,464 1970 - 1979 - 119 1,015 1,206 1980 - 1989 - - 430 649 1990 - 1999 - - 162 1,033 2000 - 2009 - - 238 987 2010 or later - - 8 327 Total - 541 2,672 14,511
Affordability of SFR by Year Built 100% 90% 80% DRAFT 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Above 80% AMI
Apartments and Duplexes Rentals are generally more affordable to low-income households than purchasing a home. This is definitely the case in Millcreek, in which 85 percent of MFR units are affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI. MFR units are also affordable to even lower income groups, with 38 percent affordable at 50 percent AMI and 9 percent at 30 percent AMI.
Table 214: Number of Affordable MFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Monthly # Affordable Cumulative % Income Max % of Units Income Level Rental Max MFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $504 663 9% 9% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $831 2,129 29% 38% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $1,329 3,383 46% 85%
Summary of Affordability and Number of Additional Units Needed If only considering whether housing is affordable at the 80 percent of AMI threshold, housing in Millcreek is relatively affordable, with 38 percent of units being affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI (see the table below).
200 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 214: Number of Affordable Units by Targeted Income Group Household Affordable % Households Units Households Income Level Units Affordable % Cum. % Cum. % < 30% AMI 663 2.7% 13.30% 2.7% 13.30% 30-50% AMI 2,670 10.7% 12.98% 13.3% 26.29% 50-80% AMI 6,055 24.2% 19.50% 37.5% 45.79%
In many cases, low- to moderate-income households consist of elderly residents who may not have a mortgage. Furthermore, the income for many of these households without a mortgage is not sufficient enough to purchase the home. In order to more accurately state the current housing stock and need for affordable units, the difference in the number of households and number of units by income level shown below exclude households and units that do not currently have a mortgage.
The number of units currently needed for each income group is outlined in the table below. Positive values indicate the number of needed units to meet the current demand; negative values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units. These numbers are adjusted to account for households, and their accompanying units,DRAFT that currently do not have a mortgage. There is a significant lack of units affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI, and 1,823 excess units affordable at up to 80 percent of AMI and 1,378 excess units above 80 percent of AMI, indicating that many low- to moderate- income households in Millcreek are living in units that are above their income. Overall, there is a deficiency of 49 affordable units for households below 80 percent AMI.
Table 215: Number of Units Currently Needed by Targeted Income Group Households Units Difference Cum. Difference < 30% AMI 2,588 521 2,067 2,067 30-50% AMI 2,305 2,500 (195) 1,872 50-80% AMI 3,662 5,485 (1,823) 49 > 80% AMI 10,183 11,561 (1,378) (1,329) Total 18,738 20,067 (1,329)
Millcreek - Comparison of Units to Households 14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000 Total Units 4,000
2,000
0 < 30% of AMI 30% to 50% of AMI 50% to 80% of AMI > 80% of AMI Households Units
201 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordable Housing – County-Wide Comparison Compared to the metro townships in Salt Lake County, Millcreek is in the middle when it comes to overall affordability to moderate-income households. While Millcreek is not as affordable as some communities, like Copperton, Magna, and Kearns, it is more affordable than others, including White City, Emigration Canyon, and the unincorporated islands.
Table 216: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cum. Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2% Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Unincorporated Islands 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County PopulationDRAFT 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3%
Availability of Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups While fair housing laws and enforcement are an important part of clearing impediments or obstacles to housing opportunities for minorities, the core impediment to fair housing choice is still most often affordability. Minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-income categories. With this in mind, the primary analysis on affordable housing for low-income households is the most important determination of housing availability for minority groups. Most minority groups in the County and Millcreek (the Black/African American population being the exception) are below the poverty level at much greater rates than the white and non-Hispanic/Latino population.
Table 217: Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: 2014 ACS) SLCO Millcreek Salt Lake Race/Ethnic Millcreek Race/Ethnic County Population Population Population Below Population Below Poverty Poverty Level Level Race
White Alone 89.0% 11.3% 83.4% 12.7% Black or African American Alone 1.9% 10.0% 1.6% 10.5% American Indian and Alaska Native 1.3% 39.5% 0.8% 27.9% Alone Asian Alone 3.6% 14.7% 3.5% 32.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 1.0% 22.6% 1.6% 18.0% Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone 1.7% 3.7% 6.3% 24.1% Two or More Races: 1.5% 23.5% 2.7% 30.6% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 6.7% 21.4% 17.5% 26.7% White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino 9.3% 8.5%
202 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
For Salt Lake County, about 17 percent of the population belongs to a minority and 17 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino (not necessarily the same population, the similar numbers are coincidental). The maps below show in Millcreek the Census Block Groups that have populations greater than this County average on the west side. These areas are similar to those noted in the Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment as being areas with low income and poverty indicators.
DRAFT
203 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The next maps show these groups overlapped maps of affordable units by income category within Millcreek. Upon visual inspection, there doesn’t appear to be any strong correlation with race or ethnicity and affordable units, but there may be some minor correlation with those blocks near South Salt Lake’s east border.
DRAFT
204 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
It is also of note whether zoning regulations are any impediment that would limit the availability of affordable housing in areas with large numbers of minorities. The following maps show the current zoning overlaid with the areas with large numbers of minority groups.
DRAFT
205 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
The following zoning categories cover areas with high minority concentrations in Millcreek:
Table 218: Millcreek Zoning Categories Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments A-1 Low Density, but two-family units are allowed conditionally A-2 Very Low Density C-1 Commercial only C-2/C-2/zc C-3/C-3/zc R-1-5 Restrictions to Accessory Units Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-6 SFR Only Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-8/R-1-8/zc SFR Only Large Lot Size Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-10 SFR Only Large Lot Size R-2-6.5 Restrictions to Accessory Units R-2-8 No dwelling groups R-2-10 R-M/R-M/zc R-4-8.5
206 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments M-1/M-1/zc Non-residential except very special exceptions, including very large lot size M-2 MD-3/zc
Some common zoning34 and policy issues35 that can be generally limiting on affordable or fair housing availability are listed below. While these may not necessarily be specific to current County zoning laws, they are issues found around the country and are known to have disparate impacts. Caution should be taken around these types of approaches as they can limit fair and affordable housing availability for special groups.
. Codes that provide a definition of a “family,” specifically codes that discuss if family members are defined by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship o Utah courts have not ruled on potentially discriminatory aspects of family definitions but other states have noted that defining a family – specifically in number of people, type of relation and capping the number of unrelated persons in a household – does not serve any legitimate objective under the zoning powers of a municipality. . Limits on unrelatedDRAFT people residing together; . Absence of density bonuses, fee waivers, and accessory units; . Strict zoning requiring conditional use permits for certain housing types, such as accessory units; . Community “friendliness” of local zoning ordinances to rental housing that influences the siting of rental housing to segregated areas of the community; . Occupancy limits; . Zones that only permit elderly housing; . Limits on who can live in an affordable housing system, such as local applicants or municipal employees only; . Lack of targeted marketing to protected classes for public housing or subsidy programs; . Requiring large lots and limited areas zoned for multifamily housing; . Tax assessments that are higher in neighborhoods of color; . Failure to have a housing authority or family voucher program; . Lack of a complaint process; and . Lack of training for municipal staff on direct and indirect impacts on fair housing opportunity.
Specific to RDA funds, the failure to actively use RDA set-aside funds for affordable housing in a timely manner – back-loading affordable housing expenditures to the end of the life of the RDA – also contributes to a lack of affordable and fair housing availability.
A more detailed analysis of fair housing issues is outlined later in this report.
Availability of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Groups
Disability About 81.3 percent of those with a disability in Millcreek have a household income of less than 80 percent of AMI. This means about 7,731 individuals with a disability in Millcreek need some sort of
34 Salt Lake County Regional Analysis of Impediments 2013 35 http://www.ctfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CFHC-AffirmFurthGuideGrantees.pdf
207 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
affordable housing with accessibility and/or wheelchair access. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Assessment and Analysis of Impediments noted that, while the exact number of accessible rental units is untracked, it can be estimated from building permits up to 2013 that there are about 7,400 apartments in the entire County that meet the basic FHA accessibility standards. For those requiring a wheelchair, the supply is much lower with about 285 units in the County available for about 1,800 needing wheelchair access County-wide. Many of these individuals live in assisted care facilities, but many do not. There are approximately 830 beds in Millcreek assisted living facilities. Not only is this not enough to cover the disability needs in Millcreek, but the shortage is magnified when considering those beds are also covering a larger need for senior care as well.
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Millcreek has 3,698 veterans, 529 with a service-connected disability rating; 56 percent of all veterans in Millcreek are over 65 years of age. This special needs group likely has needs assisted living facilities, considering the portion of this group that is either disabled or elderly. However, they also have access to additional resources through the federal government and non-profit programs.
Elderly As mentioned, there DRAFTare approximately 830 beds available at assisted living and nursing home facilities within Millcreek. The Salt Lake County Analysis of Impediments found that the location distribution is generally not heavily determined by zoning, but more by corporate location policies that tend to prefer locations with above average incomes and property values. As a result, opportunities for the elderly and disabled to live in care facilities are more available in and around Millcreek, White City, and the Unincorporated Islands and less available in Kearns and Magna.
Other Groups SLCo Homeless and Transitional Shelter For 2015, there were an estimated (Beds) 2,140 individuals36 that were without 24 permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On one single night count of 334 Emergency Shelter these individuals, among them were 548 victims of domestic violence (both Transitional 1,506 adults and children) and 286 veterans. Housing There are an estimated 4,517 beds Permanent available across the various providers Supportive Housing in the County – more than enough to 1,929 Rapid Re-Housing cover the County’s needs for these special and at-risk groups. Millcreek is 724 close to a number of the shelters. Safe Haven While the population of displaced individuals is likely concentrated in Salt Lake City, it’s possible that the lack of distribution of shelters in the County may be harmful to individuals in urgent need or with transportation difficulty.
36 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
208 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections
Population Projections Population projections for the next five to ten years were formed using geographic tabulation using Census blocks as the boundaries vary significantly than the ones used by the ACS. These populations from 2010 and 2014 established the baseline growth rate that was then extended into straight-line projections for the future populations of each community.
Table 219: Population Estimates and Projections AAGR 2010 2014 2010- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2014 Millcreek 55,055 56,586 0.688% 56,976 57,368 57,763 58,161 58,561 58,965
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Millcreek 59,370 59,779 60,191 60,605 61,022 61,443
209 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Targeted Groups – Projections
Income Groups Projections for income groups assume a similar proportion of the households will fall into the targeted income groups as they do today.
Table 220: Projected Households and Population by Targeted Income Group Total AMI < 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Households % Households 13.3% 13.0% 19.5% 45.8% 2014 Households 3,151 3,075 4,618 10,844 2021 Households 3,259 3,181 4,777 11,217 2026 Households 3,368 3,287 4,936 11,590
Disability The proportion of those with a disability is also expected to stay the same. These proportions are based on the 2014 populationDRAFT to directly compare ACS disability data. However, the proportions are then applied to the 2021 and 2026 projections. Many low-income households are represented by disabled populations that have a high need for accessible rental housing.
Table 221: Projected Disability Population in 2021 Total 2021 Population: 59,370 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 73 506 3,880 3,652 8,111 With a Hearing Difficulty 73 67 1,140 1,763 3,044 With a Vision Difficulty 55 98 888 697 1,736 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 420 1,940 930 3,289 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 81 1,686 2,022 3,789 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 46 638 703 1,387 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 1,271 1,469 2,739
Table 222: Projected Disability Population in 2026 Total 2026 Population: 61,443 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 76 523 4,015 3,780 8,395 With a Hearing Difficulty 76 69 1,180 1,824 3,150 With a Vision Difficulty 56 101 919 721 1,797 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 434 2,008 962 3,404 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 84 1,745 2,092 3,921 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 48 660 728 1,435 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 1,315 1,520 2,835
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates Millcreek has 3,698 veterans, 529 with a service-connected disability rating; 56 percent of all veterans in Millcreek are over 65 years of age. To project the number of veterans for the next five to ten years, two approaches were taken based on the assumption that there are two primary groupings – senior veterans that were drafted and younger veterans that enlisted voluntarily at a lower
210 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
rate. To project the number of the younger group under 65 years old, the 2014 population proportion was maintained and applied to the total population. For those over 65, Salt Lake County’s mortality rate37 of 7.8 per year per 1,000 people for those 55 to 65 and older was applied, assuming this group would not grow with the population. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 223: Projected Veteran Population Veterans in Millcreek 2014 2021 2026 Under 65 1,627 1,707 1,767 Over 65 2,071 1,958 1,881 Total 3,698 3,665 3,648
Elderly There were 10,041 individuals living in Millcreek over 65 years old in 2014. This represents 18 percent of Millcreek’s population. This is the third highest proportion for a municipality in the County. The proportion of elderly age groups in Millcreek has remained fairly steady since 2000, so it is assumed that the population will continue to maintain the 18 percent proportion of elderly residents.
Table 224: Projected ElderlyDRAFT Population Population 2014 2021 2026 Total 65 and Over 10,041 10,535 10,903
Other Groups Populations for youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, or the homeless, are measured on a regional basis. The numbers in these categories are largely independent of population growth and any population in these categories are likely temporary or transitionary. Housing facilitites in these categories are located regionally and the County provides operational support to the regional programs.
Forecast of Affordable Housing Need The following section analyzes the future demand for housing in Millcreek using population projections, historical building permit data, and current projects in the development pipeline.
Expected Housing Construction Salt Lake County building permit data indicates that approximately 43 residential building permits have been issued each year in Millcreek between 2010 and 2015. Most of these permits were issued for single-family residential developments.
Table 225: Millcreek Residential Building Permits (Source: SLCO Planning) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Annual Average Single-Family 30 23 35 28 48 33 197 32.83 Townhomes - - - - - 12 12 2.00 Two-Family 8 5 4 10 4 11 42 7.00 Multi-Family 1 - 1 4 1 1 8 1.33 Total 39 28 40 42 53 57 259 43.17
37 CDC WONDER data, 1999-2014
211 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
As of February 2017, there were 40 housing developments with current permits in the development pipeline in Millcreek, for a total of at least 339 additional lots or units. Pricing for these units was not currently available.
Table 226: Current Permit Projects Development Type Total Developments Total Units PUD 15 157 units Subdivision 16 57 lots Conditional Use for Apartments 6 99 units Mixed-Use Senior Apartments 1 NA Condition Use for Group Home 1 26 Residential Facility for Persons with a Disability 1 NA Total 40 339 lots/units
Projected Number of Needed Housing Units The population counts are used for basic demographic reference; however, to project housing unit needs the number of households were calculated in a slightly different manner in order to correspond with differing data fromDRAFT the County Assessor. To make this data consistent, the total number of households was based on the number of units listed by the Assessor multiplied by the occupancy rate listed by ACS for each community. To translate these figures to low and moderate income group distributions that value was then multiplied by the percentage of households in each income group (ACS) to determine the number of households in each targeted income group. The table below shows these household numbers by income group. Due to population and subsequent household growth projected in Millcreek, it is anticipated that there will be a large demand for additional units that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
Table 227: Total Affordable Housing Needs by Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Projected Projected Projected Current Current Current 10-year Total 10-year Total 10-year Total Need Need Need Need Need Need Millcreek 2,067 217 2,284 (195) 212 17 (1,823) 318 (1,505)
212 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
White City
Key Findings Housing is relatively affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI), with 42 percent of all units affordable at that threshold. Only 11 percent of housing units are affordable to households with very low incomes (up to 30 percent AMI), with an additional 12 percent affordable to households at 50 percent AMI. It is not anticipated that White City will have additional demand for affordable housing through 2026. DRAFT
Summary White City is located in the southeast quadrant of Salt Lake County. White City is one of the smaller metro townships, with an estimated population of only 5,390. Household and per capita incomes are lower in White City than in the County, while the average household size is larger in White City. The housing stock in White City is primarily single-family homes in average condition, and is generally older than other areas in Salt Lake County. Housing in White City is relatively affordable, with 35 percent of housing units affordable to moderate–income households.
213 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Population & Demographics Demographic characteristics greatly influence housing demands. Population growth, age, income and other characteristics of an area’s population influence what types of housing are desired and how many units need to be available. This section evaluates these factors in White City. This section will also summarize how the population has changed over the past decade and address the number of households White City has in targeted income groups with needs for affordable housing. Current demographic data is according to the most recent data as available – usually the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated for 2014 unless otherwise noted.
Population The population in White City has dropped slightly in past years. The 2010 population was 5,689 while the 2014 population was 5,488 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of -0.893 percent. In 2000, the area’s population was 5,872, further showing the slight trend of declining population growth. The area’s population is expected to keep this decline at a slow rate to 4,928 by 2026.
Table 228: Salt Lake County Population Estimates and Projections (Source: 2014 ACS) AAGR DRAFT2010 2014 2015 2016 2010-2014 White City 5,689 5,488 -0.893% 5,439 5,390
Age and Household Size White City falls in the middle for household size compared to the County with 3.22 people per household. White City’s household size is much larger than the national average of 2.63 and even higher than the Utah average of 3.14. The 2000 household size in White City was about the same at 3.33 persons per household.
