Staff Report
DATE: November 18, 2019
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Numbers 904 and 905, amending Chapter 7. Moderate-Income Housing Element of the Eastern Summit County General Plan and Chapter 6. Housing Element of the Snyderville Basin General Plan, adopting the 2019 Moderate-Income Housing Report, Resolution No. 2019-31.
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Economic Development and Housing
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Shall the Summit County Council review and consider adopting amendments to Chapter 6. Housing Element of the Snyderville Basin General Plan, Chapter 7. Moderate Income Housing Element of the Eastern Summit County General Plan and the 2019 Moderate-Income Housing Report that will be filed with the Utah Department of Workforce Services and the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG)?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the County Council review the proposed General Plan Amendments, Moderate-Income Housing Plan/Presentation, Staff Report, Attachments and the 2019 Moderate- Income Housing Report, conduct a public hearing, accept the findings, and approve Ordinance Number(s) 904 and 905 and Resolution No. 2019-31.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
DISCUSSION:
Summit County 60 N Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 (435) 336 3200 Summit County Council Moderate-Income Housing Plan Amendments & Annual Report November 25, 2019 Page 2 of 7
Background:
Two bills the Legislature passed in the 2018 session provide the foundation for SB 34, HB 259 (Moderate-Income Housing Amendments) and SB 136 (Transportation Governance Amendments).
In 2019, the Legislature passed SB 34 which added to the foundation of HB 259 and SB 136 in two main ways: (1) adding elements that reinforce transportation-efficient land use into cities and counties’ general plans; and (2) providing specific strategies cities and counties must consider adopting in their MIH plans.
SB 34 requires cities and counties to include at least four (4) of the twenty plus (20+) strategies in their general plan(s) and submit to workforce services by December 1, 2019.
Cities and counties must be up-to-date on the MIH plan elements and reporting requirements in order to be eligible for Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) and Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) money. The TIF was $702 million last year, and 65 out of 81 (80%) of cities that are subject to the MIH requirements either have funds currently programmed or are in phase 1 of the TIF process.
Amendments to the County’s General Plan(s) requires a Planning Commission review, a public hearing and a Commission’s recommendation to the County Council. The Summit County Council shall review the proposed General Plan Amendments and Annual Moderate-Income Housing Plan Report, conduct a public hearing, and adopt the General Plan Amendments and Annual Moderate-Income Housing Plan Report by Ordinance and/or Resolution.
On November 7, 2019 the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission reviewed the Moderate Income Housing Plan/Presentation and proposed General Plan Amendments conducted a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation for Council’s consideration. The Staff Report for the Commission may be viewed here.
On November 12, 2019 the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission reviewed the Moderate Income Housing Plan/Presentation and proposed General Plan Amendments conducted a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation for Council’s consideration. The Staff Report for the Commission may be viewed here.
SB 34 also require that the Summit County Council adopt by resolution an Summit County 60 N Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 (435) 336 3200 Summit County Council Moderate-Income Housing Plan Amendments & Annual Report November 25, 2019 Page 3 of 7
Annual Moderate-income Housing Report (Attachment 6) and submit the report to the required entities by December 1, 2019.
Plan Requirements:
The updates to the Eastern Summit County and Snyderville Basin General Plans are needed to meet the state law for SB 34 reporting and are required to be turned into workforce services by December 1, 2019.
• Reporting will be due annually on December 1st going forward.
• As part of the annual review, staff will need to demonstrate that the Planning Commission and County Council reviewed the goals and demonstrate what works and what does not work in Summit County.
• A general plan amendment is a legislative process.
Analysis:
2020 Housing Assessment and Plan
The Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Sndyerville Basin General Plan and the Eastern Summit County General Plan are ongoing and have been supplemented by the attached Moderate Income Housing Plan/Presentation, proposed General Plan Amendments and associated Attachments.
2019 Moderate Income Housing Report
The Utah Department of Workforce Services (UDWS) provides a template for cities and counties to submit their Moderate Income Housing (MIH) Report. UDWS also creates excel spreadsheets for cities and counties to calculate their need for affordable housing units based on population growth for those at 30, 50 and 80 percent of AMI using data from the American Community Survey (ACN) (Attachment 3).
UDWS also provides Counties with a Gap Analysis for rental units based on the HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Attachment 4). These documents appear to be somewhat in conflict.
For the State-required MIHP Report (Attachment 3), the County exceeds the affordable housing stock (2018 ACN data) for households at 50 to 80 percent AMI and a deficit of 355 “available” units at the <30% AMI. However, in the UDWS Gap Analysis based on the (CHAS) (Attachment 4), Summit County
Summit County 60 N Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 (435) 336 3200 Summit County Council Moderate-Income Housing Plan Amendments & Annual Report November 25, 2019 Page 4 of 7
has a deficit of 550 “available” units at the <80% AMI; 620 “available” units at the <50% AMI; and a gap of 695 “available” units at the <30% AMI. The CHAS data also estimates a shortage of 300 “affordable” units.
The County’s affordable housing deficit was estimated at approximately 1,000 units in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. The following affordable housing projects were completed after the Consolidated Plan date of publication.
• Richer Place, 28 Units • Canyon Corners, 20 Units • Utah Olympic Park, 30 Units (8 Workforce Units, 7-Year Around Athlete, 15 – Seasonal Athlete)
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019 (Attachment 5), appears to strike a balance with regards to the future level of Moderate (<80% AMI) and middle (81-120% AMI) income housing (with the exception of the <30% AMI targets) necessary to meet the County’s Moderate-Income 5-Year housing needs:
Snyderville Basin Planning Area, 2020-2025
• 40 Rental Units at <80% AMI per year • 30 Rental Units at <50% AMI per year • 53 Units at <30% AMI per year
Eastern Summit County Planning Area, 2020-2025
• 9 Rental Units at <80% AMI per year • 13 Rental Units at <50% AMI per year • 24 Units at <30% AMI per year
The <30% AMI targets are extremely challenging without deep subsidy. A few units may be developed using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, etc., but it is not financially feasible or “reasonable” to address the identified shortages ranging between 355-695 units without additional funding sources. If the County creates a new “Housing Authority” and are able to qualify applicants who might obtain potential “housing choice” vouchers, they could be used to assist this income target group.
Development Pipeline
A total of 662 income/deed restricted Moderate-Income <80% AMI housing units are currently in the development pipeline.
Summit County 60 N Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 (435) 336 3200 Summit County Council Moderate-Income Housing Plan Amendments & Annual Report November 25, 2019 Page 5 of 7
• Discovery Ridge, 30 units/ownership • Silver Creek Village, 330 units/ownership & rental • Lincoln Station, 52 units/rental • CVMA, 169 units (1,153 pillows)/rental • Woodward, 8 units/rental • Newpark Commons, 38 units (Average 80% AMI)/rentals • Promontory, 35 Units (80 bedrooms)/Rentals
Summary of General Plan Amendments:
The request is to review and update Chapter 7. of the Eastern Summit County General Plan, Moderate Income Housing and Chapter 6 of the Snyderville Basin Summit County General Plan as follows:
Eastern Summit County General Plan
• Add Policy 7.1 g. to Incorporate the definition of “Middle Income Housing” in the Development Code and other policy documents. • Add Policy 7.1 h. to explore a Fee Deferral Program and/or other incentive to facilitate the development of Deed-Restricted ADUs. • Add Policy 7.1 g. to examine any potential programs or partnerships with the Mountainlands Association of Governments (MAG).
Snyderville Basin County General Plan
• Amend the title in Chapter 6 to Housing and Moderate-Income Housing. • Amend the Chapter 6 Goal statement to the include moderate- income housing provision requirement, “to meet the needs of people of various income levels living, working, or desiring to live or work in the community.” (Utah Code 17-27a-403) • Amend Chapter 6, Objective A: to include the moderate-income housing provision requirement, “to meet the needs of people of various income levels living, working, or desiring to live or work in the community.” (Utah Code 17-27a-403) • Add Policy 6.1: f. to explore the creation of a Summit County Housing Authority and/or regional housing authority. • Add Policy 6.1: g. to potentially provide land as a public subsidy and build development partnerships.
Summit County 60 N Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 (435) 336 3200 Summit County Council Moderate-Income Housing Plan Amendments & Annual Report November 25, 2019 Page 6 of 7
• Add Policy 6.1: h. to incorporate the definition of “Middle Income Housing” in the Development Code and other policy documents. • Add Policy 6.1: i. Beginning in 2020, conduct a biennial review of Chapter 5, Affordable Housing, Snyderville Basin Development Code and update the County’s inclusionary housing ordinance as necessary. • Add Policy 6.10: To encourage and incentivize the distribution of workforce housing throughout the Snyderville Basin. The County will use financing strategies and land use tools to encourage and incentivize the geographic distribution and neighborhood integration of new affordable housing units to achieve the objectives of the Moderate-Income Housing Plan.
Citizen Participation
Notice of the County Council meeting was published in the Park Record on November 13, 2019.
Public Input
No public input was received when this report was published.
Alternatives
• County Council may adopt the General Plan Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and the 2019 Moderate-Income Housing Report. • County Council may deny the General Plan Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and the 2019 Moderate-Income Housing Report. • County Council may modify the proposed General Plan Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and the 2019 Moderate- Income Housing Report.
Consequences of not Taking Recommended Action
The Legislature conditioned funds from the Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) and the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) on county compliance with the SB 34.
Summit County 60 N Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 (435) 336 3200 Summit County Council Moderate-Income Housing Plan Amendments & Annual Report November 25, 2019 Page 7 of 7
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the County Council review the Moderate-Income Housing Plan/Presentation, proposed General Plan Amendments, the 2019 Moderate-Income Housing Plan Report, Attachments, conduct a public hearing, accept the findings and adopt Ordinance Number 904 and 905 (General Plan Amendments) and Resolution No. 2019-31, the 2019 Moderate- Income Housing Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Utah Code, 17-27a-403 Plan preparation 2. Moderate-Income Housing Plan/Presentation 3. State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ACN Data Points and Gap Analysis 4. State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services HUD CHAS Gap Analysis 5. Jim Wood Final Regional Needs Assessment 5.28.19 6. Moderate Income Housing Report and 5-Year Needs Projection 7. Ordinance No. 904, Eastern Summit County General Plan 8. Ordinance No. 905, Snyderville Basin General Plan 9. Resolution No. 2019-31, 2019 Moderate-Income Housing Report
Summit County 60 N Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 (435) 336 3200 Attachment 1 Utah State Code Requirements
Effective 5/14/2019 17-27a-403 Plan preparation. (1) (a) The planning commission shall provide notice, as provided in Section 17-27a-203, of its intent to make a recommendation to the county legislative body for a general plan or a comprehensive general plan amendment when the planning commission initiates the process of preparing its recommendation. (b) The planning commission shall make and recommend to the legislative body a proposed general plan for: (i) the unincorporated area within the county; or (ii) if the planning commission is a planning commission for a mountainous planning district, the mountainous planning district. (c) (i) The plan may include planning for incorporated areas if, in the planning commission’s judgment, they are related to the planning of the unincorporated territory or of the county as a whole. (ii) Elements of the county plan that address incorporated areas are not an official plan or part of a municipal plan for any municipality, unless it is recommended by the municipal planning commission and adopted by the governing body of the municipality. (iii) Notwithstanding Subsection (1)(c)(ii), if property is located in a mountainous planning district, the plan for the mountainous planning district controls and precedes a municipal plan, if any, to which the property would be subject. (2) (a) At a minimum, the proposed general plan, with the accompanying maps, charts, and descriptive and explanatory matter, shall include the planning commission’s recommendations for the following plan elements: (i) a land use element that: (A) designates the long-term goals and the proposed extent, general distribution, and location of land for housing for residents of various income levels, business, industry, agriculture, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, open space, and other categories of public and private uses of land as appropriate; and (B) may include a statement of the projections for and standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various land use categories covered by the plan; (ii) a transportation and traffic circulation element that: (A) provides the general location and extent of existing and proposed freeways, arterial and collector streets, public transit, active transportation facilities, and other modes of transportation that the planning commission considers appropriate; (B) addresses the county’s plan for residential and commercial development around major transit investment corridors to maintain and improve the connections between housing, employment, education, recreation, and commerce; and (C) correlates with the population projections, the employment projections, and the proposed land use element of the general plan; (iii) a plan for the development of additional moderate income housing within the unincorporated area of the county or the mountainous planning district, and a plan to provide a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate income housing; and (iv) before May 1, 2017, a resource management plan detailing the findings, objectives, and policies Attachment 1 Utah State Code Requirements
required by Subsection 17-27a-401(3). (b) In drafting the moderate income housing element, the planning commission: (i) shall consider the Legislature’s determination that counties should facilitate a reasonable opportunity for a variety of housing, including moderate income housing: (A) to meet the needs of people of various income levels living, working, or desiring to live or work in the community; and (B) to allow people with various incomes to benefit from and fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life; and (ii) shall include an analysis of how the county will provide a realistic opportunity for the development of moderate income housing within the planning horizon, which may include a recommendation to implement three or more of the following strategies: (A) rezone for densities necessary to assure the production of moderate income housing; (B) facilitate the rehabilitation or expansion of infrastructure that will encourage the construction of moderate income housing; (C) facilitate the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable housing stock into moderate income housing; (D) consider county general fund subsidies or other sources of revenue to waive construction related fees that are otherwise generally imposed by the county; (E) create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, accessory dwelling units in residential zones; (F) allow for higher density or moderate income residential development in commercial and mixed-use zones, commercial centers, or employment centers; (G) encourage higher density or moderate income residential development near major transit investment corridors; (H) eliminate or reduce parking requirements for residential development where a resident is less likely to rely on the resident’s own vehicle, such as residential development near major transit investment corridors or senior living facilities; (I) allow for single room occupancy developments; (J) implement zoning incentives for low to moderate income units in new developments; (K) utilize strategies that preserve subsidized low to moderate income units on a long-term basis; (L) preserve existing moderate income housing; (M) reduce impact fees, as defined in Section 11-36a-102, related to low and moderate income housing; (N) participate in a community land trust program for low or moderate income housing; (O) implement a mortgage assistance program for employees of the county or of an employer that provides contracted services for the county; (P) apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of moderate income housing; (Q) apply for or partner with an entity that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing Corporation within that agency’s funding capacity; (R) apply for or partner with an entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by the Department of Workforce Services; (S) apply for or partner with an entity that applies for services provided by a public housing authority to preserve and create moderate income housing; (T) apply for or partner with an entity that applies for programs administered by a metropolitan planning organization or other transportation agency that provides technical planning assistance; Attachment 1 Utah State Code Requirements
(U) utilize a moderate income housing set aside from a community reinvestment agency, redevelopment agency, or community development and renewal agency; and (V) consider any other program or strategy implemented by the county to address the housing needs of residents of the county who earn less than 80% of the area median income. (c) In drafting the land use element, the planning commission shall: (i) identify and consider each agriculture protection area within the unincorporated area of the county or mountainous planning district; and (ii) avoid proposing a use of land within an agriculture protection area that is inconsistent with or detrimental to the use of the land for agriculture. (d) In drafting the transportation and traffic circulation element, the planning commission shall: (i) consider the regional transportation plan developed by its region’s metropolitan planning organization, if the relevant areas of the county are within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization; or (ii) consider the long-range transportation plan developed by the Department of Transportation, if the relevant areas of the county are not within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization. (3) The proposed general plan may include: (a) an environmental element that addresses: (i) to the extent not covered by the county’s resource management plan, the protection, conservation, development, and use of natural resources, including the quality of air, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources; and (ii) the reclamation of land, flood control, prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters, regulation of the use of land on hillsides, stream channels and other environmentally sensitive areas, the prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, protection of watersheds and wetlands, and the mapping of known geologic hazards; (b) a public services and facilities element showing general plans for sewage, water, waste disposal, drainage, public utilities, rights-of-way, easements, and facilities for them, police and fire protection, and other public services; (c) a rehabilitation, redevelopment, and conservation element consisting of plans and programs for: (i) historic preservation; (ii) the diminution or elimination of a development impediment as defined in Section 17C-1-102; and (iii) redevelopment of land, including housing sites, business and industrial sites, and public building sites; (d) an economic element composed of appropriate studies and forecasts, as well as an economic development plan, which may include review of existing and projected county revenue and expenditures, revenue sources, identification of basic and secondary industry, primary and secondary market areas, employment, and retail sales activity; (e) recommendations for implementing all or any portion of the general plan, including the use of land use ordinances, capital improvement plans, community development and promotion, and any other appropriate action; (f) provisions addressing any of the matters listed in Subsection 17-27a-401(2) or (3)(a)(i); and (g) any other element the county considers appropriate.
Amended by Chapter 327, 2019 General Session Amended by Chapter 376, 2019 General Session
Summit County Council Jeffrey B. Jones, AICP Date: November 25, 2019 [email protected] Phone: 435-336-3221
Moderate Income Housing Plan/Presentation
Attachment 2 Issue/Action Shall the Summit County Council review the Moderate- Income Housing Plan/Presentation, 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report, Staff Report and Attachments and approve amendments to the Snyderville Basin Summit County General Plan (Chapter 6) and the Eastern Summit County General Plans (Chapter 7), and adopt the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report?
2 Senate Bill 34
SB 34 passed in 2019 Impact of SB 34
▪ HB 259 (Moderate-Income 1) Adds elements that reinforce Housing Amendments), 2018 transportation-efficient land use into the general plans of ▪ SB 136 (Transportation both cities and counties; and Governance Amendments), 2018 2) Providing specific strategies cities and counties must consider adopting in their MIH plans.
3 Impacted Cities, Towns and Counties
Cities and Towns Counties
▪ A city of the first, second, third, or ▪ On or before December 1, 2019, a fourth class; county with a general plan that does not comply with Subsection (3)(a)(i) ▪ A city of the fifth class with a shall amend the general plan to population of 5,000 or more, if the comply with Subsection (3)(a)(i). city is located within a county of the first, second, or third class; and a ▪ (3)(a)(i) The general plan shall: allow metro township with a population of and plan for moderate income 5,000 or more. housing growth (<80% AMI).
4 Major Transit Investment Corridor
▪ Means public transit service that uses or occupies: o Public transit rail right-of-way; o Dedicated road right-of-way for the use of public transit, such as bus rapid transit; or o Fixed-route bus corridors subject to an interlocal agreement or contract between a municipality or county and: o A public transit district as defined in Section 17B-2a-802; or an eligible political subdivision as defined in Section 59-12-2219.
5 “Sticks & Carrots”
▪ SB 34 requires cities and counties to include at least four (4) of the 20+ strategies in their general plan and submit to workforce services by December 1, 2019.
▪ Cities and counties must be up-to-date on the MIH plan and reporting requirements in order to be eligible for Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) and Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) money. The TIF was $702 million last year, and 65 out of 81 (80%) of cities that are subject to the MIH requirements either have funds currently programmed or are in phase 1 of the TIF process.
6 Senate Bill 34
Tonight’s Action Future Assessments/Reports
▪ The updates to the Snyderville ▪ Reporting will be due annually Basin Summit County General on December 1st going Plan and the Eastern Summit forward. County General Plan are necessary to meet the Utah ▪ As part of the annual review, Code requirements relating to staff will need to demonstrate SB 34 and are required to be that the Planning Commission submitted to Utah Department and County Council reviewed of Workforce Services by the goals and demonstrate December 1, 2019. what works and what does not work in Summit County (Target Month: August).
7 Housing Needs Utah Code requires a plan for the development of additional moderate-income housing within the unincorporated area of the county or the mountainous planning district, and a plan to provide a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate- income housing.
8 Plan Preparation In drafting the moderate-income housing element, the planning commission: ▪ Shall consider the Legislature’s determination that counties should facilitate a reasonable opportunity for a variety of housing, including moderate income housing: oTo meet the needs of people of various income levels living, working, or desiring to live or work in the community; and oTo allow people with various incomes to benefit from and fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life.
9 Why Is the State so Involved?
▪ Statewide home values climbed 14 percent over the past year, nearly double the growth rate of U.S. home rates at 8 percent
▪ Utah’s household income is rising at 0.4 percent annually, while housing prices are increasing much faster at 3.3 percent, according to the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
▪ For the first time in four decades, Utah is facing a housing shortage — of 50,000+ units.
10 The Moderate- Income Housing Plan MIH Plan Obligations
MIH Plan
Not a Planning Goal production Goal
12 State Goals Reporting Matrix
13 State Goals Reporting Matrix
14 State Goals Reporting Matrix
15 State Goals Reporting Matrix
16 Total Population Growth
2000 - 2009 = 20.5% Change 37,000 35,841 36,000 35,232 34,650 35,000 34,14034,245 34,000 33,274 33,000 32,356 32,000 31,538 30,805 31,000
30,000 29,736
29,000
28,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: EMSI Population Developer
17 Annual Population Growth 2000 - 2009 = 667 Mean = 697 Median 1,200 1,069
1,000 918 866 818 800 733 661 582 609 600 405 400
200 105
0 Source: EMSI 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Developer Annual Population
18 Total Employment Growth 2000 - 2009 = 34.0 % Change 27,000 24,845 25,000 24,217 22,858 22,968 23,000 21,013 21,000 19,753 18,47918,439 19,000 17,720 17,140 17,000
15,000 Source: EMSI 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Developer Employment
19 Annual Employment Growth
2000 - 2009 = 561 Mean = 694 Median 2500
2000 1845
1500 1314 1260 1359
1000 759 580 628 500 -40 0 -216 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -500
-1000 -1500 -1877 -2000 Source: EMSI Developer Annual Employment
20 Annual Residential Building Permits
2000 - 2009 = 664 Mean = 640 Median 1200 1139 1100 1000 900 899 900 869
800 700 624 657 600 533 500 424 385 400 300 214 200 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Ivory Boyer Construction Annual Res Building Permits Report
21 Total Population Growth 2010 - 2019 = 16.8% Change 44,000
43,000 42,633 41,933 42,000 41,349 41,000 40,507
40,000 39,648
39,000 38,42238,422 37,863 38,000 37,420
37,000 36,502
36,000
35,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: EMSI Population Developer
22 Annual Population Growth
2010 - 2019 = 669 Mean = 646 Median 1000 918 900 859 842
800 697 700 700 661 609 631 584 600 559 529 500 443
400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: EMSI Developer Annual Population
23 Total Employment Growth 2010 - 2019 = 33% Change
31,000 29,96230,252 30,000 29,502 28,942 29,000 27,859 28,000
27,000 26,701
26,000 25,686 24,807 25,000 23,971 24,000 22,752 23,000
22,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: EMSI Developer Employment
24 Annual Employment Growth 2000 - 2009 = 859 Mean = 947 Median 1400 1219 1158 1200 1083 1089 1015 1000 836 879 800
600 560 460 400 290
200 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: EMSI Developer
Annual Employment
25 Annual Residential Building Permits
2010 - 2019 = 196 Mean = 203 Median 340 301
290 249 254 237 238 240
184 190 167
140 119 119 95 90 Source: EMSI 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Developer Annual Res Building Permit
26 5-Year Population Projection 2020 - 2025 = 2,406 Numeric Change = 5.6% Change 46,000 45,670
45,500 45,320
45,000 44,874
44,500 44,384
44,000 43,848
43,500 43,264
43,000 Source: EMSI 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Developer Population
27 Annual 5-Year Population Projection
2020 - 2025 = 445 Mean = 468 Median 650
600 584
550 536 490 500 446 450
400 350 350
300 264 250 Source: EMSI 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Developer Annual Population
28 5-Year Employment Projection 2020 - 2025 = 3,810 Numeric Change = 12.2% Change 35,500 35,151 35,000 34,448 34,500 33,885 34,000 33,500 33,114 33,000
32,500 32,284
32,000
31,500 31,341
31,000 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Source: EMSI Employment Developer
29 Annual 5-Year Employment Projection
2020 - 2025 = 745 Mean = 737 Median 1050 943 950 830 850 771 750 703 660 650 563 550
450
350
250 Source: EMSI 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Developer Annual Population
30 Imported Labor = 2,349 Numeric Change = 26.9 % Change 2002 - 2009 = 3.8% Annual % Change Mean Annual Numeric Change =279 14,700 13,646 13,700 13,419
12,700
11,700 11,371 11,088
10,700 10,208 9,589 9,700 8,950 8,739 8,700 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: US Census, On the Map Tool
31 Imported Labor = 5,351 Numeric Change = 48.8 % Change 2010 - 2017 = 7% Annual % Change Mean Annual Numeric Change = 764 17,000 16,322 16,000 15,544 15,140 15,000 14,652 14,298 13,918 13,947 14,000
13,000
12,000 10,971 11,000
10,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: US Census, On the Map Tool
32 Exported Labor = 2,861 Numeric Change = 49.4% Change 2002 - 2009 = 7.1% Annual % Change Mean Annual Numeric Change = 408 9,000 8,671
8,500
8,000 7,581 7,500
7,000 6,803 6,400 6,500 6,057 6,000 5,802 5,666 5,600 5,500 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: US Census, On the Map Tool
33 = 2,419 Numeric Change Exported Labor = 27% Change 2002 - 2017 = 3.8% Annual % Change Mean Annual Numeric Change = 538
12,000 11,908 11,556 11,502 11,500 11,158 11,011 11,000 10,881 10,673
10,500
10,000
9,500 9,083 9,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Outflow Column1 Source: US Census, On the Map Tool
34 Live and Work in Summit County = 2,372 Numeric Change = 27.1% Change 2002 - 2009 = 3.9% Annual % Change Mean Annual Numeric Change = 339 12,000 11,500 11,111 11,000
10,500 10,029 10,000 9,564 9,364 9,500
9,000 8,739 8,757
8,500 8,322
8,000 7,784
7,500
7,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Working & Living in Summit County Source: US Census, On the Map Tool
35 Live and Work in Summit County = 111 Numeric Change 2010 - 2017 = 1.1 % Change = .16% Annual % Change Mean Annual Numeric Change: -22 11,000 10,725
10,500 10,351 10,240 9,965 9,943 10,000
9,500 9,395 9,313 8,970 9,000
8,500 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Working & Living in Summit County Source: US Census, On the Map Tool
36 Source: ESRI/US Census Housing Status by Ownership/Rental
Housing Units by Status Percentage
Occupied 50.2%
Ownership 37.7%
Rental 12.5%
Non-occupied 49.%
37 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
30.00% 27.90% 18.00% 16.20% 16.00% 25.00% 14.00%
20.00% 18.30% 12.00% 10.00% 14.40% 15.00% 8.00%
10.00% 6.00% 4.90% 4.20% 5.50% 4.00% 5.00% 3.80% 3.90% 2.00% 0.70% 0.10% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in Moved in 1979 or 1980 to 1990 to 2000 to 2010 to 2015 or 1979 or 1980 to 1990 to 2000 to 2010 to 2015 or earlier 1989 1999 2009 2014 later earlier 1989 1999 2009 2014 later Source: ESRI, American Community Survey
38 Table 2. Age Characteristics and Trends Age Summit County 2000-2024 Characteristics 2010 2019 2024 2010, 2019 and 2024. Like Persons % Persons % Persons % many communities nationwide, Pre-School, 0-4 2,468 6.9% 2,596 6.1% 2,861 6.2% Summit County's population is School Age, 5-17 7,602 20.9% 7,918 18.6% 8,161 17.7% aging. The only age groups that College Age, 18-24 2,626 7.2% 3,322 7.8% 3,262 7.0% grew as a percentage of the Young Adults, 25-44 9,882 27.2% 11,082 26.1% 12,539 27.0% total between 2010 and 2019 Middle Age, 45-64 10,978 30.2% 12,383 29.2% 12,360 26.7% were the College Age, 18-24 Senior Adults, 65+ 2,768 7.6% 5,164 12.3% 7,107 15.3% age group and the 65 and older 36,324 aged population. All other age Total 100% 100.0% 100.0% groups declined as a Source: ESRI Business Analyst, US Census Bureau percentage of the total population. The need for specialized senior housing, such as active adult communities and assisted living facilities, will Additionally, Summit County has a higher increase with the continued growth in the county's senior median age than the Utah statewide and "frail elderly" population (age 75 and older). And if the average. The median age of Summit County County wants to ensure new young families can move into residents was 37 in 2010 and increased to the community, additional affordable housing 38.4 years by 2019. This is in contrast to opportunities for families will be critical. the lower statewide median age of 30.7 in 2019. 39 Households ▪ The Census defines a “household” as any group of people occupying a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, or unrelated persons who share living quarters. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not considered households.
