DOCSLIB.ORG

Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? James Wood Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow Housing Affordability: Dejan Eskic Senior Research Analyst What Are Best Practices DJ Benway Research Analyst Kathryn Macdonald-Poelman and Why Are They Graduate Assistant Important? A survey of leading housing practitioners identified five “best practices” for meeting the housing affordability challenge in Utah. This study examines why these practices are “best practices,” the implementation of the practice, and the outcomes produced. November 2020 411 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important? Analysis in Brief Utah’s housing shortage and escalating prices reflect local Annual Preservation of Affordable Rental Units housing policies. To be sure, market conditions—land, labor, Using Tax Credits and material costs—affect housing production and prices, but 1,200 25,000 these factors offer scant opportunity for policy intervention. 1,000 20,000 The best chance to shrink the shortage and improve affordability 800 15,118 depends on local policies and practices. This study identifies 15,000 five best practices developed by local jurisdictions to improve 600 10,000 housing affordability. They include practices targeted at 400 11,872 Permitted Units redevelopment agencies (RDAs), transit-oriented developments 200 5,000 (TODs), accessory dwelling units (ADUs), preservation of 0 0 existing affordable units, and changes in land use. 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Key Findings Units Annual Avg. 229 units Single-family Multifamily • No Single Practice Answers the Growing Threat of Housing Source: Utah Housing Corporation Affordability—Addressing the housing crisis requires a multi-practice approach. Successful housing strategies Permits Issued for Single-Family and Multifamily involve a set of practices tailored to the city’s political climate, Units inIdaho Utah 69.6% 1,200development history, and socioeconomic conditions. While a 25,000Washington 59.1% city’s housing practices are unique to that city’s needs, there Nevada 55.7% Utah 53.0% 1200 1,000 20,000 are a few universal elements for successful housing strategies: Colorado 49.1% 800 Florida 48.3% 15,118 1000 community outreach, commitment, and flexibility. 15,000 Oregon 47.1% 600 800 • Success Is Measured in Small Increments—By design and Arizona 46.2% 10,000 Georgia 41.5% 400necessity, best practices often produce small, incremental 11,872 600 Permitted Units Tennessee 40.4% 5,000 200outcomes. They are targeted at site-specific developments. Michigan 39.2% 400 For example, from 1987 to 2017, tax credits were used to North Carolina 38.2% 0 0 200 preserve an average of 229 affordable rental units annually. California 36.7% DC 35.8% 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 While the annual average was incrementally small, the total South Carolina 35.2% Units Annual Avg. 229 units Maine Single-family 34.7%Multifamily number of units preserved over the 30-year period is 6,644 a 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Indiana 34.5% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Units Annual avg. 229 units sizeable share of Utah’s affordable housing inventory. Texas 34.5% • Land Use Regulations Determine the Effectiveness of All Minnesota 34.2% Rhode Island 33.9% Best Practices—Land use regulations control what type of multifamilyMissouri units increased to 33.5%44%, and in the last three housingIdaho gets built, where it gets built, and its affordability.69.6% years, itUS climbed to nearly 50%. 33.4%Zoning ordinances, in many Washington 59.1% Montana 32.8% Without accommodative land use regulations, there is little cities, do not reflect the shift in preferences to higher- Nevada 55.7% Wisconsin 32.6% Detached Attached Interior (upper level) chanceUtah a city’s housing policies can influence53.0% prices, provide 1200density,Ohio more affordable housing.32.6% Zoning often lags changes Colorado 49.1% Massachusetts 31.5% diverse housing types, or meet changes in homebuyers’ 1000in market preferences. Florida 48.3% Nebraska 31.4% preferences.Oregon Recently, housing preferences47.1% have moved •800 LeadershipHawaii and Political Will31.4%—Progress on the housing towardArizona multifamily housing (condominiums,46.2% twin homes, Newcrisis Hampshire needs continued state and31.2% civic leadership. Without it, Georgia 41.5% 600 Alabama 29.3% townhomes,Tennessee and apartments). 