Table 229: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Avg. HH Size Herriman 4.00 Bluffdale 3.74 Riverton2 3.64 Kearns 3.61 South Jordan 3.60 West Valley 3.57 Magna 3.56 West Jordan 3.45 Draper city 3.38 White City 3.22 Sandy 3.13 Taylorsville 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon 2.98 Cottonwood Heights 2.82 Copperton 2.74 Holladay 2.66
214 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Municipality Avg. HH Size South Salt Lake 2.66 Midvale 2.60 Murray 2.56 Millcreek 2.51 Salt Lake City 2.47 Alta 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
White City’s median age is 32.6 years old with 39.5 percent of households with children. White City also has among the highest proportion of population over 65 years old at 13.4 percent. While not the youngest in the County, White City’s median age is closer to the very low Utah and Salt Lake County medians of 29.9 and 31.5 respectively than the national average of 37.4. White City’s median age has risen, up from 30.1 in 2000. DRAFT
Table 230: Median Age and % of Population by Group (Source: 2014 ACS) Median % HHs w/ % of Total Age Pop. Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Herriman 21.6 Herriman 72.6% 2.8% Bluffdale 28.0 Riverton 57.0% 6.4% Magna 28.6 Magna 54.1% 5.3% West Jordan 29.4 West Jordan 51.9% 5.4% Riverton 29.5 Draper 51.1% 5.9%
215 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Median % HHs w/ % of Total Age Pop. Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Kearns 29.5 Kearns 51.0% 6.1% South Salt Lake 29.8 Bluffdale 50.6% 5.0% West Valley 30.1 West Valley 50.1% 7.4% South Jordan 30.8 South Jordan 48.9% 7.8% Midvale 31.0 Copperton 42.8% 18.5% Draper 31.1 Sandy 42.2% 10.5% Salt Lake City 31.4 White City 39.5% 13.4% Taylorsville 32.2 Taylorsville 38.3% 9.7% White City 32.6 Emigration Canyon 37.8% 9.2% Sandy 34.6 South Salt Lake 35.3% 6.5% Murray 34.9 Cottonwood Heights 34.9% 13.4% Cottonwood Heights 35.6 Midvale 31.8% 9.2% Copperton 35.9 Holladay 30.1% 17.6% Millcreek DRAFT36.1 Murray 29.1% 13.8% Holladay 38.1 Millcreek 27.8% 15.9% Alta 42.2 Salt Lake City 27.6% 9.9% Emigration Canyon 44.4 Alta 13.0% 5.0% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA NA
The metro township is fairly different to County-wide population distributions in most categories, especially in some female groups such as the 60-64 year olds where there is proportionally more.
Salt Lake County White City 85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 Years -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%
While most of the age categories have remained at roughly the same levels since 2000, there have been general decreases in the under 40 categories since 2000.
216 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
White City Age Categories – Trends 600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2014 ACS 2010 ACS 2000 Census DRAFT
Income Household incomes in White City are in the middle of income ranges for other municipalities in the County and slightly under the County median. White City’s median household income is $60,219 compared to the County at $61,446. On the other hand, White City’s has among the lower per capita incomes in the County at $21,691 per person. After adjusting for inflation, the 2000 median household income was higher at $71,405 and the per capita was $24,413.
Table 231: Household and Per Capita Incomes (Source: 2014 ACS) Median HH Income Per Capita Income Emigration Canyon $175,272 Emigration Canyon $74,607 Draper $94,852 Holladay $40,211 South Jordan $91,228 Cottonwood Heights $38,477 Bluffdale $88,731 Draper $34,083 Riverton $84,718 Millcreek $32,362 Herriman $78,141 Sandy $31,552 Sandy $78,048 Alta $31,210 Alta $77,500 Bluffdale $30,137 Cottonwood Heights $76,630 South Jordan $29,964 Holladay $72,827 Murray $29,013 West Jordan $69,404 Salt Lake City $28,428 Salt Lake County $61,446 Riverton $28,013 White City $60,219 Salt Lake County $26,747 Taylorsville $57,779 Midvale $23,716 Millcreek $57,429 Taylorsville $23,224 Kearns $57,097 Herriman $22,840
217 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Median HH Income Per Capita Income Magna $55,913 West Jordan $22,808 Murray $53,797 White City $21,691 West Valley City $52,814 Magna $18,738 Midvale $51,077 West Valley City $18,179 Salt Lake City $45,833 Kearns $17,764 Copperton $43,450 Copperton $17,458 South Salt Lake $37,238 South Salt Lake $17,421 Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
DRAFT
218 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
White City has very similar representation in each income bracket, compared to the County distributions, and has low representation in the highest income categories.
Table 232: Households by Income Bracket (Source: 2014 ACS) Households by Income Bracket White City Salt Lake County Less than $10,000 5.4% 5.0% $10,000 to $14,999 2.2% 3.8% $15,000 to $24,999 6.7% 8.8% $25,000 to $34,999 11.1% 9.0% $35,000 to $49,999 12.8% 13.2% $50,000 to $74,999 28.6% 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 15.7% 14.8% $100,000 to $149,999 14.0% 14.8% $150,000 to $199,999 2.2% 5.1% $200,000 or more 1.2% 4.8%
219 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
White City Salt Lake County
Income Distribution
DRAFT Employment White City has the lowest employment activity within the County compared to other areas of the County, but with increasing employment since 2009. The ratio of jobs per household is 0.14, indicating that more people commute out of White City than commute in to work.
Table 233: Employment by City (Source: DWS; 2014 ACS; ZPFI) 2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Alta NA NA NA 54 NA Copperton 1,954 NA NA 304 NA Emigration Canyon NA NA NA 878 NA Remaining NA NA NA 5,381 NA Unincorporated South Salt Lake 27,827 33,879 46,207 8,540 5.41 Salt Lake City 197,906 234,499 239,627 74,652 3.21 Murray 42,372 42,599 47,525 18,646 2.55 Draper 12,010 21,437 28,276 12,287 2.30 West Valley City 54,215 64,386 64,557 36,946 1.75 Sandy 36,834 40,415 46,824 28,478 1.64 Cottonwood Heights 14,889 6,051 19,093 12,042 1.59 South Jordan 12,883 15,515 23,408 15,713 1.49 Bluffdale 701 3,020 3,204 2,220 1.44 Midvale 20,845 12,329 15,287 11,434 1.34 Millcreek NA 19,578 27,349 25,085 1.09 West Jordan 19,180 26,237 30,735 31,116 0.99 Taylorsville 11,044 16,698 18,968 19,570 0.97 Riverton 4,318 6,843 9,394 11,044 0.85 Holladay 18,959 3,583 8,430 10,054 0.84
220 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Herriman NA 1,276 2,493 6,257 0.40 Magna 5,229 5,647 3,543 8,920 0.40 Kearns 6,246 3,650 3,433 10,652 0.32 White City NA 171 249 1,812 0.14 Note: For those areas noted as “NA”, data was not collected by DWS for those years.
The venn diagram to the right further illustrates the commuting and employment situation in White City. Most people leave White City to work elsewhere with very few working in White City and even fewer living and working there.
Of employees working in White City, education services is the largest employment sector at 17 percent, followed by health care. Of White City’s residents, the sectorsDRAFT most represented are retail and education.
Table 234: Percent of Employees by Industry (Source: Census “On the Map”) % Employees Working % White City in White City Residents Agriculture, Forestry, Finishing and Hunting 0.0% 0.0% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0% 0.4% Utilities 1.0% 0.7% Construction 14.7% 6.3% Manufacturing 0.5% 6.8% Wholesale Trade 0.7% 4.4% Retail Trade 7.1% 12.2% Transportation and Warehousing 0.3% 4.0% Information 0.3% 3.3% Finance and Insurance 2.9% 6.2% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 9.2% 1.2% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 8.8% 6.8% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.3% 2.1% Admin. & Support, Waste Mgt. and Remediation 8.1% 7.5% Educational Services 17.0% 11.0% Health Care and Social Assistance 15.8% 9.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0% 2.1% Accommodation and Food Services 0.0% 7.8%
221 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
% Employees Working % White City in White City Residents Other Services 13.0% 2.9% Public Administration 0.0% 4.4%
Transportation Average commute times for working individuals in White City are comparable to average commute times in Salt Lake County. The average travel time to work for individuals in White City is 22.9 minutes, which is slightly below the County average of 22.3 minutes. Approximately 46 percent of individuals in White City commute less than 20 minutes each way to work, compared to 45 percent in Salt Lake County.
Table 235: Commute Times to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) White City Salt Lake County White City Salt Lake County Cum. % Cum. % Less than 5 minutes 2% 2% 2% 2% 5 to 9 minutes DRAFT9% 9% 11% 11% 10 to 14 minutes 13% 15% 24% 25% 15 to 19 minutes 22% 19% 46% 45% 20 to 24 minutes 12% 20% 58% 65% 25 to 29 minutes 7% 7% 65% 72% 30 to 34 minutes 20% 15% 85% 87% 35 to 39 minutes 4% 2% 89% 89% 40 to 44 minutes 2% 3% 91% 92% 45 to 59 minutes 6% 5% 97% 96% 60 to 89 minutes 3% 2% 100% 99% 90 or more minutes 0% 1% 100% 100%
A very small portion of White City households do not have at least one vehicle available. Generally speaking, households in White City have more vehicles compared to the entire Salt Lake County.
Table 236: Number of Vehicles per Household (Source: 2014 ACS) White City Salt Lake County
No vehicles 1% 6% 1 vehicle 25% 30% 2 vehicles 45% 41% 3 or more vehicles 28% 24%
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) currently has 3 bus routes that run through White City, with approximately 3 stops. Additionally, there are multiple bus stops within a quarter mile of the White City limits. There are currently no light or commuter rail stations in White City; however, there are two stations within approximately two miles.38
38Sandy Civic Center (115 E Sego Lily Drive) and Sandy Expo Station (150 East 9400 South)
222 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Despite relative proximity to public transportation, approximately only 4.2 percent of working individuals in White City use public transportation as a means of transportation to work. Further analysis of the use of specific routes in White City and the surrounding area may identify the effectiveness of the current routes in getting passengers to key employment centers. Increased public transit options, and the location of affordable housing near public transit, can help to increase ridership while simultaneously decreasing monthly household expenses for transportation, ultimately increasing the total amount that could be spent on housing.
Table 237: Means of Transportation to Work (Source: 2014 ACS) White City Salt Lake County
Car – Drive Alone 79.7% 76.0% Car – Carpooled 5.2% 11.8% Public Transportation 4.2% 3.5% Walk 3.2% 2.1% Bicycle 0.0% 0.8% Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other 1.8% 1.1% Work at Home 5.9% 4.6%
Education White City has a good high school education rate that is fairly average for the County at 93.7 percent of residents with a high school degree. However, White City comes in a little lower with college graduate
223 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
populations with only 24.4 percent of residents that have a college degree. The maps and tables below show how White City compares to the rest of the County in both High School and College graduation rates.
Table 238: Percent of Population by Education Level (Source: 2014 ACS) % High School or % Bachelors or Higher Higher Emigration Canyon 98.6% Emigration Canyon 67.8% Bluffdale 97.4% Holladay 51.5% Cottonwood Heights 96.7% Cottonwood Heights 46.8% Herriman 96.6% Millcreek 42.2% Holladay 96.5% Salt Lake City 42.1% South Jordan 96.4% Draper 39.8% Draper 96.3% South Jordan 38.7% Riverton 96.1% Sandy 38.7% Sandy DRAFT95.5% Alta 36.8% Millcreek 94.0% Riverton 31.4% White City 93.7% Murray 30.0% Murray 92.3% Bluffdale 29.9% Copperton 91.0% Herriman 29.4% West Jordan 90.4% White City 24.4% Taylorsville 89.0% Midvale 23.8% Alta 88.4% West Jordan 23.5% Salt Lake City 86.5% South Salt Lake 23.3% Midvale 85.9% Taylorsville 20.5% Magna 80.8% West Valley City 12.7% South Salt Lake 78.4% Kearns 11.0% Kearns 77.9% Magna 9.4% West Valley City 77.7% Copperton 5.3% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
224 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
225 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Race and Ethnicity Compared to the County-wide proportion, White City is not very diverse. The population is primarily white and non-Hispanic.
Table 239: Percent of Population by Race (Source: 2014 ACS) White City Salt Lake County
Race
White Alone 94.4% 83.40% Black or African American Alone 0.3% 1.64% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.2% 0.80% Asian Alone 0.6% 3.53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0.5% 1.57% Some Other Race Alone 1.1% 6.34% Two or More Races: 2.9% 2.71% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 6.8% 17.47% DRAFT Maps show that White City is one of the least diverse areas in the County. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment noted that a dissimilarity index based on 2012 data showed low concentrations of minorities compared to white populations in White City and the surrounding Sandy City.
226 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
227 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Special Needs Groups
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates White City has 297 veterans, 46 with a service-connected disability rating; 72.4 percent of all veterans in White City are over 65 years of age.
DRAFT
Disability Among the noninstitutionalized population, 11.1 percent of the population is estimated to have a disability. For people under 18 years old, 6.1 percent have a disability, 7.6 percent for those between 18 and 64 years old, and 40.6 percent of those 65 and over. A total of 609 individuals were noted in 2014 as having a disability in White City. The table below shows for those that report a disability, the types of disabilities by age that could need accommodation in housing choices.
Table 240: Total Population with a Disability (Source: 2014 ACS) Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 70 240 299 609 With a hearing difficulty 0 0 86 136 222 With a vision difficulty 0 23 13 34 70 With a cognitive difficulty NA 70 57 47 174 With an ambulatory difficulty NA 23 115 140 278 With a self-care difficulty NA 23 10 84 117 With an independent living difficulty NA NA 45 140 185
228 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Elderly There were 737 individuals living in White City over 65 years old in 2014. This represents 13.4 percent of White City’s population. This is one of the higher proportions compared to the rest of the metro townships or municipalities in the County.
Table 241: Percent of Population over 65 Years Old (Source: 2014 ACS) West Herriman Alta Bluffdale Magna Draper Kearns Riverton Jordan 2.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4% South Salt West South Emigration Salt Lake Midvale Taylorsville Sandy Lake Valley Jordan Canyon City 6.5% 4.4% 7.8 9.2% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 10.5% Cottonwood White Murray Millcreek Holladay Copperton Heights City 13.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.9% 17.6% 18.5%
229 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Other Groups Individuals that are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, or youth aging out of foster care are often tracked by the various Local Homeless Coordinating Committees39 for a given area – Salt Lake County is represented by a single LHCC which collects data in each of these special populations. For 2015, it was estimated that there are a total of 2,140 individuals that are without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On a single night count, there were 548 individuals that were counted as victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 were veterans.
Current Housing Stock White City is heavily single-family homes “SFR”, with SFR comprising nearly 100 percent of all units in White City. The age of housing stock in White City is generally older than other areas in Salt Lake County. Most homes in White City are in average condition. This section relies primarily on the most recent Salt Lake County property assessments to determine the current available housing stock, with supplemental information from the ACS.
Total Housing Units with Breakdown by Type and Occupancy As of the 2016 County assessment, there are a total of 1,827 units in White City, including all single- family residences, townhomes,DRAFT mobile homes, duplexes, condos, apartment units. Detailed totals are given in the table below. For the purposes of this study, all single-family units (i.e., SFRs, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes) are grouped and analyzed as for-sale product, while multi-family residential units (i.e., duplexes and apartment units) are grouped and analyzed as for-rent product.
Table 242: Residential Units by Type (Source: SLCO Assessor) Total Percent of Total
Single-Family Residential 1,820 99.6% SFR 1,815 99.3% SFR w/ Mother-in-law Apt 3 0.2% SFR - Multiple Homes 2 0.1% Multi-Family Residential 7 0.4% Duplex 4 0.2% Mother-in-law Apartment 3 0.2% Total 1,827 100.0%
The 2014 ACS estimates a low vacancy rate for White City, including 6.4 percent for SFR, 2.1 percent of MFR, and 5.7 percent for all units. The overall vacancy rate is higher than Salt Lake County.
Table 243: Magna Vacancy Rates (Source: 2014 ACS) White City Salt Lake County
Single-Family Residential 6.4% 2.1% Multi-Family Residential 2.1% 6.3% All Units 5.7% 3.6%
39 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
230 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Housing Size The average single-family detached or townhome unit in White City is 1,948 square feet, which is over 600 square feet smaller than the County average of 2,626 square feet.
Table 244: Average Unit Size (Sources: SLCO Assessor; EquiMark Multi-Family Report 2014) Unit Type White City Salt Lake County SFR 1,948 2,626 When considering all unit types, approximately 54 percent of all units in White City are less than 2,000 square feet.
Table 245: Percent of Residential Units by Unit Square Feet (Source: SLCO Assessor) Square Feet White City % of Units White City Cum. % 999 or less 3% 3% 1,000 – 1,499 11% 14% 1,500 – 1,999 40% 54% 2,000 – 2,499 39% 93% 2,500 – 2,999 DRAFT 5% 98% 3,000 or more 2% 100%
Lot sizes in White City are comparable to lot sizes throughout Salt Lake County. The average SFR lot in White City is 0.22 acres, compared to 0.27 in Salt Lake County.
Table 246: Average Lot Size (Source: SLCO Assessor) Unit Type White City Salt Lake County SFR 0.22 0.27
Residential units in White City have approximately 3.72 bedrooms per unit, compared to 3.11 in Salt Lake County. The table below shows the percent of units by the number of bedrooms. In White City, only 8 percent of units have no more than 2 bedrooms, compared to 33 percent in Salt Lake County. On the other hand, 40 percent of units in Salt Lake County have 4 or more bedrooms, compared to 56 percent in White City.
Table 247: Percent of Residential Units by Number of Bedrooms (Sources: 2014 ACS) White City SLCO Bedrooms White City SLCO Cum. % Cum. % No bedrooms 0% 0% 1% 1% 1 bedroom 1% 1% 10% 11% 2 bedrooms 8% 8% 22% 33% 3 bedrooms 36% 44% 27% 60% 4 bedrooms 31% 75% 22% 82% 5 or more bedrooms 25% 100% 18% 100%
Census data indicates that only 1.7 percent of White City households have more than one occupant per room,40 which is lower than the County estimate of 4.1 percent of homes.
40 Includes any rooms in the house
231 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 248: Percent of Households by Number of Occupants per Room (Source: 2014 ACS) White City SLCO Occupants per Room White City SLCO Cum. % Cum. % 1.00 or less 98.3% 98.3% 95.9% 95.9% 1.01 to 1.50 1.7% 100.0% 3.4% 99.3% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 0.7% 100.0%
In White City, the number of occupants per room is higher for renter-occupied units than for owner- occupied units. This may indicate either a lack of larger for-rent units, or a lack of larger for-rent units that are also affordable.