▪ Household characteristics are important indicators of the type and size of housing needed in a community. According to the American Community Survey (2013-2017), there are 14,781 households in Summit County, of which 73.9% percent are families. Families, defined as persons related through marriage or blood, are comprised of families with or without related children as well as other family types, such as female-headed households with children.
40 Households (cont’d) ▪ Non-families, including singles, and other households, make up 26.1% percent of households in Summit County. Since 2000 the number of non-family households increased from 27.4% percent in 2000 to 28.6% percent in 2010. For 2019, it is estimated that Summit County is home to 15,054 Households.
▪ Household type and size, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents.
41 Household Income
▪ Household income is a key factor affecting housing opportunity, determining a household’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic-necessities. Income levels can vary considerably among households based upon tenure, household type, location of residence, and race/ethnicity, among other factors.
▪ Definitions regarding income become important as they relate to housing policy.
42 Income Definitions
▪ Average Earnings Per Job: Also called ▪ Area Median Income (AMI): The “Current Total Earnings”, this is the midpoint of a region’s income total pre-tax industry earnings for a distribution – half of families in a region divided by number of jobs. region earn more than the median Includes wages, salaries, and half earn less than the median. supplements (additional employee For housing policy, income thresholds benefits), and proprietor income. set relative to the area median income—such as <80% of the area median income—identify Moderate Income households. The Area Median Income for Summit County is $109,800 for a family of four (4).
43 Source: EMSI, Developer Average Earnings Per Job
Average Earnings Per Job $70,000 $66,802 $64,813 $65,000
$60,000 $57,498
$55,000 $54,283
$50,000 $47,427
$45,000 Summit County Wasatch County Salt Lake County Utah USA Summit County Wasatch County Salt Lake County Utah USA
44 Source: EMSI, Developer Cost of Living
Cost of Living 160.0 139.9 140.0 120.0 108.4 108.1 103.8 100.0 100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0 Summit County Wasatch County Salt Lake County Utah USA Summit County Wasatch County Salt Lake County Utah USA
45 Source: EMSI, Developer Average Earnings Per Job Adjusted by COL
Average Earnings Per Job $80,000 $66,902 $70,000 $60,012 $60,000 $55,287 $50,000 $38,774 $43,914 $40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$- Summit County Wasatch County Salt Lake County Utah USA Summit County Wasatch County Salt Lake County Utah USA
46 A cost-burdened household is one that spends more Area Median Income than 30% of its income on housing.
Example: Single person HH earning $46,116 (60% AMI 46,116 x .30 = 13,834/12 = $1,152.90 (maximum rent/mortgage) Source: HUD/Summit County 47 Concierges Bakers Mechanical $45,760 Ski Patrols $28,714 Engineers $20,339 $87,584 Waiters and Retail Loan Lawyers Waitresses Salesperson Officers $92,482 $21,448 $28,714 $53,974 Financial Hotel, Title Childcare Accountants Analysts Chief Motel, and Examiners, Workers $65,845 $88,830 Executives Resort Desk Abstractors, $23,129 $118,974 Clerks and Fire $26,600 Searchers Inspectors $49,958 Laundry Cooks, $62,061 Source: EMSI Developer, HUD and Dry- Restaurant Bus Drivers, Welders Registered Cleaning $32,852 Transit and $50,949 Nurses Workers Intercity $66,472 $24,446 $42,634 Special Architects, Personal Police, Fire, Education Except Care Aides and Teachers, Landscape $25,139 Ambulance Secondary and Naval Dispatchers School $71,100 Pharmacist $40,009 $59,228 $143,950
30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI $23,058 $38,430 $46,116 $61,488 $76,860 92,232 Max Mon. Max Mon. Max Mon. Rent Max Mon. Rent Max Mon. Rent Max Mon. Rent Studio Rent = 576.45 Rent = 960.75 = 1,152.90 = 1,537.20 = 1,921.50 = 23,05.80 Source: EMSI, Developer Rent Survey (KSL Rentler) October 2019
$6,000 $5,700
$5,000
$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $3,000
$2,200 $2,000 $1,713 $1,323 $1,100 $1,000
$- Median Monthly Rent Room Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom
49 Rent Survey (KSL Rentler) October 2019
18 17
16
14 13
12
10 9 8 8
6 4 4 2 2 2
0 Number of Units Room Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom
50 Ownership Units Assumptions: Studio Unit ▪ 5% Down Payment 60% AMI Single Person HH ▪ 4% Interest Rate Earning $46,116. ▪ Property Tax = Sale Price x .01 x.55 The unit would need to be ▪ Annual Insurance = $400 priced at . $152,500 ▪ Annual PMI = Mortgage x .0056 ▪ HOA Fees = $300 ▪ Estimated Family Size = 1
51 Median Sales Price, August $1,000,000
$935,000 $900,000 $849,950 $800,000 100% Increase $732,500 $700,000
$600,000 Median Sales $575,000 $525,000$534,218 Price $500,000 $489,000 $467,250 $475,000 $456,000 $452,700 Source: Utah Association of Realtors $400,000
$300,000
52 Salt Lake Tribune, November 19, 2019
“Public policy debates about affordable housing, spurring a historic spate of investments in new apartment buildings and boosting the chances that younger people will more likely rent than buy.” 11/19/2019
53 Average Wage Growth $60,000
$54,222
$55,000 $54,286 $52,013 63.5% Increase $49,148 Growth in $50,000 $48,385 Average Wage $45,651 $45,000 $43,734 $42,896 Growth $42,042 $41,055 Source: EMSI, Developer $40,000 $39,170
$35,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
54 Units Completed (Stewardship)
Tax Credit Projects Others
▪ Richer Place, 28 Units ▪ Canyon Corners, 20 Units
▪ Liberty Peak, 150 Units ▪ Utah Olympic Park, 30 Units (8 Workforce Units, 7-Year Around ▪ Elk Meadows, 96 Units Athlete, 15 – Seasonal Athlete)/Opened in 2019. ▪ Newpark Studios, 38 Units ▪ Bear Hollow Village, 65 Units
▪ Fox Point, 15 Units 164 Ownership Units (self help) Summit County, MCHT
55 The Impact of Tax Credit Projects
▪ Tax Credits provide equity to rental housing development.
▪ Equity is similar to the developer’s down payment.
▪ Advantage: The large amount of tax credit equity (down payment) requires a small mortgage loan to finance the project.
▪ A small mortgage loan requires small monthly mortgage payments.
▪ Rents are lower than a development with large mortgage payments.
▪ Rents are low enough to be affordable to lower income tenants.
56 Debt and Equity Comparison
Low Income Housing Tax Credits 90% 80% 80% 70% 70%
60% 50% 50% 50%
40% 30% 30% 20% 20%
10%
0% Conventional 9% Project 4% Project Equity Debt
57 ACN, Department of Workforce Services GAP
58 Department of Source: HUD 2019, CHAS 2012-2016 Workforce Services, HUD, CHAS Data GAP
1. Summit County has an existing gap of 2,165 (affordable and available) units for those earning less than 80% AMI, with 995 units of that total in the <30% AMI category. If you subtract the <30% AMI units from the total (because it is impossible to build <30% AMI units without enormous subsidy), we have an existing gap of 1,170 units based on data from 2016.
59 Future Moderate-Income Housing Needs, SB
Rentals
Moderate = 70 Units Middle = 53 Units
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, Jim Wood
60 Future Moderate-Income Housing Needs, ESC
Rentals
Moderate = 25 Units Middle = 19 Units
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, Jim Wood
61 Future Moderate-Income Housing Needs, SB
Ownership Moderate = 41 Units Middle = 31 Units
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, Jim Wood
62 Future Moderate-Income Housing Needs, ESC
Ownership Moderate = 14 Units Middle = 19 Units
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, Jim Wood
63 Moderate Income Housing Report (Rental)
Snyderville Basin Planning Area, 2020-2025
▪ 40 Rental Units at <80% AMI per year ▪ 30 Rental Units at <50% AMI per year ▪ 53 Units at <30% AMI per year
Eastern Summit County Planning Area, 2020-2025
▪ 9 Rental Units at <80% AMI per year
▪ 13 Rental Units at <50% AMI per year Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and ▪ 24 Units at <30% AMI per year Wasatch Counties, Jim Wood
64 In the “Pipeline”
662 Units
▪ Discovery Ridge, 30 units/ownership ▪ Silver Creek Village, 330 units/ownership & rental
▪ Lincoln Station, 52 units/rental ▪ CVMA, 169 units (1,153 pillows)/rental ▪ Woodward, 8 units/rental ▪ Newpark Commons, 38 units (Average 80% AMI)/rentals
▪ Promontory, 35 Units (80 bedrooms)/Rentals
65 Recommended General Plan Amendments – Snyderville Basin General Plan
66 Snyderville Basin General Plan, Chapter 6 Existing Language Recommended Amendment Chapter 6 Chapter 6 Housing Element Housing and Moderate-Income Housing Element
GOAL: Provide equal housing opportunities for all GOAL: Provide equal housing opportunities to meet residents of the Basin by facilitating reasonable the needs of people of various income levels living, opportunities for a variety of housing, including low working, or desiring to live or work in the Basin by and moderate income housing. facilitating reasonable opportunities for a variety of housing, including low and moderate-income housing. OBJECTIVE A: Develop strategies to ensure that an OBJECTIVE A: Develop strategies to ensure that an adequate supply of housing is provided that meets the adequate supply of housing is provided that meet the needs of various moderate and low income groups in needs of various moderate and low-income groups the Basin identified in the Housing Needs Assessment, living, working, or desiring to live or work in the Basin as updated. identified in the Housing Needs Assessment and/or Department of Workforce Services database, as updated Snyderville Basin General Plan, Chapter 6 (Cont’d) Existing Language Recommended Amendment Chapter 6 Policy 6.1: Identify and implement a wide range of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Such strategies may include: f. Explore the creation of a Summit County Housing Authority and/or regional housing authority.
g. Potentially provide land as a public subsidy and build development partnerships. h. Incorporate the definition of “Middle Income Housing” in the Development Code and other policy documents. i. Beginning in 2020, conduct a biennial review of Chapter 5, Affordable Housing, Snyderville Basin Development Code and update the County’s inclusionary housing ordinance as necessary. Snyderville Basin General Plan, Chapter 6 (Cont’d) Existing Language Recommended Amendment Chapter 6 OBJECTIVE B: Support strategies that allow persons with moderate and low incomes to benefit from and fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life. Policy 6.10: Encourage and incentivize the distribution of workforce housing throughout the Snyderville Basin. The County will use financing strategies and land use tools to encourage and incentivize the geographic distribution and neighborhood integration of new affordable housing units. Program guidelines that support the development of new workforce housing will include zoning mechanisms to incentivize the geographic distribution and neighborhood integration of workforce housing to achieve the objectives of the MIHP. Planning Commission Discussion Directed staff to include Policy 6:10 under Chapter 6, Objective B: “Encourage and incentivize the distribution of workforce housing throughout the Snyderville Basin. The County will use financing strategies and land use tools to encourage and incentivize the geographic distribution and neighborhood integration of new affordable housing units. Program guidelines that support the development of new workforce housing will include zoning mechanisms to incentivize the geographic distribution and neighborhood integration of workforce housing to achieve the objectives of the MIHP.”
The intended purpose of Policy 6:10 was to discourage the over-concentration of low & moderate-income housing to a single geographic location and to encourage neighborhood integration. On November 12, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the Moderate-Income Housing Plan/Presentation, Staff Report, and recommended the Amendments for Council’s consideration.
70 Recommended General Plan Amendments – Eastern Summit County General Plan
71 Eastern Summit County General Plan, Chapter 7 Existing Language Recommended Amendment Chapter 7.1 Moderate Income Housing g. Incorporate the definition of “Middle Income Housing” in the Development Code and other policy documents.
h. Explore a Fee Deferral Program and/or other incentives for Deed-Restricted ADUs. i. Examine any potential programs or partnerships with the Mountainlands Association of Governments (MAG) for the creation of moderate- income housing opportunities. Planning Commission Discussion
▪ Directed staff to add additional language to proposed General Plan Amendment 7 (h) More specifically, that in addition to exploring a fee deferral program for deed- restricted ADUs, that staff would also explore other incentives to generate ADUs.
▪ On November 7, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the Moderate-Income Housing Plan/Presentation, Staff Report, and recommended the Amendments for Council’s consideration.
73 Update/Amend the MIHP Provisions within the County’s General Plans
Process: PC required to hold 1 public hearing, make a recommendation to the County Council, CC then considers adoption. Prepare the Annual Moderate-Income Housing Report & Adopt by Resolution
Submit the updated Chapter to State by December 1, 2019
74 Public Input
Snyderville Basin
▪ Staff received an email from Ms. Stephanie Gramann (General Inquiry), “Can you tell me in layman’s terms about the potential amendments to Chapter 6 in regards to moderate income housing?”
▪ No public testimony was offered during the Planning Commission Public Hearing. held November 12, 2019. Eastern Summit County
▪ During the Planning Commission Public Hearing held on November 7, 2019, Mr. Chris Ure offered testimony regarding the negative impact that rising property taxes have on affordable and moderate-income housing.
▪ Also recommended that “self help” single family homes be deed restricted in addition to owners being income qualified.
75 Workforce Housing: Strategic Effect #2 “The County will facilitate efforts to significantly decrease the deficit in workforce/affordable housing in order to have more community members who work and live in our County.” --Summit County Council
76 MOTION: Staff recommends that the County Council review the Moderate- Income Housing Plan/Presentation, Moderate Income Housing Report, Attachments, conduct a public hearing, accept the findings, and approve Ordinance Number 904 ; Ordinance Number 905 and Resolution Number 2019-31.
77 Attachment 3 State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services American Community Survey Data Gap Analysis
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Attachment 2 November 12, 2019 Page 2 of 6
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Attachment 2 November 12, 2019 Page 3 of 6
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Attachment 2 November 12, 2019 Page 4 of 6
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Attachment 3 November 25, 2019 Page 5 of 6
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Attachment 4 State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services HUD CHAS Data Gap Analysis
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Attachment 5
Prepared for: Mountainlands
Community
Housing Trust
Regional Housing Needs Assessment:
Summit and Wasatch Counties
Prepared by: James Wood
May 2019 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 1
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... 3 I. Five Year Projections of Housing Needs ...... 6 Housing Needs Projections for Rental Housing ...... 6 Housing Needs Projections for Owner Occupied Housing ...... 6 Methodology for Projection of Rental Housing Needs ...... 8 Reducing Household with Severe Housing Cost Burdens ...... 8 Demographic Growth ...... 8 Potential Need from Out-of-County Commuting ...... 9 Potential Need from Growth in Commuters ...... 10 Methodology for Projections of Owner Occupied Needs ...... 12 Demographic Growth ...... 12 Potential Need from Out-of-County Commuting ...... 12 Potential Need from Out-of-County Commuting ...... 12 II. Affordability Calculators ...... 15 Affordability Calculator ...... 15 Summit County Calculations ...... 15 Wasatch County Calculations ...... 16 Region Calculations ...... 17 III. Current Housing Market Conditions and Needs ...... 18 Affordability of Single Family Homes ...... 18 Affordability of Condominiums and Town Homes ...... 19 County Comparison ...... 23 Renter Households by Income and Housing Cost Burden ...... 25 Current Housing Market Needs ...... 29 IV. Housing Market: Inventory Profile, Residential Construction, Price and Sales Trends ...... 31 Housing Inventory ...... 31 Number of Units in Structure ...... 32 Trends in Home Prices and Sales ...... 33 Residential Construction ...... 36 V. Affordable Rental Inventory ...... 40 Affordable Inventory ...... 40 Park City Rent Assisted Projects ...... 41 Snyderville and Eastern Summit County Rent Assisted Projects ...... 41 Wasatch County Rent Assisted Projects ...... 42 Rent Assisted Projects in the Region ...... 42 Pipeline of Affordable Rental and Owner Occupied Projects ...... 43 VI. Update of Demographic and Economic Data ...... 47 Profile of the Region and Jurisdictions ...... 47 Demographic Change ...... 48 Population Change ...... 48 Household Change ...... 51 Employment Trend ...... 52 VII. Affordable Housing Policies and Programs ...... 57 Appendix ...... 62 VITA James Wood ...... 63
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 2
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study combines and updates the housing needs assessments completed in 2016-2017 for Wasatch County, Heber City, Park City, and Snyderville and Eastern Summit Planning Districts. The study’s objective is to provide housing need projections for the Summit/Wasatch Region and analysis and narrative of the Summit and Wasatch county housing markets.
●Projection of Need for Affordable Rental Housing - The projected annual need for affordable rental housing in the Region is 333 units, which includes 231 rental units in Summit County and 102 units in Wasatch County Table 1.
The projections in Table 1 exclude the projected need for rental housing for extremely low income households (incomes <30% AMI). The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects targeted for this income group unfeasible; the project would not “pencil out”. Table 2 page 7 of the study shows the need for households with incomes below 30% AMI.
Table 1 Annual Housing Needs Projections for Renter Households 2019-2023 Selected Jurisdiction in Summit/Wasatch Region (Excludes Renters at <30% AMI)
Total 31%-50% >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Summit County 231 63 23 48 49 48 Snyderville 123 30 13 27 27 26 Eastern Summit 44 12 4 9 9 10 Park City 64 21 6 12 13 12 Wasatch County 102 33 12 19 23 15 Heber City 50 16 11 13 3 7 Wasatch County 52 17 1 6 20 8 Total 333 96 35 67 72 63 Source: James Wood.
●Projection of Need for Affordable Homeowner Units – The projected annual Regional need of affordable owner occupied units is 339 units, which includes 198 units in Summit County and 141 units in Wasatch County Table 2. These projections exclude households below 50% AMI. Households at 50% AMI in the Region have a median income of nearly $45,000. Providing home ownership opportunities for these low income households is not feasible given development costs and the limited resources of affordable housing programs. Table 2 Annual Housing Needs Projections for Owner Households 2019-2023 Selected Jurisdiction in Summit/Wasatch Region
Total >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% AMI >100%-120% Summit County 198 36 49 49 39 Snyderville 97 21 20 20 11 Eastern Summit 33 5 9 10 9 Park City 68 10 20 19 19 Wasatch County 141 26 52 42 21 Wasatch County (excl. Heber) 71 12 23 22 14 Heber City 70 14 29 20 7 Region Total 339 62 101 91 60
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 3
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
●High Share of Homeowners with Severe Housing Cost Burdens - Wasatch and Summit counties have high rates of severe housing cost burdens.1 Among all counties Wasatch ranks first and Summit fourth in the share of homeowners with severe housing cost burdens. Twelve percent of homeowners in Wasatch County pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing and in Summit County ten percent of households pay more than 50 percent.
●High Share of Renters with Severe Housing Cost Burdens – Wasatch County has the highest share of renters of any county with severe cost burdens. One-in-four renters in the county pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing and in Summit County one in six renters pays more than 50 percent.
●Rental Market Conditions Produce Highest Rental Rates in the State – In the past five years only 200 apartment units have been developed in Summit County. The county has a rental inventory of nearly 4,300 units. The new units added less than one percent to the rental inventory in five years. In Wasatch County only 56 new apartment units have been developed in the same period. Wasatch County has a rental inventory of about 2,800 units. New units added only two percent to the rental inventory in five years. The limited level of new apartment construction has contributed to a very “tight” rental market and persistently low vacancy rates and high rental rates. A county by county comparison of median rents shows that rents in Summit and Wasatch Counties rank first and second highest in the state.
●Homes Prices Rank First and Second Highest in the State -- In 2018 the median sales price of a home in Summit County was $975,000, nearly double the price in Wasatch County of $499,286, and three times as high as the statewide median sales price of $321,834. As was the case with rental rates, Summit and Wasatch Counties rank first and second in home prices. Home prices have increased at an annual rate well above the state’s average. Since 2000 the average annual rate of increase in home prices in Wasatch County has been 6.5 percent; in Summit County 5.7 percent. Statewide the annual rate of increase has been 4.5 percent.
●Local Business More Dependent on Commuters for Labor Supply – Due to the limited number of affordable homes and rental units the level of commuting into the Region continues to increase. Commuting data from the Census show that employment growth in Summit County has been supported by a significant increase in in- commuting. From 2010 to 2015 in-commuting increased by nearly 40 percent whereas out-commuting by residents of Summit County increased by only 16 percent. The most recent estimates show that 60 percent of the workers in Summit County commuted from outside the county, up from 55 percent five years earlier. These data indicate that local businesses in Summit County are becoming more dependent on commuters for their labor supply. The increase of in- commuting in Wasatch County has been more modest. From 2010 to 2015 in-commuting increased by 23 percent,
●Pipeline of Affordable Housing Units Insufficient to Meet Projections of Need - The planning offices in Park City, Summit County, Heber City, and Wasatch County provided information on proposed projects in their jurisdictions. The development timeline is four years. Over this period 452 affordable owner occupied units are proposed for development along with 793 affordable rental units, and 424 market rate rental units Table 3. While the proposed number of units is encouraging the level of development is well below the four-year projected need of 1,268 affordable rental units and 1,420 affordable homes.
1 A household with a severe housing cost burden pays more than 50 percent of their income for housing.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 4
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 3 Pipeline of Proposed Affordable Housing Units in the Region, 2019-2023
Affordable Owner Affordable Renter Units Units Market Rate Rental Summit County 318 652 24 Snyderville and Eastern Summit 176 595 24 Park City 142 57 Wasatch County 134 141 400 Wasatch County (excl. Heber) 100 400 Heber City 134 41 Grand Total 452 793 424 Source: Survey of jurisdictions.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 5
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
I. FIVE-YEAR PROJECTIONS OF HOUSING NEEDS
This section provides the five-year projected housing needs for rental and owner occupied units in the Summit/Wasatch Region. Rental housing needs have been projected for six income groups and owner occupied housing needs projected for four income groups. The income groups are based on the Area Median Income and include housing needs for households at: <30% AMI, 31%-50% AMI, >50%-60% AMI, >60%-80% AMI, >80%-100% AMI, and >100%-120% AMI. Summit County’s median income is $94,952, Wasatch County’s is $74,552, and the Region’s is $87,201 (median income from U.S. Census Bureau).
Housing Needs Projections for Rental Housing – Tables 1-2 summarize the annual housing needs projections for the Region, counties, and selected jurisdictions in the Region. The annual need for affordable rental housing for the Region is 521 units. These 521 units would be affordable to renter households below 120 percent AMI. It’s important to note that ideally 191 of these projected units would be affordable to renter households below 30 percent AMI. Depending on the county the income of these “extremely low income” renter households would be between $22,365 and $28,485. Meeting the substantial annual housing needs of this “extremely low income” population is problematic at best. Land costs along with development, material, and labor costs prevent the development of affordable housing for this lowest income cohort unless there is extensive and generous support from government and private non-profit entities. An unlikely prospect on a consistent basis.
Realistically, there is a much greater likelihood of meeting at least some of the affordable rental housing needs of households from 30% AMI to 120% AMI. For the Region the annual need of rental housing for households from 30% AMI to 120% AMI is 333 units. This need is divided by county at 231 units annually for Summit County and about 102 units for Wasatch County. The largest annual need for affordable units by jurisdiction is the Snyderville Planning Districts with an annual need of 123 units followed closely by Park City with an annual need of 64 units.
Housing Needs Projections for Owner Occupied Housing -Tables 3-4 provide projections for the annual affordable housing need for owner occupied. Given the factors driving housing demand in the Region the annual need for affordable owner occupied units is 339. The needs is divided at 198 units in Summit County and 141 units in Wasatch County. For the projected need of owner occupied household I have limited the analysis to include only households with incomes from 50% AMI to 120% AMI. For the Region, a household at 50% AMI could afford a home priced at no more than $145,500. It would be very difficult even for aggressive non-profits with local government support to develop detached or attached owner occupied units priced below $145,500.
The jurisdiction with largest annual need for affordable owner occupied units is the Snyderville Planning District. Annually 100 homes affordable to households at 50% AMI to 120% AMI are needed. The price range of these owner occupied units is $162,142 to $447,525. Park City ranks second with a need for 82 affordable homes annually. A comparison to residential building permits issued shows that the number of new homes and condominiums in all price ranges in Summit County has averaged less than 200 units annually over the past five years. Park City, let alone the county, needs a projected 82 affordable homes annually, homes affordable to households affordable to households at 50%-120% AMI.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 6
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
The building permit data show that new residential construction has been far below the need for affordable housing. This is true for both rental and owner occupied units in both Summit and Wasatch Counties.
Table 1 Annual Housing Needs Projections for Renter Households 2019-2023 Summit/Wasatch Region
<30% 31%-50% >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Summit County 344 113 63 23 48 49 48 Wasatch County 177 78 33 12 19 23 15 Region Total 521 191 96 35 67 72 63 Source: James Wood. Table 2 Annual Housing Needs Projections for Renter Households 2019-2023 Selected Jurisdiction in Summit/Wasatch Region
31%-50% >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Total <30% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Snyderville 176 53 30 13 27 27 26 Eastern Summit 68 24 12 4 9 9 10 Park City 100 36 21 6 12 13 12 Heber City 101 51 16 11 13 3 7 Wasatch County 76 27 17 1 6 20 8 (excl. Heber) Total 521 191 96 35 67 72 63 Source: James Wood.