40.4%From 2000 to 2009, today’sKentucky children, Utah’s next28.3% generation, will face an even Interior (lower level) Above Garage Garage Conversion multifamilyMichigan units accounted for 39.2%only 27% of all new 400greaterKansas scarcity of affordable28.2% housing and more burdensome North Carolina 38.2% South Dakota 27.5% 200 residentialCalifornia units in Utah, but from36.7% 2010 to 2019 the share of housingNew York prices. 26.5% DC 35.8% New0 Mexico 26.1% South Carolina 35.2% Pennsylvania 26.0% Maine TM 34.7% INFORMED DECISIONS Virginia1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 gardner.utah.edu1999 25.3%2001 2003 2005 2007 I 2009 November2011 2013 20202015 2017 Indiana 34.5% Vermont Units 23.6% Annual avg. 229 units Texas 34.5% Arkansas 23.0% Minnesota 34.2% Iowa 22.3% Rhode Island 33.9% Delaware 19.5% Missouri 33.5% Oklahoma 19.3% US 33.4% Maryland 19.2% Montana 32.8% New Jersey 19.1% Long-term rental (rental) 54% Wisconsin 32.6% WyomingDetached 19.0%Attached Interior (upper level) Short-term rental (vacation) 19% Ohio 32.6% Mississippi 18.7% Massachusetts 31.5% Illinois 17.7% Primary residence (for owner) 65% Nebraska 31.4% Louisiana 16.8% Other* 40% Hawaii 31.4% West Virgina 11.7% New Hampshire 31.2% Connecticut 10.9% Alabama 29.3% Alaska 10.7% Interior (lower level) Above Garage Garage Conversion Kentucky 28.3% North Dakota 9.3% Kansas 28.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% South Dakota 27.5% New York 26.5% New Mexico 26.1% Pennsylvania 26.0% Virginia 25.3% Vermont 23.6% Arkansas 23.0% Iowa 22.3% Delaware 19.5% Oklahoma 19.3% Maryland 19.2% New Jersey 19.1% Long-term rental (rental) 54% Wyoming 19.0% Short-term rental (vacation) 19% Mississippi 18.7% Illinois 17.7% Primary residence (for owner) 65% Louisiana 16.8% Other* 40% West Virgina 11.7% Connecticut 10.9% Alaska 10.7% North Dakota 9.3% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Table of Contents I. Zoning Changes and Housing Affordability ..........1 Figure II.1: Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Rental Background ............................................1 Units Financed Through the Low-Income Housing Why Zoning Changes Are a Best Practice ................1 Tax Credit ............................................ 10 Framework for Implementation .........................5 Figure IV.1: Different Ways to Integrate ADUs with Examples of Best Practice ...............................6 Existing Housing ...................................... 16 II. Preservation of Affordable Housing .................8 Figure IV.2: Permitted ADU Occupancy in Cities Background ............................................8 that Allow ADUs ...................................... 18 Why Preservation is a Best Practice ......................8 Figure A.1: Copenhagen Mechanism for CPH City Framework for Implementation ....................... 10 & Port Development. 23 Examples of Best Practice ............................. 10 Tables Variations on a Theme ................................ 11 Table I.1: Utah Households for Selected Years, 2009–2025 ..1 III. Redevelopment Agencies, Tax Increment Table I.2: Permits Issued for Residential Units in Utah .......2 Financing, and Housing Affordability ..............12 Table I.3: Top Five Large Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Background .......................................... 12 Change in Price Index. 2 Why Tax Increment Financing Is a Best Practice ........ 12 Table I.4: Developed Residential Acreage by Type of Framework for Implementation ....................... 14 Use, Salt Lake County, 2019 .............................4 Examples of Best Practice ............................. 14 Table I.5: S.B. 34 Strategies Selected by Municipalities ......6 Table II.1: Rental Properties at Risk of Opting Out, IV. Accessory Dwelling Units and Housing Affordability 16 2020–2025 .............................................8 Background .......................................... 