Table 249: Percent of Households by Occupants per Room and Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) White City SLCO Occupants per Room White City SLCO Cum. % Cum. % Owner Occupied 1.00 or less 98.4% 98.4% 97.8% 97.8% 1.01 to 1.50 DRAFT1.6% 100.0% 1.8% 99.6% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 0.3% 100.0% Renter Occupied 1.00 or less 97.6% 97.6% 92.0% 92.0% 1.01 to 1.50 2.4% 100.0% 6.5% 98.5% 1.51 or more 0.0% 100.0% 1.4% 100.0%
Housing Quality The age of housing units in White City is generally older than other units in Salt Lake County. For example, 69 percent of all units in White City were built before 1970, compared to only 32 percent in Salt Lake County. Furthermore, only 1 percent of units in White City were built after 1980, compared to 48 percent in Salt Lake County. Furthermore, very little new development has occurred in White City in recent years, with only 3 new units since 2010.
Table 250: Percent of Residential Units by Year Built (Sources: SLCO Assessor, 2014 ACS) White City White City White City SLCO % SLCO Cum. % Year Built Cum. % of Units % of Units of Units of Units Units 1939 or earlier 4 0% 0% 9% 9% 1940 to 1949 5 0% 0% 4% 13% 1950 to 1959 648 35% 36% 10% 23% 1960 to 1969 600 33% 69% 9% 32% 1970 to 1979 539 30% 98% 20% 52% 1980 to 1989 7 0% 99% 14% 66% 1990 to 1999 9 0% 99% 16% 82% 2000 to 2009 12 1% 100% 16% 98% 2010 or later 3 0% 100% 2% 100%
232 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
The condition of units in White City is about average, with 92 percent of units indicated as average by the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office. Furthermore, there are an equal percentage of units that are above average as there are below average.
Table 251: Percent of Residential Units by Condition (Source: SLCO Assessor) Condition Units % Total Cum. % Special Obsolesced 2 0% 0% Excellent 12 1% 1% Very Good 8 0% 1% Good 57 3% 4% Average 1675 92% 96% Fair 66 4% 100% Poor 3 0% 100% Other 1 0% 100% Total 2 0% 0%
Market Values and Rental Rates An overview of housing values and market conditions is given here to further illustrate White City’s housing stock. Housing prices are analyzed in more detail in the next section titled “Current Affordable Housing and Need” in regards to affordability for targeted groups.
This study considers two housing categories: a category that includes SFRs, condos, townhomes, and mobile homes; and a second category for multi-family rentals. The first category represents units that
233 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
are individually assessed and can be bought and sold as a single unit. While a portion of these units are rented, rental rates are unknown and the unit can become owner-occupied. The values of these units, regardless of rental status, are based on their market value as given by the County. Multi-family rentals include duplexes and apartments, and are studied by their rental rates, based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
The 2014 ACS indicates that the median home value in White City is $184,100, almost $50,000 less than the County median of $231,000.
The maps below show assessed market value by property and by acres for SFR, townhomes, and condo units within White City. There do not appear to be any clusters of more expensive units. Generally, the market value per acre increases in White City, due to the smaller lot sizes.
The table below shows the SFR units, listed by the County-assessed market value. These units may also include some accessory dwelling units unlisted by the County.
Table 252: Assessed Housing Values in White City (Source: SLCO Assessor) Home Value Range DRAFT# of Units % Total Cum. % of Total <$100,000 2 0% 0% $100,000 - $124,999 5 0% 0% $125,000 - $139,999 47 3% 3% $140,000 - $149,999 56 3% 6% $150,000 - $159,999 46 3% 9% $160,000 - $169,999 69 4% 12% $170,000 - $179,999 148 8% 20% $180,000 - $189,999 334 18% 39% $190,000 - $199,999 428 24% 62% $200,000 - $219,999 448 25% 87% $220,000 - $239,999 158 9% 96% $240,000 - $259,999 39 2% 98% $260,000 - $279,999 11 1% 98% $280,000 - $299,999 6 0% 99% $300,000 - $324,999 6 0% 99% $325,000 - $349,999 1 0% 99% $350,000 - $374,999 3 0% 99% $375,000 - $399,999 1 0% 99% $400,000 - $424,999 1 0% 99% $425,000 - $449,999 - 0% 99% $450,000 - $474,999 - 0% 99% $475,000 - $499,999 1 0% 99% $500,000 - $599,999 2 0% 100% $600,000 - $699,999 7 0% 100% $700,000+ 1 0% 100% Total SFR Units 1,820 100% 100%
234 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Rental prices are also important to consider in the affordability of the current housing stock. White City currently has approximately seven MFR units, most of which are duplexes. The percent of rental units by gross rent, according to the 2014 ACS, for units in White City are listed in the table below.
Table 253: Gross Rent for Rental Units (Source: 2014 ACS) Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total No Rent 2 23.5% 23.5% $0 - $99 - 0.0% 23.5% $100 - $149 - 0.0% 23.5% $150 - $199 - 0.0% 23.5% $200 - $249 - 0.0% 23.5% $250 - $299 - 0.0% 23.5% $300 - $349 - 0.0% 23.5% $350 - $399 - 0.0% 23.5% $400 - $449 - 0.0% 23.5% $450 - $499 - 0.0% 23.5% $500 - $549 - 0.0% 23.5% $550 - $599 - 0.0% 23.5% $600 - $649 0 3.4% 26.9% $650 - $699 - 0.0% 26.9% $700 - $749 - 0.0% 26.9% $750 - $799 - 0.0% 26.9%
235 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total $800 - $899 - 0.0% 26.9% $900 - $999 0 3.7% 30.6% $1,000 - $1,249 1 17.3% 48.0% $1,250 - $1,499 2 33.0% 81.0% $1,500 - $1,999 1 19.0% 100.0% >$2,000 - 0.0% 100.0% Total 7 100% 100%
Percent of Monthly Income to Housing Costs The 2014 ACS estimates that 24 percent of White City households spend more than the recommended 30 percent of total monthly income on housing costs.
Table 254: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room White City SLCO Less than 20 percent 52.10% 39.80% 20 to 29 percent DRAFT18.10% 24.70% 30 percent or more 24.20% 33.60% Zero or negative income 1.50% 1.00% No cash rent 4.10% 1.10%
The percent of households that spend more than 30 percent on housing costs is greater for renter- occupied units than owner-occupied units, indicating a need for more affordable rental options. In both cases, the White City estimates are less than the countywide estimates.
Table 255: Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Housing Costs by Tenure (Source: 2014 ACS) Occupants per Room White City SLCO Owner Occupied Less than 20 percent 55.00% 48.10% 20 to 29 percent 21.10% 24.90% 30 percent or more 22.60% 26.70% Zero or negative income 1.10% 0.50% Renter Occupied Less than 20 percent 37.50% 23.00% 20 to 29 percent 3.70% 24.30% 30 percent or more 32.00% 47.30% Zero or negative income 3.40% 1.90% No cash rent 23.50% 3.30%
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need The findings of the affordability analysis for White City include:
Housing is relatively affordable for moderate-income households (80 percent AMI), with 42 percent of all units affordable at that threshold.
236 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Only 11 percent of housing units are affordable to households with very low incomes (up to 30 percent AMI), with an additional 12 percent affordable to households at 50 percent AMI.
Availability for Targeted Income Groups As in the housing stock analysis, affordability is broken into two housing categories: one for SFRs, condos, mobile homes, and townhomes and a second for multi-family rentals. The affordability of the first category of units is based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. The affordability of multi-family units is based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
SFR, Condo, Townhome, and Mobile Home For the targeted low- and moderate- income households, DRAFT there are no SFR units that are affordable to households below 30 percent of AMI, and only two units available at 50 percent. The vast majority of affordable SFR units are within the 50 to 80 percent of AMI group, with 625 units. Overall, 34 percent of SFR units are affordable to households at 80 percent AMI. Many of the affordable SFR units are spread throughout White City, with a large cluster of units located east of 700 East between Sego Lilly Drive and 10600 South. Coincidently, this area also has some of the oldest homes in White City.
Table 256: Number of Affordable SFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Max Home Price # Affordable Cum. % Income Max % of Units Income Level (4% Mortgage) SFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $35,128 0 0% 0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $95,642 2 0% 0% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $187,638 625 34% 34%
According to assessment data, zero SFR units that are affordable at 80 percent AMI have been constructed since 2010. Assessment records indicate that the most recent affordable SFR unit constructed was completed in1992.
237 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 257: Affordable SFR by Year Built Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1939 or earlier - - 4 - 1940 - 1949 - 2 - 3 1950 - 1959 - - 285 362 1960 - 1969 - - 213 385 1970 - 1979 - - 120 417 1980 - 1989 - - 2 5 1990 - 1999 - - 1 8 2000 - 2009 - - - 10 2010 or later - - - 3 Total - 2 625 1,193
Affordability of SFR by Year Built 100% 90% DRAFT 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1939 or 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010 or earlier later
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Above 80% AMI
Apartments and Duplexes Rentals are generally more affordable to low-income households than purchasing a home. This is definitely the case in White City, in which 59 percent of MFR units are affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI. Despite the high affordability of MFR units in White City, the overall lack of MFR units in White City does not indicate much opportunity for households to rent in White City.
Table 258: Number of Affordable MFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Monthly # Affordable Cumulative % Income Max % of Units Income Level Rental Max MFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $504 2 23% 23% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $831 0 3% 27% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $1,329 2 32% 59%
238 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Summary of Affordability and Number of Additional Units Needed If only considering whether housing is affordable at the 80 percent of AMI threshold, housing in White City is relatively affordable, with 42 percent of units being affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI (see the table below).
Table 259: Number of Affordable Units by Targeted Income Group Household % Households Units Households Affordable Units Income Level Affordable % Cum. % Cum. % < 30% AMI 2 0.1% 10.75% 0.1% 10.75% 30-50% AMI 2 0.1% 11.81% 0.2% 22.56% 50-80% AMI 627 34.3% 19.26% 34.5% 41.82%
In many cases, low- to moderate-income households consist of elderly residents who may not have a mortgage. Furthermore, the income for many of these households without a mortgage is not sufficient enough to purchase the home. In order to more accurately state the current housing stock and need for affordable units, the difference in the number of households and number of units by income level shown below exclude households and units that do not currently have a mortgage. DRAFT The number of units currently needed for each income group is outlined in the table below. Positive values indicate the number of needed units to meet the current demand; negative values indicate areas in which there are more affordable units than there are households in the income range, or in other words, an excess supply of affordable units. There is a significant lack of units affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI, and 131 excess units affordable at up to 80 percent of AMI and 196 excess units above 80 percent of AMI, indicating that many low- to moderate-income households in White City are living in units that are above their income. Overall, there is a deficiency of 91 affordable units to households below 80 percent AMI.
Table 260: Number of Units Currently Needed by Targeted Income Group Households Units Difference Cum. Difference < 30% AMI 126 0 126 126 30-50% AMI 96 0 96 222 50-80% AMI 230 361 (131) 91 > 80% AMI 798 994 (196) (104) Total 1,250 1,354 (104)
White City - Comparison of Units to Households 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 Total Units 200 0 < 30% of AMI 30% to 50% of AMI 50% to 80% of AMI > 80% of AMI
Remaining HH Remaining Units
239 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordable Housing – County-Wide Comparison Compared to the other metro townships in Salt Lake County, White City is in the bottom third when it comes to overall affordability to moderate-income households. While White City is not as affordable as most of the metro townships, including Copperton, Magna, Kearns, and Millcreek, it is more affordable than Emigration Canyon and the unincorporated islands.
Table 261: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cumulative Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2% Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Unincorporated Islands 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County PopulationDRAFT 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3%
Availability of Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups While fair housing laws and enforcement are an important part of clearing impediments or obstacles to housing opportunities for minorities, the core impediment to fair housing choice is still most often affordability. County-wide minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-income categories. With this in mind, the primary analysis on affordable housing for low-income households is the most important determination of housing availability for minority groups. Some minority racial and ethnic groups in the County and White City are below the poverty level at much greater rates than the white and non-Hispanic/Latino population. In White City, the Hispanic and Latino population is less likely to be in poverty, unlike the rest of the County.
Table 262: Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: 2014 ACS) % of % of Race/Ethnic Race/Ethnic Total White City Total Salt Lake Population Population Population County Below Poverty Below Poverty Level Level Race
White Alone 94.4% 9.3% 83.4% 12.7% Black or African American 0.0% 1.6% 10.5% Alone 0.3% American Indian and Alaska 0.0% 0.8% 27.9% Native Alone 0.2% Asian Alone 0.6% 0.0% 3.5% 32.8% Native Hawaiian and Other 18.5% 1.6% 18.0% Pacific Islander Alone 0.5% Some Other Race Alone 1.1% 0.0% 6.3% 24.1% Two or More Races: 2.9% 1.9% 2.7% 30.6% Ethnicity
240 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
% of % of Race/Ethnic Race/Ethnic Total White City Total Salt Lake Population Population Population County Below Poverty Below Poverty Level Level Hispanic or Latino 6.8% 0.0% 17.5% 26.7% White Alone, Not Hispanic 9.9% 8.5% or Latino
For Salt Lake County, about 17 percent of the population belongs to a minority and 17 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino (not necessarily the same population, the similar numbers are coincidental). There are no areas in White City with Census Block Groups that have populations greater than this County average.
Although there are no areas with high minority concentrations, it is noted in the County’s Analysis of Impediments to fair housing that zoning issues can contribute to segregation and limitations to affordable housing. The following zoning categories are those that intersect with minority concentrations in the DRAFTCounty along with notes on potential housing impediments they might cause.
Table 263: White City Zoning Categories Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments A-1 Low Density, but two-family units are allowed conditionally A-2 Very Low Density C-1 Commercial only C-2/C-2/zc C-3/C-3/zc R-1-5 Restrictions to Accessory Units Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-6 SFR Only Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-8/R-1-8/zc SFR Only Large Lot Size Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-10 SFR Only Large Lot Size R-2-6.5
Restrictions to Accessory Units R-2-8 No dwelling groups R-2-10 R-M/R-M/zc R-4-8.5 M-1/M-1/zc Non-residential except very special exceptions, including very large lot size M-2 MD-3/zc
241 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Some common zoning41 and policy issues42 that can be generally limiting on affordable or fair housing availability are listed below. While these may not necessarily be specific to current County zoning laws, they are issues found around the country and are known to have disparate impacts. Caution should be taken around these types of approaches as they can limit fair and affordable housing availability for special groups.
. Codes that provide a definition of a “family”, specifically codes that discuss if family members are defined by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship o Utah courts have not ruled on potentially discriminatory aspects of family definitions but other states have noted that defining a family – specifically in number of people, type of relation and capping the number of unrelated persons in a household – does not serve any legitimate objective under the zoning powers of a municipality. . Limits on unrelated people residing together; . Absence of density bonuses, fee waivers, and accessory units, . Strict zoning requiring conditional use permits for certain housing types, such as accessory units; . Community “friendliness” of local zoning ordinances to rental housing that influences the siting of rental housing to segregated areas of the community; . Occupancy limits;DRAFT . Zones that only permit elderly housing; . Limits on who can live in an affordable housing system, such as local applicants or municipal employees only; . Lack of targeted marketing to protected classes for public housing or subsidy programs; . Requiring large lots and limited areas zoned for multifamily housing; . Tax assessments that are higher in neighborhoods of color; . Failure to have a housing authority or family voucher program; . Lack of a complaint process; and . Lack of training for municipal staff on direct and indirect impacts on fair housing opportunity.
Specific to RDA funds, the failure to actively use RDA set-aside funds for affordable housing in a timely manner – back-loading affordable housing expenditures to the end of the life of the RDA – also contributes to a lack of affordable and fair housing availability.
A more detailed analysis of fair housing issues is outlined later in this report.
Availability of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Groups
Disability Countywide, about two-thirds of those with a disability are in very low income households. If this holds true in White City, then at least 609 individuals with a disability in White City need some sort of affordable housing with accessibility and/or wheelchair access. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Assessment and Analysis of Impediments noted that, while the exact number of accessible rental units is untracked, it can be estimated from building permits up to 2013 that there are about 7,400 apartments in the entire County that meet the basic FHA accessibility standards. For those requiring a wheelchair, the supply is much lower with about 285 units in the County available for about 1,800 needing
41 Salt Lake County Regional Analysis of Impediments 2013 42 http://www.ctfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CFHC-AffirmFurthGuideGrantees.pdf
242 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
wheelchair access County-wide. Many of these individuals live in assisted care facilities, but many do not. There are no assisted living facilities in White City. Not only is this not enough to cover the disability needs in White City, but the shortage is magnified when considering the larger need for elderly care.
Veterans SLCo Homeless and Transitional Shelter The 2014 ACS estimates White City has (Beds) 297 veterans, 46 with a service- connected disability rating; 72.4 24 percent of all veterans in White City 334 Emergency Shelter are over 65 years of age. This special needs group overlaps with the Transitional 1,506 disability and elderly populations with Housing needs for assisted living facilities. However, they also have access to Permanent Supportive Housing additional resources through the 1,929 federal government and non-profit Rapid Re-Housing programs. 724 DRAFT Safe Haven Elderly As mentioned, there are no assisted living and nursing home facilities within White City. The Salt Lake County Analysis of Impediments found that the location distribution is generally not heavily determined by zoning, but more by corporate location policies that tend to prefer locations with above average incomes and property values. As a result, opportunities for the elderly and disabled to live in care facilities are more available in and around Millcreek, White City, and the Unincorporated Islands and less available in Kearns and Magna.
Other Groups For 2015, there were an estimated 2,140 individuals43 that were without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On one single night count of these individuals, among them were 548 victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 veterans. There are an estimated 4,517 beds available across the various providers in the County – more than enough to cover the County’s needs for these special and at-risk groups. While the population of displaced individuals is likely concentrated in Salt Lake City, it’s possible that the lack of distribution of shelters in the County may be harmful to individuals in urgent need or with transportation difficulty.