Table 2A Annual Housing Needs Projections for Renter Households 2019-2023 Selected Jurisdiction in Summit/Wasatch Region (Excludes Renters at <30% AMI)
31%-50% >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Summit County 231 63 23 48 49 48 Snyderville 123 30 13 27 27 26 Eastern Summit 44 12 4 9 9 10 Park City 64 21 6 12 13 12 Wasatch County 102 33 12 19 23 15 Heber City 50 16 11 13 3 7 Wasatch County 52 17 1 6 20 8 (excl. Heber) Total 333 96 35 67 72 63 Source: James Wood.
Table 3 Annual Housing Needs Projections for Owner Households 2019-2023 Summit/Wasatch Region >50%-60% >60%-80% >100%-120% Total AMI AMI >80%-100% AMI AMI Summit County 198 36 49 49 39 Wasatch County 141 26 53 42 21 Region Total 339 62 102 91 60 Source: James Wood.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 7
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 4 Annual Housing Needs Projections for Owner Households 2019-2023 Selected Jurisdiction in Summit/Wasatch Region >50%-60% >60%-80% >100%-120% Total AMI AMI >80%-100% AMI AMI Snyderville 97 21 20 20 11 Eastern Summit 33 5 9 10 9 Park City 68 10 20 19 19 Wasatch County (excl. Heber) 71 12 23 22 14 Heber City 70 14 29 20 7 Total 339 62 101 91 60 Source: James Wood.
Methodology for Projection of Rental Housing Needs by Source of Demand (Tables 5-9) – The need for affordable housing was determined by projections of four components or drivers of housing demand. They include: (1) demand associated with the reduction in households with severe housing cost burdens, (2) demand from demographic growth, (3) external demand from existing out-of-county commuters, and (4) demand from the growth in out-of-county commuters. The projections for each source was determined for the five-year period (2019-2023), as measured by annual growth from 2018 to 2019 and for each subsequent year to 2022 to 2023. The five-year total was then divided by five to determine the annual rental housing needs projection.
(1) Reducing Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides estimates on the number of households by tenure (renter or owner) with severe housing cost burdens. Any households that spends 50 percent or more of their income on housing costs (includes utilities) is considered a household with a severe housing cost burden. HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) provides the most recent estimates of the number of households facing severe housing cost burdens, see the link below: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html.
The housing needs assessment includes the assumption that a comprehensive assessment should address the issue of severe housing cost burden. I have assumed that over the five year projection period an important goal for the housing needs assessment should be the reduction by 50 percent the number of households facing a severe housing cost. The first row in Tables 5-9 shows the five-year, 50 percent reduction in renter households with severe housing cost burdens.
(2) Demographic Growth – The demand projections for affordable rental units are closely associated with increases in the number of renter households. The household projections for each jurisdiction relied on the county demographic projections from the Kem Gardner Policy Institute. The county household projections were used in developing the Regional demand for affordable rental housing as well as projections for the sub-county areas of Snyderville Planning District, Eastern Summit County Planning District, Park City, and Heber. The household growth for the sub-county jurisdictions were allocated based on the share of county household growth each jurisdiction has captured over the past several years. Once the number of additional households was determined the projected renter share of these new households was estimated based on the current share of renters to owners in the jurisdiction; that is, I assumed a constant relationship between renters and owner over the next five years. It was then necessary to determine the income distribution of the additional renters. I used the HUD CHAS to determine the number of renters in each AMI income category.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 8
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
The HUD CHAS has the share of renters in each income category from<30% AMI to 120% AMI. I assumed that the projected needs for renter households by income level would reflect the current income distribution of renter households. This methodology provided the projections on the incremental increase in the need for affordable rental housing by income category. (3) Potential Need for Affordable Rental Housing from Out-of-County Commuting – Each weekday over 15,000 out-of-county commuters arrive in Summit County for work and another 3,300 travel into Wasatch County for employment. Most commuters work in relatively low wage jobs; recreation and leisure, food and lodging, and retail trade. Many of the commuters resort to lengthy commutes because of the unavailability of affordable rental housing. Although both Summit and Wasatch Counties have several affordable rental housing projects (tax credit, RD projects) these projects are almost always nearly 100 percent occupied. Both county housing markets have long experienced very “tight” rental markets. It is certain that some of these commuters would live in Summit or Wasatch County if affordable rental housing were affordable. This observation is supported by the rental market conditions in the county. Every available units is rented. The Census Bureau’s OnTheMap tool shows about 70 percent of these out of county commuters into Summit and Wasatch Counties have earnings of less than $40,000. A portion of these commuters are currently a partner or spouse in a homeowner household and therefore are not potential Summit County renters. In Salt Lake and Utah Counties about 60 percent of households earning less than $35,000 are renters. Applying this 60 percent to the out of county commuters leaves a figure of out of county commuters who are renters in their home county and are earning a low wage in Summit or Wasatch Counties.
There is a lot of churning in the labor market (employee turnover) so many of these potential renters might not work through a full year, which reduces potential demand. I have made the assumption that 20 percent of the potential pool of out of county commuters, (low income, renters) would live in the subject jurisdiction if affordable rental housing were available.
Since many of these potential renters would share a rental unit the annual demand of renters was adjusted based on the prevailing size of renter households. For example 100 commuters would not need 100 affordable rental units. Twenty percent of renters are one person households, as shown by Census data on persons in renter households. Therefore 20 percent of the 100 commuters needing housing would prefer one bedroom units. Thirty percent of renter household are two person households. Therefore, 30 commuters would have a partner or roommate and would require only 15 affordable units and so on. Table 5 shows that the 100 commuters turned local renter would require only 49 affordable rental units. Table 5 Rental Units Required by Existing Commuters
Share of Renter Size of Household Households Workers Units One person 20% 20 20 Two persons 30% 30 15 Three persons 20% 20 7 Four or more persons 30% 30 7 Total 100% 100 49 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 9
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
My assumption that 20 percent of low wage commuters are potential renters is based on my experience and on-going study of rental markets throughout Utah. Rental market conditions throughout Utah are extremely “tight”. Rental rates are increasing, vacancy rates are at very low levels, and new apartment units are quickly absorbed.
I also assumed that those commuters traveling from Wasatch to Summit that are currently renters would move to Summit if affordable rental housing were available. Therefore, commuting from Wasatch to Summit was included in the analysis of renter demand. Renters are very mobile and if affordable rental housing were available closer to Park City or Snyderville Basin I believe it is reasonable to assume that some Wasatch County renters would move to Summit. Therefore, Wasatch County commuters were included as part of the demand for affordable rental housing. In the reverse direction, the commuting from Summit to Wasatch is negligible and too small to affect the demand estimates.
In Wasatch County the demand from existing commuters from all counties was split evenly between Heber City and Wasatch County (excluding Heber City).
(4) Potential Need for Affordable Rental Housing from Growth in Commuters – The growth in commuters over the next five years will be driven primarily by increases in employment. I have calculated the affordable rental housing need for Snyderville and Eastern Summit Planning Districts in the housing needs assessment of November 2017. I have used those projections since it is unlikely that in 18 months they have changed by meaningful amounts. There is very little difference in employment projections for 2017 to 2022 and projections for 2018 to 2023.
Again, the rental housing needs were based on employment growth. About 70 percent of the additional jobs in both counties will likely be low wage jobs and an estimated 60 percent of the addition low wage commuters are assumed to be renters. As was the case with existing commuters I have assumed that 20 percent of the increased number of low wage, renter commuters would live in Summit or Wasatch Counties if affordable rental housing were available. And again in this case not each commuter represents the need for an additional rental housing unit. As discussed in the methodology above, (3) Existing Commuters, the need for additional rental units is less than the number of new commuters, due to share with spouse or roommate. The five-year projections for growth in commuters is shown in the fourth row in the tables below. The exception is Park City. I have not included any increased demand from commuter growth for the city because there has been almost no job growth over the last several years in Park City. Additionally, the Census commuting data show no increase in commuting into Park City from out-of-county locations from 2010 to 2015. For Wasatch County I split the increase in need from commuter growth evenly between Heber City and Wasatch County excluding Heber City. While most of the employment growth is centered in Heber there are three large rental projects proposed for Wasatch County that will capture some of the increase in commuters
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 10
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 5 Annual Rental Housing Need for Snyderville Planning District, 2019-2023
>100%- <30% 31%-50% >50%- >60%-80% >80%-100% 120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI 60% AMI AMI AMI AMI Severe Cost Burden Reduction 2019-2023 90 66 18 1 1.5 3 0 Demographic Growth – 2019-2023 240 60 40 20 40 40 40 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 480 120 80 40 80 80 80 Growth in Commuters 2019-2023 71 18 12 6 12 12 11 Five Year Total 881 264 150 67 133.5 135 131 Annual Housing Need 176 53 30 13 27 27 26 Source: James Wood. Table 6 Annual Rental Housing Need for Eastern Summit Planning District, 2019-2023
>60%- >100%- <30% 31%-50% >50%- 80% >80%- 120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI 60% AMI AMI 100% AMI AMI Severe Cost Burden Reduction 2019-2023 70 52 15 1 1 3 0 Demographic Growth – 2019-2023 86 20 15 7 14 15 15 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 160 40 25 12 28 25 30 Growth in Commuters 2019-2023 24 6 4 2 4 4 4 Five Year Total 340 118 59 22 47 47 49 Annual Housing Need 68 24 12 4 9 9 10 Source: James Wood.
Table 7 Annual Rental Housing Need for Park City, 2019-2023
>100%- <30% 31%-50% >50%- >60%-80% >80%-100% 120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI 60% AMI AMI AMI AMI Severe Cost Burden Reduction 2019-2023 123 83 40 0 0 0 0 Demographic Growth – 2019-2023 65 21 13 3 7 13 8 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 310 77 51 26 52 51 53 Five Year Total 498 181 104 29 59 64 61 Annual Housing Need 100 36 21 6 12 13 12
Table 8 Annual Rental Housing Need for Wasatch County, 2019-2023 (Excluding Heber City)
<30% 31%-50% >50%- >60%-80% >80%- >100%-120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI 60% AMI AMI 100% AMI AMI Severe Cost Burden Reduction 2019-2023 88 58 20 0 20 0 0 Demographic Growth – 2019-2023 262 71 58 0 2 98 37 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 27 8 5 3 6 3 3 Growth in Commuters 2019-2023 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Five Year Total 378 137 83 3 28 101 40 Annual Housing Need 76 27 17 1 6 20 8 Source: James Wood.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 11
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 9 Annual Rental Housing Need for Heber City, 2019-2023
>100%- <30% 31%-50% >50%- >60%-80% >80%-100% 120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI 60% AMI AMI AMI AMI Severe Cost Burden Reduction 2019-2023 193 145 27.5 20 0 0 0 Demographic Growth – 2019-2023 273 99 47 29 58 12 28 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 27 8 5 3 6 3 3 Growth in Commuters 2019-2023 14 3 2 2 2 1 5 Five Year Total 507 255 81.5 54 66 16 36 Annual Housing Need 101 51 16 11 13 3 7 Source: James Wood.
Methodology for Projection of Owner Occupied Housing Needs by Source of Demand (Tables 10-14) – The projection methodology for owner occupied units excludes the severe housing cost burden approach used in the renter housing projections. To reduce the number of owners by 50 percent facing a severe housing cost burden would require the addition of 670 affordable homes. This addition does not include the demand for affordable homes driven by demographic growth or the external demand from commuting. The number of homes required to reduce the severe housing cost burden is well beyond the resources or programs of local government and nonprofit organizations. Hence, the reduction of severe cost burden homeowners was excluded from the methodology. Furthermore, significant additions to the rental inventory are much more likely than significant additions to the affordable home inventory, e.g. 410 rental units at The Canyons.
(1) Demographic Growth and Need for Affordable Owner Occupied Housing – Household projections for Summit and Wasatch Counties from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute provided the basis for owner occupied projections. The increase in households drives the demand for housing. The increase in households was then separated by those new households likely to be owners and renters. The share or allocations was based on the current distribution of households by tenure in the various jurisdictions. The next step was to allocate the increase in owner households by household income. Therefore, it was necessary to determine the income distribution of the additional owners. I used the HUD CHAS to determine the number of owners in each AMI income category. The HUD CHAS has the share of owners in each income category from<50% AMI to 120% AMI. I assumed that the projected needs for owner households by income level would reflect the current income distribution of owner households. This methodology provided the projections for the incremental increase in the need for affordable owner occupied housing by income category.
(2) Potential Need for Affordable Owner Housing from Out-of-County Commuting – The commuters that create the need for affordable owner occupied units in Summit or Wasatch County are generally moderate income commuters, about 30 percent of commuters. The low income renter households were identified above in the renter projections; the remaining commuters represent moderate income commuters who would possibly live in the Region if affordable owner occupied housing were available. I assumed that this potential market represents 10 percent of the moderate income commuters. Of course not all these potential homeowners have incomes that fall within the 50%- 120% AMI range. The HUD CHAS provides the current distribution of owners by AMI income category. Using the current ratio the potential five-year need for owner occupied units for households from 50%-120% AMI was determined for each jurisdiction.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 12
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Commuters that are homeowners and currently live in Wasatch County are unlikely to move from Wasatch to Summit for affordable housing. The moving and transaction cost (commission) are too high. In the demand analysis for affordable homes I have excluded Wasatch County commuters as a source of demand for Summit County housing. And for the reverse flow, Summit to Wasatch the commuting is negligible therefore excluding Summit County commuters had little impact on the demand estimate for Wasatch affordable home projections.
(3) Potential Need for Affordable Owner Housing from Growth in Commuters – The increased need for affordable owner occupied housing from growth in commuters is driven by moderate income commuters. About 30 percent of the projected increase in commuters would be commuters working at jobs paying more than $40,000. The projected increase in commuters was based on the employment projections for the counties. Employment projections were then allocated to sub-county jurisdictions. It was assumed that 10 percent of the moderate income commuters represented the pool of potential demand for affordable owner occupied housing. It’s assumed that the 10 percent of commuters choosing to move to the Region would have a variety of household types; single person household, household with a nonworking spouse, household with partner or spouse commuting to Utah or Salt Lake County, etc. And as in (2) above not all the potential owner households would fall in the 50% AMI to 120% AMI range. The number of households within the relevant ranges was determined by data from the HUD CHAS as explained in (2). Housing need from the increase in commuters was not included for Park City because the city has had little in the way of employment and commuter growth over the past several years. Using the methodology for growth in commuters the housing need for owner occupied units was less than 10 homes in Heber and five in Wasatch County. On an annual basis the increase in commuting would increase demand fractionally. These very small numbers are not included in Tables 13-14.
Table 10 Annual Need for Affordable Owner Units for Snyderville Planning District, 2019-2023 >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI AMI AMI Demographic Growth 2019-2023 - 360 106 100 100 54 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 110 0 0 0 0 Growth in Commuters 2019-2023 17 0 0 0 0 Five Year Total 487 106 100 100 54 Annual Housing Needs 97 21 20 20 11 Source: James Wood.
Table 11 Annual Need for Affordable Owner Units for Eastern Summit County, 2019-2023 >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI AMI AMI Demographic Growth 2019-2023 - 120 17 33 35 35 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 40 6 12 12 10 Growth in Commuters 2019-2023 7 1 2 2 2 Five Year Total 167 24 47 49 47 Annual Housing Needs 33 5 9 10 9 Source: James Wood.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 13
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 12 Annual Need for Affordable Owner Units for Park City, 2019-2023
>50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI AMI AMI Demographic Growth 2019-2023 - 160 24 46 45 45 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 181 26 53 51 51 Five Year Total 341 50 99 96 96 Annual Housing Needs 68 10 20 19 19 Source: James Wood. Table 13 Annual Need for Affordable Owner Units for Heber City, 2019-2023
>50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI AMI AMI Demographic Growth 2019-2023 - 336 55 111 106 64 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 20 3 6 6 6 Five Year Total 356 58 117 112 70 Annual Housing Needs 71 12 23 22 14 Source: James Wood. Table 14 Annual Need for Affordable Owner Units for Wasatch County, 2019-2023 (Excluding Heber City) >50%-60% >60%-80% >80%-100% >100%-120% Sources of Housing Needs Total AMI AMI AMI AMI Demographic Growth 2019-2023 - 332 69 141 94 28 Existing Commuter 2019-2023 19 2 6 5 5 Five Year Total 351 71 147 99 33 Annual Housing Needs 70 14 29 20 7
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 14
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
II. AFFORDABILITY CALCULATORS FOR SUMMIT, WASATCH, AND THE REGION
Affordability Calculator - Household income is one of the most important factors in assessing a city or county’s housing affordability. The household income used for the jurisdictions in this study rely on U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The monthly income available for renting or owning is shown in the calculator. The affordable price range for a home for each AMI income category has been calculated assuming a mortgage interest rate of 4.5 percent, monthly utilities costs of $250, taxes, insurance, and mortgage insurance. HOA cost are not included in the housing price calculations. A review of MLS sales data show that for affordable homes, less than $400,000, HOA fees are not required and in cases where a fee is required the fee is nominal. Summit County - The Affordability Calculator shows that in Summit County the monthly income available for housing costs for households with 30% AMI to 120% AMI ranges from a low of $711 to a high of $2,847 (upper bound). The upper bound of price affordability for a household at <30% AMI is $80,630 and the upper price bound of affordability for a household at 120% AMI is $447,525 Table 1. Table 1 Affordability Calculator for Summit County Category Value Value Households 14,781 --- Median Income $94,952 --- Monthly Utility Cost $250 --- Loan Term 30 --- Interest Rate 4.50% --- Mortgage Insurance Yes --- AMI Income Levels Lower Bound Upper Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $28,485 <30% to 50% AMI $28,486 $47,477 <50% to 60% AMI $47,478 $56,972 <60% to 80% AMI $56,973 $75,962 <80% to 100% AMI $75,963 $94,952 <100% to 120% AMI $94,953 $113,943 >120% AMI $113,944 Monthly Income Available for Housing and Utilities Lower Bound Upper Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $711 <30% to 50% AMI $712 $1,187 <50% to 60% AMI $1,188 $1,424 <60% to 80% AMI $1,425 $1,899 <80% to 100% AMI $1,900 $2,374 <100% to 120% AMI $2,375 $2,847 >120% AMI more than $2,848 Price Range of Affordable Home Lower Bound Upper Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $80,630 <30% to 50% AMI $80,631 $162,141 <50% to 60% AMI $162,142 $202,995 <60% to 80% AMI $202,996 $284,505 <80% to 100% AMI $284,506 $366,015 <100% to 120% AMI $366,016 $447,525 >120% AMI more than $447,526
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 15
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Wasatch County - The Affordability Calculator shows that in Wasatch County the monthly income available for housing costs for households with 30% AMI to 120% AMI ranges from a low of $558 to a high of $2,237 (upper bound). The upper bound of price affordability for a household at <30% AMI is $54,382 and the upper bound of affordability for a household at 120% AMI is $342529 Table 2.
Table 2 Affordability Calculator for Wasatch County
Category Value Value Households 9,040 --- Median Income $74,552 --- Monthly Utility Cost $250 --- Loan Term 30 --- Interest Rate 4.50% --- Mortgage Insurance Yes --- Upper AMI Income Levels Lower Bound Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $22,365 <30% to 50% AMI $22,366 $37,276 <50% to 60% AMI $37,277 $44,731 <60% to 80% AMI $44,732 $59,642 <80% to 100% AMI $59,643 $74,552 <100% to 120% AMI $74,553 $89,462 >120% AMI $89,463 Monthly Income Available for Upper Housing and Utilities Lower Bound Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $558 <30% to 50% AMI $559 $932 <50% to 60% AMI $933 $1,118 <60% to 80% AMI $1,119 $1,491 <80% to 100% AMI $1,492 $1,864 <100% to 120% AMI $1,865 $2,237 >120% AMI $2,238 Price Range of Affordable Upper Home Lower Bound Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $54,382 <30% to 50% AMI $54,382 $118,525 <50% to 60% AMI $118,526 $150,497 <60% to 80% AMI $150,498 $214,442 <80% to 100% AMI $214,443 $278,387 <100% to 120% AMI $278,388 $342,529 >120% AMI more than $342,530 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and James Wood.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 16
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
The Region (Summit/Wasatch Counties) -The Affordability Calculator shows that in the Region the monthly income available for housing costs for households with 30% AMI to 120% AMI ranges from a low of $653 to a high of $2,616 (upper bound). The upper bound of price affordability for a household at <30% AMI is $70,762 and the upper price bound of affordability for a household at 120% AMI is $407,658 Table 3.
Table 3 Affordability Calculator for the Region
Households 23,821 --- Median Income $87,210 --- Monthly Utility Cost $$250 --- Loan Term 30 --- Interest Rate 4.50% --- Mortgage Insurance Yes --- AMI Income Levels Lower Bound Upper Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $26,163 <30% to 50% AMI $26,164 $43,605 <50% to 60% AMI $43,606 $52,326 <60% to 80% AMI $52,327 $69,768 <80% to 100% AMI $69,768 $87,210 <100% to 120% AMI $87,211 $104,652 >120% AMI $104,652 Monthly Income Available for Housing and Utilities Lower Bound Upper Bound ≤30% AMI $0 $653 <30% to 50% AMI $654 $1,090 <50% to 60% AMI $1,091 $1,308 <60% to 80% AMI $1,309 $1,743 <80% to 100% AMI $1,743 $2,140 <100% to 120% AMI $2,141 $2,616 >120% AMI more than $2,617 Price Range of Affordable Home Lower Bound Upper Bound ≤30% AMI $70,762 <30% to 50% AMI $70,763 $145,563 <50% to 60% AMI $145,564 $183,061 <60% to 80% AMI $183,062 $257,861 <80% to 100% AMI $257,862 $332,858 <100% to 120% AMI $332,859 $407,658 >120% AMI more than $407,659 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and James Wood.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 17
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
III. CURRENT HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
Affordability of Single Family Homes The availability of affordable detached single family homes and condominiums in Summit and Wasatch Counties and the Region was determined by an analysis of recent real estate sales. The number of sales is sufficiently large to provide a reasonably good approximation of the distribution of housing units by price. Tables 1-3 show the lower and upper housing price thresholds for each AMI income category, the number of sales in the price range, and the share of homes sold by price range.
In 2018 only one percent of the detached single family homes in Summit County were affordable to households with incomes at less than 60% AMI (<$56,972 income), that’s a total of 6 homes out of 616 that were sold during the year. Eighty-five percent of the homes sold last year in the county were priced above $447,525; homes affordable to households with incomes >$120% AMI. In Wasatch County only two-tenths of one percent of homes sold were affordable to households at less than 60% AMI (<$44,731 income). Eighty-three percent of homes sold were priced above $342,529; affordable to households with incomes >$120% AMI. For the Region only six-tenths of one percent of homes sold were affordable to households at <60% AMI ($53,326 income). Seventy-nine percent of homes sold in the Region were priced above $407,658; homes affordable to households with incomes >$120% AMI.
Table 1 Summit County: Single Family Home Sales Affordable to Selected Income Groups, 2018
Affordable Price Range Share of Household Lower Upper Number Homes AMI Income Bracket Bound Bound of Sales Sold <30% AMI $0 $80,630 0 0.0% >30% AMI to 50% AMI $80,631 $162,141 1 0.2% >50% AMI to 60% AMI $162,142 $202,995 5 0.8% >60% AMI to 80% AMI $202,996 $284,505 19 3.1% >80% AMI to 100% AMI $284,506 $366,015 30 4.9% >100% AMI to 120% AMI $366,016 $447,525 33 5.4% >120% AMI $447,525 --- 528 85.7% Total ------616 100.0% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Table 2 Wasatch County: Single Family Home Sales Affordable to Selected Income Groups, 2018
Affordable Price Range Share of Household Lower Upper Number Homes AMI Income Bracket Bound Bound of Sales Sold <30% AMI $0 $54,382 0 0.0% >30% AMI to 50% AMI $54,382 $118,525 0 0.0% >50% AMI to 60% AMI $118,526 $150,497 1 0.2% >60% AMI to 80% AMI $150,498 $214,442 8 1.6% >80% AMI to 100% AMI $214,443 $278,387 22 4.3% >100% AMI to 120% AMI $278,388 $342,529 55 10.8% >120% AMI $342,529 --- 423 83.1% Total ------509 100.0% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 18
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 3 Region: Single Family Home Sales Affordable to Selected Income Groups, 2018
Affordable Price Range Share of Household AMI Income Lower Upper Number Homes Bracket Bound Bound of Sales Sold <30% AMI $70,762 0 0.0% >30% AMI to 50% AMI $70,763 $145,563 1 0.1% >50% AMI to 60% AMI $145,564 $183,061 7 0.6% >60% AMI to 80% AMI $183,062 $257,861 29 2.6% >80% AMI to 100% AMI $257,862 $332,858 77 6.8% >100% AMI to 120% AMI $332,859 $407,658 122 10.8% >120% AMI $407,658 --- 889 79.0% Total ------1,125 100.0% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Affordability of Condominiums and Town Homes Condominiums and town homes, in most housing markets, are an affordable alternative to higher priced single family homes. Although condominiums are more affordable than the single family home in the Region, condominiums and town homes are still beyond the reach of the moderate income family (80% AMI). Only 18 percent of the condominiums and town homes sold in 2018 in the Region were affordable to households with moderate incomes or less. The median price for condominiums and town homes was $332,859 in 2018. In Summit County the median price was $366,016 and in Wasatch County $278,388, Tables -4-6.