16 Table II.2: Expiration Date and At-Risk Units in HUD Why ADUs Are a Best Practice ......................... 16 Apartment Communities in Utah ........................8 Framework for Implementation ....................... 17 Table II.3: Expiration Date of Low-Income Housing Examples of Best Practice ............................. 17 Tax Credit Projects in Utah, 2020–2025 ..................9 V. Transit-Oriented Development and Housing Table II.4: Gap of Affordable and Available Rental Affordability .....................................19 Units for Renters at 0–50% AMI in Utah ..................9 Background .......................................... 19 Table II.5: Rental Rate Increase in Wasatch Front Why Transit-Oriented Developments Counties, 2008–2019 ................................. 10 Are a Best Practice. 19 Table II.6: Cities That Have Selected Preserving Existing Framework for Implementation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market
    THE GREATER SALT LAKE AREA MULTIFAMILY MARKET THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MULTIFAMILY REPORT | 2019 REVIEW + 2020 OUTLOOK PREFACE TABLE OF CBRE is pleased to release the 2020 Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report, the most current and comprehensive CONTENTS multifamily data available for the Salt Lake Area/Wasatch Front market. Produced by Eli Mills and Patrick Bodnar of CBRE, this report has been assembled to empower the decision making of multifamily professionals active in the Utah market. This report has been prepared with current data sourced from a survey of over half the multifamily market (60,000+ units) along the Wasatch Front Area inclusive of Salt Lake, Utah, Davis and Weber Counties. Minimum reporting requirements were identified for each city and county by class, type and size. Data contributions and validations to this publication were made by: • CBRE Research • Utah Department of Economics • CBRE Econometric Advisors • University of Utah Bureau of Economics and Business Research • Yardi Matrix • Construction Monitor • Axiometrics • CoStar • Western States Multifamily Whatever your multifamily needs may be, please reach out to us. CBRE has the most comprehensive data on the market and can provide information on a macro or micro level based on class, city, submarket, zip code, location, age, size, proximity to rail stops, and many other variations. CBRE consistently leads the market, with national multifamily investment sales totaling over $33.3 billion in 2019 (Source: Real Capital Analytics). As the leader in multifamily sales every year since 2001, the exposure of CBRE is second-to-none. With 65 locations and over 300 multifamily professionals, including direct lending services, CBRE’s unparalleled multifamily platform has a competitive presence in Utah and an enhanced investment reach into the multifamily space, providing our clients with the greatest market exposure available.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadow View Phase 2, Farmington, Utah
    Meadow View Phase 2, Farmington, Utah Built for the Way You Want to Live! www.MeadowViewUtah.com Great Farmington Location Meadow View Phase 2 is conveniently located in Farmington within 1 mile of the new Station Park shopping district and the Farmington UTA Frontrunner station. Leave your car at home and enjoy a comfortable trip into downtown Salt Lake City for work or play. Enjoy the open air living of Meadow View with panoramic views on large basement lots with the amenities of Station Park—shopping, restaurants, parks and schools all less than two miles away. For more information, or a personal tour contact: Sarah Mayer 801.218.2885 [email protected] Model Home coming soon! Get news and updates Watch video tours on Facebook on YouTube Information is subject to change without notice. © ClearWater Homes. All rights reserved. Front Porch Lighting Front Porch Get More For Your Dollar Panoramic 2-Tone Paint Window Walls Expansive Low-E Energy Efficient Windows 6 Inch Wooden Base Boards Window Sills Pendant Lighting * Energy Efficient Lighting 6 Inch Trim Shaker Panel Beech Cabinets 8 Foot Doors On Main Floor 42” Upper Cabinets Moen Fixtures With Crown Molding Transom Window * Stainless Steel Sink