43 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
243 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections
Population Projections Population projections for the next five to ten years were formed using both Census block data and the population figures listed by the American Community Survey (ACS). These populations from 2010 and 2014 established the baseline growth rate that was then extended into straight-line projections for the future populations of each community.
Table 264: Population Estimates and Projections AAGR 2010 2014 2010- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2014 White City 5,689 5,488 -0.893% 5,439 5,390 5,342 5,295 5,247 5,200
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
White City DRAFT 5,154 5,108 5,062 5,017 4,972 4,928 Targeted Groups – Projections
Income Groups Projections for income groups assume a similar proportion of the households will fall into the targeted income groups as they do today.
Table 265: Projected Households and Population by Targeted Income Group Total AMI < 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Households % Households 10.80% 11.80% 19.30% 41.9% 2014 Households 185 203 332 720 2021 Households 177 194 317 688 2026 Households 168 185 302 656
Disability The proportion of those with a disability is also expected to stay the same. These proportions are based on the 2014 population to directly compare ACS disability data. However, the proportions are then applied to the 2021 and 2026 projections. Many low-income households are represented by disabled populations that have a high need for accessible rental housing.
Table 266: Projected Disability Population in 2021 Total 2021 Population: 5,154 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 66 225 281 572 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 0 81 128 208 With a Vision Difficulty 0 22 12 32 66 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 66 54 44 163 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 22 108 131 261 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 22 9 79 110
244 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Total 2021 Population: 5,154 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 42 131 174
Table 267: Projected Disability Population in 2026 Total 2026 Population: 4,928 Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 64 65 + Total Population with a Disability 0 63 216 268 547 With a Hearing Difficulty 0 0 77 122 199 With a Vision Difficulty 0 21 12 31 63 With a Cognitive Difficulty NA 63 51 42 156 With an Ambulatory Difficulty NA 21 103 126 250 With a Self-Care Difficulty NA 21 9 75 105 With an Independent Living Difficulty NA NA 40 126 166
Veterans The 2014 ACS estimates White City has 297 veterans with 72.4 percent over 65 years of age. To project the number of veterans for the next five to ten years, two approaches were taken based on the assumption that thereDRAFT are two primary groupings – senior veterans that were drafted and younger veterans that enlisted voluntarily at a lower rate. To project the number of the younger group under 65 years old, the 2014 population proportion was maintained and applied to the total population. For those over 65, Salt Lake County’s mortality rate44 of 7.8 per year per 1000 people for those 55 to 65 and older was applied, assuming this group would not grow with the population. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 268: Projected Veteran Population Veterans in White City 2014 2021 2026 Under 65 82 51 37 Over 65 215 203 195 Total 297 255 232
Elderly There were 737 individuals living in White City over 65 years old in 2014. This represents over 13.4 percent of White City’s population. The proportion of elderly age groups in White City has remained fairly steady since 2000, so it is assumed that the population will continue to maintain the same proportion of elderly residents with future population changes.
Table 269: Projected Elderly Population Population 2014 2021 2026 Total 65 and Over 737 692 662
Other Groups Populations for youth aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence, or the homeless, are measured on a regional basis. The numbers in these categories are largely independent of population growth and any population in these categories are likely temporary or transitionary. Housing facilitites
44 CDC WONDER data, 1999-2014
245 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
in these categories are located regionally and the County provides operational support to the regional programs.
Forecast of Affordable Housing Need The following section analyzes the future demand for housing in White City using population projections, historical building permit data, and current projects in the development pipeline.
Expected Housing Construction Salt Lake County building permit data indicates that less than one residential building permit has been issued per year in White City between 2010 and 2015.
Table 270: White City Residential Building Permits (Source: SLCO Planning) Annual 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Single-Family - - 1 - 2 - 3 0.50 Two-Family 1 - - - 1 - 2 0.33 Total 1DRAFT - 1 - 3 - 5 0.83
As of February 2017, there were no current permit projects in the development pipeline in White City.
Projected Number of Needed Housing Units The population counts are used for basic demographic reference; however, to project housing unit needs the number of households were calculated in a slightly different manner in order to correspond with differing data from the County Assessor. To make this data consistent, the total number of households was based on the number of units listed by the Assessor multiplied by the occupancy rate listed by ACS for each metro township. To translate these figures to low and moderate income group distributions that value was then multiplied by the percentage of households in each income group (ACS) to determine the number of households in each targeted income group. The table below shows these household numbers by income group. Due to the projected decline in population and households in White City, it is not anticipated that White City will have additional demand for affordable housing through 2026.
Table 271: Total Affordable Housing Needs by Targeted Income Group 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Projected Projected Projected Current Current Current 10-year Total 10-year Total 10-year Total Need Need Need Need Need Need White City 126 (17) 109 96 (18) 78 (131) (30) (161)
246 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Unincorporated Islands
Key Findings Housing is largely unaffordable to moderate-income households (80 percent AMI), with an extremely small 4 percent of units affordable at this income threshold. MFR units in the islands are significantly more affordable than SFR units; however, the overall lack of MFR units throughout the islands does not indicate much opportunity for households to rent in the islands.
DRAFT
Summary There are several unincorporated islands in Salt Lake County, most of which are surrounded by Sandy City, with an additional island located near South Jordan and another near Cottonwood Heights. The size each of island varies significantly, ranging from just less than one square mile to less than one acre.
Due to the sizes of the islands, most demographic data was not readily available. Housing stock in the unincorporated islands is primarily single-family homes. The age of housing stock in the islands is generally older and in average condition. Housing in the unincorporated islands is generally not affordable, with only 4 percent of housing units affordable to moderate–income households.
247 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Population & Demographics Demographic characteristics greatly influence housing demands. Population growth, age, income and other characteristics of an area’s population influence what types of housing are desired and how many units need to be available. This section evaluates these factors in the Unincorporated Islands. This section will also summarize how the population has changed over the past decade. Current demographic data is according to the most recent data as available – usually the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated for 2014 unless otherwise noted.
Population The population in the islands has risen slightly in past years. The 2010 population was 8,041 while the 2014 population was 8,128 with an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 0.271 percent. The area’s population is expected to keep this slight upward trend to a population of 8,396 by 2026.
Age and Household Size The household size and median age is unavailable for the Islands. However, the household size for Sandy is 3.13. The Utah average is a similar 3.14. Utah as a state tends to have a very high household size compared to the rest of the country. DRAFT Table 272: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Avg. HH Size Herriman 4.00 Bluffdale 3.74 Riverton 3.64 Kearns 3.61 South Jordan 3.60 West Valley 3.57 Magna 3.56 West Jordan 3.45 Draper city 3.38 White City 3.22 Sandy 3.13 Taylorsville 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon 2.98 Cottonwood Heights 2.82 Copperton 2.74 Holladay 2.66 South Salt Lake 2.66 Midvale 2.60 Murray 2.56 Millcreek 2.51 Salt Lake City 2.47 Alta 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
248 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Sandy’s median age is 34.6 years old with 42.2 percent of households with children. White City also has among the highest proportion of population over 65 years old at 10.5 percent. The Utah and Salt Lake County medians are 29.9 and 31.5 respectively, lower than the national average of 37.4.
Table 273: Median Age and % of Population by Group (Source: 2014 ACS) Median % HHs w/ % of Total Age Pop. Under 18 Pop. Over 65 Herriman 21.6 Herriman 72.6% 2.8% Bluffdale 28.0 Riverton 57.0% 6.4% Magna 28.6 Magna 54.1% 5.3% West Jordan 29.4 West Jordan 51.9% 5.4% Riverton 29.5 Draper 51.1% 5.9% Kearns 29.5 Kearns 51.0% 6.1% South Salt Lake 29.8 Bluffdale 50.6% 5.0% West Valley 30.1 West Valley 50.1% 7.4% South Jordan DRAFT30.8 South Jordan 48.9% 7.8% Midvale 31.0 Copperton 42.8% 18.5% Draper 31.1 Sandy 42.2% 10.5% Salt Lake City 31.4 White City 39.5% 13.4% Taylorsville 32.2 Taylorsville 38.3% 9.7% White City 32.6 Emigration Canyon 37.8% 9.2% Sandy 34.6 South Salt Lake 35.3% 6.5% Murray 34.9 Cottonwood Heights 34.9% 13.4% Cottonwood Heights 35.6 Midvale 31.8% 9.2% Copperton 35.9 Holladay 30.1% 17.6% Millcreek 36.1 Murray 29.1% 13.8% Holladay 38.1 Millcreek 27.8% 15.9% Alta 42.2 Salt Lake City 27.6% 9.9% Emigration Canyon 44.4 Alta 13.0% 5.0% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA NA
249 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
250 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Income The income levels within the islands specifically are unknown, but Sandy’s median household income is $78,048 compared to the County at $61,446. The per capita incomes in Sandy are at $31,552 per person.
Table 274: Household and Per Capita Incomes (Source: 2014 ACS) Median HH Income Per Capita Income Emigration Canyon $175,272 Emigration Canyon $74,607 Draper $94,852 Holladay $40,211 South Jordan $91,228 Cottonwood Heights $38,477 Bluffdale $88,731 Draper $34,083 Riverton $84,718 Millcreek $32,362 Herriman $78,141 Sandy $31,552 Sandy $78,048 Alta $31,210 Alta $77,500 Bluffdale $30,137 Cottonwood Heights DRAFT$76,630 South Jordan $29,964 Holladay $72,827 Murray $29,013 West Jordan $69,404 Salt Lake City $28,428 Salt Lake County $61,446 Riverton $28,013 White City $60,219 Salt Lake County $26,747 Taylorsville $57,779 Midvale $23,716 Millcreek $57,429 Taylorsville $23,224 Kearns $57,097 Herriman $22,840 Magna $55,913 West Jordan $22,808 Murray $53,797 White City $21,691 West Valley City $52,814 Magna $18,738 Midvale $51,077 West Valley City $18,179 Salt Lake City $45,833 Kearns $17,764 Copperton $43,450 Copperton $17,458 South Salt Lake $37,238 South Salt Lake $17,421 Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
251 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
252 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Employment The area around Sandy has active commercial activity and is a small employment center. The Jobs per household in Sandy is 1.64, indicating that there are moderate rates of in-commuting to the area.
Table 275: Employment by City (Source: DWS; 2014 ACS; ZPFI) 2004 2009 2014 2014 2014 Jobs
Employment Employment Employment Households per HH Alta NA NA NA 54 NA Copperton 1,954 NA NA 304 NA Emigration Canyon NA NA NA 878 NA Remaining NA NA NA 5,381 NA Unincorporated South Salt Lake 27,827 33,879 46,207 8,540 5.41 Salt Lake City 197,906 234,499 239,627 74,652 3.21 Murray 42,372 42,599 47,525 18,646 2.55 Draper 12,010 21,437 28,276 12,287 2.30 West Valley City DRAFT54,215 64,386 64,557 36,946 1.75 Sandy 36,834 40,415 46,824 28,478 1.64 Cottonwood Heights 14,889 6,051 19,093 12,042 1.59 South Jordan 12,883 15,515 23,408 15,713 1.49 Bluffdale 701 3,020 3,204 2,220 1.44 Midvale 20,845 12,329 15,287 11,434 1.34 Millcreek NA 19,578 27,349 25,085 1.09 West Jordan 19,180 26,237 30,735 31,116 0.99 Taylorsville 11,044 16,698 18,968 19,570 0.97 Riverton 4,318 6,843 9,394 11,044 0.85 Holladay 18,959 3,583 8,430 10,054 0.84 Herriman NA 1,276 2,493 6,257 0.40 Magna 5,229 5,647 3,543 8,920 0.40 Kearns 6,246 3,650 3,433 10,652 0.32 White City NA 171 249 1,812 0.14 Note: For those areas noted as “NA”, data was not collected by DWS for those years.
Transportation While very few bus routes travel through any of the unincorporated islands, most of the islands are within ¼ mile of a bus stop. Furthermore, all of the nearby bus routes lead to one of six light rail stations located in the area.
253 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Education The surrounding area of Sandy has good education rates at 95.5 percent of residents with a high school degree and 38.7 with college degrees. The maps and tables below show how the area compares to the rest of the County in both High School and College graduation rates.
Table 276: Percent of Population by Education Level (Source: 2014 ACS) % High School or % Bachelors or Higher Higher Emigration Canyon 98.6% Emigration Canyon 67.8% Bluffdale 97.4% Holladay 51.5% Cottonwood Heights 96.7% Cottonwood Heights 46.8% Herriman 96.6% Millcreek 42.2% Holladay 96.5% Salt Lake City 42.1% South Jordan 96.4% Draper 39.8% Draper 96.3% South Jordan 38.7% Riverton 96.1% Sandy 38.7% Sandy 95.5% Alta 36.8% Millcreek 94.0% Riverton 31.4% White City 93.7% Murray 30.0%
254 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
% High School or % Bachelors or Higher Higher Murray 92.3% Bluffdale 29.9% Copperton 91.0% Herriman 29.4% West Jordan 90.4% White City 24.4% Taylorsville 89.0% Midvale 23.8% Alta 88.4% West Jordan 23.5% Salt Lake City 86.5% South Salt Lake 23.3% Midvale 85.9% Taylorsville 20.5% Magna 80.8% West Valley City 12.7% South Salt Lake 78.4% Kearns 11.0% Kearns 77.9% Magna 9.4% West Valley City 77.7% Copperton 5.3% Remaining Unincorporated NA Remaining Unincorporated NA
DRAFT
255 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
Race and Ethnicity Race and ethnic identity counts are available for the islands at the block group level. Using geographic tabulation to total these counts by race and ethnic group, the proportions of these groups relative to the population within the islands is show below. Overall, the area the islands cover is less white than the County, but also less ethnically diverse.
Table 277: Percent of Population by Race (Source: 2014 ACS) Unincorporated Islands Salt Lake County
Race
White Alone 82.6% 83.40% Black or African American Alone 0.6% 1.64% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.1% 0.80% Asian Alone 3.7% 3.53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0.7% 1.57% Some Other Race Alone 1.5% 6.34% Two or More Races: 1.4% 2.71% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 4.4% 17.47%
256 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
257 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Maps show that generally the islands are not diverse, with the exception of one area that is significantly racially diverse. This area is the reason the counts above are diverse even though the map around Sandy is generally more white and non-Hispanic.
DRAFT
258 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Special Needs Groups
Veterans The number of veterans within the islands is unknown.
DRAFT
Disability The number of individuals with disabilities in the unincorporated islands is unknown.
259 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Elderly The proportion of elderly residents in the islands is not available.
Table 278: Percent of Population over 65 Years Old (Source: 2014 ACS) West Herriman Alta Bluffdale Magna Draper Kearns Riverton Jordan 2.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4% South Salt West South Emigration Salt Lake Midvale Taylorsville Sandy Lake Valley Jordan Canyon City 6.5% 4.4% 7.8 9.2% 9.2% 9.7% 9.9% 10.5% Cottonwood White Murray Millcreek Holladay Copperton Heights City 13.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.9% 17.6% 18.5%
Other Groups Individuals that are homeless, victims of domestic abuse, or youth aging out of foster care are often tracked by the variousDRAFT Local Homeless Coordinating Committees45 for a given area – Salt Lake County is represented by a single LHCC which collects data in each of these special populations. For 2015, it was estimated that there are a total of 2,140 individuals that are without permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On a single night count, there were 548 individuals that were counted as victims of domestic violence (both adults and children) and 286 were veterans.
Current Housing Stock Housing stock in the unincorporated islands is heavily single-family homes “SFR”, with SFR comprising 97 percent of all units. Lot sizes and unit sizes are generally larger in the islands than in other areas of the County. The age of housing stock in the islands is generally older, and the County reports very few new developments occurring in recent years. Most homes in the islands are in average condition. This section relies primarily on the most recent Salt Lake County property assessments to determine the current available housing stock, with supplemental information from the ACS.
Total Housing Units with Breakdown by Type and Occupancy As of the 2016 County assessment, there are a total of 2,034 units in the unincorporated islands, including all single-family residences, townhomes, mobile homes, duplexes, condos, and apartment units. Detailed totals are given in the table below. For the purposes of this study, all single-family units (i.e., SFRs, townhomes, condos, and mobile homes) are grouped and analyzed as for-sale product, while multi-family residential units (i.e., duplexes and apartment units) are grouped and analyzed as for-rent product.
Table 279: Residential Units by Type (Source: SLCO Assessor) Total Percent of Total
Single-Family Residential 1,968 96.8% Condo 4 0.2% Townhome 28 1.4%
45 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
260 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Total Percent of Total
SFR 1,928 94.8% SFR w/ Mother-in-law Apt 6 0.3% SFR - Multiple Homes 2 0.1% Multi-Family Residential 66 3.2% Apartment 4 0.2% Duplex 46 2.3% Mother-in-law Apartment 6 0.3% Other MFR 10 0.5% Total 2,034 100.0%
Housing Size The average single-family detached or townhome unit in the islands is 3,196 square feet, which is more than 500 square feet larger than the County average of 2,626 square feet. Apartment units in the islands are also larger than the County average.
Table 280: Average UnitDRAFT Size (Sources: Salt Lake County Assessor; EquiMark Multi-Family Report 2014) Unincorporated Salt Lake County Islands SFR, Townhome 3,196 2,626 Apartments 1,026 863
When considering all unit types, approximately 24 percent of all units in the islands are less than 2,000 square feet.
Table 281: Percent of Residential Units by Unit Square Feet (Source: SLCO Assessor) Unincorporated Islands % of Units Unincorporated Islands Cum. %
999 or less 1% 1% 1,000 – 1,499 6% 7% 1,500 – 1,999 17% 24% 2,000 – 2,499 18% 42% 2,500 – 2,999 17% 58% 3,000 or more 42% 100%
Lot sizes for SFR and townhome units in the islands are larger than other SFR and townhome lots in Salt Lake County. Townhome lots in the islands are more than twice the size of other townhome lots, while SFR lots in the islands are about 48 percent larger than other SFR lots in the County.