To purchase the median priced condominium in the Region would require an income of $85,600, well beyond the wages of a two-income households working in retail ($32,485 average wage) and recreation/leisure ($39,985 average wage); a combined wage of $72,470. In both counties and the Region, 70 percent of the condominium and town homes sales would require income above the median. The lack of condominium and townhome affordability for median income household underscores the need for policies and programs to stimulate affordable housing for those below the median income
Table 4 Summit County: Condominium, Town Homes Sales Affordable to Selected Income Groups, 2018
Affordable Price Range Share of Household AMI Income Lower Upper Number Homes Bracket Bound Bound of Sales Sold <30% AMI $0 $80,630 3 0.7% >30% AMI to 50% AMI $80,631 $162,141 39 8.7% >50% AMI to 60% AMI $162,142 $202,995 16 3.6% >60% AMI to 80% AMI $202,996 $284,505 34 7.6% >80% AMI to 100% AMI $284,506 $366,015 35 7.8% >100% AMI to 120% AMI $366,016 $447,525 35 7.8% >120% AMI $447,525 --- 288 64.0% Total ------450 100.0% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 19
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 5 Wasatch County: Condominium, Town Homes Sales Affordable to Selected Income Groups, 2018
Affordable Price Range Share of Household AMI Income Lower Upper Number Homes Bracket Bound Bound of Sales Sold <30% AMI $0 $54,382 0 0.0% >30% AMI to 50% AMI $54,382 $118,525 0 0.0% >50% AMI to 60% AMI $118,526 $150,497 3 1.8% >60% AMI to 80% AMI $150,498 $214,442 9 5.5% >80% AMI to 100% AMI $214,443 $278,387 31 18.9% >100% AMI to 120% AMI $278,388 $342,529 9 5.5% >120% AMI $342,529 --- 112 68.3% Total ------164 100.0% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Table 6 Region: Condominium, Town Homes Sales Affordable to Selected Income Groups, 2018
Affordable Price Range Share of Household AMI Income Lower Upper Number Homes Bracket Bound Bound of Sales Sold <30% AMI $70,762 3 0.5% >30% AMI to 50% AMI $70,763 $145,563 33 5.4% >50% AMI to 60% AMI $145,564 $183,061 22 3.6% >60% AMI to 80% AMI $183,062 $257,861 55 9.0% >80% AMI to 100% AMI $257,862 $332,858 48 7.8% >100% AMI to 120% AMI $332,859 $407,658 56 9.1% >120% AMI $407,658 --- 397 64.7% Total ------614 100.0% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Homeownership and Housing Cost Burdens (Tables 7-12) In the Region there are 5,785 homeowners with incomes below the median; 1,575 face severe housing cost burdens. One quarter of all household with incomes below the median have a severe housing cost burden. It is very likely most of homes for these households is subject to deferred maintenance.
Tables 7,9, and 11 give the income distribution of owners in Summit and Wasatch Counties and the Region while Tables 8, 10, and 12 give the number of owners by income with cost burdens. Ten percent of all homeowners in Summit County face severe housing cost burdens, 11.8 percent in Wasatch County and 10.9 percent in the Region.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 20
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 7 Owner Households by AMI Category in Summit County
Owner Category Households Share <30% AMI 710 6.8% <30% to 50% AMI 695 6.7% <50% to 60% AMI 307 3.0% <60% to 80% AMI 623 6.0% <80% to 100% AMI 945 9.1% <100% to 120% AMI 830 8.0% <120% and higher 6,280 60.4% Total 10,390 100.0% Source: HUD CHAS and James Wood.
Table 8 Housing Cost Burdens for Owners in Summit County
Owners with % Share Cost Burden Total of Owner >30% of Owner with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 475 710 66.9% 31% to 50% AMI 335 695 48.2% 51% to 80% AMI 395 930 42.5% 81% to 100% AMI 320 945 33.9% >100% AMI 815 7,110 11.5% Total 2,340 10,390 22.5% Owners with % Share Cost Burden Total of Owner >50% of Owner with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 400 710 56.3% 31% to 50% AMI 220 695 31.7% 51% to 80% AMI 185 930 19.9% 81% to 100% AMI 115 945 12.2% >100% AMI 150 7,110 2.1% Total 1,070 10,390 10.3% Source: HUD CHAS 2011-2015.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 21
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 9 Owner Households by AMI Category in Wasatch County
Owner Category Households Share <30% AMI 370 6.3% <30% to 50% AMI 435 7.4% <50% to 60% AMI 366 6.2% <60% to 80% AMI 744 12.6% <80% to 100% AMI 590 10.0% <100% to 120% AMI 473 8.0% <120% and higher 2,932 49.6% Total 5,910 100.0% Source: HUD CHAS and James Wood.
Table 10 Housing Cost Burdens for Owners in Wasatch County
Owners with % Share Cost Burden Total of Owners >30% of Owners with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 250 370 67.6% 31% to 50% AMI 310 435 71.3% 51% to 80% AMI 525 1,110 47.3% 81% to 100% AMI 195 590 33.1% >100% AMI 330 3,405 9.7% Total 1,610 5,910 27.2% Owners with % Share Cost Burden Total of Owners >50% of Owners with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 235 370 63.5% 31% to 50% AMI 165 435 37.9% 51% to 80% AMI 235 1,110 21.2% 81% to 100% AMI 20 590 3.4% >100% AMI 45 3,405 1.3% Total 700 5,910 11.8% Source: HUD CHAS 2011-2015.
Table 11 Owner Households by AMI Category in Region
Owner Category Households Share <30% AMI 1,080 6.6% <30% to 50% AMI 1,130 6.9% <50% to 60% AMI 673 4.1% <60% to 80% AMI 1,367 8.4% <80% to 100% AMI 1,535 9.4% <100% to 120% AMI 1,303 8.0% <120% and higher 9,212 56.5% Total 16,300 100..0% Source: HUD CHAS and James Wood.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 22
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 12 Housing Cost Burdens for Owners in Region
Owners with % Share Cost Burden Total of Owners >30% of Owners with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 725 1,080 67.1% 31% to 50% AMI 645 1,130 57.1% 51% to 80% AMI 920 2,040 45.1% 81% to 100% AMI 515 1,535 33.6% >100% AMI 1,145 10,515 10.9% Total 3,950 16,300 24.2% Owners with % Share Cost Burden Total of Owners >50% of Owners with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 635 1,080 58.8% 31% to 50% AMI 385 1,130 34.1% 51% to 80% AMI 420 2,040 20.6% 81% to 100% AMI 135 1,535 8.8% >100% AMI 195 10,515 1.9% Total 1,770 16,300 10.9% Source: HUD CHAS 2011-2015.
County Comparison – Wasatch and Summit Counties have relatively high rates of homeowners with severe housing cost burdens. Wasatch County ranks first among Utah’s 29 counties with nearly twelve percent of homeowners facing severe cost burdens Table 13. Summit County ranks fourth with 10.3 percent of homeowners having severe housing cost burdens. The county by county comparison reflects the very high housing costs in both counties and highlights the need for programs and policies to mitigate and offset the local housing costs.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 23
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 13 Owner Households by AMI with Severe Housing Cost Burdens
Severe 31% to 51% to 81% to Cost Owner <30% 50% 80% 100% More than Burden % of Total Rank County Households AMI AMI AMI AMI 100% AMI Households Households 1 Wasatch 5,910 235 165 235 20 45 700 11.8% 2 Wayne 805 75 4 10 4 0 93 11.6% 3 Garfield 1,410 150 4 0 0 0 154 10.9% 4 Summit 10,390 400 220 185 115 150 1,070 10.3% 5 Washington 33,645 1,070 960 915 215 170 3,330 9.9% 6 Iron 9,595 520 150 85 120 20 895 9.3% 7 Kane 2,220 100 55 30 0 15 200 9.0% 8 Salt Lake 233,090 7,835 5,990 3,590 925 1,035 19,375 8.3% 9 Sevier 5,440 290 125 30 4 0 449 8.3% 10 Juab 2,550 110 60 35 0 4 209 8.2% 11 Carbon 5,545 345 75 20 40 0 445 8.0% 12 Beaver 1,690 40 40 45 10 0 135 8.0% 13 Rich 505 15 4 20 0 0 39 7.7% State 629,585 19,715 13,640 9,310 2,205 2,105 46,975 7.5% 14 San Juan 3,105 215 10 4 0 0 229 7.4% 15 Morgan 2,515 40 45 65 30 0 180 7.2% 16 Piute 470 25 4 4 0 0 33 7.0% 17 Utah 99,370 2,350 2,170 1,680 340 380 6,920 7.0% 18 Cache 23,290 470 575 410 90 40 1,585 6.8% 19 Weber 57,075 1,955 1,015 695 90 75 3,830 6.7% 20 Uintah 8,365 375 85 85 0 0 545 6.5% 21 Daggett 230 10 0 4 0 0 14 6.1% 22 Box Elder 12,710 345 270 125 10 15 765 6.0% 23 Sanpete 5,885 160 90 75 10 0 335 5.7% 24 Davis 75,685 1,975 1,155 830 200 110 4,270 5.6% 25 Millard 3,255 85 45 35 0 0 165 5.1% 26 Duchesne 4,990 120 60 25 15 4 224 4.5% 27 Tooele 14,345 295 195 55 4 40 589 4.1% 28 Grand 2,585 65 35 4 0 0 104 4.0% 29 Emery 2,915 50 35 4 0 0 89 3.1% Source: HUD CHAS.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 24
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Renter Households by Income and Housing Cost Burden The number of renter households with a severe housing cost burden is comparatively low in Summit County. Note in Table 15 the share of extremely low income renters (<30% AMI) with severe housing cost burdens is 59.3 percent, a seemingly large share but much lower than Wasatch County’s 81 percent Table 20. The reason for the comparatively low share is due to the high share of assisted rental projects (tax credit and RD projects) in Summit County Table 16. Summit County ranks third highest among all counties in the share of the rental inventory devoted to tax credit units. Nearly 16 percent of the rental inventory in the county is tax credit units. In Wasatch County a much smaller share of the rental inventory is tax credit units, only 7.2 percent.
Table 14 Renter Households by AMI Category in Summit County
Renter Category Households Share <30% AMI 700 19.8% <30% to 50% AMI 575 16.2% <50% to 60% AMI 170 4.8% <60% to 80% AMI 345 9.7% <80% to 100% AMI 535 15.1% <100% to 120% AMI 283 8.0% <120% and higher 932 26.3% Total 3,540 100.0% Source: HUD CHAS and James Wood.
Table 15 Housing Cost Burdens for Renters in Summit County
Renters with % Share Cost Burden Total of Renters >30% of Renter with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 560 700 80.0% 31% to 50% AMI 300 575 52.2% 51% to 80% AMI 190 515 36.9% 81% to 100% AMI 160 535 29.9% >100% AMI 120 1,220 9.8% Total 1,330 3,540 37.6% Renters with % Share Cost Burden Total of Renters >50% of Renter with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 415 700 59.3% 31% to 50% AMI 115 575 20.0% 51% to 80% AMI 15 515 2.9% 81% to 100% AMI 20 535 3.7% >100% AMI 0 1,220 0.0% Total 565 3,540 16.0% Source: HUD CHAS 2011-2015.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 25
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 16 Tax Credit Units as Percent of Rental Inventory by County
Total Units in Tax Tax Credit Rental County Tax Credit Credit Units as Share Inventory Projects* Units of Rental Units Rich 24 24 112 21.40% Tooele 742 712 4,327 16.50% Summit 674 671 4,282 15.67% Box Elder 577 560 3,628 15.40% Grand 166 166 1,290 12.90% Weber 2,656 2,499 22,909 10.90% Salt Lake 14,739 12,374 116,355 10.60% Davis 2,346 2,187 21,693 10.10% San Juan 82 82 836 9.80% Iron 599 551 5,622 9.80% Carbon 219 218 2,355 9.30% Washington 1,381 1,347 14,821 9.10% Duchesne 148 148 1,670 8.90% Beaver 39 39 517 7.50% Kane 47 47 643 7.30% Wasatch 361 241 3,329 7.24% Cache 907 874 12,335 7.10% Sevier 102 98 1,613 6.10% Uintah 157 157 2,737 5.70% Juab 28 28 589 4.80% Sanpete 86 86 2,051 4.20% Utah 1,890 1,767 47,549 3.70% Emery 23 23 678 3.40% Garfield 9 9 390 2.30% Millard 6 6 1,038 0.60% Daggett 0 0 57 0.00% Morgan 0 0 394 0.00% Piute 0 0 76 0.00% Wayne 0 0 142 0.00% Total 28,008 24,923 271,589 9.20% *Some tax credit projects also have market rate units. The difference between column 2 and 3 is the number of market rate units. Source: Utah Housing Corporation.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 26
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 17 Renter Households by AMI Category in Wasatch County
Renter Category Households Share <30% AMI 500 22.9% <30% to 50% AMI 275 12.6% <50% to 60% AMI 170 7.8% <60% to 80% AMI 345 15.8% <80% to 100% AMI 180 8.2% <100% to 120% AMI 175 8.0% <120% and higher 540 24.7% Total 2,185 100.0% Source: HUD CHAS and James Wood.
Table 18 Housing Cost Burdens for Renters in Wasatch County
Renters with % Share Cost Burden Total of Renters >30% of Renter with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 440 500 88.0% 31% to 50% AMI 215 275 78.2% 51% to 80% AMI 275 515 53.4% 81% to 100% AMI 40 180 22.2% >100% AMI 4 715 0.6% Total 974 2185 44.6% Renters with % Share Cost Burden Total of Renters >50% of Renter with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 405 500 81.0% 31% to 50% AMI 95 275 34.5% 51% to 80% AMI 60 515 11.7% 81% to 100% AMI 0 180 0.0% >100% AMI 0 715 0.0% Total 560 2185 25.6% Source: HUD CHAS 2011-2015.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 27
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Renters in Wasatch County are more likely to face a severe housing cost burden than in any other county Tables 19-21. One-in-four renters in Wasatch County are paying at least 50 percent of their income for housing costs. This number one ranking certainly prompts consideration of efforts that would ease the housing cost burden for future renters.
Table 19 Renter Households by AMI with Severe Housing Cost Burdens
Severe 31% to 51% to 81% to Cost Renter <30% 50% 80% 100% More than Burden % of Total Rank County Households AMI AMI AMI AMI 100% AMI Households Households 1 Wasatch 2,185 405 95 60 0 0 560 25.6% 2 Rich 135 25 4 4 0 0 33 24.4% 3 Grand 1,205 255 30 4 0 0 289 24.0% 4 Utah 49,095 7,970 2,460 510 60 30 11,030 22.5% 5 Washington 15,275 1,940 965 310 30 25 3,270 21.4% 6 Salt Lake 118,800 18,420 5,690 815 115 75 25,115 21.1% 7 Morgan 505 80 15 10 0 0 105 20.8% 8 Wayne 165 30 4 0 0 0 34 20.6% 9 Cache 12,395 1,860 475 185 0 25 2,545 20.5% State 276,710 41,540 12,005 2,140 265 225 56,175 20.3% 10 Davis 22,225 3,240 850 80 10 40 4,220 19.0% 11 Weber 23,065 3,535 675 90 10 0 4,310 18.7% 12 Emery 615 105 0 0 0 0 105 17.1% 13 Millard 905 130 2 4 0 0 154 17.0% 14 Iron 5,500 780 115 15 0 0 910 16.5% 15 Sevier 1,610 240 20 0 4 0 264 16.4% 16 Juab 555 60 20 10 0 0 90 16.2% 17 Duchesne 1,615 180 55 25 0 0 260 16.1% 18 Summit 3,540 415 115 15 20 0 565 16.0% 19 Kane 570 65 25 0 0 0 90 15.8% 20 Tooele 4,285 490 160 0 0 0 650 15.2% 21 Uintah 2,615 325 60 0 0 0 385 14.7% 22 Carbon 2,250 275 40 0 0 10 325 14.4% 23 Sanpete 2,060 275 15 4 0 0 284 13.8% 24 Daggett 30 4 0 0 0 0 4 13.3% 25 Box Elder 3,695 295 105 0 10 15 425 11.5% 26 Piute 90 10 0 0 0 0 10 11.1% 27 Garfield 340 35 0 0 0 0 35 10.3% 28 San Juan 820 80 0 0 0 0 80 9.8% 29 Beaver 560 25 0 0 0 0 25 4.5% Source: HUD CHAS.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 28
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 20 Renter Households by AMI Category in the Region
Renter Category Households Share <30% AMI 1,200 21.0% <30% to 50% AMI 850 14.8% <50% to 60% AMI 340 5.9% <60% to 80% AMI 690 12.1% <80% to 100% AMI 715 12.5% <100% to 120% AMI 458 8.0% <120% and higher 1,472 25.7% Total 5,725 100.0% Source: HUD CHAS and James Wood.
Table 21 Housing Cost Burdens for Renters in the Region
Renters with % Share Cost Burden Total of Renters >30% of Renter with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 1,000 1,200 83.3% 31% to 50% AMI 515 850 60.6% 51% to 80% AMI 465 1,030 45.1% 81% to 100% AMI 200 715 28.0% >100% AMI 124 1,935 6.4% Total 2,304 5,725 40.2% Renters with % Share Cost Burden Total of Renters >50% of Renter with Severe Income Category Income Households Cost Burden <30% AMI 820 1,200 68.3% 31% to 50% AMI 210 850 24.7% 51% to 80% AMI 75 1,030 7.3% 81% to 100% AMI 20 715 2.8% >100% AMI 0 1,935 0.0% Total 1,125 5,725 19.7% Source: HUD CHAS 2011-2015.
Current Housing Market Needs Owner Occupied Housing - In the Region less than one in ten homes sold were affordable to the median income household. The lack of affordability is highlighted by a comparison with Salt Lake County, where one in three homes sold were affordable to the median income households. The Region is the least affordable homeownership market in Utah. Homeowners in the Region have the highest housing cost burdens of anywhere in the state. Given these conditions there is a clear need for more affordable owner occupied units.
Renter Occupied Housing – In the past five years only 200 apartment units have been developed in Summit County. The county has a rental inventory of nearly 4,000 units. The new units added to the inventory in the past five years amounts to a five percent increase in the rental inventory. The
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 29
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties limited number of new rental units has exacerbated market conditions in an already tight rental market, a market with a long history of very few vacant units.
In Wasatch County only 56 new apartment units have been developed in the past five years. The county has a rental inventory of about 2,800 units. New units, over the past five years, have added only two percent to the rental inventory. And like Summit County the vacancy rate in Wasatch County is persistently low. A county by county comparison of median contract rent provided by the Census shows that Summit and Wasatch Counties rank first and second in median rents Table 22. Combined with the limited level of new construction activity, low vacancy rates, high rental rates, and a high incidence of severe housing cost burden for renters, it is clear that the Region and each county needs housing strategies to foster the addition of new or rehabilitated, affordable rental housing.
Table 22 Median Contract Rent by County
Median Median County Rent County Rent Summit $1,125 Piute $615 Wasatch $1,101 Cache $598 Morgan $976 Juab $594 Salt Lake $891 Sevier $590 Davis $871 Box Elder $589 Washington $833 Sanpete $583 Utah $825 Beaver $549 Kane $795 Garfield $529 Uintah $784 San Juan $519 Tooele $725 Carbon $514 Duchesne $719 Wayne $484 Weber $708 Rich $483 Grand $650 Millard $482 Iron $619 Emery $478 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 30
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
IV. HOUSING MARKET: INVENTORY PROFILE, RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, TRENDS IN PRICE AND SALES
Housing Inventory (Table 1 and Charts 1-2)- The Region has a combined total of 41,600 dwelling units however, only 57 percent of this inventory is occupied due to the large number of vacation and recreational homes. Compared to Wasatch County, Summit County has about twice the number of dwellings units and over four times the number of vacation and recreational homes. Vacation and recreation homes account for over 14,000 dwelling units in the Region; one out of three dwelling units in the Region is a second/recreational home. The impact of the resort community on the local housing market is the market’s defining characteristic and directly responsible for the high real estate prices, limited affordable housing options, and large number of households with severe housing cost burdens.
The rental inventory of Summit County has nearly 4,300 units and in Wasatch County 3,329 units. Of all jurisdiction included in this study Park City has the highest share of rental units at forty percent of the occupied dwelling units. In the Region 28 percent of occupied dwelling units are rental units, a little below the statewide share of 30 percent. Table 1 Profile of Housing Inventory for Municipalities, Counties, and Region
Eastern Summit Wasatch Park City Snyderville Summit Co County County Region Total Housing Units 10,039 4,795 13,260 28,094 13,505 41,599 Occupied 3,407 2,604 8,770 14,781 9,040 23,821 Share of Total Units 33.9% 54.3% 66.1% 52.6% 66.9% 57.3% Owner Occupied 2,040 1,713 8248 12,001 7,693 19,694 Share of Occupied Units 59.9% 65.8% 94.0% 81.2% 85.1% 82.7% Renter Occupied Units 1,331 891 2,060 4,282 3,329 7,611 Share of Occupied Units 39.5% 34.2% 18.8% 26.3% 30.2% 27.8% Vacant Seasonal, Recreational 5,579 1,882 4,014 11,475 2,597 14,072 Share of Total Units 56.8% 40.5% 30.8% 41.8% 21.3% 35.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Kem Gardner Policy Institute.
Chart 1 Vacant Recreation Homes as Percent of Total Housing Units
Wasatch 21.3%
East Summit 30.8%
Region 35.5%
Snyderville 40.5%
Summit 41.8%
Park City 56.8%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 31
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Chart 2 Rental Units as a Share of Housing Inventory
Wasatch 18.8%
Region 26.3%
East Summit 27.8%
Summit 30.2%
Snyderville 34.2%
Park City 39.5%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
Number of Dwelling Units in Structure (Tables 2-3) – Detached single family homes dominate the owner occupied market. In Wasatch County 91 percent of owner occupied units are detached single family homes. The share is lower in Summit County due to owner occupied condominiums and townhomes. Nearly 15 percent of owner occupied units in Summit County are attached units compared to 8.6 percent in Wasatch County. Statewide 8.7 percent of owner occupied units are attached units. It’s no surprise that Summit County would have one of the highest rates of owner occupied attached units (condominiums and townhomes) of any county in Utah. Again this is another distinctive feature of a resort community’s housing inventory.
Table 2 Owner Occupied Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2013-2017
Owner Occupied Share Summit Wasatch Summit Wasatch County County County County Total 10,899 6,309 100.0% 100.0% 1 detached units 9,298 5,764 85.3% 91.4% 1 attached units 665 412 6.1% 6.5% 2 units 54 32 0.5% 0.5% 3 or 4 units 222 34 2.0% 0.5% 5 to 9 units 294 21 2.7% 0.3% 10 to 19 units 97 22 0.9% 0.3% 20 to 49 units 32 0 0.3% 0.0% 50 or more units 76 12 0.7% 0.2% Mobile home 154 12 1.4% 0.2% RV, van, etc. 7 0 0.1% 0.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 32
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Wasatch County has an unusually high share of renter occupied units in detached single family homes. Almost half of all rental units in the county are single family homes. The share in Summit County is 39 percent, much lower than Wasatch County but still well above the statewide average of 28 percent. The relatively high share of rental units in single family homes is an indication of the limited number of traditional apartment projects. Table 3 Renter Occupied Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2013-2017
Renter Occupied Share Summit Wasatch Summit Wasatch County County County County Total 3,882 2,731 100.0% 100.0% 1 detached units 1,506 1,296 38.8% 47.5% 1 attached units 409 287 10.5% 10.5% 2 units 107 110 2.8% 4.0% 3 or 4 units 384 95 9.9% 3.5% 5 to 9 units 337 266 8.7% 9.7% 10 to 19 units 559 314 14.4% 11.5% 20 to 49 units 326 272 8.4% 10.0% 50 or more units 113 76 2.9% 2.8% Mobile home 141 15 3.6% 0.5% RV, van, etc. 0 0 0.0% 0.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Trends in Home Prices and Sales (Tables 4-7 and Charts 3-4) The median sales price of a home in Summit County in 2018 was $975,000, nearly double the price in Wasatch County of $499,286, and three times as high as the statewide median sales price of $321,834. The average annual rate of change over the 18 year period has been highest in Wasatch County at an average annual rate of 6.5 percent. Home prices in Summit County have increased at an average annual rate of 5.7 percent. Statewide the annual rate of increase has been 4.5 percent.
Chart 3 Median Sales Price of Single Family Home $1,200,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $680,000 $800,000
$600,000 $499,286 $362,000 $365,000 $400,000 $160,775 $200,000 $321,834 $227,500 $0 $144,400
Summit Wasatch State
Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 33
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 4 Median Sales Price of Single Family Home
Summit Wasatch County County State 2000 $362,000 $160,775 $144,400 2001 $348,500 $175,000 $147,000 2002 $322,525 $169,000 $149,000 2003 $322,500 $172,900 $149,900 2004 $375,000 $179,000 $154,700 2005 $491,000 $213,000 $172,000 2006 $575,000 $309,175 $200,000 2007 $677,000 $365,000 $227,500 2008 $680,000 $333,000 $224,000 2009 $515,000 $310,500 $214,000 2010 $558,000 $273,950 $200,362 2011 $555,000 $230,000 $182,700 2012 $549,999 $247,750 $194,000 2013 $630,000 $284,750 $220,000 2014 $655,000 $309,590 $229,500 2015 $770,250 $359,950 $245,000 2016 $821,750 $389,950 $265,000 2017 $940,000 $444,500 $289,900 2018 $975,000 $499,286 $321,834 Source: UtahRealEstate.com
The median sales price of a condominium in 2018 in Summit County was $587,500, in Wasatch County $479,000, and statewide $235,000. The price difference or gap between Summit and Wasatch County condominium prices is much narrower than in the case of single family homes. The median price of a condominium in Summit County is only 22 percent higher than in Wasatch County whereas the median sales price of a home in Summit is twice as high as the price in Wasatch County.
Table 5 Median Sales Price of Condominiums, Town Homes, and Twin Homes
Summit Wasatch County County State 2010 $295,000 $142,000 $150,000 2011 $250,000 $125,000 $137,000 2012 $282,000 $158,500 $138,000 2013 $335,950 $191,450 $156,800 2014 $375,000 $204,000 $167,000 2015 $420,777 $298,940 $175,000 2016 $480,000 $355,000 $189,400 2017 $530,000 $388,194 $210,000 2018 $587,500 $479,000 $235,000 Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 34
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Chart 4 Median Sales Price of Condominiums, Town Homes. and Twin Homes
$700,000 $587,500 $600,000
$500,000
$400,000 $295,000 $479,000
$300,000
$200,000 $150,000 $235,000 $100,000 $142,000 $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Summit Wasatch State
Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Real estate sales (single family and condominium units) have been very stable over the past five years in Summit County. Total sales have been between 1,000-1,100 units since 2013, with condominium sales accounting for about four out of every ten units sold in the county. Condominiums sales account for one quarter of the home sales in Wasatch County. The last three years have seen record levels of condominiums sales in Wasatch County with sales of around 700 units.