Kwikset Satin Nickel Hardware Luxury Laminate Wood Floors 3cm Granite Countertops Stainless Steel Appliances Trash Pull Out “*” Optional Upgrade Items 42” Shower with Cultured Marble Surround Oversized Kohler Soaker Bathtub Generous 5-Piece Master Baths 3cm Granite Counters Moen Fixtures Tile Floors Shaker Panel Beech Cabinets Built to Conserve Energy An energy efficient home is a more comfortable home. Insulation is a critical component to an energy efficient home and Clearwater Homes implements several techniques into our building process to ensure maximum insulation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 UHC Compliance Manual
    Housing Credit Compliance Manual 1 Revised August 2019 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Program Fundamentals .................................................................................................................... 9 Project Lifecycle .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Before Credit Period ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Eligible Basis ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Claiming Credits .............................................................................................................................................. 9 LURA ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Credit Period ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Utah's 2011-2040 Unified Transportation Plan
    2011 - 2040 udot.utah.gov 131949.indd 1 7/31/13 2:23 PM UTah’S UNifieD PLaN ParTNerS CaChe MPO 179 North Main, Suite 305 Logan, UT 84321 (435) 716-7154 www.cachempo.org Dixie MPO 1070 West 1600 South, Bldg. B St. George, UT 84770 (435) 673-3548 www.dixiempo.org MOUNTaiNLaND aSSOCiaTiON Of GOverNMeNTS 586 east 800 North Orem, UT 84097 (801) 229-3800 www.mountainland.org UTah DeParTMeNT Of TraNSPOrTaTiON Systems Planning and Programming 4501 South 2700 West – Box 143600 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 (801) 965-4129 www.udot.utah.gov UTah TraNSiT aUThOriTy 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 262-5626 www.rideuta.com WaSaTCh frONT reGiONaL COUNCiL 295 North Jimmy Doolittle road Salt Lake City, UT 84116 (801) 363-4250 www.wfrc.org 131949.indd 2 7/31/13 2:23 PM TaBLe Of CONTeNTS introduction 2 - Letter from the Chairs of the Utah Transportation Commission and Utah’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) - Letter from the Directors of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah’s MPOs - Purpose of Unified Transportation Planning UDOT’s Long range Plan 8 Utah MPO Long range Plans 12 - Wasatch Choices 2040 (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties) - envision Cache valley (Cache County) - vision Dixie (Washington County) Utah’s Population Growth Challenge 16 Utah’s Project Planning & funding Process 20 - Project Development Process - Utah’s Transportation Needs and Preferences - financial Plan and assumptions - Continuous, Cooperative and Comprehensive Planning highway Projects by region 34 regionally important Transportation Projects 34 Utah highway Projects Map 35 highway Projects Phase One (2011-2020) 36- 41 highway Projects Phase Two (2021-2030) 42-46 highway Projects Phase Three (2031-2040) 47-50 highway Projects Unfunded 51 -52 Cache valley highway Projects Map 53 Wasatch front Ogden/Layton area highway Projects Map 54 Wasatch front Salt Lake valley highway Projects Map 55 Utah valley area highway Projects Map 56 Dixie area highway Projects Map 57 Transit Projects by region 58 Transit Projects Phase One (2011-2020) 59.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Solar Home Tours Begin This Weekend in Davis County Memorial Day Events Bulk Purchase Makes Solar