Table 282: Average Lot Size (Source: Salt Lake County Assessor) Unincorporated Islands Salt Lake County
SFR 0.41 0.27 Townhome 0.36 0.14
261 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Housing Quality The age of housing units in the islands is generally older than other units in Salt Lake County. For example, 78 percent of all units in the islands were built between 1950 and 1979, compared to only 39 percent throughout Salt Lake County. Furthermore, very little new development has occurred in the islands in recent years, with only 22 new units since 2010.
Table 283: Percent of Residential Units by Year Built (Sources: SLCO Assessor, 2014 ACS) Islands % of Islands Cum. % SLCO % of SLCO Cum. Year Built Islands Units Units of Units Units % of Units 1939 or earlier 27 1% 1% 9% 9% 1940 to 1949 30 1% 3% 4% 13% 1950 to 1959 260 13% 16% 10% 23% 1960 to 1969 480 24% 39% 9% 32% 1970 to 1979 825 41% 80% 20% 52% 1980 to 1989 186 9% 89% 14% 66% 1990 to 1999 138 7% 96% 16% 82% 2000 to 2009 DRAFT 66 3% 99% 16% 98% 2010 or later 22 1% 100% 2% 100%
262 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The condition of units in the islands is average, with 54 percent of units indicated as average by the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office. Furthermore, 43 percent of units are listed as above average (i.e., excellent, very good, or good), and only 3 percent are listed as below average (i.e., fair, poor).
Table 284: Percent of Residential Units by Condition (Source: SLCO Assessor) Condition Units % Total Cum. % Special Obsolesced 1 0% 0% Excellent 47 2% 2% Very Good 129 6% 9% Good 696 34% 43% Average 1,094 54% 97% Fair 52 3% 100% Poor 1 0% 100% Other 8 0% 100% Total 2,028 100% 100% DRAFT
Market Values and Rental Rates An overview of housing values and market conditions is given here to further illustrate the housing stock in the unincorporated islands. Housing prices are analyzed in more detail in the next section titled “Current Affordable Housing and Need” in regards to affordability for targeted groups.
263 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
This study considers two housing categories: a category that includes SFRs, condos, townhomes, and mobile homes; and a second category for multi-family rentals. The first category represents units that are individually assessed and can be bought and sold as a single unit. While a portion of these units are rented, rental rates are unknown and the unit can become owner-occupied. The values of these units, regardless of rental status, are based on their market value as given by the County. Multi-family rentals include duplexes and apartments, and are studied by their rental rates, based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
The following maps show assessed market value by property and by acres for SFR, townhomes, and condo units within the islands. Generally, the more expensive homes are located in Dimple Dell and near Little Cottonwood Canyon, while the less expensive units are located in the northwest islands. The market value per acre is greater for the northwestern islands due to their smaller lot sizes compared to the lots in Dimple Dell and near Little Cottonwood Canyon. DRAFT
264 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
The 2014 ACS indicates that the median home value in Salt Lake County is $231,000. Twenty-five of the thirty-two islands that have residential units have a higher median value than the County. The islands with the higher median home values are located in Dimple Dell or near Little Cottonwood Canyon. The median home value for each island is listed in the table below.
Table 285: Median Home Value by Unincorporated Island (Source: SLCO Assessor) Island Median Home Value Island 02 $205,000 Island 03 $204,900 Island 04 $213,895 Island 05 $261,550 Island 07 $384,995 Island 09 $200,050 Island 10 $190,300 Island 11 $217,200 Island 12 $218,000 Island 13 $232,600 Island 14 $255,300 Island 15 $372,400 Island 16 $253,700 Island 17 $237,350
265 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Island Median Home Value Island 21 $261,300 Island 22 $453,595 Island 23 $473,650 Island 24 $900,445 Island 25 $537,300 Island 26 $395,950 Island 27 $502,050 Island 29 $775,390 Island 30 $497,590 Island 31 $364,500 Island 32 $404,450 Island 33 $524,490 Island 34 $377,300 Island 36 $346,500 Island 37 $352,145 Island 38 DRAFT $450,395 Island 39 $383,690 Island 46 $1,569,290
266 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The table below shows the SFR units, listed by the County-assessed market value. These units may also include some accessory dwelling units unlisted by the County.
Table 286: Assessed Housing Values in the Unincorporated Islands (Source: SLCO Assessor) Home Value Range # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total <$100,000 - 0% 0% $100,000 - $124,999 1 0% 0% $125,000 - $139,999 2 0% 0% $140,000 - $149,999 2 0% 0% $150,000 - $159,999 4 0% 0% $160,000 - $169,999 8 0% 1% $170,000 - $179,999 11 1% 1% $180,000 - $189,999 18 1% 2% $190,000 - $199,999 49 2% 5% $200,000 - $219,999 167 8% 13% $220,000 - $239,999 222 11% 25% $240,000 - $259,999 DRAFT 219 11% 36% $260,000 - $279,999 168 9% 44% $280,000 - $299,999 141 7% 51% $300,000 - $324,999 111 6% 57% $325,000 - $349,999 79 4% 61% $350,000 - $374,999 95 5% 66% $375,000 - $399,999 64 3% 69% $400,000 - $424,999 50 3% 72% $425,000 - $449,999 63 3% 75% $450,000 - $474,999 56 3% 78% $475,000 - $499,999 54 3% 80% $500,000 - $599,999 121 6% 87% $600,000 - $699,999 81 4% 91% $700,000+ 182 9% 100% Total SFR Units 1,968 100% 100%
Rental prices are also important to consider in the affordability of the current housing stock. The islands currently have approximately 66 MFR units, most of which are duplexes. The percent of rental units by gross rent, according to the 2014 ACS, for units in the unincorporated islands are listed in the table below.
Table 287: Gross Rent for Rental Units in the Unincorporated Islands (Source: 2014 ACS) Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total No Rent 2 3.7% 3.7% $0 - $99 - 0.0% 3.7% $100 - $149 0 0.1% 3.9% $150 - $199 0 0.2% 4.0% $200 - $249 0 0.2% 4.3% $250 - $299 0 0.5% 4.8%
267 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Gross Rent # of Units % Total Cum. % of Total $300 - $349 1 1.0% 5.8% $350 - $399 1 0.9% 6.7% $400 - $449 1 1.4% 8.1% $450 - $499 0 0.4% 8.5% $500 - $549 0 0.2% 8.6% $550 - $599 0 0.5% 9.1% $600 - $649 1 1.2% 10.3% $650 - $699 0 0.3% 10.6% $700 - $749 2 2.9% 13.5% $750 - $799 3 5.1% 18.6% $800 - $899 8 11.5% 30.1% $900 - $999 8 12.7% 42.8% $1,000 - $1,249 12 18.4% 61.2% $1,250 - $1,499 10 15.0% 76.2% $1,500 - $1,999 11 16.2% 92.5% >$2,000 DRAFT 5 7.5% 100.0% Total 66 100% 100%
Current Affordable Housing Availability and Need The findings of the affordability analysis for the Unincorporated Islands include:
Housing is largely unaffordable to moderate-income households (80 percent AMI), with an extremely small 4 percent of units affordable at this income threshold. MFR units in the islands are significantly more affordable than SFR units; however, the overall lack of MFR units throughout the islands does not indicate much opportunity for households to rent in the islands.
Availability for Targeted Income Groups As in the housing stock analysis, affordability is broken into two housing categories: one for SFRs, condos, mobile homes, and townhomes and a second for multi-family rentals. The affordability of the first category of units is based on their market value as given by the County Assessor. The affordability of multi-family units is based on the estimated gross rent as indicated by the ACS (2014).
SFR, Condo, Townhome, and Mobile Home For the targeted low- and moderate-income households, there are no SFR units that are affordable to households below 30 or 50 percent of AMI, and only 29 units available at 80 percent, for an overall affordability of 1 percent of all SFR units.
Table 288: Number of Affordable SFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Max Home Price # Affordable Cum. % Income Max % of Units Income Level (4% Mortgage) SFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $33,369 - 0% 0% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $92,971 - 0% 0% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $183,582 29 1% 1%
268 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
The following map shows all SFR units and their affordability.
DRAFT
According to assessment data, zero SFR units that are affordable at 80 percent AMI have been constructed since 2010. In fact, the last affordable SFR unit was constructed in 1980.
Table 289: Affordable SFR by Year Built Year Built 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 1939 or earlier - - 4 21 1940 - 1949 - - 2 28 1950 - 1959 - - 21 231 1960 - 1969 - - - 471 1970 - 1979 - - 1 781 1980 - 1989 - - 1 183 1990 - 1999 - - - 136 2000 - 2009 - - - 66 2010 or later - - - 22 Total - - 29 1,939
269 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Affordability of SFR by Year Built 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Above 80% AMI DRAFT Apartments and Duplexes Rentals are generally more affordable to low-income households than purchasing a home. This is definitely the case in the islands, in which 73 percent of MFR units are affordable to households up to 80 percent of AMI. Despite the high affordability of MFR units in the unincorporated islands, MFR units make up a small portion of the total units; therefore, the overall lack of MFR units in the islands does not indicate much opportunity for households to rent in these areas.
Table 290: Number of Affordable MFR Units by Targeted Income Group Household Monthly # Affordable Cumulative % Income Max % of Units Income Level Rental Max MFR Units of Units < 30% AMI $20,160 $504 6 8% 8% 30-50% AMI $33,250 $831 9 14% 22% 50-80% AMI $53,150 $1,329 34 51% 73%
Summary of Affordability If only considering whether housing is affordable at the 80 percent of AMI threshold, housing in the unincorporated islands is extremely unaffordable, with an overall affordability rate of 3.8 percent.
Table 291: Number of Affordable Units by Targeted Income Group Household Total Affordable Units Units % Units Cum. % Income Level < 30% AMI 6 0.27% 0.27% 30-50% AMI 9 0.44% 0.72% 50-80% AMI 63 3.08% 3.79%
Affordable Housing – County-Wide Comparison Compared to the metro townships in Salt Lake County, the unincorporated islands are the least affordable area at 3.8, slightly below Emigration Canyon at 5.2 percent.
270 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 292: Salt Lake County Affordability Comparison 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Cum. Total Copperton 0.0% 14.1% 74.0% 88.2% Magna 0.9% 8.1% 61.0% 70.0% Kearns 0.5% 2.4% 66.3% 69.3% Millcreek 2.7% 10.7% 24.2% 37.5% White City 0.1% 0.1% 34.3% 34.5% Emigration Canyon 0.9% 0.4% 3.8% 5.2% Unincorporated Islands 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 3.8% Total Affordability 1.7% 7.6% 38.9% 48.1% % of County Population 13.2% 11.9% 20.3% 45.3%
Availability of Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups While fair housing laws and enforcement are an important part of clearing impediments or obstacles to housing opportunities for minorities, the core impediment to fair housing choice is still most often affordability. County-wide minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-income categories. With this in mind, theDRAFT primary analysis on affordable housing for low-income households is the most important determination of housing availability for minority groups. Some minority racial and ethnic groups in the County are below the poverty level at much greater rates than the white and non- Hispanic/Latino population.
Table 293: Affordable Housing for Racial and Ethnic Groups (Source: 2014 ACS) % of Race/Ethnic Total Salt Lake County Population Below Poverty
Level Race
White Alone 83.4% 12.7% Black or African American Alone 1.6% 10.5% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.8% 27.9% Asian Alone 3.5% 32.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1.6% 18.0% Alone Some Other Race Alone 6.3% 24.1% Two or More Races: 2.7% 30.6% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 17.5% 26.7% White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino 8.5%
For Salt Lake County, about 17 percent of the population belongs to a minority and 17 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino (not necessarily the same population, the similar numbers are coincidental). There is one island with Census Block Groups that have populations greater than this County average.
271 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
It is noted in the County’s Analysis of Impediments to fair housing that zoning issues can contribute to segregation and limitations to affordable housing. The following zoning categories are those that intersect with minority concentrations in the County along with notes on potential housing impediments they might cause.
Table 294: Salt Lake County Zoning Categories Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments A-1 Low Density, but two-family units are allowed conditionally A-2 Very Low Density C-1 Commercial only C-2/C-2/zc C-3/C-3/zc R-1-5 Restrictions to Accessory Units Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-6 SFR Only Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-8/R-1-8/zc SFR Only Large Lot Size Restrictions to Accessory Units R-1-10 SFR Only
272 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Zoning Category Notes on Fair or Affordable Housing Impediments Large Lot Size R-2-6.5 Restrictions to Accessory Units R-2-8 No dwelling groups R-2-10 R-M/R-M/zc R-4-8.5 M-1/M-1/zc Non-residential except very special exceptions, including very large lot size M-2 MD-3/zc
Some common zoning46 and policy issues47 that can be generally limiting on affordable or fair housing availability are listed below. While these may not necessarily be specific to current County zoning laws, they are issues found around the country and are known to have disparate impacts. Caution should be taken around these types of approaches as they can limit fair and affordable housing availability for special groups. DRAFT
. Codes that provide a definition of a “family”, specifically codes that discuss if family members are defined by blood, marriage, adoption or legal guardianship o Utah courts have not ruled on potentially discriminatory aspects of family definitions but other states have noted that defining a family – specifically in number of people, type of relation and capping the number of unrelated persons in a household – does not serve any legitimate objective under the zoning powers of a municipality. . Limits on unrelated people residing together; . Absence of density bonuses, fee waivers, and accessory units, . Strict zoning requiring conditional use permits for certain housing types, such as accessory units; . Community “friendliness” of local zoning ordinances to rental housing that influences the siting of rental housing to segregated areas of the community; . Occupancy limits; . Zones that only permit elderly housing; . Limits on who can live in an affordable housing system, such as local applicants or municipal employees only; . Lack of targeted marketing to protected classes for public housing or subsidy programs; . Requiring large lots and limited areas zoned for multifamily housing; . Tax assessments that are higher in neighborhoods of color; . Failure to have a housing authority or family voucher program; . Lack of a complaint process; and . Lack of training for municipal staff on direct and indirect impacts on fair housing opportunity.
Specific to RDA funds, the failure to actively use RDA set-aside funds for affordable housing in a timely manner – back-loading affordable housing expenditures to the end of the life of the RDA – also contributes to a lack of affordable and fair housing availability.
46 Salt Lake County Regional Analysis of Impediments 2013 47 http://www.ctfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/CFHC-AffirmFurthGuideGrantees.pdf
273 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
A more detailed analysis of fair housing issues is outlined later in this report.
Availability of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Groups
Disability Countywide, about two-thirds of those with a disability are in very low income households. The number of these individuals within the islands is unknown, but there are likely at least some with disabilities in the islands that need some sort of affordable housing with accessibility and/or wheelchair access. The Salt Lake County Fair Housing Assessment and Analysis of Impediments noted that, while the exact number of accessible rental units is untracked, it can be estimated from building permits up to 2013 that there are about 7,400 apartments in the entire County that meet the basic FHA accessibility standards. For those requiring a wheelchair, the supply is much lower with about 285 units in the County available for about 1,800 needing wheelchair access County-wide. Many of these individuals live in assisted care facilities, but many do not. There are no assisted living facilities in the unincorporated islands. Not only is this not enough to cover the disability needs, but the shortage is magnified when considering the larger need for elderly care.
Veterans DRAFT This special needs group overlaps with the disability and elderly populations with likely needs for assisted living facilities. However, they also have access to additional resources through the federal government and non-profit programs.
Elderly As mentioned, there are no assisted living and nursing home facilities within the islands. The Salt Lake County Analysis of Impediments found that the location distribution is generally not heavily determined by zoning, but more by corporate location policies that tend to prefer locations with above average incomes and property values. As a result, opportunities for the elderly and disabled to live in care facilities are more available in and around Millcreek and less available in Kearns and Magna.
Other Groups SLCo Homeless and Transitional Shelter For 2015, there were an estimated (Beds) 48 2,140 individuals that were without 24 permanent housing in Salt Lake County. On one single night count of 334 Emergency Shelter these individuals, among them were Transitional 548 victims of domestic violence (both 1,506 adults and children) and 286 veterans. Housing There are an estimated 4,517 beds Permanent available across the various providers Supportive Housing 1,929 in the County – more than enough to Rapid Re-Housing cover the County’s needs for these special and at-risk groups. While the 724 population of displaced individuals is Safe Haven likely concentrated in Salt Lake City, it’s possible that the lack of distribution of
48 http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
274 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
shelters in the County may be harmful to individuals in urgent need or with transportation difficulty.
DRAFT
5-Year and 10-Year Population Projections
Population Projections The current demographics for these groups are unavailable for the unincorporated islands. Projections are therefore not available as well.
Forecast of Affordable Housing Need The following section analyzes the future demand for housing in the unincorporated islands using historical building permit data and current projects in the development pipeline.
Expected Housing Construction Salt Lake County building permit data indicates that 25 residential building permits have been issued for developments in the unincorporated islands between 2010 and 2015, averaging approximately 4 permits per year.
275 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 295: Unincorporated Islands Residential Building Permits (Source: SLCO Planning) Annual 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Average Single-Family 4 2 2 5 4 1 18 3.00 Two-Family 2 - - - 3 2 7 1.17 Total 6 2 2 5 7 3 25 4.17
As of February 2017, there were four housing developments with current permits in the development pipeline in the remaining unincorporated county, for a total of at least 30 additional lots or units. Pricing for these units was not currently available.
Table 296: Current Permit Projects Development Type Total Developments Total Units PUD 1 10 lots Subdivision 2 10 lots Conditional Use for Group Home 1 10 beds Total DRAFT4 30 lots/units
Projected Number of Needed Housing Units Because population projects are not available for the unincorporated islands, the projected number of housing units needed is not including in this analysis.