Table 6 Condominiums as Share of Residential Sales in Summit County
% Condominiums Single Family Total Share Sales Sales Sales Condo 2010 282 372 654 43.1% 2011 298 409 707 42.1% 2012 354 502 856 41.4% 2013 419 587 1,006 41.7% 2014 447 571 1,018 43.9% 2015 480 568 1,048 45.8% 2016 457 580 1,037 44.1% 2017 499 625 1,124 44.4% 2018 450 616 1,066 42.2% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 35
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 7 Condominiums as Share of Residential Sales in Wasatch County
% Condominiums Single Family Total Share Sales Sales Sales Condo 2010 59 236 295 20.0% 2011 92 302 394 23.4% 2012 76 326 402 18.9% 2013 96 410 506 19.0% 2014 124 436 560 22.1% 2015 139 442 581 23.9% 2016 179 532 711 25.2% 2017 182 522 704 25.9% 2018 164 509 673 24.4% Source: UtahRealEstate.com
Residential construction (Table 8-10 and Charts 5-7) The level of residential construction in the Region has seen a rather dramatic shift away from Summit County to Wasatch County. In 2018 the number of permits issued in Wasatch County was 389 units compared to only 119 units in Summit County. Historically Summit County has been a much more active residential construction market. From 2000 to 2007 the average number of permits issued in Summit County was 725 annually compared to 180 units in Wasatch County. But since 2007 residential construction in Summit County has fallen to a much lower level. Over the past ten years, the average number of new units has been only 210 units. In Wasatch County residential construction activity has been accelerating. The last two years have been record years with nearly 400 new units in each year. The substantial decline in new construction activity in Summit County is attributed to the very high housing prices. The price of new homes and condominiums are the highest in the state consequently very few households can consider Summit County as a residential location. And it follows that residential construction would see lower levels of demand and fewer new units produced due to squeeze on demand from high prices. In recent years single family units have accounted for 70 percent of new residential building permits in the Region. Condominiums have captured 21 percent leaving apartments with only nine percent of the building permits issued.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 36
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 8 Building Permits Issued for New Residential Units in Summit County
Single Family Condominium Apartment Year Units Units Units Total 2000 347 134 5 486 2001 422 453 4 879 2002 371 16 0 387 2003 341 236 0 577 2004 399 197 8 604 2005 550 327 0 877 2006 491 374 0 865 2007 367 762 0 1,129 2008 144 48 0 192 2009 101 0 262 363 2010 76 8 148 232 2011 91 4 0 95 2012 90 29 0 119 2013 106 59 13 178 2014 192 86 16 294 2015 152 36 57 245 2016 145 73 33 251 2017 101 54 82 237 2018 70 49 0 119 Total 4,556 2945 628 8,129 % Share 2000-2018 56.0% 36.2% 7.7% 100.0% % Share 2010-2018 57.8% 22.5% 19.7% 100.0% Source; Kem Gardner Policy Institute, Ivory-Boyer Construction Database.
Chart 5 Building Permits Issued for New Residential Units in Summit County
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
SF Cond Apartment
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 37
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 9 Permits Issued for New Residential Units in Wasatch County
Single Family Condominium Apartment Total Year Units Units Units Units 2000 87 0 48 135 2001 93 0 0 93 2002 89 124 0 213 2003 133 2 0 135 2004 110 8 0 118 2005 119 20 0 139 2006 248 108 20 376 2007 175 0 0 175 2008 67 74 0 141 2009 24 0 0 24 2010 41 0 168 209 2011 33 16 0 49 2012 37 40 0 77 2013 117 15 0 132 2014 200 29 0 229 2015 157 63 0 220 2016 162 43 0 205 2017 329 45 14 388 2018 272 75 42 389 Total 2,493 662 292 3,447 % Share 2000-2018 72.3% 19.2% 8.5% 100.0% % Share 2010-2018 71.0% 17.2% 11.8% 100.0% Source; Kem Gardner Policy Institute, Ivory-Boyer Construction Database Source:
Chart 6 Building Permits Issued for New Residential Units in Wasatch County
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Single Family Condo Apartments
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 38
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 10 Permits Issued for New Residential Units in the Region (Summit and Wasatch Counties Combined)
Single Family Condominium Apartment Year Units Units Units Total 2000 434 134 53 621 2001 515 453 4 972 2002 460 140 0 600 2003 474 238 0 712 2004 509 205 8 722 2005 669 347 0 1016 2006 739 482 20 1241 2007 542 762 0 1304 2008 211 122 0 333 2009 125 0 262 387 2010 117 8 316 441 2011 124 20 0 144 2012 127 69 0 196 2013 223 74 13 310 2014 392 115 16 523 2015 309 99 57 465 2016 307 116 33 456 2017 430 99 96 625 2018 342 124 42 508 Total 7,049 3,607 920 11,576 % Share 2000-2018 60.9% 31.2% 7.9% 100.0% % Share 2010-2018 64.6% 19.7% 15.6% 100.0% Source; Kem Gardner Policy Institute, Ivory-Boyer Construction Database.
Chart 7 Building Permits Issued for New Residential Units in the Region
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Single Family Condo Apartments
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 39
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
V. AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING SUPPLY Affordable Rental Inventory A housing needs assessment requires a discussion of the rent assisted units in the housing market. Most assisted units are found in low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects. In the Summit/Wasatch Region there are a couple of projects that are U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development projects. These projects have voucher support and are also tax credit projects. Summit County has 671 tax credit units in a rental inventory of about 4,300 units, 15.2 percent of the rental inventory, which is a relatively large share Table 1. Wasatch County has only 241 tax credit units in an inventory of 3,300 units; a seven percent share. Statewide tax credit units comprise nine percent of the rental inventory.
Table 1 Rent Assisted Projects in the Region (LIHTC and RD) Total LIHTC Apartment Community Units Park City Aspen Villa 88 Holiday Village 80 Iron Horse 94 Parkside 42 Silver Meadows 14 Washington Mill 8 Total 326 Snyderville & Eastern Summit Elk Meadows 94 Liberty Peak 152 Meadow View I 8 Meadow View II 16 New Park Studios 38 Richer Place 25 River Bluffs Crown Homes 4 Scattered Crown 8 Total 345 Wasatch County Deer Mountain 74 Liberty Station 46 Prestige Living Center 23 Elmbridge 76 Brooklane Senior 16 Crown at Wheeler Park 6 Total 241 Grand Total for Region 912 Source: Utah Housing Corporation.
Data presented throughout this report highlight the Region’s need for additional affordable housing. Unfortunately development cost and more specifically the high cost of land, have limited the number of tax credit projects developed in the Region. There has not been a new tax credit development in Park City since 2000 when Holliday Village received tax credits. In Snyderville and Eastern Summit Planning Districts, about half of the 345 tax credit units in these planning districts have been developed since 2000, including Liberty Peak, New Park Studios, Richer Place, and the Crown homes
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 40
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
at River Bluffs. The most recent tax credit project in Summit County is Richer Place with 25 units developed in 2015. In Wasatch County the most recent tax credit developments are Elmbridge and Liberty Station, which are nearly ten years old. No tax credit projects have been developed since 2012.
Park City Rent Assisted Projects - There are six tax credit apartment projects in Park City with a total of 326 units. A large majority—eighty-two percent—of the tax credit units have target rents at fifty percent AMI or greater. Only fifty-nine of the tax credit units in the six projects are targeted for very low income renter households Table 2. Also the tax credit units have a relatively high percentage of three bedroom units. Fifty-five percent of the tax credit units are three bedroom units serving an important market segment, the low income family. Any new tax credit projects, however would do well to target the one and two bedroom market; the workforce housing market.
Table 2 Rent Assisted Units in Park City by AMI Target Rents
25% 30% 35% 40% 42% 45% 50% 53% 56% 58% 59% 60% Project AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Total Iron Horse Three Bdrm 14 36 44 94 Silver Meadow One Bdrm 0 Two Bdrm 5 5 Three Bdrm 3 6 9 Washington Mill Two Bdrm 2 6 8 Aspen Villa Two Bdrm 18 18 Three Bdrm 70 70 Holiday Village One Bdrm 24 16 40 Two Bdrm 24 16 40 Parkside Two Bdrm 18 12 30 Three Bdrm 12 12 Total 21 24 14 55 36 6 44 6 120 326 Source: Utah Housing Corporation.
Snyderville and Eastern Summit County Rent Assisted Projects - There are six tax credit apartment projects in the Snyderville and Eastern Summit Planning Districts, with a total of 352 units Table 3. Four of the projects are quite small in terms of number of units. Two projects (Richer Place) and (New Park Studios) are targeted for workforce housing, emphasizing studio and one bedroom units. At 50% AMI the rent for a one bedroom unit is $961 (includes utility allowance), which is not affordable to the typical retail or restaurant worker in Summit County. The average wage for a restaurant worker is $21,972 and for a retail worker $28,008. To avoid a housing cost burden these workers cannot pay more than $700 a month for rent and utilities.
Two large projects are located in Snyderville Basin, Elk Meadows with 96 units and Liberty Peak with 152 units. Both of these projects have AMI target rents about 50% AMI, therefore they are not affordable to the retail, restaurant, and hospitality workers in the local labor market. The rent structure of the tax credit projects is heavily weighted to rents above 50% AMI. Seventy percent of the tax credit units in the two planning districts have rents equal to or more than 50 percent AMI.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 41
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 3 Rent Assisted Units in Snyderville and Eastern Summit Planning Districts by AMI Target Rents
Project 25% 30% 35% 40% 42% 45% 50% 53% 56% 58% 59% 60% Total River Bluffs Crown Three Bedroom 2 2 Four Bedroom 2 2 Meadow View I Two Bedroom 1 7 8 Meadow View II Two Bedroom 16 16 Scattered Crown Three Bedroom 8 8 New Park Studios Studio 6 16 16 38 Elk Meadows One Bedroom 30 30 Two Bedroom 48 48 Three Bedroom 16 16 Liberty Peak One Bedroom 80 80 Two Bedroom 72 72 Richer Place Studio 1 1 One Bedroom 4 10 3 17 Two Bedroom 5 2 7 Total 5 6 24 22 30 85 94 72 7 352 Source: Utah Housing Corporation.
Wasatch County Rent Assisted Units - There are six tax credit apartment projects in Wasatch County with a total of 241 units Table 4. Deer Mountain (formerly Todd Hollow) is the only tax credit project not in Heber City. Deer Mountain has a total of 158 units. The largest tax credit project in Heber is Elmbridge with 76 units. There are two small Senior tax credit projects; Prestige Senior Living Center (23 units), and Brooklane Senior Apartments (16 units). half the units are tax credit and half market rate units. The rent structure of the tax credit projects is favorable for affordability with half of the tax credits units priced at 45% AMI or below.
Rent Assisted Units in the Region – The combined number of rent assisted units in the Region is 912 units. Sixty percent of the tax credit units Region wide rent at 50 percent AMI or higher Table 5. In a high priced rental market with low wages the concentration of tax credit units above 50 AMI limits the benefit of LIHTC projects on housing affordability.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 42
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 4 Rent Assisted Units in Wasatch County by AMI Target Income
Project 25% 30% 35% 40% 42% 45% 50% 53% 56% 58% 59% 60% Total Wasatch County (excl. Heber) Deer Mountain Two Bedroom 38 38 Three Bedroom 36 36 Heber City Liberty Station Three Bedroom 5 2 15 4 26 Four Bedroom 16 4 20 Prestige Living One Bedroom 2 4 14 1 21 Two Bedroom 2 2 Elmbridge One Bedroom 1 3 10 2 16 Two Bedroom 1 8 22 5 36 Three Bedroom 6 14 4 24 Brooklane Senior One Bedroom 16 16 Crown at Wheeler Pk Four Bedroom 6 6 Total 9 4 33 80 19 6 90 241 Source: Utah Housing Corporation.
Table 5 Rented Assisted Units in Region by AMI Target Income
Project 25% 30% 35% 40% 42% 45% 50% 53% 56% 58% 59% 60% Total Studio 1 6 16 16 39 One Bedroom 7 4 17 10 94 26 30 32 220 Two Bedroom 1 18 26 16 26 36 48 78 79 328 Three Bedroom 5 11 20 2 43 8 52 44 6 106 297 Four Bedroom 2 16 4 6 28 Total 14 6 49 79 30 179 74 136 78 44 6 217 912 Source: Utah Housing Corporation.
Pipeline of Affordable Rental and Owner Occupied Projects The planning office in Park City, Summit County, Heber City, and Wasatch County have provided information on proposed projects in their jurisdictions. The development window is the next four years. Over that period it is anticipated that 409 affordable owner occupied units will be developed, along with 793 affordable rental units, and 424 market rate rental units. The Snyderville Basin Planning District will have the largest number of additional units with 176 owner occupied units as well as 595 affordable rental units. The affordable rental units will include employee housing units at The Canyons (410 units) and US Olympic Park (56 units) Table 6.
Wasatch County has three apartment projects in the approval process. Two projects each have 200 market rate units and the third projects has 100 deed restricted affordable units Table 7. In Heber City the Wasatch County Housing Authority has recently completed an affordable 38 unit senior apartment project Prestige Senior Apartment Table 8. The project is in lease-up. Mill Road Apartments is an
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 43
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
affordable apartment community with three unit at 60 percent AMI. In addition to these 41 affordable rental units there are four affordable owner occupied housing projects in the approval process. Southfield Station will have 49 affordable owner occupied homes. The developer is Mountainlands Community Housing Trust. These homes will be affordable to households at 120 percent AMI. Self- Help Homes will develop three subdivisions; Meadows at Southfield (50 homes), Wasatch Vista Plat A (13 homes), and Wasatch Vista Plat B (22 homes). These 85 homes will be self-help homes which requires the potential owners to supply 65 percent of the construction labor. There are 134 affordable homes in the approval process in Heber City.
Park City’s Office of Community Development anticipates 142 affordable owner occupied units will be developed in the city, almost entirely at Woodside Park and Park City Heights. These owner occupied units will all be affordable to households at less than 120 percent AMI, Table 9.
Table 6 Affordable Housing Projects Proposed in Snyderville and Eastern Summit County, 2019
Owner Renter Project Units Units Silver Creek Village (Workforce Housing) Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 64 Habitat for Humanity 2 Garbett Homes 37 MCHT Self Help 18 Francis MCHT Self Help 25 Woodland Park City 8 Promontory Completed in next two years 7 Another 28 units in the next 5 years 28 New Park Condominiums Units at 80% AMI 34 Discovery 30 Canyons Seasonal Worker/Employee Housing) 410 Pillows, i.e. number of employees housed 1,107 U.S. Olympic Park Short term rental for employees 56 Lincoln Station Affordable and market rate rental units; 8 units at 52 50% AMI, 23 units at 80% AMI, and 21 units at 120% AMI. 24 market rate units. Total 52 affordable 24 market rate. Total 176 595 Source: Summit County Planning.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 44
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 7 Proposed Rental Projects in Wasatch County, 2019 Rental Project Units Type The Views 200 Rent (market rate) North Village Crossing 200 Rent (market rate) Mayflower Marina 100 Deed restricted affordable rental units. To begin within 12 months. Source: Wasatch County Planning.
Table 8 Heber City: Affordable Housing Projects in Development and Proposed
Yr. Project Name Owned Rental AMI Funding Comments Built 50%- Projects Recently Completed 80% AMI Wasatch County Housing Prestige Senior Apartments 38 2019 50% Authority owners,
Projects in Development
Waiting for building permit and Mill Road Apartments 3 60% final agreement with the housing authority Developer MCHT, all units 120% affordable, Waiting for final plat Southfield Station 49 AMI recording and building permit submittals. Deed restricted affordable homes Meadows at Southfield 50 affordable developed by Self-Help Homes. Deed restricted affordable homes Wasatch Vista Subdivision Plat A 13 affordable developed by Self Help Homes Deed restricted affordable homes Wasatch Vista Subdivision Plat B 22 affordable developed by Self Help Homes
Total 134 41
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 45
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 9 Park City: Affordable Housing Projects in Development and Proposed, 2019
Yr. Project Name Owned Rental AMI Funding Sales Pricing Rent Built Projects Recently Completed
On-Mountain units – Empire Pass/Deer 2 2018 50% IZ $1,200 Valley $192,153 to The Retreat at the Park 8 2018 80-120% RDA $280,291 depending on unit size $168,136 to Central Park City Condos 11 2018 80-120% RDA $288,300 depending on unit size $299,900 to Park City Heights (Town homes and 2016- 24 80-100% IZ $506,000 depending Single Family homes) 2019 on unit size Total Units completed 43 2
Projects in Development Peace House - Transitional and Shelter 17 2019 N/A IZ N/A N/A units $180,000 to Woodside Park, Phase I (mix of $596,000 depending 7 4 2019 50-120% RDA $703 affordable and attainable) on unit size and income targeted $299,900 to Park City Heights (Town homes and 2016- 65 80-120% IZ $506,000 depending Single Family homes) 2021 on unit size $180,000 to Woodside Park, Phase II (mix of $533,000 depending 54 2021 60-120% RDA affordable and attainable) on unit size and income targeted Rail Central (SRO units) 24 TBD 35-80% IZ $460
1440 Empire Avenue (2br apts) 12 TBD 35-80% IZ $1,205
$197,881 to Kings Crown (mix of affordable and 2019- $569,338 depending 16 80-150% IZ attainable) 2020 on unit size and income targeted Total Units in Development 142 57 TBD
5-10 Year Pipeline Homestake Rental Project 60 TBD 80% RDA TBD
On-mountain units - Empire Pass/Deer 7 TBD 50% IZ TBD Valley Physicians Holdings 5 TBD 50% IZ TBD
IHC Medical Support Commercial 7 TBD 50% IZ TBD
PC Mountain Resort (Vail) base 23 TBD 50-80% IZ TBD development Total 103
Source: Park City Department of Community Development.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 46
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
VI. UPDATE OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DATA
Profile of the Region and Jurisdictions The Region had a total population of 73,400 people in 2018. The number of households was 27,300 and the Regional economy had 36,600 jobs Table 1. Nearly half of all workers in the two counties commute from outside the Region. Table 1 Demographic, Employment, and Commuting Profile for Municipalities, Counties, and Region,
Snyderville Eastern Park Summit Summit Heber Wasatch Category City County County City County Region Population 8,500 32,786 41,286 15,792 32,137 73,423 Households 3,371 12,913 16,284 4,380 11,022 27,307 Employment 12,618 15,421 28,039 5,586 8,572 36,611 Employment/Population Ratio 1.48 0.47 0.68 0.35 0.27 0.50 Commuting (2015) Total Employment (Census) 12,452 12,598 25,050 4,638 7,450 32,500 In-commuting for work 10,658 4,472 15,130 3,063 3,327 14,584 Out-commuting for work 2,048 8,652 10,700 5,451 9,414 16,752 Living and working in selected 1,794 8,126 9,920 1,620 4,123 17,280 Percent of workers in-commuting 85.6% 35.5% 60.4% 66.0% 44.7% 44.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Utah Department of Workforce.
The number of occupied housing units in the Region is 27,300 Table 2. The Region has a vacancy rate of 34 percent due to the 14,300 vacant dwelling units, which are primarily second homes. The median sales price of a home in 2018 was $680,000. Even condominiums were very high priced with a median sales price of $525,000. High housing costs result in high rates of severe cost burden; 11 percent of all homeowners and 20 percent of all renters.
Table 2 Housing Profile for Municipalities, Counties, and Region Snyderville & Eastern Summit Summit Wasatch Park City County County Heber City County Region Total Housing Units (2017) 10,039 18,056 28,095 4,364 13,505 41,600 Occupied Housing Units 3,371 12,913 16,284 4,224 11,022 27,307 Owner Occupied 2,040 9,961 12,001 2,608 7,693 19,694 Renter Occupied 1,331 2,951 4,282 1,616 3,329 7,611 Vacant Units: 2nd Homes, For Rent or Sale 6,668 5,143 11,811 140 2,483 14,293 Percent Vacant Units 66.4% 28.5% 42.0% 3.2% 18.4% 34.4% LIHTC, RD, Etc. Rental Units 326 347 673 167 241 914 Moderate Cost Burden (2015) Percent of Owners 17.40% 23.76% 22.50% 27.1% 27.24% 24.23% Percent of Renters 33.20% 40.00% 37.60% 50.4% 44.58% 40.24% Severe Cost Burden (2015 Percent of Owners 11.00% 10.14% 10.30% 9.3% 11.84% 10.86% Percent of Renters 19.7% 13.9% 16.0% 29.6% 25.6% 19.7% Median Sales Price SF (2018) $1,345,378 $395,000 $1,001,900 $472,000 $475,000 $680,000 Median Sales Price MF (2018) $570,000 NA $571,000 $527,670 $405,000 $525,000
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 47
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Source: HUD CHAS and U.S. Census Bureau. The rates of change (2010-2018) for the demographic, employment and housing market indicators are given in Table 3. The rates of change show that for most indicators Wasatch County is growing at a faster pace than Summit County and the growth in Wasatch County is driven by Heber City, which has had a 4.6 percent annual growth in population and a 5.7 percent growth rate in jobs. Even the rate of increase in housing prices in Heber is equivalent to Park City. The median sales price of a single family home in Heber has been increasing at eight percent annually.
Table 3 Average Annual Rates of Change, 2010-2018
Snyderville & Summit Heber Wasatch Park City Eastern Summit County City County Region Population 1.4% 1.6% 1.5% 4.6% 3.9% 2.5% Households 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.7% 5.2% 3.7% Employment 0.0% 8.3% 3.9% 5.7% 4.9% 4.1% Total Housing Units 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.3% 3.1% 1.4% Occupied Housing 2.0% 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 5.3% 3.8% Owner Occupied 1.8% 2.6% 2.4% 1.0% 4.4% 3.1% Renter Occupied 2.3% 5.1% 4.1% 7.0% 7.3% 5.6% Median Sales Price SF 8.1% NA 7.2% 8.0% 7.6% 7.6% Median Sales Price MF 8.9% NA 9.0% 17.5% 8.9% 8.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Utah Department of Workforce Services, and UtahRealEstate.com
Demographic Change (Table 4-5 and Figures 1-2) Population Change - The population of the Region has been growing at an annual rate of 2.7 percent since 2000. A growth rate above the statewide rate of 2.1 percent. Some of the most notable demographic features of the Region are: (1) the very slow growth of Park City due to limited available land, (2) Heber City’s rapid growth rate of 4.3 percent, (3) Heber’s acceleration of growth in the last few years; increasing at about 700 individuals a year, (4) Snyderville Basin’s deceleration in rate of growth in the 2010-2018 period and (5) Wasatch County’s share of the Region’s population, increasing 34 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2018.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 48
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 4 Population of Municipalities, Counties and Region
Snyderville & Eastern Summit Summit Heber Wasatch Park City County County City County Region 2000 7,462 22,550 30,012 7,744 15,427 45,439 2001 7,680 22,649 30,329 8,193 16,244 46,573 2002 7,726 23,631 31,357 8,654 17,411 48,768 2003 7,806 24,247 32,053 8,884 18,416 50,469 2004 7,877 24,970 32,847 9,026 19,042 51,889 2005 8,019 25,581 33,600 9,422 19,826 53,426 2006 7,923 26,128 34,051 9,997 20,836 54,887 2007 8,004 26,860 34,864 9,953 21,689 56,553 2008 8,008 27,532 35,540 10,092 22,535 58,075 2009 8,127 27,675 35,802 10,373 23,072 58,874 2010 7,627 28,935 36,562 11,489 23,652 60,214 2011 7,775 29,621 37,396 11,781 24,484 61,881 2012 7,860 30,076 37,936 12,390 25,542 63,478 2013 7,962 30,250 38,212 13,089 26,390 64,602 2014 8,072 30,606 38,678 13,744 27,344 66,022 2015 8,137 31,143 39,280 14,400 28,616 67,895 2016 8,279 31,772 40,051 15,052 29,998 70,048 2017 8,378 32,393 40,771 15,795 31,224 71,995 2018 8,500 32,786 41,286 16,500 32,137 73,423 AARC 2000-2018 0.7% 2.1% 1.8% 4.3% 4.2% 2.7% AARC 2010-2018 1.4% 1.6% 1.5% 4.6% 3.9% 2.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Figure 1 Share of Region’s Population, 2018
Park City, 8,500, 11% Wasatch County, 32,137, 44%
Snyderville/East Summit, 32,786, 45%
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 49
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
The recent difference in the annual rates of growth of Summit and Wasatch counties is illustrated in Figure 2. Wasatch County has achieved nearly five percent growth rates in 2015 and 2016, two and a half times the rate of Summit County. These two years had the highest rates of growth in Wasatch County’s history. In 2018 growth did slow to 2.9 percent.
Figure 2 Percent Change in Population for Summit and Wasatch Counties
4.8% 5.0% 4.7% 4.3%
4.5% 4.1%
4.0% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 2.9% 3.0% 2.5% 2.3%
2.5% 2.1% 2.0% 1.8%
2.0% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.5% 1.2%
1.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Summit County Wasatch County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Kem Gardner Policy Institute.
The population projections for the Region show an annual growth rate from 2018 to 2023 of 2.7percent Table 5. Wasatch County is projected to grow at a 4.1 percent annual rate, down from the recent 4.6 rate of growth rate (2010-2018) while Summit County’s rate is projected at 1.7 percent.
Table 5 Population Projections for Counties and Region
Summit Wasatch County County Region 2018 41,286 32,137 73,423 2019 42,009 34,011 76,020 2020 42,702 35,362 78,064 2021 43,425 36,698 80,123 2022 44,139 37,989 82,127 2023 44,849 39,236 84,085 AARC 1.7% 4.1% 2.7% Source: Kem Gardner Policy Institute.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 50
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Household Change – The growth in households drive the demand for additional housing units. Since 2010 household growth in Wasatch County has averaged 5.2 percent a year, a very high rate of growth Table 6. For the Region the household growth has been 3.7 percent annually. The Region has a total of 27,300 households, and the number of household has been increasing at about 1,000 annually.
Table 6 Household Estimates for Municipalities, Counties, and Region
Snyderville/ Eastern Summit Heber Wasatch Park City Summit Co. County City County Region 2010 2,715 10,402 13,117 3,281 7,353 20,470 2011 2,821 10,807 13,628 3,228 7,713 21,341 2012 2,901 11,113 14,014 3,228 8,118 22,132 2013 2,957 11,326 14,283 3,337 8,451 22,734 2014 3,034 11,622 14,655 3,406 8,826 23,481 2015 3,114 11,930 15,044 3,565 9,329 24,373 2016 3,209 12,294 15,504 4,122 9,869 25,373 2017 3,289 12,599 15,888 4,224 10,444 26,332 2018 3,371 12,913 16,284 4,380 11,022 27,307 AARC 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.7% 5.2% 3.7% Source: Kem Gardner Policy Institute.
The household projections show a decline in the rate of growth for every jurisdiction with the exception of Heber City, where growth is projected at 4.0 percent for the 2019-2023 period, up from the 3.7 percent of the 2010 to 2018 period Table 7.
Table 7 Household Projections for Municipalities, Counties, and Region
Snyderville/ Eastern Summit Heber Wasatch Park City Summit Co. County City County Region 2018 3,371 12,913 16,284 4,380 11,022 27,307 2019 3,455 13,237 16,692 4,737 11,601 28,293 2020 3,538 13,552 17,090 4,926 12,171 29,261 2021 3,624 13,884 17,508 5,123 12,748 30,256 2022 3,710 14,214 17,924 5,329 13,308 31,232 2023 3,794 14,533 18,327 5,542 13,855 32,182 AARC 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 4.0% 4.7% 3.3% Source: Kem Gardner Policy Institute.