    L OCAL N EWS • P EOPLE • B USINESS • S CHOOLS • S PORTS • E VENTS See Inside DavisThe Clipper 75 cents THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2015 ADVERTISMENT Utah Solar Home Tours begin this weekend in Davis County Memorial Day events Bulk purchase makes solar BECKY GINOS LOUISE R. SHAW, A1 affordable for homeowners Last year, over 24 million solar panels were installed in the United States. Still, many Race unites homeowners are still wondering if solar really works, if it makes families fi nancial sense, and how those who’ve put solar panels to work Annual 5K offers in their homes and businesses support for grieving feel about it. Now, Davis County residents families, friends. can fi nd out from their neigh- LOUISE R. SHAW, C1 bors and peers. The Utah Solar Home Tour, featuring locations about Davis, Weber and Cache Counties, runs this Friday and “We can match any home and Saturday. Friday hours are 4 to 8 any budget to make solar work for Tour of p.m., with Saturday tour hours 10 everyone,” Shipley said. a.m. to 4 p.m. The tour is hosted There is a deadline, as bulk by the Intermountain Community purchasing ends on June 30. Utah coming Shipley said solar is an investment The federal incentives for solar is hosting a solar workshop to Solar Initiative. power conversion are currently 30 provide answers to basic ques- “This is a great opportunity for “better than any stock or mutual Cycling event stage fund you could put your money percent, and there are state incen- tions and educate attendees about people to go and see real homes tives as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Single Family Mortgage Bonds 2019 Series a (Federally Taxable)
    NEW ISSUE – Book-Entry-Only Rating: Moody’s “Aa2” See “RATING” herein The interest on the 2019 Series A Bonds is included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. In the opinion of Gilmore & Bell, P.C., Bond Counsel to UHC, under existing law, the interest on the 2019 Series A Bonds is exempt from Utah individual income taxes. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. $162,505,000 UTAH HOUSING CORPORATION Single Family Mortgage Bonds 2019 Series A (Federally Taxable) Interest from: Date of Delivery Due: see inside front cover The Utah Housing Corporation Single Family Mortgage Bonds, 2019 Series A (Federally Taxable) (the “2019 Series A Bonds”) are being issued under and pursuant to a General Indenture of Trust, dated as of October 1, 2019, between Utah Housing Corporation (“UHC”) and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), and a 2019 Series A Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2019, between UHC and the Trustee. The 2019 Series A Bonds are issuable only as fully registered bonds without coupons and will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, New York. DTC will act as securities depository for the 2019 Series A Bonds. Individual purchases will be made in book-entry form only in the principal amount of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof. Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in 2019 Series A Bonds. Interest on the 2019 Series A Bonds is payable semiannually on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing July 1, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments from Draft 2015-2040 Scenario – Summer 2013
    6/11/2014 Comments from Draft 2015-2040 Scenario – Summer 2013 Comment WFRC Process Category Key: Key - (1)Highway Comment Comment Meeting Name of Commenter Comment Comment Date (2)Transit Was: WFRC Response Number Location (3)Bike (7)Accepted (4)Land Use (8)Not (5)Other Accepted Weber UDOT Region I Planning How do we rectify existing and currently WFRC takes the existing zoning and tries to fit it into the various 1 County Office planned zoning with what we think it will be 5/3/2013 4 7 scenarios. Open House Weber UDOT West Davis Is there any measure of delay for transit WFRC looks for what people can access within 20 minutes using 2 County Highway EIS Team users? How much time is spent waiting on 5/3/2013 2 7 transit. Open House connections? Weber Davis County Planning What are the average minutes of delay per The minutes of delay per person are about the same in each ‘Vision’ 3 County person in the scenarios? That would be a 5/3/2013 5 7 scenario and less so in the current trend scenario. Open House better measure of performance. Weber UTA Planning Office Why did the most dense land use in Scenario Seventy percent of the land use is already set with existing 4 County T only save 4 million miles per day of VMT 5/3/2013 4 7 development. Open House compared to baseline? Weber UDOT West Davis What is the shift in mode share between The mode split for transit rises from 4% to 6%.