276 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Fair Housing Equity and Impediments Action Plan A regional Fair Housing Equity Assessment (FHEA) and an Analysis of Impediments (AI) for Salt Lake County was completed through a Sustainable Communities Grant by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Utah. HUD expects entitlement cities for CDBG funding to adopt local action plans to address the AI’s findings. While the metro townships are not generally called out individually in this regional analysis, addressing regional fair housing impediments is an important part of addressing the State’s requirement regarding realistic housing opportunity. The findings of the FHEA and AI for the entire County are used, along with the findings of the affordability analysis in this report, to create the Assessment of Fair Housing for Salt Lake County, which includes an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and actions to overcome the impediments.
“Fair Housing Choice is not only about combating discrimination. It involves individuals and families having the information, opportunity and options to live where they choose without unlawful discrimination and other barriers related to race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability, and that their choices realistically include housing options in integratedDRAFT areas and areas with access to opportunity” – AFFH Rule Guidebook
Summary of Findings – Salt Lake County FHEA Reviewing the County-wide findings is important for putting any metro township or municipality’s findings into a regional context. Housing needs do not stop at local boundaries and trends in need are usually regional. The County-wide FHEA summarizes the major fair housing attributes in the table shown below.
277 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
It is important to know that the percentage of affordable housing needs being met is based on rental housing in the 30 to 50 percent of AMI bracket only. While rental needs are high for all low-income brackets, it does not consider owner-occupied residences or the 50 to 80 percent income bracket.
Impediments Identified Impediments to fair housing choice identified in Salt Lake County include: Disparities in Opportunity Lack of Affordable Housing Lack of Housing Price Diversity Segregation and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) Lack of Accessible Housing Lack of Housing Supply for Larger Families Discriminatory or Predatory Lending Practices Inadequate Good Landlord Programs Lack of Transportation in Low-Opportunity Areas Limited Supply of Vouchers and Other Rental Assistance Programs DRAFT Impediments must disproportionately impact protected classes. Furthermore, it is not an impediment if it affects all classes. Protected classes as defined in this report include: Race Color Religion Sex Familial Status National Origin Disability
The following table summarizes the impediments identified and the classes disproportionately impacted.
Table 297: List of Impediments and Projected Disproportionally Impacted Protected Classes Impediment Disproportionately Impacted Disparities in Opportunity Race Lack of Affordable Housing Race, Disabled, Familial Status Lack of Housing Price Diversity Race, Disabled, Familial Status Segregation and R/ECAPs Race, Disabled, Familial Status Lack of Accessible Housing Disabled Lack of Housing Supply for Larger Families Familial Status, Race Discriminatory or Predatory Lending Practices Race Inadequate Good Landlord Programs Race, Disabled, Familial Status Lack of Transportation in Low Opportunity Areas Race, Disabled, Familial Status Limited Supply of Vouchers and Other Rental Assistance Programs Race, Disabled, Familial Status
Each of these impediments is discussed in further detail in the following sections.
278 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Disparities in Opportunity Opportunity areas are those areas with lower concentrations of poverty, high employment opportunities, and access to other essential services, including healthcare and education. Low opportunities generally have higher concentrations of poverty, fewer employment opportunities, higher crime rates, food deserts, and lack access to other essential services, including child care, healthcare, and education.
While much of the Salt Lake County FHEA and AI study does not call out unincorporated areas in most tables, this map shows that Magna and Kearns are specifically Low Opportunity areas. These areas are noted as places where opportunity and equity are at risk.
DRAFT
Findings from the Salt Lake County FHEA and AI include: . HUD administrators note that geographies of opportunity are important – too many HUD- assisted families are at a disadvantage in improving their lives as they are stuck in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty, often leading to poor education, employment, and health outcomes. . The HUD opportunity index, based on school proficiency, poverty, labor market, housing stability, and job access, shows a wide range of opportunity throughout the County. . South Jordan has the highest opportunity index with a score of eight out of ten. The lowest score was South Salt Lake at 1.5. The following table summarizes these scores for the County.
279 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Low opportunity areas are clustered in the north part of the County, including West Valley City, Magna, Kearns, South Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, Taylorsville, and Midvale. . About 30 percent of the County’s population lives in areas with the lowest opportunity index of 1-2, but 60 percent of Hispanics and 54 percent of minorities overall live in these geographies. . Less than fiveDRAFT percent of Hispanics live in high opportunity areas.
Further barriers to opportunity outside the HUD definition were also analyzed, as listed below. . Child Care Facilities – The distribution of these facilities favors east-side neighborhoods, though there are no pronounced gaps in availability. . Food Deserts – Food deserts were identified in South Salt Lake and the neighborhoods of Rose Park, Fair Park and Poplar Grove.
280 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Medically Underserved Areas/Population – Underserved areas, as designated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, include west-side Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Taylorsville, Midvale, West Valley, Magna and Kearns. . Crime Rates – Areas with the highest crime rates include Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Murray, West Valley and Taylorsville. . Deteriorating Quality of Housing Inventory – These homes are defined as those older than fifty years and a value less than $150,000. The neighborhoods at risk in this category include Rose Park, Poplar Grove, Glendale, Kearns and Magna. . Diversity of Home Values and Affordability – The County’s northwest side has few opportunities for households seeking home values above $300,000 while the south and east sides have lower opportunity for moderate- to low-income families. . Educational Opportunity – BEBR developed its own school opportunity index outside of HUD’s. On this index, Draper, South Jordan and Herriman had the highest school opportunity in the County, while West Valley, West Side Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake had the lowest. The FHEA also noted that concentrations of minority and low income populations in Salt Lake, South Salt Lake, West Valley, Kearns and Magna place heavy burdens on a school’s administration and resources, impacting proficiency and school achievement. DRAFT Lack of Affordable Housing As outlined previously in this report, many of the areas in Salt Lake County lack sufficient housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Additional findings from the Salt Lake County FHEA and AI include: . The need for affordable housing throughout the County is substantial. Most cities have a deficit of affordable housing units for the 30 to 50 percent of AMI category. The table below outlines this need for each city.
. Two-thirds of all disabled renters are very low income households. About 3,000 of these nonelderly renter households received no housing assistance and had severe housing problems. . Disabled individuals with “worst case housing needs,” defined as disabled individuals with no housing assistance, very low income, and severe housing cost burdens, is estimated to number 2,800 in the County. Sixty percent of these individuals have ambulatory difficulty. . HUD estimates that there are nearly 20,000 households with very low income and severe housing cost burden – more than 50 percent of income going to housing costs.
281 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Of these severely-burdened households, 7,000 are minority households, 2,800 with a disabled individual and 1,500 are large families. . Many of these households are also concentrated in the opportunity-poor areas of the valley. . One in four households in Salt Lake County is at or below 50 percent of AMI – about 88,750 households in total.
Lack of Housing Price Diversity In addition to a lack of housing options for low- and moderate-income households, some areas in the County do not have sufficient housing options for other income levels. The County’s FHEA found that: . The County’s northwest side has few opportunities for households seeking home values above $300,000 while the south and east sides have lower opportunity for moderate- to low-income families. . Lack of price diversity, on both the low and high end, affects housing choice. West Valley City and Taylorsville have limited opportunities for high-income households.
Segregation . The minority population in the County is concentrated in seven areas: Kearns, Magna, Midvale, Salt Lake City’sDRAFT River District, South Salt Lake, Taylorsville and West Valley City. . Hispanic populations have increased in West Valley City, Salt Lake City and Taylorsville. West Jordan and Sandy have also seen increases in minority population in terms of absolute growth. . Kearns, Magna, Midvale, Salt Lake City’s River District, South Salt Lake, Taylorsville and West Valley had 64.6 percent of the County’s Hispanic population in 2000 and 64.7 percent in 2010. Kearns and Magna specifically have had increases in concentration of Hispanic populations.
282 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. From 2000 to 2010, three quarters of the County’s population growth was due to increases in the minority population. . Hispanics are the largest minority group in the County, increasing at a faster rate since 2000 than any other group. . Public transportation access and affordable housing are the largest factors in minority population distribution. . Using dissimilarity indices, the County has moderate levels of segregation. . Nearly half of all large renter households live in the northwest and west mid-valley sections of the County in Salt Lake City, West Valley, South Salt Lake and Taylorsville. Less than 10 percent of large families renting live in the five-city area of South Jordan, Riverton, Herriman, Bluffdale and Draper. . Disabled individuals and large families are also segregated by affordable housing patterns. . The figure below shows that where non-Title One schools are prevalent there are not many single parent with children households, with clusters of single-parent homes and Title One schools located in the northwest areas of the County. DRAFT
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RCAP/ECAP) . The consequences of poverty are harmful to children; thus HUD requires the noting of densely poor neighborhoods, especially as they pertain to concentrations by race or ethnicity. These children are more likely to drop out of high school, face teenage pregnancy, have health disparities or live with higher crime rates.
283 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. In 2010, 9.4 percent of Salt Lake County’s population was poor. Minorities were three times as likely to be poor as non-Hispanic whites. Blacks had the highest prevalence with 22 percent, followed by Hispanics at 19 percent. . Though whites had the lowest prevalence of poverty, they still comprised about 56 percent of the total poor population in the County. . Although minorities comprised a quarter of the County’s total 2010 population, they accounted for 44 percent of the total poor. . South Jordan had the lowest concentration of poor at a 1.6 percent poverty rate. South Salt Lake was the highest at 37 percent. . Salt Lake County has three RCAP/ECAP areas as defined by HUD, all three in the northern half of the County. These are census tracts where the number of families in poverty is greater than 40 percent of all families and a non-white population greater than 50 percent. There are also four “near” RCAP/ECAP status. Two of these areas are in downtown Salt Lake, the third in South Salt Lake and one in Midvale. . RCAP/ECAPs also have a high concentration of renter households. Two of the R/ECAPs have over 70 percent of households as renters.
A disproportionate shareDRAFT of protected class households are limited to small geographic areas in the County, including in Magna and Kearns. The market conditions that concentrate extremely low income households to these areas also create an “adverse dynamics” cycle where these communities have low equality in opportunity in terms of education and employment, which in turn leads to more inequality and poverty. This plight impacts one in five Salt Lake County Households. . Segregation Due to Concentrations of Affordable Housing: “Nimbyism,” Zoning and Land Prices – Zoning practices and development approvals have a greater impact than any other factor on housing choices and availability. Rental opportunities have been limited due to Nimbyism, zoning and land prices, concentrating rentals – more often used by protected class categories – to areas in the northwest. . Concentration of Tax Credit Projects – Siting practices have concentrated tax credit, public housing and project-based housing in Salt Lake City and West Valley City. While senior tax credit projects have moved forward in opportunity-rich communities, there is a greater need for family projects in opportunity-rich areas, allowing benefit to children. Families are more likely to be protected classes than seniors. Utah Housing Corporation should provide bonus points to tax credit projects in opportunity- rich areas. There is a greater need for family projects in the County than senior projects as
284 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
many senior tax projects have recently been developed in opportunity rich communities. . Concentration of HUD Voucher Holders – Voucher assistance is limited to use where rental units are both available and priced at or below Fair Market Rent. Those options are primarily older units in the north, not high rent properties in the south of the County. . Concentration of Rental Units for Large Families and Disabled – The demand for rental units with four or more bedrooms far exceeds the supply. Half of the current large units are in Salt Lake City and West Valley City. This impedes the choice of large families to rent in the south end of the County. Likewise, accessible units are concentrated in west-side Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, West Valley and Midvale.
Lack of Accessible Housing . Changes in definitions resulted in lower estimates of the disabled population, but this is not truly comparable to 2000 figures. . Eight percent of the Salt Lake County population was disabled in 2010, many with more than one disability. Seniors comprise 37 percent of the disabled population. . 80 percent of disabled individuals live in owner-occupied units, meaning they are less likely to have accessible units. Local building codes are necessary to encourage accessibility in private homes. DRAFT . The number of accessible rental units in Salt Lake County is unknown. However, it’s estimated that about 7,400 apartments built in the County meet FHA accessibility standards, but there are about 11,100 disabled renters. . Fair Housing Act standards do apply to the construction of rental units; thus these units can better address accessibility needs. There are an estimated 5,600 ambulatory disabled renters in the County for whom these standards are likely sufficient. . For those with Type A accessibility, due primarily to use of a wheelchair, demand exceeds supply. It is estimated that there are less than 285 total rental units in the County that are suitable for wheelchair access. Half of these units are in Salt Lake City. . An estimated 1,800 renters in the County require a wheelchair. Since 2003, the number of Type A accessible units built probably does not exceed 300 units. . Likewise, accessible units are concentrated in west-side Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, West Valley and Midvale.
Lack of Housing Supply for Larger Families . The demand for rental units with four or more bedrooms far exceeds the supply. Half of the current large units are in Salt Lake City and West Valley City. This impedes the choice of large families to rent in other areas of the County. . Larger households and lower median ages are typically found on the west side of Salt Lake County.
Table 333: Average Household Size (Source: 2014 ACS) Municipality Location in Valley Avg. HH Size Herriman West 4.00 Bluffdale West 3.74 Riverton West 3.64 Kearns West 3.61 South Jordan West 3.60 West Valley West 3.57
285 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Municipality Location in Valley Avg. HH Size Magna West 3.56 West Jordan West 3.45 Draper City East 3.38 White City East 3.22 Sandy East 3.13 Taylorsville West 3.05 Salt Lake County 3.02 Emigration Canyon East 2.98 Cottonwood Heights East 2.82 Copperton West 2.74 Holladay East 2.66 South Salt Lake East 2.66 Midvale East 2.60 Murray East 2.56 Millcreek East 2.51 Salt Lake City DRAFTEast 2.47 Alta East 1.83 Remaining Unincorporated NA
. Minorities generally have larger households, and therefore, are disproportionately impacted by the lack of housing supply for larger families.
Table 298: Average Household Size by Race and Tenure (Source: 2010 US Census) White Hawaiian Two or (Not American Latino Black Asian or Pacific Other More Hispanic Indian Islander Races or Latino) Owner 2.98 4.25 3.3 3.68 3.42 5.6 4.71 3.58 Occupied Renter 2.32 3.62 2.91 3.11 2.53 4.46 3.85 2.91 Occupied Total 2.79 3.94 3.03 3.31 3.07 5 4.25 3.23
Discriminatory or Predatory Lending Practices Even when controlling for income, the denial rate for Hispanics is double the rate for white non- Hispanics. Data also shows that Hispanics were victims of predatory lending. Outreach efforts need to be increased in the County to provide credit counseling to minorities.
Inadequate Good Landlord Programs . Many cities in the County do not have Good Landlord Programs. Currently, the cities in Salt Lake County that do have programs are Midvale, Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Taylorsville, West Jordan, and West Valley City. . Landlords often impose strict occupancy limitations precluding large families with children, which can disproportionately limit availability to low- and moderate-income families. . Forty percent of all rental housing in the County is detached single-family homes. These individual renters are often not educated on the implications of the Fair Housing Act and the
286 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications provisions for disabled individuals. Landlords need to be educated on their responsibilities under the law.
Lack of Transportation in Low Opportunity Areas The vast majority of households in Salt Lake County have access to at least one vehicle, with only 6 percent of households not having access to any vehicles. However, 30 percent of households have access to only one vehicle, which can make it difficult for multiple household members to simultaneously access work, education, healthcare, food, and other essential services.
Likewise, public transportation access in some low opportunity areas is poor, with limited bus routes connecting to employment and service centers. This creates a burden on individuals living in these areas, considering that the average commute time in Salt Lake County is 22.3 minutes each way. Generally speaking, minorities are disproportionately impacted because 54 percent of minorities live in these areas. Few public transportation options in these areas may also impact individuals with disabilities.
Limited Supply of Vouchers and Other Rental Assistance Programs The Section 8 programDRAFT provides assistance to individual households to subsidize housing costs where housing would otherwise be unaffordable. This program provides diversity and distribution of low- income households, rather than segregation and concentration in dedicated housing developments. The Salt Lake County Housing Authority has closed its waiting lists for Section 8 Housing Vouchers due to the extremely long length of the lists. As of August 2016, the Section 8 Housing Voucher waiting lists have a combined 8,500 households, and can take up to 6 years for households to receive assistance through the program. Due to the length, the Housing Authority often refers these households, and other households seeking assistance, to the Davis County and Utah County Housing Authorities, which have waiting lists that take less than a year to receive assistance. The Salt Lake County Housing Authority has another subsidized program for seniors over 62 years old or individuals with disabilities, which currently has a year-long waiting list.
Additional findings include: . One in four households in Salt Lake County is at or below 50 percent of AMI – about 88,750 households in total. . About 17,000 households in the County have rental assistance from the various programs in the County. This is far short of the need and demand. HUD estimates that there are nearly 20,000 households with very low income and severe housing cost burden – more than 50 percent of income going to housing costs. . Of these severely burdened households, 7,000 are minority households, 2,800 with a disabled individual and 1,500 are large families. . Much of these households are also concentrated in the opportunity poor areas of the valley. . Voucher assistance is limited to use where rental units are both available and priced at or below Fair Market Rent. Those options are primarily older units in the north, not high rent properties in the south of the County.
287 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Summary of Findings - County Analysis of Impediments The Regional AI identified factors that perpetuate the concentration of protected classes and barriers to fair housing choice and opportunity. A summary of the barriers and impediments, as indicated in the 2013 Salt Lake County Fair Housing Equity Assessment and Regional Analysis of Impediments, are listed below. The FHEA and RAI found that impediments especially affect minority, disabled and large family households and that many impediments to fair housing choice are shared by most cities within a region. The most effective mitigation to these common impediments is a coordinated, shared approach by the cities in the region.