The average number of persons per households in both counties is relatively low. In 2018 the average household size in Summit County was only 2.54 persons per households. Summit County has fewer family households and an older population hence the small household size. Wasatch County at 2.96 persons per household is closer to the state average of 3.1 persons.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 51
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 8 Household Size by County
Summit Wasatch County County 2010 2.78 3.18 2011 2.74 3.14 2012 2.70 3.11 2013 2.67 3.09 2014 2.63 3.07 2015 2.60 3.04 2016 2.58 3.01 2017 2.56 2.98 2018 2.54 2.96 2019 2.52 2.93 2020 2.50 2.91 2021 2.48 2.88 2022 2.46 2.85 2023 2.45 2.83 Source: Kem Gardner Policy Institute.
Employment Trend Since 2001 the Region’s average annual employment growth rate has been 3.57 percent, a relatively high rate of growth Table 9. Summit and Wasatch Counties are two of the top three counties ranked by employment growth over the 2001-2018 period. A comparison of the relative rates of growth of Summit and Wasatch counties is shown in Figure 3. In fact Wasatch County has the fastest growing job market since 2001 of all 29 counties Map 1.
Summit County employment is up 75 percent since 2001. Employment in Park City is nearly unchanged from 2001 to 2018 hence nearly all of the employment growth in Summit County has occurred in the Snyderville/Eastern Summit County area.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 52
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Table 9 Employment Change in Municipalities, Counties and Region
Snyderville/ Eastern Summit Wasatch Park City Summit Co. County County Region 2001 12,768 2,817 15,537 4,660 20,197 2002 13,472 2,960 16,432 4,876 21,308 2003 13,643 2,775 16,418 5,032 21,450 2004 13,914 3,603 17,517 5,273 22,790 2005 14,526 4,373 18,899 5,744 24,643 2006 15,234 5,386 20,620 6,485 27,105 2007 15,303 6,597 21,900 7,103 29,003 2008 15,399 7,317 22,716 6,556 29,272 2009 13,656 7,099 20,755 5,890 26,645 2010 12,577 8,130 20,707 5,853 26,559 2011 12,925 8,985 21,910 5,992 27,901 2012 12,040 10,673 22,713 6,284 28,997 2013 11,328 12,087 23,415 6,766 30,181 2014 11,657 12,735 24,392 7,271 31,663 2015 11,833 13,597 25,430 7,752 33,182 2016 12,467 13,943 26,410 8,058 34,468 2017 12,560 14,716 27,276 8,329 35,606 2018 12,618 15,421 27,295 9,415 36,710 2001-2018 0.00% 10.5% 3.37% 4.22% 3.57% 2010-2018 0.04% 8.33% 3.51% 6.12% 4.13% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.
Figure 3 Percent Change in Employment, Summit, Wasatch Counties and Region
9.0% 7.7% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Summit Wasatch Region
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and Kem Gardner Policy Institute.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 53
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Map 1 Percent Increase in Employment, 2001-2018
Leisure and hospitality is the largest employment sector in the Region, accounting for nearly one-third of all jobs (Table 10 &Figures 4-5). This sector’s share of employment has declined slightly since 2001, dropping from 32 percent to 30 percent of all jobs by 2018. The next three highest share sectors are government, retail trade, and construction, which are bunched closely with shares of employment between 9 percent and 13 percent.
Table 10 Share of Employment in Top Five Sectors Compared to State Share
% Share % Share Employment Region State Leisure & Hospitality 10,835 30.1% 10.00% Retail Trade 4,774 13.3% 11.40% Government 4,737 13.2% 15.70% Construction 3,292 9.1% 7.10% Health Care 2,274 6.3% 10.20% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 54
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Figure 4 Share of Top Five Employment Sectors in the Region, 2001
All Other Sectors, Leisure & 4,250, 21% Hospitality, Professional and 6,506, 32% Business Services, 1,569, 8%
Construction, 2,176, 11% Government, Retail Trade, 3,091, 15% 2,703, 13%
Chart 5 Share of Top Five Employment Sectors in the Region, 2018
Leisure & All Other Sectors, Hospitality, 10,071, 28% 10,835, 30%
Health Care, Retail Trade, 2,274, 7% Construction, 4,774, 13% 3,292, 9% Government, 4,737, 13%
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 55
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Commuting – Commuting data from the Census show that employment growth in Summit County has been supported by significant increases of commuting. The most recent estimates show that 60 percent of the workers in Summit County commuted from outside the county Table 11. From 2010 to 2015 in-commuting increased by nearly 40 percent whereas out-commuting by residents of Summit County increased by only 16 percent. This in-commuting supplied workers for the commercial development surrounding Kimball Junction. These data show that local businesses in Summit County are becoming more dependent on commuters for their labor supply.
The commuting data show that Wasatch County is more of a bedroom community for Salt Lake and Utah Counties than Summit County. The out-commuting by residents of Wasatch County is nearly equivalent to Summit County but Wasatch County is 20 percent smaller. The increase of in- commuting has been more modest in Wasatch County. From 2010 to 2015 in-commuting increased by 23 percent, far below the 39 percent increase in Summit County Table 12. Total in-commuting in Wasatch County in 2015 was only 3,327 workers compared to 15,130 workers in Summit County.
Table 11 Change in Commuting in Summit County
Numeric Percent 2010 2015 Change Change Total Employment 20,890 25,050 4,160 19.9% In-commuting 10,891 15,130 4,239 38.9% Out-commuting 9,229 10,700 1,471 15.9% Living and working in selected area 9,999 9,920 -79 -0.8% Percent of workers in-commuting 52.1% 60.4% ------Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap.
Table 12 Change in Commuting in Wasatch County
Numeric Percent 2010 2015 Change Change Total Employment 5,808 7,450 1,642 28.3% In-commuting 2,708 3,327 619 22.9% Out-commuting 7,566 9,414 1,848 24.4% Living and working in selected area 3,100 4,123 1,023 33.0% Percent of workers in-commuting 46.6% 44.7% ------Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 56
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
VII. AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
Summit County, Park City, Wasatch County, and Heber City were surveyed regarding policies and programs to assist affordable housing. The policies and programs were divided into four broad categories; incentives, public-private partnerships, development regulation, and funding mechanisms. Of the nineteen policies and programs listed only two were used by all four jurisdictions; inclusionary zoning, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Park City uses 14 of the 19 listed tools to support and encourage affordable housing, Summit County and Heber City employ 10, and Wasatch County only three. A comparison of the use of affordable housing tools by jurisdiction is below followed completed surveys with comments about programs and policies.
INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Summit Wasatch Heber REGION Park City County County City
INCENTIVES Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing Yes No Yes Fee Waivers or Reductions for Affordable Housing Yes Yes No Yes Reduced Parking Requirement for Affordable Housing No No No No Fast Track Processing for Affordable Housing No No No No
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Public Land Donated for Affordable Housing Yes Potentially No Yes County or City Takes Lead as Affordable Housing Developer Yes Potentially No No County or City Purchases Housing for Workforce Yes Yes No No County or City Provides Housing for Employees Yes No No No
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Deed Restrictions on Income Qualifications Yes Yes No Yes Deed Restrictions for Local Employment Yes Yes No Yes Inclusionary Zoning Yes Yes Yes Yes Zoning Ordinances Supporting Affordable Housing Yes Yes No Yes ADUs Yes Yes Yes Yes
FUNDING MECHANISMS RDA TIF Yes No No N/A HOME Funds for Affordable Housing Assistances. No No No N/A Use of CDBG Funds No No No Yes General Fund Dollars No Yes No Yes Portion of Fees Dedicated to Affordable Housing Yes No Yes No Any Tax Receipts Earmarked for Affordable Housing Yes Yes No
Yes Suggestions for Other Policy or Programs
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 57
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Yes/No Comments on Results of Policy or Program INCENTIVES Hasn’t been utilized to date because the amount of density needed to make voluntary affordable units financially feasible is Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing Yes too high. Nonprofits have received fee waivers for affordable housing Fee Waivers or Reductions for Affordable projects. Also, city-sponsored developments have received fee Housing Yes waivers. Reduced Parking Requirement for Affordable Staff is working on amending Land Management Code to allow Housing No for reduced parking. Fast Track Processing for Affordable Housing No
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Public Land Donated for Affordable Housing Yes Park City has sponsored the development of 21 units, worked County or City Takes Lead as Affordable in partnership with a for-profit developer to complete 11 and Housing Developer Yes has an additional 129 units in the pipeline. County or City Purchases Housing for The city has exercised its option to purchase deed –restricted Workforce Yes units in foreclosure so as not to lose affordable units. The City owns and leases units on an interim basis to employees for recruitment and retention purposes. Monthly stipends and down-payment assistance is provided to make it County or City Provides Housing for possible for city employees to living within School District Employees Yes boundaries.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Deed Restrictions on Income Qualifications Yes Deed Restrictions for Local Employment Yes Inclusionary zoning is tied to negotiated developments only: Master Planned Developments and Annexations. This has resulted in housing obligations being required in 50% of all Inclusionary Zoning Yes development. Zoning Ordinances Supporting Affordable Housing Yes ADUs Yes Allowed by code, but HOAs tend to prohibit them.
FUNDING MECHANISMS The City utilizes RDA to build affordable housing projects. $40 Million (combination of RDA and resort tax proceeds) are RDA TIF Yes committed to affordable and attainable housing development. HOME Funds for Affordable Housing Park City isn’t an entitlement area and rarely ranks high Assistances. No enough to receive competitive discretionary funds. Use of CDBG Funds No See answer to HOME above General Fund Dollars No Portion of Fees Dedicated to Affordable Any fees in lieu collected via Inclusionary Zoning projects are Housing Yes dedicated to affordable housing projects. A small percentage of resort taxes are earmarked for Any Tax Receipts Earmarked for Affordable affordable housing projects. The funds are being used by the Housing Yes City to build affordable units.
Suggestions for Other Policy or Programs
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 58
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
HEBER CITY Yes/No Comments on Results of Policy or Program INCENTIVES The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requires 10% of all new residential developments to be affordable; a Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing Yes bonus density is offered to offset these costs. Fee Waivers or Reductions for Affordable The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance permits fee Housing Yes waivers to offset affordable housing requirements. Reduced Parking Requirement for Affordable Not offered as an incentive as per the City’s Affordable Housing No Housing Ordinance. Not offered as an incentive as per the City’s Affordable Fast Track Processing for Affordable Housing No Housing Ordinance. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Public Land Donated for Affordable Housing Yes Has not yet happened for the City, and the City would likely look to the Wasatch County Housing Authority to serve in that capacity. In the past, the City has supported CDBG applications for Wasatch County County or City Takes Lead as Affordable Housing Housing Authority led Affordable Housing developments Developer No (Elmbridge, Prestige 1 and Prestige 2). County or City Purchases Housing for Workforce No This has not occurred. County or City Provides Housing for Employees No This has not occurred. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Deed restrictions are required by the City’s Affordable Deed Restrictions on Income Qualifications Yes Housing Ordinance. The Wasatch County Housing Authority has a set of criteria for its low interest loans with a priority for local Deed Restrictions for Local Employment Yes employment. The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, adopted in Inclusionary Zoning Yes 2018, is a form of Inclusionary Zoning. Inclusionary housing is required. However, there are still some obstacles in the Zoning Ordinance that need to be Zoning Ordinances Supporting Affordable addressed, such as permitted uses, setbacks, parking, Housing Yes density, etc. ADUs Yes ADU’s are permitted in all residential zones. FUNDING MECHANISMS RDA TIF N/A The City does not have an RDA. HOME Funds for Affordable Housing Assistances. N/A Does not apply to Heber City The City applies for CDBG funding every couple of years or so to fund water and sewer lines (priority of the Use of CDBG Funds Yes Mountainlands Region). The City does not dedicate General Fund revenue to General Fund Dollars Yes Affordable Housing. The City does not dedicate a portion of fees to Affordable Portion of Fees Dedicated to Affordable Housing No Housing. Any Tax Receipts Earmarked for Affordable The City does not have tax receipts earmarked for Housing No Affordable Housing.
Suggestions for Other Policy or Programs
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 59
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WASATCH COUNTY Yes/No Comments on Results of Policy or Program INCENTIVES Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing No Fee Waivers or Reductions for Affordable Housing No Reduced Parking Requirement for Affordable Housing No Fast Track Processing for Affordable Housing No PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Public Land Donated for Affordable Housing No County or City Takes Lead as Affordable Housing Developer No County or City Purchases Housing for Workforce No County or City Provides Housing for Employees No DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Deed Restrictions on Income Qualifications No Deed Restrictions for Local Employment No Affordable units required but not counted toward project’s Inclusionary Zoning Yes total density. Zoning Ordinances Supporting Affordable Housing No ADUs Yes ADUs allowed but can’t be rented FUNDING MECHANISMS RDA TIF No HOME Funds for Affordable Housing Assistances. No Use of CDBG Funds No General Fund Dollars No Portion of Fees Dedicated to Affordable Housing Yes Fee-in-Lieu of required affordable housing in a project. Any Tax Receipts Earmarked for Affordable Housing
Suggestions for Other Policy or Programs
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 60
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS AND POLICIES SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Comments on Results of Policy or SUMMIT COUNTY Yes/No Program INCENTIVES Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers or Reductions for Community Development Fees/Not Affordable Housing Yes Impact Fees Reduced Parking Requirement for Could potentially happen through Affordable Housing No development agreements Fast Track Processing for Affordable Housing No None to date PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Public Land Donated for Affordable Housing Potentially Purchased 30 acre Cline Dahle Site County or City Takes Lead as Affordable Housing Developer Potentially Purchased 30 acre Cline Dahle Site County or City Purchases Housing for Bear Hollow Condo/Townhouse Buy Workforce Yes Back Program County or City Provides Housing for Employees No DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS We have approximately 800+ deed restricted units in the pipeline. Older, previously deed restricted ownership Deed Restrictions on Income units allowed too many loopholes and Qualifications Yes were not adequately enforced. Deed Restrictions for Local Employment Yes Inclusionary Zoning Yes Zoning Ordinances Supporting Affordable Housing Yes We will be deed restricting some future ADUs Yes ADUs in the Silver Creek Village project. FUNDING MECHANISMS None in Summit County. Park City uses RDA TIF No RDA and Tif funding HOME Funds for Affordable Housing Assistances No None that I am aware of Use of CDBG Funds No None for affordable housing General Fund Dollars Yes Cline Dahle Acquisition Portion of Fees Dedicated to Affordable Housing No Any Tax Receipts Earmarked for Affordable Housing Yes In lieu fees for Affordable Housing Self help programs through Mountainlands (Eastern Summit USDA Yes County) The LIHTC projects in Summit County LIHTC Programs have been very effective
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 61
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
APPENDIX
VITA James Wood
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 62
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
VITA
JAMES A. WOOD
P.O. Box 58107 Salt Lake City, Utah 84158
Phone: (801) 581-7165 (office), fax (801) 581-3354 (801) 583-0392 (residence)
EDUCATION University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; B.S. Finance, June 1967. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Graduate Student in Economics, 1970-1974.
MILITARY EXPERIENCE United States Army, Military Intelligence 1968-1970; Vietnam 1969-1970.
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE July 2015 to present Ivory Boyer Senior Fellow, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah. 2002 to 2015 June, Director, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. 1975 to 2002, Senior Research Analyst, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1975 to present, private consultant, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1974-1975 - Legislative Aide on economic issues for Senator Frank E. Moss, Washington, D.C. 1972-1974 - Research Analyst, Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1970 - Accountant, Jacobsen Construction Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1966-1967 - Accountant, Utah Idaho Sugar Company, Salt Lake City, Utah.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS Ex-Officio Member of the Board of Trustees Downtown Alliance Salt Lake City. Committee Member of Revenue Assumption Working Group, State of Utah. Board Member of NeighborWorks Salt Lake City President of Wasatch Economic Forum 2008-2009 Advisory Board Member of the Salt Lake County Housing Trust Fund 2009-2014 Board Member Salt Lake Home Builders Association Member Salt Lake County Consortium Housing (HOME) Committee
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS “The Year in Charts: Utah’s Housing Market in 2018,” Research Brief, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah, March 2019.
“What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affordability,” Gardner Business Review, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah, May 2018.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 63
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
“Housing Prices and the Threat to Affordability,” Research Brief, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah, March 2018.
“The Impact of Globalization on Utah: The Flow of Goods and People”, Research Report, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah, March 2017.
“Salt Lake County Real Estate Conditions and Forecast 2016-2017, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah, February 2017.
“Salt Lake City’s Downtown Rental Market: Past, Present, and Future, Research Brief, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah, October 2016.
“Salt Lake County Real Estate Market Conditions and Forecast 2015-2016”, Kem C. Gardner Public Policy Institute, Policy Brief, February 2016.
“Access to Opportunity in Wasatch Front Counties”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 75 Number 1, Winter 2015. Coauthored with DJ Benway. “The Great Recession: Utah’s Homebuilding and Real Estate Sectors”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 74 Number 2, Summer 2014.
Regional Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Choice (Salt Lake, Utah, Davis and Weber Counties). Funded by Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities Grant 2011-2014. Grant awarded to Salt Lake County and a research team composed of six participants including the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. The Regional Analysis of Impediments and Fair Housing Equity Assessment for entitlement jurisdictions was completed by a four-person team at the Bureau of Economic and Business Research under the direction of James Wood. Published May 2014.
"Salt Lake County Real Estate Market: Current Conditions and Forecast for 2012” Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 71 Number 4, Winter 2011.
“Nonresidential Construction: Past, Present and Future”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 70 Number 2, Summer 2010.
“Utah’s Home Building Industry: Recovery and Challenges”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 70 Number 1, Spring 2010.
Residential and Nonresidential Construction Trends and Forecast for Utah and Wasatch Front Counties. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Summit Materials, May 2010.
Utah’s Sports Sector: Economic Activity and Impact. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Utah’s Sports Commission. February 2010.
“Utah’s Housing Market: Present Perspective, Future Prospects”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 69 Number 1, Spring 2009.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 64
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
A Review of the Proposed Home Run Grant Program, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Utah’s Housing Action Coalition. February 2009.
Economic Impact of Bonding for Capital Facilities in Utah, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Commissioner’s Office of Higher Education. January 2009.
The Economic Impact of Thanksgiving Point on the Utah County Economy. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Thanksgiving Point Foundation. November 2008.
Foreclosures in Utah Likely to Hit Record. David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Foreclosure Prevention Taskforce, October 2008.
Economic Baseline Study for Vernal and Ashley Valley, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Tightline Community Resources, September 2008.
Pathways Project: A Study of the Cost of Services for Chronically Homeless Individuals in Salt Lake County. Funded by Utah State Department of Community and Culture, August 2008
The Changing Structure and Current Baseline of the Davis County Economy, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Davis County Community and Economic Development, June 2007.
Competitive Role of Commercial Development at the West Bench, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Kennecott Land. January 2007.
An Analysis of the Land Use and Value of Weber State University’s Mountainside Parcel, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Weber State University. Co-authored with Frank Lilly. December 2006.
The Changing Structure and Current Baseline of Draper City, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Draper City Office of Economic Development. Co-authored with Frank Lilly. September 2006.
West Bench Economic Impact: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Analysis, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Kennecott Land. Co-authored with Pam Perlich. October 2005.
Economic Impact of Affordable Housing: Construction, Rehabilitation and Assistance Programs, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Utah Housing Coalition, September 2004.
“The Utah Economy: Outlook and Review”, Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 64, Numbers 1 and 2, January/December 2004.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 65
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Affordable Housing in Utah Cities: New Construction, Building Fees and Zoning. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for Fannie Mae Utah Partnership Office, Utah Housing Corporation, Envision Utah and The Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund, June 2003.
Changing Economic Structure of Salt Lake City’s Central Business District, 1990 to 2002. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Prepared for The Downtown Alliance of Salt Lake City, 2002.
“The Impact of Changing Economics and Demographics on the Characteristics of New Homes and Housing Densities (Part II),” Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 61 Numbers 9 & 10, September/October 2001.
“Utah Residential Construction: A Look at Past and Present Construction Cycles (Part I),” Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 61, Numbers 1 &2, January/February 2001.
A Demand and Use Analysis of Research Park Land and Buildings 2000 to 2015. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for University of Utah Administration. Co-authored with Jan Crispin-Little, May 2000.
“Single-Family Construction Bucks Trend,” Utah Construction Report, Volume 42 No 2. April, May, June 1999, published by Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
“A Closer Look: Nonresidential Construction in Utah 1985 to 1998,” Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 59, Numbers 5 and 6, May/June 1999.
“Residential Construction Remains Surprisingly Strong,” Utah Construction Report, Volume 42 No 1. January, February, March 1999, published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
“Construction Value Reaches New High,” Utah Construction Report, Volume 41 No 4. October, November, December 1998, published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
“Retail Trends and the Need for Downtown Revitalization,” Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 58, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1998.
Gateway Retail Development and Downtown Revitalization. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Boyer Company and Salt Lake City Council, October 1998.
"Overview of Construction and Housing in the Utah Economy", Economic Report to the Governor, 1998.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 66
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Utah Technology Finance Corporation: Economic Development Policy and Economic Impacts. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Utah Technology Finance Corporation, June 1998. “ “Housing Prices and Affordability in Utah", Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 57 Numbers 5 and 6, May/June 1997.
Demographic and Economic Trends for Utah, U.S., the Rocky Mountain Region and Hermes' Market Areas. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Hermes Associates. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. March 1997.
"Housing Price Trends in Utah 1980-1996", Economic Report to the Governor, 1997. Impediments to Low and Moderate Income Housing in Unincorporated Salt Lake County and Selected Municipalities. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report for Salt Lake County Office of Economic Development and Job Training. December 1996.
The University of Utah Research Park: A Review of Policy and History. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared University of Utah Research Park Administration, December 1996.
Demographic and Economic Trends and Forecasts for Utah and Idaho. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Oldcastle Materials. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. February 1996.
"Construction Cycles in Utah" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55 Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1995.
"Losing Ground: Housing Affordability and Low-Income Renters in Utah", Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55 Numbers 9 and 10, September/October 1995.
"The Performance of Wage Rates in Utah 1982-1993" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 55 Numbers 3 and 4, March/April 1995. Coauthored with Kenneth E. Jensen, Utah Department of Employment Security.
Demographic, Economic and Export Statistics for the Salt Lake City Airport Authority. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Reported prepared for Salt Lake Airport Authority. May 1995.
A Study of the Custom Fit Training Program. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah. Report prepared for Utah State Office of Education. Coauthored with Jan Crispin-Little. March 1995.
"Utah Wage Levels" Economic Report to the Governor, 1995. Coauthored with Kenneth Jensen.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 67
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
"Management of State Trust Lands in Washington County" Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 54, Numbers 7 and 8, July/August 1994. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1994.
"The Changing Demographic and Economic Structure of Washington County, 1970-1993." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 54, Numbers 1 and 2, January/February 1994. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1994.
An Economic Analysis for the Management of State Lands in Washington County. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of State Lands and Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah, March 1994.
"Economic Impact of Utah Housing Finance Agency's New Residential Mortgage Programs" Utah of Economic and Business Review, Volume 53, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1993. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah December, 1993.
Economic Analysis for the Salt Lake Courts Complex. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Facilities and Construction Management, Department of Administrative Services, State of Utah, October 1992.
"Economic Well-Being of Utah Households: 1979-1989" Utah Business and Economic Review, Volume 52, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May, 1992. Coauthored with R. Thayne Robson. Bureau of Economic and Business Review, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, May 1992.
Economic Impact of the Utah Technology Finance Corporation on the Utah Economy. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin. Report prepared for the Utah Technology Finance Corporation, State of Utah, 1992.
"Manufacturing in the West Since World War II." Utah Business and Economic Review, Volume 51, Number 3, March 1991. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1991.
"Utah's Adjustment to Declining Defense Budgets." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50, Numbers 11 and 12, November/December 1990. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.
"Utah's Electronics Industry." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50, Number 9, September 1990. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.
Electronics Target Industry Study. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1990.
"Report on Women-Owned Business in Utah." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 50, Number 3, March 1990. Coauthored with Rose Ann Watson. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1990.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 68
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Report on Women-Owned Business in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Women's Business Development Office, Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1990.
"Utah Housing Finance Agency: The Economic Impact of Mortgage Programs for New Residential Units." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 49, Number 9, September 1989. Bureau of Economic and Business Review, University of Utah, 1989.
Economic Impact of Utah Housing Finance Agency Programs on the Utah Economy. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Utah Housing Finance Agency, 1989; annual report 1989 to present.
"Utah's Aerospace Industry." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 49, Number 8, August 1989. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1989.
Utah's Aerospace Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with John Brereton. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1989.
The Economic Impact of a Catastrophic Earthquake on Utah's Financial Institutions. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management, Financial Institution Emergency Preparedness Committee, June 1989.
Public Education and Economic Development. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1989.
The Characteristics and Potential of the Health Care and Weight Control/Fitness Industries of St. George. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Prepared for St. George City, October 1988.
Economic Profile Summit County/Park City. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report Prepared for Summit County/Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, September 1988.
The Economic Impact on Utah of the U.S. Petroleum Corporation's Wax Processing Plant. Report for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, October 1987.
Projected Employment Growth Rates for State Government. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Wallace Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 1987.
A Proposal for US West Advanced Technologies. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with Jan Elise Crispin and Shipley Associates. Prepared for Division of
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 69
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1987.
"The Utah Housing Market: Demographic and Economic Trends." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 47, Number 3, March 1987. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, March 1987.
Utah as a Location for Frozen Prepared Food Manufacturing. Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of Utah. Prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1986.
Capital Flow in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1986. Report prepared for Governor's Economic Development Conference, February 1986.
The Strategy and Economic Impact for the Development of a Western Town in Moab Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, June 1985.
"The Changing Conditions of The Salt Lake County Apartment Market." Utah Economic and Business Research, Volume 45, Number 3, March 1985. Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of Utah, 1985.
"Utah's Expanding Service Sector," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 44, Number 9, September 1984. Coauthored with Constance C. Steffan. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, September 1984.
Electronics Target Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, September 1984.
"Salt Lake County Apartment Construction Activity," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 44, Number 6, June 1984. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1984.
Service Sector Target Industry Study. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, May 1984. Coauthored with Constance C. Steffan. Report prepared for Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, May 1984.
Survey of Utah's Exporting Firms. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1983. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1983.
Market Feasibility Study for Apartment Development. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Triad Utah, December 1983.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 70
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Market Feasibility Study for Luxury Condominiums. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Triad Utah, October 1983.
"Natural Resource Development and Small Business Opportunities in the Uintah Basin." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 43, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May 1983. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1983.
Natural Resource Development and Small Business Opportunities in the Uintah Basin. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Small Business Development Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 1983.
"The Electronics/Information Processing Industry in Utah," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 42, Number 10, October 1982. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1982.