    [Show full text]
  • Weber, Davis Box Elder & County System Map Legend
    630 I 84 Highway 89 Weber, Davis& Box Elder County System Map 2000 West St August 2019 Pleasant View Pleasant View Dr North Ogden Highway 89 Plain City Ogden Cyn 616 612 630 2600 N State Hwy 134 2550 N 1050 E 2200 N 613 I 84 I Farr 612 616 400 E Route 645 uses 30th West Street between Monroe 1500 N Harrisville Blvd. and Harrison Blvd. and Harrison Blvd. 4650 W between 30th and 36th Street Pioneer Rd 2000 W 630 645 1900 W 612 613 Ogden Marriott-slaterville F618 2nd St 608 608 625 Downtown Ogden Transfer Location 616 F618 26th Street and Grant Avenue 12th St 473 603 612 1200 South St State Hwy 39 Wall Ave 608 613 Washington Blvd Ogden Station 606 630 F618 606 616 455 470 473 645 20th St 625 601 603 604 State Hwy 104 455 613 613 616 630 24th St Route 455 uses 603 28th Street between Route 650 only stops at theWSU O gden 650 F618 606 606 473 Wall Avenue and Campus and the Ogden Station Washington Blvd FrontRunner 645 WSU is only serviced by select Route 473 1900 W FrontRunner 30th St 625 Trips when WSU is in Regular Fall and Winter 650 455 Semester Class Session. West Haven 612 604 3300 S 603 Hooper State Hwy 53 630 Roy Station 650 650 630 604 FrontRunner State Hwy 79 Parker Dr Midland4000 Dr S Weber State University 640 Harrison Blvd Airport Rd 630 455 473 603 625 604 640 470 645 Us Hwy 89 South 630 640 645 650 603 Ogden Harrison Blvd 5900 W 5900 Roy Riverdale Rd 612 Washington 455 5500 S St West 3500 Riverdale 625 5600 S 604 1900 St West Terrace 626 FrontRunner Riverdale 625 472 Park & Ride Lot Clinton 626 472 Uintah 473 Sunset South Weber
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Treasurer David Damschen Resigns from Office to Succeed Utah Housing Corporation President and CEO Grant Whitaker
    Utah Treasurer David Damschen resigns from office to succeed Utah Housing Corporation President and CEO Grant Whitaker Grant Whitaker retires after 42 years at Utah Housing Corporation. David Damschen to assume role of Utah Housing Corporation president and CEO on May 3. SALT LAKE CITY – April 12, 2021 – Utah State Treasurer David Damschen today announced his resignation as state treasurer effective April 30. The Utah Housing Corporation (UHC) Board of Trustees has selected him to succeed Grant Whitaker as president and CEO of UHC, where he will begin his service on May 3. Whitaker is retiring after 42 years with the organization, including 12 years at its helm. UHC was created as a public corporation by state legislation in 1975 to provide affordable financing of single-family homes and apartments for people of low and moderate income. Receiving no taxpayer appropriated money, the organization provides financing and down payment assistance to homebuyers and resources to developers building or renovating affordable apartment projects. “While Utah Housing’s mission has remained unchanged, the activities surrounding that mission have evolved. We have stretched limited resources and identified new means to serve a population that continues to grow,” Whitaker said. “Immediately after I was selected as the president and CEO, America entered into the Great Recession. My team implemented programs and changes that enabled us to not only weather that storm but to build a stronger and more nimble entity that provides Utahns more diverse types of financial assistance.” Under Whitaker’s leadership, UHC has evolved to meet the challenges of a dynamic Utah housing market by providing diverse financing programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Activity Bond Authority Board Meeting
    PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING Department of Workforce Services Housing & Community Development 1385 South State Street, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah MINUTES – Pending approval and are subject to change Wednesday, October 10, 2018 Members Present Representing John T. Crandall (Chairman) Governor’s Office of Economic Development Grant S. Whitaker Utah Housing Corporation David Damschen State Treasurer Ricky Hatch Weber County Wally Ritchie City of Ivins Chip Dawson South Jordan City Wayne Cushing Salt Lake County Bryan E. Thompson Utah County Excused Members Ginger Chinn Governor’s Office of Economic Development David A. Feitz Utah State Board of Regents Staff and Visitors Jess Peterson Community Development Office Keith Heaton Community Development Office John Brereton Affordable Housing Advisors Debbie Kurzban Attorney General’s Office Kevin Peterson America West Amy Rowland CDFA Mark Cornelius Cowboy