Regional
Public Policy . Lack of Regional Collaboration – the intent of the grant that funded the FHEAs and AI, the Sustainable Communities Grant, is to foster jurisdictions to plan together since most issues do not stop at city boundaries and are common to each city. Mitigation of impediments is most effective when coordinated on a regional level. The current affordable housing statute in Utah encourages a jurisdictional approach, in addition to being very broad in affordability requirements.DRAFT Collaboration between service providers and jurisdictions to develop a regional approach should be pursued. . Testing for Housing Discrimination – The fair housing complaint process was determined by the AI to be ineffective at measuring discrimination. The absence of a testing program is a barrier for all protected classes and a testing program is recommended. . Vague Housing Plans – Few plans address needs or improving housing opportunities for protected classes. . Limited Cases of Innovative Public-Private Partnerships – Land and development costs are major barriers to affordable housing. A barrier throughout the County is a lack of commitment by jurisdictions to form public-private partnerships to overcome this barrier. Various mechanisms could be used with CRA funding to reduce land and development costs. . More Aggressive Use of CRA Housing Set-Asides – Few cities in the County, with the exception of Salt Lake City, have been aggressive in using CRA housing set-asides. . Affordable Housing at TOD Sites – TODs are ideal for affordable housing development, reducing costs for residents in transportation and employment. Communities need to ensure a portion of housing developed at TOD sites is affordable for both renters and owners. . Absence of Incentives for Affordable Housing – Incentives for the development of affordable housing are important features of a strong public private partnership. Incentives such as inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, fee waivers, accessory units are measures used by some jurisdictions nationally to affirmatively further fair housing. These incentives are absent in the ordinances and polices of most cities in Salt Lake County. . Good Landlord Programs – Some programs could be interpreted as discriminatory and impediments to fair housing for some protected classes. Salt Lake City’s program should be used as a model for communities interested in adopting a program. . Long Range Transportation Plan and Wasatch Choice 2040 – The housing and transportation needs of projected classes, who are disproportionately public transit dependent, should be a high priority in decisions regarding public transit investments, schedules, routes, and fees. A lack of attention to equitable housing and transit needs of protected classes in long-range planning is a barrier to long-range fair housing choice.
288 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Fair Housing Infrastructure . Uneven Outreach and Fragmented Fair Housing Complaint Process – All jurisdictions need to improve their housing complaint process, formalize the process, and develop outreach and education to raise awareness. Increased efforts should be part of a regional collaboration. Many counties nationwide have a central, county-wide complaint center, but Salt Lake County is very fragmented, impeding information and assistance for those being discriminated against.
Economic and Demographic . Economic and demographic barriers are largely the result of the economic forces of supply and demand. While these are largely independent of local policies, there are cases where local public policy has impacts on reducing them as a barrier. . Income – Low incomes are the biggest individual barrier to housing choice. Local action or policy is limited in this factor in the short-term, but higher wages can be encouraged in a community in the long-term by improving opportunity through education, transportation, economic development, and reducing crime. . Employment – Unemployment severely limits housing choice and opportunity. Much like income, municipalities have little impact over this economic force but can encourage economic developmentDRAFT in the County to provide more local job opportunities. . Land and Housing Prices – There is significant volatility and variability in housing and land prices in the County. Utah has led the country in housing price increases on two previous housing cycles in 1997 and 2007. Zoning and lot sizes are a major factor in housing prices, an area of strong local control. For example, the growth of affordable housing in South Jordan in Daybreak has largely resulted from smaller lot sizes. Although the homes are some of the most valuable on a per acre basis, the actual cost of the home is more often in affordable range. . Rental Housing Demand – There is pent-up demand in the housing market due to the economic contraction which not only affected migration and formation of young households but also contributed to doubling-up of households due to job losses and foreclosures. As the economy improves, these households will be in demand of rental housing and will not be able to qualify for ownership. Availability of rental housing is constrained by zoning and Nimbyism. . Demographic Changes – Minority groups are the fastest growing demographic groups, outpacing whites significantly since 2000. Households made up of single women with children are also on the rise, increasing by 22 percent from 2000 to 2010. These households have a greater likelihood of being moderate- to low-income renter households. As these populations grow, demand will continue to exceed supply in affordable rental housing. The senior population is also growing quickly, putting pressure on the supply of residential care facilities as well as accessible rental units.
White City and Unincorporated Islands While the AI doesn’t generally focus on unincorporated areas, White City and the Unincorporated Islands are both largely surrounded by Sandy City and are likely impacted by the following factors: . Sandy has a shortage of rental units, especially affordable units. Of the 5,800 rental units in the Metro Township, less than seven percent are rent-assisted. Sandy is close to transit networks and employment centers making it a great region to offer affordable units for protected classes. . Public private partnerships using CRA set-aside funds are the most important tool in this area to overcome the high cost of land. . Nimbyism is noted by Sandy City as the largest impediment to housing opportunities. Continued education and community involvement is needed to explore housing opportunities and options.
289 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Fair Housing Action Plan Many of the metro townships have General Plans that outline goals to improve the affordability of housing. In addition to those goals, the following goals and action items should be implemented to better provide a fair housing opportunity for those currently or seeking to live in Salt Lake County. Goals included the impediments addressed by the goal, responsible parties, time frames, and where applicable, measurable results. Though each of the goals has a corresponding time frame, many of the goals extend past a simple one-step process, and continual action will need to occur in order for positive results to occur. For example, a one-time training for landlords on accessibility requirements will likely have very little impact on increasing the number of accessible units.
Goal 1: Increase Regional Collaboration . Impediments Addressed: Disparities in Opportunity, Lack of Affordable Housing, Lack of Housing Price Diversity, Segregation and R/ECAPs, Lack of Accessible Housing, Lack of Housing Supply for Larger Families, Discriminatory or Predatory Lending Practices, Inadequate Good Landlord Programs, Lack of Transportation in Low-Opportunity Areas, Limited Supply of Vouchers and Other Rental Assistance Programs . Responsible Parties: Metro Township Administration, City Councils, Community Development, Planning DepartmentDRAFTs, Planning Commissions, Redevelopment Agencies, Housing Authorities, Developers, Private Partnerships
As noted, there currently is a lack of regional collaboration. The intent of the grant that funded the FHEAs and AI, the Sustainable Communities Grant, was to encourage jurisdictions to plan together since most issues do not stop at city boundaries and are common to each city. Mitigation of impediments can be most effective when coordinated well on a regional level. The current affordable housing statute in Utah encourages a jurisdictional approach, which allows for individual community preference and needs, in addition to being very broad in affordability requirements.
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 1. Work with other communities to revise their housing plans to reflect the region Less than 6 months impediments identified in this plan
By implementing the following goals and action items on a regional level, the impediments to fair housing choice can be better addressed and overcome, than if individual cities and agencies act alone. For example, nimbyism and the segregation that is subsequently created could be addressed if each community reviewed zoning requirements regarding high-density and mixed-use housing. More affordable units could be created if each community revised their policies regarding accessory units.
Goal 2: Encourage Development of Affordable Housing . Impediments Addressed: Disparities in Opportunity, Lack of Affordable Housing, Lack of Housing Price Diversity, Segregation and R/ECAPs, Lack of Accessible Housing, Lack of Housing Supply for Larger Families, Limited Supply of Vouchers and Other Rental Assistance Programs . Responsible Parties: Metro Township Administration, City Councils, Community Development, Planning Departments, Planning Commissions, Redevelopment Agencies, Housing Authorities, Developers, Private Partnerships
290 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 1. Collaborate with individual cities on different Number of new potential affordable 1 year incentives to locate affordable housing housing sites 2. Examine low-density affordable options and availability, including voucher programs and 1 year other possible uses of CRA funding 3. Implement new development standards Number of new projects using which incentivize a variety of units by size 1 year incentives and price for new developments 4. Partner with multi-family developers to Total reduction in development reduce development costs or incentivize 1-5 years costs builders to provide affordable units 5. Provide financial assistance and tools to Number of projects using financial developers to encourage affordable housing 1-5 years assistance at TOD sites; total amount at TOD sites, when appropriate of financial assistance used 6. Waive fees to reduce construction and maintenance costs, allowing lower rental 1-5 years Total fees waived or reduced fees to be more feasible DRAFT This report includes sections on financial resources, tools, and mechanisms that can be used to affirmatively further fair housing in Salt Lake County. As those tools are used, in conjunction with the following action items, the overall availability of affordable units for all income levels, but specifically low- and moderate-income households, will increase.
Goal 3: Focus Development of Affordable Housing at Transit Sites and Significant Transportation Corridors . Impediments Addressed: Lack of Affordable Housing, Lack of Housing Price Diversity, Lack of Accessible Housing, Lack of Housing Supply for Larger Families, Lack of Transportation in Low Opportunity Areas . Responsible Parties: Metro Township Administration, Community Development, Planning Department, Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency, Developers
Concentration of affordable housing at TOD sites and along bus routes is highly encouraged by HUD as these sites also reduce cost of living and increase access to employment opportunity for low-income families. These are also great locations for special needs housing as they provide transportation options to populations that cannot drive. Major transportation corridors are busy areas more suited to affordable development than single-family homes, with ample access to UTA bus routes.
Furthermore, the County would prefer that developers include in new developments a mix of units of various sizes and affordable at varying AMI income thresholds, rather than stand-alone developments that are only affordable at one income threshold (for example, a development in which all units are affordable at 30 percent AMI).
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 1. Identify affordable housing development sites along major transportation corridors Less than 6 months Number of sites identified with access to current bus routes 2. Identify TOD Sites Less than 6 months Number of TOD sites identified 3. Create CRAs at each site if needed 1 year Number of CRAs created
291 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 4. Partner with multi-family developers to Total reduction in development reduce development costs or incentivize 1-5 years costs builders to provide affordable units 5. Provide financial assistance and tools to Number of projects using financial developers to encourage affordable housing 1-5 years assistance; total amount of financial at TOD sites, when appropriate assistance used 6. Waive or reduce fees to reduce construction and maintenance costs, allowing lower 1-5 years Total fees waived or reduced rental fees to be more feasible 7. Assist low-income families to purchase affordable units at TOD or bus route sites Number of units purchased through through a revolving loan fund with down- 1-5 years revolving loan funds payment assistance and interest rate buy- downs (or deferred payment loans).
Goal 4: Encourage Energy Efficient Housing that Reduces Resident Costs . Impediments Addressed: Lack of Affordable Housing, Lack of Housing Price Diversity . Responsible Parties:DRAFT Planning Department, Planning Commission, Community Development, City Council, Township Administration, Developers
Energy efficiency and green building practices are a win-win for all parties involved. Not only are they an attractive selling point, especially to Millennials, but they also reduce housing costs for low-income households. Several projects in the County have capitalized on this practice with much success.
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results Educate homebuilders on federal and state Number of builders educated on tax 1 year tax credits for energy efficient building credits Provide incentives for green building, such as grants, loan assistance, waived fees, or Percent of units incorporating green expedited approval processes to builders 1-5 years features and developers on affordable housing projects Provide loans to multi-family developments to install green features, such as water saving features or solar panels. These Percent of units incorporating green 1-5 years developments can use these features as a features marketing tool and use the saved energy costs to pay back the loan Provide zero interest deferred payment Number of households receiving loans for down payments to low-income 1-5 years assistance households seeking an efficient home
292 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Goal 5 Provide More Affordable Units through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), Vouchers, and Other Assistance Programs . Impediments Addresses: Lack of Affordable Housing . Responsible Parties: Administration, Housing Authorities
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results Create a revolving loan fund with CRA funds, Number of additional units created including provisions for disability housing 2 years through CRA funds or units made and accessibility modifications for existing accessible through modifications units Collaborate with the Utah Housing Corporation (UHC) to further incentivize the Number of new developments using 1-5 years location of new housing developments in incentive high-opportunity areas through LIHTCs 3. Collaborate with the Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation Number of new developments using (UCRC) to further incentivize the location of 1-5 years incentive new housing developments in high- opportunity areas throughDRAFT LIHTCs Goal 6: Support Housing Needs for Special Needs Residents . Impediments Addressed: Lack of Accessible Housing . Responsible Parties: Planning Department, Planning Commission, Council, Community Development
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 1. Ensure all new developments meet 1 year accessibility requirements 2. Identify units that are non-legal and non- Number of existing units made conforming to accessibility requirements 1 year accessible through code enforcement 3. Provide education to landlords regarding fair housing laws and regulations, especially 1 year for single-family and accessory rental units 4. Maintain CDBG grants to special needs Total CDBG grants used for special agencies, such as South Valley Sanctuary 1 year needs agencies and ASSIST. 5. Create a revolving loan fund with CRA funds, Number of additional accessible including provisions for disability housing units created through CRA funds or 2 years and accessibility modifications for existing units made accessible through units modifications
Goal 7: Provide More Affordable Units through Accessory Unit Support . Impediments Addresses: Disparities in Opportunity, Lack of Affordable Housing . Responsible Parties: Planning Department, Administration, Community Development Department
Accessory units provide low-cost rental housing without significantly impacting established neighborhoods through increased density, while providing great advantages to low-income renters to
293 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
participate in high-opportunity neighborhoods and school systems. These apartments also provide opportunities for seniors to live near family. Modifying current zoning requirements will likely require additional education and training for landlords regarding fair housing laws.
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results Ensure zoning laws allow SFRs to provide Number of new accessory units as a 1 year accessory apartments result of zoning changes Streamline permit and inspection processes Number of new accessory units as a for accessory units result of streamlined permits and inspections Provide education to landlords regarding fair housing laws and regulations, especially for single-family and accessory rental units
Goal 8: Address Issues of Disparate Housing Impacts and Discrimination . Impediments Addressed: Disparities in Opportunity, Discriminatory or Predatory Lending Practices . Responsible Parties:DRAFT Administration, Council, Planning Department, Community Development, Disability Law Center
The Analysis of Impediments identified that minority groups were often most vulnerable in finding adequate housing opportunities and are more likely to be concentrated in low areas of opportunity. A significant barrier to the choice of these groups to relocate to areas of high opportunity or to living quarters more suitable to family size and income levels is discrimination in home loan and rental applications - the denial rate for Hispanics is double the rate for white non-Hispanics. Data also shows that Hispanics were victims of predatory lending.
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 1. Provide translation services for County housing assistance and public notices, in 6 months addition to special needs accommodations 2. Explore the possibility of partnerships with local lenders to provide streamlined lending 6 months opportunities for new developments 3. Partner with the Disability Law Center to conduct discrimination testing services for 6 months Positive and negative test results both mortgage lenders and rental property management. 4. Partner with state and regional agencies to follow-through on discrimination testing 1 year results, ensuring appropriate action is taken against patterns of discriminatory practices. 5. Provide housing education to low income 1 year Number of participating households and protected class families 6. Incentivize development projects and examine zoning to encourage affordable 1 year Number of new units in TODs units in transit-oriented neighborhoods 7. Encourage mixed-income development, Number of new units, especially 1 year including the revision of zoning ordinances those in revised zones
294 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 8. Implement new ordinances which incentivize 1 year Number of new units by size a variety of units by size 9. Provide education to landlords regarding fair housing laws and regulations, especially for 1 year single-family and accessory rental units 10. Increase housing vouchers and analyze distribution of vouchers to ensure they are 1 year Number of additional vouchers able to provide a variety of housing options and economic opportunities for growth 11. Focus on outreach efforts to provide education to protected classes against 1 year predatory lending practices 12. Ensure any current or future good landlord programs are equitable and do not create 1-5 years disparate impacts on minorities or other protected classes
Goal 9: Work with UTADRAFT to Improve and Increase Bus Routes in Low-Opportunity Areas . Impediments Addresses: Lack of Affordable Housing, Lack of Transportation in Low Opportunity Areas . Responsible Parties: Planning Department, Administration, Community Development Department, UTA
Access to affordable transportation improves the cost of living for low-income households, as well as improving access to opportunity.
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results 1. Work with UTA to conduct a transportation study to analyze ridership and access to 1-2 years public transit in low-opportunity areas Work with UTA to add more bus routes and Change in ridership from new or frequency, especially between TRAX and 2-3 years modified routes FrontRunner, in low-opportunity areas Work with UTA to promote access to Change in ridership from new or 2-3 years commercial and residential nodes modified routes
Goal 10: Provide Opportunities for Residents to Reside in the Community throughout the Lifecycle . Impediments Addressed: Lack of Affordable Housing, Segregation, Lack of Accessible Housing . Responsible Parties: Planning Department, Administration, Community Development Department
The ability to age in place is a key factor for any community, especially those with aging populations, allowing residents to maintain proximity with already-formed support networks, family and friends. However, aging in place does not only apply to aging populations. Aging in place applies to individuals of all ages, races, and those with disabilities.
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results Ensure zoning laws allow for a variety of 6 months
295 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results housing types, as well as proximity to essential services 2. Work with UTA to conduct a transportation Change in ridership from new or study to analyze ridership and access to 1-2 years modified routes public transit Work with UTA to add more bus routes and Change in ridership from new or frequency, especially between TRAX and 2-3 years modified routes FrontRunner
Goal 11: Maintain Existing Housing Stock Appeal and Quality . Impediments Addresses: Lack of Affordable Housing, Segregation . Responsible Parties: Planning Department, Public Works, Code Enforcement, Residents
The preservation of existing neighborhoods is extremely important to property owners, residents, and officials. Maintaining and improving the existing housing stock appeal and quality can allow for individuals to age in place, provide more housing opportunities for households of varying incomes, and can attract new developmentDRAFT or redevelopment to areas with deteriorating housing inventory.
Action Item Time Frame Measurable Results Maintain design and maintenance standards 6 months outlined in the General Plan. Ensure new development is cohesive and 1-5 years integrative to its community. 3. Create a revolving loan fund with CRA funds, including provisions for disability housing Number of units made accessible 1 year and accessibility modifications for existing through revolving loan fund units, and other housing improvements
296 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Financial Resources Listed below are various funding resources available to development within Salt Lake County and sources relevant to the County’s affordable and special needs. They are from a variety of local, state and federal sources. Special mechanisms and ideas for using these funds once in County control are detailed in the following section, “Financial Tools and Mechanisms.”