The Electronic Components and Information Processing Industry and State Industrial Development Programs. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1982. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1982.
"Utah Homebuilding: Decline, Structural Changes, and Demand Factors." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 42, Number 9, September 1982. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1982.
"Utah's Thrust Belt: Exploration, Development and Economic Impacts." Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 41, Number 1, January 1981. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1981.
Demand for Cold and Frozen Storage in Utah and the Mountain States. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for the Division of Business and Economic Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1980.
Proposed Industrial Park Development in Grand County. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Report prepared for Division of Economic and Industrial Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, October 1979.
Utah Labor Market Conditions for Manufacturing Assemblers and Electronic Technicians 1979. Coauthored with Randy Rogers and Ronda Brinkerhoff. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1979.
Utah: A Profitable Location for Headquarters and Administrative Office Facilities, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, September 1979. Report prepared for Division of Economic and Industrial Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1979.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 71
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Utah Demand for Bricks 1978, 1985, 1990. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with Mark Linford. Report prepared for Interstate Brick, Entrada Industries, July 1979.
Market Feasibility Study for Kaolin Clay Production in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, May 1979. Coauthored with Mark Linford. Report prepared for Office of Small Business Development, Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah, 1979.
Utah: A Profitable Location for the Machinery Industry. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1978. Report prepared for Division of Industrial Development, Department of Development Services, State of Utah, 1978.
"Demand for Housing in Salt Lake County." Real Estate Activities in Salt Lake Davis, Weber, Utah and Cache Counties, Fall 1978. Utah Real Estate Research Committee and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1978.
An Analysis of the Clay Roofing Tile Market in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1978. Report prepared for Interstate Brick, Entrada Industries, March 1978.
Sandy: An Economic Profile and Land Use Requirements. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. Coauthored with John Brereton and Randall Rogers. Report prepared for Sandy City Planning Office, January, 1977.
Demand for Selected Steel Products. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, October 1976. Coauthored with Dwight Israelsen, Robert Wood and Randall Rogers. Report prepared for Steelco Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1976.
A Study of the Economic Potential of the Great Salt Lake State Park. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, September 1976. Coauthored with John Brereton and Janet Kiholm. Report prepared for Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, State of Utah, 1976.
Married Student Housing Survey. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, August 1976. Report prepared for Housing Management, University of Utah, 1976.
"The Changing Composition of the State Budget," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 36, Numbers 4 and 5, April/May 1976. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1976.
"Utah Building Activity 1970-1975." Real Estate Activities in Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah and Cache Counties, Fall 1975. Coauthored with Kathy Watanabe. Utah Real Estate Research Committee and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1975.
"Condominium Developments in Utah," Utah Economic and Business Review, Volume 34, Number 9, September 1974. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, 1974.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 72
Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties
Electronics Industry: Location Potential in Utah. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, June 1973. Coauthored with Jean H. Hanssen. Report prepared for the Division of Industrial Development, Department of Development Services, State of Utah, 1973.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust 73
Attachment 6 State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Annual Moderate Income Housing Report & 5 Year Needs Assessment
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
1 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
A) rezone for densities necessary to assure the production of moderate income housing;
Policy 6.1: Identify and implement a wide range of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Such strategies may include: a. Increasing allowed densities for affordable housing projects where appropriate and where adequate levels of services and amenities and transit can be provided, or the impact otherwise mitigated.
The County rezoned property in support of the Lincoln Station project that will result in 78 multi-family residential units 47 market units, 31 deed restricted affordable units (<=80% AMI) 5,000 sf commercial building. The County also negotiated an Affordable Housing Agreement with the Applicant and will record specific deed restrictions for the subject property to preserve long-term affordability.
The Applicant, through the County’s CUP process is considering revising the project to develop 76 multi-family residential units 24 market units, 31 deed restricted affordable units (<=80% AMI), 21 deed restricted attainable (middle income) units (81%-120% AMI) and a 5,144 sf commercial building. The Affordable Housing Agreement will need to be augmented as per the CUP and new Deed Restrictions recorded for the subject property.
Applicant: Finalize the project design and unit configuration and income targets. Summit County Community Development Department: Review Construction Drawings and CUP Summit County Housing Director and Office of County Attorney: prepare and record Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions.
Applicant: Finalize the project design and unit configuration and income targets. Summit County Community Development Department: Review Construction Drawings and CUP Summit County Housing Director and Office of County Attorney: prepare and record Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Summit County has extended resources from the County’s Legal, Community Development, Economic Development and Public Works Department in support of the project. On-going project monitoring will be provided by the Economic Development and Legal Department with regards to the recorded Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions.
Applicant: Finalize the project design and unit configuration and income targets. (Subject to project financing & market conditions, YR 2020) Summit County Community Development Department: Review Construction Drawings and CUP (Timing is based on a complete application) Summit County Housing Director and Office of County Attorney: prepare and record Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions. (Will be amended and/or completed within 6 weeks of a fully entitlted project.)
A rezone and CUP has been approved for the project. However, the project may be amended/augmented as per the Applicant.
The density of the planned project is difficult to accommodate while trying to comply with the various height, parking and setback requirements required by the Snyderville Basin Development Code. Also, project financing is also challenging for all affordable projects.
In the Snyderville Basin, the County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code, which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The County has used the assessment district process in support of the Canyon’s Village Master Plan update.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surpluses at the 50% and 80% AMI. This is not consistent with the CHAS Data Gap Analysis or the Assessment prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
40 Units Annually from 2020-20241 30 Units Annually from 2020-20241 53 Units Annually from 2020-20241 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects targeted for this income group <30% AMI unfeasible; the project would not "pencil out." If the County creates a new Housing Authority and is able to qualify applicants who might obtain potential “housing choice” vouchers, they would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
2 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
B) Facilitate the rehabilitation or expansion of infrastructure that will encourage the construction of moderate income housing.
Policy 6.8: Support the use of private, local, state, and federal assistance for housing development or preservation. Summit County in concert with TCFC and the Canyons Village Master Association created an Assessment District as part of the new Canyons Village Master Plan.
The Assessment District will result in the development of 169 Units (1158 pillows) of workforce housing. Tenants will be income qualified at < 80% AMI. The County also acquired a park and ride lot in support of the County’s transit system. Canyon’s Village Assessment District (Resolution 2017-28) . Notice of Assessment Interest and Notice of Proposed Assessment recorded on February 22, 2018 ($26,136,364). Assessment Bond: • Canyons Resort Drive ($3,107,995) • LV6 Purchase ($14,392,005) • Ecker Hill Park & Ride Lot and associated Kilby Road improvements ($5,500,000). The LV6 purchase was used to acquire the land for the development of 1,107 pillows of workforce housing.
Workforce housing agreement provisions were included as a requirement of the Development Agreement amendment process. Additionally, associated project timelines, tenant income qualification requirements and progress plan milestones were included in the development agreement amendment. The plans for the 169 unit project were submitted by the CVMA in 2019. The construction is to be completed by 2023.
The Assessment District will finance the the redesign of Canyons Resort Drive, acquire parcel LV6 for the development of Workforce Housing (169 units) and the development of the Ecker Hill Park & Ride Lot and associated Kilby Road improvements. The Park and Ride project is complete, development plans have been submitted for the workforce housing project (2019) and the redesign of Canyon’s Resort Drive is under design.
The Canyon’s Village Master Association (CVMA), are the developers of the 169 unit, 1,158 pillow project. They are responsible for the required project entitlements and submittals. To date, everything is on schedule to be completed by 2023. Summit County Community Development will review the plans/drawings for project compliance. The Economic Development and Legal Department will enforce the income qualification requirements.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Summit County extended resources from the County’s Legal, Community Development, Finance, Economic Development and Public Works Department in support of the project. On-going project monitoring will be provided by the Economic Development and Legal Department with regards to the 169 unit rental project. The Public Works Department will also continue to support the project as required by the Development Agreement.
The CVMA submitted the development plans for the 169 unit workforce housing project in 2019. They are required to construction the project by 2023. Although the obligation is be completed by 2023, the CVMA plans to complete 50% percent by 2022.
The CVMA have submitted plans in accordance with the Canyons Village Development Agreement Amendment. The County’s Community Development Department are now engaged in reviewing the project plans. The Park and Ride lot is now complete.
The Park and Ride and Kilby Road improvements are now complete. The Park and Ride utilization was high during special events like Sundance Film Festival. As the Jeremy Ranch roundabouts are completed, increased use of the Park and Ridge is expected. No unexpected outcomes are associated with the Workforce Housing Project to date.
In the Snyderville Basin, the County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code, which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The County has used the assessment district process in support of the Canyon’s Village Master Plan update.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surpluses at the 50% and 80% AMI. This is not consistent with the CHAS Data Gap Analysis or the Assessment prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
40 Units Annually from 2020-20241 30 Units Annually from 2020-20241 53 Units Annually from 2020-20241 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects targeted for this income group <30% AMI unfeasible; the project would not "pencil out." If the County creates a new Housing Authority and is able to qualify applicants who might obtain potential “housing choice” vouchers, they would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
3 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
D) Consider County general fund subsidies or other sources of revenue to waive construction related fees that are otherwise generally imposed by the county; The County Manager has the ability to waive fees associated with the Community Development Department. In 2019, the County Manager waived fees in support of Mountainlands Community Housing Trust project in Silvercreek Village and the Utah Olympic Park Workforce /Athlete Housing Project. Policy 6.7: Support nonprofit agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing, and related services to low and moderate income households.
The fee waivers to Mountainlands Community Housing Trust will aid in the development of 64 workforce units. 50% of the affordable housing projects in Silver Creek Village will be <80% AMI and 50% <60% AMI. :Phase I of the UOP will result in 30 units (8 Workforce Units, 7-Year Around Athlete, 15 – Seasonal Athlete).
The majority of workforce/affordable housing developments in Summit County require the execution of a workforce housing agreement and the recordation of associated deed restrictions. Summit County requests a copy of the monthly rent roll for rental projects that are developed using these tools.
Key tasks include the applicant’s obtaining the necessary development entitlements. The execution of the housing agreement is part of this process as well as the recordation of the associated deed restrictions. The fee waivers are requested /granted based upon the public benefit of the proposed project.
The County’s Community Development Department, Economic Development Department, Legal Department, County Manager and various applicants and their staff are responsible for completing the key tasks of each stage of the project.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Staff resources include representatives from the Community Development, Economic Development, Legal, and County Manager. Financial resources require that a budget line item for fees that are (reimbursed or uncollected) be made available to support the project.
Both the Mountainlands Community Housing Trust and the Utah Olympic Park (UOP) project have obtained their required development entitlements. And, both have executed an affordable housing agreement with the County. Deed restrictions have been developed for the Silver Creek Condominium project and deed restrictions are in the process of development for the UOP project. Monthly rent rolls have also been requested from the UOP.
The UOP project has received its certificate of occupancy and soliciting tenants. MCHT’s 64 condos are now under construction. Because these are early stage projects, the results and project impacts on housing affordability will be evaluated upon completion and after the UOP has had an opportunity to acquire tenants.
Affordable/workforce projects always take more time than both parties anticipate. Project entitlements, public hearings, associated housing agreements and deed restrictions all take time to negotiate. During this time, markets can also change which might mean a given project will need to augment its project.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The Silver Creek Village project requirements for affordable/workforce housing were negotiated as part of Development Agreement which requires a total of 330 affordable/workforce units to be constructed.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surpluses at the 50% and 80% AMI. This is not consistent with the CHAS Data Gap Analysis or the Assessment prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
40 Units Annually from 2020-20241 30 Units Annually from 2020-20241 53 Units Annually from 2020-20241 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects targeted for this income group <30% AMI unfeasible; the project would not "pencil out."out" If the County creates a new Housing Authority and is able to qualify applicants who might obtain potential “housing choice” vouchers, they would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
4 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
E) Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, accessory dwelling units in residential zones.
Policy 6.2: Encourage the private sector to build affordable housing.
Both the County’s Development Codes allow for the development of ADUs. Summit County sees ADUs as a tool for increasing housing affordability in Summit County. The Silver Creek Village project is the first project where ADUs will be deed restricted and serve <60% AMI. Internal, attached, and detached ADUs all have the potential to increase housing affordability (both for homeowners and tenants), create a wider range of housing options within the community, enable seniors to stay near family as they age, and facilitate better use of the existing housing fabric in established neighborhoods.
Summit County tracks building permits by type. However, the Silver Creek Village project will be the first project where ADUs are being deed restricted for tenants earning <80% ADU in combination with a market rate home on the same property. Staff will execute both a housing agreement and associated deed restriction to ensure long term affordability. The first units in Silver Creek on going through the County’s entitlement process.
Each unit needs to obtain the required building permits and record the required deed restrictions for each targeted property. This requires both staff and the applicants to work together–especially with regards to the process involved to income qualify tenants. New home owners will be required to income qualify (or contract for the service) another individual/family who desires to rent the ADU. Most home buyers have limited experience regarding Area Median Income (AMI) income qualifications.
The project developer, home buyer, County and prospective tenants need to all be in the same page with regards to using ADUs as deed/income restricted housing. Because of the State of Utah’s protections regarding short-term rentals, these units are often offered as STR as the ROI may be greater than renting to a long-term tenant.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development and Legal Departments will be involved throughout the entitlement and on-going monitoring of the project. Additionally, home buyers may need assistance with income qualification and finding tenants.
The primary key deadlines are created as each unit is submitted to the County for review and approval. The various merchant developers will bring these units forward as infrastructure and their own internal project plans are finalized. County staff will respond as required.
The County is currently reviewing specific lots in Silver Creek Village for the development of ADUs on the same lot as a market rate unit. Once these units are approved by the Community Development Department, the Economic Development and Legal Department will prepare a specific deed restriction for the subject property. We should have some of these units completely entitled by the end of December 2019 or the first quarter of 2020.
No results are yet available to evaluate the current approach. We expect to have some results by mid 2020. However, (non deed restricted) ADUs are being used in Summit County for a variety of housing purposes.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The Silver Creek Village project requirements for affordable/workforce housing were negotiated as part of Development Agreement which requires a total of 330 affordable/workforce units to be constructed.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 4040 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 3030 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 53 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
1 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
E) Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, accessory dwelling units in residential zones.
Policy 7.1 (h.): Explore a Fee Deferral Program and/or other incentives for Deed-Restricted ADUs.
Both the County’s Development Codes allow for the development of ADUs. Summit County sees ADUs as a tool for increasing housing affordability in Summit County. Internal, attached, and detached ADUs all have the potential to increase housing affordability (both for homeowners and tenants), create a wider range of housing options within the community, enable seniors to stay near family as they age, and facilitate better use of the existing housing fabric in established neighborhoods. Because Eastern Summit County has limited infrastructure, ADUs offer the best prospect for increasing affordable units.
Summit County tracks building permits by type. Staff will execute both a housing agreement and associated deed restriction to ensure long term affordability for ADUs that are deed restricted at <80% AMI. Because ADUs are often used as Short-term rentals (STRs), homeowners may be willing to lease long-term to <80% AMI populations if planning/building permit fees or other incentives are integrated into the County’s Development Code.
Each unit needs to obtain the required building permits and record the required deed restrictions for each targeted property. This requires both staff and the applicants to work together–especially with regards to the process involved to income qualify tenants. New home owners will be required to income qualify (or contract for the service) another individual/family who desires to rent the ADU. Most home buyers have limited experience regarding Area Median Income (AMI) income qualifications.
The project developer, home buyer, County and prospective tenants need to all be in the same page with regards to using ADUs as deed/income restricted housing. Because of the State of Utah’s protections regarding short-term rentals, these units are often offered as STR as the ROI may be greater than renting to a long-term tenant.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development and Legal Departments will be involved throughout the entitlement and on-going monitoring of deed restricted ADUs.. Additionally, home buyers may need assistance with income qualification and finding tenants.
The primary key deadlines are created as each unit is submitted to the County for review and approval. Homeowners and various merchant developers will bring these units forward as infrastructure and their own internal project plans are finalized. County staff will respond as required.
If any units are approved by the Community Development Department, the Economic Development and Legal Department will prepare a specific affordable housing agreement and deed restriction for the subject property.
Deed restricted ADUs would be a new product for Eastern Summit County. However, (non deed restricted) ADUs are being used in Summit County for a variety of housing purposes.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
2 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
(N) participate in a community land trust program for low or moderate income housing;
Policy 7.1 (b.): Consider mechanisms to provide a realistic opportunity to meet estimated housing needs within Eastern Summit County, including a variety of housing types and affordability.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust (MCHT) has administered “self help” programs in Eastern Summit County that have facilitated the development of 160+ single family homes. Applicants must income qualify to participate in the program. Summit County maintains a contract with MCHT.
Summit County maintains a contract with MCHT. The budget contract amount for YR2020 is $55K. As part of the contract, MCHT agrees to maintain a list of potential purchasers of affordable housing units and contact such persons as appropriate (for itself and/or on behalf of the County) regarding re-sale and other housing opportunities.
This program is on-going. The greatest challenge to MCHT are acquiring lots at a price point where the “self-help” program can be implemented. Also, income qualifying individuals/families who are willing to commit to the required sweat equity requirements requires time and patience to close transactions. The majority of these developments occur in partnership cities where infrastructure is available.
MCHT and potential buyers. Sweat equity reduces the amount of paid labor needed for a house, which in turn helps reduce cost. Additionally, time spent building their own homes instills a sense of pride and ownership, teaching the basic building and house-maintenance skills that are necessary for homeownership.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Economic Development and Legal Departments prepare and manage the contract with Mountianlands Community Housing Trust.
Summit County will issue a new contract to MCHT in December 2019. The contract has five (5) areas of focus: (1) Database Management (2) Monitoring (3) Resource, Communication and Educations Programs (4) Condo/Townhome Purchase/Resell Program and (5) Special Projects. The contract requires that payments be made twice a year in June and October.
Summit County has maintained a contract with Mountainlands Community Housing Trust (MCHT) for 5+ years. Mountainlands has provided services as outlined in d. above and has also acted in the capacity as a developer of Moderate Income Housing.
Organizational capacity and perceived conflicts of interest (developer vs. advisor) may present a barrier. However, the County’s contract should create the necessary separation to mitigate any perceived conflict to a level of insignificance.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
3 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
(P) Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of moderate income housing;
Policy 7.1 (i.): Examine any potential programs or partnerships with the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) for the creation of moderate-income housing opportunities.
Mountainland Association of Governments prepares the 5-year Consolidated Housing Plan. The last plan was adopted in 2015. As such, a new plan will be under development in 2020. Mountainland also administers Federal CDBG funds for the Summit County region. As such, there may be opportunities to locate potential infrastructure funding for the proposed Cedar Crest Village Overlay Area in Hoytsville. The Cedar Crest project should consider deed restricted workforce housing as part of its development.
This is a newly adopted goal (Nov 2019). However, the Community Development and Public Works team working on the Cedar Crest project should meet with Mountainland Association of Governments in the first quarter of 2020 to discuss potential infrastructure funding.
Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) - Responds to Inquiries from the Summit County and Cedar Crest Village Overlay Committee as requested. Summit County should meet with MAG the first quarter of 2020 regarding potential CDBG funding for infrastructure in support of the Cedar Crest Village Overlay Zone project.
Summit County Community Development, Economic Development, Public Works and Legal should initiate contact with MAG once the preferred design alternative has been developed and the infrastructure loading has been calculated.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development, Public Works and Legal Departments would be involved if the County were successful in securing a CDBG grant in support of infrastructure for the Cedar Crest project.
The Cedar Crest project is currently being developed via Committee. Once the agreed upon design elements and planned infrastructure have been identified, Summit County (and Committee Members) should meet with Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), to discuss the opportunity to apply for CDBG funding in support of infrastructure development for the Cedar Crest project. This should occur during the first quarter of 2020.
The Cedar Crest project is currently in the concept design phase. Summit County also has an infrastructure study underway. Once these studies are complete, Summit County and the Committee will meet with Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) to discuss potential funding opportunities.
No data is available for this project goal as it was just recently adopted in November 2019. Staff will report on the direction of the project in the 2020 Annual Moderate Income Report.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
4 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
(V) Consider any other program or strategy implemented by the county to address the housing needs of residents of the county who earn less than 80% of the area median income.
Policy 7.1 (c.): Consider incentives such as fee-waivers and density increases to encourage private sector development of moderate income housing.
The Summit County Manager has the ability to waive community development fees. If projects are proposed in Eastern Summit County that serve Moderate Income households <80% AMI, a fee waiver program should be evaluated based on the level of public benefit. Potential infrastructure funding should also be evaluated in concert with partnership communities in Eastern Summit County.
Most unincorporated lands within Eastern Summit County have limited development potential because of the lack of available infrastructure. However, there may be future opportunities to partner with cities/towns in Eastern Summit County if potential development would be income restricted to populations <80% AMI.
Once the Eastern Summit County Infrastructure study is complete, Summit County should meet with the Council of Governments to see if there is an opportunity for partnership. Summit County could potentially contribute funding towards infrastructure in exchange for partnership cities/towns increasing the supply of income/deed restricted Moderate-Income housing. The Council of Governments meets quarterly.
Summit County Council of Governments, Summit County Public Works, Economic Development, Community Development, Legal and the Office of the County Manager will all be involved in evaluating potential Moderate-Income opportunities.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development, Public Works, Legal Departments and Office of the County Manager could potentially be involved with the Council of Governments once the Eastern Summit County Infrastructure Study is complete.
The next Council of Governments meeting will occur in the first quarter of 2020. The County’s infrastructure study should also be complete by the first quarter of 2020.
The Eastern Summit County Infrastructure Study is underway. It should be complete by the first quarter of 2020. No results can be gathered until the study is complete and a plan developed in concert with Eastern Summit County partnership communities. The Cedar Crest Village Overlay project also represents an opportunity site.
No data is available for this project goal as the Eastern Summit County Infrastructure Study is not yet complete.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Attachment 7
Ordinance No. 904, Eastern Summit County General Plan Amendments
SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH ORDINANCE NO. 904
AMENDING THE EASTERN SUMMIT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN RELATED TO CHAPTER 7, “MODERATE INCOME HOUSING”
WHEREAS, the current Eastern Summit County General Plan (“General Plan”) was adopted on August 14, 2013 by Ordinance 813; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, as required by Utah law, includes Chapter 7, “Moderate Income Housing,” the goal of which is to “[p]romote a mix of housing types and availability”; and
WHEREAS, the Utah State legislature adopted Senate Bill 34 during the 2019 legislative session, which requires counties and municipalities to include specific moderate-income housing strategies, as outlined in the bill, that must be included in a jurisdiction’s general plan in order to be considered for certain state transportation funding; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 34 also requires such general plan updates in order to meet certain reporting requirements that must be turned into to Utah Workforce Services by December 1, 2019; and
WHEREAS, while the current General Plan does meet some of the moderate-income housing strategies outlined in Senate Bill 34, further General Plan updates are needed in order to meet the State’s reporting requirements; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2019, the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to Chapter 7, “Moderate Income Housing” of the General Plan and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Summit County Council on changes to Chapter 7 of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Summit County Council held a public hearing on proposed changes to Chapter 7 of the General Plan on November 25, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the revised General Plan is consistent with the required changes outlined in Senate Bill 34 and is in the best interests of the citizens of unincorporated Eastern Summit County.
NOW THEREFORE, the County Legislative Body of the County of Summit, the State of Utah, hereby ordains the following:
Section 1. EASTERN SUMMIT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN The Eastern Summit County General Plan is amended as depicted in Exhibit A.
Attachment 7
Ordinance No. 904, Eastern Summit County General Plan Amendments
Section 2. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the date of its publication.
APPROVED, ADOPTED, PASSED and ordered published by the Summit County Council, this 25th day of November, 2019.
SUMMIT COUNTY COUNCIL SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH
By: ______Council Chair
Councilor Carson voted ______Councilor Armstrong voted ______Councilor McMullin voted ______Councilor Robinson voted ______Councilor Ure voted ______
Attachment 7
Ordinance No. 904, Eastern Summit County General Plan Amendments
EXHBIT A
Attachment 7
Ordinance No. 904, Eastern Summit County General Plan Amendments
Chapter 7 - Moderate Income Housing
7.1 GOAL: Promote a mix of housing types and availability. a. Periodically review and update the Housing Needs Assessment (technical appendix) to ensure that housing needs are identified as they change over time. b. Consider mechanisms to provide a realistic opportunity to meet estimated housing needs within Eastern Summit County, including a variety of housing types and affordability. c. Consider incentives such as fee-waivers and density increases to encourage private sector development of moderate income housing. d. Encourage moderate income housing development close to existing services and infrastructure. e. Clarify the intention and development standards for seasonal dwelling units in the Development Code. f. Ensure that housing is affordable to households earning 80% of the median income for Eastern Summit County, not the median income as affected by the Snyderville Basin and Park City. g. Incorporate the definition of “Middle Income Housing” in the Development Code and other policy documents. h. Explore a Fee Deferral Program and/or other incentives for Deed-Restricted ADUs. i. Examine any potential programs or partnerships with the Mountainlands Association of Governments (MAG) for the creation of moderate-income housing opportunities.
Attachment 8
Ordinance No. 905, Snyderville Basin General Plan Amendments
SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH ORDINANCE NO. 905
AMENDING THE SNYDERVILLE BASIN GENERAL PLAN RELATED TO CHAPTER 6, “HOUSING ELEMENT”
WHEREAS, the current Snyderville Basin General Plan (“General Plan”) was adopted on June 17, 2015 by Ordinance 839; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, as required by Utah law, includes Chapter 6, “Housing Element,” the purpose of which is to “[p]rovide equal housing opportunities for all residents of the [Snyderville] Basin by facilitating reasonable opportunities for a variety of housing, including low and moderate income housing”; and
WHEREAS, the Utah State legislature adopted Senate Bill 34 during the 2019 legislative session, which requires counties and municipalities to include specific moderate-income housing strategies, as outlined in the bill, that must be included in a jurisdiction’s general plan in order to be considered for certain state transportation funding; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 34 also requires such general plan updates in order to meet certain reporting requirements that must be turned into to Utah Workforce Services by December 1, 2019; and
WHEREAS, while the current General Plan does meet some of the moderate-income housing strategies outlined in Senate Bill 34, further General Plan updates are needed in order to meet the State’s reporting requirements; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019, the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to Chapter 6, “Housing Element” of the General Plan and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Summit County Council on changes to Chapter 6 of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Summit County Council held a public hearing on proposed changes to Chapter 6 of the General Plan on November 25, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the revised General Plan is consistent with the required changes outlined in Senate Bill 34 and is in the best interests of the citizens of the Snyderville Basin.
NOW THEREFORE, the County Legislative Body of the County of Summit, the State of Utah, hereby ordains the following:
Section 1. SNYDERVILLE BASIN GENERAL PLAN The Snyderville Basin General Plan is amended as depicted in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the date of its publication.