Partners Troy Hart Housing Authority County of Salt Lake Adam Paul JF Capital Clay Hardman Gilmore & Bell Blake Wade Gilmore & Bell Chris Parker GIV Matt Schwartz Domain Jay Minnick Triago Mark Cornelius Cowboy Corey Johnson Wasatch Soren Simonssen Broadway-Heritage Village Patrick Szymanski DWS WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS The Private Activity Bond Authority (PAB) Board Meeting was held in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the Housing & Community Development’s Offices and called to order at 9:00 a.m., by John T. Crandall, Chairman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Crandall requested a motion to approve the minutes from the July 11, 2018 Private Activity Bond Authority Board Meeting. Suggested changes were sent to Jess and those changes were made before the minutes were sent out. Grant Whitaker moved and Wayne Cushing seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the July 11, 2018 Private Activity Bond Authority Board Meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Case Studies of Orenco Station TOD and Station Park
    Final report Comparative Case Studies: Trip and Parking Generation at Orenco Station TOD, Portland Region and Station Park TAD, Salt Lake City Region Reid Ewing, Guang Tian, and Keunhyun Park College of Architecture + Planning, University of Utah Preston Stinger Fehr & Peers Associates John Southgate John Southgate LLC Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge financial support for this study from the Utah Department of Transportation and logistical support from the main developers of Orenco Station and Station Park, the Holland Property Group and CenterCal Properties. We also wish to acknowledge review comments and approval of this report by the Metropolitan Research Center’s Technical Advisory Committee: Diego Carroll – WSP Jeff Harris – Utah Department of Transportation Ted Knowlton – Wasatch Front Regional Council G.J. LaBonty – Utah Transit Authority Sarah Munro – University Neighborhood Partners Andrea Olson – Parametrix Christine Richman – GSBS Consultants Jack Robinson – Sorenson Impact Center Preston Stinger – Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultant Wilf Sommerkorn – Salt Lake County 2 Chapter 1. Introduction This report presents comparative case studies, defined as “the analysis and synthesis of the similarities, differences and patterns across two or more cases that share a common focus or goal in a way that produces knowledge that is easier to generalize about causal questions” (Goodrick, 2014: 1). This follows earlier case studies by the authors at five exemplary transit-oriented developments (TODs) across the U.S.: Redmond TOD in Seattle; Rhode Island Row in Washington D.C.; Fruitvale Village in San Francisco-Oakland; Englewood TOD in Denver; and Wilshire/Vermont in Los Angeles (Ewing et al. 2016). The subject of this sixth case study is Orenco Station, on the west side of the Portland metropolitan area in the suburban city of Hillsboro, OR.
    [Show full text]
  • October 4, 2016 CONFIDENTIAL Submitted Pursuant to Rule 408 Federal Rules of Evidence Mr. Mark Y. Hirata Assistant Attorney Gene
    I l I I I ill I lour ),111 I Cite. I ,tdr.,1 I I Ilan? NH/ 1900(1 \\ 21' coil] October 4, 2016 k Cal 1q0,1 Scinnicl CONFIDENTIAL Dial/ II" Submitted pursuant to Rule 408 S114111'111, 1)1,1,1,1' 1&,,incy I'm 4,7 Federal Rules of Evidence Kichar I. 111(1101 ;II 111,,I,2 1),1111CI 11 11111 Mr. Mark Y. Hirata Mr. Stewart Young ( rum111,.. A. .Inhnsan Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 111170h:1111 U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Sc'011 A 01 185 South State Street, Suite 300 185 South State Street, Suite 300 ncr L. Iit,t)11C1 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ,I111 1)1111.101? flali,1 I Mr. Stewart C. Walz /'thin 11ill,,1- Senior Litigation Counsel .111,1111] 1,) . 1 U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 ,1,,,I,J11 1 85 South State Street, Suite 300 S ho bc II" Thmnp,m1 Gentlemen: 11 .11\711111 . 11 1:111 /1‘11 A Cillh1111 I. 16'1, In August 2014, the State of Utah's Office of Legislative Auditor released its audit Ri11,11C1' IIIR.1110P1 ("Legislative Audit") of the Utah Transit Authority ("UTA" or the "Authority"). The Audit identified several areas where the lack of adequate institutional controls .1 and oversight led to problematic actions taken by the Authority. I' ( I WI )1111g In the past several years, UTA has taken many steps to address its previous ,V,111hIll .1 I 1;HW organizational weaknesses.
    [Show full text]