Local, Non-Profit, and Private Sources
Tax Increment Financing – RDA Housing Fund Account The County currently has a portion of RDA funding set-aside in a fund dedicated to affordable housing initiatives throughout the County. As of February 2017, these funds totaled $44,984. Tools to use these funds, along with other possible monies listed here, are explored in the following tools and mechanisms section.
Green & Healthy Homes Initiative Salt Lake (GHHI Salt Lake) Salt Lake County is part of the national movement to implement housing strategies for creating healthy, safe, energy efficient homes for low- to moderate-income families. Salt Lake County is working with other housing providersDRAFT such as Salt Lake Valley Habitat for Humanity, Community Development Corporation of Utah, Assist Inc., Utah Community Action Weatherization program, Salt Lake City Rehabilitation program, and NeighborWorks Salt Lake, as well as medical providers such as the University of Utah and Intermountain Health Care, to help make low- to moderate-income homes healthy and safe. Program partners include:
Some of the resources available include: Assist Inc. provides grants up to $4,000 to cover the cost of emergency repairs and accessibility retrofits. Utah Community Action Weatherization provides grant of up to $6,500 to cover the cost of energy retrofits and furnace replacements. Salt Lake Valley Habitat for Humanity builds homes for low-income households and provides a 0 percent interest rate. They also provide grants and loans to cover the cost of making a home lead-based-paint hazard free, radon gas hazard free, and asthma trigger free. Community Development Corporation of Utah administers several programs, including a down payment assistance program, the Idea House program, which assists with the purchase and rehab of abandoned homes and provides grants and loans to make homes health and safe. Lead Safe Salt Lake provides grants to make homes lead-based paint hazard free, radon gas hazard free, and asthma trigger free.
Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation (AKA Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation) This multi-bank consortium provides financing for multi-family housing developments for low- and moderate-income households. Support includes loans, tax-exempt bonds and equity capital.
297 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
State Sources
Critical Needs Housing The most useful application to the County of this appropriation is grants to be matched against other funding sources for accessibility design and down payment assistance. These funds must be used to serve those with income at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline.
Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund This State fund is the primary source of State-level housing assistance, providing funding for rehabilitation and development of affordable and special needs housing. Funds are available for individual use for low-income households, first-time home buyers, Native Americans and those with special needs. There are two programs within this fund of special interest to Salt Lake County:
1. The Community Driven Housing Fund within the Olene Walker Housing Fund is specifically intended to help cities develop affordable and special needs housing. This program helps set up partnerships with developers, guides the development process, and can assist with gap financing to make affordable housing more feasible to developers. The County can use this program in directDRAFT development assistance for needs identified in this study, and the City can use current RDA Housing Fund Account monies to leverage this assistance. 2. The HomeChoice program helps low- and moderate-income households or households with a disabled member buy affordable housing. The program funds 30 percent of the purchase price through a second mortgage with a one percent interest rate. This makes monthly payments much more affordable, reducing the housing cost burden. 3. The Multi-family program provides financial assistance for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing of five or more units. 4. The Transportation Oriented Development Fund will provide loan guarantees for third-party financing to multi-family developers. The Board intends for these guarantee funds to revolve as loan guarantees are fulfilled. An element of the selection process is that the project targets households at less than 80 percent of AMI. 5. Individual Development Accounts: OWHLF supports savers participating in Individual Development Accounts with AAA Fair Credit. Savers receive federal and state matching funds for use in down payments and closing costs.
Outside of participating in these programs, the County can also support regional affordable housing development by donating RDA funds to the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund directly. This option is administratively low cost to the County, but doesn’t guarantee a direct benefit to the County in expanding affordable options within County boundaries.
Utah Housing Corporation Created in 1975, the Utah Housing Corporation was created through the Legislature to provide a supply of money to make mortgage loans and reasonable interest rates. The UHC also partners with developers and investors to use State and Federal Tax Credits and bond financing on multifamily projects for low- income families, senior citizens and more. Additionally, UHC administers Low Income Housing Tax Credits. These credits are a dollar for dollar reduction of tax liability for owners and investors of low- income housing for ten years. The amount of the credit is based on the costs of the project and the number of units that will be reserved for low-income households.49
49 http://utahhousingcorp.org/PDF/2011%20LIHTC.pdf
298 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Federal Sources
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) This federal program provides communities with resources to address a wide range of community development needs, including housing projects. The County receives about $2.4 million each year in CDBG funds. Numerous local entities receive a portion of these funds, including Assist Inc. and the Community Development Corporation of Utah.
Low-income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) This federal program can assist housing developers in the development of affordable rental projects for low- and moderate-income households. The County can assist in partnerships with developers in receiving these grants.
Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers The Section 8 program provides assistance to individual households to subsidize housing costs where housing would otherwise be unaffordable. This program provides diversity and distribution of low- income households, rather than segregation and concentration in dedicated housing developments. The Salt Lake County HousingDRAFT Authority has closed its waiting lists for Section 8 Housing Vouchers due to the extremely long length of the lists. As of August 2016, the Section 8 Housing Voucher waiting lists have a combined 8,500 households, and can take up to 6 years for households to receive assistance through the program. Due to the length, the Housing Authority often refers these households, and other households seeking assistance, to the Davis County and Utah County Housing Authorities, which have waiting lists that take less than a year to receive assistance. The Salt Lake County Housing Authority has another subsidized program for seniors over 62 years old or individuals with disabilities, which currently has a year-long waiting list.
HOME Investment Partnership Program Allocations This federal money is appropriated through the State and county consortiums through the Utah Department of Housing and Community Development. At the State level, this program performs competitive funding rounds where developers can submit applications for assistance for affordable housing projects. These applications are bolstered through County support and can leverage the County’s RDA funds as part of the project application. Each year, the County receives about $1.4 million in HOME funds.
In Salt Lake County, the County has partnered with local groups to provide affordable housing development assistance and direct rental assistance. These groups include the Community Development Corporation of Utah, NeighborWorks Salt Lake, Salt Lake Valley Habitat for Humanity, Salt Lake Community Action Program, the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, Utah Nonprofit Housing Association, and West Valley City.
HUD Section 811 – Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities This program provides funding to develop and subsidize rental housing with the availability of supportive services for low income adults with disabilities. Assistance through this program comes in two forms: 1) Capital Advances and 2) Project Rental Assistance. Capital Advances are interest-free capital advances to nonprofit sponsors to finance to development of rental housing. It can finance the construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of a property. The advance does not have to be repaid if the property remains available to low-income persons with disabilities for 40 years. While the property
299 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
should provide services such as case management, independent living training, and employment assistance, use of these services is not required as a condition of occupancy. Rental assistance contracts cover the difference between the HUD approved operating cost and the amount the residents pay – usually 30 percent of adjusted income. The initial term of these contracts is three years and can be renewed if funds are available.
HUD Section 202 – Supportive Housing for the Elderly Much like the Section 811 program, Section 202 provided capital advances for the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition for low-income elderly, including the frail elderly. Terms and options are also similar to section 811 with capital advances and rental assistance.
Other Sources Available to Individuals and Households There are hundreds of other programs available to individuals and households needing assistance with affordability or special needs. While these programs are not available for direct involvement or use by the County, they are available to help individuals and households close the affordability gap or find funding for special needs in housing. Some of these programs include:
. Utah Technology Assistive Foundation DRAFT . Emergency Shelter Grants Program . HUD’s 203K Rehabilitation Program . Programs through the Community Development Corporation of Utah . Utah Affordable Housing Database . Making Home Affordable Program . Programs through Salt Lake Community Action Program . Programs through the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake . Programs through the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City . Salt Lake Valley Habitat for Humanity . Utah Nonprofit Housing Association . HomeChoice Loan Program . Home Energy Assistance Target Program . Community Development Corporation of Utah . NeighborWorks . Wasatch Front Regional Council . Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation . National Association of Homebuilders . Homebuilder Association of Utah . Many other nonprofit agencies through Utah and the Country
Financial Tools and Mechanisms
Suggestions Specific to RDA Set-Asides In addition to the previously detailed funding sources, there are many tools and strategies the County can use to effectively apply funding the County possesses, such as RDA set-aside funding, to affordable housing issues. Until recently, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake County’s only active project area was the Magna West Main RDA which predated any statutory housing set-aside requirement. In 2015, the Agency triggered the Magna Arbor Park URA and the West Millcreek URA – both project area budgets have a 20 percent housing allocation which collectively totaled $89,197.
300 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Table 299: Salt Lake County RDA Housing Set-Asides Area Amount Magna West Main Street RDA 2015 Housing Funds $0 2016 Housing Funds (Initial) $0 Housing Set-Aside N/A Magna Arbor Park URA 2015 Housing Funds $30,284 2016 Housing Funds (Initial) $33,689 Housing Set-Aside 20% West Millcreek URA 2015 Housing Funds $14,700 2016 Housing Funds (Initial) $55,508 Housing Set-Aside 20%
Suggestions Specific to RDA Set-Asides The Utah Workforce Housing Initiative’s guidebook gives the following suggestions and ideas specific to using RDA Set-Asides. DRAFT Pass funds to the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund. This option has low administrative time on the part of staff and pools fund to support affordable housing throughout the region. Set up a nonprofit or trust fund to manage allocations on a project-by-project basis. This organization can use many of the tools outlined in the next section, as well as be eligible for many grants and funding available only to nonprofits, like most HUD programs. Act as a developer or solicit proposals from developers to complete housing projects directly. Use the funds to cover the costs of infrastructure for an affordable housing development. Use the funds to acquire land for future development (land banking). Establish a housing rehabilitation program.
Specific Tools and Mechanisms
Fee Waivers Salt Lake County can reduce the cost of development, thus reducing the rental or purchase price of a unit, by waiving fees for developments targeting affordable housing. Fees that can be waived include plan reviews, impact fees, water and sewer connections, and building permits.
Density Bonus A density bonus incentive can take many forms. 1. Mixed income development – This can be a single-family or multi-family development that mixes unit sizes and qualities with good design practices to make units desirable at all income levels. This method prevents income segregation. A density bonus can be applied to these developments. A good rule of thumb for this is ten percent, or one affordable unit per ten market units. 2. Allowing smaller units to be constructed or relaxing set-back requirements can allow a developer to get a higher return on investment.
301 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Zoning Regulation Where affordable housing is meeting pushback from the neighborhood, zoning regulations can allow development to integrate into an area more smoothly. Requirements can include things like design requirements, lay out, traffic flow, amenities, management requirements and services.
Infrastructure Support The County can reduce the cost of developing affordable housing and attract developers by constructing infrastructure in targeted locations. This reduces the cost of development, as well as reducing the construction time by making the property shovel-ready.
Rent Subsidies Federal rent vouchers, the most common rental subsidies, do not currently come close to meeting needs in Salt Lake County. With long waiting lists, there are families without assistance for up to five years in some cases. These programs effectively pay down rental rates such that the remaining cost burden on the family is an affordable 30 percent of its income. They come in two forms: tenant-based, where the tenant is free to move and take the assistance to each new location; and project-based, where the assistance is attached to a project for periods of ten to twenty years. Project-based subsidies are less administrativelyDRAFT burdensome and provide construction incentive to a developer, as they steady income streams and increase debt-carrying capacity. Tenant-based is flexible and can be applied to the current housing supply without necessarily building new affordable units.
Project-Based Grants This straightforward tool would function as a grant from the County to a developer in return for developing affordable housing units. Conditions of the grant may require a certain percentage of the units to be rented or sold within specified price ranges.
Tenant Grants Although there is no payback to the County, the County can consider the simple approach of basic grants for use in down payment or rental assistance.
Deferred Payment Loans These loans, also known as deferred payment second mortgage loan or “soft seconds,” defer all payments of principal and interest until resale of the property or conversion. Sometimes these loans are even forgiven over a period of years. They are generally used in three ways:
1. Down payment assistance for low-income homebuyers in tandem with conventional financing; 2. Major subsidies through gap financing to rental project developers; or 3. Rehabilitation loans.
Partial Loan Guarantee The County might provide a loan guarantee to back a development’s financing. This can smooth a difficult lending process or lower interest rates, effectively reducing the cost of development.
Interest Subsidies Also known as interest rate buy-downs, these are effectively prepaid interest at the origination of the loan. The effect of these buy-downs is the same as a zero percent deferred payment loan.
302 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Compensating Balances A bank may be willing to reduce an interest rate for a partnership development if the County then deposits in the bank for a certain term. At the end of the term, the County regains its deposit in full, but the bank retains any interest earned to offset the original lower interest rate. This is often not an efficient use of funds due to inflation, but is a possible option. Tax-Exempt Bonds The County can leverage its tax-exempt bonding power to support financing of an affordable housing project. This can also reduce the housing costs in the development and increase affordability.
Revolving Loan Fund A revolving loan fund can employ many of the tools mentioned above, such as down payment assistance, interest reduction, and deferred payment loans. A common usage of this mechanism is the zero percent deferred payment loan. The loan is due in full when the title changes and then “revolved” back into the fund to be used for another household. Like rent subsidies, this can be useful to the County to aid in affordable housing with the current housing stock.
Pros and Cons – Effects on Policy Goals Each of the mechanismsDRAFT above have pros and cons – whether it be impacts on property values, risk to the City, or impacts on culture. The following table from the Brookings Institute50 gives a good summary of the impacts from the general types of tools in affordable housing.
50 http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/knight/housingreview.pdf
303 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
DRAFT
304 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
Appendix A: General Plan Housing Goals
Copperton The Copperton Township General Plan includes the following goals focused on land uses and housing choices: . Preserve, enhance, and protect existing neighborhoods and viable land uses from unacceptable or adverse impacts resulting from uncontrolled or uncoordinated development. . Achieve a development pattern that minimizes urban sprawl that provides for a diverse mixture of lifestyles and sense of place that varies throughout the differing landscapes of the Township, and that efficiently provides a full variety of services and facilities in close proximity to where people live. . Maintain and reinforce Copperton’s historic Town Center residential area as a home for families with children, young adults, and seniors who appreciate the homogeneous neighborhood setting. . Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. DRAFT Emigration Canyon The Emigration Canyon Township General Plan includes the following goal and objectives focused on housing choices:
Maintain zoning which provides for single-family lots and housing styles in locations consistent with canyon resources and constraints. Accommodate well-planned and well-executed single-family housing opportunities which are compatible with the canyon environment and which are enhanced by abundant open space. . Objective 1: Existing zones that protect the unique canyon setting of the area including the retention of existing large-lot zoning appropriate for the mountain setting will be maintained. . Objective 2: New development which incorporates open-space design, such as clustered housing subdivisions, will be encouraged where feasible and appropriate. . Objective 3: Subdivision design that promotes physical connectivity between developments will be encouraged. . Objective 4: The Ridgeline Protection Area identified and delineated in the previously adopted Emigration Canyon General Plan (1999) shall be adopted as part of the 2012 Emigration Canyon Township General Plan. . Objective 5: The rural dark-sky character and aesthetic of the canyon should be encouraged and enhanced through the development of night-time lighting guidelines and ordinances.
Kearns The Kearns Township General Plan includes the following goal and objectives focused on housing choices:
Provide diverse housing choices for a variety of needs and income levels to create places where all citizens are welcome to live. . Objective 1: Provide sufficient housing for current and future populations that are appropriate, safe, and affordable, for a range of income levels.
305 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Objective 2: Consider life-cycle housing options that allow for aging populations to “age in place”, as well as provide diverse housing choices for other demographic groups. . Objective 3: Develop residential neighborhoods that integrate multiple community facilities and services such as retail, recreation, professional services, etc. . Objective 4: Encourage residential development that establishes a variety of lot sizes, dwelling types, densities, and price points, as well as an appropriate balance of owner-occupied and rental units. . Objective 5: Develop safe and visually pleasing residential neighborhoods that are integrated into the natural environment with open space, trails, and green systems. . Objective 6: Develop programs and neighborhoods that will make home ownership attractive and possible for all members of the community.
Magna The Magna Township General Plan includes the following goal and objectives focused on housing choices:
Provide diverse housing choices for a variety of needs and income levels to create places where all citizens are welcome DRAFTto live. . Objective 1: Provide sufficient housing for current and future populations that are appropriate, safe, and affordable for a range of income levels. . Objective 2: Consider life-cycle housing alternatives that allow for aging populations to “age in place,” as well as provide diverse housing choices for other demographic groups. . Objective 3: Promote a diverse mix of housing options through higher density, mixed-use development in appropriate areas, especially along the historic Main Street corridor. . Objective 4: Encourage residential development that establishes a variety of lot sizes, dwelling types, densities, and price points, as well as an appropriate balance of owner-occupied and rental units. . Objective 5: Develop safe and visually pleasing residential neighborhoods that are integrated into the natural environment with open space, trails, and green systems. . Objective 6: Develop programs and neighborhoods that will make home ownership attractive and possible for all members of the community.
Millcreek The Millcreek Township General Plan includes the following goal and objectives focused on housing choices:
Provide diverse housing choices for a variety of needs and income levels to create places where all citizens are welcome to live. . Objective 1: Provide sufficient housing for current and future populations that are appropriate, safe, and affordable, where all citizens are welcome to live. . Objective 2: Consider life-cycle housing alternatives that allow for aging populations to “age in place”, as well as provide diverse housing choices for other demographic groups. . Objective 3: Develop residential neighborhoods that integrate multiple community facilities and services such as retail, recreation, professional services, schools, churches, etc. . Objective 4: Encourage residential development that establishes a variety of lot sizes, dwelling types, densities, and price points, as well as an appropriate balance of owner-occupied and rental units.
306 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017
Salt Lake County | Moderate Income Housing Plan
. Objective 5: Develop safe and visually pleasing residential neighborhoods that are integrated into the natural environment with open space, trails, and green systems. . Objective 6: Develop programs and neighborhoods that will make home ownership attractive and possible for all members of the community. . Objective 7: Preserve and protect the quality and character of existing neighborhoods, including sensitivity of compatible infill development.
DRAFT
307 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | February 2017