APPROVED, ADOPTED, PASSED and ordered published by the Summit County Council, this 25th day of November, 2019.
SUMMIT COUNTY COUNCIL SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH
By: ______Council Chair
Councilor Carson voted ______Councilor Armstrong voted ______Councilor McMullin voted ______Councilor Robinson voted ______Councilor Ure voted ______
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 6 Housing and Moderate-Income Housing Element
GOAL: Provide equal housing opportunities to meet the needs of people of various income levels living, working, or desiring to live or work in for all residents of the Basin by facilitating reasonable opportunities for a variety of housing, including low and moderate income housing.
OBJECTIVE A: Develop strategies to ensure that an adequate supply of housing is provided that meets the needs of various moderate and low -income groups living, working, or desiring to live or work in the Basin identified in the Housing Needs Assessment and/or Department of Workforce Services database, as updated.
Policy 6.1: Identify and implement a wide range of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Such strategies may include:
a) Increasing allowed densities for affordable housing projects where appropriate and where adequate levels of services and amenities and transit can be provided, or the impact otherwise mitigated.
b) Requiring new residential development to allocate a percentage of the units to be affordable.
c) Requiring commercial, industrial, and resort projects to provide housing for a percentage of their projected workforce.
d) Requiring a long term commitment of affordability.
e) Cooperating with surrounding jurisdictions in the development and implementation of regional affordable housing strategies.
f) Explore the creation of a Summit County Housing Authority and/or regional housing authority.
g) Potentially provide land as a public subsidy and build development partnerships.
h) Incorporate the definition of “Middle Income Housing” in the Development Code and other policy documents.
i) Beginning in 2020, conduct a biennial review of Chapter 5, Affordable Housing, Snyderville Basin Development Code and update the County’s inclusionary housing ordinance as necessary.
Policy 6.2: Encourage the private sector to build affordable housing.
Policy 6.3: Support a variety of housing consisting of a balance of types of housing, styles of housing, ownership category, unit sizes, and a range of affordability.
Policy 6.4: Study and implement strategies to achieve attainable housing in the Basin.
Policy 6.5: Allow the development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, group homes, community housing, emergency shelter and transitional housing, and supported living facilities for the elderly and persons with special housing needs, taking into consideration the proximity to public transportation, shopping, medical services, and other essential support services for the elderly and others with special needs.
Policy 6.6: Allow the development of seasonal housing to address the needs of the resort economy, through cooperation with current and future employers and housing agencies in the area.
Policy 6.7: Support nonprofit agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing, and related services to low and moderate income households.
Policy 6.8: Support the use of private, local, state, and federal assistance for housing development or preservation.
OBJECTIVE B: Support strategies that allow persons with moderate and low incomes to benefit from and fully participate in all aspects of neighborhood and community life.
Policy 6.9: Encourage in-fill housing development in mixed use areas that offer residents easy access to goods, services, jobs, transportation, and recreation.
Policy 6.10: Encourage and incentivize the distribution of workforce housing throughout the Snyderville Basin. The County will use financing strategies and land use tools to encourage and incentivize the geographic distribution and neighborhood integration of new affordable housing units. Program guidelines that support the development of new workforce housing will include zoning mechanisms to incentivize the geographic distribution and neighborhood integration of workforce housing to achieve the objectives of the MIHP.
Attachment 9
SUMMIT COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2019 MODERATE INCOME HOUSING REPORT FOR SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-31
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE SUMMIT COUNTY COUNCIL THAT:
WHEREAS, the current Snyderville Basin General Plan was adopted on June 17, 2015 by Ordinance 839; and
WHEREAS, the Snyderville Basin General Plan, as required by Utah law, includes Chapter 6, “Housing Element,” the purpose of which is to “[p]rovide equal housing opportunities for all residents of the [Snyderville] Basin by facilitating reasonable opportunities for a variety of housing, including low and moderate income housing”; and
WHEREAS, the current Eastern Summit County General Plan was adopted on August 14, 2013 by Ordinance 813; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Summit County General Plan, as required by Utah law, includes Chapter 7, “Moderate Income Housing,” the goal of which is to “[p]romote a mix of housing types and availability”; and
WHEREAS, the Utah State legislature adopted Senate Bill 34 during the 2019 legislative session, which requires counties and municipalities to include specific moderate-income housing strategies, as outlined in the bill, that must be included in a jurisdiction’s general plan in order to be considered for certain state transportation funding; and
WHERAS, on November 7, 2019 the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission reviewed the Moderate Income Housing Plan/Presentation and proposed Eastern Summit County General Plan Amendments, conducted a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation for the Summit County Council’s consideration; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019 the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission reviewed the Moderate Income Housing Plan/Presentation and proposed Snyderville Basin General Plan Amendments, conducted a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation for the Summit County Council’s consideration; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2019, the Summit County Council held public hearings on amendments to the moderate income housing elements of both the Snyderville Basin General Plan and the Eastern Summit County General Plan and adopted Ordinances 904 and 905, and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2019, the Summit County Council held a public hearing on adoption of the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report for Summit County; and
WHEREAS, Summit County must submit a copy of the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report to the Utah Department of Workforce Services and Mountainland Association of Governments by December 1, 2019; and WHEREAS, Summit County must publish the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report on Summit County’s official website by December 1, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, the SUMMIT COUNTY COUNCIL resolves as follows:
1) The 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report for Summit County attached as Exhibit A is hereby approved and adopted.
2) The 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report for Summit County attached as Exhibit A shall be filed with the Utah Department of Workforce Services and Mountainland Association of Governments by December 1, 2019.
3) The 2019 Moderate Income Housing Report for Summit County attached as Exhibit A shall be posted on the official Summit County website by December 1, 2019.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this ______day of November, 2019.
SUMMIT COUNTY COUNCIL
______Roger Armstrong, Council Chair ATTEST:
______Kent Jones County Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Helen Strachan Deputy County Attorney Exhibit A
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
1 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
A) rezone for densities necessary to assure the production of moderate income housing;
Policy 6.1: Identify and implement a wide range of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Such strategies may include: a. Increasing allowed densities for affordable housing projects where appropriate and where adequate levels of services and amenities and transit can be provided, or the impact otherwise mitigated.
The County rezoned property in support of the Lincoln Station project that will result in 78 multi-family residential units 47 market units, 31 deed restricted affordable units (<=80% AMI) 5,000 sf commercial building. The County also negotiated an Affordable Housing Agreement with the Applicant and will record specific deed restrictions for the subject property to preserve long-term affordability.
The Applicant, through the County’s CUP process is considering revising the project to develop 76 multi-family residential units 24 market units, 31 deed restricted affordable units (<=80% AMI), 21 deed restricted attainable (middle income) units (81%-120% AMI) and a 5,144 sf commercial building. The Affordable Housing Agreement will need to be augmented as per the CUP and new Deed Restrictions recorded for the subject property.
Applicant: Finalize the project design and unit configuration and income targets. Summit County Community Development Department: Review Construction Drawings and CUP Summit County Housing Director and Office of County Attorney: prepare and record Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions.
Applicant: Finalize the project design and unit configuration and income targets. Summit County Community Development Department: Review Construction Drawings and CUP Summit County Housing Director and Office of County Attorney: prepare and record Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Summit County has extended resources from the County’s Legal, Community Development, Economic Development and Public Works Department in support of the project. On-going project monitoring will be provided by the Economic Development and Legal Department with regards to the recorded Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions.
Applicant: Finalize the project design and unit configuration and income targets. (Subject to project financing & market conditions, YR 2020) Summit County Community Development Department: Review Construction Drawings and CUP (Timing is based on a complete application) Summit County Housing Director and Office of County Attorney: prepare and record Affordable Housing Agreement and associated Deed Restrictions. (Will be amended and/or completed within 6 weeks of a fully entitlted project.)
A rezone and CUP has been approved for the project. However, the project may be amended/augmented as per the Applicant.
The density of the planned project is difficult to accommodate while trying to comply with the various height, parking and setback requirements required by the Snyderville Basin Development Code. Also, project financing is also challenging for all affordable projects.
In the Snyderville Basin, the County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code, which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The County has used the assessment district process in support of the Canyon’s Village Master Plan update.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surpluses at the 50% and 80% AMI. This is not consistent with the CHAS Data Gap Analysis or the Assessment prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
40 Units Annually from 2020-20241 30 Units Annually from 2020-20241 53 Units Annually from 2020-20241 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects targeted for this income group <30% AMI unfeasible; the project would not "pencil out." If the County creates a new Housing Authority and is able to qualify applicants who might obtain potential “housing choice” vouchers, they would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
2 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
B) Facilitate the rehabilitation or expansion of infrastructure that will encourage the construction of moderate income housing.
Policy 6.8: Support the use of private, local, state, and federal assistance for housing development or preservation. Summit County in concert with TCFC and the Canyons Village Master Association created an Assessment District as part of the new Canyons Village Master Plan.
The Assessment District will result in the development of 169 Units (1158 pillows) of workforce housing. Tenants will be income qualified at < 80% AMI. The County also acquired a park and ride lot in support of the County’s transit system. Canyon’s Village Assessment District (Resolution 2017-28) . Notice of Assessment Interest and Notice of Proposed Assessment recorded on February 22, 2018 ($26,136,364). Assessment Bond: • Canyons Resort Drive ($3,107,995) • LV6 Purchase ($14,392,005) • Ecker Hill Park & Ride Lot and associated Kilby Road improvements ($5,500,000). The LV6 purchase was used to acquire the land for the development of 1,107 pillows of workforce housing.
Workforce housing agreement provisions were included as a requirement of the Development Agreement amendment process. Additionally, associated project timelines, tenant income qualification requirements and progress plan milestones were included in the development agreement amendment. The plans for the 169 unit project were submitted by the CVMA in 2019. The construction is to be completed by 2023.
The Assessment District will finance the the redesign of Canyons Resort Drive, acquire parcel LV6 for the development of Workforce Housing (169 units) and the development of the Ecker Hill Park & Ride Lot and associated Kilby Road improvements. The Park and Ride project is complete, development plans have been submitted for the workforce housing project (2019) and the redesign of Canyon’s Resort Drive is under design.
The Canyon’s Village Master Association (CVMA), are the developers of the 169 unit, 1,158 pillow project. They are responsible for the required project entitlements and submittals. To date, everything is on schedule to be completed by 2023. Summit County Community Development will review the plans/drawings for project compliance. The Economic Development and Legal Department will enforce the income qualification requirements.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Summit County extended resources from the County’s Legal, Community Development, Finance, Economic Development and Public Works Department in support of the project. On-going project monitoring will be provided by the Economic Development and Legal Department with regards to the 169 unit rental project. The Public Works Department will also continue to support the project as required by the Development Agreement.
The CVMA submitted the development plans for the 169 unit workforce housing project in 2019. They are required to construction the project by 2023. Although the obligation is be completed by 2023, the CVMA plans to complete 50% percent by 2022.
The CVMA have submitted plans in accordance with the Canyons Village Development Agreement Amendment. The County’s Community Development Department are now engaged in reviewing the project plans. The Park and Ride lot is now complete.
The Park and Ride and Kilby Road improvements are now complete. The Park and Ride utilization was high during special events like Sundance Film Festival. As the Jeremy Ranch roundabouts are completed, increased use of the Park and Ridge is expected. No unexpected outcomes are associated with the Workforce Housing Project to date.
In the Snyderville Basin, the County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code, which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The County has used the assessment district process in support of the Canyon’s Village Master Plan update.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surpluses at the 50% and 80% AMI. This is not consistent with the CHAS Data Gap Analysis or the Assessment prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
40 Units Annually from 2020-20241 30 Units Annually from 2020-20241 53 Units Annually from 2020-20241 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects targeted for this income group <30% AMI unfeasible; the project would not "pencil out." If the County creates a new Housing Authority and is able to qualify applicants who might obtain potential “housing choice” vouchers, they would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
3 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
D) Consider County general fund subsidies or other sources of revenue to waive construction related fees that are otherwise generally imposed by the county; The County Manager has the ability to waive fees associated with the Community Development Department. In 2019, the County Manager waived fees in support of Mountainlands Community Housing Trust project in Silvercreek Village and the Utah Olympic Park Workforce /Athlete Housing Project. Policy 6.7: Support nonprofit agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing, and related services to low and moderate income households.
The fee waivers to Mountainlands Community Housing Trust will aid in the development of 64 workforce units. 50% of the affordable housing projects in Silver Creek Village will be <80% AMI and 50% <60% AMI. :Phase I of the UOP will result in 30 units (8 Workforce Units, 7-Year Around Athlete, 15 – Seasonal Athlete).
The majority of workforce/affordable housing developments in Summit County require the execution of a workforce housing agreement and the recordation of associated deed restrictions. Summit County requests a copy of the monthly rent roll for rental projects that are developed using these tools.
Key tasks include the applicant’s obtaining the necessary development entitlements. The execution of the housing agreement is part of this process as well as the recordation of the associated deed restrictions. The fee waivers are requested /granted based upon the public benefit of the proposed project.
The County’s Community Development Department, Economic Development Department, Legal Department, County Manager and various applicants and their staff are responsible for completing the key tasks of each stage of the project.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Staff resources include representatives from the Community Development, Economic Development, Legal, and County Manager. Financial resources require that a budget line item for fees that are (reimbursed or uncollected) be made available to support the project.
Both the Mountainlands Community Housing Trust and the Utah Olympic Park (UOP) project have obtained their required development entitlements. And, both have executed an affordable housing agreement with the County. Deed restrictions have been developed for the Silver Creek Condominium project and deed restrictions are in the process of development for the UOP project. Monthly rent rolls have also been requested from the UOP.
The UOP project has received its certificate of occupancy and soliciting tenants. MCHT’s 64 condos are now under construction. Because these are early stage projects, the results and project impacts on housing affordability will be evaluated upon completion and after the UOP has had an opportunity to acquire tenants.
Affordable/workforce projects always take more time than both parties anticipate. Project entitlements, public hearings, associated housing agreements and deed restrictions all take time to negotiate. During this time, markets can also change which might mean a given project will need to augment its project.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The Silver Creek Village project requirements for affordable/workforce housing were negotiated as part of Development Agreement which requires a total of 330 affordable/workforce units to be constructed.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surpluses at the 50% and 80% AMI. This is not consistent with the CHAS Data Gap Analysis or the Assessment prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
40 Units Annually from 2020-20241 30 Units Annually from 2020-20241 53 Units Annually from 2020-20241 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects targeted for this income group <30% AMI unfeasible; the project would not "pencil out."out" If the County creates a new Housing Authority and is able to qualify applicants who might obtain potential “housing choice” vouchers, they would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Snyderville Basin General Plan
4 Snyderville Basin General Plan, June 2015, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCent er/View/481/General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
E) Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, accessory dwelling units in residential zones.
Policy 6.2: Encourage the private sector to build affordable housing.
Both the County’s Development Codes allow for the development of ADUs. Summit County sees ADUs as a tool for increasing housing affordability in Summit County. The Silver Creek Village project is the first project where ADUs will be deed restricted and serve <60% AMI. Internal, attached, and detached ADUs all have the potential to increase housing affordability (both for homeowners and tenants), create a wider range of housing options within the community, enable seniors to stay near family as they age, and facilitate better use of the existing housing fabric in established neighborhoods.
Summit County tracks building permits by type. However, the Silver Creek Village project will be the first project where ADUs are being deed restricted for tenants earning <80% ADU in combination with a market rate home on the same property. Staff will execute both a housing agreement and associated deed restriction to ensure long term affordability. The first units in Silver Creek on going through the County’s entitlement process.
Each unit needs to obtain the required building permits and record the required deed restrictions for each targeted property. This requires both staff and the applicants to work together–especially with regards to the process involved to income qualify tenants. New home owners will be required to income qualify (or contract for the service) another individual/family who desires to rent the ADU. Most home buyers have limited experience regarding Area Median Income (AMI) income qualifications.
The project developer, home buyer, County and prospective tenants need to all be in the same page with regards to using ADUs as deed/income restricted housing. Because of the State of Utah’s protections regarding short-term rentals, these units are often offered as STR as the ROI may be greater than renting to a long-term tenant.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development and Legal Departments will be involved throughout the entitlement and on-going monitoring of the project. Additionally, home buyers may need assistance with income qualification and finding tenants.
The primary key deadlines are created as each unit is submitted to the County for review and approval. The various merchant developers will bring these units forward as infrastructure and their own internal project plans are finalized. County staff will respond as required.
The County is currently reviewing specific lots in Silver Creek Village for the development of ADUs on the same lot as a market rate unit. Once these units are approved by the Community Development Department, the Economic Development and Legal Department will prepare a specific deed restriction for the subject property. We should have some of these units completely entitled by the end of December 2019 or the first quarter of 2020.
No results are yet available to evaluate the current approach. We expect to have some results by mid 2020. However, (non deed restricted) ADUs are being used in Summit County for a variety of housing purposes.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing. The Silver Creek Village project requirements for affordable/workforce housing were negotiated as part of Development Agreement which requires a total of 330 affordable/workforce units to be constructed.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 4040 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 3030 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 53 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
1 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
E) Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, accessory dwelling units in residential zones.
Policy 7.1 (h.): Explore a Fee Deferral Program and/or other incentives for Deed-Restricted ADUs.
Both the County’s Development Codes allow for the development of ADUs. Summit County sees ADUs as a tool for increasing housing affordability in Summit County. Internal, attached, and detached ADUs all have the potential to increase housing affordability (both for homeowners and tenants), create a wider range of housing options within the community, enable seniors to stay near family as they age, and facilitate better use of the existing housing fabric in established neighborhoods. Because Eastern Summit County has limited infrastructure, ADUs offer the best prospect for increasing affordable units.
Summit County tracks building permits by type. Staff will execute both a housing agreement and associated deed restriction to ensure long term affordability for ADUs that are deed restricted at <80% AMI. Because ADUs are often used as Short-term rentals (STRs), homeowners may be willing to lease long-term to <80% AMI populations if planning/building permit fees or other incentives are integrated into the County’s Development Code.
Each unit needs to obtain the required building permits and record the required deed restrictions for each targeted property. This requires both staff and the applicants to work together–especially with regards to the process involved to income qualify tenants. New home owners will be required to income qualify (or contract for the service) another individual/family who desires to rent the ADU. Most home buyers have limited experience regarding Area Median Income (AMI) income qualifications.
The project developer, home buyer, County and prospective tenants need to all be in the same page with regards to using ADUs as deed/income restricted housing. Because of the State of Utah’s protections regarding short-term rentals, these units are often offered as STR as the ROI may be greater than renting to a long-term tenant.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development and Legal Departments will be involved throughout the entitlement and on-going monitoring of deed restricted ADUs.. Additionally, home buyers may need assistance with income qualification and finding tenants.
The primary key deadlines are created as each unit is submitted to the County for review and approval. Homeowners and various merchant developers will bring these units forward as infrastructure and their own internal project plans are finalized. County staff will respond as required.
If any units are approved by the Community Development Department, the Economic Development and Legal Department will prepare a specific affordable housing agreement and deed restriction for the subject property.
Deed restricted ADUs would be a new product for Eastern Summit County. However, (non deed restricted) ADUs are being used in Summit County for a variety of housing purposes.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
2 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
(N) participate in a community land trust program for low or moderate income housing;
Policy 7.1 (b.): Consider mechanisms to provide a realistic opportunity to meet estimated housing needs within Eastern Summit County, including a variety of housing types and affordability.
Mountainlands Community Housing Trust (MCHT) has administered “self help” programs in Eastern Summit County that have facilitated the development of 160+ single family homes. Applicants must income qualify to participate in the program. Summit County maintains a contract with MCHT.
Summit County maintains a contract with MCHT. The budget contract amount for YR2020 is $55K. As part of the contract, MCHT agrees to maintain a list of potential purchasers of affordable housing units and contact such persons as appropriate (for itself and/or on behalf of the County) regarding re-sale and other housing opportunities.
This program is on-going. The greatest challenge to MCHT are acquiring lots at a price point where the “self-help” program can be implemented. Also, income qualifying individuals/families who are willing to commit to the required sweat equity requirements requires time and patience to close transactions. The majority of these developments occur in partnership cities where infrastructure is available.
MCHT and potential buyers. Sweat equity reduces the amount of paid labor needed for a house, which in turn helps reduce cost. Additionally, time spent building their own homes instills a sense of pride and ownership, teaching the basic building and house-maintenance skills that are necessary for homeownership.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Economic Development and Legal Departments prepare and manage the contract with Mountianlands Community Housing Trust.
Summit County will issue a new contract to MCHT in December 2019. The contract has five (5) areas of focus: (1) Database Management (2) Monitoring (3) Resource, Communication and Educations Programs (4) Condo/Townhome Purchase/Resell Program and (5) Special Projects. The contract requires that payments be made twice a year in June and October.
Summit County has maintained a contract with Mountainlands Community Housing Trust (MCHT) for 5+ years. Mountainlands has provided services as outlined in d. above and has also acted in the capacity as a developer of Moderate Income Housing.
Organizational capacity and perceived conflicts of interest (developer vs. advisor) may present a barrier. However, the County’s contract should create the necessary separation to mitigate any perceived conflict to a level of insignificance.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
3 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
(P) Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of moderate income housing;
Policy 7.1 (i.): Examine any potential programs or partnerships with the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) for the creation of moderate-income housing opportunities.
Mountainland Association of Governments prepares the 5-year Consolidated Housing Plan. The last plan was adopted in 2015. As such, a new plan will be under development in 2020. Mountainland also administers Federal CDBG funds for the Summit County region. As such, there may be opportunities to locate potential infrastructure funding for the proposed Cedar Crest Village Overlay Area in Hoytsville. The Cedar Crest project should consider deed restricted workforce housing as part of its development.
This is a newly adopted goal (Nov 2019). However, the Community Development and Public Works team working on the Cedar Crest project should meet with Mountainland Association of Governments in the first quarter of 2020 to discuss potential infrastructure funding.
Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) - Responds to Inquiries from the Summit County and Cedar Crest Village Overlay Committee as requested. Summit County should meet with MAG the first quarter of 2020 regarding potential CDBG funding for infrastructure in support of the Cedar Crest Village Overlay Zone project.
Summit County Community Development, Economic Development, Public Works and Legal should initiate contact with MAG once the preferred design alternative has been developed and the infrastructure loading has been calculated.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development, Public Works and Legal Departments would be involved if the County were successful in securing a CDBG grant in support of infrastructure for the Cedar Crest project.
The Cedar Crest project is currently being developed via Committee. Once the agreed upon design elements and planned infrastructure have been identified, Summit County (and Committee Members) should meet with Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), to discuss the opportunity to apply for CDBG funding in support of infrastructure development for the Cedar Crest project. This should occur during the first quarter of 2020.
The Cedar Crest project is currently in the concept design phase. Summit County also has an infrastructure study underway. Once these studies are complete, Summit County and the Committee will meet with Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) to discuss potential funding opportunities.
No data is available for this project goal as it was just recently adopted in November 2019. Staff will report on the direction of the project in the 2020 Annual Moderate Income Report.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 Eastern Summit County General Plan
4 Eastern Summit County General Plan, August 2013, Amended November 25, 2019
https://www.summitcounty.org/DocumentCenter/V iew/429/Eastern-General-Plan-PDF?BidId=
(V) Consider any other program or strategy implemented by the county to address the housing needs of residents of the county who earn less than 80% of the area median income.
Policy 7.1 (c.): Consider incentives such as fee-waivers and density increases to encourage private sector development of moderate income housing.
The Summit County Manager has the ability to waive community development fees. If projects are proposed in Eastern Summit County that serve Moderate Income households <80% AMI, a fee waiver program should be evaluated based on the level of public benefit. Potential infrastructure funding should also be evaluated in concert with partnership communities in Eastern Summit County.
Most unincorporated lands within Eastern Summit County have limited development potential because of the lack of available infrastructure. However, there may be future opportunities to partner with cities/towns in Eastern Summit County if potential development would be income restricted to populations <80% AMI.
Once the Eastern Summit County Infrastructure study is complete, Summit County should meet with the Council of Governments to see if there is an opportunity for partnership. Summit County could potentially contribute funding towards infrastructure in exchange for partnership cities/towns increasing the supply of income/deed restricted Moderate-Income housing. The Council of Governments meets quarterly.
Summit County Council of Governments, Summit County Public Works, Economic Development, Community Development, Legal and the Office of the County Manager will all be involved in evaluating potential Moderate-Income opportunities.
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200 The County’s Community Development, Economic Development, Public Works, Legal Departments and Office of the County Manager could potentially be involved with the Council of Governments once the Eastern Summit County Infrastructure Study is complete.
The next Council of Governments meeting will occur in the first quarter of 2020. The County’s infrastructure study should also be complete by the first quarter of 2020.
The Eastern Summit County Infrastructure Study is underway. It should be complete by the first quarter of 2020. No results can be gathered until the study is complete and a plan developed in concert with Eastern Summit County partnership communities. The Cedar Crest Village Overlay project also represents an opportunity site.
No data is available for this project goal as the Eastern Summit County Infrastructure Study is not yet complete.
The County incorporates inclusionary zoning as part of its Development Code (Snyderville Basin), which requires a 20% set aside for affordable/workforce housing.
It should be noted that the Gap Analysis tool created by the Department of Workforce Services using the American Community Survey Data, showed a needIt should of 355 be notedunits at that the the <30% Gap AMI Analysis with surpluses tool created at theby the50% Department and 80% AMI. of Workforce This is not Services consistent using with the the American CHAS Data Community Gap Analysis Survey or Data, the Assessment showed a need of 355 units at the <30% AMI with surplusesprepared byat theJim 50% Wood and in 80%May ofAMI. 2019. This Summit is not consistent County concurs with the with CHAS the Wood Data Gapstudy Analysis as it is theor the most Assessment current. prepared by Jim Wood in May of 2019. Summit County concurs with the Wood study as it is the most current.
1 940 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 1330 Units Units Annually Annually from from 2020-2024 2020-20241 1 24 Units Annually from 2020-2024 1 The high cost of development, particularly land costs, renders projects113 Units targeted Annually for this income from group 2020-2024 <30% AMI unfeasible; theThe project high cost would of development, not "pencil out." particularly If the County land costs,creates renders a new projectsHousing targetedAuthority for and this is incomeable to qualifygroup <30%applicants AMI unfeasible;who might obtainthe project potential would “housing not "pencil choice” out." vouchers, If the County they creates would bea new used Housing to assist Authority this income and targetis able group. to qualify A few applicants <30% AMI who units might may alsoobtain be potential created “housingas part of choice” a potential vouchers, tax credit they project. would be used to assist this income target group. A few <30% AMI units may also be created as part of a potential tax credit project.
1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Summit and Wasatch Counties, James Wood, May 2019
Summit County 60 N. Main Street, Coalville UT 84017 435-336-3200